Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: This microphone? MATT MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. It's live now. MATT MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And good afternoon. Just a couple things I wanted to go over with the commission before the meeting today. It's a very long agenda. And thank you in advance for your patience and willing to work through all of this. There are two items that have been requested to be removed from the agenda this month. The first is item number two, which is Piedmont property North. That's 34 lots. The applicant's Blake Rice with VSI for Piedmont Farms LLC on Waverley Parkway. This was withdrawn by the applicant. They made no reference that this would come back. So, at this time, they would have to come back in April if it were to proceed prior to the moratorium. But, it's, they did not specify that it would or wouldn't so. Item number 19 is the other item. This is a final plat for Firefly Phase Two A out on Columbus Parkway, US 280, going towards Phoenix City, Smiths Station. This is an application by Spencer Cothran with Holland Homes. This item, they are finalizing the streets out here, and the streets were not ready for final planning. So, that has been moved to your next month, basically. Because it doesn't have a final plat, it's, we can remove it off the agenda without having to go through a process. So, that neither of those items will be heard this month. Firefly, we do know, will likely be back next month once they finalize all their infrastructure. The other item I wanted to mention to you was we placed a couple items dealing with the moratorium, proposed or the moratorium that will go into effect on May 1st at your seat at the dais.

The first is the timeline that we prepared for the time during this, while we're not approving new developments. What this is gonna do is give us an opportunity to kind of take a step back, look at kind of where we're at as far as growth and development demographics, look at our existing infrastructure, look at our services, quite a few different things. We're also gonna be working, we've hired a consultant, the KPS Group out of Birmingham, who is going to assist the Planning Commission and staff with rewriting our zoning ordinance. And so, those will all be taking place during this timeline. We've gone ahead and set out a proposed timeline of when we expect to kind of start rolling some of that out. This will include some different types of communication, including a dedicated web page. Kind of talking about some of the different items we have. We're also planning on preparing a few reports to the commission, to the council along the way to give them just kind of some updates and general information about what we're doing. And then as we get into the next year in 2027, you'll, I think, start to see the wrapping up the zoning ordinance, which we hope to have you all again work on fairly heavily and then ultimately recommend to the city council for adoption with the idea that at in March, we'll be ready to provide some good recommendations to the council, to the Planning Commission on some of the issues we're dealing with right now. And I think some of those will come earlier, and we'll afford those as we get them, of course.

Or if we need to, in next March, we'll request a, the minimum extension we can do to finalize anything that comes up. Our goal is ultimately to do this within the 12 months without requesting any additional time. I think we can do that. Unless there's anything that comes up during that time that we're directed to spend more time on. But I wanted to provide that to you just so that you are aware of it. We'll be sending this out to the Council as well. And then, of course, posting it on our online social media platforms. But other than that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. SPEAKER: Councilors, do you have any questions for Mr Mosley? So, I'll close the working meeting and call it back to order at three. MATT MOSLEY: Thank you, ma'am.

SPEAKER: I'm going to call the March meeting of the Opelika Planning Commission to order. We welcome those of you who are in the audience, and want you to know if you've got something to say. We wanna hear what you've got to say. If you will go over to the microphone and tell us your name and your address. You have one time at the microphone, and you have five minutes to say what you need to say. Some of the items called for a public hearing, some not necessarily so. The approval of the minutes. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Any update on previous, Mr Mosley? MATT MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. We had quite a few of the previous rezoning requests moved before to the Opelika City Council for first reading. The only one that has been approved at this time is the rezoning. I believe it's on Uniroyal Road, North Uniroyal. There are multiple public hearings and second readings that will occur at the April 7th meeting of the City Council. On today's agenda, I did wanna point out that item number two, Piedmont property North. This is a 34-lot preliminary plat located on Waverly Parkway and Terrace Wood has been withdrawn by the applicant. If they were to submit that again in April, which would be the last month before the moratorium that they could do so. We would re notify everyone again of a new public hearing that would start the process basically from the beginning. So, if that does come back up, we would go back through the entire process again.

The second item is Firefly number 19. This is a final plat. They were not quite finalized, they had not quite finalized all their infrastructure. And so this was withdrawn until they have finished that portion, but otherwise, no other updates on the agenda. SPEAKER: Alright. Well, moving right along. We'll start with number one. MATT MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. Number one is Pine View Woods. Excuse me. This is a request by Josh Muir with Stanford Group for a preliminary plat approval. The subject property is located at the current terminus of Dunlop Drive and White Road. This was, same property was on your agenda last month for a rezoning. So, here you see the subject property. It's currently zoned R1. They have a pending rezoning request going to City Council, which the Planning Commission said a negative recommendation on this was to rezone a portion of it to R3 and then the other portion to R2 along White Road. The applicant this time is requesting a 33-lot subdivision. And what you'll see is there are 11 lots, which would be in the proposed R1, R2 zone. Ten of those lots are located on White Road here. The other is located in the turn of Dunlop Drive and Harwell Street, kind of in the corner. The remaining lots proposed for the R3 section include 22 lots located extending Dunlop Drive to the north. There was a lot of discussion about this at the rezoning. They, applicant has submitted a kind of revision.

This is, what they're showing in this first image is what Waverly Woods, the proposed development that has been approved to the north of this, currently is proposed to extend. And so that would have the property coming in Waverly Woods or White Road, and then connecting down. The applicant has proposed with this subdivision to change that to where this would no longer have an extension out to White Road. This would then take the traffic through this neighborhood to Dunlop, where the proposed new traffic signal's located. The lots in this portion of the Pine View woods meet the minimum requirements except for lots 11 and 22, which are I believe these. Yeah. Up to the top here. They are just below the size needed for the front property line. And then there is one lot, lot ten, which is 78ft wide at the front property line, located here at the top as well. Those would have to be adjusted to meet the subdivision requirements. We would require sidewalks on both sides of Dunlop Drive for the R3 section if approved, and sidewalks required for the ten lots on the R1 section, R2 section on White Road. We have given a, this plat is somewhat of a unique position because the Planning Commission did recommend denial at their last meeting. The plats are largely consistent with what was proposed at the zoning.

However, the, that would be up to ensuring the City Council were to approve the zoning. If the City Council does not approve the zoning with the negative recommendations that the Planning Commission provided, then the plat, of course, would not be compliant. We've given the opportunity to provide a approval if you like. I think you can also, could wait to see what the Planning, the City Council does with their proposed rezoning. I would go ahead and hold the public hearing since we have advertised it, but we did provide, if you provide a preliminary approval, that it be so with installing all utilities underground sidewalks required for all the lots, the showing the overhead power line change, the signature block, adding the owner's signature and address, provide the adjacent in existing subdivisions, add the minimum setbacks for lots ten, 11, and 22 so that they're 70ft, add all signature blocks to the final plat, reference McDonald Downs second edition, revise eight, lots eight, ten, 11, 22 and 31 to meet the minimum widths, add notes requiring shared drives, which are proposed now on the white road section here. So, these lots now show a shared drive between each set of two. And then add a turnaround on white road so that fire trucks and other vehicles can turn around at some point through the road. Correct the vicinity map and a connection, if connection is not made to the north, then a temporary turnaround will be required on this one. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. And I know Mr Parker has some comments as well. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes. If a preliminary plan is approved, the applicant will be required to submit an infrastructure

and site construction plan for review and approval. Once these comments have been made, the city construction meeting will be held prior to construction. Meeting will discuss expectations, requirements of the city, and other utilities (INAUDIBLE). All roadway include the construction be inspected and monitored by the Engineering Department (INAUDIBLE). Once the construction site is completed (INAUDIBLE). The lots on White Road will be required to ensure that there's 30ft from the centre of the room to the property line. This will be the right-of-way requirements for White Road. Engineering has no other comments, concerns regarding their preliminary plans. Opelika Water states the water is available from Dunlop Drive through blocks 11 to 31. Connection to the proposed stub out on Waverly Woods will also be required as part of this development. Water service for lots one to ten is available from (INAUDIBLE) White Road. The subdivision is in both Opelika and Alabama Power Service (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. If there's anyone who would like to speak for or against this development. Come to the microphone. State your name and address, please. State your name and address. DAVID BARNES: My name is David Barnes. My address is 531 Rustic Street. Mr Mayor and committee members appreciate your time. I spoke last time when we met, and I looked at the new map that they sent out. I did not see anything that addressed my previous concerns, which are still the same.

I welcome new neighbors, meeting new friends. I'm good. My problem is purely topographical. If you stand in my backyard and you look to the north or you look to the west, you're gonna see a pretty big elevation of a grade going up. So, what that tells me is I'm gonna end up with a lot of water in my backyard. I may end up with a duck pond, which I like to duck hunt, however, not in my backyard. But the thing is, the natural vegetation and the root structure of the trees that are there now are keeping me safe. Once that's gone, my safety net goes away. So, knowing I don't, I'm not opposed to this development, I merely asked a few considerations. Number one, maybe take lots of 31 and 32 and just leave that as is. Maybe put a couple of picnic tables, swing, set, teeter totter, something that's attractive for young couples to wanna move in. But you've left the natural vegetation alone, which is good for me. Number two, take those two laws, combine them into one to give the prospective homeowner enough room to go in and select cut a few trees, build their house, have a beautiful wooded yard when it's over. If all that is not possible, how about going ten feet from my property line, which I think they call a set aside, and create a swell that goes all the way down to the bottom down there to divert any water coming over onto me. And I haven't even thought about what's gonna happen when they widen the Dunlop going on through there

and then put in a sidewalk. You're gonna be in my garage'cause I'm right on that corner. And if you take any of that land, and I'm 74 years old, I can't go in there and reconstruct that whole wooden fence that's there now. So yeah, that could be a problem, but maybe that can be overcome, I don't know. But anyway, I appreciate your time. I appreciate your efforts, and I just wish, I just hope that whoever does the building will consider what I had to say, 'cause I know there's been a lot of handshaking and smiling and agreements made, but once the loggers come in and the bulldozers start running, all that goes out the window. So, this is my one-time opportunity to speak up or forever hold my peace. My time's up. I thank you for yours. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Mr Mayor, Madam Chairwoman and members of the commission, I'm John William Klein, 601 Rustic Street, my neighbour just spoke. I have three concerns, and they double down on what I said at the last Planning Commission meeting. The first are safety issues, the second water issues, which, I think, are very important, and the third, what type of houses these are going to be. First, with regard to safety, I think putting a stoplight there at Dunlop Drive and Waverly Parkway is really imperative. I would like to see a four-way stop with signs right at our corner, so traffic can't come blasting down the street and run straight across. Four-way is two-way, with really only one stop sign now.

But I think that would provide a much greater and safer traffic flow, and also for the children. My third concern about safety are the sidewalks. I think somehow we have to figure out how to do that. And my fourth safety concern is for the school bus. The school bus should come all the way down into the new Dunlop addition, not drop children off at the head of the street. That would provide a much safer egress for students coming home from school. Now, second, water. You've already heard that there is virtually a pond right behind my neighbour's house. That water comes largely from my house, down the hill. We thought we were the lowest place on Rustic Street until your house was built. And we thought we were safe as long as you were flooded, but now it looks like this is going to be stopping up. We can get as much as a foot of water in the corner of our lot, and what we need to do is figure out how to maintain, and this is very important for the developer and the owner, Mr Dunlop, the pond. The pond is just natural beauty. It must be preserved. Is there water coming into the pond from other sources? Yes, there are rainwater drains, and there's a small canal on Harwell Hill Street that takes rainwater directly down. Water from our side gets there eventually, seeping through the soil, and it takes a while to do that. If we build a house there, or two houses there, we're going to block that water flow, and we're going to have flooding in at least two or three of the houses on Rustic Street.

So, we either need to somehow develop a canal, a channel, an underground pipe or something that moves water towards the pond, or else we need to keep it in its natural vegetation state, which provides protection, and quite frankly, beauty as well. So, I support the previous speaker's request. And the third thing that I want to address is what type of houses are they? Often here at the Planning Commission, we have pictures of what is to be developed. Are these single-story or two-story houses? How many square feet do they have? You know, what is the configuration of the house? How far are they setback from Dunlop Drive? Or in the White Road case, it's even more complicated. There's more space. But also, on the map, it would be a help if we saw the pond located, drawn in, the pond, because the pond is going to be the centre and the most beautiful part of this whole development. I am not opposed to development or building, but I do want to make these the most beautiful houses, and enhance the beauty of Opelika, Alabama. We are concerned about the safety of our citizens, especially children, and about the quality of homes, and quite frankly, about the value of the houses that are already existing. At the last meeting, you heard from White Road residents how much they love living in the country. Well, we on Rustic Street enjoy the same thing with the woods at our backyard. But I thank you for listening to me, and I know you will make the right decision. God bless you all. SPEAKER: Thank you.

