Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: I'm going to call the April meeting of the Planning Commission to order. We welcome all of you to be here. If you have something to say, go over to the microphone. You have one time at the microphone and you have five minutes to say what you need to say. We're happy to listen to what you have to say. SPEAKER: Microphone now. SPEAKER: So, commissioners, to hear a motion for the approval of the minutes. SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any questions? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Mosley, do you have an update on any previous cases? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Most of the rezonings that you've heard at your last two meetings were sent to the City Council. They have approved those rezoning requests. That includes Morris Ridge, an amendment to the PUD, a rezoning on Gateway Drive. And then also a rezoning on a parcel on North Uniroyal Road. So that's all I have on those items. SPEAKER: Alright. Because our vice president is not here, we need to elect one temporarily. Do I hear a motion to elect someone? SPEAKER: Motion to elect. SPEAKER: Sheldon Whittlesey as vice chair. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Motion carries. I'm going to remove myself from the dais.

SPEAKER: The first item before you tonight is a request for Pyramid Hill Plaza. This is a preliminary plat request for a development along the intersection of Birmingham Highway, US 280, and Veterans Parkway. It's nine lots, primarily commercial properties with some outparcels there. Due to the lack of a quorum for this item with the recusal of the chair or the attention of the chair, we will not have a vote on this today. But because we have advertised it, we would request that you open the public hearing for anyone to comment on this item if they'd like to. And then we'll leave the public hearing, close public hearing. We'll reopen it next month at your May meeting when we have a full body to hear this item. Generally, just for the anyone interested, the lot one at the corner is what is being deemed or announced as a public shopping center, anchored shopping center with a out parcel right at the corner. And then there are some lots behind it that would be redivided, lots seven and lot three. But I'm happy to answer any questions you have again, asking the commission to open the public hearing, but not take any action tonight. This does have a positive recommendation with staff comments, but we can get in to those at the next meeting. SPEAKER: Engineering report. SPEAKER: Certainly, the one of the main reasons for this preliminary plat is to dedicate the right of way, potential right of way for the infrastructure completion.

The infrastructure, the roads that would be completed through this development will be monitored and inspected by the engineering department and will be accepted with the final plat after they're completed. These will be public roadways throughout here. The access to Birmingham Highway will be directed and governed by Aldot. And the access to Veterans Parkway has been approved through the middle of the plans with turn lanes required for that access. Engineering department has no other comments or concerns regarding this preliminary plat. Opelika water will supply water to this development from a 12 inch main on Veterans Parkway and on US 280, and Opelika Power will service this subdivision. SPEAKER: This item is open for a public event and it's open if anybody has something negative or positive, they would like to say. Each person has opportunity to stand up for five minutes. Anybody? No one's interested. So public is closed. Matt. MATT MOSLEY: Yes. Because you don't have a quorum tonight. You can't take any action. That's all we need to do on this. This will be continued to your May meeting by that process. SPEAKER: And, Matt, to make it clear, since the moratorium will be in place, this reverts back to right now to this meeting. We get to vote on it in the next meeting. The moratorium won't affect this anyway. MATT MOSLEY: This project, by its nature, won't be affected by the moratorium. SPEAKER: Either way. MATT MOSLEY: This is a commercial project that does not have, is not creating any individual. SPEAKER: I just want to clear that up because there's confusion on that. Thank you. SPEAKER: This item is deferred. Next.

MATT MOSLEY: Item number two is a request for final plat approval for the Yarbrough Hills Townhouse subdivision. This is a request from Woodson T Harmon representing H&H Development Partners, LLC, located at the current end or terminus of Yarbrough Drive. Yarbrough extends off Pepper drive. The request is for a 69 lot subdivision in the C3 zone, which is general commercial. You see the subject property here. It's bound by the railroad tracks to the south. You have an existing residential neighborhood to the west, and then you have some commercially developed property to the north and to the east. Here you see the subdivision plat. So the extension of Yarbrough Drive, the new development coming off of it, which would be primarily 68 townhome size lots. They have a private street that runs through the middle of it looping around. And then again, you see where it backs up to the CSX railroad tracks. The applicant is currently extending Yarbrough Drive as well as in building this neighborhood. The lots all meet the minimum lot size of 1800ft² for a townhome height or 20 foot wide width. Most of these are 25ft wide and 25 to 7500ft². Some of them are extremely deep. This was previously, the conditional use for this was previously approved about two years ago and then has come back just last month for re-approval of that. One thing that you'll notice through this is the lots

themselves are extremely deep and you'll see some drainage easements along the rear of some of these. So the lots themselves will have about 100ft from the back of the actual unit to any adjacent property line because of the depth of some of these lots. The future land use identifies this as a mixed use or mixed residential project. And felt that this is in compliance with the zoning and future land use. We're recommending approval subject to the following, that sidewalks be required on both sides of the street, extending the townhome sidewalks to Yarbrough Drive. Utilities be underground. Note who will maintain the open space require a buffer between Yarbrough Drive and the immediately adjacent townhomes to screen them. Any fences be consistent uniform and appearance. On the west property lines, the residential buffer is required consisting one of the residential landscaping requirements here against the existing neighborhood. Exterior materials must meet the gateway corridor. Correct lot table, the lot table for lot 69. Correct note four, which is the address of the property owner. The Yarbrough drive may need a temporary turnaround, provided that it is not extended further to an additional street, and note that the parent plot be corrected. All lots are required to be tied to an existing boundary, and then the eastern terminus of the right of way is not shown. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The applicant submitted a site construction grading plan during the conditional use approval

phase of this, which has been approved and construction has begun and construction is being monitored by the City of Opelika. The construction of Yarbrough Drive extension will be monitored as well and will be eventually a public, dedicated public street. The city is also working on a project that will connect the east side of Yarbrough Drive to an extension of Veterans Parkway. There's no time limit at this time for the construction of Veterans Parkway Extension. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this proposed preliminary plat. Opelika Water states that water service is available from eight inch Main on Yarbrough Drive, and this subdivision is split between Opelika Power and Alabama Power territories. MATT MOSLEY: Miss Kennon, before you open the public hearing, I did want to note that we did receive a response from one of the adjoining property owners, the Batts family. We provided that to all the commissioners and we'll provide it into the minutes. It includes some concerns about safety, traffic, property values and compatibility between this neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhood. They specifically note traffic safety and character. They did also include a petition with some other neighbors signing off on that as well. SPEAKER: OK, this item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? When you're at the microphone, would you state your name and address? MICHELLE BATTS: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Batts. I sent the letter. I live at 2005 Copper Lane in Opelika, Alabama. I'm gonna read my statement. So my mother is bedbound and requires 24 hour care.

So my father's home taking care of her. So they are the adjacent. I live with them and we're the adjacent property owners to the proposed Yarbrough Hills townhouse subdivision. And I'm here to express our opposition to the current plan. I have emailed a detailed letter to the Planning Commission detailing our concerns, and I also have copies for your review. My statement will only be a summary of the requests that were in the email. I won't read the entire email. So we are asking for the city to not approve this proposal as presented. This current plan is too dense for this area and does not fit next to the existing neighborhood. 68 townhome lots in this space replace too many structures, vehicles and residents in a relatively small area directly beside an established single family homes. If the city is not willing to deny it outright, then we ask for a substantially revised lower density plan with fewer units and a meaningful permanent buffering from existing homes. Our concerns are about traffic, safety, drainage, sewer utility capacity, privacy and our property values, and the overall compatibility of this development with our neighborhood. We are especially concerned that this level of density will increase traffic, create safety concerns for our children and families, and make it more difficult for current residents to safely enter and exit the neighborhood. That is a one way street that enters our neighborhood, and there would be an additional 120 cars on one street. We are also very concerned about privacy and buffering. The package says buffering is required, but most of the trees have already been removed, and the few that remain provide very little privacy. That is not enough protection for neighboring homeowners when taller townhomes are being placed directly next to our homes. We're asking for a meaningful, permanent buffer that truly protects the homes already here, including preservation of remaining trees, dense evergreen screening, and an opaque fence clearly shown on the plaque permanently maintained.

We also want to state that we're disappointed in the notice process. This development was first approved earlier. Affected residents should have been meaningfully notified then and not left with only seven days. I received my notice last week to respond while the project advances. Seven days for working families to receive certified mail or pick it up from the post office if they missed delivery. Review the submission. Take off work. Arrange childcare and prepare to attend a 3 pm meeting just wasn't enough. The majority of my... SPEAKER: Neighbours did not even receive the notice. They haven't had a chance to go pick it up. We respectfully ask that this proposal be denied and submitted. If it comes back, it should only come back as a substantially lower density plan with fewer units and a meaningful buffer from existing homes. We want the city to carefully consider the citizens who already live here, invest here, vote here, and not place greater weight on the interests of a developer that's not even based in Oklahoma. His funds won't enrich our communities. We do. The people who already call this neighbourhood home will be the ones living with the long-term effects of this decision, and our voices should matter most. This neighbourhood is quiet, it's established, and made up of families who care deeply about where we live. We're asking the city to slow this process down, fully consider the impact on the people who are already here, and require a lower density plan with meaningful permanent buffering from existing homes. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? PAULA GADDIS: I'm Paula Gaddis, and I live in 2001 Copper Lane, right there, coming straight down Yorba Drive. Would there be a speeding limit because there are a lot of children on that road, a stop sign, and also I don't know

if the engineer department know about the drainage. It's heavy water. It's coming down there, and it's going to sink eventually. Heavy, heavy water. That's what I want to know. SPEAKER: We don't know about the water. SPEAKER: We can, yes ma'am, we can get you, the engineer, to respond to that. PAULA GADDIS: Yeah, and I'm next door to that Yorba, that house that sit there coming down that road. I'm right there, and I know it's how long is the project going to take to build up? Is it going to be over a year? I know it's six to eight units. It's going to be over a year, two years. I work from home, and the noise is quite loud while I'm there working during the day. SPEAKER: What I can do is, we'll get all the questions that are raised, and then we can have those answered. PAULA GADDIS: And also, I wanted to know, would there be like a fence from the apartment, from the townhouses to our houses? Would there be a fence to block it? SPEAKER: OK, anything else? PAULA GADDIS: No, that's all. SPEAKER: OK, thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion to approve preliminary with staff recommendations.

SPEAKER: Motion to approve preliminary with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: I'll second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Just to address that, they are required to provide a residential buffer, which can be one of three different types. That can either be a 20-foot undisturbed buffer, which is what we typically push for, a fence with landscaping, or a double row of evergreen landscaping to provide that break. I'd have to look and see exactly which one is required, but as I said, there are about 100 feet between the back of any home and any of the adjoining properties, so there is substantial room to put a buffer in separation. SPEAKER: Also, what is the typical notice time? SPEAKER: So, under state law for subdivisions, we're required to provide, I believe it's five days minimum. We try to get our letters out about two and a half weeks before. That, we, of course, get the items about four weeks in advance, but by the time we've gone through them, made sure we've got the right people to send letters to, anybody who touches the property for a subdivision, we do send those letters out. It depends then on the post office about how quickly they are delivered, and that relies on where it's going, what distribution it goes through, and then to some degree how quickly people see the notice and pick it up. SPEAKER: I have a quick question. What is the threshold to initiate a traffic study, and typically, who pays for that? SPEAKER: Right now, the threshold for traffic study by the development is 70 units. Yeah, so this one did not fall in. This is, will have an extension of a road. Right now, there is one way out, but as I stated earlier,

there is a city project to connect this portion of Yarborough Drive to Veteran's Parkway, which will give the neighbourhood and this new neighbourhood multiple accesses out to a major thoroughfare. And just to comment on the drainage that was brought up, the development engineer did do a drainage study and a drainage analysis, and part of their plan is to contain all the drainage on this property and send it to the back, the southeast corner of the lot by the railroad track, where there will be a detention pond, and then discharge it to the creek. So, all the drainage will be accounted for by the design to construct the drainage structures to a detention pond by the railroad tracks. SPEAKER: Matt, you know, staff did recommend, you know, substantial landscaping and a fence. Can that be, can you expand upon that? SPEAKER: Yes, sir. So, we did recommend, like you said, a large buffer there. I think we've recommended a 20-foot buffer on this case just because of the amount of depth there is. SPEAKER: Along with planning. SPEAKER: Yes, with, and that requires landscaping, yes, sir. And I'd have to check to see whether or not the fence, fencing is a potential option, but there are good and bad that go along with the fence that become a maintenance issue, and sometimes are worse than just having strong landscaping there to block the view. SPEAKER: And where's the fence they're talking about on? SPEAKER: That would be on the backside against this residential here. The existing neighbourhood. OK. The rest of the property abuts either other townhomes or adjacent commercial properties.

SPEAKER: Will sidewalks be on Yarbrough, or is that just the buffer? SPEAKER: Sidewalks will be on Yarbrough. SPEAKER: On the Yarbrough side. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favour? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any abstain? SPEAKER: Motion carries. Item three. SPEAKER: Item number three is a request for preliminary plan approval. This is a request of Creek Zone Phase five. The applicant for this is Drew Mixon. Yeah, or excuse me. That's all it does. So, the applicant is Drew Mixon representing House Mountain LLC. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plan on the property. It's actually both these two on the map. This red section here, C3 zone property between the future Oaks, Scenic Oaks route and then Creek Zone proper, the rest of the neighbourhood there. Sorry. So, the applicant had originally submitted a plan showing 101 lots including 98 single or single-family

residential lots that would connect to the existing Wildwood Drive and Creek Zone subdivision and then would end right here adjacent to the gas easement next to Oaks Parkway, what is shown here, the future right-of-way. Through the review process, we noted some concerns we have with this one based on both the length of some of the cul-de-sacs and some buffering. So, they submitted a different plot. This is a stylised version of the initial plot that you saw. And this is the request that is before you today. This reduces the number of overall lots, I believe, to I believe it's to 90 total lots with three out parcels. So, eight lots were reduced. You have a detention area, which is 502 here. And then you have two lots, 500 and 501. Both are included with a gas line, 60-foot gas line easement. Single-family is an allowed use in the C3 zone. When it is in the C3 zone, it follows what we call an R5 designation, which is a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, a minimum lot width of 60 feet. These lots do all meet the minimum lot width and lot size. The overall density is roughly 2.3 units per acre, which is allowed or what's allowed within the C3 zone. We noted a few things with this. Primarily because of these lots that back up to the gas

line easement and there is no and eventually the future outer or future loop road or connector road, these lots, they put a buffer on the gas line easement. However, we note that there is not really the ability to control what happens on that. Any buffer that gets put on that property is likely to be, could be potentially removed. So, we've requested any buffer be placed actually on the lot adjacent to the gas line. Then the other items we have, which are tied together. One is the need for secondary fire access, which we've required on single family subdivisions for, I believe it's about two years now, requiring that they have a secondary means of access from the site. As you'll see here right now, they're showing one means through the Creek Zone subdivision. The other part of that is, is this development is part of the EEB subdivision. So, you'll see, it's these two bottom red lots right here in the corner, which was part of the Oaks or Scenic Oaks extension. When this was originally planted back in 2007, I believe it was, the idea was that these lots would not be developed until road was extended to it. It's the City's position that the road needs to be extended to these lots as part of the development. Now, whether or not that's done by this developer or the person they're purchasing it from, or whether or not the City is involved with that extension is not necessarily the concern of making sure that it's in. Right now, there is no agreement between the City

and the developer on extending that road. That would take something that is required to go through City Council for approval. And so any decision needs to be just made with the idea that we feel that the road does need to be installed due to the location adjacent to what was previously planted. Based on those items, we previously gave you a recommendation where we said we can't recommend preliminary plot approval, and we still have concerns with basically how they will handle fire access through the development. We do feel that if it is approved, those discussions need to be addressed. And so we do note in here that if you do approve it, we would recommend that you done so subject to the following comments that they provide the use and maintenance of the open space or detention parcels, update signature blocks, all utilities show underground, provide double frontage screening buffer on lots that back up to lots 500 and 501, including a typical screening plan, construct a future bypass, scenic oaks or oaks from the current turn in South Union Road to this intersection at the very least, and then sidewalks would be required on both sides of each street. Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes, the submission of the public subdivision with public infrastructure, the plans to need to be submitted to the engineering department and all the other utilities for being approval. Once this approval is made after preliminary plat approval is made, the construction will be monitored by all departments involved.

The streets will be accepted once it's complete by a final plat of the subdivision. As Mr Moses said, we send the Oaks Parkway, or the connector road will need to be constructed at some point to connecting this subdivision to Columbus Parkway at some point. And other than that, engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this preliminary plat approval. Opelika Water States has an eight-inch water main available on Wildwood Drive for access. And this subdivision will be in Opelika and Tallapoosa River service territory. SPEAKER: Alright, this item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? JOSH MONCRIEF: I'm sure I'll be a lot briefer than you are with that. My name is Josh Moncrief. I'm at 1590 Creekstone Drive. I'm actually not even here about this. I'm here about agenda item five. But I just have, I guess, a general question. I don't know if it'll be for you guys or for you all. Is it standard to only notify people with adjacent properties about this and not people that live in the totality of the neighborhood that's gonna be affected by something like this? I don't know if you'll answer questions, but is that standard? 'Cause I didn't get anything about this. And I live in Creekstone. I'm one parcel away from adjacent to this. SPEAKER: So the way required under state law, basically, we notify anybody who directly touches the property. JOSH MONCRIEF: Outside of state law. I mean, are you guys willing to, I mean, do something within the City of Opelika and say, hey, it's reasonable to notify everyone affected by this outside of just what the state requires?

