Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

July meeting of the work session to order. And. And asked Mr. Mosley if he's. Got anything to talk with us about.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. The main purpose of this meeting today is to give, of the work session today, we wanted to allow Jason Fondren with KPS Group to be able to provide an update to the full planning commission on where we've been through the first few months of the zoning ordinance update. As you're probably aware, tonight we've got a community workshop, but we wanted to give you all just a little bit more in-depth look at where we've currently been working through this process to this point. So I'm gonna turn it over to Jason and let him take The meeting and kind of provide you with that update.

Good afternoon and thank you for coming in a little early, so we could talk about this before your meeting. Now that's that's all right that's right I had this one set up. But as Matt said, we wanted to give you an update as we've been working with a project team which includes a couple of members of the Planning Commission and some staff members and a handful of other folks from the community. And we first started out really focusing in on the district regulations. And so we're trying to tackle the kind of the key issues first. And then once we get through those, we can look into parking and administrative procedures and definitions, all of the minutiae once we get some of the big issues out of the way. So that's kind of just the general approach in getting started. But just to back up a little bit and talk about what all is going to be tackled through this process. Of course, we are we've been asked to do a comprehensive update of the zoning ordinance so that the ordinance was written in its or the in its current version. The bulk of that was created in 1991 and has been incrementally updated and amended over the years as needed since that time period. So This will be the first time since 1991 where you're really going through the entire zoning ordinance from beginning to end at the policy level as well as a very fine-grained detail level in updating all of it to meet your needs. And accompanying that, we will also go through the subdivision regulations and make sure that the subdivision regulations are up to date, but primarily to make sure The changes that are being considered with the zoning ordinance are will be compatible with the subdivision regulations and vice versa. So they will will be interlinked as need be. And that will be so once we've gotten the bulk of the work done on the zoning ordinance, we'll we'll jump more deeply into the subdivision regulations. So some of the things that we want to try to accomplish through this process. We started out doing an analysis kind of going through, looking through the ordinance and and and seeing if there were any inconsistencies, gaps, internal conflicts. One part of the ordinance says one thing and another part of the ordinance seems to say something completely different. So we know that we've got to get those things addressed and just put together a quick report on what we found in that first run through and shared that with staff. important part of this of course is is getting your input getting the input and we we do that in part through these regular meetings that we're having with the city project team which we're doing um so far we've done about two times a month uh for the last several months um as matt mentioned we'll have a community meeting tonight we'll have some other opportunities to engage with the community and get their feedback on the zoning ordinance subdivision regulation changes as we continue through through the process. We also will have a couple of opportunities to engage with some of the representatives of the development community. And so that really all everybody who could be affected by this will have an opportunity to provide some input in the direction of the update for the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. So through the as I mentioned, we've been having these RECURRING MEETINGS WITH THE CITY PROJECT TEAM AND WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL KIND OF GO AND WE'VE CURRENTLY BEEN LOOKING AT THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO your special districts, your overlay districts, planned unit development, and all of those remaining special purpose districts. And once we've gotten through that, that's really hopefully we'll have kind of nailed down the big picture changes that need to be made to the ordinance in terms of policy and whether or not policy is changing in the context of the zoning regulations. Um, and, uh, once once that is done again, we'll go back to the subdivision regulations will come back before you with the subdivision regulations. Of course, you'll be, um, asked when that is ready to take action on the changes from the subdivision regulations and then We'll complete the cycle with getting the zoning ordinance approved by you and then the city council. You've got a lot of zoning districts. Lots of you got a host of residential districts, which I'm sure you're all very familiar with. And so these are the ones that we tackled first, kind of getting an understanding of. Where the permitted uses needs to change or there are there places where uses are permitted conditionally or by right where they shouldn't be permitted by right or vice versa things where they're not permitted where they should be and then looking at the dimensional requirements lot sizes lot widths things of that nature and currently working our way through the non-residential districts right now, C1, C2, C3, your M1 and M2 districts and the institutional districts. And then the special districts will come next, which I think we should be able to jump into those in the next six weeks. And hopefully those, I think, could go pretty quickly, I think, based on You know where you are and the purpose of the moratorium that we're kind of working kind of under the cloud of planned unit development will be a big topic for discussion, and we want to take the time necessary with the city project team to kind of really understand what direction the community wants to go with regard to plan unit development in the future and tightening up the gateway corridor districts and the regulations there. Some of the things that we look for that we want to make sure that we get right for you in terms of goals for the updates to the regulations, we want to make sure they're well organized, they're user friendly. Someone who is not a technical expert in these things can find things and make sense of it. It's not always possible to make everything in any sort of technical document like this. very easily understandable to everybody, but that's our goal that we try to achieve. We try to make it as understandable to the layperson as possible. And at the same time, we have to balance that out with making sure that by using simple, understandable language, we're not creating loopholes or ambiguity. So it needs to be legally airtight. It says what it needs to say in a way that can't be misinterpreted. And with the ordinance not having been fully updated in a long time, there are a lot of uses that have come along in the last 35 years that need to be accounted for. And that's one of the purposes for jumping into the district regulations the way that we did as we're incorporating uses that are just simply not mentioned in the ordinance today. making sure that those are going to be listed in the ordinance and that the districts where they're going to be permitted and not permitted, all that is appropriately assigned. Of course, then we want to make sure that the district regulations are achieving their purposes and then the purposes of the districts are clear and distinguishable one from the other. As we got into this, we realized that There are certainly, there's some overlap. For example, the C2 and C3 districts, there's a lot of similarity between them. And when you look at how they're used on the map, it doesn't really help clarify a lot more than that. So we want to make sure that when you have a request before you to change zoning to an R3 or R4 or change something in a commercial industrial zone The ordinance tells you what the purpose of that district is and clearly distinguishes it from all the other districts. It will help you do your job more confidently and will also at the same time make it clear when