Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: Good morning, everyone. At this time, I would love for you to put your phone on vibrate or whatever comfortable to y'all as long as you don't disturb us up here. Alright, Matt. SPEAKER: Yes, sir. Good morning, sir. I guess, first is roll call. Mr Anthony. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Miss George, Mr. Hillier. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Miss Harvis. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Miss Nunn. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Mr Miller SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Sorry. I apologize about messing up alphabetical order. SPEAKER: Are you doing that in your head? SPEAKER: Alright. SPEAKER: If y'all take a look at the minutes. We wanna get a motion to accept the minutes from the previous meeting. SPEAKER: A motion to accept the minutes as presented. SPEAKER: I second. SPEAKER: The motion is second. Of course, not omission. You're ready to vote. Signify by saying aye. Nay, likewise. SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Motion carried. SPEAKER: I apologize just...We've got a new system in the courtroom, and I thought we had it set up exactly the way it was supposed to and just got a little bit of technical difficulties here, but we're ready to go now. SPEAKER: Alright.

SPEAKER: Thank you all for coming today. We've got two items on your agenda. The first is a request for 304 Fox Run Avenue. That is in the M-2 zone, you see it here, it's Phillips LLC. They are requesting a variance to the side setback. This is in the M-2 zone. The required setback is 30ft. The current setback for the existing building is nine feet off the property line. And so the applicant is proposing to add an addition on the back of this. You can kind of see it on the overhead here. They would like to keep with the same general line of the building to line up both internally and externally. There's some internal bays that would connect between the addition and the existing building. To do so, they would need a variance of 21ft. I think a case could be made that this could be shifted over to meet the new setback. But in reviewing this while there's not necessarily a glaring hardship, it would create a fairly odd configuration on the property and would likely not provide

any additional benefit to any of the neighbors or the city as a whole. As such, we are recommending a variance of 21ft to the side yard setback. Mr Bolt is here representing the applicant if you have any questions of him. SPEAKER: At this time, I would like for him... could he come to the mic and state a name? SPEAKER: Hello, Brandon Bolt with Bolt engineering. Mr Park did want me to point out there's there's really two reasons behind asking for the variance. One is architect kind of explained that his existing buildings broken up into three different sections. And when you can add his extension on there, the way that we've done it, it allows for the workflow to go between the two warehouse spaces and in each of those areas. The other is for the site. So, if you were to rotate it long ways and go deeper into the site, there's about a 20 foot incline in the back that would be more difficult to grade and be more difficult to get the water out of there. So, those were his reasons. I'm happy to answer any other questions or we can get him up for this. SPEAKER: Public hearing, Matt. SPEAKER: Thank you sir. Is there a public hearing? SPEAKER: He's about to announce one, sir. SPEAKER: I'm gonna ask him a question. SPEAKER: Anyone else wanna speak?

SPEAKER: I just like... SPEAKER: Mr, can you come up to the to? SPEAKER: State your name sir. SPEAKER: My name is Lindbergh B Jackson. I'm really familiar with it, but I'm just kind of curious to what the building is being used for right now and what's around it. SPEAKER: Manufacturing. SPEAKER: Ready to picture it? SPEAKER: Manufacturing. SPEAKER: What kind of manufacturer? SPEAKER: Automation machines. SPEAKER: Automation machines are producing car parts. SPEAKER: All around it same thing. SPEAKER: The property to the south is and I believe the property to the north as well. Then beyond that, you have auto, excuse me, a construction rental company. SPEAKER: So, non residential at all. OK, just out of curiosity. SPEAKER: At this time. I'm gonna open a public hearing. I'll close the public hearing. SPEAKER: If you'd like to come up, you can come up to the podium and speak. Please state your name and address. SPEAKER: OK. Corey Holmes and address is 404 Fox Run Avenue. We're beside them. And from my understanding, our only concern is if they give the 21ft for future expansion plans or anything from our company is that, will there be an issue with 30 foot minimum?

We were trying to look at it on the map yesterday to see if there was gonna be any kind of issue on our end, if that was granted to them, since it's already nine foot over. SPEAKER: It's not. SPEAKER: Nine foot from the property line. Does that make sense? My question. OK SPEAKER: So, you're here on the corner of Fox Trail and Fox Run Avenue. SPEAKER: Right. SPEAKER: So, currently this building is sitting nine feet off the property line from your property here. They are requesting to continue to build the addition using the same nine feet separation from adjacent. So, it would be a variance on their side, it would not affect your side at all. SPEAKER: Do you have questions about that or... It wouldn't affect our side currently. But if we did expand or if we did anything in the future, I think that was the main concern is that we didn't want the 30 foot minimum variance. We didn't know if that would be an issue, if we would be meeting that or not, if we did decide to do something with that area in particular on that property. SPEAKER: The area between the driveway and the building. SPEAKER: Is that right? Yeah.