Is that something you guys are open to? SPEAKER: I mean, that's. JOSH MONCRIEF: OK. I don't know if that's a question for you or you all. I'm not trynna be rude. I'm literally sincere. I'm pretty upset. I know everybody's here for specific things, but why in the world are we not notified about this? I mean, I'm finding out. I'm here for agenda item five, but I'm pretty fired up about agenda item three. SPEAKER: Well, I will say for some years, it's always been contiguous property. It's this wasn't just thrown in today. JOSH MONCRIEF: Right. No, I fully understand that. I'm not saying you're trynna shade anybody. I'm just saying as a city, are we willing to make someone kick a little extra to notify the entire neighborhood? I mean, does the city pay for those certified letters that come to us or is that the proposed bill? SPEAKER: The applicant pays for them. What I will tell you is we are currently reviewing all of our requirements, all of our plans and updates. And so that is something we can look at through that process. SPEAKER: I will say that all cities, all municipalities in Alabama are subject to state law. JOSH MONCRIEF: Yeah, absolutely. SPEAKER: Creatures of their creation is by the state legislature. So the city may be limited into what it can do as to a particular subject matter. If state law is already. JOSH MONCRIEF: Well, state law says that you have to notify them. It doesn't say you can't notify other people. SPEAKER: True. JOSH MONCRIEF: But that's all I'm asking. Like, why aren't we all notified? That seems reasonable. SPEAKER: But they've opined on the subject. That's what I'm saying, so we kinda gotta do what they say. JOSH MONCRIEF: So the state of Alabama has told you guys y'all are not allowed to legally notify other people? SPEAKER: No, they've covered who we have to notify. JOSH MONCRIEF: Right. I'm saying, are we willing as a city to say let's notify everybody in the neighborhood that's gonna be impacted by this? SPEAKER: It's a different question. JOSH MONCRIEF: Are we worried that there might be two or more people? SPEAKER: What I can tell you is we'll we'll take a look at it and we can see that through the process of

updating our ordinances. JOSH MONCRIEF: Right. I sincerely appreciate that. Second thing is, I guess this would be an engineering question. Are you guys is there anything on there about the creek? 'Cause I'm pretty sure there's a creek that runs right through where they're planning on putting that main street. And I know this because my kids feed the deer down there every year. SPEAKER: You want me to address? JOSH MONCRIEF: I promise you, I'm not trynna be smart about this, is a legitimate question. SPEAKER: What do you answer? SPEAKER: I said, you want me to address it? SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: OK. So the process is that they don't do hard engineering until this this phase is complete. It's an investment in time and effort and resources. So what they'll do is once they pass this hurdle, then they will do their engineering design, geotechnical design, stormwater design and take all that to consideration and count with the current city and state and federal guidelines for water resources increase. JOSH MONCRIEF: Then this is just them saying, hey, we wanna do this. That's great. And I'll have to come back to you guys and be like, OK, now there's a creek. So this is what we do about the creek. SPEAKER: That's correct. JOSH MONCRIEF: OK, well, they might should have done that before they drew up the map. So appreciate your time. See you for the (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: However, if we vote to approve the preliminary plan, it stays the preliminary plan. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am, that is correct. So if you vote for the preliminary plat, then at that point, the applicant would have to come back in with four engineering plans and those plans would have to meet all the city's requirements regarding how they city, state and federal requirements, how they cross the creek or how they address drainage utilities, any of those requirements. SPEAKER: Explain that to the staff. JOSIAH CONLEY: Hi, my name's Josiah. I live in the South Lakes neighborhood, which is right adjacent to this. SPEAKER: Sir, can you provide your last name and address? JOSIAH CONLEY: Yeah, my last name is Conley.

My address is 1704 South Lake Drive. SPEAKER: Thank you. JOSIAH CONLEY: I want to request that the city consider, I know that the Oaks Parkway easement that you have purchased that the city owns does not extend all the way to where that belt will be completed. You guys understand what I'm talking about. So there's the Oaks Parkway easement is owned by the city, but it stops prior to, that easement stops before you get to Old Columbus Road or get to 169. And the reason why my understanding is the reason why that road is not been built is because the city doesn't own the full easement all the way to Old Columbus Road. I wanna say for the purpose of this development, I'm not against it, I think we all need more housing and so I'm in favor of this development. And I don't think it's fair to put on this development the cost of building what would be useful infrastructure for the whole city, which is the Scenic Oaks Road. I also wanna say I just wanna ask or request that the city consider purchasing the remaining easement rights that would be required to finish the Scenic Oaks Road and that they connect it over to the old Columbus Road. And the reason why I request that is that Columbus Road is very congested. And if you're gonna add a lot more housing to this area, the Columbus Road intersection, especially at 85 intersection, which has a lot of accidents, has a lot of congestion, it would be great for the people that live in this neighborhood, in this area, to be able to get over to Tiger Town without having to go on the interstate, without having to go across or

go down the Columbus Parkway road, if this easement or this Scenic Oaks Road would provide access for that whole neighborhood to get over to Tiger Town and to get to the rest of Auburn. So that's my request. Thank you. SPEAKER: Address that as well, if you want. Could we address that as well? SPEAKER: Go ahead. SPEAKER: OK, yes, I can address that request and comment for general information. City has realised with the growth of the eastern part of the city that a belt line road such as this is needed and has been needed for a while and has been our long range transportation plan for quite a few years. We have just engaged a consultant to come up with a preliminary corridor alignment study for the remainder of this road from where it ends here, which was dedicated with the previous subdivision where you said it ends and it does. We have a consultant studying a corridor alignment from here all the way to Gateway Drive at Southview School. So that process is in the work as a corridor study. Now, design and implementation of a road is still in the future due to budget and other constraints that may occur. But we are looking at that preliminary study all the way to Old Columbus 169 and Highway 51 at Gateway Drive. So that process is in the same process right now. SPEAKER: Anyone else? DREW MISON: My name is Drew Mixson. I'm the representative for the development. I wanna start by thanking you guys all for your time.

I know with the moratorium coming up, there's been a lot of work on y'all's part. So it's not lost on me and I appreciate it. I wanted to just go through a couple of points and mention that we have fixed all the comments that Matt Mosley has given back to us and we sent him that updated plan on Thursday, which I think he showed. So we removed some lots. We shortened some cul-de-sacs to make sure that they're in compliance. And so now we're down to 89 lots. There are two objections that came up in reviewing this that I think are worth considering with my time. The first being the fire access has been mentioned as a concern. And we actually have an email. We spoke with Chris Rogers, the fire marshal about this and showed him what we were working on. He actually said it is not a concern. And that because it's an additional phase of Creekstone, which is a pre-existing development, it already has sufficient access. Hopefully, that should dispel some of the concerns regarding that. Of course, we want a safe community. And so, our intent is not to subvert anything. We've spoken with the fire marshal. And at least from our last conversation, he said it shouldn't be an issue. The second objection is in regards to paving the extension of Scenic Oaks Drive. I wanna read an email that I sent to Mr Mosley and Mr Treese on Wednesday. We didn't get a chance to all talk about it. I did get a chance to speak with Mr Treese yesterday, which was helpful for me. But I just wanted to have it read aloud and submit it into the record just so we're all on the same page about what we

discussed and what the position of the development is. Mr Treese, I'm writing regarding a proposed subdivision, Creekstone Phase Five to the April 28th Planning Commission agenda. Staff has indicated that a project must comply with the 2007 Road Construction Agreement between the city and the now dissolved Scenic Oaks Development LLC. We respectfully disagree and believe that this agreement is not enforceable as applied to our project for the following reasons. No ownership or right of entry. Our entity does not actually own the underlying land. It's owned by the city of Opelika. We're not aware of any legal mechanisms by which we would be compelled to enter or perform construction on a property we actually do not own. We just simply allow the property. Lack of nexus and proportionality. So there are portions of the road that are requested that do not abut our property that we've been told we should develop. All in all, it's about a mile of arterial roadway that we would be expected to develop. We basically just don't think that that falls under the laws of essential nexus or rough proportionality. So legally speaking, from our understanding, it's supposed to, if we're compelled to develop public infrastructure, it needs to be proportional to the project that we're developing, and we don't think that extension is proportional to 89 lots. There's a few other things. No privity of contract. We did not enter into that agreement in 2007. That was almost 20 years ago. And it was not something that we were ever a part of. And then independent access. Our project is actually a continuation of an existing neighborhood with two independent access points.

And we don't think we actually need that roadway. So I just wanted to mention all that to have it in the record. And I would like to say in to end my time that we're happy to comply with all comments. We want the neighborhood to be safe. And enjoyable to the community. Additional lots that will bring much needed housing. We seek to bring the proposed community into that compliance, and we feel we have done this. And given all these facts, we see no legal basis for the denial of the project. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: The road that he's talking about that should be developed by the city and not the developer, can you point that out? Where is that? SPEAKER: Sure. SPEAKER: So, if you look at the plat they provided here, it's this road that is right here, adjacent to the gas line easement and to kind of the north. It's actually on the west side of their property. If you look, kind of this zoom out, you'll see where South Uniroyal comes in and then makes a turn right here and continues down. South Uniroyal, then, what we're calling Oaks or Scenic Oaks, extends down through the right-of-way of this road. So, that right-of-way was created through the EEB subdivision, secondary division of Parcel B. That plat was done by a previous developer who did it and noted that this would be done for financing and that none of these

lots would be buildable. No building permits would be issued until permits have lacking frontage on improved public streets and or locking sanitary sewer units. Sanitary sewer services are completed and available. If you look at the minutes through this development when it was previously on here, it appears that there was every intention that this road would be finished with these subsequent phases. And so that's why I feel like there is a definite nexus between what's happening, meaning a connection between this road and these lots because this is Parcels 1B, B1E and D1G of that original plat. And then the proportionality, I understand, is concerned about having to develop a large section of road for 89 lots. But at the same time, they chose to develop at the very end of the street and so that's why there is a larger piece that we feel that should be developed. If they developed closer up to the top, it would have been something where there wouldn't have been such a large section to start with. SPEAKER: Would anyone else want to speak? TRAVIS HAWKINS: Good afternoon. I'm Travis Hawkins. I'm at 1701 Creekstone Drive. I'm not opposed to the new development. It will probably help a lot of people find housing. Some of the questions that I had have already been addressed, and I understand no hard engineering has been done.

But do we know some timeline as to when we will break through from the Creek Stone subdivision to the new area? SPEAKER: I don't... I mean, I would assume that they would begin, usually it takes a couple of months to create engineering plans. And if they were to get approval, I would assume they would start from that development. TRAVIS HAWKINS: Do we know? And I'm asking on behalf of my neighbor, we're right at the corner of Wildwood and Creekstone. So when the construction starts, we're right there. Do we know if any of the existing property. Will there be any concerns with eminent domain, and if any of our property will be... SPEAKER: No, sir. They're not showing any of that. TRAVIS HAWKINS: And the only thing I would ask is that whenever this subdivision is built, please try to maintain as much nature as possible. One of the beautiful things that attracted me to the area was the trees. And so when you start cutting down all the trees, it takes away a lot of the beauty and a lot of the desire to stay in the area for a lot of people. And I've noticed with a lot of other areas that have been prepped for a subdivision, they've just flattened every piece or tree you could ever want to see is gone. And also, please make sure, too, that when you look at drainage right now in our specific area, we're doing OK as far as drainage. But in some of the neighboring subdivisions have just been built. I just noticed that one house up the hill had to sprinkle on and we went down the hill with the waters accumulating in front of the new houses that are being built. And that's just right across the way. So just please make sure you pay attention to just how high. The curve is to the road because that water's not draining properly in some of the neighboring areas. I think it's about the same time builder. So just ask you to take caution to make sure that dot I's

and cross the T's. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Can we add something about trees on each lot? SPEAKER: They are showing a tree on each lot. I don't think there's any issue if you choose to approve it, to make them meet that requirement. SPEAKER: Because I know developers go in there and just clear cut. And so then if each would have a canopy type tree, not not like a. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am, you could request that they provide a canopy tree as shown on the illustration they provided for each lot. SPEAKER: Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: I'll motion to approve the subdivision subject to the extension between the developer, the landowner, and the City of Scenic Oaks Parkway, or better known as Uniroyal Road, as a condition to this property being developed. SPEAKER: Does that include the other conditions as well. SPEAKER: And all the other staff conditions as well? SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yes. So just quickly. So from the city standpoint, I think in your notes you said that you cannot recommend preliminary (UNKNOWN). Is that correct? SPEAKER: Well, again, that was my concern based on fire access. The applicant has stated they've got an email from the fire department stating that that's not a concern to them.

I have not seen or heard that. SPEAKER: So, where would the fire access be? Would it access the new loop road or into the... SPEAKER: I mean, if they were required to have fire access, yes, I would assume it would have to go through the new loop road, but I'm not positive. So that (UNKNOWN) SPEAKER: Is that part of the recommendation having approved fire access? SPEAKER: `Yes, ma'am. They would have to have approved fire access. Now, if the fire chief says that their existing fire access is sufficient, then I would take it that that is sufficient. Now, Mr Whittlesey's requirement that they extend the road or the road be extended in some mechanism would still be applicable. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Which plat is under consideration? SPEAKER: This plat that you see... SPEAKER: The large plat. SPEAKER: It basically takes the cul-de-sac that was here and loops it back. That's the primary difference. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Just for clarification, if we approve a preliminary plat. SPEAKER: Yes, sir. SPEAKER: It's still got to come back with a final plat. SPEAKER: That is correct. SPEAKER: And that could be done. A final plat can be approved during the moratorium. SPEAKER: Yes, sir. Although it's unlikely that a preliminary plat approved right now would be received final platting by the... SPEAKER: Construction had to be completed before final plat. So that will take some time. SPEAKER: It would probably take 12 to 16 months before a plat approved right now would come back before you. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. SPEAKER: So we would... a final plat would not be recommended until all the infrastructure that is proposed be constructed. So they would have to build the roads and infrastructure

before the final plat comes back to you, which could be some time. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor of the proposed motion? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number four is Warwick retreat subdivision. This is a request for preliminary flat approval on Sanford Avenue. This item is before you. Again, it previously received approval about two years ago and it's expiring. So they're coming back to approve that say mix of R4, C2, and in the Gateway corridor. The applicant is more bass consulting representing Freedom Homes Land LLC. The design is exactly the same you previously seen. It includes a mixture of townhome lots and single family lots. I believe there are 92 total residents... 92 total lots, 84 residential for open space and two commercial right along Sanford Avenue. The total area is 26 acres. The density is three point four units per acre. The lots meet the minimum lot size for both townhome units and the R4 zoning. Let's see, I think the conditions are pretty much the same as what they were before, which is update the certificates of approval for black officials. State the name, ownership, maintenance, and use of

open space, including the lot numbers, name the roads on the plats. Sidewalks be required on both sides. Utilities should be underground. Remove any setback lines. Note the required buffers on the plat as shown against the east property line. Define the proposed wall against lot 60 through 63. Ensure the easements for the trails are platted and consistent on the landscape plan, and then sidewalks will be required along Sanford Avenue at the time of development of 85 and 86, which are those frontage lots. Here, you kind of see the overall layout. This ties into Sanford as one cul-de-sac that comes off to the left and then ties back, I believe, into Court Street here on the east side near the high school. Kind of a cleaner version of that. And then you can see some of they provided the topography, utilities, and grading plan. Again, we are recommending preliminary approval. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: This subdivision is currently being constructed with the previous approval and is proceeding at an acceptable and at an acceptable pace. The infrastructure is being installed and inspected in accordance to the requirements of the previous approval. They have installed storm drains and sanitary sewer drains through this process. And we've been... and that again, it's been moving at an acceptable pace. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding the renewal of this preliminary plat. Opelika Water is gonna serve this site with an eight-inch water main extended along Sanford Avenue, from near Lafayette Parkway. This is part of their requirements from the initial approval as well. And Opelika Power will service the subdivision.

SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? MATT GRAY: Hello, I'm Matt Gray. I'm with Moore Bass Consulting, business address 37 Calumet Parkway, Noonan, Georgia. I'm the engineer of record on this project. This was approved last year for full CD approval. We've been working with city staff during the construction project, minimal roadblocks to this point at least. The one item I'd like to address would be condition number seven, the landscape plan. From what I saw, the 20-foot landscape buffer applies to the east side of the townhome portion. That is directly adjacent to the state waters, and there's a required 25-foot undisturbed buffer there. So I would just like to have it noted that existing vegetation exists in that area. So, full planting in that area is not possible. So I would just like to have that requested that existing vegetation is acceptable in those areas. Otherwise, I'm available for any additional questions that may come up. SPEAKER: Is that something we need to address, or is that the variance? SPEAKER: No, ma'am. That would not be something that you would have to address.