someone is considering rezoning property realistically what their options are by virtue of what the purpose of those districts are. and how their regulations, the use regulations, the area and dimensional requirements are distinct from one another. Plan unit development, of course, is a big issue that we will be tackling as part of the process. The bullet points that you see on the screen that have the stars highlighting those, those are all things that we saw that are also iterated in the comprehensive plan that we know that we need to be taking a look at and addressing through the update. So looking at how the ordinance either makes infill and reinvestment in previously developed parts of the community either easier or more difficult, whether making it more difficult is right in some certain situations or whether or not some of those roadblocks need to be cleared out of the way to facilitate reinvestment sporting a wider range of housing types. Part of that is going to be by kind of listing some of those housing types that had not previously been clearly delineated in the ordinance and having adequate regulations attached to each one of those. Encouraging conservation-minded development. There are different ways that the zoning ordinance can approach that. One of the ways that we see that can be easily pushed into the ordinance is by creating a conservation subdivision option with some clear guidelines for how that works. So it's just one of the ways that we can help achieve that goal through the update. Taking a look at the open space, landscaping standards in the ordinance. and how to make some improvements there to achieve some community desires there. Increasing the design expectations for development in appropriate locations in the ordinance. We know there are certainly areas of the community where a for example, in your historic districts, you've got historic guidelines that address design issues in a particular way. But there are also, for example, your your gateway and corridor areas do the design standards that are being applied in those locations. Are they achieving what they're meant to do? If not, how can we make those work better? Parking requirements, as some of you may know, really across the country for the last 10 plus years, communities have been scaling back their parking requirements. For example, what I mentioned before, facilitating reinvestment in existing development areas. This is one of the obstacles that zoning ordinances have typically kind of put up in front of reinvestment is parking requirements. So how can we right size those, make those work, to make sure that new development provides the parking that is needed, but at the same time balances out the need to be able to encourage reinvestment in existing previously developed areas. And then how does what the zoning ordinance subdivision regulations do, how does that tie into facilitating better connectivity within the community and access management. There are certainly ways that we can do that. So What are some of the directions that have been have been discussed within kind of the city project team? Going back to that idea of of Addressing a range of housing types right now. A lot of housing flexibility is either put on planned unit development or in your R4 and R5 districts. And both of those, the way that they're set up right now, are fairly open-ended. The PUD is intended to be open-ended to provide flexibility. However, the R4 and R5, I don't think that's the intent of the way that those districts are set up to be where virtually anything that's uh, denser than 7500 square feet. There are no specific rules, so it's whatever you guys decide. Um, I don't think that's the way the district was intended to be used, but it sort of ended up that way. So, um, uh, to help create a little bit more certainty, both for the housing developers and for you when you're making decisions on conditional uses. that we at least take out some of that ambiguity and start plugging in actual numbers for the different types of developed duplexes, townhouses, triplexes, quadplexes, and multifamily, that there are density or lot requirements specific to those types of housing development, and that in some cases we have, for example, right now, Your ordinance has a set of supplemental regulations for townhouses, but you don't have a set of supplemental regulations for multifamily. So we want to incorporate standards for multifamily in the same way that you already have that for some of the other denser housing types. And of course, including some open space requirements for larger large scale residential developments, some other options that you have for for housing, expanding housing opportunities is incorporating cottage housing option as a use in your higher density residential districts. And I mentioned before the conservation subdivision option. This would be theoretically this would be available to any single in any single family residential districts. You see on the diagram on the screen that the image on the left represents sort of a typical single family layout for a subdivision that may have some environmental environmental features that that the community might prefer to see protected or kept as open space. The conservation subdivision essentially would allow a developer to use to cluster and make more compact development in the easier to build on portions of a site so that flood plains, steep slopes or heavily wooded areas could be left as or retained as permanent open space, whether it's privately owned or publicly owned. Both of those options would be available. But without losing the number of units or number of lots, the property would be allowed under its zoning. So if, based on the minimum lot requirements of the zoning district, you could build 33 units on that acreage. They can use the conservation subdivision to tighten up the lots and leave open space and still get those 33 lots in place. As I mentioned before, we understand the planned unit development is an important component of the residential growth of the community and very likely will be in the future. What we tend to emphasize to communities when we're talking about planned unit development is There is a. The purpose behind plan unit development really is to provide flexibility for developers to build things that are not easy to do under your conventional regulations. But the balance of that is that in exchange for that flexibility that is offered that the community has some expectation or there will be some characteristics of the development that will be of a benefit to the community, whether it's more attractive or there's open space that's carved out or there are some amenities or there's Again, there's some aspects of how that development is is built that assures a level of quality that the community is interested in or provides some specific types of benefits that you couldn't guarantee otherwise through a normal zoning and subdivision process. Some of the things that we would typically look at in communities as possible enhancements, benefits, amenities for planned unit development are, of course, open space. There might be some desires for architectural diversity. So kind of avoiding the cookie cutter aspect of large scale residential developments, having expectations in terms of the types of building materials that are used, natural conservation areas, including Different housing types and sizes so that a large scale development might have places for, you know, empty nesters, singles or, you know, typical nuclear families. Neighborhood businesses are sometimes a part of larger scale developments that could be can be done using a planned unit development process. having higher expectations for how streets are designed and how they look and how they kind of integrate with the development along them, whether it's residential or something else. Or maybe there are some expectations from the community for an increased amount of walkability within planning development, whether that's sidewalks or it might include trails or other aspects of the way that development is designed. So one of the things that I'd love to get some feedback from you on, are any of these things that you would like to see encouraged through the plan unit development process? Or are there some other things that we should be looking at to incorporate into the plan unit development regulations as a as a balance for the flexibility that is given to the PUD designer and developer. Yes, sir.

