Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: I wanna welcome everybody to the August 26th meeting of the Planning Commission. There are few items in here that would call for a public hearing. If you have anything to say for or against, if you would go to the microphone, and you have a five-minute time limit to speak, and only one time at the microphone. Do I hear a motion for the approval of the minutes? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? Any discussion here? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr Mosley, will you tell us about the update? MR MOSLEY: I don't have any updates on any new cases before you today. I did want to let you know a few things about the agenda as it relates to what we have. Item one, which is Willow Park, on South Uniroyal Road, item two, which is Bridgewater Community. This is a preliminary plat subdivision off Logan Drive, Columbus Parkway. And then item number five, which is LAME, LLC at 706 Geneva Street, requesting townhouses and office building. Those three items have all been requested to be tabled by the applicant. We have advertised the meeting and public hearing for those. So we would ask you to go ahead and hold the public hearing in case anyone wants to speak today. But, we would request that those... we concur with those being tabled as well. So if you would do that at that time, we would want to let the public know in case that they had other things they needed to do for those items.

Also, the old business items for King. King automobiles are... They've been requested to be tabled as well. They're already on the table, so you do not have to take any action for that. SPEAKER: OK. If there's anyone here who would like to speak to the Willow Park subdivision, you're welcome to go to the microphone. MR MOSLEY: And so Willow Park is is off of South Aurora road. And the curve there where it turns off Columbus Parkway. It's 153 lots zoned C-3. Again, this is one where the applicant has requested that this be tabled. And so we would concur with that recommendation. SPEAKER: Would anyone like to speak opening the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed since no one came forward. Number two. MR MOSLEY: We would need a motion to table that motion. SPEAKER: A motion to table that. So... MR MOSLEY: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MR MOSLEY: Number two is a request for Bridgewater communities. This is located off of Logan Drive and on and off of Columbus Parkway. This is a request that was for you for preliminary plat, but it was previously before you for rezoning to a planned unit development that is about to go through or about to be heard by the city council. We again had quite a few comments on this when the applicant has requested to be tabled and we concur with that recommendation.

SPEAKER: OK, I'll open the public hearing for anyone who would like to speak for or against. Since no one is coming forward, I close the public hearing, so we need to have a motion on the tabling. SPEAKER: Make a motion to table item 2A. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MR MOSLEY: Item number three is a request for preliminary and final plat. This is slightly unusual. This plat is for Hidden Lakes West, phase 4B. This final plat approval was actually approved for this plat, I believe it was in May or June. During the final workflow for the developer, they noticed that there were some pins that were inadvertently located in the wrong spot, so it shifts some of the property lines very small, about a foot or two, I believe, on lots 47 through 56. So they're coming back through with a request for an amended plat, or corrected plat. We have the same comments that we had previously, which was to replace the plantings of the buffer for the exterior along West Point Parkway, or submit an alternative plan to the planning department. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and all utilities should be located underground. SPEAKER: Alright. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this moment in the public hearing?

I'm closing the public hearing now. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: A motion to approve it for staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MR MOSLEY: Item number 4 is a request for final plat approval. This is a request for Sentinel Hills, phase 4. The applicant is Mark Strozier, Strozier Surveying, representing Edgar Houston Builder. The property is located in the planning jurisdiction on Lee Road 2192. This is part of the Sentinel Hills development, which, again, is off Lee Road 177, just north of exit 66 off West Point Parkway, Highway 29. The applicant is proposing an 18 lot subdivision. You see it here. As I mentioned, the properties are located in the county, but it's in the jurisdiction, so the Opelika Planning Commission has authority to review this. These will be for single-family homes. The lots range in size from about three-quarters of an acre to approximately 4.4 acres, all meeting the minimum size for the planning jurisdiction. We are recommending final plat approval, subject to the following. Lots 1,18, 13, and 12 show the corners and distances along the creek. Section tie is noted as being shown, but no course and distance is found at the point of beginning. SPEAKER: Alright. This is the final plat approval, so it does not require any public hearing.

I was engineering. Excuse me. SPEAKER: No problem. Engineering department has inspected the roadways, and the subdivision meet specifications and requirements. Everything's installed according to what is required. The bonds have been submitted to the department. The only thing that is lacking is the asphalt documents for that to be turned in for the final plat, for signatures. Other than that, we recommend final plat approval. Since the subdivision is outside the city of Opelika limits, Lee County Engineering Department will also need to approve this plat as well. With that being said, we recommend final plat approval. Both water and power are outside, will not serve this. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. SPEAKER: That's the only report I had so far. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: You're fine. SPEAKER: And again, this plat does not call for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for approval with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: I'll second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MR MOSLEY: Item number five is a request from Sanford Group representing LAME LLC. This is 706 Geneva Street. The applicant is proposing an office building, which is an allowed use in the C2 zone in the Gateway corridor, but is also proposing some townhouses along the rear, which are conditional. Again, this is one where there was a request to table this, and we are recommending that the Planning Commission table this request at this time. We did have some of the images if you wanted to see them, but just kind of what they submitted.

SPEAKER: OK. There's no engineering report. I just want to be sure we're not overlooking again. This has been tabled by the applicant, but it calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Come over to the microphone, please. And state your name and address. JESSICA ROZAS: I'm Jessica Rozas, I live at... SPEAKER: Pull the microphone down. Close. JESSICA ROZAS: Well. I'm Jessica Rozas. I am at 802 Geneva Street, so I'm on the south side of the... SPEAKER: Can you speak a little louder, please? JESSICA ROZAS: I'm soft-spoken. It's a struggle. I'm sorry. Jessica Rozar, 802 Geneva Street. My property is directly south adjacent to the property in question. And I just wanted to maybe express my concerns of the impact that this development will have on my property and my neighbors. I'm somewhat speaking for them as well. Right now, this lot, it's been empty for a while, a long time, and we understand development is inevitable, but this particular property, I actually did the math here. It's covering 75% of this lot with impervious surfaces. Where's the water gonna go? I happen to also be downhill from this lot, and we have shallow bedrock. We already have water issues. I have a house built in 1924 with a basement, a cellar,

