Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: I'd like to call the November meeting of the Planning Commission to order. We welcome all of you here to let you know we want to hear what you've got to say. And if you've got something to say, if you would go to the podium and you'll have five minutes to state your opinion and one time at the microphone. And would you state your name and your address when you do that and speak into the microphone. I know I've got a loud voice but... So, we've got approval of the minutes. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Alright, an update on the cases. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. The only update we have is the rezoning. I believe it was from the September meeting on Speedway Drive is moving forward to the city council tonight. So they'll have a public hearing for that item. Two items on your current agenda. I wanted to point out item number four, which is a request for recovered material processing on 15 (UNKNOWN) Road. The applicant has asked that that be tabled to the December meeting. And so we're recommending that be done as well. And then number five, Arbor Valley development proposing a 144 apartment units at Fox Run Avenue and Fox Run Parkway. Again, the applicant is requesting that to be able

to December and we concur with that request as well. We did want to go ahead and ask the commission tonight if they so choose to bring item F12A, which is the minimum lot width in the C-1 zone off the table when you get to that item. The other item we feel we can still have some discussion on, but we would like to go ahead and move forward with the recommendation on the lot. Other than that, I'm happy to have our new commissioners here today and look forward to working with you all. SPEAKER: Yes. We'd like to formally welcome Mayor Eddie Smith to be on the planning commission with us and Councilwoman Leigh Whatley to... The City council has elected her to be on the planning commission, so we're glad that she's here. Any new business? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. The first item under new business is a request for a preliminary and final plat subdivision at Bay Court. The applicant is Emily Key with Three Keys Properties, LLC. The subject property is located between Bay Court and Ray Court. This is in the R-5 zone off of Lee road. Lee Street. Excuse me. The five lots, as I mentioned, are in the R-5 zone. All five lots exceed minimum lot 7500 square feet. All meet the minimum lot width of 60 feet. And so are compliant in that regard. The way that this is shown is two of these lots are accessed off of Ray court. Excuse me, Bay court which is to the south here. Those are the ones that are kind of have a horizontal orientation.

The three lots are also fronting onto Ray Court, you see here to the north. Again, those are more vertically oriented. These lots all meet the minimum requirements for the zoning ordinance. What we have noted is that both Bay court and Ray court are smaller than typical city streets usually are. I believe it's Bay court, the right of way width is 30 feet. And then kind of varies and gets wider. The actual pavement is 20 feet wide, which is what is required for City Street. On Ray Avenue, Ray Court that is to the north, that right of way is, I believe it's 20 feet wide and the asphalt is roughly ten to 12 feet on that side, which is smaller than most city streets are. And so I've kind of gotten some pictures of you, and this is taken from Google, but you can kind of see the angle. It's very kind of narrow road there. The traffic on neither of these streets, especially with adding a couple of lots, would be very significant. However, we do know that there is still need to make sure that infrastructure utilities can get back to those lots to be accessed and continue on down the street. And then as important is to make sure that especially on Ray Avenue, that fire access can be served to the properties in case of emergency. Typically fire access requires a 20 foot wide fire lane. And that's something that is going to have to be determined and worked out through some further discussions, I believe, between the public safety department, the applicant, engineering and planning.

Because of these items, we feel that the lots are in compliance. The streets can be brought up, but we do feel that there needs to be some more consideration on how this is done and how there may be potential turnarounds where the streets end. As such, we are recommending preliminary plat at this time. So that those further discussions can occur and we can look at how to meet these requirements subject to the following that they install hammerhead turnaround at the end of Bay court and Ray Avenue so the vehicles maneuver and turnaround, especially fire trucks and and garbage trucks. And increase the asphalt width of Ray Avenue to 20 feet. Again, these are the recommendations as they are now. I think in some further discussions there may be some alternatives we can discuss with the applicants to come up with solutions to meet that. Maybe some other routes, but happy to answer any questions. Miss key is here representing the application as well. SPEAKER: Engineering? SPEAKER: Yes. As Mr Mosley stated, Ray Avenue has dedicated right of way that is substandard to what we require for a minimum right of way. And we requested and it is shown on this plat that the right of way on the south side of Ray Avenue would be dedicated to the city. So they have dedicated just the right of way from the property to the city for right of way. This would meet the minimum right of way requirements for that side of the road. And then right now there's currently a driveway that accesses those three properties on Ray Avenue. But again, the public safety is going to fall in superior to what engineering requires on that.

Other than that, the engineering department has no comments or concerns with this proposed preliminary plat. Opelika Water states that water is available from a six inch main on the south side of Bay court, but there is no water main on Ray Avenue, so that water access would need to be decided before final plat is recommended for approval. And Opelika Power serves this subdivision. SPEAKER: Alright. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? SPEAKER: Good afternoon everybody? SPEAKER: Give us your name and your address, please. SPEAKER: OK. I'm Freddy Torres, and I'm living right now in 3103 Matthew Street. And I have one small lane in that area, and I'm not really sure is included in the page. I have 111 right avenue is in the area where he talking, that piece of land is like included two avenue one side and the right avenue and the other side is a side by side. I think that that that piece of land is like I'm not really sure it's maybe 50 by 200 and I don't know if exactly in this old five piece of property what they talking about.

SPEAKER: No, sir. I believe your property is here, just adjacent to the plat that's being discussed. And so it's adjacent to your property but this wouldn't change your property in any way. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: So I think you're right here. Did you receive a letter? SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: Yeah, so I believe you received a letter as being a neighbor right here but this would not necessarily affect your property one way or the other. SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. SPEAKER: Public hearing is now closed. Let me be sure, we're doing this a preliminary plat. SPEAKER: Right now is preliminary plat with a general agreement that the lots meet the requirements. But there are some issues that we feel need to be worked out in the engineering and construction phase of this. I think there may be some opportunities for different opportunities for how service and utilities are accessed to these. And so while the applicant has asked for preliminary final plat at this time, we are only recommending preliminary plat approval. SPEAKER: Preliminary. OK, just to be clear. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for preliminary approval with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yes. I have one quick question. So, Matt. So the width of the road, for Ray would that be a City of Opelika requirement or... Yeah, would it be the...

SPEAKER: So, that is a requirement of our regulations that there be a certain width and a certain travel lane, especially if we're taking a fire or trash truck down through there. Again, I think there are there may be some possibilities that some of this could be potentially accessed from especially with the size of these, some of these could be accessed from Bay court as well, because the applicant has property on both sides. And so I think those are some of the discussions that need to be had with the applicant and engineers and whatnot to see if there's a way to provide service to these, whether that's going to require improvement of the road or whether that can be done of some of the existing right of way. SPEAKER: And that will occur before. SPEAKER: Typically in most cases, any improvements for a subdivision are borne by the developer. SPEAKER: Sure. SPEAKER: Unless there is some sort of agreement in place between the city and the developer. SPEAKER: OK. And the goal is to have an agreement in place before final plat. Right? SPEAKER: The goal would be to make sure we know everyone is on the same page as far as how those would be served before final plat, and so that may be as quick as next month. SPEAKER: OK. Sounds good. Thank you. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor? SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number two is a conditional use the first of four of those conditional uses. This is approval for a church. The applicant on this item is Rudy Sardinas representing, the property owner, Viking's Sun Incorporated. This is at 809 First Avenue. And so this is between eighth street and ninth street on First Avenue.

