Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: I'm going to call the work session of the Planning Commission, February Planning Commission. Do you have anything? SPEAKER: Excuse me. SPEAKER: Hey, y'all, please be quiet. Thank you. SPEAKER: Do you have anything to say, Mr Mosley? MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. Just a few quick items here for you today. The item number one, Highland Subdivision. It is a final plat on your subdivision. The applicant has pulled that off for now. It will come back in, I assume, next month for your agenda for final plat. They're finalizing the roads through there. The item number 12, which was shown on the agenda, has been withdrawn for the applicant for the time being as well, that is, we're working with them to see about how they would like to move forward. And then items number 13 and 14. We do have some more information today. And so, we we're gonna ask you to go ahead and take those off the table and hear those today. They're currently under old business on the table. SPEAKER: Alright. So we'll be talking about that. MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: OK. MOSLEY: The last thing I wanted to mention to you all again was, Mayor Smith at the last meeting, mentioned the proposed moratorium that has been approved by the City Council and will take effect May 1st. SPEAKER: Alright. MOSLEY: I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. SPEAKER: Anything else? MOSLEY: No, ma'am. SPEAKER: It's 3:00. I'm gonna call the February meeting of the Planning Commission, Opelika Planning Commission to order and say to all of y'all, we're glad you're here. We wanna hear what you've gotta say.

If you would come over to the microphone over here and speak into the microphone, we want to hear again what you've got to say. We would like for everybody to sign the list as you come in the door. So we'll have a record of who's here. We'd like to know that. And once you come to the microphone to speak, you have five minutes and you have one time at the microphone. So those are the rules. Commissioners, do I hear a motion for approval of the minutes from the January meeting? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any Abstain. Motion carries. Update on previous cases, Mr Mosley. MOSLEY: The rezoning request that went before the planning Commission at your, I believe it was last meeting that went along with the townhouses conditional use rezoning R3 to R5 on Century Boulevard, that will go before the City Council, I believe March 17th for the first reading. The moratorium that was introduced, as I mentioned before, at the last meeting was approved by the city council at their most recent meeting in February. And so that will take effect May 1st. SPEAKER: Let's start with the first item. MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. Item number one has been the applicant has pulled it and will bring it back next month, that is a final plat, so there's no public hearing for it.

The commission does not have to take any action. SPEAKER: Alright. MOSLEY: Item number two is a request for a rezoning and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2040 plan. This also includes items three and four, which will take separately as individual items. And I would hold separate public hearings for three and four but has a conditional use request and a preliminary plat. The rezoning request is at, it touches both Gateway Drive and Society Hill Road. Although the primary property is all those addresses, 3310 Society Hill Road. The property that's being rezoned is right here on the corner of Gateway Drive, near the roundabout with Society Hill Road. Excuse me. Let me catch up to my notes here. The applicant is Mark McLaughlin with representing Caps Farm Partners Limited. The applicant is requesting to rezone 6.59 acres of an 18.1-acre property from R1, which is the yellow you see here to C2, which is office retail located adjacent to it. So this would bring this whole red area into a C1 zone. Both are in the gateway corridor primary. What you'll notice is there is some R1 here that largely extends to the Caps family property that has been there for some time. Most of the property through this area has been rezoned either to a planned unit development or into the C1 zone, which again, is kind of that local office, retail commercial use.

So here you have the applicant proposing to rezone a portion of this property to C1 and we'll get into the proposed use for that in just a moment regarding multifamily. Along with that, there is a request for a amendment to the future land use. This is currently shown on the future land use as mixed residential. We have requested it be amended for mixed or the land use plan to a local commercial land use. Both technically are applicable to this because this property is a mix of residential and commercial based on how they're proposing to use it. I think both would be acceptable, but they do show multiple properties along the frontage would fall better within that local commercial designation. We are recommending a positive recommendation to City Council for the rezoning of the property from R1 to C2, both in the Gateway Corridor Primary, and we're recommending a amendment to the future land use to show this from mixed residential to a local commercial designation. It is present. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Ma'am, all the staff reports will be held for the conditional use portion of this property. So we don't have any reports for the rezoning. SPEAKER: You're going to give the water report. SPEAKER: Ma'am, they're all the same. SPEAKER: Everything's OK. Alright. Is there anyone who would like to speak about the rezoning? Positive or negative?

Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners. SPEAKER: Motion for positive recommendation to rezone City Council. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. Now to make an amendment. This is for a positive recommendation. SPEAKER: Ma'am, this would just be an amendment to the future land use. SPEAKER: But what we just did was to send a positive recommendation to City Council. SPEAKER: Yes ma'am. Correct. SPEAKER: And so, this is the amendment to the land use plan. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: So moved with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: You don't have to have a separate public hearing on this. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any. Abstain. Motion carries. MOSLEY: The second item related to this property is a request for conditional use approval. This is a request for the property. Not necessarily the frontage, but the property is behind the frontage on Gateway Drive. Again, the same applicant, Mark McLaughlin for Continental Properties, representing Cap Farm Partners Limited. The applicant is proposing to conditional use approval for a 252-unit multifamily apartment development on 16.35 acres. Here you kinda see a general schematic layout of the property. So again, the roundabout is down in the bottom right-hand corner. Society Hill Road and Gateway Drive. You'll notice there are two drives that go back to the residential portion along Gateway Drive, one closer to the roundabout adjacent to the pond that many people are

familiar with, and then one further down, closer towards where the Texas Roadhouse is. That would also be a secondary means of access. You'll see the property has a kind of office and amenity site located right along Gateway Drive. And then the four outparcels that would be not part of this conditional use. Those would be likely to come before you at a later time, or may be permitted uses, depending on the proposed use at that time. And then you see the multiple buildings located to the rear of this. The density for this is 15.41 units per acre. The overall allowable density in the C2 zone is 16 units per acre. Kinda to the back here behind this, you have a couple other residential developments that have been proposed, one Creekside cottages is currently under construction. The applicant is showing eight residential buildings that would be, I believe, three storys in height. There are some amenities, including a pet area. Let's see, I think there is a, of course, swimming pool, clubhouse at the front and then a wash area, I believe. We have noted the applicant did receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The property is required with 252 units to have a 504 parking spaces. They are showing 451 spaces. This if you look at the development and the breakdown of the rooms, you'll notice that

over 50% of these units are one bedrooms or studio units. So based on our what we know is our normal occupancy of these units, they are typically one person units, especially the one bedrooms, studios and even post Covid, we see now many of the two bedrooms being used for one person with a bedroom and then an office in the secondary room. So many of our rental units, approximately 50% of them, are single person households. And so, they did receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to reduce that from two units per space down to 1.75, which we feel is still extremely adequate for the amount of bedrooms that are being proposed. We noted in here that they had not provided a landscape plan. They have since provided that, and we're reviewing that. We feel that it will be adequate based on what is around here. There are no required residential buffers in this area. They would only have some gateway corridor buffers and then some parking lot landscaping points and among a few others. We've also noted that they'll have to coordinate with trash services, provide a lighting plan, make sure that all their mechanical is screened. Looking through this, based on the future land use plan, this is in alignment with the proposed plan. This is where one of the locations in the plan where we do see multifamily and increased density being supported based on its location and proximity to the interstate, and then also adjacent to Tigertown and surrounding developments. Based on all of these, we are recommending approval of the proposed conditional use. We have a couple conditions. First, of course, if the rezoning is approved by the Opelika City Council.