really, but it has a sump pump because the water table is shallow and we take on water. So, I feel like there needs to be more done in regards to drainage rather than just covering up the whole ground surface with paving and floor. Also, I just have questions. I would like to, and I know this is preliminary, and I know that there's more designed to come, but there's this road now proposed along the side of my fence, three feet off the fence per my measurements. Are there going to be street lights shining down into my once private lot? I have an acre lot with lots of nature and private little walking trails, and now I'm, I guess, to expect constant traffic. I'm expecting, you know, these are three-bedroom townhouses, so I'm expecting at least 16 strangers in and out all day, you know, and then not to mention whatever is in the office building. So, pretty much at any given part of the day, there's going to be a dozen strangers kind of overlooking into my backyard, where currently is a safe haven for my daughter and my pets. And I feel like maybe there could be some things. I'm not saying that I should have a right to demand that these developers don't develop the land, but maybe there's some things we could compromise to make it less invasive on my property. So, that's kind of, that's the gist. I actually wrote a whole speech, and I decided to spare you

today, but I just wanted to be heard and request some modifications to their site plan to be a little less intrusive. I did write down a few notes of what my ideas could be that might help. Maybe if the site plan were kind of flipped, where this, I'm calling it a road because it's a good bit of in and out there, if it could be flipped to the north side of the property, where there's two properties adjacent or touching this lot on the north side. One is currently housed by a business, it's a real estate office. And the other one is a wooded lot, kind of the back 40, if you will to another home. And anyway, so maybe it would be nice for me if I didn't have headlights and, you know, whatever they're using to eliminate their driveway and just the hustle and bustle of people coming home from work, leaving for work, business, you know, throughout the business hours, just driving right there next to my fence all day. Another thing is I feel like there should be better requirements for drainage. I'm a residential design professional. I'm pretty well-versed on zoning ordinances. I study them often. And I feel like something Opelika could do better is add impervious surface ratio guidelines.

I see that some have been added for a couple of zone categories. But as I study this for other locations, I see the importance. And now I'm seeing the impact that it could potentially have for me personally. So also I would request that there should be better privacy screening with a two-story dwelling unit all the way down the line of our property lines. There should be better privacy screening rather than, you know, the preliminary design here shows about five trees along the fence line. So that would be… SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. JESSICA ROZAS: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Thank you. JESSICA ROZAS: Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? So we need to approve it being tabled. MR MOSLEY: Yes, ma'am. We'd make a recommendation that you table this. One of the reasons we felt there was needed a good bit more information before we made a recommendation ourselves. And so that's why we feel like it should be tabled and give some time to let the parties look at some of the options and come back with a recommendation plan for you. SPEAKER: I will close the public hearing now, and as for a motion to table this. SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? OK.

MR MOSLEY: Item number six is a request for conditional use approval as well. This is located at 310 South 6th Street. The African is Brandon M Davis, Davis Manufacturing LLC for One Dollar Wash LLC. The property is currently a vacant building located in the C2 zone, which has also got a gateway corridor secondary overlay on it. This location, I believe, has been previously used as a auto maintenance repair shop. It's kind of located about a block away from City Hall. The applicant is looking to begin to utilize this as a manufacturing and repair for utility and cargo trailers, which is somewhat of an adjacent use to what has previously been there with the manufacturing or the repair of automotive uses. Initially, when we looked at this, staff had some concerns about how the business would operate, what kind of outdoor storage would be located there, those types of things. The applicant has provided us quite a few pictures of the work that they've already done on the building, including renovating and painting the building as well. One thing we had concerns about was with storage outside. They have noted that the work would be done interior of the building and that storage could either be handled through an off-site location, which they also own adjacent to this, where they have a repair and vehicle yard. And that any trailers that would be sold would be taken to

a different location and be sold there, where the use is allowed. I believe that's out in the county. The primary... we reviewed this, again, from a parking standpoint based on the number of employees for manufacturing use. They're not expected to have a lot of daily customer traffic, things like that. It does meet the minimum requirements for parking. We reviewed this based on, as well, how it fits in with our current ordinance. This site is largely currently paved, and so there's not really the opportunity for landscaping, things like that, to be really added to the site because it goes basically from the lot line to the lot line. The zoning ordinance makes accommodations for this where the property is not physically capable of having landscaping. It provides the opportunity to not install it at this time. They will have some storage and scrap metal collection, which they are proposing to put just off-site. We are not visible from South 6th Street, which is the corridor. In reviewing this, going through everything, and I'll go through the pictures they provided. Here you see the building prior to, I believe, them taking ownership. Just more photos of that. Again, the subject property. SPEAKER: Let's see. And some of the surrounding properties. They have come in, and I apologize for the quality

of this photo, but painted the building so that it's all a nice dark color. Repaired both the interior and exterior parts of the building, made it much more uniform, and removed a lot of the vehicles that were previously stored on site. I think that shows you kind of what it looks like at this time. After reviewing this, we are recommending approval of the conditional use, subject to the following conditions. No outside trailer sales will be allowed on the subject property or the adjacent. Outside storage of materials, trailers, or equipment is prohibited on the subject property or adjacent properties. Trailers manufactured or repaired must be stored inside until they move to an off-site approved location. The dumpster location on the adjacent property must not be visible from South Sixth Street, and if it is visible, it must be screened and gated. But happy to answer any questions you may have. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Because there are no changes to the layout of the existing site, no permits will be required from the engineering department, and therefore, there are no other concerns regarding this conditional use. Opelika Water and Power are currently serving this site and will continue to serve this site. SPEAKER: OK, this is Number? SPEAKER: Number six. SPEAKER: Number six. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Alright, so this does call for a public hearing if there's anyone who would like to speak for or against this. Public hearing is now closed.

Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Propose with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: The next two items are request for conditional use approval. The first is for the conditional use approval for Bradley Creek, representing Dyess Properties, LLC. This is for multifamily. Located at the 1400 block of South Fox Run Parkway. You may remember this from last year. The applicant came in with a request for approval of 163 multifamily units in the C-2 zone. There was a lot of discussion about access and making sure that this met fire requirements. They continue to work with the fire department and building departments on how this is laid out, making sure that it meets the city code requirements. In general, we are recommending conditional use extension be subject to the approvals of the previous plat, or, excuse me, the previous conditional use extension last year, and requesting or recommending that they be approved for an additional 12-month extension. And that included providing landscaping buffers, noting the materials and the configuration, providing that they're consistent architecture meeting the gateway corridor, planning dumpsters being closed. All utilities be underground except for the required overhead transmission lines that were existing. All mechanical and HVAC units be screened from the right of way, and gates must be coordinated with Opelika's public safety departments. And meeting the building fire codes in place at the time

of issuance for access, fire protection, building spacing and then approval of the floodplain from the City of Opelika, and FEMA. This is the updated plan. It's very similar. They had to redo some of the northern portion out of the floodplain, and then they moved a community amenity, kind of right here, adjacent to the floodplain area, as proposed. And Mr Tharp is here, if you have any questions for him. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Just like the original submittal, the applicant will be required to submit a grading and drainage plan to the city for review and approval for a permit. You need to make sure that the flood study and the FEMA regulations are met by the department. The traffic study will be required, or an agreement on additional terms on South Parkway will need to be agreed to by the engineering department. Other than that, there's no concerns with this extension of, like, the water status of the six-inch Maple South Parkway, but it does not have the capacity. Feasible development is recommended, that access to Columbus Parkway to the north secured, where there is abundant capacity in the existing water main. This will also provide for the development of power will service this development. SPEAKER: Alright. This item calls for a public hearing.

Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for approval with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number eight is also a request for a conditional use extension. This is a request for a conditional use extension of the proposed Climate Control Facility located at the 300 block of Sanford Avenue. The applicant is Jack Johnson of Storage World, representing Opelika East, LLC. Subject property is in the C-2 zone with Gateway Corridor Secondary. This, as you may remember, is located near the intersection of Fox Run Parkway and Sanford Avenue. You see the climate control facility kind of on the far western side of the property. Here's kind of a zoom in of that facility, a mix of one-storey and two-storey. And then the elevation that they provided initially, so that it shows that it kind of fits in with the development scale on the front of Sanford Avenue. This request has been before you a few times before. I believe this was originally approved in 2019. They are working on some of the additional properties adjacent to this. There's quite a bit of property adjacent, and I believe they're trying to put together a larger development package as part

of the overall development construction. At this time, we are still recommending conditional use be extended for 12 months. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The same comments for the original application will be held, such as site plans, middle, and grading plans for the site. The engineering department has no concerns with the conditional use extension of this application. Water status. Again, that water is available on Sanford Avenue. The elevation is six six-inch main. They requested that specific water conditions be need to be coordinated during the design process, which will come at a later time. Opelika Power will service this site. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Public hearing is closed. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: A motion approval for staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? I'd just like to add something that I think y'all brought this. I don't know who is. You brought it up about six years ago. 6 or 7 years. You've had a sign out there all this length of time. It's time to do something. That's my feeling about it. Any other discussion? SPEAKER: On the letter? Lucinda, I read a it sounds like you're trying to do some type of exchange. Maybe you were just there about trying to buy some more time for selling something to do an exchange.

SPEAKER: I didn't hear anything you said. SPEAKER: Well, it sounds like they're trying to do some type of exchange. Sell a piece of property in Tennessee and do an exchange. So, yeah, they're probably dragging their feet. SPEAKER: But yes, that's gone on too. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Anyway, that's the way I feel about it. Any other discussion? Alright. All in favor? SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number nine is a request for an amendment to the future land use and rezoning for a piece of property located in the 1300 block of Crawford Road. The applicant is Hayes Efird with Sanford Group, representing David Ryan. The subject property is currently zoned R1, which is kind of a rural zone. They're requesting to rezone it to a planned unit development. And we'll go through that in a second. The future land use zone is low-density residential. They're proposing that if it is rezoned to a planned unit development, it would be modified to a mixed-use planned unit development land use category. So, go through the process or project here briefly. The total property is 73 acres. It's located on the south side, kind of southeast or south corner side of Crawford Road, US 169. You see the zoning here? Everything adjacent to it on Crawford Road has an R-1 designation across the street, which it touches just briefly at the road, and is zoned R3, which is a medium-density residential.

And then to the south of this, you see the M-1 zone. This is part of the Uniroyal property. You have a Goodwrench facility, which is zoned M-1 for manufacturing. The applicant is. Proposing a development that would contain 223 single-family homes. It would also include 17 acres of open space or detention areas. The applicant or the lots on this property are a mix of 50-foot-wide lots, generally 50 by 115ft in depth, so roughly 55,700 square feet lots. And then some of the darker colored ones on this plan are shown as being 60ft wide. It's closer to right at just below 7,000 square feet. You'll notice that the site has two access points on Crawford Road, spaced kind of one just down from the other. Crawford Road is a state-controlled route, meaning ODOT will have to approve any access or connections to the street. Looking at the development, the lots being proposed are, like I said, 57-6,900 square feet in size. Those are somewhat close to the R4 and R5 zones as far as lot area. The width is... The 60-foot lots are similar to those as well. The 50-foot lots are smaller than the R4. Here you've got R1 and across the street, R3. And so these would be smaller than the other areas. I think the applicant is pointing to the additional open