Right.

What does that do to the builder? Is it more expensive or not the same to be able to build something that, say, has five different plans, and when you ride by them, it's not just this plan flipped over this way?

Well, there's a spectrum. from every house being exactly the same floor plan, same facade, same materials, to having three or four floor plans that are rotated around. There are some minor adjustments, too. Everything is custom. Anything that varies from the every house is the same, all the materials and everything is exactly the same. Anything that is not that is going to be at a higher cost. So where you want to try to get the needle between those two ends of the spectrum, there is going to be a cost impact. But it can be done. I think that a developer can meet the community's expectations. efficient ways that doesn't increase the cost too much for them, where they're not able to hit the price points in the community. And it's trying to get them to move the needle away from this end of the spectrum, where everything's the same, and having the PUD encourage that. And it's not necessarily where you quantify that and say, You can have no more, or you have to have at least four floor plans and five facade designs per block. But ask them, you know, as part of their submittal, how they are going to achieve that expectation. Give them the ability to come up with a way that is cost effective for them to achieve that. But they have to show you. And I just promise.

I think when you talk about walkability, I would love to see if there's a way we could communicate connectivity part of that as well. So if we have a plug that has some great trail system in the PUD, how does that connect to city infrastructure so that you end up with a trail system around the city?

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, walkability, if it's But in likability, if it's contained just within the development of it, there's sort of a ceiling at which it becomes effective. But if it then connects to the outside world and facilities, public facilities, then that makes the value of those in private investments for that community even more valuable to the residents who end up living there.

John, we are also working on ways that we're going to start emphasizing the bicycle and pedestrian plan more to make sure that that is included in and reviewed closer while we're doing developments as well.

Any other direction, advice on PUDs, or things that you like about it or are frustrated with it?

Or can I have another question? Please.

We talk about street character. Is that by maybe like the design on the names of the streets, the street poles, if I'm not sure of that word? What are you? What are we talking about there?

Well, I think it's a combination of different design decisions. It's the design of the street itself. Sidewalks, you know, if you have whether or not you have trees kind of along the street, plus the way that homes relate visually to the street. So it's in Again, this is one of one of you know when when we talk about these sort of characteristics and what maybe you would like to see things done different things you'd like to see done better. You know the the intent with the Pud is to to give the developer while you're giving them flexibility set out some expectations. Let them show you how they are going to achieve better street character than you might otherwise see, or better connectivity, better pedestrian walkability. So there's still wiggle room, which is what the PUD is really all about. But stating upfront that with a PUD, we want to see these things, show us how you're going to do it. and not have not not micromanage that in the way that is sort of done through your conventional districts.

But did I hear you correctly in when you stated yet you give them some flexibility, but there are some objective standards to meet, say, the architectural diversity standard and not just say, well, how are they going to meet that? But is there I think you mentioned maybe there's three or four different house plans per block or something like that. Is that baked in typically to the PUD and then they try to meet that? I guess what I'm getting at is how subjective is it versus objective standards that way can say, okay, they meet it by counting this or that sort of thing.

We have done that different ways with PUDs in the past. I try to be conservative in terms of putting too many rules. When I say rules, I mean, thou shalt do this this way or it's not going to be accepted. But having maybe examples of what you mean. For example, we want architectural diversity. The PUD could say that can be achieved by doing this, but not necessarily saying you have to do it by doing this. Maybe a mix of floor plans and facade designs and materials. Can I say that as an example? This is a way you can achieve that, but not not rigidly requiring that, but kind of putting that out there as a path to complying with your expectations.

And I guess ultimately, Matt, in his review, and then we have the ultimate say on whether we feel like it meets that spirit of that standard.

The PUD review and approval process, there's generally an expectation that you're going to get a you're going to be provided with a clearer idea of what's going to be done there than you might otherwise through a by right development. And so in that respect, I think there are different ways that a developer, through that approval process, can suggest we think we would achieve that by doing this. That might not be satisfactory to you. So your job at the end of the day is determining if what they're offering deserves the flexibility of the PUD. Are they going to be bringing you a quality product that meets whatever number of expectatives? For example, let's say we had eight criteria. You could say you have to prove to us that you're going to achieve at least three of these, or five of these, or all of them, whatever. At the end of the day, those are the kind of decisions that we need input from you and the council to kind of know where you want to go with this kind of thing, this kind of policy decision. If whatever you set as the expectation, they have to prove to you through the review and approval process that what they're offering deserves the PUD zoning.

I think Jason's absolutely right. I've worked in with PUD zones or similar zones that are very rigid that say, if you do X, we'll give you Y. But you have to meet that explicitly. Those typically don't work very well. You need to keep some flexibility there. But one thing I think we do want to know is make sure that what the city wants to see done or what we're trying to emphasize with particular property or in a particular area or just with development itself Is accomplished and then make sure that you have all the information you need to evaluate whether or not what they're providing you in return for that is is worth it. And so, you know, if if somebody wants a variance so that they can have a slightly smaller lot and bring buildings closer to the street. Well, We may say if you do that, then we want to see a better street with trees and sidewalks, and maybe you need a better frontage on the house to make sure that it addresses that. And so those are all it's kind of evaluation process, which we do to a degree now, but we it's not as well laid out as we should. And we don't I don't think we always give you all the information you need to make those evaluations.