Second, the landscaping requirements are met. They note the materials for the units that all four sides meet the Gateway Corridor platting requirements. All dumpsters be enclosed with approved materials and landscaping. So they're not visible. And that that be coordinated with Opelika Environmental Service Department. All meters, mechanical and HVAC be screened from the street. Any commercial uses on the out lots will be approved based on the table of permitted uses. That a multi-use path that currently was constructed by the city and stops it at the roundabout be extended to the extent of this property. And what we're talking about is making sure that at this point that it be extended to the first entrance of the or not the first entrance to the extent here closest to the roundabout so that it goes up to the first commercial property, because there will likely be some grading that is required, would adjust that along as those develop. And then any internal sidewalks be connected to the public sidewalks. Again, the applicant is here and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Did wanna provide you here some of the elevations that they have provided to us. Again, three story buildings, balconies or patios. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The applicant will be required to submit a site construction grading plan for the site to the engineering public works and all utilities for review and approval. Once this approval is made, a pre-construction meeting will be held, and a land disturbance permit will be issued. The access improvements and the right turn lane on Gateway Drive that are shown on the site plan are approved.

A left turn lane will also need to be restriped in the existing pavement to accommodate left turn movements. A shared use path that Mr Mosley has stated will need to be installed on Gateway Drive to the frontage of this property. The secondary drive will have the path crossed the entrance to this development, so the other developments will be able to tie into it. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this conditional use approval. Opelika Water states that there's a 16-inch water main on the south side of Gateway Drive and Opelika Power will not serve the site. SPEAKER: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this project? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for approval of staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? Any questions for Matt or any discussion of this? Alright. All in favor of the motion? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any. Abstain. Motion carries. MOSLEY: The fourth item on your agenda tonight is a request for a preliminary plat approval related to this project. So again, you see the entire site dealing with the Caps Property on the corner Gateway Drive and Society Hill Road.

You have the total area, which is, I believe that's 34.47 acres. Again, you have the lot five, which is the primary development site for the multifamily. You have the four out parcels, lots one through four along Gateway Drive, and then you have lot six, which is a contains the pond, which would be used for regional retention, water retention, and then lot seven, which is the home site of the property owner's family. The lots all meet the minimum lot requirements in the C2 gateway corridor zoning requirements, subdivision requirements. We have many of the same comments that were in the conditional use that are carried forward to the subdivision, as applicable. And so, we are recommending preliminary plat approval, subject that all utilities be underground. Add a note about the maintenance responsibility for the pond on lot six and that sidewalks be required along Gateway Drive. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. The engineering department states that the addition of turn lanes and center left turn lane will be required for the development of these lots, that is dependent on the use but is pretty much gonna be determined that since there's asphalt with roadway there, restriping with center turn lane will be adequate for those sites. Shared use path alongside of gateway will also be included in the development of these lots as well.

Engineer has no other comments or concerns regarding the proposed preliminary plat. Opelika water states again, there's a 16-inch water main and then this is also outside of Opelika power territory. SPEAKER: OK. This conditional use calls for this preliminary only calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this project. Public hearing is now closed. SPEAKER: Commissioners. SPEAKER: Motion for preliminary plat approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. MOSLEY: Item four is a request for conditional use for a multifamily development located at 454 South 10th Street, also previously called 410 Geneva Street. This is located between Avenue C and Short Avenue on 10th Street, across the street from Taylor Development. The applicant is Josh Miller with Sanford Group LLC representing South Side Opelika, LLC. The subject property is currently zoned C2, which is office retail in the gateway corridor or secondary. So the applicant is proposing to develop a mixed-use development, which would be a two-story building located right along the edge of South 10th Street. You can see it here kinda in the dark, longer section. Parking located behind that.

And then you've got four individual cottages that would be located behind the parking. Of course, you have the Taylor across the street, which is multifamily. Behind this, you have two sets of townhouses. They look like kind of like a single-family home, but they're actually kinda offset townhouses. On the backside of this, you've got the in the nude ramen shop, which was located just to the north of this. And then to the south is a real estate office. The proposed building is approximately 4,800 feet, the primary one with the individual cottages being approximately 800 square feet. Again, this would be two stories. So you would have a commercial uses on the bottom floor, office uses. And then on the top floor, you would have six one-bedroom units there. They provided us a landscape plan, and I'll get into that in just a moment, because of this being in the historic district, there are some unique requirements that we deal with here. But here you kinda see a basic design of what the front building would look like. So they're showing three tenant spaces with again, kind of the residential units visible on the top. Here's kind of a nighttime image of something very similar to that. And then they've shown kind of a cottage example of the back rear units kinda showing what those would look like just kind of a very kind of simple cottage design with front porch. As I mentioned, this is in the Southside Geneva Historic District.

When we look at that, we look at how that fits in with the zoning. And there are a couple things of note here. The first is that the Gateway Corridor Secondary requires a 25-foot setback. However, with the historic district, the homes along 10th Street on this side are much closer than 25ft. And so, we've asked them to bring the building up closer to the street to, I believe it's set at approximately 10 feet right there, which would require them to get a variance from the zoning Board of Adjustment should this be approved. The reason why we looked at that is when you look at the in the new building which is adjacent to it, to the north, that's sitting about six or 7 feet from the front property line. You look at the Denson real estate office to the south, and that's sitting right around ten to 12 feet, I believe it's right at 10 feet off the front property line. So it's trying to line up so that it doesn't create a gap and sit far back outside the character and scale of the historic homes through the area. The other thing that we look at is, what the landscaping is, how it's being handled. What they've provided here is a landscape plan that shows the minimum requirements, including the front buffer, parking lot, planting and then buffering along some of the edges here. What they've also shown is that there are approximately. SPEAKER: I believe it's ten trees, hardwood trees between 18 and 48 inches, that they're proposing to preserve on site, which is a goal of historic preservation. Those are noted at different sites through here.