LINDA WILKINS-Klein: Hello, Linda Wilkins-Klein, that's my husband, 601 Rustic Street. I did speak at the last meeting, and I don't know, I'm hoping, I don't think we have a choice on our side. We live on the left side with the little lots, so that's probably gonna be clear cut. But I'm certainly hoping the White Street Road with the bigger lots is not all clear cut. That would be horrible. But that's, I don't have anything to say, but vote in that. I am wondering, this is a strange thing, but at the end of this picture, what is that thing that looks like a stomach? Is that drainage, or, I don't know what that thing is. It wasn't on the last diagram, so I'm just curious what that does. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) LINDA WILKINS-Klein: A retention pond? The other thing I did not know till you put your map up this time, I was wondering what was gonna come at the end of Dunlop, since it wasn't a cul-de-sac. I said, obviously, there's gonna be more buildings. And you showed, I don't know if it's already existing, subdivision that Dunlop extends to, but you took away the White Road entrance to that. Where does all that traffic, my major concern is the traffic. All this traffic coming down Dunlop Road, it comes up the hill to the medical parkway. All right, you put a light there, that's helpful, because West Forest Elementary's right there, lots of traffic going the medical parkway. OK, but then you go through the medical parkway, and guess what? You come out at the Honda plant at 280. That place is a nightmare. And we're gonna have all this traffic now coming through there, too. So, I'm just worried about the traffic. That's my major concern. The drainage, too, but the traffic, OK? Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you.

CHUCK REED: Good afternoon, I'm Chuck Reed, live at 520 White Road. I agree with the traffic, I'll speak to that. But at the last meeting, I did object to, or try to object to the subdivision coming in with the change of the road going down Dunlop instead of on White Road. I'm stuck at a spot of which of two bad ideas do I get, and with the traffic going, with the road not coming to White Road, that's our better option. So, I do begrudgingly say that that would benefit what we have on White Road. Since I only get one time at the podium, I will make a comment. I know the Carson-Jackson property's not gonna be discussed, but the Priester Road is. And my whole thing is you've got 117 houses coming in with the new subdivision. You've got another 33 with this development. You've got 30-something coming on Priester. You've got another, I think it's close to 50 on Carson-Jackson property. That's getting close to 200, 250 houses all on Waverly Parkway and Dunlop. And it's a zoo right now. So, you add another couple hundred houses, it's gonna be a mess. So, I'd like you to think about that. And this moratorium, I think, is to research some of this infrastructure, and I think it's highly needed in that area. Thanks for your time. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? DARLA GIBBS: Good afternoon. Darla Gibbs, 701 Waverly Place. I guess it can hear me. When you put up the map, again, it shows that it's

coming down right back into Waverly Place again. That is where some of the traffic's gonna end up coming in. If people don't wanna go out to the light, they're gonna try and make that hurry coming through Waverly Place. We have very small yards. Most of us are, I'm gonna say, 70 and older. We have no sidewalks. If this comes about, and they start coming through there, I would like to have a recourse to get the speed limit lowered to 25 mile an hour in our neighbourhood. We were told that it could only go down to 30. Even at 30, it is extremely dangerous because of the hill and curves that we have in our neighbourhood. And if they come in, like you're showing, with Waverly Woods situation, it's going to get to be even worse. None of, I walk my dogs twice a day, going up the hill or down the hill. And I can tell you right now, it is not a pleasant experience a lot of times because of the traffic that we already have in our neighbourhood. Adding more is going to make it even more dangerous for us. There are even some who are on walkers. So, please, take that into consideration that we do not add more danger to those that already live in these neighbourhoods. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? BRANDON RICE: Hi, I'm Brandon Rice, 724 Northane Road, Auburn.

I guess you could say that I'm here for both the Dunlop Family Investments and for the proposed developer. And I know this isn't core, but I'm used to doing this approach. I think it helps if you guys see these compared side by side. So, the first one that I brought you guys with the blue roadways, that's already approved. It shows 116 lots and there are two exits, one on the White Road and one on the Waverly Place. Probably by far, because of the way this subdivision's already done, and it's already approved, it's going to happen unless this second proposal is approved. By far, the bulk of this traffic is probably going to dump on the White Road of 116 houses. The one with the red lines, it shows how that's going to be altered. And I know that it was put up just a minute ago, but it helps to see them side by side. So, that's going to take that traffic off of White Road. And instead, it's going to take it through Horrible Hills, down Dunlop Drive, where there already is a light that's going to be at the intersection of Dunlop Drive and Waverly Parkway by, I understand, by the end of the year, somewhere along in there. What's being proposed now is by far the safer option. I mean, it's not great for the people who live along Dunlop Drive.

It's not great for the people who live in Horrible Hills, admittedly. But as Chuck said a minute ago, this proposal is the better option. It's by far the safer option. And that's really all I have to say. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear any discussion? Or do I hear a motion first? SPEAKER: Motion to table this item, pending city councillors to speak on negative recommendations. What I do think should be had is, because the next meeting is further than 30 days away from the public hearing, I think if you table it, you probably need the applicant's consent to (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Well, it is more than 30 days, but we have sent a negative recommendation to city council. We don't need to hear what the city council has to do before we can... SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am, I definitely think you have the right to say on that. I would say if the applicant does not want to table it, then the other option, if that's the planning commission's preference, would be to follow your recommendation at (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Is the applicant here? SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE)

SPEAKER: Alright, we're talking about tabling the, would you go along with that? We've already sent something to the city council, and we haven't heard the seventh. SPEAKER: I think, listen, I think you've got a horse and cart issue. We gotta, you gotta know this piece of property is going to be rezoned before we can approve this plat as shown. So, I think the zoning has got to be addressed before we can approve a plat that fits this zoning or not. SPEAKER: That is typically what happens over a few years, a fairly safe recommendation that you're recommending to rezone it and to approve the plat subject to that. This is somewhat of a unique situation. SPEAKER: So, I haven't heard anything from the developer. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, it shouldn't be, why? SPEAKER: Because in most cases, when we have a plat following a pending rezoning request, it meets the guidelines, and the planning commission has recommended approval. In this case, we have not recommended approval, and so I, you know, if this were to be voted on pending the outcome of the city council, you know, I don't know what the outcome of the city council is this time. The other thing is, I mean, if it is tabled, this is,

I would say if you want to know what the applicant or what the planning commission is going to do, it would either need to be tabled with the applicant's consent, or you would need to... SPEAKER: Go ahead and just vote on it. SPEAKER: Vote it up or down. SPEAKER: Can I ask a question? So, this has been really, really confusing, but going to city council, it is not the same proposal that came to us last month, because the White Road has been taken off it, right? SPEAKER: The city council request is just the zoning. SPEAKER: OK, just the zoning, OK. SPEAKER: There's an example of what they plan to do, but that is not necessarily what. SPEAKER: Just, I'm trying to make it clear, OK. SPEAKER: I'll second Tom's motion. SPEAKER: All right, we have a motion. SPEAKER: I'll second. SPEAKER: We can't table it. SPEAKER: We table it what? SPEAKER: As I say, if you table it without the applicant's consent, then the plan would be approved within 30 days. SPEAKER: So, it needs to be tabled with a result. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. So, if you table it and the city council votes to approve it, then it would not come back to you because it would be approved by the rezoning. No, the submission would be approved. SPEAKER: Essentially saying that after 30 days, it's automatically approved. We're not meeting within 30 days, so it's gonna be automatically approved if we don't vote on it today. SPEAKER: Automatically approved if the city council reverses the commission's recommendation. SPEAKER: Well, I think it would be a non-compliant plat at that point.

SPEAKER: At that point, it would be a non-compliant plat. SPEAKER: Still be approved by the record, but it'd be a non-compliant plat so that they couldn't do it because the zoning wouldn't allow it. SPEAKER: I think... SPEAKER: So, it's a much lift, so it'd be good. SPEAKER: So, what are our options? SPEAKER: If you vote to table, you're basically. SPEAKER: Approving it. SPEAKER: Approving it if it gets rezoned properly. SPEAKER: All right, so we just need to vote it up or down even though we don't know what the city council's going to do. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. At this point, if there's no additional information, I would vote on it up or down based on the current zoning and. SPEAKER: All right, Mr Benton, would you withdraw your motion? SPEAKER: We have a motion to table out there, so you need to go ahead and handle that as to whether or not you are going to table it. If you want to table it, you would vote aye. If you don't want to table it, nay. SPEAKER: Vote on that, or he could withdraw it. SPEAKER: So, let's just set the table aside for a minute, OK? And if it comes back to just an up or down vote, an up vote means what? SPEAKER: A positive vote would mean you're approving it. Now, you're approving the plan subject to the requirements, and it would have to get approval from the city council as well for the zoning. A negative means you're voting against the plan as presented, and you would vote on it based, if you vote on that, then you would vote on it based on the fact that you recommended against the rezoning last time. SPEAKER: But we've already recommended, but we've already made that motion. We've already sent that negative response to him.

SPEAKER: You have, but you would basically vote on it based on the same reason. SPEAKER: So, but we never heard from the developer. SPEAKER: And if they don't want to say anything, they don't have to. SPEAKER: I'll say it. I'll say it. So, I'm gonna make sure you find it. SPEAKER: So, Matt, when do we address the sidewalks, the stop signs, the concerns that they had to that they would be more in favour, the neighbours would be in favour of this development? How do we address that? SPEAKER: So, right now, what I would do is I vote on the tabling and then if that doesn't get approved, then you could have another motion and then discuss all of that at that time. SPEAKER: All right, so we have a motion and a second to table it. So, we need to vote on that. You need to vote on that first. All right, all who agree that it should be tabled, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Opposed? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Can I get a roll call? OK. And so, again, voting to table it. SPEAKER: Voting to table it says it's going to go through. SPEAKER: So, Mr Bowman? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: So, to table it. It means it's approved. It's coming before the commission, up on the city council on probably April the 7th. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: And if they say, we approve your, we vote for your negative recommendation. And so, the rezoning is denied. Right. So, then the developer would have to come back with another plan. SPEAKER: They would not have the R2 or R3 required

to make the plan work. SPEAKER: They can't make any changes. SPEAKER: Yeah. If we table it. SPEAKER: But if city council approves the rezoning, then this plan goes through automatically. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: If it's tabled. SPEAKER: So, we can't make changes if we table it? SPEAKER: That's correct. SPEAKER: All right, so, the motion is to table this. And you want to vote from each person. SPEAKER: Yes. Can we change our mind? SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: I don't want to table it. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: So, the motion to table fails. SPEAKER: So, you need a motion now. SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: Yes you can. No, we need a motion first and then we'll have some discussion. SPEAKER: Motion for preliminary PLAT approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All right. We have motion and a second. Any discussion? SPEAKER: So, the motion is to approve the PLAT, right? SPEAKER: That is correct. SPEAKER: Nobody's here to tell us about the drainage problems, about what kind of house is going to be built. So that hasn't been answered. So that's my question. Where's the developer that can answer those questions? My chairman, if I can speak to some of these in the report. After the passing of the funding plan, then the infrastructure plans, the grading, the drainage, and all the other plans will be developed and submitted to the engineering and other departments for review and approval. That's when the staff analyzes the grading, the drainage, and all the other influences of the development of the lots to the existing infrastructure, to the existing houses.

Now we do make sure that the existing houses are not adversely affected by the developments such as drainage. You can't send drain water from another development onto an existing house, so they'll have to either drain the system and pipe it away to the pond or to the detention basin shown in the preliminary plan. So that all will be addressed by staff after. Well, if the plan is approved, then the developer will perform the design and analysis of the undeveloped property. Developers tend to not invest resources until a preliminary plan is approved. Then the survey, the analysis, and drainage calculations will all be performed after the approval of the preliminary plan. And once those are done, they'll be submitted and analyzed by engineering, public works, and other departments and utilities for compliance with public works requirements and specifications for stormwater analysis, stormwater permits, and things like that. I cannot, we don't have any say so in the houses. What is going up is not submitted for us. What dictates that typically are the lot sizes and setback requirements of how big a footprint they can put on the lot. That's usually what directs the size of houses, but we don't have any control of that. SPEAKER: And once all that work is done, then it comes back to the commission for consideration as a final plan.