Any other thoughts on planning your development?

This has come up before and it's kind of a personal thing, it's kind of a personal frustration for me to sit here and give final approval to flats or additional approval, whatever, preliminary flats and that sort of thing. And then we sit there and you drive around town and you don't see any movement. anything nothing has happened this has come up before and I'm not just is there what do other communities do or do you have experience with this that you can it's just it's easy I understand a year later all you gotta do is reapply and it's very cheap to reapply and come back through this process again but do other communities have more stringent requirements to once you get approval for this let's get going let's do it

I would say that those communities that have written in stricter rules for that usually have ended up offering forgiveness for those rules more often than not. I think there may be some ways to tighten that up or to make the sort of ramifications for not meeting deadlines make there being a little bit more impact for that.

I can see where that would be the case, yes.

But we can look at ways to tighten that up and make developers, I think, take that a little bit more seriously or as seriously as they reasonably can.

I don't want to deter anything. But I think I've been on this commission for not quite a year. And I think I can honestly say I've only seen one thing that's been approved.

start coming up. We can tighten the rules, but we can't control the economy. So there's always going to be some outside forces that are beyond the control of the developer. And those are always reasonable.

Could you go back to your comment early on about parking? Just elaborate on that a little bit.

Right. So right now, in your in your ordinance, you have in your in your parking regulations, you have a list of uses. And for each one of those uses, there is a minimum parking requirement. Typically the way that we approach that is we want to make sure that list is Maybe even more detailed in breaking different uses out more so that you know, a use that's called out in the parking regulations right now might be more of a category of uses in which there are different distinctions amongst uses that have very different parking needs. We want to break all that out so that there really is a list of uses where the parking requirement is suited to that use and that we don't have variations within that category where you're going to be over or under requiring simply because of the listing of uses. So we want to attack. That's the first step in the in the process. Then we want to look at what are other communities requiring compared to what you're acquiring? Are you over requiring today compared to the average city or under requiring and go through that that next level of improving what you've got in there. We also have when I said sort of at the national level, there's been a move towards Reducing parking requirements. Some communities have put in parking maximums instead of parking metals, not recommending that for opelika but if that was something you said hey let's do that i'll help you do that i don't think that's the direction you want to go um but it's it's it's clear just looking at the parking requirements that are in place today there's a lot of room to make those Better for uses, as I mentioned before, just kind of breaking those out so that you're not under or over requiring. There we have options sort of tools that we can put into the regulations that say if you're if you're building a development that has this a certain program of different uses, there are inherently going to be some Savings in terms of parking demand based on how different uses require parking at different times of day and across the week. And we can kind of add the parking requirements for each use individually for each hour of the day for each day of the week and look at where the peak demand period is. And judge based on that and require based on that as opposed to Typically, what communities have done is just add all the requirements up individually. But if you're, you know, for example, if you're mixing commercial uses and residential uses or lodging uses, they're going to be times of day where some of those uses require very little parking and other times of day where they require more parking. So it's always going to be sort of a percentage of how much of their actual demand of parking It might be 90% at this time, 50%, 60% kind of at finding that day, that hour of the week that has the largest expectation for parking need, which is usually going to be less than if you just added them all up times 100%. Because there's always going to be some use at one point in the day, one time of the week that just doesn't need 100% of the parking that it would at another time of the day.

To just jump back to the previous. Yeah, yeah, yeah. occurs to me even if you don't put any demands in the code if you could just put expectations we expect you to get started on this right we would like for you to come back and tell us why you know that's just kind of a soft

sell away right get moving right okay thank you very much one of the other things that we've we've been talking about when we started talking about residential development housing types and and kind of getting into the nitty-gritty of the Any housing that is denser than 7,500 square feet lots or less than 60 feet lot widths. In the R4 and R5 districts, we looked at different pictures or pictures of different developments and in Opelika and talked about, you know, how those kind of fit, you know, individuals vision for those districts or for those areas. And what came out of that conversation was an idea to create an overlay that's centered around downtown, but then kind of filters out a little bit more into some of the older neighborhoods surrounding downtown that within that area, there would be an expectation or small lot development where you would have a lot of homes with where the driveway takes up much of the front part of the lot. Within these areas, those would either not be allowed or would only be allowed conditionally. But in other parts of the city, they would be treated more equally. Any thoughts, any reactions to that? So again, the whole we were talking about street character earlier. This is one aspect of street character, I think, and walkability both that this idea kind of came about as a way to protect the character of the historic center of Opelika and encourage development that is designed to be sort of more integrated with the block system and where cars, driveways, and garages do not kind of make up and dominate the image of the Yeah, it's that that would be a method to achieve the intent of this is having access to the back of lots that would be an option and in that area is this to keep cars off the street from parking out on the street. Not necessarily know the really the intent is on these very small the smaller residential lots or where you where you have a lot more housing kind of clustered together that driveways and garages as you're you know the image of that neighborhood that you get is from either walking or driving down that street the more driveway and garage that's up front begins to be a big part of the image of that community. And so the intent was with this overlay that it would keep things, keep the garages and the driveways less dominant.

Less what?

Less dominant as a part of the character.

of the year. And in some cases, that would be as simple as instead of having two parking spaces directly in front of the house, you have a single row that goes to the side of the house that has places for both of them to line up long ways.