Those trees alone would almost take care of most of their landscaping requirements from a simple calculation standpoint. Now, there are other things that we want to make sure that are included with landscaping, including screening any sort of trash receptacles, screening parking lots from adjacent properties, and then providing some basic landscaping along the frontage that would mimic what the historic landscaping pattern of Kent Street has been. We have addressed some of those briefly in the staff report, noting the need to work with staff and work with the Historic Preservation Commission, should this get approved, to make sure that the development, as proposed, meets those criteria. Overall, we feel like the use is both acceptable and encouraged by the future land use. We also feel like it would fit in with the mix of commercial and residential uses in the neighborhood, and so we are recommending a positive recommendation for this. That is subject to them receiving a variance to allow the building to sit in line with the adjacent structures that all service utilities, mechanical, and units be screened from view. And then all building, landscaping, and site requirements must comply with historic preservation standards. Happy to answer any questions you have, and the applicant is here today. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes, the applicant will be required to submit a site construction, grading, and drainage plan for this site, mainly because of the expected need of a detention pond in the area due to the older infrastructure. The Engineering and Public Works Department and other utilities will review these plans and then host a preconstruction meeting, and then a permit will be issued for construction. There are no other comments or concerns regarding this

proposed conditional use. Opelika Water States has water availability with an 8-inch main on 10th Street, and Opelika Power will serve this site. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? SPEAKER: I did want to note, too, they are set 15 feet off the front property line, so it's a 10-foot variance. SPEAKER: Ten feet, not 15. SPEAKER: Not 15ft. SPEAKER: OK. Give us your name and address, please. HAYES IFORD: Yes, ma'am. Hayes Iford. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, 2449 Moores Mill Road, Auburn, Alabama. I just wanted to correct one small thing that we saw there, Matt. It's two bedroom loft apartments, super small, so I just wanted to make sure that you all knew that. Just as well for more information on the project, we're looking at uses in there of restaurant, café, barbershop, and then professional services offices or developer offices will be the uses proposed here. I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. SPEAKER: One of the illustration shows sidewalk gathering. dining. Would that be permitted with that setback? SPEAKER: So yes, what we would do is we would want to work with them to make sure that if we're going with that style of building, that it have the appropriate sidewalk in front of it. Private sidewalk, off the right of way. And that be connected to the city sidewalk, similar to what's across the street at Taylor. I would expect that the sidewalk there would need to be at least eight feet wide. Kind of at a minimum on the building side, which should be able to be fit within the setback there. SPEAKER: Would we require any traffic safety devices? SPEAKER: No. That would be far enough away from the road, where

that wouldn't be an issue. Would be, you know, it's still ten feet from the edge of pavement, even though it's ten feet from the right of way line. So it'd be 20ft from, from the road for anything that goes on over there. So it should be fine. SPEAKER: So you couldn't touch a car as they're riding by? SPEAKER: Correct. SPEAKER: Or the car couldn't touch you. SPEAKER: Even more important. SPEAKER: Even more important. SPEAKER: And I trust the rear of the building facing Geneva Street will match the closest to the front that you've got, architecturally and from a material standpoint. HAYES IFORD: As far as the rendering goes. Yes. That's correct. We want it to be in line with that rendering. SPEAKER: We typically require for site architecture in the historic preservation guidelines. HAYES IFORD: That is a good point. It's gonna go to HPC as well. So they're gonna have a lot more architecture conversations at that level. SPEAKER: Good. SPEAKER: Can we not require some type of post that if a I mean, it's going to be so close to the street that if they have people sitting out there that. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. So what we can do is... and we'll talk to the applicant about this, is what they're showing now is you've got a couple of trees here. These trees in this style do a lot to both make you feel protected from nearby traffic and they also act as barriers when people... if somebody was to leave the site, but yes, ma'am, we would work with them to make sure... and there are a bunch of different ways you could do this, that either there's some planters there that provide extra protection. A lot of times with a use like this, there's going to be a change in elevation, potentially between the street level and the sidewalk level. I'm not positive on this site, but we can look at some options

to make sure that people are in a safe environment there. I don't know that we would want to go out and just put bollards just because of the historic nature of the area. SPEAKER: Wouldn't want to what? SPEAKER: Put some bollards out or something like that. That would be The kind of utilitarian. I think there are ways to do that that still fit within the character of the area. SPEAKER: OK. Until it hits one tree and then it has to come down and... SPEAKER: They are showing multiple trees, and we would work with them to make sure that the right number get planted in there. And when we do provide trees, you know, they are pretty much forever. So if one were to get hit and struck down, we would make them replace it. SPEAKER: OK. Alright. Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion to approve conditional use of staff recommendations. Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number six is one that has been before the commission before. This is a request with Lee Tharp from Kadre Engineering for VOPD LLC. This is at 85 Veterans Parkway, so if you're going north on Veterans Parkway from Pepper Parkway, this would be right on the right when you start heading up the street. Kind of see the area located here. This was originally approved in September 2023. At that same time, the city worked through the process to vacate a portion of Speedway Drive, which is this

unapproved or not unapproved. It was an old piece of road that was no longer connected down here because of the new alignment of Veterans Parkway. The applicant at that time got approval for a mix of office, contractors' offices, and warehouse in the C3 zone in the Gateway corridor primary at this site. Here's the layout proposed. The front buildings here would kind of have a more office feel to them, whereas these deeper properties would have kind of office, contractor office-type uses. This does not anticipate any sort of outside storage or lay-down yards, things along those lines. Again, here's kind of the overall outline adjacent to the shopping center here at Saugahatchee Square. SPEAKER: Let's see. I think we've got some... SPEAKER: They've provided a lot of demographic data on kind of why they feel the use is appropriate, and then they've provided a kind of general idea of what the buildings would look like, a mix of brick, hardy with metal roofing, and then landscaping plan. This was approved in 2023. Since that time, the conditional use has expired, so they're back before you with a request to amend or to re-approve that conditional use. We're recommending approval subject to the following conditions: that outside storage products, materials, trailers be prohibited, provide a full landscape plan showing the points and buffers. The exterior materials must meet the gateway corridor

minimums or requirements, and then the dumpster location needs to be shown, and then that should be approved through our standard requirements with plating to make sure that it is screened from the right-of-way. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes. The engineering department will require a site construction grading plan for this site to be submitted to the engineering, public works, and other utilities for review and approval. Once the review has been conducted, a pre-construction meeting will be held, and all permits will be issued. Engineers know the comments regarding this proposed conditional use approval. Opelika Water States is water service is available from a 12-inch main on Speedway Drive, and Opelika Power and Alabama Power both service this site. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this project? LEE THARP: Good afternoon, Lee Tharp, Kadre Engineering for the applicant. I just wanted to point one thing out, nothing, not planning to change anything from the original proposal that you guys approved back in 23. We also got engineered drawings complete back at that time, as well with approval from Scott's group. I believe we had approved landscape drawings at that point as well, so the idea is we're going to turn those right back in without changing anything and get the thing going. I just wanted to point that out, just to make sure everybody was clear. Happy to answer any other questions. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Anyone 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? Any questions? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item 7 is also back before you for re-approval. This is a request by Blake Rice with BSI representing JED Real Properties LLC, located at 4800 Birmingham Highway, US Highway 280. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for ATV and motorcycle sales lot maintenance services. We call this project Extreme Power Sports. The property is located here on the corner of Grand National Parkway and US 280 next to APR and adjacent or near the new racetrack fueling station at (UNKNOWN) Road. Again, this is in the Gateway corridor zone C3, which means the use is conditional. Here you see a site plan that was very similar to what was previously before you in 2024. This was also before you once, I believe, in 2022 with a slightly different configuration. They've kind of modified the first time. I think this is much closer to the second time. The areas in yellow that are shown here are the areas of potential outside storage, some that would be 24-hour, and some that would be brought in daily during sales

or outside sales hours. The overall site is, I believe, three point... It's actually almost 10 acres. They're developing about three acres here at the front. They've got a 3,800 or 3,700 square foot showroom and shop, and then a 1,300 square foot Honda dealership located on the site. Both would kind of back up to Birmingham Highway, and they've done a good job, I think, showing kind of what that would look like from the back side. Here you see a Honda building that would be on the western side, northwest side, and then going back towards the intersection, the extreme power sports building. This would be what is visible from the... I believe that's the side view on Grand National, and then the front side, you have kind of the overhang, similar materials. They've also provided us a landscape plan showing buffering with some required trees along the frontage, kind of the outside display area, it's not a storage area, and then along Grand National Parkway as well. Reviewing this, again, we feel it's very similar to what was shown to you before and was approved. We are recommending approval with the same conditions that were approved last time. Those being that they extend the trees along the frontage line of 280, add trees to both sides of the property lines along 280, and I think that's what's shown in the landscape plan. Any outside display areas be limited to what is shown on the drawing; no parts or tires be displayed or stored outside.