SPEAKER: So, Preliminary PLAT can be altered. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: And that live there and plan is basic lines on the paper showing what the lot spacing and size they want. The roadway width and approximate locations. Some of that can change between the preliminary and final PLAT. That could be a lot of changes, but there cannot be more lots associated with it. I think if they can drop off a few lots, that will be fine. But this... SPEAKER: Is it normal procedure for the commission to have a look at what is going to be built on these type of houses. SPEAKER: So typically, we don't require applicants to submit housing types to the planning commission for submission. So, we are looking at the way the property is being divided. You can ask the developer if they have any idea of what that would be, but it is not something that we require as an approval. SPEAKER: What about sidewalks and stop signs? And I mean... SPEAKER: So, the sidewalks are required on all these subdivisions within the city on both sides of the road. As mentioned before, and this is mentioned in Mr. Moses illustration, that the city does have a final design of a signalized intersection improvement at Waverly and Dunlop. A four way stop that was suggested at Waverly and Rustic should be considered with the completion of this, but that is just traffic and pedestrian concerns. Now, the sidewalks that the resident mentioned were mainly about drainage, and those would all be handled in the drainage plan and the grading plan. SPEAKER: But sidewalks added into Waverly Place, existing

neighborhood because this is, one side wins, one side loses. And it is very hard... SPEAKER: So that would be a separate project from the city. If the administration decides to put sidewalks there, then we would, but (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Sure. SPEAKER: But we've been improving sidewalks and we have added some here and there, but that'd be something. SPEAKER: To address that... SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: What about speed limits? How does you know with all that traffic? SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) minimum is 30 mph throughout the city on residential streets. It has been brought up before to lower 25 as minimum speed limit citywide, but that has not moved forward. Mainly speed limits are enforcement issue. Is it 30? Well, if people are driving faster than 30, they are certainly driving faster than 25. They are not going to slow down. So, it has to be enforced. SPEAKER: And I know the school bus stops has nothing to do but how does that get decided? Because I do think that was a very good point. SPEAKER: Yeah, I do think that, reaching out to the Board of Education with their transportation services to see if they could do more as far as drive further in the neighborhoods. I see in my neighborhood, they drop them off and kids walk a long way too. So, I do not know how those are. SPEAKER: Sure. SPEAKER: And driveways that pour out onto, in this case, White Road. Are we talking about every other... SPEAKER: That's correct. That's correct. And I will bring up something else with regard of this preliminary PLAT. Mr. Rice brought this up earlier with his illustrations that he gave you that if this preliminary PLAT does not pass,

there is a preliminary PLAT that is approved and active which will have that road going onto White Road and not going down Dunlop. So, there is an existing preliminary PLAT that is active. This preliminary PLAT will replace the existing one. That would eliminate the connection to White Road. I think the drawings are sending them out and might have those as well. SPEAKER: Got it. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? We have a motion to approve the PLAT, a preliminary PLAT. All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: So again, Mr. (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: I. SPEAKER: I. SPEAKER: I. SPEAKER: I. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: So, (INAUDIBLE). Subject to (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Item number two has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we are not requiring action. Item number three is a subdivision, phase one. This is a request from the applicant. The applicant is requesting preliminary approval for a 27 lot subdivision at 1911 Waverly Parkway. So here you see the subject property. I believe it was previously thought it was immediately

to the east here. And you have White Road across the street to the west of the subject property zoned R4. The applicant chose a subdivision that comes in with two entrances on Waverly Parkway, one down a single street. Lots meet the minimum size for the R4 zoning district, 7,500 ft², 16,000 ft² as well. We noted that lots 1, 18, 24, and 32 are the ones directly on Waverly Parkway and should not access Waverly Parkway. They should take the internal street access. We are recommending preliminary approval of this subject to the following. If they remove the setback lines on the lots, and some of them are incorrect. Residential buffers shown along the residential, which should be shown along the PLAT. Lots 1, 18, 24, 32. The adjoining parcel to the east is shown as part of this development and should not be and should be omitted. Proper names. The right of way for the parkway should be shown with at least, add the names of the adjoining subdivisions and correct numbering. There is an incorrect note for note five and utility notes are incorrect as well as the numbering and data shows 32 lots on here, and I think there were a couple that were removed. And then all utilities should be underground, and sidewalks be required on both sides of the internal street and along this side of the parkway. SPEAKER: Engineering.

SPEAKER: So, the engineering paragraph of standard settings for PLATs states that the applicant will submit plans to the engineering department for approval. We might comment on that for that reason all the time. I just kind of reference that. And then the second paragraph says all roadway construction will be inspected, and then bonds will be issued. And then a final PLAT will come up after the construction is completed for final PLAT acceptance. So, the first paragraph says. The third paragraph is what I usually add extra comments that need to be addressed at each development. So, this was the third paragraph. The number of lots in this development does not reach the threshold for traffic or turn lane analysis, usually around 60 or 70 lots. That is when you have the amount of traffic that would affect the turn lane requirements that we need. And so, this is still well short of that spoken to. So, we will not need to do an analysis on Waverly Parkway. And also, the access between the two roads of this proposed construction does meet the spacing requirements of Waverly Parkway. Our public works manual has requirements for how far driveways and roadways have to be from each other, and this does meet the minimum spacing requirements on Waverly Parkway. With that being said, engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this proposed plan approval. Opelika Water states that water service is available from the 18-inch main on the north side of Waverly Parkway, and whatever special insertion valves will be required for this connection.

Water service is also available from the 10-inch main on the western side of the road, if access can be granted from adjacent property owners. This subdivision is in Opelika Power Services territory. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this development? SPEAKER: Good afternoon. My name is Joleen Landry. I live at 1908 Waverly Parkway. I just wish when they sent the map out, they would put the adjoining property. That is where we are abutting, because it tells me I am abutting this property, but I do not see where. I think it is across the street. My concerns are with the infrastructure coming in my house. I have city water. I do not have sewer. I have a septic system. So are you going to bring sewer into Waverly Parkway in that section of the road? And are you going to make me tie into it? Because that is going to be a cost to me. Because my house sits back like 75 ft from the road and I am downhill. So that means I am going to have to have probably two pump stations, and the septic is in the back of my house, not in the front. SPEAKER: I believe I can answer that, ma'am, if you would. From what I understand, the septic of the sewage for this development will be coming from the rear, from Priesthood Road area. A sewer line that cuts across the property itself. So, there will not be sewer onto Waverly Parkway,

and therefore you will not be required to connect. SPEAKER: That's great. Now another concern I do have is the traffic on Waverly Parkway. I've lived here for close to 18 years now. My previous neighbor had two dogs killed by cars because they don't pay attention to the speed limit and they zoom on this road. There is no sidewalks where I live right now, but I know that they've put sidewalks on Fourth Street coming in and they're working on Veterans Parkway up to Dunlap with sidewalks. So, I don't know if sidewalks are coming in in my section or not, but I've seen two dogs get killed on my road so far. I've seen a person almost get hit. I've walked on that road. I've almost been hit twice. I am concerned about the traffic getting more congested and more people at risk getting hit by a car. So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention as well. Oh, and with all these houses being developed, are the schools going to be upgraded? Because with all these houses, you got a lot more families coming in with children. Those are my concerns. Thank you for having me, I appreciate it. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? So moved. SPEAKER: Excuse me. So moved for approval. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yeah, I've got a question. Scott, you mentioned that this meets the minimum requirement of spacing for the two access roads, and that it looks like

about 280 ft. What is the distance between the western entry and White Road? SPEAKER: White roads on the other side of the road. SPEAKER: Yeah, but if they're too close and you got two opposing left turns, it'd be. Well, is that ever looked at it? SPEAKER: The opposing left turns come into effect when the center turn lane. So, if any left turn will be ended through traffic blocking the whole traffic. SPEAKER: But is there enough space to complete those turns? SPEAKER: We don't have regulations on opposing left turn lanes with this situation. OK. SPEAKER: So so the roads don't line up as far as somebody turning, right? SPEAKER: Right. Well, they don't typically have to line up if (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Yeah, they do. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) there are lots of offset roadways. So, and John, to answer your question, I do not know the space and distance from White Road. SPEAKER: I would be concerned about there's not a center turn lane. Yes, but there does need to be an amount of distance to safely complete a left hand turn to get into your lane. And if both cars are doing that at the same time, is there enough distance? Have we looked at that? SPEAKER: It has not really looked at that. Can we? Well, I certainly will. On the preliminary PLAT that White Road is not shown. SPEAKER: Yeah, it is. SPEAKER: So. SPEAKER: Well, it's shown on the the colored map we've got. SPEAKER: But not along with the driveways. SPEAKER: Oh no, not along with the driveways. SPEAKER: Yeah. We can look at it, John. SPEAKER: And I'd like to I'd like to know that on the final PLAT. SPEAKER: We'll get. There. SPEAKER: I think we need to really think about what we're putting the stress on Waverly Parkway down there. That we need to plan it.

I'm not saying I'm against development down there, but we need to be thinking about the traffic. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? We have a motion for approval. All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? No. SPEAKER: No. Opposed? SPEAKER: Opposed. Me too. I think that lineup needs to be looked at myself. But... SPEAKER: Item number four is a request for preliminary PLAT approval. This is for Fieldstone Phase Four. This is north of the current Fieldstone subdivision development on South Aurora Road, just north of Crawford Road. Intersects the subject property. Property is zoned C3, so it's got commercial zoning here. Typically, commercial zones allow single family homes by right. They do require that they meet the R5 zoning standards for residential uses. So, these will be required, if approved, to meet R5 zoning. The applicant is requesting preliminary approval for 144 lots and eight utility stormwater open space lots. You can see the main entry point to this development on South Aurora here, excuse me, on South Uniroyal, near Lot 1. This goes down and opens up into a larger developed area. There's additionally a connection to the existing cottages at Fieldstone along, I believe it's

Riverstone Drive here, that would connect in, providing the two points of access. The lots meet the minimum requirements in the C3 zone or R5 zone. They are all a minimum of at least 60 ft in width. They range in size from 8,125 ft² to 23,000 ft², so they do exceed the minimum area as well. The density is about 1.88 units per acre. You'll notice there's a stream in the middle, with some of this left as open space, a detention pond on the corner, and then there is also an amenity site located right at the entry point to this section. Here you see a color rendition of what this looks like with the lots laid out. They do show trees in here, and we have captured that in the comments as well. Again, the amenity area with pool located at the frontage. You see showing a mail kiosk, playground, community pool, bathrooms, and then just another view of that, and then finally an entry feature. Based on its compliance with the existing zoning, we are recommending preliminary approval of this, subject to the requirement of sidewalks on both sides of the road. Additionally, adding a sidewalk on South Uniroyal on this side of the street. Utilities shall be required to be underground. A minimum of one street tree planted on each lot. Trees planted on private property, not on the right of way. Correct. A side setback to be 25 ft in the lot requirement. Add the note showing ownership maintenance on the proposed stormwater open space lots. (501) 507-7601.

And then include landscaping screenings for Lot 7, which is right along South Uniroyal from South Aurora here. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes. The infrastructure on site construction grading plans are to be submitted for review and approval. Then we will host a pre-construction meeting before a notice to proceed and receive all roadway and construction items to be inspected by the Engineering Department of Utilities. Once it is completed, bonds will be issued and the subdivision will be up for final approval from the council. Additionally, analysis will be needed to determine if left or right turn lanes are required. (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: For this development office, South Uniroyal Road Engineer has no other comments or concerns regarding this proposed preliminary plan. Opelika water states that water is available from a 24-inch main on the eastern side of Uniroyal and from an eight-inch main on Riverstone Drive. Connections of both mains will be required for this development. This development is outside of Opelika Power Services' territory. SPEAKER: Alright. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this development? KEVIN JAMISON: Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Jamison, 2320 Joules Way. I just had a couple questions and concerns about this. I live right on the corner there. I was just kind of curious what the storm retention pond is like. Is that just a field?