space provided and amenities as reasons why they are going with smaller lots, kind of maintaining more open space. The overall density for this comes out to right at three units per acre, which is somewhat consistent with the R3 zone across the street. However, it is more than the are ones that these directly back up to. They're proposing 20-foot front setbacks, 20-foot rear setbacks, and five-foot side setbacks. Again, we mentioned the open space. There are a couple of areas shown as being designed amenities, including a dog park, a pavilion and playground, and two landscaped pocket parks located within the area. And then there's adjacent to the perimeter. They provided some open space buffering, where they would meet other properties. In reviewing this, while noting that these lots are smaller than some in the area, we are recommending a positive recommendation to City Council for the rezoning, provided the following conditions that sidewalks be placed on both sides of the street, and those sidewalks be at least 5ft in width. All utilities should be located underground. A minimum of one tree per yard for single-family homes and corner lots provides trees on each street. All single-family homes meet the gateway corridor planning requirements. Any vinyl or aluminum siding should not be the primary material for single-family homes. Buffer shall be undisturbed unless an alternative plan is presented and approved, and that undisturbed buffer shall be supplemented in areas to provide a near full screen, provide future stub out streets to the south and west, and approval of both roads connecting to Crawford Road buildout shall be required prior to approval of construction plans. If the access shown cannot be provided, the PUD would be required to go back through the process to

provide an alternative plan. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Yes. Typically, engineering reports. Does it report on zoning requirements? Usually, the comments will come during the preliminary plat phase, which is the next phase after this. One thing Mr Mosley mentioned would be certainly a challenge is the access and spacing requirements. If they can certainly get out that approval, that would certainly help a lot for the subdivision. But there are no comments from engineering regarding the subdivision itself. Opelika Water State submitted a 12-inch main on the south side of Crawford Road. There's also an old main. The rest of the property that was the old water supply from Springville that's abandoned. So that would need to be abandoned and vacated as well. This is outside of our service territory. SPEAKER: So we're asking here. SPEAKER: So you have a request to rezone the property, which is a recommendation to the city council, either positive or negative. And then if you recommend a positive recommendation to the city council, there would be a recommendation or there would be an approval of an amendment to the future land use plan. SPEAKER: So it all goes to City council? SPEAKER: No, ma'am. The future land use plan is done by the Planning Commission. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: You can have the public hearing for both at the same time and then two separate votes. SPEAKER: Sorry. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing.

Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Give us your name and address, please. EZEKIEL RAWLINS: Ezekiel Rawlins, 1305 Crawford Road. Just a couple of things. So, 169 or Crawford Road, like, it's a very busy road. I'm pretty sure everybody here has been down it. A lot of wrecks have happened there. So with the two entrances there, like, my house is actually right there on the top right corner. So wherever they would cut their road in to go to the neighborhood would be right next to my driveway. It's hard enough getting out of there in the morning with the school up on, I think Highway 51 right there. So I feel like a neighborhood there would just cause a lot more traffic and maybe a lot more accidents. I mean, especially to the top of that hill. You know, people just fly down that road, and once you top that hill, accidents are waiting to happen. And then, with the rezoning, trying to go to PUD, would that not be like a spot zoning or pocket zoning, which I thought was more frowned upon or not allowed in a sense? And that's about all I got. minus... SPEAKER: Are you asking? You're asking? Were you asking? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Would that not be considered pocket zoning or spot zoning?

Since it's not really like, touching more of a, like a HUD area? I mean, I feel like it'd be more like an R-2 zoning. I mean, maybe an R-3, but definitely not a PUD in my opinion. But yeah. SPEAKER: I can answer that now or later. So, typically, when you look at spot zoning, there is not a clear definition under state law of what spot zoning is. Typically, you're looking at how it relates to the future land use, how it relates to adjacent properties, the size of the request, and then quite a few other factors. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the commission and the council. Unless it's, of course, challenged in court at some point. But looking at this, I think the commission can look at this. There's PUDs. Typically, they don't go next to other PUDs because they are a unique zoning mechanism in the ordinance that allows flexibility, providing that there are other benefits provided. So that's what you're somewhat reviewing. In this case, you do have the R-1 zone. That it currently is and adjacent, which is what Mr Rawlins, I think it is mentions. Across the street, you do have an R3 zone. R1, you typically are talking about one-acre lots. R3, you're talking about 10,000 square foot lots, which are still larger than what's being proposed here. But in that case, the density is 3.5 units an acre in the R3 zone. From a density standpoint, a pod like this is...

SPEAKER: Very close to that density or even under the density allowed fully in an R3 zone. And then you have a manufacturing zone to the south of this, which allows more commercial manufacturing type uses. So, you're in a bit of a, a transitional area. Ultimately, the decision about whether or not the zoning is appropriate is a recommendation from this board to the city council. And so a lot of that comes back to whether or not you feel what's being proposed here is appropriate. SPEAKER: So, it's really not in the same grouping of what's around it. Housing. SPEAKER: So, the lot sizes. I mean, the lot, the lots being proposed are single family lots, which are primarily what's allowed in the R1 and R3 zones. The lot size is smaller than what is allowed in the R1 and R3 zones. And somewhat significantly now I think the developer will speak to that, but they would probably point towards additional open space and other things there. But again, that is a decision of the Commission and ultimately the Council, if they choose to rezone, it. SPEAKER: Just doesn't have the complexion of what's around it. The amount. SPEAKER: If I just may add as well. And across the street, the house is zoned as R3, and I know they're on that gray area where it's, it could be R3, and that's actually what they're zoned for. But living across the street from them, I like those are decent sized lots stuff. I mean, I would even say like those getting rezoned to R2 to

R1 what we are is more realistic than actually being zoned R3. SPEAKER: What's across the street is R1. SPEAKER: The, what's across the street is, I'm not mistaken, isn't R3. SPEAKER: That is correct. SPEAKER: But those lots are I mean, I think they're like three quarters of an acre. And everybody's spaced out over there. So, I mean, I would I don't think it should even be zoned to an R3. I mean, R1 or R2. But... SPEAKER: They only developed single family? SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: Alright. Is there anyone else who has... Do you have anything else? SPEAKER: No, ma'am. Thank you. ALAN GARNER: Thank you. My name is Alan Garner. SPEAKER: Would you pull the microphone closer to you, please? ALAN GARNER: Yes. SPEAKER: It doesn't speak as loud as I was up here. ALAN GARNER: My name is Alan Garner. I live at 1304 Crawford Road, right across the street from these driveways that are being proposed for this development. In fact, almost directly across the street is my driveway. I'm getting a little lost in this R thing, but let me make it clear that the character and quality of most of the lots in surrounding homes are not what is being proposed. Therefore, it does not need to happen. I don't understand what's wrong with developing R1. That was the original master plan. Not, maybe not.