The sidewalks be compliant with ADA in display areas, enclose the dumpster on all sides and screen so it's not visible from outside the enclosure. Wall signs will need to be permitted separately and must meet the city's signage regulations. Any outside lighting will need to ensure that it is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and not exceed one foot candle at the property line. Fencing material must be a commercial architectural style, either decorative aluminum or wrought iron style appearance, not chain link or wire mesh along the gateway, and then any outside display areas must be hard surface concrete or asphalt, not gravel. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes. The applicant will be required to submit a site. construction grading plan for the site to the engineering, public works departments, and other utilities for review and approval. Once this approval and other utilities have been reviewed, the permit will be issued at a pre-construction meeting. The access locations to Grand National Parkway are approved as submitted in site plan. They meet the public works access spacing requirements. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this conditional use approval. Opelika Water states that water is available from a 12-inch main on Grand National Parkway, and this is outside of Opelika Power Services territory. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this project? Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion.

SPEAKER: For approval of staff recommendation? Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Number eight. SPEAKER: Number eight is also conditional use. It has been before you before. This is 1011 Walker Gray Court, the applicant. The applicant is Scott Heiss. He currently owns the adjacent properties through here and has developed a portion of this lot with contractor office warehouse uses. This received approval back in 2023, and Mr Heiss has the building here to the south of it and then has constructed a building just above that on this property that shares a parking lot with the proposed building here. The new proposed development would be nine office warehouse units on the north side. It's about a 30,000 square foot building. Property is zoned C3, and this is just outside the Gateway corridor, so the contractor office is a conditional use. The total, these two lots are about 1.5 acres. There is a dividing line between the two, which the way it's designed, both meet the setbacks and so could remain or could be combined. The plan provides 24 parking spaces for the nine units and then 12 spaces for the two units on the south. These are intended to be more for office warehouse uses, not

uses that have customer traffic, and that's the way most of this street is through the area, so they would not support kind of large traffic type uses. They provided a site plan and we reviewed it, need to make some modifications with the applicant based on what we're dealing with the utilities on the north side here. Specifically, there's a sewer line through here that our public works department is very cautious of, and so we're requesting that the fencing extend along the north side for the buffer, but they're planning on maintaining a lot of the trees back here, so those should help create a natural buffer through this area as well that can be supplemented. They've also provided buffering along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the mobile home park here. They meet the overall requirements for plantings. The building materials shown, this is the building that was furthest to the south and then you can kind of see, I apologize for the bad picture, kind of a metal and stone mixed building that is constructed just to the south of this on this development. The style would be similar to what has been proposed here with a metal building and having kind of the windscott of the other materials at the bottom. This is not in the gateway, so that is an acceptable use, provided the commission has no issue with it. We are recommending conditional use approval again for this, again, provided that outside storage be limited to the location on the site plan, that no interoperable

equipment, scrap materials be placed outside the chain link fence, must not have barbed wire or razor wire visible from Walker Green Court. Outside lighting must meet the zoning ordinance, one foot candle at the property line, and the residential buffers should be spaced to meet the buffering requirement after three growing seasons. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: There's no report from engineering or utilities on this application. SPEAKER: This one is in, I believe, the Opelika utility or Opelika Power Service district. They serve all of my understanding. And then water is available to the site as well. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this project? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion. SPEAKER: Make a motion for conditional use approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: The next two items are rezoning. The first is located on Dunlop Drive and White Road. So let me get back to the original site. Here you see the subject property. It's zoned R1 currently. The applicant is Josh Miller with Sanford Group LLC representing Dunlop Family Investments LLC. You can see kind of how it sits between the Harwell Hills neighborhood and White Road just north of Waverly Parkway.

The applicant is proposing to rezone this 21.6 acres from R1, which is kind of rural extreme load density, to R2 and R3. So you'll see White Road on the eastern side is zoned R2. Below this is R5, which is a small multi-family development, and then most of Harwell Hills around Dunlop Drive is zoned R3. R2 and R3 are considered low to medium-density zones. They have submitted to us a kind of exhibit showing where they see the break of the different uses. So here you see the R2 zone is this darker color along White Road. These lots would meet the minimum lot requirements for R2, which is 80,000 square... 80 feet wide and 15,000 square feet minimum, then R3, which is a 70-foot wide minimum lot width and a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. So you can kind of see how they would lay out in relation to the lots adjacent to them. Reviewing this based on the future land use map, this does show the area as being single-family. The way the zones have been divided, we feel like this is an appropriate mix of zoning to both buffer between White Road and the Harwell Hills neighborhood, and then the lots adjacent there would be... SPEAKER: Consistent with the lot sizes within that neighborhood.

Overall, we feel this is an appropriate rezoning request and we're recommending approval of the positive recommendation to City Council to rezone this from 21 acres from R1 to R2 and R3 as shown on the draft plan. They've provided us a preliminary plan. This will be back before you subject to the Commission's review at your March meeting. And so just provided some basic layouts there. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering Department has no comments or concerns for this proposed rezoning. Opelika Water states that the area that is designated to be rezoned to R3 will be serviced by a main on Dunlop Drive. And the area to be designated as R2 will be served by 6 inch main off of White Road. This site is outside of Opelika Power Services territory. SPEAKER: Thank you. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this project? Come to the, state your name and address. LINDA WILKINS KLEIN: Yes, ma'am. My name's Linda Wilkins Klein and I live at 601 Rustic Street, which is the entrance of the new subdivision. They're extending the road next to our house. I've lived there for 30 years, and I knew this was gonna happen. It breaks my heart 'cause I love living on the woods. But my concern is a couple of things. One is you're gonna put like 22 new homes extending from our road. If everybody has at least two cars minimum, that's

44 more cars coming down through our past our house. Now, if you know where the subdivision is, you come out on Waverly Parkway, which I affectionately call the clippity cloppity road. But that's already a bottleneck. We have the school buses coming in. We have people sitting on the street waiting to pick up their kids from the school buses. We have new renters that unfortunately have parked on the street, which has made it harder to come in. We've got the medical parkway right across the street with the new Mercy Medical Clinic and the traffic there is getting really bad. It's dangerous. We actually had two brick nice entrance signs coming into Harwell Hills that have been totally demolished. They're not even there'cause of the wrecks of people coming in and out. It's a blind spot. So I don't know if they do this, at least I think would have to put up a street light, but that's not for me. But beyond that, if you come out into the medical parkway, you go into 280. Well, that's bumper cars right there. So when you come out from the medical parkway, which I guess is still Dunlop on the back of 280, you know, and people are pulling into the hospital and people are coming out, that's already crazy traffic. So I don't know what they're gonna do with extra cars trying to all navigate that. But I'm worried about the density of these subdivisions here next to my house. We have nice brick houses. I've been there 30 years and the houses they built next to me already I think are to me lower quality. I wouldn't buy one. The shingles were falling off within two months, but that's not for me to say. But you'll also notice this extension of Dunlop. It's not a cul-de-sac, so they'll be extending it again in the future.