Typically, an undisturbed buffer would be allowed as the buffer between those two unit types. So, we've called it out, but it, it really is because it is also an estate buffer, you know, it is largely covered. So we're fine with that requirement not being applied. SPEAKER: Anyone else like to speak? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? (CROSSTALK). SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yeah. I do have one quick question. So, Scott, again, I just wanted to ask about the traffic study. That's gonna be a very busy area, especially so near to the high school. Right? SPEAKER: Yes, that's correct. The original submittal had a construction of a right-turn lane on Sanford Avenue. So, that's just incorporated in this set of plans, too. So, that has been conducted already. SPEAKER: And there will be no additional traffic tools needed at that particular. SPEAKER: No, not typically. We look at just need for turn lanes. OK. SPEAKER: So, there will be a right in and right out or... SPEAKER: No, there will be a dedicated right turn lane, going onto the subdivision coming from the high school. Right now, there's a centre left-turn lane that accounts for left turns. SPEAKER: OK, so that will count for left turn. SPEAKER: That's it will account for left turn, but they will need to construct a right turn. SPEAKER: OK. All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Number five. MATT: Number five is Lakeridge subdivision.

This is a request for preliminary plat approval. In the 1,500 block of South Uniroyal Road. The applicant is Mike Maher with Precision Surveying representing Chowhan South Lake Bull Homes, LLC. Subject property is located in the R2 and R3 zone. You see it here on the map, on the west side of South Uniroyal. Top portion is R2. The bottom portion is R3. There is actually a small, institutional area right here in the middle of it, which was intended as a buffer at one time. So, here you have the proposed subdivision. The development is 44 lots. The section in the R-2 zone has to meet a minimum lot size of 15,000ft², 80-foot-wide lots. Some are in both. So, they have to meet the more restrictive zoning. And then the remaining lots are in the R-3 zone. Those are required to meet a 10,000 foot minimum lot size and 70 foot wide. Subdivision requires underground utilities, sidewalks on both sides. We do limit access off of South Uniroyal to the lots that have are tied in directly to 42 and 43, where they tied to the road, so that they're not taking access directly off South Uniroyal. The development has a significant amount of change in this property in elevation. You see it, it changes, I believe, about 70ft from one side to the other. Basically, it kind of steps down as it currently shown.

So, the development kind of on the eastern side is the highest part. It steps down to this main road A here and then goes down further on the backs of these lots towards the lake at the bottom. This project has been, I believe, approved twice before. So, I believe the first time was in 2022 and then again in 2024. Received approval. The applicant has been working on it. There is a significant amount of rock. And as I mentioned, grade change that they're working through, including some blasting and grading. But it has taken quite some time. I point out there has been a issue previously cited by Alabama Department of Environmental Management for related, I believe, to erosion. So, our knowledge that has, has been, they're not actively enforcing that, that, there's not active enforcement on that right now from Aden. They're working through, I guess, the finalising, fixing that, this item is coming back before you again. We have required sidewalks on both sides, I believe. They're showing it on this latest plat. The biggest item that we've noted on here previously was the need for access on two routes. The applicant has stated that they would require that every house have a fire suppression unit, which is not our preferred method of handling that, but it is a route that can be done through the International Fire Code. And so they've noted that on the plat, we have basically

said that if that is the case, we feel that that there should be a note that changes that so that all units, all dwelling units are required to meet the international fire code and have sufficient, excuse me, code to meet section D107 of that code, which requires the type and style of suppression unit on those. That is typically a fairly expensive change that they're required to do. And we will make sure that that happens if this is approved. We previously recommended denial based on the fire access. If that is not if that is taken care of through the fire code, staff largely has no reason to recommend denial. We would recommend approval of this based on that change, subject to any sidewalks being on both sides of the street, utilities being underground, adding notes that 42 and 44 can access the new street. Only lot 43 will have to have a shared driveway, and then making sure that any home can be placed on lot 26, with the subject note about fire access being provided through internal suppression units on each dwelling unit. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The current construction pace of this subdivision is not at an acceptable pace. There have been some infrastructure that's been installed, but it has not been inspected or viewed for quite some time and is anticipated that due to the erosion issues they had with Adem, that even the underground pipes are have been filled up with sediment and there will not be accepted unless it gets mitigated prior to final plat approval. Because of this pace and doesn't seem like

the developer is at a good pace to complete the subdivision, it's gonna be hard to monitor and maintain the inspections of the infrastructure that's required. With that being said, water service is available at South Union Rural and Opelika Power Services' territory. SPEAKER: Alright. This item calls for a public hearing. I guess you want to speak for or against? JONATHAN REICHEL: Yes, ma'am. My name is Jonathan Reichel. I live at 1709 South Lake Drive. I'm an adjacent property owner to this project. I prepared a statement because I want to keep it to five minutes. Chairwoman Cannon, members of the commission, you have an important job to help the city of Opelika grow responsibly, making decisions that are not always cut and dry, which is work that is often thankless. So, I would be remiss if I didn't start with, thank you for your service and for your time. The good news is that the matter of the Lake Ridge development before you is cut and dry. You rarely have the opportunity to make decisions based upon developers' known and actual results, rather than just promises. This is one of those rare cases I come before you today as a husband and father who brought his family to Opelika to escape the noise and congestion of an Atlanta suburb. A current neighbour of this development, and regrettably, as a victim of its abusive mismanagement, to beg you to please disapprove this plot. And I want to reiterate preliminary plat means they can work. We have to suffer through it if they can work. Final plat means it's done. It's known an actual result for all y'all is four years of disrupted lives and destroyed property values with nothing to show for it.

With that, I wanna provide you with actionable facts that prove this development requires disapproval. Fact. Alabama Code and Opelika Zoning Ordinance are the basis for the Commission's responsibility to promote the health, safety and general welfare of current residents and landowners. They also require that the burdens and benefits of land usage be rationally and fairly distributed among the citizens and property owners of Opelika, Lake Ridge, and its developer present a clear and present danger to the health and safety and general welfare of its neighbours, and are irrationally burdensome to the adjoining South Lake and Creek zone subdivisions, with no benefit to the city based upon the following concerns. One. The property has been under active on-again, off-again development for four years without a single home, road or complete section of infrastructure installed. After all this time, it's nothing but a barren scar in our backyards. Two. Neighbours have been exposed to endless construction noises during that time on a repeated and inconsistent basis, similar to that of intentional mental torture. Noise levels in excess of the lawful limit in residential areas have consistently been experienced by neighbours, and I've measured them, including blasting rock crushing quarry-like operations, Boulder moving and dumping and the use of poorly maintained equipment. To this day, there's no end to the blasting and rock removal in site three. This work site can go weeks and months with no activity. This invites children from the surrounding neighbourhoods to use it as a thoroughfare and for adventures. The property is riddled with hazards, including a massive and deep rock pit, multiple unfinished sewer fittings and construction equipment left in the open to rust. For the landowners have now employed two, not just one or two, criminal contractors. The first was sent to City court for violations and has since disappeared. The second is still in prison for previously earned outstanding warrants and defrauding subcontractors on this project, who I believe are still in the process

of suing the owners, who allegedly exercised little to no due diligence in hiring the contractor, with no promise of improvement in the future. Five. The list goes on, but I'd quickly exceed my five minutes. However, if these continuous disruptions, safety threats, and employment of actual criminals do not constitute severe violations of current residents' health, safety and general welfare. I don't think anything does. Fact: Opelika zoning ordinances require the reduction and elimination of adverse environmental impacts. The developer has been in clear violation of environmental regulations and has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they can prevent future environmental disruptions. They're already operating under the consent order, as previously discussed, with tens of thousands in fines due to the repeatedly failing to utilise proper erosion control. Additionally, construction equipment has been left to rust and leak in the woods, along with many unmarked containers of likely contaminants in close proximity to tributaries to the state waters of the Chattahoochee and Lake Harding. In fact, Opelika subdivision ordinances require the consideration of limitations due to topography and due regard to natural features. What this plat doesn't show you, though it was discussed about the elevation change, is that the middle lot sit directly upon a very steep grade. The backyards of which will have to include a 15 to 20 foot, veritable cliff side within it. Meanwhile, the eastern boundary of the property along South Uniroyal includes an established drainage creek that also empties into state water tributaries, with no drainage management plan included on the plat. Furthermore, actual execution of the current drainage plan includes a culvert emptying into the existing lake that has led to a clay sediment sandbar being created in the middle of the lake and near complete stoppage of the lake's relief pipe, causing ongoing flooding of neighbouring properties. This all demonstrates a consistent disregard for existing natural features. SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. JONATHAN REICHEL: OK. SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. JONATHAN REICHEL: That this is the only forum for relief. SPEAKER: Your five minutes. JONATHAN REICHEL: We've come to the city and they've done nothing. And all you can do is... SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up.

JONATHAN REICHEL: Thank you. SPEAKER: This is not an auditorium. Would anyone else like to speak for or against this? SPEAKER: We're back for five. Look, I'm not trying to be rude. He's not trying to be rude. Exceptionally well spoken. I believe in opportunity in America. Sincerely. And I have no problem with the property owner of this property trying to develop it and make money. We need more houses in Opelika. It's a fact. Otherwise you guys wouldn't be here trying to make this all happen. I appreciate you for your service, but there's some common sense things that have to be considered. When my wife and I built our home, when we moved to Opelika to escape the very thing you're speaking about, we moved to this particular neighborhood and this particular place because it was common sense that no human being would ever be able to build a property behind where our home would be built. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a rocket scientist. But it doesn't take one to figure out, you can't build on that piece of land. I told my wife the only way we would ever build a home in a subdivision is if we could make sure that our backyard never became someone else's backyard. We're very close to that here. But what we've had is four years. Four years of burning. The only time I've ever stood in this room is me begging the city council to please make these people stop their illegal burning. After thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars worth of hotel bills, where I have to take my family from our home to a hotel because my wife's allergies are so severe and her smoke allergy is so severe. Our entire home is engulfed in smoke from fires that are too large, as per the city, from fires that are too high, as per the city, from fires that are burning at night, all night

long, with nothing to be done. JOSHUA MONCRIEF: That finally stopped after it stopped, they decided to take all their debris instead of hauling it off and bury it right where foundations are supposed to be on five homes on that plat, right where our future neighbor's homes will crumble right before our very eyes. If anyone is allowed to ever build out there. But it doesn't matter because no one's ever gonna be able to. If this project continues, it's just more mental torture for us, mental torture for our children, and a horrible, horrible, horrible quality of living in the place that we decided to be at. Lastly, the blasting is insane. We have neighbors that are military wartime veterans with real and severe PTSD, and at any moment, at any time, these guys just hit one, hit one so severe that our homes literally shake. And I cannot imagine what those men are going through every time they hear that. What it takes them back to every time they hear that they didn't fight for our freedom to come home and be tortured from the same wartime agony that they finally escaped when they were able to come home. It doesn't make sense for the project to continue, and I appreciate your consideration of that matter. (CROSSTALK) Sir can I get your name again? Joshua Moncrief 1590 Creekstone Drive. SPEAKER: (UNKNOWN) related to these two public comments could ask the question of... If this request is denied, does all work stop? SPEAKER: So... Yes, sir, all work has stopped now. (CROSSTALK) But it would just remain... Yes, sir, I mean, they would we would always request that anything be stabilized. But my knowledge it would there would not be

able to develop plats. (CROSSTALK) Write your name and address, please. MICHAEL HUTCHINSON: Yes. My name is Michael Hutchinson. I'm at 1811 South Lake Drive. And I have lived here back when my address was 1402 South Uniroyal Road. So, I've seen all this start and arrive where we're at. There's some ambiguity about who is really responsible for maintaining the level of the lake, for lack of a better word. The there's a spillway on one side of the dam and a standpipe drain pipe on the other side of the dam. I believe that the way that the plot is drawn, that standpipe will be inside the property boundaries of one of the lots for sale, or that is being proposed. And at this point, for almost 20 years that I've been there, I don't think there have been more than two or three people who are really not empowered to do so that have tried to maintain the drainage of the lake through that standpipe. So, it has caused water levels to rise and fall. And I have a, I have a dock out onto that lake, and it's ruined basically from constant immersions and floodings and drying out. So, it's not nearly as dramatic as some of our neighbors have suggested. But this is a problem for me personally and for anybody that lives around that lake. If they wanna enjoy the water course, then they're at risk of something. I'd like to see some clarity on someone's part on how that standpipe, which will be one of the lot or associated with one of the lots currently proposed, how that will be maintained and keep flooding. I've had neighbors come from farther downstream, come knocking on my door, wanting to know what I'm gonna do

about that problem, and I have nothing to tell them. Thank you. That's what I have in mind. SPEAKER: Give us your name and address. JEFF REICHEL: Hello, everyone. My name is Jeff Reichel. I live at 544 Towne Lake Parkway in Opelika. And since old guys lose their place and tend to wander. I'm going to read what I've written, if that's alright with you. I attended the city council meeting on February 3rd, where the moratorium got its first reading, and the public was allowed to make comments. I'm a relatively new resident to Opelika, but I found it comforting to know that the powers that be in Opelika had recognized that this city had reached a crossroads regarding uncontrolled growth and was considering taking a step back to allow time to develop rules that ensure going forward. Development is better suited to improving the quality of life for current and future residents. This moratorium takes place in three days. In researching the operator here before you today, requesting an extension to their plat plan on South Uniroyal Road, I found that they represent many of the reasons that moratorium was enacted. I was going to list the reasons why, but I won't because you've already heard them. So, I'll add just a few more things. Houston Homes was the original owner of the land. It was in three sections. They built Stone Creek on the southeast side, South Lake on the northwest side, the middle parcel. They determined to be unbuildable and sold it to the current operator. For four years. The immediate neighbors have been exposed to unrelenting, bone-jarring noise.

That kind of noise takes a health and sanity toll on anyone forced to endure such torture, people say. Development developments make noise. This excuse can only be used by people ignorant of the situation. Any reputable operator after four years would at least have utilities installed, home sites laid out and some homes finished. There would be an end in sight. None of that exists at this plat. If you were to visit this site, you'd clearly see that many problems exist, putting neighbors at risk, especially children that might wander onto the property. In fact, the quality of life for the surrounding homeowners has degraded to the point where quite a few are in the process or have already moved away, including a current City of Opelika council member. One of the goals of the moratorium will be to establish rules governing those operators found to be insufficiently experienced, underfinanced, or unwilling to conclude a project within a reasonable period of time. As I said earlier, any reputable developer in Opelika would have been a lot farther along, and it's a responsibility of this commission to weed out those operators who are incapable of completing a project, and who would pose a threat to the health and welfare of our citizens. This is a critical responsibility of this commission. I feel it's unjust to expose the neighboring residents to five more years of teeth-rattling, noise-blasting dust and uncertainty over their future. Who's to say if this request is approved, that the operator won't be back in front of this commission five years from now, asking for another extension? In closing, I'm sure that a representative from the operator or their attorney will get up and say that I'm completely wrong, that there are qualified developer, that they intend on finishing the project.

But one of the valuable lessons I've learned in my 73 years is to give little weight to what people say and instead look at their actions. What do the actions of this operator tell you? They tell me this request should be denied. Thanks. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? Would you give us your name and address? CHAO HAN: My name is Chao Han. I live at 289 Ivy Lane, Auburn, Alabama. And I'm the owner of the plat that we're talking about here. And I just wanna make a short statement after hearing everything before that from our perspective, our side of the development throughout these four years. As you guys will probably hear through all the history of four years, what we've been through and the two contractors, how we got here. And we initially really wanted to work through, like I said, this rock situation without having to go through blasting for the first four years. And in conclusion, in addition to, say, inexperience on our part also, and we found two contractors, especially the first one, who you heard we sent to jail for just not completing the things as we requested and gone through. That's partly also our responsibility and our mistake about that, too. That's why we, but I think all through four years, we have been working, trying to get through this project, trying to get through the blasting.

We had another contract to keep going, and he's unfortunately also he had a health issue to also slow down our work. But the main issue is this rock. Finally, we, the blasting. We also wanted to do it last year, already in October, before the expiration of this approval. But blasting went through harsh winter weather, and also delayed us six months until now. Finally, when we're finally ready to do the blasting, now it has expired. So, I believe we're almost at the end of all this torture, as you were saying. Also, our torture developing this, we work with environment, we pay the fine they requested, whatever we need to do to push this through. I think, like you said, by our actions, we just didn't leave it like that. We working anything what we needed to do to get this through. And I think we believe we're at the final step. Final three steps of the projects. And if you deny us right now, you basically everything we've done through everything they've suffered through everything the city could have. You know what we proposed all these house to to be just done. I mean, just not through. So, we're willing to work with the city if they want to approve, like fire marshals or any meeting to address every any concern the city have, every people that have to mitigate it, to work through it as well as we have shown. So, if we don't wanna meet a meeting to help you approve, to keep this project through, we're willing to do that. So, that's all I have to say right now, and hopefully see you. Consider it. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. MIKE MA: My name is Mike Ma. I work with precision surveying. I think we're the only contractor who has stayed on this job since it began. I believe our job number is about a 21 year in front of it, so it's been closer to five years.

