The Prattville Planning Commission on June 12 voted not to recommend rezoning roughly 1.17 acres at North Memorial Drive and Tompkins Street from B3 (community shopping) to B2 (general business); the motion failed when commissioners recorded opposition and the chair announced “nays have it.”
The applicant, listed on the agenda as McIntyre Land Company Inc. with Goodwin Mills and Caywood Inc. as the petitioner representative, was not fully present; Judy Jones with Goodwin Mills and Caywood told the commission that Mr. McIntyre called but was not able to attend the meeting. Jones said the schematic shown to planning staff depicted a strip‑style center with office and retail uses.
Matt Cornwell, who identified himself as owner of Prattville Square Shopping Center, said his firm has invested in the center and that he understood the outparcels’ owner had discussed boat and mini‑storage uses with him. Cornwell said such a use would “dramatically devalue” the center and its small tenants and that he lacks transparency on the outparcel owner’s plans.
Cornwell also said his firm had planned a roughly $400,000 parking project that is now on pause because of the pending rezoning matter. He told the commission he had spoken in person with the outparcel owner and was told the owner intended boat storage and mini‑storage on the outparcel.
Other members of the public raised concerns about driveway connections, ingress and egress between the shopping center and the outparcels, and how eliminating setbacks could allow new buildings to be constructed close to property lines and block existing access. The owner of the Chevron station at the site’s frontage said that, under B2 zoning, structures “can be built directly to the curb” and could “block the entrance” between the station and the shopping center.
Planning staff explained that the older B3 district is no longer used in the city’s updated code and that under B3 the property would have required a 35‑foot building setback from property lines, whereas B2 has no setback requirement; staff said that is the principal reason the property owner requested rezoning, to allow buildings closer to property lines and thus increase buildable area. Staff also said that the existing zoning could allow office and retail uses and that if the owner sought those uses they might be permissible without rezoning.
The commission closed the public hearing and took the vote on the rezoning recommendation; the motion failed and no recommendation was forwarded to City Council.
Because the matter failed at the planning commission level, any future development proposals on the outparcels would need to return to the owner and the city for further applications or a revised rezoning request.