SPEAKER: That would, to my knowledge, not affect anything on your property line. SPEAKER: OK. I think that's all the questions we have. SPEAKER: Is there anyone else to speak at this time on the same matter? Matt, is there anybody else here to speak on that? SPEAKER: Not that I'm aware of. No, sir. SPEAKER: OK. Again, I'm on attempt to close the public hearing. SPEAKER: Matt, what year was this, the original building built a roundabout. SPEAKER: Do you happen to know? SPEAKER: 1991. I think that was one of my questions. Was there zoning setbacks different? SPEAKER: That's what I was wondering too. SPEAKER: So, I haven't been able to find this. I believe in previous zoning requirements, there was allowances to where if you built an industrial zones using fire rated separation, you could build almost to the property line. Again, I haven't been able to determine exactly how that occurred. From the county, it says 1995 but that's not necessarily 100% accurate. I would probably trust the applicant's timeline. 1991 was also when the current zoning ordinance went into effect. So, if it was permitted prior to that happening, it could

have been under a completely separate zoning regulation. And that that's one thing that we see often with industrial properties especially, is that they are built basically so that there is, usually, they're metal buildings or some other construction, which means there is fire separation between one property line to the next to prevent any sort of, concerns we might have with fire safety, life safety things along those lines. SPEAKER: This property too, there's a parking lot between... SPEAKER: Currently. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. There is a parking lot and the kind of main industrial access for the rear is adjacent. So, that's not to say the adjacent property owners couldn't redevelop their property at a future point, but at that time they would also be under the 30 foot setback and be available to come before this board or whatnot to see if they needed to reduce the setback on this side for any particular hardship or reason. We did look at a couple of the other developments within this industrial park. And what you'll see is there are quite a few that do extend closer to property lines than what we currently allow. And that's why I believe it could be based on either the initial covenants or previous zoning regulations that allowed many of these to build closer to the property lines than the current zoning ordinance allows.

I know you've seen at least once before another variance in the same general area. SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: So, if we approve this, it's not gonna be out of character with the benefit in. SPEAKER: It would not be out of character for this part of the older industrial park. Yes, sir. SPEAKER: And if we don't approve it, in their operations, they're gonna have a turn instead of. SPEAKER: They would either potentially have to turn the building long ways adjacent here, or they would have to shift it over further into the lot, which probably can be done as Mr Bolt said, there may be some drainage and topography they would have to adjust to do that. It's not saying it can't happen but it would also probably create some just peculiarities with the layout of the site. Again, this may be one where there is a clear hardship. Is there some common sense approaches that we can look at on this one that may make sense, provided it doesn't impact neighbors. I think that's something the board can consider. SPEAKER: I know we've heard from one neighbor. SPEAKER: I don't believe we've heard from any of the other adjacent neighbors. And the neighbors here today would be the most affected by far of anybody. All the other sides are well away from this line. SPEAKER: I did have one more question. Whenever we could...

SPEAKER: You would like to come back up to the mic. SPEAKER: If that's OK. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I just, the other question was the... When you look at the Google map with the access road to the company that's located behind the station right now, if we do any kind of future building right there on our property or expansion, is that road affected? Like will that cut off access or will that push our setback further then what? Is that what you're asking? SPEAKER: So, the location of the road is not tied to a setback. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: The location of the road would be based on our public works manual requiring spacing. And so there is a certain amount of spacing required between driveways. SPEAKER: Right. OK. SPEAKER: Your driveways are probably set to where that's about as close as they could get to each other to have two driveways on this property. If you were to, you could potentially move it further towards this development if you wanted to, but you probably could move it closer. Meaning that if you're gonna maintain two driveways here, any building is likely gonna have to come on the parking lot side of that. It's not gonna be able to go between this driveway and this building because of how close they are together. So, this area between your driveway and the adjacent building, unless you reconfigure the site to remove this drive, would probably not have much building potential

at the current time. SPEAKER: And that drive is primarily the company behind us. I think most of our employees use the little loop right there. So, that's what we just wanting to make sure there was no hindrance there and if we do have anything in the future. SPEAKER: No, if you have an expansion on this property, it should not be affected by variance granted on the adjacent property. SPEAKER: OK. So, is that it? I'm sorry. Thank you. SPEAKER: Is there anyone else? Alright. May proceed Matt. I'm hearing from the board at this time. SPEAKER: I make a motion that we approve a 21ft side yard setback variance from the 30 setback requirement SPEAKER: I second. SPEAKER: Motion and second. Any person who is ready to vote signify by saying aye. SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Nah, made likewise. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Motion carried. SPEAKER: The second item also deals with a setback variance. This is a request located on Avenue C. The applicant in this case is Mr Leonel Diaz. His property is located at number two, Avenue C. If you've been down Avenue C, this is where Avenue C makes