So, a superior concern here is our highway. It is dangerous. Have you driven that highway? Drive it. You will see there are deep depressions on each side. Two of them. But on this particular side, there's probably an incline of anywhere from 15 to 20 degree. All kinds of traffic, drive that driveway. Morning traffic, commercial traffic. Traffic of all kinds. People going to the panhandle of Florida. It's a dangerous road. There is no pullover. If you pull over, you're going... You have to fall with your car. A good five to 15ft. We don't need any more development on that road until the road is is made a better highway. I've said this before in other matters. Most of these people like to drive five to ten miles over the speed limit. By the way, why can't I say this? Well, I haven't taken a survey, but I live there. I stand out there, I pull in that driveway. This driveway that they're proposing is rather vague,

but it looks like it's just across from mine. So, I want to step back and say I did not get my letter until four days ago. So, to me, in my thinking, this is a lack of protocol and should demand a delay for the next hearing. And I'm understanding that others did not get theirs so quickly either. And not to mention that what we're getting doesn't really show explicitly what happens with the surrounding properties in way of property shape, size, location. Obviously the skill that I'm seeing in some of these drawings, they could do that. And I think that would help you understand as well as what's happening. So... That is a supreme, overriding concern. It needs to be improved before we even begin to think about more developments. Then there's the matter of our neighborhood identity, which I've already hinted at. The properties surrounding this development are anywhere from one half acre, whether you call it R1 with a house to five acres. SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. ALAN GARNER: Ma'am. SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up.

ALAN GARNER: I'm not through. SPEAKER: But your five minutes is up. People have... ALAN GARNER: 11 plus properties... SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. ALAN GARNER: In that particular location over the hill, 200 yards. SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. ALAN GARNER: There's an additional development. They developed R1 as they should have. SPEAKER: You need to sit down. Your five minutes is up. You've spoken for five minutes. We've heard what you've you said. ALAN GARNER: No, I have not heard what I said. And it is wrong for you whose job is to listen to put a five minute limit on an hour. SHERRY GARNER ISLAND: May I say something? I, my name is Sherry Garner Island. I live next to my my sibling, Alan Garner. And could I give him my five minutes? SPEAKER: No. You can speak for five minutes. SHERRY GARNER ISLAND: OK. ALAN GARNER: Well, that is disgusting. I'm sorry. Your job is to listen. That includes you, Mr. Mayor. Listen to people. And don't disregard or cut them short for vital information. That needs to be... SPEAKER: I'd like to close the public hearing. ALAN GARNER: This is not a public hearing. When you do not allow for people to speak fully and promptly. The very idea, five minutes. SHERRY GARNER ISLAND: As I said, my name is Sherry Garner Island. I live on at 1210 Crawford Road, which is across the street from the proposed subdivision. I'd like to restate the thing that he said about the highway. I understand that this is the city and the highway is a state highway, but there needs to be some major communication between the city and the state about the condition of the highway. It's a two lane road.

It's growing every day, and most of the road is hills and there's double yellow lines. There are kids that have to ride the bus. You have 18 wheelers that are going way over the speed limit, and when they come over those hills, they cannot see, then they cannot stop, for I personally have been in two accidents as a result of the condition of the road over the years. The subdivisions that they're proposing. Number one, I feel like the houses are way too small. The spaces are way too small. And I don't care that you've got all these extra areas to do things. People need their personal space, and they may be happy to get into a house to start off with. But as families grow, they're gonna need more space. You've got no room to put on additions for, you know, for when you grow a family. You have people that, you know, have to add another car because you got a teenager that's learning to drive things like that. And there's, if they're lucky, you know, they got a play park. I did not see where they had like a pool or an activity area. For the adolescents and adults of the area to do anything. But when you don't have anything to do anything. As far as activities in a highway like ours, people tend to get in trouble. We've got trailer parks there that are up the road constantly shooting guns. You hear gunfire all the time. There are better ways to handle this subdivision.

The roads into the area need to be bigger. The road itself needs to be bigger, and there needs to be more maintenance as far as the police to control the people that are going up and down the highway, especially when you're gonna add, what is it, 200 and something houses, going down the highway, and they're all in a hurry to get the kids to school, to get to work, to get back, to make supper, to go to the grocery store, all those things. It's gonna add traffic and until you get the highway, problem solved. I don't feel like this is proper. And even if it you had all that solved, those small houses are just not the right thing. My house has an acre and a half. I live across the street. I don't know why it's zoned in R3, but it shouldn't be. And... If this was on the north side of Opelika, I believe it would be looked into in more depth rather than on the south side. To be perfectly honest, there are subdivisions being grown around us all over on the Uniroyal Road and that place on Geneva Street. That's tacky. And this subdivision is gonna be tacky little houses. And I would appreciate it if y'all take it seriously to consider what you're putting these people into and what you're putting us through, you know, by putting them there. That's it. SPEAKER: Thank you. AMANDA WOODSON: Hello, I'm Amanda Woodson. I live at 1308 Crawford Road. I share a driveway with Mr. Alan Garner.