I don't know where it's going, but that's more people, more traffic coming in and out. I'm not sure what this one area is on this map. If you see this big blocked off area labeled number one here on Rustic Street, I'm not sure what's gonna happen to that. It's zoned with the White Road area, but I'm not sure what their future intention for that area is. So I'm hoping, and I've talked to Danny Dunlop for many years, if they do this, that he will allow my husband and I to buy the lot next to us behind our house. We're gonna keep it wood. When we die, we'll leave it to the city. They could make a little park out of it, but we have four dogs. I'm gonna get calls every day about my dogs if I look out and I see somebody's barbecuing or in my backyard. You know, I can't stop it, but I hope that you consider maybe this is too dense. You know, maybe we can make it a little buffer area somehow. I don't know. But the traffic is number one. Number two is gonna be drainage. Our house sits on the low part, so the hill comes down. All the water comes down to our house. We drain it into the woods right now because the pond is back there. But when you build the road, we're gonna have to make sure somehow our drainage is attached to something, city or something, because our yard, our house almost floods already. So those are my concerns. Thank you very much. SPEAKER: Thank you. JOHN WILLIAM KLEIN: Chairwoman and members of the commission, I'm the luckiest man in the world because I'm married to Linda, who just spoke. I live at 601 Rustic Street as well. I'm John William Klein. And I agree with everything that she said, but I'd like to add a couple of things.

First, the speed limit in our neighborhood is already too high. It should be dropped to 25 miles an hour. As you come in on Dunlop Drive, the road drops and people tend to speed up with more traffic on the road. They will speed up even more. There should be a four way stop placed on Rustic Street and Dunlop. And as you enter the new construction, the new houses, there should be speed bumps. I also think it's too dense. They should be spread out further apart. At about 3:47 every day, there's a little eighth grader who gets off the bus and walks down Dunlop Drive. There's no sidewalks and he's happy and he has his ears set on and he dances and so forth. He's doing very well in school. He comes by and he waves to me and he asks what flowers I'm planning or what kind of dogs those are and things like that. He's not alone. There are other children who are getting off of the school bus and coming down Dunlop Drive. It's a wonderful neighborhood. Very friendly neighborhood and safe. But I'm concerned about increased traffic and I'm concerned about little children. And that's not just children. We have cats that go back and forth across the street. We're gonna have to slow the traffic down. I think we're gonna have to space those lots more, give more room for each house. And quite frankly, I think we're going to have to put that four-way stop in at the foot of the hill. That's right on our corner. Sir, could you point to lot number 13 for them, so they see exactly where we live? We are the last house. Or the first, if you'd prefer to look at it in terms of new development. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time and for letting me speak.

I hope you'll give our ideas some consideration. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: I've got a petition from the White Road area. SPEAKER: Would you give us your name and address, please? CHUCK REED: Yep. My name is Chuck Reed and I'm speaking on behalf of the folks on White Road. I understand that Alabama is a property owner's right state and I agree with it and fully support it. I also understand that Opelika Road is R1 and that's intended to transition into higher intensity buildings. That's reflected in the concept plan that we've received for the Pondview Woods. However, what I feel is missing in the concept plan is the desire that's mentioned in the definition of the zones R2 and R3. Basically, the second sentence of that says these districts are intended to provide areas for development. I'm sorry, I went the wrong way. It's desirable that the development represent in these districts to be compatible with the character, skill, and density of the existing neighborhood. So, the current concept plan is showing 12 lots, all of them, and I'm talking about the side that's on White Road. It's showing 12 lots and all of them are putting driveways onto White Road. That in no way is compatible with the character, scale, and density of what's existing on White Road right now. So, we're not asking to prevent development. We're asking that the growth be a complement to the longstanding residential scale of White Road rather than intentionally increasing frontage intensity beyond that established character. If this approval proceeds, we respectfully request that the Planning Committee to strongly consider the character, scale, and density of the existing White Road neighborhood. This includes lot sizes, buffering zones, and driveways onto White Road. Thank you for your consideration. SPEAKER: Thank you.

BUDDY BRUCE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Buddy Bruce, 505 White Road. Chuck is married to my cousin. This is the old Bruce property. Carolyn Bruce is in the back. Carolyn Bruce Reed. We are on the east side of White Road, which is now known as R2, I believe. We didn't realize it was R2 until Chuck told me yesterday. 'Cause there's only four or five houses on the east side of White Road. As he said in the character of the neighborhood and all, we would respectfully request that the Commission consider lowering the density of this neighborhood on that side of the property that's on the east side of that pond, which is R2 in this project, to lower the number of houses on that side of the road to keep in character of the neighborhood. We're not against development. People have rights to develop their property and do things with it. We're not against that at all. We're just asking for your consideration on the density on that side of the project. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. DAVID BARNES: Good afternoon. My name is David Barnes, and my address is 531 Rustic Street. I am right across the little spur of Dunlop from my neighbors. I have no problem with the development. I welcome it. I'm gonna end up with a corner lot in a brand-new subdivision with new houses and new people. All is good. My concern is topographical. My backyard is the low point for everything on the east side of the proposed Dunlop extension. Lots 33 and 34 drain directly into my backyard.

So, that being said, I know what construction can do and I know I can end up with a massive mudslide in my backyard. So, I offer three things that I would like for you to consider. First thing, on their proposed map, leave lots 33 and 34 alone. Let that stay natural, kind of a buffer zone. That would preserve the natural topography and mitigate any rainwater runoff coming into my backyard. If you can't do that, then let the homeowners that buy those two lots do select cut on the trees so that they can put their house in there, preserve the natural landscape and the natural beauty of the woods. Number three, if none of these things are possible, create a swell extending from Dunlop, the extension of Dunlop all the way back past my backyard and past my neighbors too to divert water to make it go on down the hill and past the existing backyards of all the people that are my neighbors. That's all I have to say. Now, thank you for your time. SPEAKER: Thank you. JENNIFER KARAS: Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Karas and I'm at 609 Rustic. I just wanna echo what Mr Jim and Ms Linda said about the traffic. That is one thing that is uncontrollable there. The speed limit, number one, the adding of extra cars coming through. I work in Auburn, so in the mornings I go towards the interstate. I timed it this morning. It took me 13 minutes from my driveway to make the left out onto 280.