Just to get to the property, this is the building that they're proposing to look at. The applicant is proposing to move their existing church into this building. Churches are conditional uses in all zones. And so we look at them at any new location. The applicants proposing to occupy this approximately 5,000 square foot building in the C-1 zone with their church also having some potentially a coffee shop and co-working space. The coffee shop, co-working space are not uses that require conditional use approval in the C-1 zone. They're allowed by right. And so it would be allowed provided that they meet building code and whatever requirements there. There before you with the aspect of it that is the church. The congregation is currently meeting at 1201 South Uniroyal Road in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The applicants proposing to have services twice a week. Sunday, approximately 9:15 and Wednesday evening at 6:30. They note the sanctuary would hold approximately 100 people. In reviewing this, because it is in the C-1 zone we typically don't require, and the buildings are built to the lot line. We don't typically require parking landscaping. Some of the other items, they will have to go before the Historic Preservation Commission to any exterior renovations, and they will have to probably spend quite a bit of time working with our building department to make sure that the improvements to this building, because it is largely an unimproved warehouse, will meet building requirements for occupancy use. In looking at the times that the church meets, we feel

comfortable that based on the size of the congregation there is parking available on street. There's also the opportunity to work with adjacent businesses that are not open at that time to see if they can share some parking. But based on the size, we don't feel like this would create a parking issue in the downtown. Based on those requirements, we are recommending approval of the church at this location as submitted. And again, they will have, I believe, quite a bit of work. They'll need to work with our building department on to make sure that it meets the requirements for occupancy. They've provided some exterior elevations of what they think potentially somewhat could look like. And this will, of course, have to go before the Historic Preservation Commission. some interior kind of renderings of what they plan to do coffee space, meeting space, and then a small auditorium space. With that, we are recommending approval. I'm not sure if the applicant is here or not, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. SPEAKER: Engineering SPEAKER: Engineering department has no comments or concerns regarding.... Opelika Water states that there's an existing two inch copper service to the site, but a multimeter vault will need to be installed to service the building and its uses. And then Opelika Power currently services this building. SPEAKER: Thank you. Would anyone like to speak to this subject? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: For conditional use? SPEAKER: With staff. SPEAKER: With staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Didn't have any...

SPEAKER: OK. Didn't have any. OK. Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKERS: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Number four has been tabled. SPEAKER: Number three. SPEAKER: Oh, excuse me. Three. SPEAKER: It's OK. SPEAKER: Is a request for a conditional use for multifamily apartments on Society Hill Road. This was before you last year, I believe back in November of that year. A request for conditional use approval on a piece of property that is zoned C-2. It's located at 3310 Society Hill Road. The applicant is Brett Basquine with Foresite Group LLC, representing Broad Metro LLC, the property owner. Previously, I believe last November, when it was before you, the applicant was proposing 309 units on this 27 acre piece of property. They've come back with a revised plan, which is 265 units. So dropping it by approximately 44 units to the the plan you see here. The proposed development would have 159 one bedroom units and 106 two bedroom units. You can see that it has most of the frontage along Society Hill Road. There is also a proposed road that goes out towards the Capps Landing development, connecting to Freddie Way near the QT fueling station and Texas Roadhouse. They've also included some amenities to this site, including a clubhouse right at the entrance, pool.

And then you have I believe, a dog station and small park at the middle of the development. The property to the north of this is part of the Chapman Creekside Cottages development that has previously been approved. There is some single family residential just to the north, right here in between. To the south, you have area that is also R-1, which shows. Excuse me, which is owned by the Capps family here. And then across the street is the former Opelika Auburn News station paper location and some of the exterior of the warehouses from Wyndham industrial and a storage facility. C-2 allows 16 units per acre. The current density proposed is 9.8 units per acre. So it's well within the density of the zone and within fairly similar to the density to the north. The master... Our long range plan shows this area as being mixed residential. And so proposed residential would be in compliance and alignment with the future land use plan. Here you see the landscape plan in a couple different phases. So there's some buffering to the south, buffering along the street along Society Hill Road as you move north, you also have some buffering on some of the areas adjacent to the frontage. And then you have a fairly significant area both to the north and south that is proposed to not be graded or left natural. So there's opportunity, we hope, for some undisturbed buffers or

buffers that would be amended to make them acceptable for our residential requirements. The building materials, the elevations are somewhat similar to what was previously shown before. They show a mix of cement board, brick or stone and then kind of traditional asphalt roof. I think the previous plan had a little bit more brick going up the side, but they're fairly consistent with what they previously proposed. And then here you see the clubhouse building located in front. This previously and site previously received a variance for parking based from the Zoning Board of Adjustment based on the number of single units that are in the development. So as I mentioned before, I believe it's over 40% of the units are or excuse me, over 60% of the units are one bedroom units, meaning they're likely to be either occupied by one or two people. And so what we tend to see with this on a national average or national basis is that the parking requirements are not as our current parking requirements of two units per acre tend to be overdoing what is needed actually on site. And so they are in compliance with that previously approved variance. And it has improved since the reduction in number of spaces. They do provide the dumpster and compactor requirements that will have to be coordinated through our Opelika Environmental Services department to make sure that is what is required. Again, we've noted the landscaping. They do meet the minimum requirements for that.

We've noted that we need to confirm some buffering to the south and north. But overall, we are recommending approval of this subject to the following that they add those residential buffers. All four sides of the development meet the Gateway Corridor cladding requirements with masonry consistent with provided elevations. Garbage facilities being closed on all sides with opaque fence height. So the dumpster is not seen outside the enclosure. All utilities shall be underground except any overhead required transmission lines. All mechanical and HVAC units screened from the public right of way. Any gates will need to be coordinated with Opelika public safety departments for emergency entry. At least two points of entry for life safety codes shall be required in both drives will be open for access for residents. Mr Basquine is here representing the applicant. If you have any questions. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: The applicant may be required to submit a site construction grading plan for the drainage utility, post construction and roadway installation to the engineering, public works departments and other utilities for review and approval. Once this approval and all other utilities have been approved, a permit will be issued for construction. The improvements to the turn lanes on Society Hill Road are approved as shown on the site plan. Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this conditional use approval. Opelika Water states that a water service is available from the 16 inch main along Society Hill Road. Due to the number of total units, it is recommended that the development install a second feed from Freddy Way in Capps Landing along the proposed secondary driveway for water redundancy. Both Alabama Power and Opelika Power will service this site. SPEAKER: Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this item?

Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: I'll make a motion for approval with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. May I ask where the second entry point is? SPEAKER: So, right now they're showing it coming through the back. This was would be where the Golf suites location is located. So it would connect into... MATT: I don't quite see it here, but this is the corner behind the QT station near the Texas Roadhouse. So, it would connect into that corner on the backside, giving access for the residents all the way through. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. MATT: Item number four is also a request for conditional use. This is for a manufacturing processing facility located at 1525 Opelika Road. The applicant is Tyler Herron for Leslie Greene Dudley. The applicant reached out to us after reviewing the application and has requested that this be tabled by the Planning Commission to allow them to address the comments raised by the planning staff regarding the use. And so, we recommend that the use be tabled as well. SPEAKER: We're tabling it at their... MATT: At their request. SPEAKER: At their request. Do we need to vote on that? MATT: In this case, if they don't withdraw

it, which they haven't, we would need to request that you vote on tabling that. SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion that we approve the tabling of this item? SPEAKER: So moved. (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Any discussion about this? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any against? Any abstain? Thank you. MATT: Item number five is also a conditional use request. This is for a multifamily development located at 600 block of Fox Run Parkway, on the corner of Fox Run Parkway and Fox Run Avenue. This is located between Fox Run Avenue and USA Town Center. Property is zoned C-2. The applicant is Arbor Valley Development, LLC, representing Michael Shannon, Cedar Creek. The applicant is proposing 144 multifamily units C-2 zone. Again, staff reviewed this, provided a recommendation of denial, and the applicant has come and asked that the item be tabled to allow them to address potential concerns and see if they can find a solution that would work. And we are agreeable to that request to be tabled. SPEAKER: So this is a vote to... SPEAKER: I'll make a motion (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: I'll make a motion we accept their... SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Second. MATT: Table it. SPEAKER: To table it. SPEAKER: To table it. Any discussion? All in favor of this motion? Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries.