Like two cars. I mean, every every house ought to be prepared for two cars. You're either going to have a child, you're going to have a spouse, you're going to have a caretaker. And it might not be you, but it's going to be who buys your house.

Right, absolutely. Any thoughts? Do you think that that direction makes sense for the area that's shown on the map? Again, it's primarily downtown and then some of the older neighborhoods that touch downtown.

Yeah, because otherwise they're going to park on the street

Talking about downtown, can we assign parking spaces for somebody who lives in the loft as opposed to having all the people who live in the loft parking in front of restaurants and retail spaces and the help for the restaurants and the retail spaces?

You can do that through metered parking. So if there's a time limit on the amount of or on how long they can keep a car there, that's going to work better for the restaurants than it's going to work for the residents. if they start getting tickets for leaving their car, you know, long periods of time, taking up parking for customers. You want to see turnover in on-street parking in downtown.

Is that parking meters or is that putting chalk on the tires? Yes.

That really is the best option if we're having concerns about people parking for too long in one area. That's not the desirable option for anybody, but it's how you control that.

And a lot of communities have, of course, with the smartphone technology, have moved away from individual meters, and you have sort of gang meters, or you're paying with an app. And there's a number assigned with your parking space, and you've paid for that amount of time. numbered parking space.

Well, the point is to get people downtown to shop.

Right. Right.

If there's no parking place, I'm going home. Mm-hmm.

Absolutely. Yeah. With a lack in mind, is there a desired mix of different residential types that we should try to achieve and stay close to, like 60% single-family owner-occupied residents, 10% rental.

I don't know the answer to that. And those numbers are going to vary from time to time. And I think that that's the residential developers are going to have a much clearer sense of what those numbers are today and how they might look. six months or a year from now, because they're putting a lot of money into betting on particular housing products in your market. So they have their fingers on the pulse of those kinds of questions, and they try to meet the demand that they know is out there. Yeah, but what's popular today, we may not want to be oversaturated. Right. And it's hard to sort of predict what the housing demands or interests are going to be, particularly the way that our local economies in different aspects of communities are a little less predictable today than they might have been 20 years ago. One of the other big topics, I think this is pretty straightforward, but would like to get some initial thoughts from you on this. So right now you have an M1 and M2 district. The M2 district is really designated for your industrial parks. The M1 district is just a mixed bag of industrial uses and commercial uses, and there's not really a distinction between other than industrial parks where you would want to have heavy manufacturing versus light manufacturing. So where you would want to just kind of limit things to types of industries that don't make a whole lot of noise. Don't you know, don't create smoke odors and other sort of nuisances and then a different category of where you could allow the bigger, messier, noisier ones. So we're definitely looking at ways to tweak the uses in the M1. My initial reaction, and I don't know if it's the correct one yet or not, and I'd love to get some feedback, Perhaps you've already got the M1 in place. Make that your light industrial district. Create an M3 for heavy manufacturing. Nowhere on the map currently because it doesn't exist yet. And that should someone want to build something that, you know, an industry that falls into the heavy manufacturing category, they would need to get land rezoned to M3. There might be some existing industries that might need to sort of be rezoned to M3 at some point. But that's kind of the direction. Again, sort of initial thoughts, any guidance on that?

So we would create this M3 district. And we would do it kind of an overlay of where Those that should fit in there would be right now?

It could be. And I wouldn't say overlay. But more that if there are some heavy manufacturing uses located in the M1 currently, and you wanted them to be in the zoning category that is meant for them, you could take those parts of that M1 and just change that to M3.

The easiest example for us probably right now is the lumber mill that is currently out there. It's probably a M3 classification. Quarries, other things that people just really don't want to be.

Yeah. Yeah. So it's the I think what I'm describing here is more sort of the conservative approach for you. Whereas if you kind of take the opposite approach and make your M1 your heavy manufacturing, you've already got lots of land zone for M1 that you'd have to try to take back. So if you make M3 the heavy manufacturing, you can meet that out as it's needed as opposed to dealing with a whole lot of it already in place.

Can we keep things from being grandfathered in, like if there's an industry that is bought by somebody else and then it moves somewhere in a high industrial area. So then they're going to try to sell it for another high industrial something. But the land's now been zoned for light industrial.

You cannot change the rules based on a change in ownership. It would be protected as a nonconforming use and could continue in that manner until that use changes to a different type of use or The activity stops that business activity stops for is it a year or two years ordinance today. So there are there are there are protections for non-conforming uses and you've you've got spelled out in the ordinance currently what are the triggers that mean a use has to comply and those those are going to be this more or less the same triggers we're going to end up with at the end of this process but because we we can't cross certain lines does it come back before us if they want to add on to the plant

say, I'm just taking something just off the walls here. You have a keel plant and they've got this much space, but now they decide they want to make the steering wheels there. And they want to add on, which makes the plant even bigger. Can they come back before us and we say, no, you've got to have it in another location

There could be a number of reasons why, if something like that is proposed, it would need to come before you. It could be because they need to rezone the property they're going to be expanding into. It could be because there is a conditional use approval that's required. But if there's not anything like that, If they've got the zoning for it and the use is permitted by right, then they would simply go through the staff process to get their site plans approved and their building permits approved. So there would have to be some trigger like rezoning or conditional use approval or something of that level in order for them to be required to come back before the Planning Commission. Oh, of course, subdividing.

And most of that is governed by the OIDA in our planned industrial parks. They have to come back before that authority for review.