And I have really big concerns about this, obviously, for a lot of the same reasons. My most, my biggest concern is the road itself. It seems like whenever you round that corner around Springville, coming on into Opelika, it's just a speed track through there, and that definitely goes for 18 wheelers and all that. I have a child that gets on the bus every morning and every afternoon he gets off the bus, and every single time I'm a nervous wreck. And I have to know that he did not get hit by a car. I have been there personally to see him on the bus and see cars just blow right on by the school bus, and the school bus cannot scoot over into the middle like I have seen some busses do to kind of deter traffic. You can't do that there. It's way too dangerous. A school bus is stopped there at our driveway. Me and Mr. Alan's driveway. And that whenever somebody topping that hill, they're like crap, they have to slam on brakes at that point. Hopefully, they do. I've had to be in stopped to turn into my driveway. Coming from Opelika. You know, there's tons of traffic coming in from the county, you know, coming into the city. You know, we have to stop a lot and wait. And it's very dangerous because you see a 18 wheeler coming up behind you, barreling towards you. I have had to several times floor my gas pedal to get, to alleviate that. You know, I mean, because I don't know if they're gonna be able to stop in time. So, my biggest concern with this is if the subdivision going in is inevitable, we've got to have some improvement on that area. It's got to be slowed down. There has got to be a slowdown or there's going to be, it's gonna get rough. I mean, I already have to share driveway, which has already been problematic.

And we've looked into having my own driveway cut, but due to the road frontage between the driveways in that speed zone, we're not allowed to have another driveway cut. So, we're forced to share driveway with some, you know, with Mr. Alan. And it's been a little difficult. So, if I get a new driveway out of this, I might would come out better. But that is my most biggest concern. Yes. I'm listening to you about the lot sizes and the quality of the homes. You know, it does make sense about if it's such a family oriented subdivision there needs to be some sort of playground or something like that for families to get all of that. I'm a real estate agent, so I'm a little bit partial to that going in or whatever, you know, because I'll try to sell a couple. But my biggest concern is definitely the traffic there. He's right. The shoulders are very steep. There's no there's no get away. There's no relief there. So... And people do not drive the speed limit on that road. I literally put my blinker on at the Global Impact Church. That is way ahead. And I don't care if I make somebody mad because, you know, I've slowed down so far. So, that's just my concern, you know? I mean, I live directly across the street, so I'll see it every day. I'll have to, you know, deal with the traffic every day. And my kid's gonna have to get on the bus there every day. And I don't know what that will do to the bus route. I don't know what will change about it with that going in. But that's all I have. SPEAKER: Thank you. CONNOR SMITH: Hey, my name is Connor Smith and I live at 1403 Crawford Road. SPEAKER: Speak up so we can... We wanna hear what you've got to say.

CONNOR SMITH: Connor Smith and I live at 1403 Crawford Road. Basically, just to piggyback off what everybody else has said. You know, obviously, it's a busy highway. I've been there since I was zero years old. And just growing up there, you know, being that it's a busy highway, I've seen multiple car accidents there. But just to take into consideration with all this going on, I just had three questions. That maybe could be answered now or later on down the road. But again, to piggyback off of what everybody else said what specific traffic control or safety measures will be put into place to protect children and family, especially, like you just said, at bus stops. I have siblings that get picked up from my house every morning. So, that's one big consideration. Being that it is already busy highway. Like she said, we've witnessed multiple times cars. Clearly you have to start slowing down at Global Impact. I do, and I'm still almost a few more minutes away from the house. But cars going past the stop sign, not paying attention, stuff like that. Another question would be have you all coordinated or consider coordinating with the local school district and Transportation Department to ensure the safe bus routes and designated stops. And I know, I think it was mentioned earlier about sidewalks and everything. And then also what infrastructure improvements such as turning lanes, you know, speed reduction measures are being included in the plan to prevent or possibly prevent such a busy highway. So, basically everything concerns are the same as everybody else. Just specific questions that I wanted to ask. SPEAKER: Thank you. HAYES ZEPHYR: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Hayes Zephyr with Sanford Group here.

On behalf of the development. SPEAKER: Can you pull the microphone up just a little bit, please? HAYES ZEPHYR: Thank you, I apologize. How's that? Is that better? Perfect. So, I just wanted to highlight a couple of things real quick. I don't wanna, I think Matt did a pretty good job of presenting the development and what is going in here, but really what I would like to go back and highlight is kind of some of the items that this the public hearing brought out here specifically. I think starting with the traffic concerns. So, the saving grace for those concerns here is this is an ALDOT road. Anyone who's kind of worked in the development world knows that it's very difficult to work with. They have very strict standards that we have to meet. And the reality is, to get those answers takes a lot of time and money. And so in order for us to start engaging with ALDOT, it's gonna take understanding what's gonna go in the neighborhood, because we need the inputs so that we can have the conversation of what will be built here. We can't have a conversation with them until we understand what the zoning is gonna be. So, once we understand the zoning we're in, like Scott added, Scott and Matt both added language to the PUD that if like, this is all contingent upon ALDOT approval and that like I said, that process is going to take quite a while and quite a bit of coordination with them. But like I said, they have very strict requirements from high level, like turn lanes are gonna have to come in here with the kind of traffic that we're proposing. And so I think a lot of the concerns about how, you know, there's some shoulder issues here, there's also some speed problems. It sounds like coming through here, that widening should help with some of those traffic measures. So, from a traffic calming perspective of just having something different when people are coming through there that aren't going to fly through with quite confidence whenever there's more in the area, just from a traffic calming standpoint. And then also, you know, those turn lanes will create a little bit more area for busses. It sounds like that's a pretty big issue out there currently. So, not necessarily what we are set out to do, but I do

think that'll be an unintended benefit here in this area. The other item that came up was just the lot sizes. I think we've talked about this on other planning developments we brought before, but the kind of theory behind this is really, as Matt alluded to, is if you're building the same housing product on a slightly smaller lot, then we're able to come in and add particularly, I would say, to where the rear homes are backing up. SPEAKER: kind of in the north eastern corner along Crawford Road, where we have that backing up right there. We're able to give a lot more preserved trees within development. And so instead of coming in and masquerading the whole thing to just meet a lot minimum requirement, we make a lot slightly smaller. We're maintaining the same number of lots, but we're able to kind of keep some wider open spaces available. And then we're also, you know, instead of having these large yards that in many cases aren't even part of being fenced in or they're not being used, they're kind of dead space, we're able to kind of reorient the neighborhood to where we have these shared amenity spaces. They're in your packet. I mean, we're showing dog park, playground pavilion area, kind of a third space in this development, and then these pocket parks that are more, you know, landscaped and manicured areas for kids to play and that kind of thing. So, that's the cost benefit here of going with a slightly smaller lot size within the development while maintaining the same density that you would see typical in this area. If y'all have any questions, I'm happy to answer 'em. SPEAKER: Why not figure out if you were not? SPEAKER: Anybody else wants to speak? Public hearing is now closed.