MATT: Item number six is a request for rezoning amendment to the land use plan. This is a request from Bill Perry representing James David Perry. This is at 2505 Anderson Road. The subject property is 20.1 acres. The map shows it as R1. We need to get that updated, but it is currently R-3. The applicant is proposing to rezone it to R-4. Currently, the property is vacant. This was before you, I believe, back in... Earlier this year, this was requested to be rezoned from R1 to R-3. The Planning Commission provided a negative recommendation to City Council. City Council ultimately decided to approve the rezoning from R1 to R-3. And now the applicant is coming in to request it go to R-4. We've provided a breakdown the differences between R-3 and R-4, basically the difference of 10,000 square feet in area versus 7,500 square feet, three and a half units per acre versus nine units per acre. One is considered to be medium density versus higher density. And then, the R-3, as additional uses, only allows primarily duplex units as a conditional use, whereas R-4 allows duplexes, apartments, and townhomes as conditional uses. Review this based on the future land use plan and the surrounding zoning. Based on those items, we have felt that R-3 is an appropriate zone. We're not recommending approval or recommending

a denial of the request to go to R-4 as such, recommending the similar to any change to future land use category. The applicant has provided a layout showing what they proposed to do. These are roughly 68- 60-foot-wide lots. And I believe they are closer to a 10,000 square foot area, but narrower than what's allowed in the R-3 zone. And I think they're also showing that a fairly significant stream in the middle of the property. So they're proposing to do this, I believe, to be able to get 30 units within the area prior to the stream. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I believe Mr Perry is here representing the application as well. SPEAKER: Alright. MATT: And I did wanna point out, I believe all received a letter from one of the adjoining property owners with their concerns regarding the rezoning as well. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments regarding rezoning of this property. Opelika Water states that water is available from 16 inch main on the west side of Anderson Road and Opelika Power Service territory. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? JOHN MOORE: Hello, my name is John Moore. I live at 2714 Anderson Road. I have lived at that address for 43 years now. We're here to formally express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of that 20 acres from R-3 to R-4.

Recently, this same property was rezoned from R1 to R-3 back in March, representing a significant increase in residential density. During the initial rezoning request in March, the Planning Commission, as Matt said, recommended that the City Council deny the change from R1 to R-3. At that time, the City Council also received a petition signed by 58 local residents, clearly demonstrating strong community opposition to higher-density development on this property. Despite the absence of formal plans or site proposals detailing how the land would be developed under the new zoning, the city council proceeded to approve the zoning anyway. Now, here we are four months later, after the initial rezoning, a second request has been submitted to rezone the property again, this time from R-3 to R-4. The frequency and timing of these rezoning applications intensify concerns about the developer's uncertainty and lack of a clear plan for the land. This ongoing ambiguity suggests there's still no definitive vision or commitment to a specific development plan for this property. Such a lack of clarity raises important questions about what the ultimate use of this property will be and whether the interests of the community are being adequately considered in the decision-making process. Approving this request without defined development plans undermines both the transparency and integrity of the city's planning process. There are no R-4 zoned properties within miles of this community. A zoning change to R-4 does not reflect the scale or character of existing neighborhoods, and would be wholly inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area. Such a change would be wildly illogical, even given the context of the surrounding communities. The property owner requesting this zoning change does not reside in our community, our city, or even our state.

As a result, he will not be personally experience the long-term impacts of this rezoning could have on surrounding homeowners, their property values, and the overall character of the neighborhood. Zoning decisions should prioritize the interests of those who live and invest in this community daily. Residents depend on local government to safeguard the character and livability of their community. Granting this rezoning without a clear community benefit would appear to serve private interests rather than the broader welfare of the current residents of Anderson Road. And we did not receive a letter about this rezoning, this current one. Thank you for your time. JULIE MOORE: Hello. My name is Julie Moore, and I reside at 2714 Anderson Road. First of all, I've had a lot of anxiety about this, and most of you have heard my story. And for those of you that have not, I'm gonna make it brief. I've lived at that property for 61 years. That's how old I am. I was born there. This land was my grandparents and I value and treasure what I have. I could have sold it a long time ago and made money off of it, but money is not the issue for us. It's where we live. It's where we've raised our children. It's where our children are making plans to live. And so, we are invested in this location. We pick up trash on the side of the road. We attend the community events and support Opelika.

Not people who don't live there and wanna just make a dollar. I am requesting that you deny this, as I requested that it be not developed from R1 to R-3. I'm the one who knocked on doors and got the neighbors together, and got the petition with almost 60 signatures on it. Even people were calling our house and wanting to come get their name on the list, because they did not want this. And to tell you that I was not disappointed, extremely disappointed by my councilman, not listening to my concerns and ignoring 60 residents that live next to this property, I would be telling a lie if I didn't tell you that I was very disappointed in that. It's changed to R-3 now. There's not anything we can do to go back now, but cramming more housing into that area at this point is only gonna make things... Changing it to an R-4 is only gonna make it worse. The streets are busy. We've had several police officers speak and tell you how dangerous... Even the police officers have pulled out of their own driveways and been hit because of the traffic. This is gonna really increase the traffic. And I must say, the trees, the animals that love this property are already showing up on our property, because this area is being developed all around us. We have about 20 acres. And I love animals and I love trees, and so, I'm OK with the animals coming, but I'm just saying they're being pushed out of their habitat as well.

It's R-3, and I'm requesting that you not make the change to R-4. Thank you. BILL PERRY: Thank you, everyone, for your service. I'm the bad guy. I'm the brother that's up here representing my brother. I live in Auburn. (CROSSTALK). My name is Bill Perry, and I live at 1611 Jemison Place. The purpose for this rezoning is actually to be able to accommodate the ingress-egress, because only one road can go in and out of it. If you look at the neighborhood that's across the street, I developed that on behalf of my family years ago, this north town, and it was R-3 at the time, and the zoning for R-3 at that time would allow for 60-foot lots. And that's what that particular subdivision is if you look that up. Virtually every single one of those lots is a 60-foot-wide lot. That is all that is being requested here. When we carried it through originally with the R-3 zone, we were unaware of needing to have that second ingress egress point for fire safety. And so, this is only coming in here to be able to accommodate that 30 or that ingress-egress and a max of 30 lots that can be put on the property because of that. And because when you go to a 70-foot-wide lot, which is an R-3 zone now, you're gonna have to cross that stream, and that's extremely cost-prohibitive. And the whole purpose of this development is to be able to bring workforce housing to the area so that it can supply the employees for the tech park and for first-time homebuyers, too. I've got four kids that are trying to buy homes, and there's just too cost-prohibitive to be able to purchase.