Well, they might not be in one of the industrial parks. I think we might have one or two more quick questions. I know we've got to stop by three, so I'll try to close out here. On I-1, the way that it is set up now, there are really a lot of non-institutional uses that are permitted. And we've been discussing scaling that back so that The institutional district really primarily is intended to serve institutions and allows for non-institutional uses that are incidental to the institutional uses within. So if you have, for example, a community college that has a dining facility or a bank or something or a hospital, any of those kind of larger institutions that would it would be customary to have those types of businesses associated with them or a church that has a manse or anything of that sort where there is a sort of acknowledged reason for an institution to have one of those other types of uses, that those would be permitted, but to really scale back so that it serves as an institutional, purely as an institutional district. And so that's one of the things we're looking at. Are there any questions? And if that comes back to you, do you have any heartburn if that's done? OK. All right. See if there's any any other highlights we want to hit. I think I think we covered most everything in here. Let me mention this. So the all right. My last thing because time the R4M and R5M districts allow the same uses. The primary difference between R4M and R5M is the R5M allows greater density. But the uses that are permitted in the R4M and R5M, you can only achieve the density that's allowed in R4M and the R5M. So R5M says you can do 16 dwelling units per acre. But the difference in uses or the regulations for manufactured housing which is the key reason for the R4M and R5M. You can't achieve 16 dwelling units breaker with any type of manufactured housing development. You can only achieve up to nine. So there's really not a valid reason for the R5M district, except for the fact that there's some land that's been zoned that way. So we're suggesting either merging the two districts into, or sort of kind of retiring the R5M district. Any, are there any, Concerns or thoughts about that? You can achieve 16 dwelling units per acre in the R5 through non-manufactured housing development, but you can't achieve 16 dwelling units per acre in the R5M with manufactured housing. I think that's what I was trying to get across. All right. Well, thank you for your time today. We'll be back again. So our next steps, as I mentioned before, we're going to have some have a couple of meetings, kind of focus groups with the development community, sort of a first one. coming up soon, which we'll be scheduling. And then later on in the process, we'll circle back with them as well as the community. And with you and the council, thank you again. And if you're able to, I'd love to see you later this evening at the library. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I'm going to call the July meeting of the Planning Commission to order and welcome those who are in the audience who might have something to say for or against an item we have. We do want to hear what you've got to say. And if you do have something to say, I don't think there's anybody here, but Five minutes at the microphone and one time at the microphone. The approval of the minutes. Do I hear a motion?

Motion to approve.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Mr. Mosley, any update on any previous cases?

No, ma'am. I don't have any update on any previous cases. I did want to let you know that we do have your copies of the comprehensive plan at your desk. We've been meaning to get you copies of those, and we did finally get some of those printed off. So you have a copy that you can reference as you need to. I believe that's it. We're going to do a little different today. We're going to go back to having the planner who would be the Commission as well so that they answer those questions I'll be yours if you have anything of me but and then I for items number three and four I do have some slightly revised language that I wanted to provide to you as a potential option okay so under new business the conditional use a1

First agenda item is conditioning use located at Walker 1108 Walker Gray Court. That's off of Veterans Parkway. It's the property owner is a J.E. Company LLC. And the representative to them is the Pinnacle Design Group headed by David Slocum. The current zoning is C3GCP, which is a general commercial gateway corridor zone. The applicant is requesting over a 12,081 square foot office warehouse building. The report probably says 10,000, but they contacted us about, it's going to be about 1,424 square feet larger. That won't affect the setbacks or it'll be when we get to that part of it. The company has five employees. In the C3 GCP, it's conditional use as we're talking about now is required, but any outside storage is prohibited. The applicant knows of that. This is going to be for a warehouse use only, only in the side. The lot fronts on two streets, which is Veterans Parkway and Walker Walker Gray Court. But the lot has no access to Veterans Parkway, which is our gateway corridor. All the only access is some Walker Gray. See the middleman building set setbacks. are met on Walker Gray Court and the two side yards, which is the north and the south side. On Veterans Parkway, there's a 40-foot setback, but they got the building at 20 feet, but there is in the zoning ordinance, section 7.3, it allows the planning commission to grant a variance from the 40-foot minimum if there's an alternative access way. And that's Walker Gray Court. So there'll never be an access there on veterans, although they front right on it. The site plan shows that there's eight parking spaces required. The site plan shows 11 places. All parking spaces is in the front yard area facing a Walker Gray coal cul-de-sac. Yeah, this is the last lot on the cul-de-sac. And the landscape plan, it meets the minimum requirements for the base points and the parking lot points. And it also includes residential and gateway corridor buffers. The residential buffer is over on the south side where there's a R4M zone. It is a mobile home park, but it is a residential zone. So the buffer has to be and installed there. And then the gateway corridor landscape buffer is also re-acquired. Evergreens are going to be planted staggered, so they're at least six feet wide.

And it'll have that green growth all year round.