So, that tells you how much traffic there is right there. My other concern would be I sit a little bit higher on the back end of my property, so it does drag towards them. How is that gonna be affected? Is it gonna be leveled out behind me when those new places come in? Or is it going to still kind of have a drop off? So, that is another concern for my area. The other question is what type of homes are these gonna be? I know the square footage was said, but are they one story? Are they two story? What is that going to look like? So, these are just things we wanted to consider as well. So, thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. PATSY CLARK: I'm Patsy Clark, 517 White Road. I'm requesting a traffic study on Waverly Parkway. There are three schools on Waverly Parkway already. The traffic is terrible, and then you've got the new medical parks. When we're trying to get out of White Road sometimes, it's terrible. It takes us a minute. I work. I don't have time for all this. Everybody's busy. I get it. But could you please do a traffic study to assess the traffic before anything else is done in our area? Another thing, too, are these houses gonna be equivalent to what's already there, the homes that's there? 'Cause our homes are spread out through the woods, and we're not used to seeing other homes at all. And we have big, nice houses, and we would like for them to be equivalent to what's already there. This is going to be in my face across from my mailbox. I've never seen a house there in all the years we've lived there. And it is heartbreaking to know I'm gonna have to look at

a house across from my mailbox. When you live in the woods, you don't wanna see nobody. That's why we live in the woods on a dirt road, because that's what we like. That's why we live there. So we don't have to see people if you don't want to. We raise deer and turkey. We've had the same bunch for years and years, and we are concerned about our wildlife as well. But I ask you to consider a traffic study on Waverly Parkway before anything else is done. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. HAYES IFFERT: Good afternoon. Hayes Iffert, Sanford Group here on behalf of the applicant. I think everybody brought some really good points. Honestly, I think that these are all really good concerns. I do think there's some information that maybe could be shared to alleviate some of these concerns from the city. And Scott, would you mind sharing what we talked about with the intersection at Dunlop? SCOTT: Yes. The city currently has an intersection design plan ready to bid at Dunlop and Waverly Parkway. This intersection improvement will add left turn lanes and a traffic signal at Dunlop and Waverly Parkway. We should be able to submit that out for construction for bid this summer and be constructed by next spring. HAYES IFFERT: I think in that regard, hats off to the city. I think Scott and his team are being proactive on solving a big issue of what a lot of these residents brought up on Dunlop. And so, a big piece of this project is the Waverly Woods subdivision. This just the north of this currently has plans to dump out as a secondary ingress, egress onto White Road.

So it would be used utilizing White Road as an access point. And the intersection of White Road and Waverly Parkway is not, especially once this intersection comes in, is not gonna be ideal. It's gonna be a much better option. It's gonna be much safer for everybody and efficient if we can find more traffic towards that Dunlop intersection. And so that's one main piece of this project that allows us to divert that traffic that will be going on to the more rural White Road. That's also unsignalized at Waverly Parkway to Dunlop, which will be signalized and a good bit safer. So that's one item. Secondarily, when we worked with the city, talking through with staff, talking to this project, the goal of the zoning isn't to maximize density or anything like that, but it's primarily to serve as a transition zone and match both neighboring zones. So on the west of this property, we have R3 that we're trying to match, on the east, we have R2. And so, we're just aligning with those existing zonings in an effort to just have continuity in the area and have a zoning that fits this area. As far as there's also a couple other folks that talked about White Road, that road currently has a development agreement in place. I'm fairly certain Matt made me question a little bit because we talked about it before the meeting, but I'm fairly certain a development agreement was approved last year that would get a portion of White Road paved. And then this development also would allow for some widening on White Road. So there's some improvements on that area and some concerns are brought up about buses and other things as well in this area. So that should alleviate those issues. And then, yeah, the last comment is just the lots along White Road are R2. They're proposed to be about half acre on average. So plenty of opportunity to maintain trees and then also the larger two lots in between. I know one question is brought up about one of

them on the southern side. So you can see. And that one would be a residential lot. It's just a larger residential lot. So it would remain primarily wooded in the second is an open space lot with a large pond in the middle of it. They'll be wooded as well. So the lots on White Road, the goal there, half acre lots with a nice pond in the rear is the intent there. I'm happy to answer any additional questions. That's all I got for now. Thank you. SPEAKER: Question. HAYES IFFERT: Yes, sir. SPEAKER: They ask how what are the size of the homes that you're building? HAYES IFFERT: I don't know if I have that information for my client this time and they're not here today to get that to me. SPEAKER: What about have you seen a drainage problem? HAYES IFFERT: We've done a rough grade on the site. We fully anticipate that we're gonna be able to handle any drainage within the city's regulations. And we're gonna be held to that by Scott and his team as well. SPEAKER: I've got a question from a design standpoint. Have you considered seeing it? We're seeing it quite a bit now is instead of having 11 or 12 driveways on White Road, putting in an access road that serves the rear property, the rear of all these properties and limiting it to one or two points of access versus 11 different driveways. HAYES IFFERT: Now, that wouldn't be my place to make that call at this juncture. I do think that the developer would likely be very open to that option. I think that that makes a lot of sense from my standpoint and my expertise to do that. So that's a condition that the commission wants to put on it. I'm sure that would be OK with the developer if that's a sticking point. I do think to your point, I think that is a better design. SPEAKER: OK. And on the western track on R3 track, what have you considered as it relates to buffering against all these other residential properties that are that have been existing for 30 years?

Putting in a substantial amount of buffer or landscaping, as well as erosion control measures on that section. HAYES IFFERT: Certainly, erosion control. 100%, I think, will be necessary there. Making sure we have no offsite issues during construction will always be standard for anyone who's building in Opelika. SPEAKER: I'm just thinking, I think a good condition, we may place a condition on you that requires it. HAYES IFFERT: Sure. And I think that's completely understandable. We definitely wanna protect the neighbors. So totally understand that. SPEAKER: One thing I would suggest is this, as I mentioned before, if this is approved or goes forward, they will have to come back for preliminary flat approval. And a lot of the discussion about, you know, exact lot configuration, driveway layout, buffering, things like that are probably better handled at that time. The big, I guess, key takeaway right now should be for the commission to determine whether or not they feel the zoning proposed is appropriate in this area or a different zone would be or the existing zoning is more appropriate. SPEAKER: Alright. Anyone else want to speak to this? SPEAKER: Question. SPEAKER: You've already spoken. Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for a positive recommendation to City Council for rezoning. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: I have something to say. As I knocked on doors this summer and that's in my ward this summer, I think this room would be packed if we weren't meeting at 2:30, 3:00 in the afternoon

when people don't work. And I think the majority of that neighborhood would be up at the podium saying the same thing over and over again about the traffic and getting out in the danger of their neighborhood and people walking and the children in the neighborhood. So I think that's something to really consider when we think about doing this and rezoning. So I just wanna speak for the multiple households that that was just competitive of what they said about their neighborhood and getting out. So just wanna speak about that. SPEAKER: And I think having heard this that we talk about two different zonings and I think significantly moving from R1 to R2 is significant on the side of White Road. I would like to see it not as dense on White Road. And on the other side I'm sort of like Ms Whatley here just feel like we would be hearing a whole lot more of the residents there. SPEAKER: And I'd like to add if you haven't driven down White Road, you go drive down there and see if you think this fits. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? Alright. Do I hear a motion? I've heard a motion and a second. So all in favor of the motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. Opposed. I'm opposed. SPEAKER: Opposed.