That's the purpose for it. And that's it. It's not gonna be an increase in density. It'll actually be a decrease in density. Northtowne has 79 lots in it. When we carried this in here originally for the R-3 zone, again, ignorance is no excuse, but we were not aware that we would have to have the second ingress-egress. And so, we're dropping back. That actually was gonna have 50 lots in it. This one is only gonna have 30 lots. And that's the extent of the development. So, it's much less than what we'd originally had brought in and had approved for the new rezone to R-3. So, I appreciate your time. Are there any questions that I can help you with? SPEAKER: Did you say workforce housing? BILL PERRY: Yes, sir. And first-time homebuyer housing. The goal, don't hold me to this 'cause of economics, it should be in homes in the high two hundreds. And that is incredible to me that that's first-time homebuyer price point. But that's where we're trying to be. If we cross that stream, then it's just adding even more expense to the lots and increasing the cost of the homes. Any other questions I can help with? Thank you very much for your time. LINDA GUY: Hello, my name is Linda Guy. I live at 2422 (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Would you speak up, please, a little bit louder. LINDA GUY: Hello, my name is Linda Guy. I live at 2422 Anderson Road, and I've lived there a little over 31 years. And I've seen a lot of development during that time

already with the Northeast Industrial Park, with Northtown Subdivision, and Anderson Lakes. At the present time, there is some more housing going up that's already been approved at the end of Anderson Road and Andrews. The land is being cleared for housing, is my understanding. And also, behind our acreage, Hidden Lakes is being developed for housing. So, I don't think, in my opinion, that changing from R-3 to R-4 is beneficial at all for the residents on Anderson Road. Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. MATT: So, we would ask you to take these, I guess, as two separate items, two separate votes. One would be a recommendation to City Council first for rezoning. Second would be whether or not to amend the future land use map. SPEAKER: So, vote on A first. MATT: (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion? MATT: Motion to deny request for rezoning based on staff concerns. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yes. Matt, is it a negative or a positive response to City Council? MATT: Yeah. It would be a negative recommendation to City Council. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) the motion is as well. SPEAKER: Do we need to amend the motion? I think he said deny. SPEAKER: Oh, I guess, we need to amend the motion. MATT: But I guess if you wanna clarify the motion that it's to... SPEAKER: Clarify. MATT: (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: It's a motion to deny request for rezoning based on staff concerns and to send a negative recommendation to the City Council.

MATT: And so, that's... The City Council ultimately has that vote. So we as, planning commission, as a guiding board, sends a negative recommendation, if that's what (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Does that change the second? Any discussion? MATT: I guess, real quick, just to make sure I know the reasoning behind that is based on... SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: I think, well, your concerns that you expressed in the information provided was, it seems to me we're creating an island right in the middle of R-4, right in the middle of R1 zoning. I think it's inconsistent with getting to the next item, inconsistent with the land use. MATT: I think that's sufficient. SPEAKER: We are voting to send a negative recommendation to City council. All in favor of sending a negative recommendation to City Council? MATT: Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion carries that we send a negative recommendation to City Council. MATT: To amend the future land use map, which is an up or down vote by this board, not a recommendation. SPEAKER: Is there a reason to... MATT: We have it on the agenda. I would go ahead, and if that's the Commission's desire, someone make a recommendation to deny a change to the future land use map. SPEAKER: I'll make a recommendation to deny future land change map. SPEAKER: Any discussion about this?

All in favor of denying a change to the land use map? Any opposed? Any abstain? SPEAKER: Matt, before we leave this subject, let me ask one question. As it relates to, they went from C-3 across the road at one time, which the developers trying to express his concern that the old C-3 is now almost the C-4. MATT: R-3, R-4. SPEAKER: I mean, R-4, excuse me, R-3 to R-4 is a gray area there. Is there any way in the future, going forward, that you can deed-restrict the number of lots in an R-3 development when a plat is delivered? MATT: Cities really can't, to my knowledge, add restrictions to deeds. In that way, we do, and many times, through our master plans or PUDs and things like that, there are restrictions on the amount of development. The other thing would be to a degree, at a certain point, if property is designated as common or open space, then it can't be developed additionally without going through some processes. And so, it'd be very difficult to increase the number of lots in some of those. The way subdivisions are set up with the state of Alabama, generally, if they meet the requirements, the subdivision regulations, and zoning ordinance now or in the future, then Planning Commission is hard-pressed not to approve them. SPEAKER: Well, I mean, what I was getting at this site plan that he presented, I was just wondering if that ever did get approved, if we could say, OK, if the developers were restricted to that number of lots going forward, maybe there's a way you can work with them to limit the number to be developed.

SPEAKER: That was the question. MATT: (INAUDIBLE) really do that within our ordinance currently is through a PUD, or a planned unit development. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Alright. Number seven. MATT: Number seven is a request for rezoning. This is for WRO LLC, property owner at 2209 Lafayette Parkway. This is a 6.81-acre site. It's currently zoned M-1 primary. The applicant is requesting to rezone this from M-1 to a C-3 zone. If you look at the map here, this property is zoned in one. It's an angled piece of property located between Lafayette Parkway and the railroad tracks here, which is the backside. On the other side of the railroad tracks is the lumber mill located there. And so, what you have is, when you go north of the bridge on 431 Lafayette Parkway, this is the only piece of M-1 zoning that is out there. Also, looking at M-1 zones. These zones are typically areas where you have heavier uses, and those uses typically take up more space. This, because of its angle and topography, probably would have limitations developing as an M-1 use. There are many more uses available in the C-3 zone, even though it is typically considered a less intense zone. It doesn't allow a lot of heavy uses, but it allows a lot more uses, including office retail, most commercial

uses, lots of things might be considered light industrial. And then it does allow some residential uses as well. The proposed zone is also, you'll notice, as you go north, you see the C-3 to the property just immediately to the north of this, which was former Wilson's Woodyard, and across the street. And then you've got some residential zoning across Lafayette Parkway. As such, we feel that the C-3 zone is more appropriate both for this property and has the potential to create less issues for the surrounding properties as well. Looking at the future land use plan, we initially included a change to the future land use. But realize in this that the current designation is consistent with the proposed zone as well. So with that, we are recommending approval of a positive recommendation to City Council for rezoning this from M-1 to C-3, both with the Gateway Quarter Primary on it. I believe the applicant, Mr Ogletree, is here as well. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments regarding the proposed rezoning approval. Opelika Water states that there is water supply available from a 16 inch main on this property, but they also have no other comments. And Opelika Power will service this territory. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? Public hearing is closed.

Commissioners. Do I hear a motion that we... Send a positive recommendation to city council for changing the, changing it to C3. Yeah. Change the zoning. That's the word I was looking for. SPEAKER: Miss, can I make that motion? SPEAKER: I'll second it. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries to send a positive recommendation to City Council. MATT: Item number eight is a two-part request. This is (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Do we need to change the land use map? OK. MATT: Item number eight is a request for rezoning and amendment to future land use. This is for property Perhaps Cunningham Drive. The applicant is Barrett Simpson Incorporated, representing Gateway Development LLC, LLC, and Clark Adams Investments LLC. Subject property you see here is zoned R-4. This is adjacent to the gateway, planned unit development that extends from Cunningham Drive to Gateway Drive at Thompson. The applicants have purchased this property, which is approximately 5.1 acres, and they're proposing to rezone it from R-4 into the planned unit development so that it can be part of the overall master plan. So, let's see here. You see that new proposed master plan? They've noted 13 pods, located on the north and south side of the future extension of Thomas and Drive. This is a new road that connects Cunningham to Gateway,

