Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's what All right, everyone. We are going to get started with our planning commission meeting for March 30th, 2026. Can we get roll call, please? Here. Here. Here.

Here. Okay. Now, if everyone will stand, we will do our pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I hope all the commissioners are doing well today. I'm hoping you'all had a chance to look over the previous minutes and if y'all have any discussion or a motion, I make a motion. And we approve the minutes. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? All right. We have a second. All right. Do we have any discussion or any corrections? Roll call, please. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. All right. So, we are going to move. There is no old business, so we'll move on to new business. Our first one is case number 2026-022. It's a conditional use permit application for retail sales of fireworks at 4304 Goodman Road West. and I will turn this over to our director.

Thank you. Um, as stated, this case is a request for a conditional use permit for fireworks at 4304 Goodman Road West on approximately 12.3 acres by applicant American Fireworks. The subject property is located on the north side of Goodman Road, west of Walmart. This location has been the site of fireworks sales in the past under the same ownership. So on the next page, we have the aerial imagery of it um shaded in that transparent blue. Um the actual fireworks tent would go in that um gray gravel area where that address is. Um the next image is the zoning. Um the subject property as well as the others located along Goodman Road are all in the C4 zone. the commercial corridor along Goodman Road is consistent with the nature of the business selling fireworks. So, there's no issue with the zoning. Um the grade box right there showing the 2.5 acres um is going to be the the specific site for the fireworks tent. Um that image on the bottom is a diagram submitted by the applicant uh showing the location of the camper, the dumpster, the tent, the toilet, and the trailer. Um moving forward to page four, uh we have that the site plan the site plan shows the fireworks tent and associated equipment along the southern side of the parcel with parking access to both Goodman Road and the walk the Walmart parking lot. site plan calls for a limestone CR610 parking lot which may be approved for a limited time one year in the area that is proposed to be developed in the new near future according to item F

under section three. So, it basically just gives a um uh specific um exception for gravel in our zoning ordinance for uses like this. Uh fireworks sales um actually, so that's what I just said there. However, the gravel lot has existed on the site since at least 2022. Um, but the city's never really enforced anything on the gravel lots for firework sales. So, uh, we're fine with it as is, um, and as presented. So, for the planning staff review, uh, in preparation for the planning commission meeting, the planning department staff reviewed the ordinances on conditional use permits and put together a presentation for the commissioners. So, um the ordinance states um that these criteria must be addressed. Uh letter A is whether or not this will substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion. The applicant responded, "We will be situated on a site that has three ingress egress uh onto Highway 302 Goodman Road by way of an access road." Um, the next criteria is whether or not this will substantially increase fire hazards. The applicant responded that we post no fire hazard due to uh due in fact to there is no smoking allowed in or around the tent. Furthermore, no fireworks are permitted to be shot within 500 ft of the site. Ne. The next criteria is whether or not this will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The applicant response is, "American Fireworks has been proud to be a part of Horn Lake for more than 35 years." Um, the next criteria is whether or not this will adversely affect the general welfare of the city. The applicant response is, "We have not had

an adverse effect on the city over the past 35 years and will strive to do the same in the coming years." The next criteria is whether or not this will overt tax public utilities or community facilities. The applicant response is that American Fireworks um self-maintains the site and does not utilize the city's water or garbage system. We will have a temporary dumpster on site. The only utility that we will use is energy. And then the last criteria is whether or not this will be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The applicant response is we are willing to work with the city of Horn Lake to make sure that our site does not conflict with the city's comprehensive plan. So, um when reviewing each of these items, um the planning department staff only found issue with letter F. The comprehensive plan for the city of Horn Lake shows this is a commercial area. However, a gravel parking lot is intended to be granted under the assumption that development of the parcel will happen within one year's time. Given that the gravel lot has existed since at least 2022, it's continued. Approval should be acknowledged during discussion by the planning commission and um but as I stated um the city's never had an issue with those uh gravel pads um for any of the fireworks tent. So that concludes the presentation.

All right. Thank you. Does anyone Does any of the commissioners have any any questions for our director? Is the applicant here? Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? You're going to get off light today. I think

Okay. It's asphalted. Yeah. That that area there. Yeah. All right. Okay. Uh, and that's fine with us as well. Yeah, we take no issue with that. All right. So, this is a public hearing. I'm going to open this up to the public. Is anyone like to speak? Now is your time. All right. Public hearing is now closed. So, do we have any other discussion or do we have a motion? I'll make a motion.