a turn onto Darden Street. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: So, right here, it kind of looks like it turns to Palmer but this is actually a curve that kind of continues on. The other two locations are a stop. So, you're kind of in a curve or you see straight lines on the property lines. You're kind of curve right here. Mr Diaz is requesting a variance to the front setback. The front setback in this location for the R4 zone is 25ft. He's requesting to have a variance up to 13.2ft. You see the the layout here. This house has been going through some renovations pretty recently if you've been through there. The applicant has gone through and pretty much gutted the house and added in addition to the back through the shed and then added a slightly larger porch. You kind of see kind of a concrete main pad if you walk up on the patio or the porch, they've added kind of a wood, exterior to the side. And so what that has done is you wind up with a further... Instead of showing this stopping kind of short of the main house, it now kind of extends almost to the edge on both sides of this house. So, this kind of gray area extends almost to the edge on both sides. You'll notice the way the house is lined up, it kind of is at an angle to this property line. The house actually lines up closer to the houses on Darden Street, where they're more in a traditional row.

This one starts to make the turn and starts to kind of make the turn onto Avenue C, so that it looks like it's kind of going with that roadway there. What you see then is on one side, the setback is extremely large. It's over 28ft to the property line. However, on the corner on the Avenue C side, you see where it starts to impinge on that front property line. Initially we had quite a few concerns with this. We typically are very careful about, especially about front setbacks because that does change the character of the neighborhood. However, once we started looking at this and seeing what they're doing and then seeing how they were modifying it and you see it in the actual street. I think you, you kind of get a different view of what is actually occurring. So, here you can see the house. This is from the Avenue C side. You can see again where that porch has been extended to the edge of the house on this side. And so here you're looking at the closest point from here to the road. The next photo, we kind of went a little bit further back. So, this is straight on looking at the house from right in the middle of the intersection and the curb. And so here you kind of see it almost lines up with the house to the, I guess that's kind of the Northeast side, but you can kind of see it starting to make a turn and you see the road really starting to curve here. And then the final one is, kind of a further zoomed out view of this from here. And you can kind of see how the houses are all in a row, and this one tries to maintain that same front

setback on Darden Street, but starts to make a turn as it goes to Avenue C. And you kind of see how it fully meets on Darden but on Avenue C it is narrow. When we look at this while we do, always try to look at these prior to them being developed. This is one where this portion of the porch did get constructed prior to getting approval. However, I think to fix this, you could either to make this come to compliance, it would require taking off as kind of one wing of this side porch which would make the house look fairly unbalanced, in my opinion. And then also, or you could make them kind of come back and redo the roof and make a smaller porch. Looking at this, based on the configuration of the lot, this is a much older house that has been long time nonconforming. We don't feel that the variance request creates a negative impact on the house. Looking at the neighborhood, there are quite a few, especially as you turn on Avenue C and some of the other areas through this general area that don't meet that front 25 foot setback. We feel that this house does kind of maintain the character as it has been created over the years. So, we are recommending approval of a 13.2ft front yard setback from the 25 foot setback. Mr Diaz is here. Mr Lindbergh Jackson is here if you have any questions of him as well. SPEAKER: We have a question before we move forward. Wanted to come here. What are you hearing from the neighbors. SPEAKER: So, we did get quite a few calls from. From neighbors in the surrounding area. Most of them were asking questions.

Marty spoke to, I believe, all of them and from what he's reported to me is none of them had a issue with the variance once it was explained to them. They understood based on kind of the way the lot turns, what was going on and none of them felt that it was an issue. They were happy with the improvement to the home. SPEAKER: State your name, sir. My name is Lindbergh B Jackson, Bernard Jackson. I am, third generation of builders around Opelika. Family have been for around about 100 years, all the way back to the Grand National days and plantation that we had owned. So, we have a vested interest. We're fairly decent, the level property owners throughout the county. And I just wanna say we did, maybe overstepped our hands in putting those two little additions on by not including that in the first variance. If you notice on the rear of the home, we've been before you guys before, Mr Diaz is a subcontractor. He does not have the familiarity that I have with the codes and etcetera. And once he gets started on the projects, sometimes he gets a little bit carried away. But me and Marty and the rest of the gang in planning, we put the brakes on. So, we said, wait, let us before we ask for a CO, let us come back before you guys since we made a boo boo and added a little bit on the front porches. We wanted to put our arms there, to hold up that little part and hoping that we wouldn't have to have the variance. But they say as long as it broke the plane, which I understand that after having worked in engineering