SPEAKER: Up to three. Is that right? SPEAKER: I'm opposed. SPEAKER: Huh? SPEAKER: I'm opposed. SPEAKER: That's right. SPEAKER: I would like to see it postponed for further study. SPEAKER: OK. And so just... SPEAKER: What was that? SPEAKER: I've got four, three with one abstention. Yes. OK. Alright. Yes, ma'am. I'll take those comments. That would approve the motion. Send a positive recommendation, and this will go before the city council, and we'll let everyone know when that would be. SPEAKER: the it's for. Just say no. We don't want to send a positive note. SPEAKER: OK, let's (UNKNOWN). SPEAKER: Can I get a roll call, please. SPEAKER: Alright. All who vote for the motion of the rezoning to send. SPEAKER: And just to make sure, I would need a whoever is making the motion to send a negative recommendation, we just need you to I guess, that would be... SPEAKER: Can I amend the discussion? I'd like to amend it and ask for a deferment. SPEAKER: No, I mean, once it's been voted on, it's been voted on. We can... I do need to get a roll call of... SPEAKER: Who voted. SPEAKER: Who voted what? So I'll just go through and tell me, I would be in favor. SPEAKER: Of sending a positive recommendation to city council. SPEAKER: And they would be against. SPEAKER: A negative recommendation to city council. SPEAKER: So Mr (UNKNOWN). SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: (UNKNOWN) SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Nay SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Defer. SPEAKER: OK. So that's 4 to 3 against.

And I would just need you to state the reasons for someone who voted against it, for why you're voting against it basically. SPEAKER: It doesn't fit. SPEAKER: OK. You don't feel it fits within the character of the neighborhood? SPEAKER: Exactly. SPEAKER: Thank you. So we will get with the applicant and see whether they want to continue that to the city council with a negative, without a positive recommendation, or not. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Alright. Ten. SPEAKER: Item number 10 is a request for rezoning. This is War Eagle Properties. The subject property is located on the corner of Grand National Parkway and US 280 Birmingham Highway. The applicant is Mr Alan Dorn, representing War Eagle Properties LLC. It's a request for rezoning and then an amendment to the future land use. The subject property is currently zoned R2. They're requesting to rezone it to C3. It's in the Gateway corridor primary. Currently, it's undeveloped. You may have driven by Sarah recently. Notice that there's been some logging activity that has occurred through there. The applicant is requesting to rezone 113.4 acres from R2 to C3, change the underlying future land use designation from a residential to a general commercial standard. Excuse me. All of you, one second. The property, as you can see through the zoning map,

has commercial adjacent to it across Grand National Parkway with the proposed extreme power sports, which you voted on tonight. The opposite corner across Birmingham Highway has a fueling station and a small home. The rest of the property through here is outside the city limits and vacant. And then on the backside, it touches city property adjacent to the Wood Duck Preserve. Looking at this, we do feel that based on its location adjacent to 280, some of the existing commercial, the city's treatment facility just north of it, it does make sense to potentially look at this as a non-residential use here. A significant portion, I would say probably close to half of it at least, is inside a floodplain, and so is likely not going to have much development potential in that area. But based on those factors, we are recommending a rezoning to C3 inside the Gateway corridor primary and then an amendment from the future land use single-family neighborhood to Office Business Park based on that C3 proposal. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments or concerns with this proposed rezoning. Opelika Water states that there's a 12-inch water is available from a 12-inch main on US 280, and this is outside of Opelika Power Services territory. SPEAKER: This rezoning calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Public hearing is closed.

Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion. We make a recommendation. We send a positive recommendation to the City Council. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: All opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: And then a vote to amend the land use. SPEAKER: Oh, and then we need a vote to amend the land use map. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: So, do I hear a motion for that? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Last item under new business is a request for annexation. This is at 223 Lee Road 799, which is Andrews Road. This is just across the interstate, off exit 66 Andrews Road between the interstate and US 29 West Point Parkway. The applicant here is Janie Powers, John Morgan. They're requesting to annex their property into the city limits. It's currently in the unincorporated city. So the property is adjacent to city limits on two sides, both on the north side and on the west side, backing up to the celebrated Alabama site. This does meet the statutory requirements for annexation being consistent and touching a piece of city property. It also is in our annexation plan within the comprehensive plan. And so we are recommending a positive recommendation to city council. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: There are no comments from engineering.

And none of the utilities serve this site. Water nor power serves this lot. SPEAKER: OK. Would anyone like to? Annexation has no public hearing with that. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: I'll make a motion for a positive recommendation to City Council with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: You have two items under old business items 13 and 14. The applicant has requested that those come off and be heard by the commission? So if you would like to make a motion to remove that from the table. SPEAKER: 13 and 14. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Would anyone like to make a motion to? We call for a public hearing. SPEAKER: Well, if you remove from the table, then we can go through the public hearing. SPEAKER: Oh, do I hear a motion that we move this off of on the table and onto the agenda? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Alright. So this was before you last month. Again, as we mentioned, this is Century Boulevard or Century Park townhome development. It's currently zoned R3. You made a positive recommendation to city council to rezone it to R5, which, as we mentioned last month, you know, no matter whether or not you approve the townhomes and the subsequent subdivision, the rezoning, we feel, still makes sense either way. At last month's discussion, and here you see kind

of the outside scope of the property here, a large portion of this property currently is in the floodplain. We see an extension of Century Boulevard that shows the right-of-way extending to Bullock Court and then Frederick Road. There was some discussion about the connectivity of that property through this area, and so we previously asked, as part of the approval, that they provide the right-of-way thinking in discussions with the Opelika Fire Department, engineering, and other city departments. In clarifying that with the City Fire Department, as far as the life safety code goes, we have clarified their comments is that they feel that the connection should be made with the development at the same time. And so, last month, you had a motion that would have amended the development to require that that be a part of the stipulation, and we are now changing our recommendation to concur with that amendment so that the connection is made with this development. Now, we have had some discussion initially with the developer about kind of who would handle that improvement, whether or not that would be a joint project or not with the city. They have provided us with kind of a sample development agreement. At this time, I cannot commit the city to making that connection or participating in that connection. I think we are so open to the discussion of that. That would have to be something that would have to be reviewed by the administration and ultimately by the city council if the city decides to participate with it.