So the maximum impervious surface allowed is 70% hard surface. The landscape plan is going to be about 64% since they added about 1,400 square feet. It's a little bit more, but still, it doesn't surpass the 70%. The exterior material of the building, on all sides, there'll be a three-foot-high brick wainscot. And then above that is going to be architectural metal panels and everything. And they said that they looked at the panels of the other buildings on Walker Gray Court and kind of went by what they had too. I think there's some photos and pictures in your packet. There is a dumpster. It's in the front area there, the front yard area, but it is on the quarter sack, on the turnaround, and it's got a fence on all sides and a gated a double gate fence. And then there's a landscape plan that's got a lot of landscaping around that dumpster too. So they were sensitive to that. So we recommend approval with the following conditions that Planning Commission grant a 20-foot variance for the minimum 40-foot front yard setback. And just for a reminder, the outside storage is prohibited prohibited in the GCP zone. Any fencing they're going to have, they need to contact planning about the standards that we have in Section 7.6. So they have the right kind of fencing if they're proposed later. And the same with the outdoor lighting. It must not exceed one foot candle. So we'll have to get a photometric drawing and see if that's the case. I don't know. For security or whatever. Then the rear wall of the warehouse building will be 20 feet from the Veterans Parkway. That's fairly close. They will have a buffer there. But if they have any kind of utility meters, air conditioning units, they need to be screened. And that's also in their Section 7.6 for the Gateway Corridor. So that's in there, but it just as a reminder for them to get the report.

we recommend approval with these conditions that's all i have engineering the applicant will be required to submit a site construction grading plan for the drainage utility roadway access installation to the engineering public works department and other utilities for review once the review and comments have been made a pre-construction meeting will be scheduled prior to construction and this meeting we will discuss the expectations and requirements of the city and utility departments. All state and federal permits will have to be submitted and a notice to proceed will be issued at that time. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this proposed conditional lease agreement. Opa-lockwood Water states that there's an existing one inch service line currently serviced

All right. This is a conditional hearing, and it 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? So moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Number two.

Number two is the request by the Opelika Industrial Development Authority to vacate a portion of the existing cul-de-sac right of way from Joanne Drive and Faith Way. Our future name would be Faith Way. The right-of-way was constructed as a turnaround area before the Joanne facility was constructed. The connection to this facility is in place. The turnaround area will no longer be required. Utilities have been notified about potential easements or requirements in this area. The economic development has shared with us that the Opelika Industrial Development Authority has committed to the development of this property Next to this, for an Opelika Workforce Support Campus. This will include three phases of the, three phases. The first phase will be a dedicated medical clinic. The campus, when fully developed, will also include a dedicated daycare, early education center, and workforce training center. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to city council to vacate this right away.

Engineering. Engineering has no comments or concerns regarding this right-of-way vacation. There are no utilities in this area and so a block of water and a block of power and the Calabasas River will not be affected by this vacation right away.

All right 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?

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Abstain. Abstain.

Been sure we had enough for it. OK. The motion carries. All right.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Yes. This item is a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance. This deals with alcohol related uses, specifically package stores. Uh, we've had the language before you a couple months and we I did modify at this time, but only as relates to splitting it from a single ordinance to cover both alcohol and hemp and CBD to two separate ordinances based on, uh, allowing them to move independently if needed to. The language we've tried to mirror back and forth quite a bit between the two. And then we also added what we typically put in the ordinance, which is kind of a purpose and intent section, which you see in most of our special development standards in the zoning ordinance. We'll note that all of this will be reviewed as part of our ongoing zoning ordinance update. So there is a chance that what we're looking at now may be either Tweet should you approve it or we come back with something still different from what's today. So what we've done is we've split package store. We currently had a definition of a package store and packaged liquor store. We've also added now ABC store, beer and wine store, and those would be to kind of differentiate between some of the different types of stores that the state recognizes. So a packaged liquor store is a what we typically look at as a packaged store. Sells distilled spirits Liquor and as a primary use. A beer and wine store would be a store that sells primarily beer and wine as a specific use. That would not include a grocery store. It wouldn't include a gas station that sells beer and wine. It's kind of considered an accessory. in those instances, this would be something that is largely just selling one of those two items. We do have a few wine stores that have opened in downtown and a couple other areas. So that's part of the reasoning here. And then ABC store, which would be something that is operated by the state from what we've seen and what they tell us that they operate somewhat differently from typical package stores. and provide quite a bit more checks and balances and review into how the stores operate. We've provided the use table here. I did want to point out the M1 for package liquor store. It shows NNC. The C should be struck through and it should say N as part of our ongoing zoning ordinance. We have been removing some of the retail uses out of the manufacturing in one zone just to make it a little bit more appropriate for what's there. You'll notice again the purpose and intent section that follows that and then special development standards, which include both a distance requirement between stores, a minimum floor sales area, of two thousand square feet. Number three, which talks about its requirements, where it can locate as far as in relation to a other uses inside a shopping center, grocery store or pharmacy. I'm going to get to that in just a second. And then a requirement that no sales be conducted through a walk up window or drive thru. And then finally a requirement that if they do have burglar bars, gates, roll down kind of how that should operate. In discussing this with a few people, the way we've got it right now requiring the package stores be co-located or adjacent to a grocery store pharmacy is something that we did find in another city, but it is fairly unique in the way we've looked at it. What I've done is revise that slightly and come in with the languages here as it's highlighted. It says packaged liquor stores shall only be allowed in shopping centers that contain three or more commercial tenants with a mix of grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, or consumer shopping goods. All of those uses, grocery store, pharmacies, restaurants, and consumer shopping goods are defined in the zoning ordinance already, so that makes it much more easy to follow. and then contains 14,000 square feet or more. So it has to be a multi tenant commercial building, and it has to contain a mix of what we consider typical retail restaurant grocery type uses and at least 14,000 square feet. So it still limits both size and locations of where those can go. We would recommend using this alternative language if if the Commission doesn't have an issue with it just because we feel it It's better aligned with the overall zoning ordinance as far as definitions and whatnot go. Other than that, I'm happy to answer any questions. We have also right up to this, we'll talk about CBD hemp, and we have again tried to mirror those quite a bit through the process as well.

Matt, what about locations of churches and schools? I feel like I've seen something in the distance.