So, our first motion would be to approve the land use map. SPEAKER: If you approve the recommendation for rezoning or deny it, we'll tell you whether or not you should change the land use. And so I would start with the... SPEAKER: The zoning. SPEAKER: Recommendation to the city council for a positive or negative recommendation for the rezoning. SPEAKER: So, a motion for a positive recommendation to city council to. SPEAKER: Positive or negative R. SPEAKER: Or negative? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: To about the rezoning. SPEAKER: Rezoning the property from an R one zone to a planned unit development. SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Can I say something real quick? Of course this is a recommendation for rezoning. The courts give the city decision makers wide discretion. A lot of times in rezonings, it's not always black and white. There are always grays in there. So, that's the reason the courts give the city as the legislative bodies of the city wide discretion to make these kind of decisions. The courts have said the two most important factors are these. Number one is the proposed development consistent with the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan says low density residential, I mean, that's beyond dispute. The second important consideration is the proposed development compatible with existing uses. SPEAKER: No. SPEAKER: That is the neighboring uses adjacent across the street. There are a number of other factors you consider, but those are the two most important. Other factors you consider are number three would be is the infrastructure, the streets, the water, the sewer, adequate

to serve the development? SPEAKER: No. SPEAKER: Number four, is there a need for a development of this type in the community? SPEAKER: No. SPEAKER: So, those are basically the kind of factors you consider. And again, the courts say you have to weigh all of these factors and come up with a common sense judgment as to what you recommend to the city council. SPEAKER: Alright, so the first proposal should be recommend or... SPEAKER: You need a motion to either send a positive or negative recommendation to the city council. SPEAKER: I got, can I make a proposal that we extend this into to do further, deeper, steady with... SPEAKER: You can. So, a motion to table is always in order. It takes precedence over any other motion. So, any member can make a motion to table. Now, if there's more than 30 days in between the two meetings it would be automatically approved. But in this instance, I believe it's less than 30 days. SPEAKER: Yeah, there are, I believe, 28 days from now until your next meeting. SPEAKER: So, it will not be automatically approved. So, any member at their discretion can make a motion. The table, it's not a debatable motion, you just vote on it. If you vote the table, it's set aside to the next meeting. SPEAKER: I make a motion. We table this till the next meeting to give the city. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? SPEAKER: There is no discussion. SPEAKER: I was getting some. SPEAKER: A motion to table is not a debatable motion. You just... SPEAKER: You just vote on it. SPEAKER: OK. So, all in favor of tabling the motion? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain?

Motion carries to table. SPEAKER: Alright, thank you. Commissioners number 10 on your agenda is a text amendment to the zoning ordinance. This is a request to look at the items related to many warehouses and to just briefly, we added a definition of climate control while we were discussing this topic. In your packet, you have a letter. Let me find that really quickly. From the property owner and the representatives discussing the use of many warehouses in particularly the Gateway Corridor zoning district. Excuse me one moment. Many warehouses are defined in your ordinance. They are a building or group of buildings in a compound that contains varying individual lockers or stalls for dead storage of consumer goods and wares where no sales or service repair facilities are permitted. The, excuse me, the mini warehouse use is a use that is currently not allowed in the Gateway Corridor districts. The gateway corridors, as you'll remember, are those primary thoroughfares throughout the city. The big traffic movers. They are I-85, US280 in all its different configurations, Gateway Drive, Pepper Parkway, most of the major arterial or major collector roads that we see throughout the city.

We had a request from a property owner and their representatives basically to have the planning commission examine that and potentially amend the use there. They are noting that they have a piece of property on US431 Lafayette Parkway, which is a somewhat of a narrow piece of property but has some length to it. It is zoned. M1 is a base zone, which is I think somewhat relevant in this discussion because M1 is our private manufacturing zone. That is not the most common zoning designation that we have for Gateway Corridors. In most cases, our Gateway Corridors are either commercially zoned C1, C2, C3, or they have a residential zone and underneath it as well. They have noted that their property has some particular issues where they feel like a mini warehouse use would be the most reasonable use of that property and have requested that it be amended so that they could have a conditional use there. What that does from the city standpoint is you are either required... There are only two ways to do that. There's not a way to have a single variance for one particular property under our zoning ordinance. You can't approve a use that is not allowed currently in that zone. The options that then the city is left to, if they would like to address this issue, is they would either have to remove Lafayette Parkway or that section of the parkway from our

Gateway Corridors or they would have to make many warehouses, which are those not the climate control facilities, but kind of traditional mini warehouses with exterior doors. A conditional use in all of the Gateway Corridor primary, which is their designation. And so you can't really affect one property in this regard without affecting a lot of properties. In the staff report, we've tried to provide just a lot of information about the use of some of the reasons why they are regulated. Like they are typically Gateway Corridors or high traffic areas with lots of people moving through. There are places in the zoning ordinance where weve noted that the desire to have kind of higher aesthetic values than in other areas. And those are the areas generally our Gateway Corridors are prime commercial areas or have a lot of value for things that have a lot of traffic. Many warehouses on the other hand, are often one of those uses that doesn't get a lot of traffic doesn't get a lot of although many, many... A lot of places have done them much better. They so sometimes carry the stigma of the kind of outdoor storage some of the aesthetic issues. And then a lot of cities look at it from a utilization standpoint, meaning that these sites that are high traffic might be better utilized for a higher usage site. I fully understand the concerns and the issues that the applicant's facing with their particular site. But in our review of it, it was not our recommendation that the ordinance be changed.