But we do feel that it is important to make the connection with this development as it goes. So, our recommendation to you is a positive recommendation as amended through last month's discussion, and then we would continue to work with the applicant at such time to determine whether or not that is a joint partnership or not. But we do feel that the connection does need to be made. The applicant is here if you have any questions. Mr Tharp with Kadre Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering? SPEAKER: Yes, the applicant will be required to submit a site construction and roadway design plan for the public roads that will be constructed with the site. And once the approval is met, then a permit will be issued for construction. As Mr Mosey stated, the extension of Century Boulevard to Frederick Road at Bullock will be required for this project. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this rezoning. Opelika Water States is a 12-inch water main on Century Boulevard and an 8-inch water on Bullock Street. Both connections will need to be made as part of this development. And Opelika Power will service this area. SPEAKER: Alright. This we just talked about number 13. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Number 13 at this time. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this project? OK. Would you state your name and address, please? FRED BENNETT: I'm Fred Bennett with the Bennett Group, 730 North Dean Road in Auburn.

We are the developers and co-owners of the Solstice apartment development, which is contiguous to the STARS development. It backs up to Lots 1 through 11. My comments are, first of all, I completely support the need to extend Century Boulevard. There is a traffic issue now, there, and in the future it will get only worse. So that's, I think, primary. But secondarily, I'm here actually representing the residents of the Solstice. We've developed this project as well as two others for seniors along Century Boulevard, Solstice, Shiloh, and Providence Park. And we have plans for a fourth phase there. So at some point in the future there will be 224 seniors trying to get on and off Century Boulevard and on and off Thompson and on and off Frederick. So that's a concern on their behalf. And then for those who back up to this new development, we've been very intentional about the landscaping. I hope all of you had an opportunity at some point to drive through Solstice if you haven't. I invite you to come and look at it. Each of those duplexes has a beautiful an eye on the back. We've got arborvitos now that are 10, 12 feet tall there. And these will be, I assume, two-story townhouses that will be backing up to us. So we would request that the Planning Department require either a privacy fence or a good vegetative buffer, at least along those 11 lots so that the folks who live there, these people have a very long, they're renters, but they have a very long tenure with us. They don't leave once they move in.

The other thing I'd like to point out is we have provided sidewalks in each of our developments, and there's a sidewalk all along Century Boulevard. And there is the patio home, I think, well, I'm not sure if the patio homes have made you remember, but this is a walking neighborhood. We've got a lot of people there who are walking, and I would encourage you to ask the stars to add sidewalks to their development, too, in time to the overall network of sidewalks. That's all I've got. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anybody else? LEE THARP: Lee Tharp, Kadre Engineering for the applicant. I just wanted to follow up on a couple of things. One, I believe the site, just speaking to the gentleman's questions, comments, I believe the sidewalks are going to be required regardless because of the public right-of-way that's going in there, right, Scott? So that'll be the case. Obviously, with the extension of Century, anything, if there are sidewalks there now, we're assuming that we'd be responsible for doing that to the point where we've got to extend it. And then, just echoing some of what Matt mentioned at the beginning, we've met with Chris Rogers, the fire department. We've talked with Scott and Matt a couple of times now, kind of leading back up to this conversation again. So we appreciate that everybody gives us a chance to do that and reconsider the project. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for approval.

Subject to staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: You have a quick question, Matt? On page four, I think it's number three. Uh, your recommendation is talking about the landscape buffers. To what extent is that? Just wondered. SPEAKER: So in most cases, we do not require landscape buffers when we have similar uses adjacent to each other. And while they are slightly different concepts, we do consider in most cases duplexes and townhomes to be fairly similar in size, so we typically require landscaping adjacent to the streets in this area. Uh, but we did not have any specific landscaping requirements geared towards between the existing duplex units Mr Bennett mentioned and the proposed development. SPEAKER: Does show trees and landscaping on that western boundary. Is that existing? SPEAKER: Yes. And OK. It does show some existing buffering there. You're correct. SPEAKER: That existing. SPEAKER: That is not existing. That would be additional buffer. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: So it does look like they provided some. And we can make sure that that is consistent with what is shown. SPEAKER: That'd be great. Thank you. SPEAKER: And they're taking into consideration the wetlands to get so many homes right close together. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: And what happens in a case like that? SPEAKER: What's that? SPEAKER: When I vote against it. SPEAKER: When you vote against? SPEAKER: Against this. It's just too many houses. SPEAKER: She's asking about the density question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I mean, so typically the way we look at density is we look at density based on the overall land versus what is being proposed. We have typically allowed people to count floodplain and wetlands and things like that because, A, we want them generally to preserve those areas, and we want them to impact them as little as possible. B, while they are unlikely to be heavily developed, it's not to say that you cannot develop in the floodplain or wetlands. There are ways to do it. It just it takes time, money and effort to do that. So we again, when we look at density, we look at the overall area divided by the number of units or the number of units divided by the area, units per acre. And so we consider that in the process. The other thing that we look at is, you know, what the surrounding uses are based on. And on Century Boulevard, we have a number of two apartment complexes and then multiple townhouse and duplex-style developments. And so I do think... I understand what you're saying as far as the dense development in one particular area, but I don't know that it's out of character. And so I think for you to recommend or to make a vote against it, you know, you just have to say that the reason why you're voting against it is because you feel it's too dense. SPEAKER: OK, we've got a motion. Any other discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Nay.

Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: The next item is the subdivision associated with the proposed conditional use. So this would be largely in keeping with what they have proposed previously for the conditional use for townhomes. This would be dividing those individual lots for approval. Again, the developers, Leith Arpra Kajder Engineering for Richard and James Star, 1500 block of Century Boulevard. The property is pending R5, should the city council approve it. They're proposing 54 townhome lots and then 54 lot subdivision with 48 townhomes and six open space lots through the development. The open spaces range in size from twelve hundred to forty six hundred square feet in size. So you've got you can see kind of the buildings by the narrow lots are divided by a couple of different open space lots through here. So one along the street A to the larger one at the bottom, and then one kind of back at the backing up to the stream, and then one along this proposed street B. And you've got some of the proposed open space here. And that does not include the larger kind of general development that is being cut out with most of the floodplain area. All the lots meet the minimum requirements for eighteen hundred square feet minimum and twenty foot lot width. There were a couple of lots we noted along the cul-de-sac that needed to make sure that they were meeting the minimum

size and setback requirements. Overall, we do feel that, especially based on the conditional use for will recommend a preliminary cloud approval subject to the rezoning. And then the sidewalks on both streets A and B be provided. All utilities should be underground, provide a supply. So the minimum of eight hundred and four square feet of air is met for those lots. Thirty four through thirty eight, thirty nine, and the setback is met for thirty four through thirty seven. Add a note that the HOA will maintain open space, provide secondary access. And that is superseded by the extension of Century Boulevard to the east to Bullock Court and Frederick Road with this development. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Because of their flat, the engineering department will receive roadway construction plans for the proposed public streets. These plans and this construction be monitored by the engineering department and other utilities to make sure all standards are met. Once the streets are constructed, it will be recommended for final plan approval at that time. All the regulations will be monitored by the engineering department and other utilities. Water stated that it will be also be served from Bullock Street as well as Century Boulevard. And this is outside of a black power services territory. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this project? Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for preliminary plat approval with staff recommendations. Second.

SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Do I hear a motion for us to adjourn? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Thank you.