We have not put that in. The state has some general language in their requirements as far as how far they're saying that they're supposed to not be adjacent to churches and schools. I'm not exactly sure how they typically interpret that. I think The way the way I look at this, I think one of the best ways that we can regulate, you know, a distance from church and schools or from residential is through the conditional use process. And so packaged chores will remain a conditional use, which means the commission has that ultimate ability to look at individual cases and say, You know, if it's right here and it's it's backing up to a right in front of a school or right next to a school adjacent, you know, in this instance, we don't feel comfortable with this. And so that's that's the way we're proposing to handle that right now is through the conditional use process, which I think allows a little bit more fine review of it.

OK, thank you. 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 to send a positive recommendation to City Council with the amended language?

So moved.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries.

The next item that relates to hemp and CBD uses. We again, we started looking at all this partially because of the state's new regulations on hemp and CBD that started at the beginning of the year. We knew we needed to address some of the alcohol related issues, but since ABC controls both of those, we thought we would look at them and try to handle them in the same general relationship. We've we've also added as a specific zone tobacco vape store, which is a use itself, primarily tobacco hookah, electronic smoking devices and accessories or a combination thereof. Again, this is not intended to regulate specifically a grocery store or gas station or pharmacy that sells those products. But it's again the Uses that are primarily those sell those products as a primary use, which we've seen a noticeable uptick of those in the last few years. We've also added hemp store, which is primarily a retail store that is in the business of selling hemp and CBD products. Pharmacy Hemp Store, which is a pharmacy which sells hemp products as part of their uses, and then first restore with hemp sales, which is, again, exactly what it sounds like a grocery store of fourteen thousand square feet or more that sells hemp products. The pharmacy and grocery store both have limitations to the state code as far as what they can sell and how they can sell them. They can't just be an open containers on the wall. They have to be restricted and not available for people who are under 18. I think it's 21 years old. The hemp store limits entrance to anyone under, I believe, 21 years old. So you're not allowed to have a child through there. So that's why it's a little bit more solely geared towards hemp CBD sales. Again, we've provided the use table for how we feel those uses would best fit within the zones and the gateways, typically being either conditional or not allowed based on the particular use. And then We've also provided special development standards for tobacco stores. No sales conducted through walk window or drive through. And then again, if there are any security measures that have to be screened and how those would operate for hemp stores. And this is this is not intended for the larger. Hemp grocery store or hemp pharmacy. This is a store that just sells hemp products, much like a package store would just sell alcohol products. And the thing about this, too, is package stores are allowed to sell hemp products as well. So that's why there's kind of some overlap between the two. No hemp should be permitted within a radius. Stores should be permitted within a radius of 1500 feet. Any other hemp store? No sales should be conducted through the walk up drive window. Again, we and we carry through this same requirement about where they be located as far as in relation to in the what we've previously given you as a grocery store pharmacy. We've we've suggested the same changes here with the exact same language as far as making them be part of a shopping center. As you see here, hemp stores should be only allowed in shopping centers that contain three or more commercial tenants, mix of grocery store. Pharmacy, restaurant, consumer goods or contain and contains fourteen thousand square feet of gross floor. So, again, kind of requiring similarity between a package store and hemp store because package stores can sell them or can be licensed as well. The other change that we are recommending is and it was pointed out that we try to use the state's language and definitions for much of our stuff. The state's definitions, though, are truthfully a bit odd. They don't. Most people, when they read them, don't know. At least I struggle to read them and understand always what they're saying. So we have changed them a little bit, but we did include a section that include For the grocery store listed a subsection which we did not include. And instead of including all of that general information, we just basically said. They're required to sell food products in the grocery store at 75%. Now this mirrors what's in the state code, so the state code list exactly what type of food products they have to sell, which is produce, canned goods, freeze dried goods, all the fresh meats. But. We figured since the state's already covering that part, we don't need to specifically list out each one of those importance. Again, we would make a recommendation that you send a positive recommendation to city council with the amended language.

All right. This calls for a public hearing. You see anyone who would like to speak for or against this item? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion?

Madam Chair, may I ask

I believe the city has regulations in general that limit when upheld sales can occur. So we didn't include them in here specifically. I would have to look up to tell you exactly what those times are. I think you see that in the clock. I know the ABC stores, I believe, close at 6 or 7 p.m. is what they've told us, which is much one of the reasons why we feel it deserves kind of some different differentiation. But I don't know exactly what. And I don't or I guess I don't know that we have a time limit specifically on him either. So. The general. Yeah, I think looking at it from a hemp standpoint, I don't know that we we have anything that sets the time. Times of when that can be sold.

Did we have a motion? Let's have a motion, please.

Motion for a positive recommendation to City Council is staff recommendations.

Any other discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries.

That is that is all the business we have before you today. I did want to let you know that we will, as you you are aware, we're going to have the open house tonight at six p.m. at the library. And so if you're available, we'd love to have you there.

What time?

Six. Six o'clock. Yes, ma'am. One of the things that I was going to let you know briefly about is Opelika, along with Auburn, will be hosting the Alabama, Mississippi chapter of the American Planning Association coming up in the fall. I believe it's the end of September, beginning of October. We'll send you the dates for that. If any of you are interested in attending it, there'll be presentations and a few other things from people across both states. We're happy to sign you up for those

It's going to be in Opelika?

It'll be, I believe most of the sessions will take place in Auburn. There are quite a few workshops and tours that will occur in Opelika, and then a few of the events will occur over here as well.

All right. Okay, anything else?

No, ma'am.

Do I hear a motion? We adjourned.

So moved.

Second? Okay, all in favor?

Aye.