And speaking with the owners, I recommended them and put this in front of the commission. I think the thing to do would be to ask to have this, this tabled and have a moment set up or some meetings set up with Mr Mosley and Mr Parker to find out a way to come to a way to plan a way forward, to get out of this mess. I don't think we wanna leave it where it's sitting the way it is. It would be an erosion problem. It's a danger problem. There's a lot of work on-site that needs to be completed. So, if it is still your will, I think it would be a thing that the owners would like to do to request a table. And then really look at all these concerns that have been brought up, which are real. And then see if we can plot a way forward with the planning department, the engineering department if that would be open to the planning and engineering departments to set that up. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: So, does the developer who just spoke have to approve a tabling? SPEAKER: The... So, we are again, a few days from a moratorium. So, any tabling at this point would. SPEAKER: Push it a year, at least. SPEAKER: Anyone else? SPEAKER: May I ask, based on what he was saying, one more question? Did I understand that the blasting is done? (CROSSTALK) I believe they... Completed. SPEAKER: Some minor blasting left, but I don't think it's... MIKE MA: I can answer that for me. They still need to get preliminary plat to be able to finish the blasting. There's still additional work that needs to be done out there to remove the rock. So, there's still more to be done. I don't know if it's a lot or a little. If you all know that. SPEAKER: Maybe. Two more. Yeah. Very little completed within two weeks. OK.

SPEAKER: You said two weeks. SPEAKER: Two weeks. SPEAKER: Mike, what about the silt buildup in the lake? What's the status there? How does that gonna be resolved? MIKE MA: I mean, that would be that would have to be something either Adam would tell them what to do, or Corps of Engineers, or the city departments themselves would have to say, here's the criteria you have to meet to clean this up and put it back into the right spot. OK. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? JOSIAH CONNELLY: My name is Josiah Connelly. I live at 1704 South Lake Drive. What happens? This is a question. What happens to the development if it's tabled and the moratorium goes into effect? What happens next? Does it just sit there for how long? So, the development just sits as it is for a year. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: And then what? SPEAKER: Happens (INAUDIBLE). After the moratorium, they would be able to come back based on the regulations in place at that time to develop it or ask that it be developed. SPEAKER: Did they remove their equipment from the site? Did they remove any materials they have on site? Anything like that to do anything to mitigate the silt or anything. If the moratorium goes into effect. SPEAKER: We would, yes, try to make sure that the site is secured as far from an erosion standpoint and safety standpoint. SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. SPEAKER: So, Matt, if it's denied, would it stay in the same state? What does it look like if it's denied then?

It just, you know, tabled versus denied. I think we need to... SPEAKER: If it's denied, it would likely again stay in the same state as well. We would try to get them to make sure that it is. There's not a sediment issue, and that it's not an unsafe condition, but it would likely stay the way it is largely today. SPEAKER: Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? No motion. SPEAKER: What happens if you don't get a motion? SPEAKER: I can make a pretty complicated. I can make a complicated one. I can make a motion that the developer that we approved the plan. As long as the developer moves forward underneath all city, state, federal regs to clean the site, stabilize the site, and follow all fire codes and all city recommendations. SPEAKER: So that was a positive recommendation or negative recommendation. SPEAKER: Positive recommendation. As long as he follows those, the guidelines that the city state fed have imposed along with the Planning department's recommendations. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion?

SPEAKER: If we approve this plan. If we approve it, what action is going to be taken on the slope going down to the lake to prevent what's going on in that lake? And then who's responsible for the standpipe, you know, so that it drains properly. SPEAKER: At this time, the slope going to the lake from the south side and the standpipe is under the current ownership of this developer. So any remediation to the slope, stabilization slope and repair and maintenance of the standpipe is under their obligation. SPEAKER: OK. So you're gonna have to, you know, control the erosion in some way or another. OK. And you said you'd be willing to do whatever it takes to get through. And that is to get proper drainage for that lake. And can we include that in, as in those recommendations? And I think that needs some immediate action. SPEAKER: So yes, you could include that as an amendment to the approval. It'd have to be amended, seconded, vote on the amendment, then vote on the overall motion. SPEAKER: Say that again. SPEAKER: So if you wanted to make that amendment, you would have to ask to amend the motion to include that somebody would second it. You vote on the amendment, and if the amendment passed, then you vote on the overall motion. SPEAKER: It's all words. SPEAKER: Are you making a motion? SPEAKER: I am making a motion to amend the motion to include...

how would I state this, Mr Mosley? SPEAKER: Stabilizing the slope and.... SPEAKER: Remove the silt. And removing the silt from the lake. SPEAKER: Silt. SPEAKER: Removing the silt. SPEAKER: And repairing the (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: And the standpipe. I think what I'm driving at is proper drainage for the lake to prevent what we've heard is docks at these property owners are covered up, drowned. So that's fine. SPEAKER: Alright. Do I hear a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor for the amendment? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Any abstain? SPEAKER: Now you would vote on the amended motion. SPEAKER: A motion now for the motion. SPEAKER: Can I just make a statement. Why do we think it's gonna change when it hasn't progressed in four years? SPEAKER: It's a valid question. SPEAKER: I mean I just think we need to think about that. The history of what... SPEAKER: I think one of the worst things, though, is to let it just sit there and continue just to be a cancer. You gotta have an opportunity to fix it and repair it. That's the only reason I said what I said. I hate for it to sit there any longer in the state it's in without some positive movement, and I don't know what you know, without some real oversight from the city, the state, and the fed, that you're going to see that. SPEAKER: They can come back with the new ordinances or in the new rules are developed. They can't come back. So it's not like they can never revisit this again. So they can't come back.

SPEAKER: So here's the motion. The vote on the motion. All in favor. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: And the motion is... SPEAKER: The motion is to approve the subdivision preliminary plat subject to the requirements that Mister Whittlesey put in place that it be brought back up to code, and then the additional ones that you put on as well. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: All in favor of the motion? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: Nay. SPEAKER: And for the record, would you just please make sure we you state the reasons for your negative statement on the record. Are any of you are... SPEAKER: Like miss Watley said, that the history of the property has not been kept up or moved forward in a positive way. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: So just to be clear, so since it didn't pass, that piece of property is just going to sit there. SPEAKER: Yes, sir. SPEAKER: Undeveloped. They can't do anything. They can't continue to do anything. SPEAKER: Again, we will work to try to get the property stabilized as best we can. But they cannot continue with development practices during that time. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Alright, number six. SPEAKER: Number six is a request for preliminary plat. This is Morris Ridge Subdivision. This is located in the off of Hill Flow and near Heather Brook and Cedar Creek Drive. This was formerly part of the Cedar Creek subdivision, and was approved as part of a PUD some time ago.

The applicant representing this is Mike Maher with Precision Surveying, representing Tim Moore, Morris Construction. The subject property is part of a planned unit development. The applicant is requesting preliminary approval for a 26-lot subdivision, as again said, this was originally part of the Cedar Creek PUD. They're renaming it to Morris Ridge. The lots are range in size from 14,500ft² to 28,000ft², 80ft in width. They're similar in size to the previous ones you saw on Cedar Creek last month. The density is 1.7 unit dwelling units per acre on the 14 acres we recommend. Here's the plat. Sorry, I should have brought this to you earlier. This is the subdivision plat, as you see. So it extends Cedar Creek Drive. There will still be a gap between this phase and the phase that you saw last month. It's my understanding that Mr Moore plans to bring that back after the moratorium, and has time to review this a little bit more. But we are recommending preliminary approval, subject to them meeting the minimum setback in the plat notes, installing sidewalks on both sides of the street, providing signature lines for Opelika public Works, showing the undivided, undeveloped remainder parent parcel, the sub streets, stub streets having names and right of way widths Provide a temporary turnaround at the end of Cedar Creek until such time that it's connected. The owner's name and address. No date needs to be revised. And then, the right of way for Cedar Creek phase one B needs to be shown and indicated portions along lots one through three. SPEAKER: Engineering.

SPEAKER: The applicant will need to submit roadway construction and development plans for the extension of Cedar Creek Drive, for this subdivision. Once this review is approved, a pre-construction meeting will be held, and the permit will be issued for construction. All roadway construction be inspected and monitored by all departments and utilities involved. Once the construction is completed, bonds will be issued, and then it will be back to this board for final plat acceptance once the infrastructure is completed. I do need to note... I want to note that this only has one access for over 30 lots, where a secondary emergency access will be required, either through some way to get out to Hill Flow Drive, and engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this preliminary plat approval. Opelika Water states that the water will be available from eight inch main on City Creek Drive. Please note that for homes for the finished floor elevation above 805ft, available pressure will be below 50 psi. Individual pumps for homes may be required for boost to boost pressure. This subdivision is inside of Opelika Power territory. SPEAKER: Just one point of clarification. This is only 26 lots, so I thought I had 30 something. It starts numbering at 13, so it looks like it's higher than it is. SPEAKER: Alright, this item. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? MONTY NEWPORT: I'm Monty Newport, 1100 Cedar Creek Drive. And really, I only have a question. And we've got this wonderful plat drawing that's not completely accurate because we brought our property,

which would be the equivalent of lot 126 a year and a half ago from the Tyrrells, who are listed in the blank area. What I'm after is what's in that blank area. That will be obviously right adjacent to the property that I own that hasn't been qualified in any of the either the phase one approval or this. So I'm just curious what that will be. SPEAKER: At this time, it's not designated. Since it's part of a pod, they would have to show what that's going to be in a through that master plan process. SPEAKER: OK. It'd be really cool to know if we're going to have like a shooting range there or something, or, you know. SPEAKER: Well, I have no earthly idea. It's also... SPEAKER: If they do decide to do something there, they're gonna have to amend their master plan, which would qualify. You would get a notification. And so you would know when something is going to go there, whether it's a single family or shooting range, or whatever it is. I don't think that's likely. But you would get notification when a use is designated there. SPEAKER: And you did say they're putting sidewalks throughout both sides of... SPEAKER: Yes, sir. SPEAKER: On this phase. Yes, sir. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners. SPEAKER: Motion for approval of staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Thank you. Item number seven is the wood subdivision, Phase two. This is a request for preliminary approval of a subdivision located on Macquarie Street.

So here you see the subject property. It's located just behind recently approved townhomes and the Park apartments. The property goes all the way back through to Fox Run Parkway... South Fox Run Parkway. It's zoned C-2 and Gateway Quarter secondary. So here you see the overall plat, the development has 75 single-family lots. Excuse me. MATT: It takes access off of Stow Avenue, which is located here. There is a secondary access coming off of Oliver Avenue, which is intended to be an emergency access location. And then again, you have what is designated as open space on South Fox Run Parkway. The lots all meet the R5 zone, which is what is required in the C-2 commercial zone when residential is applied for about 78, which is at shown as open space is actually an emergency access. Proposed to be gated. We recommend that it be improved and that there would be no. Signs requiring that no parking or blocking of that access is allowed. Planning staff is recommended residential buffer along lots one through nine and 37 through 54. And the side of 57 adjacent to the Townhomes through here to buffer against those, the sidewalks are required on both sides of all streets. And we are recommending preliminary approval of this subject to those qualifications or conditions, installing underground utilities, sidewalks on both sides, connecting to McCoy had a note.

Who will be responsible for the building's maintenance and maintaining the open space amenities. HOA Properties Detention Ponds had the owners', developers' name and address of the plat, had the owners across Macquarie Street across South Fox Run Parkway, confirmed seven through seven, eight, nine, 12, 13, and 36. Meet the minimum requirements or modify them to be conforming. I think they're slightly right on the edge of the lot width requirements, and then improve and provide signage for the fire access. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The applicant will be required to submit infrastructure and construction plans for this site, with all the roads and utilities involved. It'll be reviewed, approved, and permitted at a pre-construction meeting. All the roadways and utilities be constructed and monitored once it is completed. It will be bonded and come to come back for final plat approval. Mr Mosley mentioned the fire access on lot 78. Improved all the way to McCoy Street. There's also a this this plan is dependent on dedication of right-of-way connection that is existing has an existing roadway on Stow Avenue. This right-of-way is currently tied up in court proceedings and will need to be resolved prior to the final plat acceptance of the subdivision. Opelika Water states water is available from eight-inch main on Stow Avenue and the six-inch main along McCoy Street at Oliver Avenue, and 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?

SHIRLEY JONES: Good evening, I'm Shirley Jones. I am at 239 Grove Street. I just have a couple of questions because where we live, there is a creek behind the homes. So, I'm trying to find out, are you gonna drain it? Or is it just gonna stay like it is? We also. It's also connected to a lake. So, I really, we really would like to know what's gonna happen with that creek and lake. MATT: I believe that is the creek here that's shown in the open space. I don't think they're planning on really doing anything adjacent to it. And the lake is, from my understanding, planned to stay the way it is now. SHIRLEY JONES: Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Make a motion to approve it for staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed, any abstain? Motion carries. MATT: The next two items are request for final plat. The first is Lower Lakes phase one C. This is located at the intersection of North Uniroyal and Ridge Road. The applicant is Blake Rice with BSI representing Flat Iron Farms LLC. They're proposing to get final plat approval for 57 lots in the overall 338 lot subdivision as part of the Laurel lakes planned unit development. So, here you kind of see the proposed section that they're working on.

It extends from Ontario to a new road moraine drive, and then connects out on Erie Drive to Ridge Road here. So, it'll make a new connection. There's a fairly significant buffer shown along Ridge Road and then one along South Uniroyal as well. These lots meet the minimum square feet, 8,000 to 17,000ft². Minimum lot width of 60ft from the planned unit development. The PUD is shown here. Kind of extends a little bit further back. It was made larger through this development. So, some of these lots along moraine are slightly shorter than some of the other lots within the development, but they still meet standards as required. We feel this plat meets the requirements for final plat, and we're recommending approval, subject to them installing underground utilities sidewalks on both sides of the street and add a signature line for the Planning Commission chair. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The engineering Department has been inspecting the construction in the testing of the infrastructure of the subdivision, and all is complete. The required bonding is has been submitted, and a few other items will need to be tied up prior to the signing of the plat. Opelika Water will need to have their system inspected before they will sign the plat, and sewer will also... Public works and sewer will also make sure their infrastructure is tested and passed before they will sign the plat. Other than that, final plat approval is recommended. And this is outside of Opelika Power Services territory. SPEAKER: Alright. This item does not call for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion?

Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed, any abstain? Motion carries. MATT: Item number nine is the Willows subdivision plat number two. This is a request for final plat approval from Blake Rice with BSI representing Trademark Quality Homes, LLC. Subject property is undeveloped in the R-3 zone. You see, it's located here where the current phase of the Willows ends. Before you get to Fox Run Village phase five, which is to the west side of it. They're requesting final plat approval for 56 lots. This all was formerly part of the Stephen Woods phase six development, renamed as a new development. These. Lots all meet the minimum size requirements of 10,000ft² in the R-3 zone. And the width, there are two open space detention lots. You see the first one right as you enter from the east. And then there is one that follows along the creek that goes through here as well. Kind of dividing this from a different neighborhood. This development will provide connectivity through the basically from Lafayette Parkway, through Brookstone Drive to Willows Drive. And then we'll continue out into the Sawyer Drive neighborhoods and so connect large sections of this entire part of town back towards US-431 Fox Run Parkway.

The final plat notes the sanitary sewer pump station here, which we'd previously asked him to know to. And we are recommending. Final plat approval provided they install sidewalks on one side of all streets and install. Underground utilities and that's to connect the existing sidewalks there. SPEAKER: Alright. This item does not call for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: For approval of staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed, any abstain? Motion carries. MATT: The next items are all conditional use requests. There are a few different ones related to specifically residential uses. We'll go through those. The first is a request by the Opelika Housing Authority, represented by Blake Rice, for BSI. This is a request to. Expand and redevelop the Pleasant Drive or Pleasant Homes Housing Authority property. The subject property is zoned R-5. It's located on Pleasant Drive between the railroad tracks, East Alabama Health, and Property, and then Pepperell Parkway. The subject property is approximately 20.9 acres.

They're proposing a 250-unit, 252-unit development project on this or development on this, this piece of property. Currently, there are 74 units in the development in the Pleasant Homes community on approximately five acres, with the southern piece there adding an additional property to the north, which will allow them to expand. Because of this expansion, they are actually reducing the overall density on the site because it's spreading out the development across a larger area. So, you will see as we go through that will change. Pleasant homes, I believe, was originally approved back in the 1950s. It's one of the older housing developments we have in the city. The developer is coming in to do a mixed-income, mixed-residential style development. This will include a variety of some apartment-style units, primarily townhouse and duplex-style units. That will create a range of housing types and a range of different tenants from an income standpoint. They will maintain the same number of what are called rental assistance project-based vouchers. So, those, that number will stay the same. They will look at other tax credits properties and then potentially market rate properties that will workforce development properties that will be mixed through the rest of the development kind of spreading out the people so that it's not just one income located in kind of one segregated to one small area.