And if so, who actually maintains that? Because currently I have two empty lots next to me, and they only get cut like three times a year. So I'm just concerned about stormwater be mosquitoes, snakes. I mean, I already have like 2 or 3 snakes a year in my yard anyways. I don't want a breeding ground for them right there now. So that's just one of the concerns. Another concern he talked about the 12-inch water line and an eight-inch. We have very weak water pressure as is there. Is there water pressure gonna go down even more now that we're adding 115 lots. I mean, we have really weak water pressure in our development. Another concern is the traffic on Uniroyal. We're adding 115 more lots. We have the old Uniroyal plant right across the street, which is getting more occupied with more little facilities. There's a big distribution warehouse being built right down the street. That's on Uniroyal and old Columbus being built there. So there's going to be a lot more 18-wheelers, I'm assuming, with the distribution centre, more trucks, more traffic. So that's a concern of mine, and I guess that's about it. And I guess why couldn't they put a golf course there instead? SPEAKER: Anyone else? HEATHER LEDBETTER: Heather Ledbetter 3708 Riverstone Drive. I have one of the empty lots next to me. I think it's gonna be number 43. And my biggest concern with all of this is that Dan Rick Holmes, who has developed the part that we live in right now. Never put the final layer of asphalt on the road. The roads are terrible.

Our kids don't even like to ride their bikes around there. Or they can't skate. They can't skateboard. And is the new developer gonna take on that responsibility of putting the final layer of asphalt after it's sold? Because it's my understanding that they're selling the land. Maybe that's unknown, but thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? DELVIN KIRK: Good afternoon. I'm Delvin Kirk. I'm at 2215 Oak Drive. I just have a question about the pump station. I know a couple of years we've been having problems with it with all the housing company, and would there be another pump station coming in as well? SPEAKER: Is that a question. Oh, I don't know who the representative is. DELVIN KIRK: In my backyard, we have a lot of standing water back there with the drainage system. Would that be a better drainage system put in as well? Oh, I know. SPEAKER: It says a lot. That's already there. Your house? DELVIN KIRK: Yes. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: It may not improve your order right now, but it should not add anything additional to what you have. DELVIN KIRK: OK. Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? BRANDON BOLT: Hello, Brandon Bolt with Bolt Engineering,

and I was gonna address a couple of the questions. So we have been the developer, which is not the landowner, but the developer and I and the city have been in contact with public works, and they're doing a study on the pump station, and there's gonna be some participation between the two parties to improve it in whatever way it needs to accommodate this development and the one south of it. And I'm happy to answer any other questions that you have. SPEAKER: What about the asphalt concerns? BRANDON BOLT: Oh, the existing development. I don't know anything about that. The new development, they'll put down their base layer, and they'll bind it in accordance with city ordinances. SPEAKER: So the existing development was a long, long time ago. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Before I even started here, we went on a push to many years ago to get developers to finish out the rooms that were left undeveloped, and completely ignored all the requests I sent. And so they are still undeveloped. And the bonds have been lapsed and expired, and there's no recourse for that in some situations. The city has gone in and finished the buildings, and probably don't need to do here. SPEAKER: So the bonds on that have elapsed. SPEAKER: They've been decades. Yeah, it's been a while. This one the last ones that hasn't been finished yet. And since it's not involved in this one, I'm still hoping they would be involved in this instance or not. I don't think so. It's probably going to have to take care of that. SPEAKER: It was the original. SPEAKER: So the company...(INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: They know every response I sent

eight years ago or so. So we just went through it. So we'll probably have to address that. SPEAKER: So and then what about the questions on the retention pond. SPEAKER: So the retention ponds are maintained by the owner or the homeowner's association. So they are homeowner association are required to know and maintain the insurance. SPEAKER: On the water pressure issues or loop system there. How do you how do you improve that? BRANDON BOLT: Yeah, that's a 24 inch main in South Uniroyal Road. It should have ample. SPEAKER: If there's issues with water pressure there, it is not because of the individual services to the home because they're 200ft below and there's a 24-inch, right? So it's not to do with the water system itself. SPEAKER: We can also, if anyone has any concerns about existing lots that are currently not being maintained, we can put them in touch with the Opelika Environmental Services Department to get our code officials out there to take a look at those, because we can require those to be maintained. SPEAKER: Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for preliminary plat approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Can we add motion to add the completion of the (INAUDIBLE). MR FENTON: We do not require this applicant to do that, likely just because they're not. They don't have a connection to the previous phase, but we can do this. SPEAKER: Well, I'm talking about the new phase.

MR FENTON: Of the new phase. We require that it is all part of our process. We don't allow bonds to lapse like that anymore. SPEAKER: That was a long time ago, Mr Fenton. You know, we have a good procedure now where we keep up with the bonds and make sure that our subdivisions are complete now. MR FENTON: One other question is, do you address the turn lanes on South Uniroyal Road? SPEAKER: Yes. MR FENTON: Is that what this turn lane was? SPEAKER: It is. It was submitted to the package, but I didn't receive it directly. So we'll make sure that these recommendations are. SPEAKER: Alright. Just how many front feet. SPEAKER: These are they actually the R5 zone, which requires 60ft. So all of these slots meet the 60 foot minimum requirement. SPEAKER: And on the front page of your report, you talk about what the applicant provided a drawing showing two trees per lot. And you've got on your recommendation one tree. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. We can require them to. SPEAKER: Well, I just let's have a degree. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. We can require what they put in (UNKNOWN). SPEAKER: And so. OK 1.8 lots per acre. OK. All in favor? Any opposed? Any. Abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number five is also a preliminary plat. This is adjacent to the current development as well. This is South Uniroyal subdivision. So this is directly below the cottage fieldstone on the opposite side of the neighborhood from previous

plat again on South Uniroyal close to the intersection with Crawford Road. Again, this property is zoned C three. The applicant is representing John Dudley, property owner as some of you may remember, this came in a few years ago under a different name. I believe it's called Kensington at that time. SPEAKER: Called what? SPEAKER: Kensington subdivision. That has since expired. And so they're back again with this development. The subject property has 108 single-family homes at 2.7 unit per acre density, which is fairly low. You'll notice again, this has one entry point on South Uniroyal here, and then makes a connection to the South to a public road that is actually in the county here, to a subdivision below this providing a secondary means of access of the lots meet the minimum lot size, except there are one. Actually, there are two that don't meet that minimum, although they appear to be modified to do so. Let's see. We've noted the need for buffering along South Uniroyal against some of these double frontage lots. So people are looking at the backside of these homes as they drive down the collector road. And then we would again require that they meet the minimum landscaping shown here, which I believe is a tree in the front yard and rear yard for residential lot. We're recommending preliminary approval of this. And here you see again, kind of the same, similar layout. So you've got South Uniroyal and amenity lot here with Pool and William. And then you have attention lot here at the back and some undeveloped area as it changes fairly rapidly here at the very

back of this neighborhood. Kind of showing what the community would look like. And then some other examples of the entry feature. We're recommending approval of this subject to increasing lots 26 to 32 to meet the minimum, installing sidewalks on both sides of the street. Directing the note on the flat. Install underground utilities. Add a note on plat showing ownership and maintenance of the proposed stormwater amenity lots. Add landscape buffer along South Uniroyal road the frontage lots. Buffers should create a full-screen backyard and fencing located between the landscaping and the home, and no access to South Uniroyal 24 and 74 through 80, and then add a sidewalk down this side of South Uniroyal Road. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: We are required to submit infrastructure and construction plans to the Engineering Public Works Department. Once these plans reviewed a permanent condition for construction of the infrastructure on roadway and utility construction be inspected and approved bonds be submitted for the subdivision and then prior to final plat acceptance. (INAUDIBLE) has been provided for the plans and will make sure that the construction plans have the required penalties that are in the report. There's no other comments, concerns regarding the plan states that the 24-inch water main on the eastern side of Uniroyal should be accessed, as well as the eight-inch main on the existing port. Both access will be required, and this subdivision is in the Power Service area.

SPEAKER: Alright. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Make a motion for approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: I'll second. SPEAKER: Was there a second? OK. Any discussion? I'm all for this. Any opposed? Any. Abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number six is a request for preliminary plat on Columbus Parkway. This is the 280 subdivision. It's a 2800 block of Columbus Parkway. The applicant is Blake Rice with BSI representing the Grand Reserve of Columbus, LLC. You see the subject property shown here? It is across the street from the Firefly development and proposed (UNKNOWN) development below the city's treatment facility here. And just down from where Betty's Lane comes in to the development or comes into US 280. The applicant is proposing a 32-lot subdivision. Oh, excuse me. At 32 lots on 15 acres on Columbus Parkway. You see the access point here? US 280 Columbus Parkway. So one, one way in the lots. You'll notice three of them are actually amenity or open space lots. And so they would not be residentially developed lots.

So there are 29 developable lots. These lots for the most part, exceed 80ft in width along the front property line. There are a couple in the cul-de-sacs that are slightly lower at 60ft, which is common. There's a detention pond on the backside, a community amenity space, and then a common space right here along the entry from 280, buffering. There is also a fairly large utility easement running along the backside of this property. The farthest away from Columbus Parkway. We are recommending approval of this subject to installing utilities underground, requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street, and then requiring that no access be allowed from US 280 except through the proposed street and the frontage lots here where they back up to 280 be buffered, providing a double frontage buffer. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Will be required to submit infrastructure and construction plans to the Department for approval and review has been made and pre-construction meeting and a notice to proceed permit will be issued. All roadway until the construction will be inspected and monitored. Once the construction is completed, bonds will be issued, and the subdivision will be up for final approval from city Council. Staff is requesting future access connections be required to the east and west sides of this development for interconnectivity. We're also stating that Albert will direct the method of access and turning limitations on Columbus Parkway.

Albert has been doing a lot of work out here as far as regulating and restricting the access on Columbus Parkway. This part of town. And so interconnectivity is going to be very important as well as access. So there will be direct in those movements onto US 280. Other than that, engineering has no other comments or concerns with the proposed plan. Opelika water states that the eight-inch water main is at the southeastern corner of the property for access. And this subdivision is located outside of Opelika Power Services' territory. SPEAKER: This item also calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this development? J CONNOR: Hey J.connor with BSI in for... Excuse me. In for Blake. The only thing that, uh. And I didn't get to talk to him, but for just a second, he's got another meeting to go to, but the future access is we would request that the, the West connection be, you know, we're fine with that. The East is a larger parcel there. And they've got plenty of frontage on 280. And so we would ask that we didn't have to do that, but we can talk with engineering. SPEAKER: OK. With that being said the eastern parcel does have access to Betty's Lane. So when we're looking at, you know, access, we only want one on, US 280 every thousand or so feet. Sothe, the parcel to the east of this parcel does have access on Betty's Lane.

So they will be able to access there. I'm good with that request of allowing only access to the Western parcel from this point. So I'm good with that recommendation. J CONNOR: OK. That's all we have. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: A motion for approval. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? I'd like to ask on this. The colored map. It's got a little green line. So the street goes all the way across that property into what is the one across the street? SPEAKER: No, ma'am. This green line is a parcel line. These are two separate pieces of property. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: And so that's just the property line. It's it looks like it's a section line that goes. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: North and south, but it's just a parcel line for the county. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? SPEAKER: Is there going to be a 1000ft between their entrance. SPEAKER: So this is all the development property right here. SPEAKER: And the red outline, in between Firefly and this development. SPEAKER: So this very could possibly have access limitations. That's a very good possibly come in and said they can only have right on, right out with no access. So the applicant is aware of that. They just have to go through the analysis process and the process. And so we're gonna hold whatever Albert recommends for that.

SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number seven is the first of three items that are kind of tied together. The first is is a little different. It's slightly separate from the second two, but they're all dealing with phases of Cedar. What was formerly Cedar Creek now is being called Moore's Ridge. This would be Moore's Ridge phase one. This was originally Cedar Creek, phase 5A. So you see the property outlined here. It's shown as being R1. It is actually part of a pod that was not updated on the map. And so this was approved as part of the pod during the previous development, SPEAKER: Back in 2009. The applicant here is Mike Marr with Precision Surveying, representing Tim Moore, who's a property owner. The property is currently undeveloped and is located at Oak Bowery Drive and Cedar Creek, where they come together currently. The applicant is proposing to develop 5.89 acres, located extending Cedar Creek Drive, where it currently stops at Oak Park Drive. To the north, along what was previously shown in that PUD, these lots are 90 feet wide. The lots range in size from 17,000 square feet, so just above a third of an acre, to 24,000 square feet, so right around half an acre or slightly larger. Very similar to the plat that was approved by the Planning Commission back in March of 2009. It's not often we see something from that far, that long ago, that comes back and didn't get approved. However, this plat is consistent with what was approved in

the PUD for this phase in 2009, which is still valid. One small note is the development, as it is currently platted previously, although the open space lot, which is part of the next phase, shows this road. They are now showing the bottom section of this road, which kind of had a sub going back towards the rest of the development, not being connected here, likely being connected further up the road. So, if this is approved, this section of road would need to be vacated, the yellow section here, and then a portion would be on the next piece that we're talking about. We are recommending preliminary approval of this, subject to its compliance with the subdivision regulations and the existing planned unit development, subject to them updating the property owner information, the setbacks, noting setbacks on the plat, installing sidewalks on both sides of the street, installing a temporary turnaround at the end of the street here, adding the signature line for public works, the owner's address, verifying note 8, and then, if it is approved, the right of way, which is shown here, will have to be vacated along this lots 1, 2, and 3. Happy to answer any questions you have. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Now can be required to submit an infrastructure construction plan for the extension of the roadway to engineering approval. This review is made up of a pre-construction meeting will be held and a notice to proceed and permanent will be issued. All roadway construction can be expected, inspected, monitored and the final plan will be presented after construction is completed. Engineering has no other comments or concerns

regarding this proposed plan. Water service is available from its main on the western side of Cedar Creek Drive. Please note that for homes with finished floor elevations above 805, available pressure will be below 50 PSI, and Pumps for our homes may be required to boost the pressure. The subdivision is inside of our service table. SPEAKER: Would anyone like to speak to this? I know it's three parts, but... SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. So I take them all as individual pieces. And so I would hope for the eventual vote for phase one to start. SPEAKER: Would anyone like to speak to that? Public hearing is now closed. ANDREA STERL: Is there a better map that we can tell where we are? SPEAKER: You need to come to the microphone if you're going to speak. ANDREA STERL: Hi, I'm Andrea Sterl. I live on Heather Brook. We received the notice and had our property listed, but through the map that we were sent, we couldn't figure out how this is going to affect us. I wanted to see where Heather Brook comes through as it's kind of on the other side and part of Cedar Cedar Creek. So is there any way we can get a better map to see where the roads are and everything? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Because this is all part of one large property, you were notified as being adjacent property owner, although the actual development for this is only

on the opposite side of Cedar Creek Drive at this time. ANDREA STERL: OK. So none of it is gonna go into the wetlands that is behind us and the woods and stuff. SPEAKER: Not on the side that anything on that side would come at a later time. ANDREA STERL: OK. SPEAKER: Anyone else? CATHY CHASTAIN: I'm Cathy Chastain. I live at 602 Hill Flow Avenue. The best I can tell, it backs up to me on Hill Flow. Can you help me on that? SPEAKER: So hill flow is right at the bottom of this map. You're in one of the larger lots here. CATHY CHASTAIN: Yes. I'm two acres, and we're talking about point four. And I'm concerned on property values. What value the houses are, the sizes. That's my concern. Also, we have water issues coming down that hill, and it lands in our yard. So there... SPEAKER: At this time, this does maintain a significant amount of property between your lot and the developable area here, probably 100ft, the shortest portion. But future phases may include development closer to what... CATHY CHASTAIN: But we're OK at this point. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. I mean... CATHY CHASTAIN: I think I'm on that very corner. Well, I can tell. SPEAKER: OK. CATHY CHASTAIN: Yeah. I'm down by Heatherbrook. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. This is all on the east side. CATHY CHASTAIN: But I am concerned on (INAUDIBLE).

TIM MOORE: How y'all doing? I'm Tim Moore for those who don't know me. I'm here to answer any questions, Ms Cannon, that comes to Cedar Creek. I'm planning on finishing that out and developing it. Had some discussions with the city back for Scott and Matt about what we're planning to do there. It's been, I live in Cedar Creek, actually. I live at 42 Hill Flow, and the acreage that we're talking about is behind my house. So we decided to buy it and finish it out. I bought it over 20 years ago, and probably the first one to move on Cedar Creek, really, when that property probably changed its hands three or four times. So we got out of the foreclosures, a lot of dye ended up, so me and my wife decided to move forward on it. This first part of here is to finish up that road. It's been unfinished for many years. I think the course of some research, the water's already there, the sewer, a couple of little things we need to clean up and fix up. And frankly speaking, a lot of things going on down that road that need to be straightened out from what I can see. But long story short, I'm here to answer any questions that anybody got any concerns about what may or may happen and what my intentions are with Cedar Creek. So the first part is to do this, and I hope I got a plan to make the math work. We're dealing with a lot of different things out there, rock. That's kind of why it ran all the other developers off, mismanaged. It's not the best area to develop, but with the city's help, I believe I can make it work. SPEAKER: Hey, Tim, I know you build nice homes. What's what are your plans on these homes? TIM MOORE: Well, I'm planning on, if I can just be straight. I'm planning on continuing on that side of the Cedar Creek. I'm planning on continuing the size of what's there on Oak Park, because I built some of those houses years ago, too.

But, to be straight a little bit better, you know, to try to... when you're developing something, um, you know, you have to try to increase the value slowly. You know, you start off one spot, you say, well, now the other side, where she's talking about Heatherbrook, I built those houses years ago too, and they are the value is a little higher. So, if I can keep those houses up on Oak Park around the 400,000 range, it's where we're planning to start 200ft². SPEAKER: Good. SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. TIM MOORE: Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? AMY WILT: Hi, I'm Amy Wilt at 3307 Heatherbrook, and I actually had a question for Tim. Do you have a timeline to run Cedar Creek all the way through to Heatherbrook? TIM MOORE: I don't have the time. But what I can tell you first, if I can get this to go, which is we're gonna talk about, we'll talk about it later, which is about 17 lots on the first side, which I think is a great plan, because I'm all about making things work too with the city and everybody's being happy. On the other side, that's where we're going next. We're gonna go around to the west side of Cedar Creek Road connecting, which will connect behind my house, and everybody else that has the two-acre lots that's on deal flow. That may take two and a half years. It'll be after the memorial cluster, because I need to do something different there to make the math work.

So the first part is already in the plat. It will work. The second part on the left side is in the plat. It will work. The middle section that's on fold two, which is directly behind my house, and everybody else that has two-acre lots. It's gonna take some time to do that, probably two and a half, three years. CATHY CHASTAIN: Well, I'm in the corner of... SPEAKER: Does anyone have anything else to say to the Planning Commission? Not to the developer necessarily. SPEAKER: (UNKNOWN) for those future pages come up, we will notify people. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: With our requirements. And so you should get a (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: So public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion to approve with staff recommendations. Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: So, the next part is tied to, we're calling it an amendment to Cedar Creek PUD master plan. This is again a request from Mr Marr representing Mr Moore. And what this is, is this looks at part of phase 1B of the original PUD, which was approved back in 2004. The section in red is approximately four acres. It was designated as lot 55 and later 55 A, B, and finally C in revisions of phase 1B, which is the previous phase, which included Oak Park, Village Creek, Maple Creek, and those different sections. This plat was shown at that time as being listed and reserved for

an amenity, pool, playground and open space. Again, first platted in 2005, I believe construction on a pool and clubhouse was started in the 2009 to 2010 range. And if you go back there today, you can see the actual pavilion. And here you can kind of see the diving section for the apron of the pool, where it was constructed to some point but never finished. Eventually, I believe the city worked to fill in the pool to make sure that it wasn't a safety hazard. Mr Moore with everything has purchased the remainder of 80 acres of this, including what is 55 C, I think, last time. And as part of this redevelopment is proposing to change this from an open space amenity lot to five residential lots. These lots are all, I believe, 90 feet in width, kind of matching similar widths to what's in Oak Park and the proposed Moore's Ridge phase 1. They are a little bit deeper because they include some of the open space and stream buffer along the backside of this, because this is in the floodplain, excuse me, in the Saugatge Watershed. But basically, this is what he is proposing to do is to remove this from being an open space lot to a buildable lot. It's my understanding that Mr Moore is proposing to do this, A, because he was not the original developer of the first phase that this was shown and developed, supposed to be developed with. And that B, these additional lots will help make the numbers work to make the road be able to be constructed,

and would remove the unfinished improvements that were built there but never completed. And so I think we're 17 years from when this last came before the Planning Commission for this phase and 22 years from when this open space was first proposed. Because of all that, we are recommending a positive recommendation to City Council from the Planning Commission to change this from open space to residential units. SPEAKER: Alright. This item calls for a public hearing. SPEAKER: Engineering and utilities do not have a report for this rezoning. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear this is a motion to the City Council? SPEAKER: To amend the planned Unit Development Master Plan. SPEAKER: Motion for a positive recommendation to City Council. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Sorry. Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: So item number nine is basically a proposed preliminary plat that would mirror what is proposed in that amendment you just sent a positive recommendation to. Again, this would take the open space lot as it's currently designated and proposed to be changed to residential lots,

and that would clap those lots in alignment with that proposed master plan. Because of the five lots on four acres, you wind up with one point two five unit per acre density. Again, they have a fairly large, undevelopable area in the back of these that cannot be developed and would provide additional buffer. We did note on here, you'll notice that this piece is straight across the front of the open space lot, much like the previous one. You do have a slight bulb here, and so that portion would need to be vacated should the plat amendment and preliminary plat be approved. Other than that, we are recommending preliminary approval subject to the master plan being approved by the city council. A note on the setbacks, the note setting, noting setbacks on the plat in the notes. It's all sidewalks on both sides of all streets, or at least on sidewalks on the interior streets, and then on the north side of Bowery. And then note that the buffers remain natural, undisturbed, vegetative state. The signature line for over, like the public works have the owner's name, and the correct note eight and lots one through twelve should also be shown on this as well. Oh, and so your line needs to extend through lot fourteen, and Cedar Creek will need to be again vacated portion of it to meet the plat. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments or concerns with this preliminary plat. A block of water states of water is available from the (UNKNOWN) main on the western side of Cedar Creek Drive.

Same as before. Please note that for homes with a finished floor above 805, available pressure will be allocated to individual homes and may be required to boost pressure. This subdivision is inside of our territory. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Make a motion for preliminary approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Number ten is the start of the conditional uses in this packet. The first is a plan that you've seen previously. This is Yarborough Townhomes. It's located at the current terminus of Yarborough Drive near (UNKNOWN) Street, and it backs up to the railroad. The property is zoned C-3. The applicant is Woodson Harmon, representing H&H Development Partners, LLC. They're proposing 68 townhouse units off of this extension Yarborough Drive. The street you see going around development. Now, this was first before you in 2024. And they came back when they extended it from 56 to 68 units. The subject property is 11 acres. 11.4 acres. And so with the increased density, you've got basically

5.9 units per acre, six units per acre on the 11 acres. What you'll notice here is the way the development is situated. The townhomes are fairly centralized in development, so you can see there's quite a distance away from both the railroad track and the adjacent property owners to the west and then to the vacant property here to the east. We reviewed this based on the townhouse regulations and noted their requirements are being met. I believe these lots are... Let's see. I believe these lots are 21 feet in width. But they do meet the minimum standards for both the width, the separation, and setbacks for townhouses, and the minimum yard requirements. They've provided example elevations, including one car garages. The units are primarily hardboard or cementitious siding. This looks like it's board and batten style. They've also provided landscape plan for the development. We noted that the landscaping is largely compliant, and there is a proposal for undisturbed buffers on both sides, which we would feel would meet almost all the general requirements there as well. We are recommending conditional use approval for this to extend the townhouse sidewalk to North Yarborough Drive. Utilities be underground. Add a note on the site plan and landscape plan, noting who will maintain any of the open space on the west property line.