We have provided the information should the commission wanna make a positive recommendation to city council, including a better definition of climate control storage, which is what we do allow in the Gateway Corridors as a conditional use. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you have. The applicants are represented here today, and I'm sure they'd love to kind of speak and discuss some of their issues. Again, we would love to find a situation that works for everyone, but at the same time, we wanna make sure that we're cognizant of all properties with the corridor overlay. SPEAKER: We don't need to go to engineering. We're just talking about... SPEAKER: Yes Ma'am. There's no staff report from them. SPEAKER: Alright, this calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who'd like to speak for or against? EVAN CRAWFORD: Hello there. I'm Evan Crawford representing the property owner here. And Matt, I appreciate it. Everything. I mean, I agree with what he was saying there really. We're trying to find a good resolution for this property, this unique property based on its zone age in the Gateway Corridor overlay. Being unique in that it's a M1 where most are C2 C3 and then the shape of the property being that it's very, very narrow and with the setback, it's very hard to find anything else that could go on this property. And knowing that, you know, in the corridor verbiage, it states that the board zoning adjustment may grant some exceptions based on location, size and shape of property and the requirements of the gateway corridor overlay if they present a substantial, unique hardship to the property owner. And I would say based on the size or the shape

and the uniqueness of being M1, it does cause somewhat of a hardship for this property owner here on that. And as far as the aesthetics go, there is a buyer currently right now that is looking to do this many warehouses. And you know, we've spoken with them many times and gone and spoken with Matt and the aesthetics wise, they wanna make it look good. They don't want, and they've even said like, you know, we can turn the doors facing inward, not facing 431. We can do certain things landscaping wise on the berm. We can do, you know, they wanna make it look nice. They're not here to try to just throw a bunch of many warehouses up. And they just haven't got to that step yet because we wanted to get to this step prior to the drawings and things like that, that they were looking to do. So, I just wanted to make sure that we that I kind of discussed that part of it. And like I said, Matt, I appreciate you bringing those things up. But that was the biggest thing with I guess to add to that would be that, you know, the fear of of having to let this happen in, in other areas in the gateway corridor you know, C2 C3, I don't think they're conditional use anyways for a mini warehouse. So, being that it is M1, one of the only ones that are M1, you know, I don't think that that would be something that would have to open up Pandora's box into allowing, you know, a bunch of different properties within the Gateway Corridor to have this use. SPEAKER: So, alright. You see anyone else? EVAN CRAWFORD: Thank you. SPEAKER: Matt, can you pull up the piece of property? SPEAKER: Can I say one thing? The Planning Commission cannot sit as the Board of Zoning adjustment. You have no authority whatsoever to grant a variance for this one piece of property.

He would have to go to the BZA to request that. The only thing you can consider is this, the present zoning ordinance prohibits many warehouses as a use in the gateway corridor. The proposal here is to send a recommendation to the city council to change the zoning ordinance to make many warehouses a conditional use in the gateway quarter. And that would apply to every property in the Gateway quarters. There are many Gateway quarters in the city of Opelika. It would apply to every one of those properties within the gateway quarter. So, this is not making a judgment about one piece of property, it's making a judgment about every parcel of land within the gateway corridors. SPEAKER: And that would be for all of the primary zoning, whether it be C2, C1, M1, if it's in a... SPEAKER: Any entrance into Opelika. (CROSSTALK) SPEAKER: It's an overlay district. So, it applies to all. SPEAKER: Right. SPEAKER: So, I just wanted to make sure everybody understands that we're not talking about just one piece of property and it's really irrelevant to pull it up and talk about one piece of property because this is a proposal that affects all properties. SPEAKER: Affects everywhere, whether it's Opelika road or whether it's. SPEAKER: Yeah. You saw the road I was going down. I was just wondering if there's anything that could be done. SPEAKER: So, the applicant's correct that the Gateway Corridor section does reference is the ability to seek a variance for issues where the Gateway Corridor regulations make all the hardship. What I've interpreted this to mean is basically that it gives the ability to make a variance hardship related

to things like setback to cladding, landscaping, other types of issues. Unfortunately, under our zoning ordinance, we don't allow a variance to a use, which is really the only way to attack a singular parcel. And it's somewhat of a difficult discussion decision, but it really comes down to allow the use. You have to allow the use everywhere where that overlay is available. In looking at it right now, many warehouses are conditional outside of the gateway in the C1 C2 zones, or excuse me, C2 and C3 zones. And then they're allowed by right in the manufacturing zones which are the M1 M2 zones. It is really a very just and that is again, referencing, they do have a unique piece of property, but I don't know that there is a way that the planning commission or any board can modify this without modifying the entire regulation as it sits. SPEAKER: So, Matt, do we send any recommendation to the city for this? Or is this just a point of discussion on whether we consider It? SPEAKER: You know, I wanted to give you all the facts. I've tried to not come out with a direct recommendation here, although I don't know that I would recommend you truthfully to allow many warehouses everywhere because

it is likely that you would see some additional, and we have some currently different places. We have, I believe one set of many warehouses right now in the Gateway Corridor. But those predate, I believe our gateway corridor requirements. SPEAKER: But is a request for the commission to either send a positive or negative recommendation to the city council on this specific item. SPEAKER: I think there supposed to be either the commission could send a positive record or negative recommendation to the city council of this text amendment. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: And the amendment would be to modify those to allow many warehouses within the Gateway Corridor. OK. Primary, we did not change the secondary because those are the spaces internal more in town, not necessarily further out in the more rural area or more commercial suburban areas. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Mean the whole thing boils down to whether you think on many warehouse ought to be a conditional use in these primary Gateway Corridor, particularly the commercial areas, you know? SPEAKER: Alright. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Make a motion for a negative recommendation for text amendment change to the zoning ordinance. SPEAKER: What negative recommendation. SPEAKER: Negative recommendation. SPEAKER: Do I hear a second? SPEAKER: Ma'am you said motion? SPEAKER: Negative. Negative recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? So, the motion carries to send a negative recommendation to city council. Alright. Do I hear a motion we be adjourned? SPEAKER: A motion.

SPEAKER: To move. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank y'all very much.