and Thompson is currently under construction at this time. And so the applicant is proposing to create this new Pod 13, which is a commercial convenience corner adjacent to Pod Eight. They have noted in your packet there's a narrative which shows the proposed uses in that area. It's much like your typical permitted use table. So, certain things are allowed, certain things are not allowed if there's nothing there. Pod 13, what you'll see is it is primarily commercial uses grocery, offices, government buildings, banks, those type of uses. Convenience store with gas, daycare center, restaurants. And then a kind of like, interior industrial uses, veterinarian clinic, and pharmacy medical uses. The other part of this is there was a some errors when this was originally came in, which showed numbers of ten and one. These are right along the heavy commercial corner of Gateway Drive, and where this road would come out at Thomason. Initially, there was considered the ability to have a fueling station, but it was, inadvertently put on item or Pod Nine, which is interior. So, that use would probably naturally go towards the exterior of the development, kind of closer to the main interchange. And so they're requesting to change that from being in Pod Nine to in ten and one. And then there is a request as well to allow a package

use in items one and ten as well, associated with certain, larger grocers. They're looking at trying to bring in these. These would be a package facility, package liquor store that would be located on these two pods. In reviewing this we found it to be relatively in compliance with the remainder of the master use plan that is provided here. This and in compliance with the proposed future land use map for the the new addition. And so we are recommending approval of this. Subject to the requirements of the general, pub, which was previously approved, including all building materials, screening materials, its gateway corridor, all utilities be underground. Sidewalks on both sides of public streets development provide cross access through pods where they're similar. And then all previous uses and conditions approved. We have also added the requirement that any package store be a minimum of at least 2,000ft². SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments regarding this proposed rezoning. Opelika Water states that water is available on both sides of this development, on Gateway Drive and Cunningham Drive, and the developer of the PUD would be responsible for bringing water along the future Thompson Drive to the point of connection needed for each development. Connections at both end will be required. Opelika Power will service this development and put.

SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. You see anyone who would like to speak for or against this. ROBIN WHITE: My name is Robin White. I live at 809 Shelby Avenue. This never gets easy to talk. I commend y'all. That was impressive. It really was. Matt, if you could go back to the map. Showed the... MATT: The pods? ROBIN WHITE: Yeah. MATT: That one? ROBIN WHITE: say I'm not speaking into it. I'm sorry. The corner there, it's kind of blocked. Do you see that? It's like an outset of the map. MATT: Right here. Yes, ma'am. ROBIN WHITE: Yeah. That has 66 houses in it. Houston homes built it about 15, 20 years ago. 66 families lived there. Now, when this all got started with the country road, I call it cut through road extension road. I'm sorry. I mean, what a great idea, right? You know, to be able to cut through over to Cunningham. Cunningham Drive, though, is residential. There's not a commercial thing on it. Not anywhere near it. Not in the mill village. I know we've got the nice little mill thing coming there, which is like a mixed-use, which will blend in with something like this. But right now, the way that it's proposed with this Pod 13. I believe there's a convenience store that can be put there. Is that right, Matt, in Pod 13? MATT: Yes, ma'am. I believe that is correct. ROBIN WHITE: Just a suggestion. Why not leave Pod 13 as residential? It's five acres out of 100.

It would protect these 66 homes that are right there on Cunningham. It'll protect part of the mill village, which has a huge park. Well, it's not huge. It's a nice park, which is a historic part of our town, albeit little, and keep the lighting and the gas stations and everything else more towards, like you said, the heavy commercial end on the other end of this road of the extension. Just a suggestion. I think that those people would appreciate it, that there would be homes or apartments or duplexes or twin homes, anything. Instead of a convenience store, a strip mall, or anything like that. It just makes sense. You know, these, the Moors did a great job of talking about protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. In fact, in Matt's staff recommendation, he states the uses for each pod are based on compatibility with surrounding uses or general location. The surrounding uses right now on this end of this street are definitely residential. It's not changing anything else about all the other commercial stuff that's going to go up on this extension, you know, up until these five acres, because I guess that's already been approved and cannot be changed. But on these five acres, I think it would be delightful if it would be only residential and not commercial. And the other thing I want to point out about the liquor stores up until now. In fact, right now, the rules are a conditional permit only. That way, y'all have the city council, has the city has control over liquor stores and can revoke those at any time when they see that going south. You don't have that here. If you give this development the right to build these liquor stores, it's absolute it there's nothing you can do about it.

I think that's a bad mistake. And I would I think y'all should vote against that or whatever it is, change it. Make a recommendation I don't know, but that's, and that's for I guess for discussion for later on to anyway. That's all. Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Commissioners. Do I hear a motion? We are making a motion. MATT: This would be a a positive recommendation. Positive or negative recommendation. SPEAKER: Do I hear I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I was just trying to. This is going to city council. It's what I was trying to get to. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Can we make a motion with the thing, the table, it with some of the ideas? MATT: I mean, there is always a option to table it. I'm happy to answer it. If you have any questions or anything you wanna discuss, I'm Discuss. I'm happy to answer anything out there as well. SPEAKER: May I ask a question? So, as Robin pointed out, Pod 13, I believe it is, has no residential use in all commercial use. Is there a way to change Pod 13?

MATT: I think we'd need to discuss that with the applicant. The one thing I would clarify, and I should have pointed this out earlier, is Pod 13 is right here adjacent to the road. Originally, when this was first looked at, I think the road was coming in a little bit higher. And that's why, at that time, Pod Eight, which is just above that, it's kind of pinkish color or whatever. It is commercial as well. Now there are some different uses between the two. There's, I believe Pod Eight doesn't include some of the automobile uses in it as well. It does still include some office uses. Some commercial uses, things like that. And then there is some if you look at the, so here's that pot above it. And then you do have the C3 zone adjacent to that. And that's kind of why I think when we originally looked at that recommended made a positive recommendation to you is there was some commercial up there. Now it is. This is moving as Miss White mentioned, it is moving closer to Becket Woods, the development down here. And so, you know, I'm happy to look at that as if you like, or if y'all would want to talk about the issue more. SPEAKER: I think the representative of the applicant is here. SPEAKER: Is outside. You want me to... SPEAKER: Go behind you? SPEAKER: I'm sorry (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: I'm sorry if I'm out of line, but it's a good question. BLAKE RICE: Blake Rice, BSI.

Miss White did bring up some points, and I do have some responses to that. The first of which is the commercial concern at the proposed corner of the Thompson Drive extension in Cunningham Drive. The city has seen fit to change the uses that will be seen in this area by creating a what has to end up as a commercial node there. One thing that the city that this commission is not could possibly not be taken into account, is the fact that Thomson Drive extension is only one portion of the overall traffic pattern modification plan for that area. That road is also going to hit a roundabout move, and then continue all the way on and become an extension of Veterans Park. So, when you start looking at that, Beckett Woods is sitting there 15, 16, 17 years. I remember when it was built, and it was in a much different place. Cunningham Drive was a much different place. There are houses along Cunningham Drive, and some of them sit on three and four, and five acres. Cunningham Drive, as well as the Thomaston Drive extension and the Veterans Parkway extension, will absolutely create a commercial node at this area. We're already seeing it with density developments 300 yards north of here, the Mill Village project. I can't think of the name of it, but all of that is changing the nature of this area. A lot of those Cunningham Drive properties are sitting on three and four, and five acres. And as this traffic continues to increase, which it is going to, because that is the nature of what we're doing to driving the traffic patterns in that direction. You're gonna start seeing those single-family residential properties start coming in with rezoning requests, and they're going to be trying to change to commercial areas and more dense