The residential buffer is required against the existing development that can be in a undisturbed or fenced condition. Any fences constructed in the townhouse units must be consistent, maintaining uniform appearance where visible. And then exterior materials must meet the cladding requirements of the Gateway corridor zoning ordinance. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The applicant will be required to submit a site construction grading plans for this development to review after review and approval, the city will host a pre-construction meeting and a notice to proceed SPEAKER: And permit there is no public infrastructure or roadway within this development, so there will be no special bonding of the roads because they will not become city streets. The city is working on the project that will connect the eastbound drive to an extension of Veterans Parkway. The timeline for the construction of the Veterans Parkway extension at this time. But Yarborough will be connected to the new roadway. This area has no other comments or concerns regarding this proposed conditional use. Opelika Water states that the eight-inch water main is available on Yarborough Drive to survive this development, and this is outside of Opelika Power Services. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE). This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for conditional use approval with staff recommendations. Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion?

All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. OK. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number 11 is a request for townhouses as well. This is located at the corner of South Seventh Street and Avenue E. The applicant is Kim Pilot, third, representing Pearson LLC. Subject property is located at again 519 South Seventh Street. So, here you kind of see the general area we're talking about Seventh Street and Avenue E, subject property zoned C2. They provide a kind of an overall aerial, and so you've got some offices across the street, some offices in residential unit and residential buildings across Avenue E, and then some vacant property back towards Eighth Street. Again, here is kind of a general plot of the property and then a site, the site view from the street here showing kind of what the corner looks like now. The applicant is proposing to develop the property into 16 townhouse units. This is located in the south side Geneva Historic District. And so final architectural review will be with the Historic Preservation Commission. The units will face either Avenue E, South Seventh Street, or there's one set that would face internally to the north, to a office building to the north. And then you would have parking located behind the building and in garage underneath the development in garages.

These are proposed to be three stories units. And we'll get to that in just a second. The future land use plan for this section shows this part of downtown as what we call mixed use downtown, and notes that it can be developed either in traditional mixed use where you have, commercial on the first floor and residential on upper floors or what it notes as middle missing middle housing, which is typically townhouse, duplex, twin home type uses to help support, small town character and, and maintain customer base for downtown businesses. The units are approximately 2500ft² as they're shown. Uh, three stories. And again, here, you see kind of the way they're laid out, you would have a garage, two car garage on the back side with a main entry on the front side, and then a bedroom or office located on the first floor, second floor has the primary living space with kitchen, restroom, and living space. And then the top floor has a two-bedroom component with a master suite and restroom facilities. They provided some, some general stylings, but this is kind of what a one of the four unit buildings would look like. So, kind of have a primary front entrance facing the exterior. They noted in the plan that these could potentially be used for home occupations, which is true. All residential units in Opelika are eligible to be used as home-based businesses. These may be better equipped to handle home-based businesses because of where they're located. First, and the fact that they do have a kind of

separated basement or bottom floor facility that could be used as a small office for insurance or an attorney, or something else that does not get a lot of traffic. We noted in the plan that the units themselves don't meet the current setbacks, which is not uncommon in our historic districts. These, I think, are shown as the front setbacks being, uh, ten feet off the front property line. If you look up and down South Seventh Street and Avenue E, most of those buildings through. There are approximately seven to 12ft off the front property lines, which is typical with our historic districts and historic areas. And so for these, we typically, and through historic guidelines, encourage them to move them up so that they match the existing setback of the dominant kind of character of the downtown area. In this case, it would be approximately the ten feet that they're showing. And so they would have to get a zoning board of adjustment variance for that. But it is something I think that staff would support. We did note as well, that they've provided a landscape plan, which the in general meets the landscape requirements. We did propose that they need to add some additional buffering, especially on the north side against the adjacent office use, because that would then provide a better courtyard and outside experience for the units that face that direction. And then they're showing trees along the exterior along South Seventh Street and Avenue E as well.

Overall, we are recommending approval of this conditional use, subject to, of course, that the buildings get Historic Preservation Commission approval. All utilities should be underground. Setbacks for Avenue E and South Seventh Street will require variance, or they'll have to meet the zoning ordinance requirements at the time. We are going to likely look at setbacks as part of our upcoming zoning ordinance update. So, I think we're going to try to align our historic setbacks with our zoning setbacks in many areas. And then units 13 through 16 will need to be screened from the adjacent property. A sewer line that runs through the property is gonna have to be relocated so that the building no longer sits upon it. I think it can be abandoned at a portion, but we'll have to be coordinated with public works. And then, where possible, existing trees should be preserved. Landscaping plan will be required showing all the full points. And any trash and garbage service will have to be coordinated with Opelika Environmental Services. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Applicant will be required to submit a site construction grading plan for the site for review. A construction meeting will be held, and notice will be issued after the review and meeting. Sidewalks shall be placed on Avenue E as shown in the plan, and any damage or out of compliance. Sidewalk on South Seventh Street shall be restored after construction. Engineering has no comments concerns regarding the proposed conditional use. Opelika water states that water is available from Avenue E and South Seventh Street. South Seventh Street. Connection will be two-inch connections for each building with multi-level vaults. The main on E will need to be replaced for that

extent of the project. This subdivision is inside of Opelika Power Services territory. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? TESSA TALLAKSEN: Hi, my name is Tessa Tallaksen. I live at 1022 Renfroe. You may have already clarified this, and I missed it, but who has a say in what it looks like since it's in the historic district? Is that something you guys have a say in? No. SPEAKER: Primarily, when we have items in the historic district, because the Historic Preservation Commission has much more detailed regulations, we tend to make sure that the minimum benefit minimum requirements are met through the Planning Commission. But the detail and in-depth review is done at the Historic Preservation Commission. TESSA TALLAKSEN: OK. I just knew that the townhomes that are near it that were built were very attractive and looked really beautiful, the ones across from the library. And I just wondered if these were going to need to meet some sort of threshold. So, thank you. KEN PILOT: Hey, I'm Ken Pilot, and the third representing Pearson and the owner and developer of the project. I must say that. Please ignore the crude illustration. I threw that together, in haste, trying to get something to Matt just to kind of show some scale. I am familiar with those townhomes that you speak of across from the public library. I would think that would be in keeping, if not something

perhaps maybe even nicer. To be honest. We've owned this property for quite some time and gone back and forth with trying to figure out, you know, its highest and best use, whether it be commercial or residential. You know, some, some sort of mixed use perhaps. And, you know, kind of came up with this idea. I think this is a new, a newish type of housing in some situations because of the bottom floor, bedroom slash office space. I think it will give people an opportunity that like Matt was saying, whether it be an attorney or a realtor or somebody, you know, a young professional or older professional age knows no number, but it gives them the opportunity to, you know, work from home and have a dedicated space, and still feel a part of the downtown, you know, society and community as a whole. And then also having the post office across the street, I think it will also be very beneficial as well. And we welcome any comments or any questions, be happy to answer anything and everything. So, thank you. SPEAKER: Did you ask for questions right then? KEN PILOT: Yes, ma'am. I'll be happy to answer some. SPEAKER: Is there a garage? Where do you park? On the street. KEN PILOT: Yes, ma'am. So, if you look at the, and it's real busy. The drawings pretty busy. But if you look at the first floor, it's actually this first floor comprises of a two-car open garage, open bay garage, so that the residents will park actually under the facility. If we're able to get the 16 town units, then we can do the three floors.

And so the residents would park in, and then their guests would park behind, if that makes sense. So, a total of four parking per townhome. SPEAKER: OK. KEN PILOT: Does anybody else have any questions? I'd be elated to answer. SPEAKER: What is the common area? KEN PILOT: The common yet to be determined, but it's an area set aside for just that, some type of green space, some type of communal, whether it be a communal garden, a dog area, playground. It's yet to be determined, but just wanted to go ahead and designate that space as, hey, this, this space is, we wanted to come up with this design, to where we didn't have just a standalone parking lot for guests. And so with doing the third story and adding in the garages on the bottom level, and then being able to part two, two more units behind that gave us that area right there. That's right in the middle to do something, you know, tasteful, with whether it be a little, a little park. But it's, you know, something, but it's yet to be determined. SPEAKER: It would not be on purpose. It'll be impervious. KEN PILOT: It'll be permeable. Yeah. And I would be amiss if I said we could build a pavilion there, like you've seen in some other common spaces. I mean, there could, there could be, you know, there could be a cause for that, but not the entire space, but there could be, like, a little pavilion, like a gathering pavilion.

Eddie, I know you got a question for me. You're looking at me. EDDIE: I just think you ought to sit down, and quit talking. KEN PILOT: OK. I'll be happy to do that. Thank you for your time. SPEAKER: I second. SPEAKER: Anybody else to speak? Alright. The public hearing is closed. Commissioners. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Make a motion that we approve. SPEAKER: I'll second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Just a quick question. Matt, what is the parking? What is our ordinance to say about home-based parking for customers? MATT: So, we don't prescribe a, a specific number. But we tell people basically that you need to provide parking to accommodate anybody who visits the home-based business. We also don't encourage, in most places, people to have customer-intensive home-based businesses. So, while we don't, we don't say, you can't have anybody ever come to your home for a business. We, if we start getting complaints from the neighbors about too many people showing up there, then we would let them know and look at how we correct that. I will tell you, based on the size of the office, it's shown here, it would not be more than one space, most likely for an office space. It's not a very large space. So, it's not like you would have multiple people working from one spot. SPEAKER: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Anybody else to speak to this to have a discussion? All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries.

MATT: Item number 12 is a request for a multifamily cottages. This is also one that you've seen previously. Let me get to that phase. This is a request from Kurt Haley representing Haley Investments, LLC at 1150 Fitzpatrick Avenue. The applicant is proposing 18, detached single-family homes on a single lot as condominiums, which is technically falls as apartments in our zoning ordinance, the subject property is zoned C-2. It's located between Fitzpatrick and Elliot, right where Simmons comes in. And so you kind of have a variety of uses through there. There's some commercial office, some warehouse uses, and then single-family and behind, some townhouse units on Elliot, going up towards Floral Park. Subject property is 1.99 acres or just under two. The density proposed as proposed would be nine and a half units per acre, which is under what's allowed in the C-2 zone. You've got a range of developments, I think between two to 18 units, depending on which way you go. So, of course, some of these are fairly small or fairly large lots, which gives you a lower density. And then the townhouses is a higher density. So, this is kind of within that range of overall density. The units are all exceeding 800ft². They're shown as being 15ft from each other. This is kind of the existing site. Just so you have an idea of where this is. It's been used most recently as a lay-down yard for one of the utilities. So, this is not the applicants. This is a utility that was using it for for a time.

And then on the backside, you can kind of see how it comes off. Elliot with the townhouses over to the left. And here's the site plan from the applicant. And this is very similar to what was shown to the planning commission back in 2019. And you've got a fence entry. (CROSSTALK). With multiple units, these are, I think, a mix of two and three-bedroom units. They've got two parking spaces shown for each kind of in a grouped section. So, they're not actually individual. And this does provide the max or the needed parking for the entire site. They've also provided a landscape plan. This requires 194 points and 57 parking lot points. I think there were just a couple minor things there as far as the requiring the buffer, and they provided a six-foot buffer against the existing residential on the west side here. So, with these, we have typically require that conditional uses for multifamily meet the gateway corridor requirements. And they've provided us some elevations. We also showed kind of the elevations that were proposed at the time, noting that the newer elevations tend to be a little bit more modern look to them. So, you've got the front here with a single shed roof going towards the back, kind of an overhang. And then, this shows the floor plan as well. So, the first floor has the living area, the second

floor has the, uh, bedrooms. And then on a three bedroom unit, slightly larger building, you've got a one bedroom on the first floor and then two bedrooms and some open area on the, the or two bedrooms on the second floor. This was kind of what was previously shown as the elevations here, which is really the only difference, I think, from the first and this current proposal we're recommending. Conditional use of the request subject to sidewalks being required along Fitzpatrick if they are not already there, and sidewalks be from the internal development be extended to the public sidewalks. Add one handicapped parking space. Meeting the requirements and then open space, or excuse me, the exterior materials meet the gateway corridors. The dump, any dumpster, would need to be screened and coordinated with the Opelika Environmental Services Department and revised landscape plan to meet the overall requirements of the zoning ordinance. Any. Each unit must exceed 800ft² in heated and cooled space. SPEAKER: (CROSSTALK). Will be required to submit Grading plans. The above works for approval. Once these are reviewed and improvements have been made, a construction meeting will be conducted, and a permit will be issued for construction. One note that we're gonna request an eight-foot-wide shared-use path be placed along Patrick Avenue instead of the four or five that shown. This will match the eight-foot-wide path that ends right at Fourth Avenue. Fourth Avenue as fourth Avenue ends. And that's what we're building on Waverly Place. So, it'll match the entire plan once it gets constructed. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding the proposed conditions approval.