You kind of see the overall plan here with these front units being some apartment-style developments, the yellow being duplex two-unit developments, and then the purplish pink color being more townhouse developments. There are multiple community amenities throughout here. You some offices and a workforce center along with parks, pickleball, tennis court and dog park gazebos, athletic courts. Looking at the long, the future land use plan, this does have a single-family neighborhood designation. It's unique because it is located between a manufacturing designation immediately to the east and then the healthcare institutional designations to the south and to the east. When you look at these buildings, the fairly massive structures, of course, the Health is probably one of the tallest buildings in the city. And then you've got a, I believe it's over 100,000 square foot manufacturing facility to the east. So, I don't believe there's an issue of scale related to what's being proposed here through the development. The current density, as I mentioned, is 14.8 units. Because this is spreading out, even though it's adding units, it's going to go under 12 units per acre of the existing neighborhood to the east has a variety of residential types, including multifamily, townhouse, duplex, and single-family. So, I think it will fit in from that standpoint. MATT: Let's see. And then we have noted, like we usually do, the need for sidewalks, how they will address trash and garbage.

But what you'll see through this development, they provide it through the notes, is it's gonna be a phased plan. So, phase one will include a mix of some apartments and duplex units up to 62 units, then phase... Excuse me. And they provided sample elevations. Phase two adds in additional apartments and duplex with some amenity space. Phase three takes the existing homes with the idea that those residents have not been relocated outside of the original location, they'll be moved in, and with the rest of the new residents into the existing development. And then we'll be redeveloped as townhouses. And then phase four, the final phase, showing a connection potentially to East Alabama health, along the back, opportunities for walkability, and access to both employment and then groceries to the north with Wright's Market across the railroad tracks. Overall, they have noted the requirements for landscaping and do meet those. They've provided a breakdown of the number of units and styles. So, it's 108 apartment units, 114 townhouse units, and 30 duplex units. Here's kind of a street view of Pleasant Drive, so you can kind of see what is there now. Of course, the property to the north of this is largely wooded. Overall, this meets many of the requirements. We've noted in the comprehensive plan and other plans dating back to the Carver Junior plan, where we talked about stratified-income redevelopments of our housing authority properties. We feel like this is will create a positive in the neighborhood and will help redevelop some of this older

housing, providing new housing going forward in this area. We're recommending approval, subject to them adding sidewalks along Pleasant Drive, which are not currently shown for trees along both new and existing streets, as the landscape plan is finalized. If dumpsters or compactors install, dumpsters or factors must be installed enclosed on all sides with an opaque fence so the dumpster is not seen out of it. Opelika Environmental Services must approve any waste collection type and location. All utilities shall be underground. Mechanical and HVAC units should be screened from the public. Right of way units shall meet the standards of the Gateway Corridor or meet or exceed the quality of the images provided, and prior to each phase, the developer shall provide the City of Opelika with a number of units, funding sources, or grants which will be used to ensure that the overall development remains mixed-income development. I'm happy to answer any questions. I think there are also some others who may be able to answer some of those specifics for you. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The engineering department will coordinate all the site construction and permits for this area, and hold a pre-construction meeting, and monitor the disturbance of the site. Opelika Water Services available from six-inch main on Pleasant Drive, and once the final water demand is determined, it may be possible that an additional eight-inch main is required to be extended from Pepper Parkway to serve this development. Opelika Power will serve this development as well. SPEAKER: Alright. This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this development? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: For approval with staff recommendation?

SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: I'll second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yeah. Matt, when you talked to the developer, I know this is a pretty intense development. That's what's the what's the time frame? What's the build-out? MATT: They've explained to me that it's likely that each phase will be a year time frame. So, you're probably talking about adding a roughly a quarter each year. So, probably four-year minimum build-out. SPEAKER: And hope to start next year, early next year. MATT: This year. So, some of this, I believe will work through some grant funding sources, which those are on set timelines. I'm not sure exactly what those are, but I believe their idea would be to start within the next year. SPEAKER: It's a great project. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. 11. MATT: Item number 11 is a request for a duplex at 1501 Spring Drive. This is a request from Mike Maher with Precision Surveying representing Eagle Properties of O, LLC. Nicole, the subject property is zoned R-3. It's located on Spring Drive near Dale Avenue. The site was formerly part of a larger lot and has been subdivided off. The lot. Meets the minimum requirements for a single-family home or duplex. Being 10,000ft², in the, excuse me, in the R3 zone. I apologize. So, the applicant is proposing to build two units on the 10,000 square foot lot. You'll notice we're talking about this a lot here.

To the right, there's two with one with an existing home. The, this lot I believe, previously had a carport for the main home on it. You'll notice that there are a couple different easements that cut across this property, which kind of limit where and how this can be developed. The applicant is proposing to build two units, both approximately 395ft². It would contain a living room on each side, a bedroom with bathroom, and then a kind of living room-kitchen together. Both front doors would face Spring Drive here, with parking in front requiring two units each. The properties are zoned R3. The around here, you've got C3, R3, and R5, which is higher density. There are some duplexes located here that are a couple blocks to the north. We noted that this proposed duplex exceeds the density, typically allowed in the zone, although it is, the planning commission can grant a 25% density bonus that would still get it up to just right at one unit per acre based on the size of this lot and the density of the zoning designation as proposed, this would be closer to eight units per acre just because it's two units on a smaller lot. In reviewing this, we feel like the density on this lot is exceeding kind of what is adjacently immediately adjacent, although there is some some commercial and some duplexes in the area.

We feel like the character of this would be better served as a single-family home. And as such, we're recommending denial of the request for duplex. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments in the Opelika. Utilities are prepared to serve the site. SPEAKER: It's across the street. MATT: Across the street. I believe you have a, you have a home, I believe right on the corner. And then. I'd have to check and see what that is. I believe yes, sir. SPEAKER: 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 to deny. Conditional use. Reasoning being scale. Thanks. Mentioned by the planning department. Those are very small apartments. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor of this? Any discussion? All in favor of this motion? (CROSSTALK). Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MATT: Item number 12 is a request for conditional use for botanic cottages. This is a request from Hayes Sanford Group representing Botanic LLC. This subject property is at 1702 Frederick Road. The applicant is requesting 12 detached dwelling units on a single lot.

These are considered intended based on the applicant's discussion, to be short-term rentals, more like kind of cottages or resort-style rentals. The subject property is zoned C2. It's in the gateway corridor. Many of you are probably familiar with Botanic. They have a mixed-use property with a variety of retail, residential, retail restaurant, and, greenhouse operations on the current property. What you see here is they're proposing 12 units around the opposite side of the lake, with a what is shown as a conservatory, I believe here in the middle, the conservatory use is allowed, meaning it would be provided they meet all the requirements is not subject to the conditional use the residential because they have multiple residential units on a single lot is considered apartments or multifamily in the C2 zone. So, that's the way we've reviewed it. They are proposing again for that would be near the front parking lot, and then initial eight that would go along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the funeral home on this side. These units would be served by access down a shared easement that goes back to the property where residential property is behind it. But the property is owned by Botanica LLC. Subject property is approximately 11.6 acres. So, the overall density is approximately one. And the gateway corridor, they're required to have a 40-foot front setback foot set. Excuse me. 40-foot front setback and 20-foot side and rear setbacks.

We've noted on here and the initial plan that one of the cottages did not meet that setback. It's approximately five feet in the corner. And so they would need to re-address that. They did revise their plan showing additional pull-in parking instead of parallel to provide some more space, and then a turnaround space at the end to meet, access, and fire code. We did note that the site previously met the minimum landscape requirements. They may have to take down some trees through here, and so we'll need to address that depending on what is removed. But assume, based on the type of use, that they will ultimately exceed the number of planting requirements. We are interested in making sure that they meet the planting requirements in certain areas, including adjacent to any parking lot areas, and then as previously required, there was a buffer required along this north side against the single-family home to the north. That property is zoned in a commercial zone, at least part of the property, but we do did recommend at that time, which was approved, and still recommend a buffer along this north side to prevent any sort of issues there. They originally did not have any dumpsters or trash facilities located here. We, they've noted one now kind of at the back of this turn off, those will still have to be approved through our environmental service department, because of some of the strong smells and at some of the existing dumpsters, we are recommending that those dumpsters be placed no closer than 50ft adjacent to any adjoining properties to make sure that there's no concerns from organic material. That would be dumpsters, compost, composting, refuse

bins, or other trash containers. We've also asked that they, as with any conditional use, show any outside storage or sales area on the site plan or any temporary lay-down or construction storage areas, and then noted that any gates need to be approved through city emergency personnel. Overall, we don't have any issue with the concept as provided. We do note that they do, they will have to meet the setback requirements for the city and the zone. And then, as I mentioned before, we are recommending that any dumpster, be dumpster, refuse bin, composting, or trash container, be located 50ft from any property line. Gates be noted and approved through city emergency personnel to ensure adequate access and stacking from public street driveway for the residential units be at least 20ft wide. Meet the minimum requirements of Opelika Fire Code, including signage that doesn't allow parking within on the driveway, and the buildings must meet the cladding requirements. We've also noted that any storage bins be screened from public right of way. SPEAKER: And then the residential buffer be installed along the north side building 12 or/and colleges be used for lodging, eating and sleeping private and/or commercial events and activities are prohibited in the cottages. Only registered contracted guests may utilize those cottages. SPEAKER: Engineering. SCOTT: Opelika Fire Department requires the proposed drive access will need to meet a minimum of 20 foot width for the increased traffic and emergency vehicles. And this was provided on the revised site plan. The permitting and land disturbance permit will be issued through the Building Inspections Department with the permitting of each structure. Private sanitary sewer, sewer system will need to be reviewed and approved by the Opelika Public Works Department for

each of these units. Engineering has no other comments concerns regarding this proposed conditional use. Opelika water states, an additional service connection is needed to serve this development. Water service is available from the 12-inch main on the south side of Frederick Road. The existing water service at 1600 Frederick Road must be maintained as well. This subdivision, this development is inside Opelika and Alabama Power Territory. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: I'll note that there is a letter that you received from the property owners to the north, the Slaters, including their concerns with the proposed development and specifically based on ongoing issues they have with the development, the access easement, making sure that it is remains clear and that the parking and traffic concerns they have for with the proposed development. So, I think we sent that out to you last week. SPEAKER: Yes. Yes. 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: Can I ask a question before we make any motion? SPEAKER: OK. Can you do that or have to have a motion first? SPEAKER: I mean, it'd probably be better to make a motion first. SPEAKER: Is that not a motion? SPEAKER: Can we hear the question? SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Can we hear the question? SPEAKER: I mean it...

So, what you should not be doing is having discussion about whether or not you would, you're voting for against this prior to that. If your question is not directly related to that or is just to get information, then I think that's fair. SPEAKER: So, if I make a motion, can I vote then against my own motion? SPEAKER: Yeah, I mean to get it on the floor. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: Just a second. Motion to approve with staff recommend... approve conditional use with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. Alright. SPEAKER: Alright, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? SPEAKER: Objection question, Honor. SPEAKER: We only get one shot at this. And this shows 12 units for rent. I guess game day homes or whatever you wanna refer to them. It also shows a big facility building that is slammed in between these 12. Due to the limited amount, I've been on the site several times. I really enjoy the location. I really enjoy what they provide. But as it relates to the community, parking and access has become a real issue. I think as a condition, we need to know what that use is or we've got to eliminate some of these buildings to lessen the parking demand. And the other thing I think needs to be done is there needs to be better access off of Frederick Road. If they're going to improve these roads, I would suggest we do, they do some writing, you know, some actual diesel lanes as a condition to do these improvements. I mean, anybody know what that big building is in the future?

SPEAKER: I'm not sure if the applicant is here. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Conservatory. Yeah. A conservatory, whatever that is. SPEAKER: Yes, the building is a conservatory because people have asked for a place to get married. And so, we are building a conservatory where people can get married. It is also there to do rehearsal dinners retreats, speaking engagements, luncheons. The one thing we don't have over there is a very large open room. We have plants everywhere. So, this is a large open room. And as far as parking goes, we are still investigating options on adding additional parking. We have not figured all of that out yet, but this was for the approval of the conditional use of that. But we still have to figure out all of our parking options. BRASWELL: I might add also the... We already are putting a 40-by-60 tent there, which is 2,400 square feet, which is the approximate size of this conservatory. So, it's not really huge. And we're already accommodating through our parking services. We also have agreements with other commercial places that surround us that allow us for overflow parking. We provide shuttle service. And on any day that we're super busy, we have a minimum of three parking attendants to help each person that enters our lot a parking spot with minimal frustration we feel like.

And so, I think we'll be able to manage the parking with all the additional parking we're already adding as well. SPEAKER: Did you say a minimum of three parking spaces per car? BRASWELL: No, a minimum of three parking attendants on days when we know that our parking traffic will be heavy. In other words, we have three parking attendants to help get anybody that enters our property into a parking spot pretty, pretty fast. SPEAKER: Mr Braswell, is that primarily handled through valet parking? Is that or is it... BRASWELL: No, sir. We just direct each car that comes in to where we go. If we had valet parking, we could do a lot more cars than we do, but we right now aren't intending on doing that. SPEAKER: And so, the road that goes down across the lake from the restaurant we need, maybe with 20 feet you could turn around, but you can't do it now. So, you're going to have to have more space between. SPEAKER: So, they've revised the driveway that that's was previously shown to a 20 foot wide drive to meet fire code. That's kind of what's the minimum for two-way traffic is. And then they do have a... They'll have parking spaces, which will act as turnarounds here to allow people to turn around on the residential portion. And then they'll also have a larger space that will allow bigger trucks, fire trucks to turn around as well. SPEAKER: On that road between Jeffcoat-Trant. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: So, they'll have to... Their plan shows them improving that road to where

it'll be wider and it'll be concrete or asphalt, right? BRASWELL: And that road is owned by Botanic. SPEAKER: (CROSSTALK) Botanic owns that road. There's an easement to the adjacent property owner, but they own the road. SPEAKER: And one of the concerns that we read about was utilities, I think gas, water. And right now, that's an unpaved road, right? And if you pave it, are there plans to pave it? BRASWELL: Yes. We would pave the road, yes. SPEAKER: OK. So, would that, is it, Scott, do you know if the utilities will go under that or under that road? And if so, who would be responsible for any repairs are necessary? SCOTT: So, my understanding that road is a private access and utility easement. So, the utilities that go to the back resident in the back of the property behind the property has existing utilities along that access easement. They would need to be maintained under... Well, I mean, it's a private utility, so it'd be private water and gas and things like that along that road. SPEAKER: So, the property owners behind it would have to maintain it. SCOTT: Or the property owner that is on it would have to maintain it or keep it viable. Yeah. SPEAKER: So, it could be botanic that would be responsible, would not be the city. SCOTT: Correct. BRASWELL: So, the property in question is in the territory of Alabama power right now. And so, they're already servicing that road as we speak. And of course, the city's addressed our sewer and sewer issues. And then I guess gas will be another question, but the existing property that where we work out of right now all have underground utilities. And that's what we would expect that we would install here as well. Everything would be underground. The part that wouldn't be underground, I suppose

is the part that goes down the property line on the Frederick Road or on the Frederick Funeral home side that services the existing residents whose residence is located on commercially zoned property. And I guess the other thing is, Stacey and I say is that we're constantly trying to figure out a parking issue so that we can make parking much easier for everybody. So, we certainly understand the traffic that's coming in and we also understand the need for us to address the parking. And so, that would be one of our primary objectives before we even start construction. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) JOSH MIRA: My name is Josh Mira. Well, I'm with Sanford Group. So, we would be the civil engineer on this project. SPEAKER: Can you speak a little louder please? JOSH MIRA: Yes, sorry. My name is Josh Mira. I'm with Sanford Group. We're the civil engineer on this project. So, the original site plan that we sent in had 16 spaces that were parallel parking. Since then, we submitted a revised site plan that has a 20-foot width as what was described, and now shows 30 parking spaces. So, that was an attempt to try to add some more parking on site as that's been a concern. And then the existing utilities that serve the neighboring property to the north when that asphalt road is paved in, it'll be with every intent to not disrupt any connections that are to the north, northern property. SPEAKER: Where would you go? JOSH MIRA: To put additional parking. Looking... SPEAKER: It's along that 20 foot share that drive that we're showing. It is 30 spaces off but... SPEAKER: (CROSSTALK) I thought you're talking about additional properties for the, I mean, parking for the conservatory JOSH MIRA: That is included in the 30 spaces that we're proposing as a part of the 20-foot drive off of that.