residential areas. So, while the thought process of Beckett Woods is there. Yes, but the commercial area does not contact Beckett Woods. It's on the other side. Beckett Woods is on the south side of the new Thomson Drive extension. The commercial area would be on the north. And I do believe that you're going to see large changes in this area. We're already starting to see them. There was a lot of thought given to that specific idea. It was not just, Hey, we think a commercial area over here. We probably won't see any commercial development on there for a decade, but proper planning suggests that that will be a commercial node in the future, not a single-family residential area. I think that was pretty much the only concern revolving around traffic. The package store question. Matt and I, as well as a proposed commercial developer, have had many conversations about this. And what is going on is you're seeing a large proponent or a large contingent of big box retail developers starting to have secondary in-house, package stores. If the state of Alabama did not require that a separate door be provided for that facility as part of the larger use, then we wouldn't be having this conversation because the package store would be considered an ancillary use to the big box retailer. And that's what this is about. And if I cannot get those that approval, I don't have a route to lure those big box retailers into this area,

which was ultimately the plan for those first two pods out onto Gateway Drive was that was gonna be a large-scale retail development. And that's the reason Matt was concerned about the minimum square footage to which we looked at it. And 2,000ft² is much larger than any of the package stores that you typically see around town that go into adjacent to fueling stations, or, you know, the ones that take up the little rental areas and you end up with a package store. Most of those things are 600, 800, maybe 1,200 square feet, stuff like that. This is a 2,000 square foot minimum, so it protects just exactly what you're typically concerned about seeing with package stores. long term. I'd be happy to answer any questions. SPEAKER: This could be for you, Blake, or you, Matt. So, just so I'm understanding the future. Thomasin Drive extension as it kind of cuts south right here. Essentially, it's going to differentiate between the current residential and the lot that we're that is on the table right now for a vote above it. Right. So, the commercial lot that this 13, Pod 13 is not directly adjacent to the residential across the street. And that road is pretty much set right there. That's not gonna change that road. BLAKE RICE: And Scott can speak to that. But that contract has been let. SPEAKER: And just north of there is already commercial. Right, Matt? MATT: This piece is commercial. The property above this is zoned commercial. There's no development on it currently, but it's all part of the former mill development. SPEAKER: So, I guess I guess what I'm asking then to draw this to a logical conclusion in my mind.

If we were to keep that as R-4 now, then the only thing it could be there is residential, which is gonna be actually adjacent to commercial property in the future. Is that a. MATT: Yes, sir? If you left it at R-4, it would likely you would see some requests possibly to develop it as either multifamily or townhouses. It's unlikely to develop a single family just because of the nature of what's left there. But, I do believe that a commercial uses is likely the best use based on the idea behind it. SPEAKER: Right. MATT: What's in that use? I don't know if there's any concerns on the specific uses there, but I think the use itself is commercial makes sense. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Are those on the south side of the Thompson Drive extension? Are those lots are there homes there? MATT: These are lots. Yes, sir. So, these, you've got actually got a fairly significant detention lot right here on the corner. And then you have, I believe, six lots that go back along. What will now be, they'll basically back up to the road. So, the lots face into the interior of the subdivision. This would be the back side of the lots against the new road. I believe the road is the road. Scott. 80ft wide. SPEAKER: It's going to be a three-lane roadway with sidewalks and shared paths on each side of the road. So. The right-of-way ranges from 80 to 120ft. But yeah, approximately 80 100ft right of way there. So, the way it's grading out now is with the sidewalks being constructed, there's still going to be quite a buffer between the sidewalks and the backyard of

the residential houses as well. SPEAKER: Back to the map. MATT: Yes, sir. SPEAKER: The other map? Yeah. MATT: This one? SPEAKER: No. MATT: This one? SPEAKER: Just, yeah. MATT: Yes, sir. SPEAKER: OK. So, those houses right here? MATT: Yes, sir. SPEAKER: Yes. There are houses there. MATT: Yes, sir. There's 66. In that subdivision there are. Yes, there are 66 in the neighborhood. There are, I believe six that back up directly to this road. SPEAKER: Will back up directly. What is to the left of that piece that's in question? MATT: This piece? SPEAKER: Yes. MATT: This is Cunningham Drive. MATT: Right here? SPEAKER: Come down no further down there. MATT: OK. So, this is actually an inset showing down here. So, this blue piece is actually this blue piece they've kind of cut off right here, this corner. SPEAKER: I'm gonna flip over to the other map of the map. MATT: This one? This one, yeah. So, here you kind of see it. This is the, this hatched area is what we're discussing right now. This is the residential neighborhood, right? Beckett Woods, I believe. That's correct. Again, you've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven lots that would back up to this road and and they will back up to the road no matter what happens. I think what we're talking now is just what uses would be across the street. SPEAKER: And when you say the road, that's the Thompson. MATT: That's the Thompson. SPEAKER: OK. So, the piece of property is on the north side. MATT: It would be on the north side of Thompson Extension. And then, as Mr Rice said, there will be a roundabout right in here that will come in and then go back and connect from here directly into High Point or High Park Drive, which is again

has some different, industrial and commercial uses on it. SPEAKER: Yeah. And the city council has mitigated that. There's some wetlands as you go across, and where the Negro will go in, through, and to get the ipecac. So, they had to buy some wetlands to mitigate the ones that would be going through. SPEAKER: The extension of Hyde Park, which Mayor Smith talked about with the mitigations that project is designed. And we're shortly to bid it out for construction early next year. So, that phase will come pretty quickly. Also to connect all the way to Airport Road, through to the west of Cunningham. So, it's coming quick for sure. This road coming through, is coming quick. SPEAKER: Can I ask a question? SPEAKER: So the three places that we're talking about, we're talking about the the place on the corner that has houses across the street from it. MATT: I'm talking about item number three or Pod number 13, which is a new commercial corner which has no uses other than the current R4 zone with it. They're trying to bring it into the pod. The other two would be modifications to items one and ten, which would allow convenience, fueling station, and package store in both of those two pods. The requirements in for convenience stores are that there is no more than one per pod. SPEAKER: And package store, as I mentioned, we would request that it be limited to stores greater than 2, 000 square feet.

SPEAKER: And how big is the Number 10 pod? SPEAKER: The Number 10 pod is 11.6 acres. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: And it's 3.13 acres. Oh, Number 10 is 3.13 acres. Number 1 is 11 acres. SPEAKER: So those three changes to this map. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) the three changes to the map. SPEAKER: Matt, Blake, I'm looking at... Why wouldn't you consider maybe taking some of these concerns off the table and maybe looking at converting 13 Pod into 11 and making it sort of match the 11 Pod requirements, which would eliminate some uses that that may be, you know, unwanted on Cunningham one day. Matt, could you pull up the matrix again? SPEAKER: Yes, sir. So here's the overall matrix. And again, 13 is the one I think that has the most changes here. And you'll see the uses that are proposed here. SPEAKER: And I guess what Sheldon's maybe looking at, Blake, is maybe taking it back to them, what it might eliminate. And I don't know if this is a good or bad idea, but the items that it kind of takes off the table are things that are after hours at night, like a gas station that's open till 10:00, 11:00 on there. SPEAKER: I don't know that I would have an issue with that. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: I mean, this is going to be a commercial node. SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: But the idea is more about neighborhood commercial than it is anything else. SPEAKER: Right. SPEAKER: If there was an idea of a few of those specific items in 13 that we wanted to strike... SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: I don't have an issue with it. SPEAKER: Maybe work with Matt and the developer. SPEAKER: So looking at these two, if you look at pod