Opelika water states water is available for the six-inch main on the south side of Elliott Avenue, and the subdivision is inside Opelika Power Territory. SPEAKER: This item also calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? STEVE PENLAND: Good afternoon. I'm Steve Penland. I live at 1019 Fitzpatrick Avenue. I noticed earlier there were. I believe there were four items on the agenda today. It's now three that funnels traffic onto Waverly Parkway and Fitzpatrick Avenue. The subdivisions now will encompass 62 lots and 18 cottage condominiums. I don't think there's ever been a traffic study that's done out there, especially with all this new coming in. Waverly Parkway turns into Fitzpatrick Avenue, which turns into Fourth Avenue, which ends well with stops at the intersection of North 10th Street and Fourth Avenue, which is the four way stop there that is extremely congested every morning and every afternoon, and it's one of the most congested intersections on the north side of town. Also, this project is across the street from two commercial properties and also from Simmons Street, which school buses turn every morning and every afternoon onto Simmons Street. It's already completely congested. I'm just inquiring about what's gonna be done to alleviate all

this new traffic that's gonna be right there within a block. 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. SPEAKER: Second. (CROSSTALK). SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: So just to be clear. Mr Mosley. All we're doing is. Looking at approving the conditional use of this particular piece of property without looking at elevations. We're not looking at a plat, even though plat is. MATT: I mean, in this case, you are not looking at a plat because this is not gonna be divided into individual fee simple lots. And there's not gonna be a public road here. This will all be at most a condominium plat, meaning they would be divided through Alabama condominium laws. The conditional use itself does allow you to look at elevations and whether or not they are, or not you feel they are in harmony with the surrounding area. So, that is something that can be considered with this. SPEAKER: And the reason I ask that is because looking at the difference in elevations between 2019 and 2026, there's a lot of different settings. And I don't, you know, personally, I don't think it fits the character of the area (INAUDIBLE) elevation 2026. SPEAKER: Yes. The character. SPEAKER: I have one more question. (CROSSTALK).

So, no traffic study. I mean, because I do I live on fourth and ninth. So, I know I traveled every day, and it's already, it's very congested at 10th (CROSSTALK). And I'm sure it hasn't worn one yet. Correct. SPEAKER: Well, individual developments like this don't add the amount of traffic that triggers a traffic study now, I guess. Accumulated (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: We're looking possibly at a scenario. Where we'll need some justification or approval, or improvement. But that situation, the existing situation like 10th and fourth, is kind of unique and difficult because, you know, there's really not enough room for a larger intersection improvement because the church and the existing houses around there, or a roundabout. So, kind of limited about what we're looking at here in this part of town. I mean, it's just the growth of the city is, is what's impacting the traffic that we're having. You know, if we were to look at a traffic study. What recommendations would we be looking at? Yeah. So, there's a lot of things that occur with growth of the community. And this is one of the things you are looking at increased traffic. But in my opinion, we are still well away from a congestion capacity-limited issues. SPEAKER: I know this would be a change to the site plan, but as Mr Penton pointed out, it sort of doesn't fit the neighborhood. Most of them are single families and small businesses along this, and you're about to jam quite a bit of homes on one track. I'm wondering if you could shift their drive to line up with Simmons Street, and they would adjust the site plan quite a bit, but if you're gonna dump that many residents into one onto a drive, why not line it up with Simmons and C

and make it a little more cooperative on Fitzpatrick? SPEAKER: And are you gonna address it? MATT: I mean, I can I can ask the engineer or we can ask the applicant to address those potential issues if you'd like. SPEAKER: Well, my discussion would, and I don't know exactly what Sheldon said, but it would be I won't say easy, but because the property is right across the street from Simmons Street, for the driveway to line up with Simmons Street as opposed to half a block down, in front of the convenience store. Just seems like we're getting off center for so many streets, and we've got an opportunity to make it right. (CROSSTALK). OK. But it's still, I mean, Simone's street comes into the side of it. Any other discussion? All who are for this, say aye. Any opposed? I know I'm opposed. (CROSSTALK). Do we need a person vote? MATT: Yes, ma'am. Mr bug. OK. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Nay.

SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Nay. MATT: So, it comes at 4, 4, which means the motion does not pass. SPEAKER: OK. MATT: Alright. Number 13 is a request for conditional use approval for a wine retail and lounge. The retail portion is actually allowed by right to C-1 zone. The lounge component of this would be a conditional use. So, here's the site, adjacent to the breezeway. The applicant in this one is Joey Brooks for Kurt Haley, who's the property owner. They provided us a site plan of the interior of the building. You see, the front of the building is located on the left side, there's a circular staircase that goes up to a small sitting area, and then it just kind of continues back. Through the side. And here's kind of that developed out. So, you see the different tables and booths that would be located along the edge. The site is intended to be 70% retail sales with some wine and beer consumed on site. However, we recommend a lot of times if they think that they may be, it may be more majority of on-site consumption to go ahead and get conditional use just to be safe. That allows it to be used both as retail and lounge sales.

We've noticed, again, that the hours proposed here are closed on Sunday and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from noon to eight. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, noon to ten. The overall site is approximately 15,000ft², but they're proposing to have an occupancy of approximately 50. That'll be approximately 30 for us. And that will be confirmed through our building codes. This building is somewhat unique just because of its size and its location. And so we do feel like the use is appropriate at this location. We don't require parking in the C one zone, and so none would be required with this. They'd be able to use on-street parking or Courthouse Square, which is right around the corner for their parking. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments or concerns regarding this conditional use approval. Opelika water is currently serving this location with three quarter inch meter, and Opelika Power is currently serving this location. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion. SPEAKER: To approve conditional use? Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MATT: Item number 14 is a request for conditional use for multifamily residential apartments. This is at Tree Top Apartments.

The site is located at 2908 Birmingham Highway. This has also been before you. Some time ago in 2009, 2021. The applicant property owner is Mike Boden and Brad Boden. The current Treetop Apartments development consists of three buildings. The total site is 32 acres. And here you kind of see it off of Columbus Parkway. You can really only see kind of the entry zone sign here. What they're proposing, sorry, Birmingham Highway, not Columbus Parkway. 282. I apologize. So, you have the main entrance that is currently there now. And then there are three buildings, A, B, and C, that are existing. The applicant is proposing to remodel those buildings and then add an additional nine buildings, bringing the total up to 12 total buildings. There would be a total of 600, and let's see. Excuse me. There would be a total of 338 units. With the addition and 624 bedrooms. The current makeup of the three existing buildings are primarily three-bedroom units. The new buildings would primarily be 101 one-bedroom units and 174 two-bedroom units. Excuse me. 100 and 108 one-bedroom units and 158 two-bedroom units. So, it's going from 72 units to 338 with this proposed development. They're adding a secondary access point on Birmingham

Highway here, further back towards the east southeast. And then you see kind of how it lays out through the development. Overall, the density is well under what's allowed in the RFID zone. It's approximately 10.58 units per acre. They're proposing a mix of open and garage parking. We did note that there are, I believe, 678 parking spaces provided, 676 were required. So, they meet that they meet the impervious surface ratio and the overall building ratio. They are proposing to add a fairly large resort-style pool, some dog parks throughout the area, and other amenities. And then they have provided a landscaping plan that adds additional trees throughout the proposed and new development, meeting the requirements. We are recommending that they maintain this existing buffer against 280. So, that there is still some privacy for the residents as this develops. The future land use for this site shows this as increasing density and as potential for multifamily, and so we are recommending approval of this. Subject to the following that they provide elevations that meet the gateway quarter cladding, which they have done. So, here's a proposal of what that may look like. Add the residential buffer to the areas adjacent to our five. Any gates would need to be coordinated with Opelika Police and Fire Services. Trash service would need to be coordinated with Opelika Power Environmental Services. And then, if the natural buffer between the buildings and the road is removed, a new buffer should be required outside of the power easement.

SPEAKER: (CROSSTALK). That will be required to submit construction plans for the site for review and approval? Construction meeting will be held after review, and all permits will be issued at that time. Albert will direct, regulate, and regulate the method of access of any and any restrictions to the existing or future access highway. Engineering has no comments regarding the proposed condition of approval. Opelika water states that the Water Service's existing complex has approved in 2021, eight-inch master meter will be required to be installed. The entrance of the complex will have private water services beyond this master meter. Opelika Power Service. This site. SPEAKER: Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this development. Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for conditional use approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: One thing. So, it's right now there's 772 existing apartments. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: That's. And we're adding 266. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. That's correct. SPEAKER: And the second entrance is it where there's a curb cut already in on Birmingham Highway. SPEAKER: It's never addressed that. SPEAKER: It's what? (CROSSTALK). OK. PARKER LEWIS: Yes. Parker Lewis with hydro engineering. No.

The second entrance is not at a curb. It's not a crossing on 280. So, that second entrance is a right in. Right out only. (CROSSTALK). We've, this project was fully approved through Aldot, approved through Opelika. We were on the threshold of beginning construction. And then Covid happened, and some other things happened. So, we're prepared to come back to Scott and engineering for a rereview of these plans. The full plans are completely done. That's not changing. We'll have to go back to Aldot for their rereview. We're gonna do all of that. But this was step one. (CROSSTALK). Yes, I believe so because the three existing buildings are being fully renovated. So, that will happen. Those residents will be relocated, and then, and I don't know the exact, I don't know if they're gonna do all those three, they'll probably do those three while they're doing the larger construction because it's gonna be a decent amount of disturbance with the new buildings as well. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. And I'm gonna remove myself from the dais for the next item. MATT: So, Mr Swetman is vice chair. You'll step in item 15. Yes, sir. So, item 15 is a request for conditional use approval for apartments. This is 265 units located at 3655 Veterans Parkway. This is located southwest of the corner of the intersection of Birmingham Highway, US 280, and Veterans Parkway.

Behind what is has been the shopping center or public shopping center. The applicant for this is Trey Dikes with Woodruff Real Estate representing Pyramid Hill, LLC. Subject property is currently undeveloped and zoned C-2 in the Gateway Corridor primary. The overall development is approximately 27.4 acres. It would be located behind the proposed public shopping center here on a new street that would be constructed with these developments, you have a fairly large track that would be located on the southwest of that would be almost all, it would be all multifamily kind of walk-up apartment-style units. And then across the street, you have 12 townhouse units. That would kind of face the street here as well. You've got 121 one-bedroom units, two, 114 two-bedroom, and then 18 three-bedroom units. 12 of those three-bedroom units are the townhouses, across the street here. For the most part, the development around this is largely the property is largely undeveloped. As I said, this is in the C-2 zone Gateway Corridor, which is a conditional use. Our future land use plan for this shows the property being shown as what we call corridor commercial is kind of general commercial meant to for regional attraction of commercial and regional patrons.