SPEAKER: And that's where the 20-foot drive would be, not between Jeffcoat-Trant and the property. JOSH MIRA: Yes. It's hatched in dark gray on the site plan before you there along the Eastern property line. SPEAKER: So, it's not on the Jeffcoat-Trant side. There's going to be a 20 foot road. It's... SPEAKER: But it's on that side. It's not on the.... It's on the botanic property. So, there'll be a buffer of a few feet from the Jeffcoat-Trant property line to the driveway. And then that driveway will run down that property line. SPEAKER: Alright. And there won't be any parking on that? SPEAKER: There will be parking on the interior side if you see the bump... SPEAKER: On the 20 foot? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Which... SPEAKER: Clarify that SPEAKER: 20 foot. SPEAKER: Which is what we, I mean, we do have 20-foot, we do have parking spaces like that in a lot of other situations. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: But can I clarify that parking situation, that parking was for the cottages that parking was not for the conservatory. So, we are still looking at our other options for additional parking. But as of right now, if that conservatory were there right now, it would be the same footprint of the tent we have been using and already parking all those guests. So, we just want to add additional parking for more comfort, for more room to spread out for our employees to be able to park, so that we can give all of our guests the other parking. So, we're looking at other opportunities to maybe purchase more land, work with the funeral home. Just different things that we have that we're researching. BRASWELL: OK. And... SPEAKER: It's so popular. Everybody wants to go there. BRASWELL: Can I add one, one last thing as

well, regarding this? Many time when people have set up a wedding event for us on a Saturday or Sunday or Friday or whatever it is, we talk to them about how many parking spaces that we can allow them to have based on what our commitment is throughout the rest of the complex. Like as an example, how many reservations we have that night and other events that might be happening. And so... SPEAKER: And so, we recommend that they share park or take busses because we tell them specifically how many spots, more or less, that they would be allowed to have. We also use our shuttle bus, as mentioned, to handle overflow parking. And it's not, throughout the week, it's never been an issue. It isn't an issue. And on the weekends, it's typically only on Saturdays when we have to implement our shuttle bus. But everybody seems to be amenable to that situation. If they wanna have a wedding or an event on site. With regards to our parking there, they're able to help us with the situation, understanding that we have a minimum amount of parking available. SPEAKER: Well, I won't beat this horse to death, but when you say we're looking at our options for additional parking, and I'm thinking about the conservatory, if it goes in up there and I'm looking at this, up here on the screen and I just don't know where you would go. What are your options? Where are they? SPEAKER: We do have other options. It's not something I wanna share with the whole community right now, if that's possible, because that might hurt our options. So if we could keep those under wraps until we negotiate. But we do. There are other options. So I just if you would allow me to not say that we do have other options.

SPEAKER: One again, one thing I do think we need to clarify is the conditional use today is for the residential aspect. They are gonna have to show their parking requirements for the conservatory at the time that they bring that in. And so, what I would tell the commission, I know it's there and it's something that you've gotta take into account 'cause you see it. But really, you should be looking at whether or not they're meeting their requirements for the residential portion, which it appears they do. And then when the later portion comes in, we'll have to work with them, whether that's through alternative parking requirements, whether it's through a variance process or what, to make sure that there is adequate parking for the conservatory. SPEAKER: Yes. That's what I was looking at. So we have a motion with you asking about right in and right out. SPEAKER: Yeah. I would with the motion. I'd like to amend the motion as the improvement of this easement road, this 20-foot easement road that they create an acel-decel lane on Frederick Road. SPEAKER: Right turn lane. SPEAKER: A right turn lane and a right turn lane in and a decel lane out. SPEAKER: Well, and I guess that's one question there is, I know they utilize the eastern entrance primarily as exit, is that? SPEAKER: The one that's closest to the funeral. SPEAKER: To the funeral home? SPEAKER: We use that primarily as an exit. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: But it's gonna be full everything now though, Matt. MATT: Well, it's just gonna be servicing the dozen units plus some of the conservative department. But most of the parking demands are at the main entrance. SPEAKER: I think you come by. I think we open ourselves up when that conservative comes back to possibly road improvements across

all of Frederick. SPEAKER: But just to reiterate the additional parking that we're talking about specifically for the cottages and would not, and to my point, previously we make arrangements for parking for any wedding events according to what our pressures are for the rest of the facility ahead of time. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: So typically the trigger a turn lane for that. SPEAKER: I understand, but it's a pretty critical. You have two entrance ways into this dynamic piece of property that serves a tremendous amount of people day in and day out. I think it just needs to be as safe as we can make it for the city. SPEAKER: So are you making an amendment to the. SPEAKER: So we need to vote on the second. SPEAKER: Would need to be a second. And then you would vote on the amendment. SPEAKER: Alright. And we're talking about having a. SPEAKER: That would be a right. SPEAKER: Right. SPEAKER: Turn lane. SPEAKER: And a decel lane, both. SPEAKER: Decel. SPEAKER: Lane access and decel. SPEAKER: I would like to request, if possible, that if a traffic study is required by the city, that would dictate, having that put in, I think would be a good caveat just to see if it's warranted. SPEAKER: The Planning Commission can make in regards to a traffic study, not the Planning Commission can make their own conditions for approval regarding the traffic study or not. SPEAKER: Alright. So a second. SPEAKER: We have a motion on deceleration and that lane and you've second. Any other discussion about that. All in favor. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed. Any abstain.

Motion carries. So the motion to. SPEAKER: So that would be the amended motion now to the approval of the request. So now you would vote on the overall. SPEAKER: The overall plan. SPEAKER: So can I ask a question or did the public hearing closed. I didn't hear. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. SPEAKER: Am I still allowed to ask a question? I didn't know if the public hearing was closed. I didn't hear that. SPEAKER: It was closed. SPEAKER: Well, the public, we were just asking a question. Yeah, we had a public hearing. Yeah, and it's closed. But we like to ask the developer and the owner questions too. And that doesn't apply to a public hearing. Public hearing is more for people who have something to say about it, not those regularly concerned. SPEAKER: Does he have something else to say? SPEAKER: Can he ask a question? He had another question. SPEAKER: Do you have something else to say? SPEAKER: I did. So when you have to do a, sure, when you do what you're suggesting, does that get covered by the city or is that our cost? SPEAKER: I would recommend it to be your cost. SPEAKER: OK. It would probably preclude us from doing the whole thing. SPEAKER: So it's an improvement of the road key. If you're gonna make that road, what I think you're gonna make it, it's just a great improvement for you, for your people, for your customers and for the city. But it's to your benefit. SPEAKER: Yes, sir. I don't know how it would happen but based on the space there. But it seems like a traffic light might even be a better process there.

SPEAKER: You could pay for one of those, too. SPEAKER: Alright. So we've got a motion now to approve the plan. And do we have a second for that. OK. Any other discussion? OK. All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Alright. Item number 13 is request for conditional use for a duplex. This is located at 104 Avenue C. This is on the corner of Avenue C and Second Street. The subject property is zoned R4. The applicant is requesting, the applicant is Alex Perez representing Ernestine Anderson Evans, the third. They're requesting the conditional use approval for duplex in the R4 zone. The subject property meets minimum requirements for the R4 zone. This is a slightly different from the previous one because of the difference in zoning. The density here is below what's required in this zone, which is nine units an acre. And this comes out to right at two dwelling units per acre on the 10,000 square foot lot. The future land use map shows this as a single-family neighborhood classification, which also includes townhomes and duplexes, especially in vacant lots or corner areas where infill can be allowed. We're recommending the units be approved. They are proposed to be 1,100 square feet apiece, meeting

the requirements of the gateway, their, party board, cement lap siding with pitched roofs to maintain the character. Here's just kind of a view from the corner here showing you both directions. So this is fairly large somewhat overgrown lot. We do recommend approval of this subject to the following. That they meet the requirements of the gateway corridor for the basic cladding. And then duplexes must be in character with the existing single-family neighborhood. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments regarding this proposed conditional use, and Opelika Water and Power are prepared to serve this site. 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: Motion for approval of staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number 14 is a request for conditional use approval for a point grant Opelika. This is a request from Hill Point, LLC representing Priester Construction Development, Jolly Rogers Properties, LLC. The subject property is currently undeveloped. It's zoned R5. The larger property also includes some C2 property right at the corner of Priester Road and Waverly Parkway. However, they are cutting that out of the overall lot. This is two parcels that would extend down Priester Road and have some frontage on Waverly Parkway.

Backs up to the, I believe it's the West side subdivision. You see kind of where Bruce and Jollit dead end now. The applicant is proposing to develop a 360-unit apartment and townhouse development, 48 townhouses, 312 apartment units on 27.63 acres. You've got, again, residential to the east, a approved subdivision to the east, just right along Waverly Parkway, which you all saw last month. Across the street, you have some office uses, and then you have two smaller multifamily style developments. And then Crestwood Mobile Home Park is across Priester Road and then some vacant properties before you get towards Dunlop and the East Alabama health property. The proposed development would include 11 apartment building groups, six townhome groups. The townhomes are located to the north, closer to Waverly Parkway near Waverly and Priester come together. The apartments are all along the western side of the property along Priester. You'll notice there's a stream that cuts through this property, and they're kinda using that as a buffer against the single-family residential back towards the east. I see there they provided some significant distance from those neighborhoods, except right up here where the townhouses are. They're closer in scale. The overall density for the development is 13 units per acre, which is below what's allowed in the R5 of 16 units per acre.

We looked at the surrounding zonings, you've got Crestwood Mobile Home Park, which is approximately 8.5 units an acre. West side, which is smaller, is about 2.5 units an acre. And then you've got Timothy Manor and Woodbend, which are six and 9.5 units per acre, kind of across the street and cutting corner down this way. This subject property has a future land use designation in the Opelika Comprehensive Plan of single-family neighborhood, which again, single family neighborhood is designated for those areas, primarily single family detached, but also includes townhouses and duplexes and infill and transitional areas. This would probably, very much be a transitional area as it kinda moves from the single family towards Dunlop Drive and the development that is occurring there. We did note that, of course, the higher density apartments are not explicitly called out there, although the comprehensive plan is the guiding document. So there is, to a degree, some flexibility there if the Planning Commission so chooses. The developer has provided a. MATT: Additional access point, which I think is worth pointing out. So, they're proposing to add a connection from Priester to the south, or excuse me, to the west, to Dunlop Drive. You see, coming in here, which would be a secondary connection, they feel this would be a I think they feel that this would be a primary connection to the development coming from the South from US 280, and East Alabama health, they also have a connection to the North that would align with White Road across the street.

Let's see. We've noted again there, noting the residential buffer setback. They've also, as we look through some of these developments, shown a grading plan and landscape plan, which shows plantings along Priester Road throughout the parking lots and then some along where the townhouses are adjacent to West Side, some plantings, and then along Waverly Parkway, additional street frontage, plantings. They've noted that the buildings, the multifamily will be approximately 45ft in height, meeting and this does meet the setback in the AR five zone, which, if you'll notice here, is, I believe, 25ft along the frontage street here. Priester, they've noted that trash compactors and dumpsters. Again, those will need to be approved through the Opelika Environmental Service department, and they will have to be screened and enclosed with approved court order materials or landscaping. They do meet the overall landscaping, parking points, landscaping and parking, general parking points. The overall parking requirements are also met as well. We did note through this and have kind of left a have not provided a positive or negative recommendation. We do feel that there are some issues here based on the future land use plan of what is proposed, and then noted that this does is denser than quite a bit of the surrounding properties. And if the planning commission chooses to approve the conditional use, we've provided some conditions

here, including relocating the sewer line that goes through the property. I think it's on the applicant's radar to do so. Had a sidewalk along Priester Road, along the street along Waverly Road or Waverly Parkway along the street, and then along the road. Excuse me, the proposed new street being constructed, dumpsters again will have to be approved. All utilities shall be underground. Any mechanical and HVAC units shall be screened from the public right-of-way. And any of the rear of townhouses shall be screened from the public right-of-way. Fences are used. They should be located between the landscaping and the back of the home. Happy to answer any questions. I will go through. They've provided quite a bit of information, including lighting plan showing lighting adjacent to, towards adjacent properties, meeting the city's requirements. They have also provided materials, design, and list. So, these are the apartment complexes. Here you see three stories mix of masonry, and I believe party board or cementitious fiber cement siding kind of the side view. An amenity facility. And there are a few amenities noted through the development, including pool, I believe fitness area. And here's a picture of the fitness room. Screening for the trash facilities, garages, which are there, are a few garage areas and storage areas located throughout the development.

And then the townhouse units, which show one-car garage. These are two-story units, of course. I think that's yeah. That's everything. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The applicant will submit a construction site plan to engineering and will monitor the construction of the grading and the site, as well as the new connector road to Dunlop Drive. The new connector road, Dunlop Drive, will be constructed city standards and will be dedicated to the city after construction with a final plat. There's also with the concern of the increased traffic on Waverly Parkway, the engineering feels that a left-turn lane will be needed for one of the entrances off of West Point Parkway. Be the... Either the entrance across from White Road or the entrance off of or at Preston Road. I feel that that should be considered as part of the condition of this site as well. Other than that, engineering has no other comments. Concerns regarding the proposed conditional use. Opelika Water states water is available from a ten-inch main along the west side of Preston Road and an eight-inch main on the existing water main, extending from Priester to Joliet, must be relocated and maintained to water connection to the 12-inch main on Dunlop will also be required along the proposed connector road from Dunlop to Priester. Units with a finished floor elevation higher than 805ft shall be designed for static pressure less than 50 PSI. Opelika Power and Alabama Power will service this development. SPEAKER: Alright. This item calls for a public hearing.

Anyone who would like to speak for or against. MARK ACKERMAN: Hello, my name is Mark Ackerman. I live at 1158 Willow View in the Springs of Mill Lakes. This is just west of Dunlop, on the opposite side of 280. And the problem we have in this area is that we have a state highway running through our city. And when people come to Dunlop in 280, anyone headed westbound is supposed to yield to traffic turning onto Dunlop. They do not. Anyone coming south on Dunlop trying to turn east on 280 crosses into traffic and thinks they can sit in the median until there's another break in the eastbound traffic, and there's at least one bad accident there every week. So, I'm all in favor of housing. This looks like a beautiful development, but we're bringing people on to Waverly Boulevard, which is where are they gonna go from there? Where are they probably going to be working somewhere to the south? So, how are they gonna get off of Waverly? They're either gonna have to come down Dunlop and face the mess at 280, or they're gonna have to go east on Waverly. And where are they gonna go, South? Pleasant down to a small two-lane, you know, stoplight. I just don't think that the flow of traffic out of this, for that many home sites and people, is gonna be practical. There's no turn lanes in the center of Dunlop. Traffic constantly backs up because people are waiting to try to turn into the loop for the medical buildings. So, I think that somehow you need to get a better understanding of the traffic flow through that area before we consider allowing somebody to put this many nice homes in a kind of a landlocked area, because 280 is a gnarled mess.

We have a problem getting in and out of our subdivision every day, and I turn onto Dunlop almost every other day because I own a piece of property over near Wright's Market off of Waverly. And there's an issue, and it's got to be addressed. And when you call the state and they say that it's got to maintain the way it is because it's too close to Pepperell to put a traffic light, and it's too close to an entrance across the street from there into the subdivision, that the shopping center where Ollie's is located. And it's just a gnarled mess. So, I think we need to express as a public that you need to look at how things are going to move through that area, because right now they're barely getting by. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? STEVE PENLAND: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Penland, and I live at 1019 Fitzpatrick Avenue in Opelika. And I attended the Planning Commission meeting last month to comment about the amount of development being added on Waverly Parkway and on Fitzpatrick Avenue, and after the meeting, a few days later, I noticed that there was. A traffic count was being conducted right across the street from my house and... This count, it appears, was conducted for a turn lane analysis at access points for this new development. I'm gonna ask that a more in-depth traffic study be performed to include the analysis of surrounding intersections and the capacity of Waverly Parkway. I believe this project cannot be approved without

this study being completed. Is just adding way too much additional traffic for our really narrow street. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? BRETT BASQUIN: Brett Basquin with the Foresight Group representing Hill Point. I think Matt did a pretty good job introducing this project. As mentioned, as part of this project, we've worked with East Alabama to coordinate access through their property to Dunlop for access. And so in regards to one of the questions that was meant about the in-depth analysis. A very in-depth traffic analysis was done and submitted to the city as part of this that evaluated both Dunlop Waverly and the driveways. And City Engineer has a copy of that study. In regards to the land use part of this, the portion of Dunlop that is adjacent, all the frontage on Dunlop is pretty much all owned by the East Alabama Healthcare Corporation. Now, if you look at your future land use, that's all shown in single-family residential future land use, just like this parcel. And so, as if you look at the future land use on the west of Dunlop is their office in business. They've now acquired all the frontage on that side. So, that use is gonna be extended to the other side of Dunlop. We feel like this use is a good transition between that commercial that's gonna end up being office business park between there and the single-family. In addition to the east of us, there is a fairly significant

stream with buffers that we've used as a buffer between this development and the adjacent single-family to the east. So, just wanted to mention those specific items. And then I'll let David Wisdom come up here and talk a little bit more about the land use. DAVID WISDOM: David Wisdom, Davidson, I'm here representing Hill Point. I just wanna reiterate what Bret said about the surrounding land use to the south and the west. Most of that property, like Bret said, is owned by East Alabama Medical Center. We are working with them on the Southern Road connector over on the south portion of the property, to the south and west of us. They are in support of this project and offered a letter of support for this project. We anticipate getting the proper agreements in place to facilitate that access through their property there. We do believe, as Brett said, that this is a good transitionary use between what we foresee to the south and the west of us, probably not being single-family homes owned by the medical center. And then the single-family homes to the east of us. So, having that transitional use, not a commercial use or a health care use, straight to a single-family home right next door. Don't think that would make much sense. So, we're here to answer any questions. And thank you for your time. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: I make a motion to deny conditional use based on the future land use map and the scale and density. SPEAKER: Is there a second?

SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? Alright. All who are in favor of this motion say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. 15. SPEAKER: Item number 15 is request for conditional use at 409 Geneva Street. SPEAKER: This is a request for Nelson Marsh as the owner and applicant. The subject property is located at 409 Geneva, corner of Geneva Street and Avenue D. It is approximately 5000 square foot building in the C-2 zone. It is in the south side, Geneva Historic District. Many of the properties around here are a mix of single family townhouse and some office kind of redevelopment uses. This was originally its 140 year old building. January 2025, many of you are probably aware that there was a fire here, which led to the damage significantly of the site. The applicant is coming in today requesting to basically kind of formalize the units and then add, from what we see, an additional unit. They have said that it has been there for quite some time to allow five units within this development. What you will see is there is the house fronting directly on Geneva.

They are working on the process to repair or rebuild that. On the main level, they are proposing two units, and then the basement has had three additional residential units for as far back as I could find. The subject property is about a half an acre. Because of the density, this is within the density of the development or of the zone. You will notice right here there is kind of a location underneath this kind of addition back here. The basement had three additional units located here that were accessed off this backside area. You can see the three mailboxes located on the street, and then parking was either along the street or in the backyard, which, if you look at it, is a fairly large back area here. The building department has stated that they would require the site come into compliance with fire safety, either through sprinkler or fire separation requirements. The adjacent lots, like I said, are a mix of single family through here, some vacant lots, and then across the street you have two sets of duplexes located right here on the opposite side of Geneva. Future land use shows this as mixed use commercial residential. It also notes that residential alone is an acceptable use. Overall, reviewing this, we feel that it is

a reasonable compatible use with what is around it, staying within the density of adjacent properties. We feel like this is a way to maintain the character of a historic home into the future. So we are recommending approval, subject to this middle of a site plan showing the required parking spaces, meeting historic guidelines, compliance with landscape regulations, including preservation of existing trees, approval of the Historic Preservation Commission for any exterior renovations, and installation of a fire sprinkler system on both floors, as required by the building inspection department. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments or concerns regarding this proposed conditional use. Opelika Water and Opelika Power are prepared to serve this site. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? SPEAKER: Nelson Marsh. I am the applicant currently at 509 Geneva Street. I moved 100 down. This was, I almost did not come to talk to you all, and I know if I am tired, you all certainly are, but this is a little emotional. That home is not just where my wife and I were living when our home burned down. It is also where I was born and raised. And through our research, we have found that the house was probably built in the 1860s, pre-1868. It was added on to four times, and due to the unique structure of the home, the first apartment was

probably added in about 1882. We believe this because the company that manufactured the windows that are present on the first floor, or the terrace level that is lighted on three sides, would have switched to nails or metal fasteners around that period, and we still have wood pins holding them together. Furthermore, we did have strong evidence that sadly burned up in the house that Miss Anne Price, who my parents purchased it from, whose grandfather purchased it from the original builder, had been occupying a home that had been leased and had tenants downstairs since at least she was born in 1912. She had records that she had actually written on the underside of a drawer and that her mother had, dating back to the Great Depression, when they were renting one of the small apartments there in support of the five units. When I was a child and my parents were living there when I was born, the top was divided into two units. There was a kitchen in the back and a kitchen in the front and two staircases. They changed that when we were living there. If you look, it currently has five individual meter shells there. Actually, if you refer to the overhead, you will note that there are actually four locations that are recognized by the postal service for 814 Avenue D. The reason for that is the shop on the back, where my father ran his business when I was a child, is a separate unit. It is separately metered. The reason for the discrepancy of the meter being on that instead of the one on the front is that there was a small efficiency apartment that was put in in 1947 whenever the tornado came down the tracks, and it only had a kitchenette. It literally had two plugs, so it did not have its own power service. We believe that this is the best opportunity for us

to save this very important structure, and one of the only three antebellum homes on that street, meaning pre Civil War. Further, I would love for this home to go back to being single family. Honestly, if it were not for the experience of that and the strokes that I had while we were living there, my wife and I would probably just move back in because we really love this home. But the viability of a house this size and the viability of caring for a wooden home with a 47 foot gable to the third floor is simply not there unless you can get some more units in it in today’s day and age. The reason we are pushing this through now is I would like to be able to go and seek financing for us to be able to save this house. Whether we do it or anyone else, I can promise you all that house cannot get knocked down. You all are going to have to go hunting for somebody. I will find them and shoot them if they try and do it. If you all have any questions, I am happy to give you all any and all color and information that I have on the project, but I do believe it is appropriate to my neighborhood. Thank you for your time. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion to approve conditional use with staff. Recommendations pending historical preservation approval. SPEAKER: So I'll second. SPEAKER: Okay. Kim, can we add. As long as it is. What I'd like to avoid is should it not?

I don't know how many years be in good order deteriorating that five apartments can go on that lot. SPEAKER: So, your approval is only valid for 12 months. If they don't move forward, they're either going to have to come back to you for approval, or they're going to have to figure out how to do something else in that location. SPEAKER: I mean, I would approve it the way it is, but in ten years, should the house fall into disrepair then or. SPEAKER: Oh, you're saying so if the house... SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: In that neighborhood have five apartments because there's five apartments in there now. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. I mean, you're more than welcome to put a condition on that, but I believe with our historic guidelines, we were somewhat insulated from that happening. We have a lot more control over what that is. And I agree this house should have been. We've been talking to them for some time about getting it back up to where it should be, but it... SPEAKER: It was a one family house. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. But we do realize that it's been almost a, it would have been almost a complete loss. And under the historic guidelines, it probably could have been torn down if they had asked. So, we've been trying to work with them to reestablish the house and its historic nature as it was, instead of something new there that looks like a house. SPEAKER: So, we've got we've got a motion. Public hearing is closed. We've got a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The last conditional use item tonight is a request at 215 Aurora Avenue. This is for a request for outdoor kennels. The subject property is located in the OR Industrial Park. The applicant is Lee Tharp Engineering for Q14 LLC. We've also got it as G Canine Kennel. This property is located on the corner of OR and Poplar. Here you see the subject property. The applicant is proposing to add additional kennels in the rear of this development. Here you see the existing building. Seven buildings of kennels are located in the back. The overall site has been used for a canine training center since, I believe, 2018. They bring dogs in and train them for detection of different things, including narcotics, firearms, explosives, and whatnot. The dogs are in an outside run during the kennel, but in most instances, they will be inside in the climate-controlled portion of these runs. We've got the specifics of what the runs are. Each unit, I believe, holds up to 16 dogs. SPEAKER: Let's see. SPEAKER: And we'll have, like I said, an outdoor run that they'll utilize a portion of the day. They won't be outside all day.

From our understanding, the site plan shows that these are 26.5 feet away from the side property line. These need to be extended to 30 feet to meet the side setbacks in one zone. The applicant has noted that the addition of the kennels should not change the operations of the facility. They would still have the animals out about the same amount of time. Our concern has been with the residential to the south of this. Here you see those layouts and what they look like, but you'll notice, and we call it out, it's approximately 215 feet from the back of the kennel to the nearest residential property line, and then closer to 300 feet to the nearest residence. In reviewing this, we've noted that the applicant needs to be concerned and maintain a drainage and waste management plan to make sure that there are no issues from a health perspective. We are recommending conditional use approval subject to the following: providing a site plan showing the minimum 30-foot setback required, and that the 190-foot-wide undeveloped wooded area adjacent be preserved in its natural state to provide noise buffering. If the wooded area is cleared, they would need to install a city-approved screen to help reduce noise and meet the zoning ordinance requirements. SPEAKER: Engineering because of limited disturbance. This project. No site plan to land disturbance permit would be required by engineering.

All permits be issued through the building inspections. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this proposed conditional use. SPEAKER: Opelika Water and Opelika Power are prepared to service this site. SPEAKER: Alright, this item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who'd like to speak for or against this? LEE THARP: Evening. Lee Tharp, graduate, Engineering, representing the applicant. I just wanted to come up here and point out that the two conditions of approval, based on staff's recommendations, we didn't have any issues with from the ownership side or from the land development side. I just wanted to point that out. And again, just let you know, I'm here to answer any specific questions you might have. And I believe the one of the owners of the facility is also represented here as well, if needed. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for approval with staff recommendation? SPEAKER: Is there a second? Does motion die? MATT: Yes. If there's no second and. (CROSSTALK). SPEAKER: We don't have a second. MATT: So, you can somebody can make a motion. And then for discussion purposes, if that's what you'd like. SPEAKER: But that's what I did.

I apologize. Sorry. (CROSSTALK). SPEAKER: So, the kennels are outside. Are there outdoor kennels? MATT: So, and it may be best to have the applicant speak to these a little bit. What it is, is it's our understanding these are climate control kennels. They will have an interior area where the dog will say. And then there is an exterior run that is fenced on the outside here. And I think they could probably speak to how much time they spend interior versus exterior. SPEAKER: So, the outdoor kennels, is that my question? LEE THARP: They are indoor and outdoor. Our understanding based on the operation of the current facility is these the dogs are not gonna spend any more time outside in that big yard where these are going than they do right now. I think these facilities are gonna house them a little bit more permanently. They are inside the, you have the aerial, you pull up. Matt. And I may have stepped back from the mic so I can. So, they're operating primarily in this vacant yard that's in this in the south portion of the property just north of the excuse me, the wooded area and the large warehouse facility to the north. So, what they're doing here is they're, they're able to, they're gonna be able to increase their capacity for their operation. But the timing of how much these animals are outside is gonna be pretty much the same as what they're doing now. SPEAKER: When you say outside, like if it's an indoor kennel, then it has a way that the animal can go outside in a fenced in area. LEE THARP: Yes.

Correct. That's right. So, they'll primarily be housed on the interior dog run. And then they'll they get them out for training purposes. If you look on the. The right-hand side of that aerial, they've got facilities set up for training of these animals. They've also got some facilities interior to the building. My understanding for them to work with the dogs, train them before they go towards the ultimate purpose of you know, sniffing. SPEAKER: I think in one diagram you showed 300ft, 300 plus feet between the kennel and the first house or house. MATT: Yes, sir. LEE THARP: Yes, sir. And it's got it's fully wooded right there on that aerial that's in the property owner has no intentions of changing that. SPEAKER: If that wooded area were to be developed or the woods were to be taken out, that fence fencing would be required. MATT: We would require some sort of. I believe we would require something more than just fencing. We would require some sort of noise mitigation type screening. SPEAKER: But there's no plan for that wooded area that we know of. MATT: No, sir. SPEAKER: Correct. LEE THARP: Some property owners right now. SPEAKER: Yeah. My question is, and my issue is, we have several vet veterinary clinics around town. And the bulk of the dogs, and my dogs, go there too. They are housed inside in the evenings, so they do not disturb, in general, the surrounding people, surrounding homes or businesses. It looks like these dogs will be staying outside in the evenings. LEE THARP: No, sir. So, if you could, can you go back to the floor plan real quick? These buildings are 60 by 24. But the interior portions have they have interior dog runs that go to the exterior. That would be closed at night. So, they're keeping them inside during the evenings, and then they're out during the day or while they're working or something like that. So, similar to what you're talking about at a vet

clinic or something. They don't leave them outside. SPEAKER: Yes it is. I think the condition I'd like to amend it as long as the dogs are not kept overnight outdoors. SPEAKER: I don't think that's an issue. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: What'd you say? SPEAKER: I'd like to amend the motion. Motion to to to say. I will approve it as long as the dogs are not kept overnight outdoors. SPEAKER: Not kept overnight. SPEAKER: Outdoors. MATT: So, yeah, during the evening they will be indoors, right? SPEAKER: Do we need to specify hours. MATT: If you'd like to. It's might be safer. Is there a particular time. SPEAKER: I would say from 6:00 in the evening till opening, whatever hours are in the morning to whatever that is, eight in the morning. LEE THARP: Kind of like construction hours or something like that, similar to those. Type of restrictions. I don't see that being an issue. SPEAKER: So, if you go home and you sleep during the day. SPEAKER: Do you go hear a dog? SPEAKER: You don't hear the dog. LEE THARP: Maybe there's a lot of wood. It's pretty thick between there and the next house. MATT: So, from 6:00 in the evening to eight in the morning, is that what we're saying? OK. SPEAKER: So, we need to vote on this motion. MATT: Is there (CROSSTALK). SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Vote on the amendment first. SPEAKER: The motion to the dogs cannot be outside between 6 pm and 8 am. MATT: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: All in any discussion for that? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Then we get back to the motion of approving the item. MATT: So, now would be voting on the amended motion. SPEAKER: With the staff recommendations. OK. And we've had a second on that. MATT: Yes, ma'am. You did. SPEAKER: OK. So, any other discussion on it.

All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MATT: The last item of regular business on your agenda tonight is 3,400 block of Birmingham Highway. This is a request to rezone property. Let me get my notes here. This would be a request to rezone 18.34 acres from R4, which is a residential medium, high-density residential, to a C2 or excuse me, to a C3, Gateway corridor requirement. So, the subject property is vacant. Currently, it's north of Lee County Youth Development, a large open space area, and then the Springs Mill Lake, lots, kind of along the narrower side over here. It also adjoins a vacant property to the west and then ski lodge apartments on that side as well. Here you see the specific area. And again, it's the smaller area does not go quite to the corner here. In looking at the future land use map. This is shown as a mixed-use, which is defined as a mix of residential and commercial uses. The both C3 and C2 would be appropriate uses for a mixed-use designation based on our current zoning requirements. We had initially, have initially recommended C2 just because it is adjacent, here, to an existing property. I think the applicant has, would like to have the commission

consider C3, which is found further down towards King Honda and the true corner at Gateway. And but our recommendation at this time would be to rezone to C2 instead of C3. SPEAKER: The additional property of King (INAUDIBLE). Not in this. MATT: No, sir. We are specifically talking about this one piece right here. The only thing we're talking about is rezoning this from R4 to C3. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments or concerns regarding this proposed rezoning. Opelika Water and Opelika Power are prepared to serve this lot if it is ever developed. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? JAMIE ALLEN: Hello, my name is Jamie Allen, at 3150 Mills Mill Lakes Ridge in the springs of Mill Lakes, which is the property that it bumps up next against. First I would like to introduce Charles Snipes, who is the HOA president for this subdivision. And then any of the neighbourhood that is here. Would you please stand up to let them know you're supporting? So, you can see this is a very important to this neighbourhood. I'm here with my mom, who lives on the Springs. I'm gonna read this so I can keep to my time.

Mills along the longest residential property line being discussed for rezoning. And I'm also speaking on behalf of several neighbours who are not able to attend the first, I wanted to say we are not opposed to rezoning. In fact, we believe commercial use is more appropriate than the high-density residential. Given the property's proximity to USA 280. We are also asking... We are asking for a thoughtful placement planning that reflects the natural layout of the land and protects the existing neighbourhood. Looking at the plat, the creek running through the property creates a very natural boundary. I don't think the creek is on your plat. It makes sense that the development be concentrated on the US 280 north side of the creek, where the land is more usable and better suited for commercial use. The portion of the property on the residential side of the creek toward the homes already functions as a natural buffer. Based on what we've learned, that area may also be difficult and costly to develop due to the terrain, drainage and potential flood considerations. Because of that, we are asking that this area be formally preserved as a no-build buffer as part of the rezoning decision, not left to be determined later. We request all conditions be formally written into the rezoning approval to apply to all current and future owners and developers in addition to that natural boundary. We also have a second area of concern along the portion of the property that directly adjoins the HOA property line. That area is more open and could create a direct line of access into the neighbourhood if not properly addressed. For that reason, we would ask that a clearly defined buffer be established along that boundary as well, one that helps limit access, reduce noise and light impact, and preserve privacy for the homes along the edge, as well as those directly behind the subdivision.

There is precedent for this in our community, where fencing has been installed in similar situations to address safety and access concerns. It is also important to note that this is an over-55 community, with many residents living alone. We already experienced some foot traffic through the surrounding natural areas, so ensuring controlled access becomes especially important if development occurs nearby. Noise access and safety are the primary concerns we are trying to address. We also understand that there are different commercial designations being considered for rezoning. From what we've reviewed, the more limited neighbourhood-compatible designation would be preferable. However, regardless of classification, we would ask that uses be lower intensity and appropriate for residential setting, avoiding higher traffic or late-night operations. In summary, we are supportive of a reasonable development. We are simply asking that it follow the natural layout of the land, preserve the buffer closest to existing homes, address both boundary areas thoughtfully, and that these considerations be included as part of the rezoning itself, rather than deferred to later stages. We also provide... I'm providing a brief written summary of these points for you, and I believe that another speaker will be giving you another handout that's a little different, but along the same lines. SPEAKER: So at the end of this speech, before I close, I would appreciate quick clarification for the residents. As this moves forward, can you help us understand how these types of conditions, such as buffering, access control, or use limitations, can be incorporated into the rezoning so they remain in place and are not left solely to later development stages? And thank you very much. COMMISSIONER: OK. SPEAKER: Can you answer? COMMISSIONER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Can you answer to how that works?