Number 8 and pod Number 13, and Pod 8 is the one directly above Pod 13, the new one. Pod 8, the uses allowed in it are general commercial grocery, office, bank, a contractor's office without any sort of outside use. And then the big thing between 8 and 13 is that it doesn't allow auto maintenance, convenience store, gas station, or daycare. SPEAKER: Just low impact commercial is so much better than the convenience store and (INAUDIBLE) the higher impact. It makes a world of difference to people who have lived there (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: If that's something that the commission would want to do and the applicant doesn't have an issue with, I think, you know, we could ask them to amend that to show Pod 13 to match Pod 8, which is, again, takes off the auto convenience, gas station and oil change facility, light repair, and daycare facility. SPEAKER: Can I make a motion that we table this and give the developer time to work with the staff to come back with... SPEAKER: Can you speak a little bit louder? SPEAKER: Yeah. Can I make a motion that we table this, giving the developer time to reconvene with the staff and come back to us with another proposal? SPEAKER: I mean, yes, sir. You absolutely can. I think he's willing to make those changes now. SPEAKER: I would, you know, absolutely have no issues with a motion being made for Pod 13 to match the uses in Pod 8 today. SPEAKER: And these others, I mean, I sort of like the table idea too, 'cause we just...

Although we saw it Friday, but, you know, now we're here on Tuesday talking about it, so... SPEAKER: I say get the table. SPEAKER: I would ask that I get some clear directive on what we're tabling it for if it's more than the change from Pod 13 to Pod 8 uses, simply because otherwise I have nothing else to talk to Matt about. SPEAKER: Well, I think we may be talking about houses on the corner that... I mean, to just look at that... SPEAKER: Blake, I think we can tighten it up a little bit more. Just give yourself a little bit of wiggle room and tighten it up a little bit more or give yourself more flexibility. I'm not sure you want to go all the way. I mean, you may have more flexibility. SPEAKER: I have a bit of a timeline issue is the reason. SPEAKER: I mean, really, from a standpoint, do you have a timeline that you want to sell a piece soon to somebody? Is that it, or is it you just want to get... SPEAKER: The only thing that I have a timeline issue on is the package store issue. I have a commercial developer that's ready to move forward with on the gateway side. SPEAKER: On 10, yeah. OK. That is my issue. But if it needs to be tabled, it needs to be tabled. We can deal with it. SPEAKER: I just feel like there's too many questions, too much up in the air (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: I would like some directive back on the package store, simply because if... SPEAKER: If it's included in a commercial structure you're describing, I think this board would support that. I think if it was a freestanding liquor store, then you're going to have a problem. SPEAKER: Right. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: I didn't understand, but we don't have any rules for a package store. I mean, does ABC have to approve it? SPEAKER: No, ma'am. ABC does not have to approve it.

The city of Opelika has to issue a license for it to be there. City council has a separate... SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) from ABC. SPEAKER: So every liquor store, Opelika has to approve? SPEAKER: Every establishment that sells alcohol in the state of Alabama has to have a separate license, unless they are in an unincorporated area, and the county itself does not regulate. Inside the city of Opelika, it doesn't matter if you approve it here or not, it is used, but it still has to go to City Council for its alcohol license. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Matt, are these two items tied together and they can't be separated? SPEAKER: They can. If you wanted to move forward with an amendment to the PUD, you could do that. If you wanted to move forward with just adding... You probably couldn't add it just to... I think you could move forward with a change to allow the fueling and package stores in Pod 1 if you wanted to, or 1 in 10 if you wanted to, with conditions, and not move forward with the rezoning if you wanted to. Or you could... SPEAKER: Alright. So could you go back to where the liquor store is on the matrix? 'Cause that's on the first page, right? SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Right. But on the matrix. So we're looking at changing the matrix, right? SPEAKER: It's the two corners at Gateway and Thomason drive. SPEAKER: Here, you see a package which is 1 and 10. SPEAKER: Right. So that's what we're... That's one thing that we're requesting to change, is to add that to 1 and 10, correct? SPEAKER: So basically, they noticed that 1 and 10... Again, they've been looking at it with a developer looking at that use. And then convenience store auto was originally shown

in 9 but not in 10 and 1, which didn't make sense because 9 is interior to the development, 10 and 1 are the commercial corners. SPEAKER: So this would be if we were to make a motion, which I know we still have a motion we got to deal with on the table. But if we were to make a motion on this, it would basically be to change in accordance with this proposal for Pods 1 and 10. SPEAKER: Alright. You would make changes to Pods 1 and 10. SPEAKER: And 9. SPEAKER: And 9 in accordance with... Well, actually, I misspoke earlier. 9 didn't show a convenience... 9 did show a convenience store, and it still does show a convenience store on it, so it's not changing. SPEAKER: So can we... SPEAKER: I messed that one up. (LAUGHS) SPEAKER: That was supposed to come off. SPEAKER: This is already complicated enough, but. SPEAKER: 9 was supposed to come off? SPEAKER: So do we need to take... If we're going to address the liquor store, do we need to take off the motion? SPEAKER: I would say if you wanted to move forward with anything, you would need to send a positive recommendation for the planned unit development related to the uses allowed in Pods 1 through 12, or the changes to Pods 1 and 10. And that's it. And keep any change to the 5.1 acres on the table at this time. SPEAKER: Alright. With that, do we need to... Go ahead. SPEAKER: I just want to ask about car washes. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: How many are allowed across the street from each other? SPEAKER: One. SPEAKER: Well, there's one... You know, I could walk to it. SPEAKER: There is a maximum of one per pod, so. And that includes car washes, oil change facilities, tire stores.

And those uses are allowed in pods... SPEAKER: But I just mean there's a car wash across the Veterans Parkway. Not Veterans, but... SPEAKER: Gateway. SPEAKER: Gateway. Just across the... SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Well, yes, ma'am. And those are already currently in this... Already have been approved. SPEAKER: Yes, I know. I'm just saying, are we approving another one to go across the street? Yes, we are. It says 'Convenience store with gas station, auto car wash, maximum of one per pod'. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. So the convenience store with gas station means it is attached to a gas station. Car washes, in general, are reviewed under auto maintenance otherwise. SPEAKER: They don't get built in that manner anymore. SPEAKER: What? SPEAKER: They don't get built in that manner anymore. That is verbiage straight out of the zoning ordinance. That is how it is stated in the zoning ordinance. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: A car wash in a... A freestanding car wash, like you've seen more recently, is considered auto maintenance. It's not the convenience store with gas station car wash. That is some older verbiage when every gas station had a small car wash behind it, like you see at House Smith's. SPEAKER: It's still a car wash. SPEAKER: It is? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Can I make an amendment? SPEAKER: You can take car wash off for all I care. They don't get built anymore. I haven't seen a gas station built with a car wash in ten years. Nobody builds them like that anymore. That is a use out of the zoning table. And the uses that are stated in this are verbatim from the zoning ordinance.