You often see a apartment style development associated with something like this. Helped again stabilize the use as far as grocery and retail uses, we've noted that the roads and sidewalks will need to be installed, with or prior to this occurring, the new street located here that will wrap around the Gateway Corridor. Setbacks are 40 foot on the corridor, which would be veterans in this case, and then 20ft on any side or rear. I think all of these are compliant. There may be one section here that would need to be adjusted. However, this site does not take direct access off of the Gateway Corridor. It takes access off of a secondary street here, so Planning Commission can approve waivers to those setbacks as well, including and we noted those, townhouses along the new street would be closer than what would be required on those as well. Feel like these, these setbacks, where they're brought up closer to the street with parking behind it, creates a better visual reference for the rest of the development as well. So, you'll have parking behind these proposed townhouses. This noted the overall development requires 530 parking spaces. I think they've only required 527, so they would have to add three parking spaces or meet the requirements as in place at the time of development. I do think as again, as part of our zoning ordinance update, we're gonna look at parking specifically for multifamily to make sure that we're requiring the right amount. In some cases, I think we, our standard is more than

is, is what is necessary. And so I don't have a problem for seeing them being able to meet that. We've noted that the trash facility needs to be screened and meet Opelika Environmental Services requirements. They have provided a landscape plan that more than exceeds the base and parking lot required landscaping. SPEAKER: They are showing a residential buffer along the west side here, which is against some unincorporated property in the county for a large section. There's also, a lot of this also occurs across the development from a sewer easement, and I'm not sure that they plan on developing this section at all, which if that's the case it may be better served as left in an undisturbed buffer. We would like them to require or add some buffering for a proposed street that would go in front of this and parallel 280 or Columbus Park or Birmingham Highway adjacent to the proposed public's development. Overall, we feel like this proposed use and site plan are consistent with the zoning ordinance, and we're recommending approval subject to them adding the street buffers for the new street and future streets and the zoning ordinance. And the planning requirements located in the public right-of-way if the City of Eau Claire approves or may be located if the City of Eau Claire approves. All four sides of the development must meet the gateway corridor requirements in terms of materials, roofline, fenestration and should be consistent with the elevations. They have provided elevations, you'll see them here. It's a mix of looks like cementitious siding and simulated masonry or sewn with metal roof. The amenity space and then the town house uses should be noted on here right at the main part of the entry you see a very large amenity and clubhouse space as well in the middle. We've also noted that the garbage facilities should

be enclosed on all sides with an opaque fence so it's not visible and coordinated with OPLAC environmental services. All utilities should be underground except for any overhead required transmission lines. All mechanical and HVAC screen from the public right-of-way. Any gates be coordinated with OPLAC public safety. At least two entry points meeting life safety codes will be required, and both drives shall be required to provide access to residents. The sidewalks will be required along both sides of new streets. Residential development will need to tie private internal sidewalks to new public streets, and the development will need to coordinate with the OPLAC engineering department regarding potential sidewalk on veterans' parkway. If not installed at the time of construction, a multi-use path will be required along veterans. Site will require to meet the minimum parking requirements of the zoning ordinance or the at the time of construction or seek a variance and any the layout of the proposed lots will require the area to be replanted replatted to meet this configuration. Currently, the layout of the lots through here are slightly different than what is shown, but it's not significant. Again, we are recommending conditional use approval of this. SPEAKER: Engineering? SPEAKER: Engineering will review the site construction plans and issue permits for all construction and non-construction construction. Other than that, engineering has no concerns regarding proposed conditional use. OPLAC water status, the water is available from 12 inch main on veterans'parkway and US Highway 28. Connections to both locations will be required for this development. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. If you'd like to speak for or against, please come to the podium at this time. Having none.

SPEAKER: Mr. Chair I make a motion that we approve subject to plan the recommendations. SPEAKER: I'll second. SPEAKER: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? SPEAKER: On Highway 28 there is an entrance. SPEAKER: The main entrance is off veterans' parkway. SPEAKER: But there is an entrance. SPEAKER: There will be and with the total build out of the... (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Any other discussion? Do I have a motion? I'm sorry. You got a motion. All in favour. Aye SPEAKER: Any opposed? Abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number 16 is a request for conditional use at 110 South 8th street. This is a request for apartments on the second floor in the C1 zone. The applicant is Jeremy Clark with Compass Construction for CJCF LLC. This many of you, so here's the location in the C1 zone just north of south of south railroad and 8th street. This is an older picture, but this is the building the yellow one we're talking about which was formerly the downtown cleaners, and it's currently being remodelled by the applicant. They're proposing to put two residential units above the first floor. Each unit is about yeah units are approximately 1250 feet square feet.

So, you have the second floor basically coming up a hallway and into an interior hallway which would have access to two two-bedroom units. So, you've got a living area facing out the front of the building. To 8th street and then you've got another living area that would face back to the back alley behind 8th street and then the bedrooms would face would be interior towards the alley. This is a common concept when you don't have available window space going down through each side of the hall. They provided an elevation of what it looks like now and then a proposal with some additional improvements and the demolition. They have done quite a bit of the remodelling of this already and so this would be just for approval of the upstairs use of apartments, and we're recommending approval subject to the historic preservation ultimate their ultimate approval. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: This item calls for public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this?

JEREMY CLARK: Hi Jeremy Clark 234 Dogwood Drive. Happy to answer any questions you have about this. We have been through historic, and we've already done basically the exterior work rehabbing this building. So, everything we're really talking about here today is internal to it, but just happy to answer any questions y'all have. SPEAKER: So, you already got approval. JEREMY CLARK: Yes sir, we're actually done with the exterior work except for the painting, which we'll do as soon as someone picks out a colour. SPEAKER: Anyone else. Public hearings now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion. SPEAKER: Motion for conditional use approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion. All in favour. Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed. Any abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number 17 is a request for town houses. This is South 7th Street and Avenue C. The applicant is Lee Tharp cadre engineering representing the Palmer Group LLC. It's 300 South 7th Street. So, here again is the site we're talking about. This is the view of the corner here. You can see this rock older rock wall that's here. We'll talk about that in just a second. Some of the existing trees. The back side of this was a former bank building that's now I believe an office. They're talking about utilising some of the area adjacent to the, or utilising some of the area where the drive through previously was located here. What you have, though, is they're requesting

a 20 unit town house development on 1.4 acres. This is in the Southside Geneva Historic District, much like the other one. So, it's going to have to require historic preservation approval. This has actually been through the historic commission once but that's since expired so they're going to have to go back through again subject to this board's approval. Again, like the other site, this is in our downtown mixed use area. This type of stand alone missing middle housing is deemed appropriate in this general location provided it meets conditional use requirements. The town houses I believe here are, excuse me, these are two-story town houses. I put three story, but these are two-story units. There are multiple buildings. You've got a building of eight units facing South 7th Street. You've got to build two buildings of four and three facing Avenue C and then one building facing the back of the daycare which previously caught on fire here. So, these will face internally. All the parking is behind. Let's see we noted again much like the other one this is an area where they don't meet the required setbacks of the gateway corridor secondary or the C2 zone. But in many cases, and you can see here with the side of the bank building they are in line with the existing development, and so we feel that is appropriate. They would have to get approval through the ZBA or meet the, any zoning ordinance requirements at the time of approval. These will have rear parking surface parking instead of a garage, and they require at least they've provided at least two units for each structure.

They've also looked at the possibility of adding additional on street parking through this area. 7th Street is three lanes through this area where it probably only needs to be two lanes except for at some intersections, and so we've been looking at this with the engineering department about the possibility of gaining back some of this area for parking. Garbage will be needed coordinated with Oak Black Environmental Services, and they do provide us a landscape plan meeting the minimum requirements. We need to get some of the calculations I believe, and we've they're proposing to use preserve some trees including the one right on the corner and then extend add some extra landscaping as buffering for adjoining properties and themselves. They've provided quite a bit of material here for you to look at, so just showing the site's location. Again a general layout concept and then some elevation showing these elevated here in the adjacent to South 7th Street and then Avenue C. You can see the existing tree that was on the corner there. They're trying to preserve it. They're going to have to work through that to make sure it can be done. If not, they would have to replace it, and then they show keeping the historic rock wall located along Avenue C. The town houses are a mix of 18-foot wide row houses and 22-foot wide row houses. 18 feet is below what we allow to be divided off onto its own individual lot, so those would either require a variance to be subdivided or would have to be maintained on a single lot if that was the case. But they could potentially subdivide some off if they wanted to.

And again, these do feel like do meet the historic intent and were previously approved through the Historic Preservation Commission. We are recommending approval, subject that they give reapproval from the Historic Preservation Commission. All utilities be underground setbacks or require variance or meet the zoning ordinance that where possible trees can be preserved to be preserved. And then trash and garbage will be coordinated through Oak Lake Environmental Services. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE). Any damaged or out-of-compliance sidewalk on South 7th Street shall be restored after construction. Engineering has no other comments regarding those conditions. Water services available from Avenue C. Two-inch connections for each building with multi-unit vaults will be required. The six-inch main on Avenue C will need to be replaced for the extent of the project. This site is in the Oak Lake Power Services territory. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Excuse me, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? STONE RAY: Good afternoon. My name is Stone Ray, 152 Bragg Avenue. I'm here representing the development team on this project and can answer any questions that you may have. I did want to point out and Matt corrected a piece of it in

the staff report that these are two-story buildings instead of three and that subsequently would reduce the square footage that you see typed in there. Instead of 2,500 square feet, these are around 1,400 to 1,600 square feet. And then on engineering comments about the streetscape conditions, it's definitely our intent to redo the streetscapes along both 7th and Avenue C. I will say that the ultimate design of those is probably to be determined on Avenue C. There is some swales and damaged culverts and such. So, the design you see on the site plan on the screen may ultimately change to what you know is doable on there. But I just wanted to point that out based on the engineering comments. And our engineer Mr. Tharper is here as well if you have any questions for him. Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion of recommendations per staff recommendations. Let me have a motion of approval per staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Just a quick question. SPEAKER: All in favour? SPEAKER: Hold on one second. Quick question. Scott, you mentioned you're restriping 7th Street. So, does that turn lane go away? It becomes a... SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: OK. And so just scoot over and make room. OK. SPEAKER: That's what happens further south at the bank. Yep. SPEAKER: Will it extend down further south? (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: We can look at that when we get there. SPEAKER: That would be great. Well, you know, we can talk about that. (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHS)

SPEAKER: Any other discussion from the Planning Commission? All in favour? Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number 18 is a request for conditional use. This is for an indoor outdoor fitness facility located at 2124 Frederick Road. The applicant is Matthew Willis for Quinn Spire LLC. The property is located on Frederick Road near Enterprise Drive, across the street from Tiger Town Development. Just to give you a sense of where we're talking about. It would be located in the rear here. We've highlighted that on the site plan. Fortify Fitness and Performance is requesting conditional use to add outdoor fitness activities to their current existing indoor centre. It's in the C3 gateway corridor primary, which allows indoor fitness by right. Adding outdoor fitness requires conditional use. They've got a 4,500 square foot building. They do, they would like to utilise some outdoor areas to provide some cardio-based drills three or four days a week, each session lasting approximately 45 minutes. Some of the sessions starting as early as 5:30 in the morning to 12 and then four to seven in the afternoons. Maximum of eight sessions a day. The areas proposed are basically a 12 by 110 asphalt area adjacent to the raised loading dock in the back here and then maintaining outside of any travel ways during active areas for the rest of the business park.

They would also look at using a 35 by 115 area in the rear of the development, which is grass adjacent to some residential lots. They note that most of these drills are not things where they use any amplified noise or make a lot of noise or anything like that. So, we don't foresee this creating any issues for adjacent users, whether they be commercial or residential. We are recommending that this be approved subject to no outside music speakers, amplified microphones or whistles during the sessions, and we would work with them if we do receive any complaints, but do not foresee that being an issue. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? Public hearings now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: I make a motion for conditional use approval. Staff recommend. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favour say aye. Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number 19 will be back on your agenda next month once they finalise their items. Item number 20 was, is listed on under old business for a final plot. We would request that you take it off the table and then hear it, and we're recommending approval of it. They have this 56 lot town home subdivision with

open, an open space lot. They've constructed the primary road through the development, which is a public right of way through here with turnaround area. The individual town homes would face common courtyards and back up to smaller alleys through this area and then would be adjacent to veterans or, excuse me, Cunningham on this location. In reviewing this, we are recommending approval of this, subject to them installing the required sidewalk along Cunningham right of way. All utilities be underground. Add a note the HOAs to for the allowed uses in the open space and the maintenance of it and change Opelika Utilities to Opelika Water Works Board. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: At the time this report was written, it was not sure whether the applicant was compelled, but the applicant has completed the required infrastructure to be incurred for this final plot approval. All the infrastructure has been completed. There are a few items that may well hold signatures that we've received with the standard like this. Since the majority of the infrastructure is in there, there will be some sanitary sewer testing that will need to be completed. And then once these items are submitted to the department,

again, we recommend final plot approval since the infrastructure is there. The water is safe, the infrastructure is there, the infrastructure must be safe and approved before they will sign the final plot. And this submission is in both Opelika and Alabama counties. SPEAKER: Alright, this does not call for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for final plot approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Let's have a motion to take this item off the table. All in favour? Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Motion for final plot approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favour? Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Thank you very much. SPEAKER: (LAUGHS) SPEAKER: Yes, I mean, I thought it would be a three-hour meeting. We're about four minutes short.