PLANNING DIRECTOR: So if you like, I can answer that. COMMISSIONER: OK. PLANNING DIRECTOR: Basically, in most cases, zoning rezonings, things like that cannot be conditioned in how they develop. Typically, it's you look at whether the uses are appropriate in the zone versus whether the uses are not appropriate based on the land use and what's surrounding there and make a decision. Our general guidelines would go back to what buffering, what access, things like that would handle. Anytime we have a commercial use butting up against single-family residential, we require buffering automatically. Now there are multiple types of ways that buffering can be handled. And I think we're probably going to be looking at through our zoning update. But there would be some buffering without a doubt. The access to the property in general is gonna be limited largely by Alabama Department of Transportation because it is on Birmingham Highway. And so there will probably only be one location in that whole site where you could potentially have a full access to get across both sides of the interstate because of where the current cut is. And then there's going to be spacing about where they may be able to have additional entries or exits through there based on their requirements, which are always much more stringent than our current requirements are. So... SPEAKER: I understand. May I? If I understand, C2 is a less-trafficked designation, correct? Than C3? PLANNING DIRECTOR: C2 and C3 have a lot of the same uses. Typically, C2 is what we call office retail. So it has lighter some lighter uses than C3. SPEAKER: Is that what you're requesting now, or are you going for... PLANNING DIRECTOR: That's what we've recommended. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER: But you've still got Birmingham Highway out there.

PLANNING DIRECTOR: Yes, ma'am. There is still all the traffic that comes through there. So it's... SPEAKER: And the man was correct with not having a light at that subdivision. COMMISSIONER: But you're probably gonna see a motion to C3 first, right? SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I'm gonna just leave you in case you would like that. Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER: Is based on the rezoning. PLANNING DIRECTOR: So. COMMISSIONER: Would you vote on C3 first and then consider? PLANNING DIRECTOR: No, what I would do is as you go through this, if you prefer C2, I would make a recommendation to that point. I'm sure the applicant can go through his reasoning for why he's choosing one over the other, but that would be the way to do it. Because if you deny C3, that ends the discussion. Basically, that's the entire item. SPEAKER: Thank you. Alright. My name is Bill (UNKNOWN). I'm 1310 Spring Crossing in the Springs Mill Lakes. So my property does not back up that, but I'm right next to Charlene. OK. So we're all down there. So as Jane said, we've had a big problem with the detention center. A lot of kids coming across that from the Lee County Detention Center coming up into our property. Many times coming up into homes, knocking on doors. We've had a lot of problems with homeless people living down there. What we're asking for is a buffer. We are asking for a fence, an eight-foot-plus fence along the entire property to stop that type of intrusion that could come in there. Not to mention, because you're gonna be on 280, you're gonna have to have ingress and egress for traffic. So we don't want people coming down 280 and coming in. We have a horrible problem with that now. We don't want to increase that today. So we're asking for big, you know, a nice buffer.

Did the lights turn down from if we go to C2? So they point away from us. So they're not pointing back towards our homes 'cause we get a lot of out from the detention center and the subdivision on the opposite side of the stream. So we're looking at that along with that fence that gives us that security feature 'cause again, this is a retirement community. We're there where a lot of elderly ladies by themselves, but we want to look at that stuff. So, bottom line, we're looking for that safety and security between the buffer and a fence. And we want whoever looks at that property to own up to putting that fence up and to maintain that fence with reserves, to maintain the fence. We don't want something that we're gonna do. I mean, you're kind of snickering, but that's reality. You know, we wanna be safe. We're tired of having homeless people living back there, tired of calling the cops, having that done. We're tired of running people out, tired of people coming in there using our property constantly. So that's my speech is on diversity, safety, and security, and we wanna make sure it's done right. OK. We want that. Whoever does that, again, we're not against it. We're not against development, but we wanna make sure that they understand that we want the city to put this in writing. Whoever determines to whatever comes up for zoning to pay for that and put that in writing. So that's what we're asking for. Thank you. JENNY PATTI: Hello, I'm Jenny. COMMISSIONER: You two have got to speak up. JENNY PATTI: I know. I'm Jenny Patti, and this is my husband, Norman, and we live at 3090 Mill Lakes Ridge in the narrower section of this property. What we're not understanding is why would that be rezoned? I don't think it can be used.

Can anybody answer that? Behind the houses, it's pretty narrow. We thought all of that was just buffer to 280. And the noise is already pretty atrocious on 280. Behind our houses, we hear every car, every 18 Wheeler, the noise level has gone up since we've lived there for three years. We still love it. We love living in Opelika. We love this community. We love the springs of Mill Lakes, but we don't wanna see our trees behind our house cut down. I don't think development could happen, but could somebody help me understand that narrow section that's behind our homes? Could that be developed? I don't think it's more than 30 to 50, 30 to 50ft possibly behind our house. We're 3090. PLANNING DIRECTOR: So again, there are required buffers against streams. I'm not sure if that stream requires a buffer, but in general, yes, anything pretty much can be developed, whether it's in R4 or whether it's in C2, provided that you go through certain routes. Now, the likelihood of it being developed because it is so narrow is much lower. But the development of it itself has a potential, whether it's a current zone or the alternative zone. JENNY PATTI: We seriously do not want the trees cut down that are behind the creek. It goes straight up a hill to 280. That's going to ruin that neighborhood. I can tell you, you can hear the traffic from 280. I take a walk every day when you walk up towards Willow

View, which, how many of y'all live on Willow View? Here. You can hear from the entranceway all the way to that cul-de-sac. You can hear 280 traffic. So that's something that I feel like this needs to be addressed before development happens, so that our homes are not ruined. Our property value will be affected. Nobody's gonna want to buy our house when it's that loud behind it. So that is something that I would really appreciate you all working with. I really appreciate you all volunteering your time. Like it's a wonderful place to live, but I don't want it to be messed up in the springs of Mill Lakes. It's a wonderful community. Thank you. NORMAN: My lovely wife expressed very well some of our concerns here. I'd like to just kind of reinforce that and basically try to encourage that no trees be cut down. And I don't know if there's a condition that will allow that, but right now there's just a beautiful line of trees that are bordering Highway 280 that, that do offer some protection. If that goes away, then like Jenny said, it's going to be an issue. So, we'd like to, you know, try to understand that this rezoning could include protection of those trees. The other thing that's been mentioned is the creek, and it runs through the back portion of that land. And it kind of divides it east and west.

And so the bigger portion is on the western side of that, I think, and that's the most likely area that would be developed. So that if that could be C2, like we've talked about, I think that is the right answer. The creek, we would like to try to understand how the environmental protection of that creek would fit into this. Is that something that naturally happens when you're talking about like, a creek or a wetland kind of situation? How does that work? PLANNING DIRECTOR: Sure. Did you have any other questions or. NORMAN: I just have that one right now. PLANNING DIRECTOR: So again, every zoning, the planning commission is limited and cannot really put any conditions on the zoning itself, whether that be fencing or lighting, or buffering, or whatnot. Those things come about through our normal development standards and practices or through a conditional use review when there is a development that goes in place there. Currently, and Scott may be able to speak to this for many streams in our region, there is either, I think, a 25 or 50 foot buffer based on the size and the location of the stream on each side from the bank, which severely prohibits what can be developed in those areas. And when you have steep slopes and things like that, that also limits or discourages developers from developing those areas.

So I think there's not a, I can't say never happened, but there's a very small likelihood of something being developed in that corner because of how narrow it is and the presence of the stream. We do require lighting standards for commercial nonresidential development, requiring that lighting not exceed a certain level adjacent to adjoining property owners, specifically residential. There is a higher lighting standard so that we don't have lighting bleed over into residential properties. And then again, anytime there is a commercial use adjacent or nonresidential use adjacent to a single-family residential use, we will require residential buffering. So... NORMAN: Follow-up question. How do state and federal regulations play into making these decisions? Because is there a higher standard for environmental protection per se. Or as an example, when you're talking about... PLANNING DIRECTOR: That all depends on what is proposed to be developed. Right now, there's no proposal for development. So there are no standards besides from the. NORMAN: That's the question. That'll be answered at some point in the future, possibly. PLANNING DIRECTOR: If and when. Yes. NORMAN: OK. COMMISSIONER: It may be (UNKNOWN). PLANNING DIRECTOR: It probably is. Yeah. COMMISSIONER: If it's a blue line stream, you're gonna have buffers. PLANNING DIRECTOR: Yeah. So it depends on the size of the stream. This is a pretty substantial stream. So it'll have a wider buffer regardless of what happens, development or not. It'll have a wider buffer on the stream. NORMAN: One other thing that we wanna kind of guard against is, we noticed that the area where Publix is

planned to be built has been clear for as long as we've been down there, basically. And it's just stood empty. And I would hate to see that happen on this parcel of land. If there's some way to protect that from happening, have it cut down and nothing be done with it for a long period of time. COMMISSIONER: OK. Thank you. COMMISSIONER: Anyone else? SPEAKER: I just speak from here, if that's OK. My name is (UNKNOWN). COMMISSIONER: You need to come to the microphone when it's your turn. RUSS STODDARD: Hi, guys. My name is Russ Stoddard and I live 1340 Spring Lakes Crossing. I just would like to thank you guys for what you're doing and kind of explain to all of us the fact that this is just a rezoning and it can't put stipulations on rezoning. But when it comes time for development, that's when we would come down and make these stipulations. So, again, I appreciate your efforts. BARBARA COWAN: My name is Barbara Cowan. I live at 1260 Spring Lakes Crossing, and my property backs up to the creek that runs through there. That was one thing I found very attractive about the location, and it was our understanding. I've been there since 2018, and it was my understanding that that creek that runs through the property was a protected area. So, it concerns me that they're wanting to develop right next to that. And I know the City of Opelika, I think, has a park on the other side of 280 that runs along the same creek with walking trails and such.

So, that was a concern I had. I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you. MARK ACKERMAN: Hello again. Mark Ackerman 1158 Willow View. And I would just hoping to share some insights with you about this parcel and appeal to your sensibility with the accountability of rezoning this into something that really may not be practical for the use of that parcel. Several things. I think this is kind of the shape of that lot and its location are all kind of incidental accident of whenever this state road right of way was established way back. They had no capabilities. I'm sure at that time to understand where all this would go. But at this point in time as we've stated before, we have 280 there with the 55 mile an hour speed limit and several blind spots, no turning lanes, barely any deceleration lanes. The main thing I think about this property is looking at it from an engineering standpoint, that parcel is almost 20 to 25ft lower than the roadway for the entire parcel. It is the lowest spot of any adjacent parcel on that side of 280. So, where's the water gonna go? I mean, this is a funneling spot. It's a slew where all the water from all those neighboring parcels come. Check my notes here. Excuse me. The other issue I think is when we say if we're gonna rezone it without some understanding of what the potential use could be, is a faulty step because it's creating an image to other

buyers and users that there's potential for this to be used as a C2 or a C3 location when really it's not. You just don't have the practicality so far as ingress and egress to use that lot for anything at all, much less residential or commercial. Again, as we said that the plat conveniently doesn't indicate anything about the creek being on there. And so like I say, I would just appeal to your understandings that the ability to use that for what you're talking about rezoning it to, I think it really needs to be done as a special exception with specific uses and plans, because other than that, I think it's creating the wrong perception for that parcel. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? RAY CANNON: Good evening. I'm Ray Cannon. I'm the applicant here. And I was waiting to see how the comments would go. I appreciate you all coming down. You certainly got your money's worth for planning commission meeting. This is just a rezoning effort. There are no development plans on the property. I've been approached by a couple of people over the last couple of years about it. I haven't done anything, but I've noticed that the R4 designation on it is not the right designation for a property that fronts on 280. I get the issues with the buffers. I would like to make some commitments about that, but I can't 'cause there's no development plans. But as Matt and Scott have said, those would be addressed during their site review plan for whatever

might end up going there. Same thing with the creek. There are protected zones on both sides of the creek that would not be disturbed. This is just merely a rezoning of property. I do understand what you're talking about with homeless people in the area. I have a friend who has a mother out there who I've been told has had some homeless people come through her property. I've done what I thought was the responsible thing. I've let the police know about it for everyone's safety, and that's the only time I've heard about it. So, that's the end of my comments here. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. RAY CANNON: Actually it's not. On the comments about it being C3 versus C2. I did take a look at the zoning map for the city and I saw more C3 than I saw C2, especially as you start heading down to Pepperell. So, that's the application that I made for it. I don't have an issue with C2 either, if that makes everyone here feel better because of possible less onerous usage possibilities on it. I'm fine with that too and I'll leave that in the hands of the commission. OK. SPEAKER: I'm Deborah (INAUDIBLE). I live at 2730 Mill Lakes Ridge. I'm not adjacent to the property that we're discussing, but I do have a question. If you were to deny this at this time, could it be resubmitted but exclude that triangular area that everyone agrees is of little use.

Can you divide a plat in that fashion? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am, you can, but it still could be utilized for whatever is allowed in the R-4 zone. If it's not rezoned to something else, it would still be allowed to be developed. That doesn't prevent it from being developed in any way. SPEAKER: So, would it need to be rezoned to something that could not be developed? SPEAKER: We don't have a zone that doesn't allow development. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners. SPEAKER: Excuse me. SPEAKER: We only have four members. SPEAKER: Oh, OK. Can we move on to the next one and come back to this one? Same thing, same thing. SPEAKER: I'm going to hurry up. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Here we go. Hurry up. Tom. (LAUGHTER) SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I'm old. SPEAKER: Alright. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: You may have to help me with the wording here. SPEAKER: Motion to approve or send a positive recommendation to the City Council for rezoning from R-4 to C-2, GC-P. SPEAKER: Yes, sir. That would be sufficient reasoning. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: I second it. SPEAKER: Any discussion?

All in favor? SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Alright. The final plat. We are having a meeting. If you would leave without talking. Alright. Number 18. SPEAKER: Yes. Number 18 is a request for final plat. This was on your agenda last month. However, it was not ready at that time and so it was tabled. SPEAKER: Let's give them just a minute. They're doing it quietly too. SPEAKER: I'll be happy to. (CROSSTALK) SPEAKER: Alright, let's pick it back up. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Uh, so this was on your agenda last month. They were not quite finished with the infrastructure improvements at that time. So, the applicant had requested to be tabled to this month. They're requesting final plat approval of 84 lots, 81 residential, two lots or future development. One lot is the access to one of the adjacent property owners residences. The original owner of the property. Property is part of the Firefly PUD. Here you see the overall PUD. We're talking about this area. It's kind of in the blue and yellow right through here, but it would be on the east side of the property. Here you see the plat for it. And so you've got a variety of lots adjacent here.

And then you have the I believe they call them duets that would be located here along Honeysuckle Lane. These are designed to have rear entry as opposed to what we have in Firefly that have front entry. So, it's kind of a different take on some of the types of development they've done in the past. We've reviewed this. It's in compliance with the planned unit development and the final plat. So, we're recommending final plat approval subject to them installing underground utilities, installing sidewalks on both sides of the street. Exterior materials meet the cladding requirements as required in the PUD. Note on the final plat, the minimum setbacks for the twin homes single family lots. Add a note on the plot saying that for and the developer's narrative that they are responsible for managing the open space until the HOA is established. Add a note on plat providing uses in the lots 1000 1002 and add a note on the minimum of one street tree per single family lot and one street tree per twin home lot required. Not planted within the public right of way unless approved by the City Public Works Department. Mr. Kaufman is here if you have any questions of him. If you would like to take this up, we would first request you make a motion to take it off the table, and then after that, you can vote on the actual application. SPEAKER: Well, we the ones who put it on the table. SPEAKER: No, ma'am. Technically, they put it on the table, but we would still. SPEAKER: So, they they would take it off the table. SPEAKER: Well. No, ma'am. It's on the table. It's on your table, basically. So, you would need to take it off the table. SPEAKER: I'll make a motion. I make a motion that we untable this for discussion. SPEAKER: Second.

SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: So, now. SPEAKER: I apologize. SPEAKER: Sorry. SPEAKER: All this time. SPEAKER: I know. I mean, the whole afternoon. SPEAKER: Engineering department has inspected the infrastructure, and everything is complete. And to the standards of the Public Works Department, we recommend final plan approval. Engineering, water and public works will hold signatures until all the punch list items are completed, such as bonding requirements, um as built requirements and all utility testing requirements are completed. But again, we will hold signatures on our plants until that occurs, but we are recommending. Final plat approval at this time. SPEAKER: Alright. There's no public hearing here. Do I hear a motion. SPEAKER: For approval with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion. All in favor. SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed. Any abstain motion carries a motion. SPEAKER: Be adjourned. Or have Mr. Mosley take us to supper. SPEAKER: The supper party. SPEAKER: Motion to adjourn. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: OK. Great. All in favor? SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Please.