at Auburn, I understood that that we would have to come back before you guys. Well, you guys know southern people like a front porch. Like a little rocker, he has a couple of kids. That porch has a pre-existence has not a lot of room for any chairs once you just enter on it. So, he thought, well, we'll just go ahead and push it this way and push it that way and he did. And so that's why we're here today, asking for you guys probably to have a little mercy. And I've spoken with all the neighbors. We built the house next door on the north side for the gentleman, Mr... I can't think of his name several years ago in the early 90s, but the lot is is kind of misconfigured because there was a family division of properties and that went back and forth. And so he ends up with a lot that's more complicated than normal. So, we're trying to comply, follow the rules and give him some porch space. So, if you guys would consider the fact that maybe next time we won't jump the gun, we'll be in front of you before we add it though. OK so, in the light of empathy, we appreciate your help. Any questions? SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Jackson. Are there anyone else wanna speak on this on their behalf? I'm gonna say it again. Are there anyone else? SPEAKER: I did wanna add that Mr Jackson is correct about

once we recognize the issue, and they did come to us before, I think we were out there and noticed it. So they came to us with a concern. We have been working with them to make sure that all inspections have been taking place throughout the rest of the house, but we have held the CO until this was resolved, in case there was a need to come back and remove the porch based on the board's decision today. SPEAKER: Alright, at this time, I'll open the public hearing. SPEAKER: And here's kind of what the house looked like prior to the addition in the back. And then also you'll see that the porch is kind of much smaller, kind of closer to a covered stoop. SPEAKER: OK. I'm gonna close the public hearing at this time. SPEAKER: Excuse me. I wanna say one last thing. The house had been vacant for over ten years, so it was just sitting there. SPEAKER: Thank you sir. SPEAKER: I'll make a motion to approve the 13.2 foot front yard setback variance from the 20 foot front yard setback minimum. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Motion is second. Any person who is not ready to vote signify by saying aye. SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Nays likewise. Motion carried. Thank you all for coming, sir. SPEAKER: Ladies and gentlemen. SPEAKER: Thank you all for coming. SPEAKER: The last item on your agenda is more of item

for just general business. Make sure that we are handling everything. And we noticed that your November meeting falls on Veterans Day, and so city offices are closed that day. We didn't wanna meet on a day. I know a lot of you will probably be off or remembering veterans. So we wanted to see if there was a particular day that made sense for this commission to meet. We could either potentially move it up a week, move to the Tuesday proceeding. Let's see, that would be the fourth. SPEAKER: The fourth SPEAKER: We could move it back a week to the 18th, which would have it at the same time or we could move it to a different day of the week. Wednesday is a court day, so we could do that. But I was thinking possibly Thursday the 13th. From a staff perspective, we have quite a few things on the 18th, but I would prefer to move it back instead of moving it forward, just because that can potentially mess with deadlines and confuse people. So, I don't know how you feel about having it on the 18th, if that would be acceptable to you or if that's... Again, I know we're getting a little bit closer to thanksgiving, but still a week away, week and a half away. Any thoughts? SPEAKER: 18th works for me as far as I know.

SPEAKER: Same. SPEAKER: Can I get a get one of y'all to make a motion to move your November meeting to November 18th at 9 AM? SPEAKER: I move that. We move our regular schedule meeting in November to November the 18th at 9 AM. SPEAKER: And if you all just vote, just make sure we have... SPEAKER: We got a motion to move it to the 18th. Do I get a second. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. Got a motion to second, of course. You're ready to vote, signify by saying aye. SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Motion carried. SPEAKER: That is all the business we have. Of course, if we don't get any applications for that meeting, we will cancel it. SPEAKER: Go just in case if we do have. SPEAKER: In case we do have one. Right now, I don't believe we have any applications for your October meeting at this time so, about a week before the deadline officially. So, I'd say something couldn't come in but we've been having you all meet fairly regularly. Hopefully you'll get a breakthrough soon. SPEAKER: Can I get a motion at this time to adjourn? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Motion and second. Ready to vote, signify by saying aye. SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Motion on meeting. Adjourned. Whatever that may be. SPEAKER: Yes. So, right now, it's scheduled for October the 14th. (CROSSTALK) SPEAKER: Three times one. It's not a huge deal.