So that's how a gas station is put out in the zoning ordinance. SPEAKER: Can I amend my proposal? SPEAKER: Alright. Do we have a motion of any kind? SPEAKER: There's a motion on the table. There's a motion right now to table. SPEAKER: To table, yes. SPEAKER: I think the best thing to do would probably be to vote to deny that motion to table if you want to discuss it anymore. And then if you want to table it or table it or a portion of it, you can make the motion again, but just to clear that off. Can we... SPEAKER: Let's vote on the table. SPEAKER: The motion to table has not been set. SPEAKER: Let's make a vote on the... Let's vote on the table, OK? SPEAKER: Yeah. I wouldn't have tried to amend a motion to table. What I would do is I would deny the motion to table for the time being and then make whatever motion you like. And then if you want (INAUDIBLE) a portion of it, or all of it, that's fine then yeah. SPEAKER: So do we just withdraw the... SPEAKER: No, ma'am. I would go ahead and vote on the motion, but if you want to discuss it anymore, I would vote to deny that motion. SPEAKER: If I may, I'd like to request this item be tabled. SPEAKER: You what? SPEAKER: I'd like to request this item be tabled in its entirety. SPEAKER: Oh, OK. SPEAKER: Thank you, Blake. SPEAKER: So you would still need to vote on that motion to table. SPEAKER: So I've seconded, so we need to vote. SPEAKER: It is seconded. SPEAKER: Alright, so we're voting on an emotion... An emotion. A motion to table the matrix.

SPEAKER: The entire item. SPEAKER: The entire item. Alright. Do I... SPEAKER: There was already a second, so you just need to vote. SPEAKER: OK. All in favor, say aye. ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any abstain? OK. So we've tabling it. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Item Number 9 is also an amendment to a master plan. This is located in Wyndham (INAUDIBLE) for Wyndham Planned Unit Development. This is total of 15 acres. I believe it's actually about five acres that is in question here. You'll notice from the original 2005 Windham PUD the area north of Gateway Drive near Society Hill Road the purple area here is shown as kind of office and industrial type uses, primarily industrial uses. The red area here is commercial, with this area being called out in the planned unit development as office uses. During the last year, the gentleman who owns that... Let me find that. Excuse me. CPP Investments LLC, represented by Blake Rice, would be this time. Evergreen Siteworks expanded their laydown yard, construction yard over the entire property. And this is previously what it generally looked like. It was kind of sporadically wooded with some trees. Not knowing that their use was not appropriate on the entire site, extended it the entire way to Gateway Drive. So here, you see kind of a large fence. They have a large gravel construction yard with equipment

laid there on the property. When we realized this, we reached out to the applicant, letting them know about the issue. We've been in discussions with them about how to most appropriately fix this issue and come up with a solution that works for the city. In reviewing this, the primary reason for the office at this location was to help buffer, again, uses from adjacent residential. From what we've seen, the use of this property as storage has not created a significant impact on the adjacent properties other than the fact that it is esthetically not attractive and has no landscaping or the other principles of the zoning ordinance dealing with kind of esthetics and buffering. SPEAKER: The applicant has come back with a request to amend the planned unit development to allow the use to continue to remain on this site instead of having an office building placed here, and in doing so, have come up with a landscape plan to kind of help buffer and screen the use from Gateway Drive and the beginning of Wyndham Industrial Drive. And so here you see kind of the overall layout. They're building this facility at the very top. They're showing a couple of additions to the building with this as well, creating a formalized parking lot for employees with landscaping requirements. Here, you see the landscaping for the upper area shown. And then what they've done is provided a significant landscape plan for the lower area along Gateway Drive and Wyndham Industrial up to their first main entry point.

What you'll notice is this is a very mixed kind of multifaceted landscape plan with a double row of Evergreen... I believe those are (UNKNOWN) to kind of create a general screening with some magnolias mixed in. Then you have a couple rows and significant planting areas on the corner of more floral and decorative plants with some larger trees along the outside to kind of provide height and scale. Here, you kind of see some of the artist renderings of the site. There is a waterfall in the back we'd ask you to not pay attention to. I don't believe they plan on building that piece. And then along the other side here, showing again kind of that mix of varied landscape requirements or landscaping materials. Reviewing this, we feel like this is an appropriate way to mitigate and restore the general ideals of the planned unit development that the areas be screened. This site, doing the math, if the 15-acre site total would require about a 1,300 landscape in general. Overall, with this proposed plan, they're providing approximately 3,000 landscape points, which is about 150% more than what is actually required. Or I guess 250% more than what's actually required, so. In general, we do recommend a positive recommendation to the city council for this. We are asking that the landscape material be planted at such a height and size because it is intended to make an immediate impact.

That it be planted at full height as far as the minimum requirements for planting material. So not allowing... Generally, when we talk about planting material, we say it needs to be planted so that in 2 to 3 years it gets up to that height. SPEAKER: In this instance, we would want the especially the (UNKNOWN) and those screening materials to be planted at a 6-foot height so that they provide that immediate impact to the site. SPEAKER: But I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr Rice is here representing the applicant. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: There are no comments from the technical staff. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Just a quick question, Matt. Right next door, we've got C-2. That corner, is that where the old (UNKNOWN) Museum was? SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: There's a piece in between there that has a cell tower on it. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: But I guess it's part of that overall property, but yes, sir. This is the (UNKNOWN) museum. SPEAKER: OK. And is this type of, like, yard allowed in a C2? Just curious. SPEAKER: It would not be allowed in a C-2, but I would also say that the (UNKNOWN) Museum, the property there has been somewhat grandfathered in as well. So (INAUDIBLE) that site has some outside storage that would

not be allowed in a C-2 either. I think the use as... Excuse me. The use as presented is appropriate based on the use adjacent to it next door. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: The last item we would like you to consider is the request for amendment to 12 (a) to the text amendment for the minimum lot width in C-1 zone. This, again, is an amendment to allow C-1 lots to have a minimum lot width of zero that basically would default back to building code. In general, right now, the minimum lot width for a C-1 is 60 feet. Just kind of a quick scan through here. These are the lots just off the county tax maps, which are not exactly right. But what you'll notice is most of the lots range anywhere from 20 to 25, 35 feet in width for much of the C-1 zone. There are some as small as, I think, 16 or 17 feet, and some are much bigger where they've been combined together. But this provides more flexibility. The same way we don't require a minimum setback in C-1 zone and we don't require a minimum lot size, lot area, in the C-1 zone. We feel this would provide the maximum amount of flexibility in our historic downtown. And it is a common practice in downtowns that those lot widths be designated at zero to allow them to be more historically accurate and meet building code requirements. So if the commission is OK with that, we'd ask that you take Item 12 (a) off the table and vote on it.

SPEAKER: So we make a motion to take it off the table and then have a public hearing. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion that we take 12 (a) off the table. SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: A second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Opposed? Any abstain? So it's been taken off the table. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: And so now, this is calling for a public hearing if there's anyone who would like to speak for or against this zoning ordinance. Seeing none, public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion on the 7.3A section? SPEAKER: This would be a positive recommendation. SPEAKER: A positive recommendation for the downtown. SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: OK. Any discussion? All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. 12 (b). SPEAKER: We are asking that to remain on the table for the time being. SPEAKER: That's remaining on the table. Do we need to vote on that? SPEAKER: No, ma'am. SPEAKER: OK. Alright. And then we've been given... We're meeting next month. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Next month, you will meet on December the 16th, I believe, it is. SPEAKER: Great. SPEAKER: No, that's next year. I apologize. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) on my calendar. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: OK.

SPEAKER: We did include a copy of next year's proposed schedule in there. We'd like to go ahead and get y'all to approve it next month at your meeting, so that we don't have any confusion as we get to next year's holiday season. SPEAKER: OK. So we'll prove it next month. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. We will bring that before you as an item on your agenda next month. SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion we adjourn? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? ALL: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Alright. The November meeting is in the books.