All right. Go ahead. After review of case number 2026 J-022, the planning commission recommend approval of the request of the retail sale of fireworks at 4304 Goodman Road West on approximately 12.3 acres by applicant American fireworks for a period of 5 years. Do we have a second? We have a second. All right. Any other discussion? Roll call. Kirby Carter, yes. Mara Crawford, yes. Kea Fox, yes. Casin Freeman, yes. Maurice Stale Janice Videll. Yes. Stan Carroll. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

All right. Is the uh person for for the next case here. Okay. Uh we're moving on to the next case 2026-h27. It's a sketch plat for Aldren Alden Lake section one. I will again turn this over to our director for staff report.

Thank you. Uh so for case number 2026-027 um we have Reggie Hankerson requesting the sketch plat for Alden Lake section 1. The sketch plat will provide feedback to the applicant from the planning commission prior to consideration for approval of a final plat. And um that's just because what was submitted to us um was more like a survey, but it's going to show the exact boundaries of the proposed lot. So um the next step after um approval of this is to move forward with the drawing of the actual plat. So uh this plat would separate a 1.76 acre parcel from the existing 10.6 6 acre site currently used for drainage below the Alden Lake Dam. The intent of the new parcel is to provide space for one single family home. So here we have the aerial view of the current lot. So that's the current shape of the lot. Um the subject parcel is located at the south of Alden Lake Drive West. The land highlighted in blue is 10.6 6 acres and does not have a plat on record. The 1.76 acre lot will be taken from the northeastern corner of the property where the land is most suitable for development. So, um and then next we have the zoning here. Um this single parcel does have this uh strange zoning layout. So, it's currently zoned both AR and R12. The new plat will be located within the AR portion of the property. The Alden Lake neighborhood to the north has R12 zoning. The Apple Creek neighborhood to the west has AR zoning. And the Turman Farms neighborhood to the east is part

of the Turman Farms PUD. So um here we have the um what will be the lot uh lot dimensions on the plat. below is a screenshot for uh that submitted drawing. Um and then I guess you can go to to the next image. That's the more zoomed in version of that same image showing the exact dimensions of the future proposed lot. Um, this would allow frontage to Alden Lake Drive West and it will not include any part of the flood zone to the southeast. So, if you kind of look down um under that angle um of the lot, you'll see flood zone A um and it's kind of like that dotted gray line that goes up into that angle. So, this lot was purposely shaped to stay away from any part of that flood zone. Um, and then so next we have the subdivision design standards. Um, and uh we have all of those um shown here if anybody wants to reference it. So um skipping ahead on the page seven um we have that the proposed plat revision uh it does not propose any new streets or alterations to streets. So um it's perfectly um within regulation on that. Uh then we have the easements uh regarding letter A. The proposed plat does not include any easements within the parcel. um planning staff recommends that the easements um consistent with the surrounding neighborhood be added prior to the final plat approval. So that needs to go on the the plat that's going to be submitted. Regarding letter B, there are no identified streams located on the proposed lot. However, an

important drainage course is located along the west side of the property. At present, the proposed plat does not include an easement to prevent development that would impact the drainage from Alden Lake spillway. Planning staff recommends an easement to be included based on the topography of the site to allow for adequate drainage of the area on the west side of the property prior to final plat approval. So that should be put on the plat. Um going down the block design, the proposed plat appears to conform to all regulations on block design. Um and then moving forward, uh the proposed plat con appears to conform to all regulations on lot design. Um and then moving forward, the proposed plat appears to conform to all regulations on lot design. So in conclusion, based on the criteria that the planning department and planning commi commission must consider, uh planning staff recommends approval of the sketch plat for Alden Lake section one upon the condition that um all data from sections 34 to 32 um which is data for the final plat in the code of ordinances is included prior to approval of the final plat. Um and then that concludes the presentation.

Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for our director? Is the applicant here? Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? All right. Do we have any discussion or do we have a motion? Chairman, I make a motion.

All right. Go ahead. Oh, yes, sir. Okay. So, yeah. So, what it is is that if they had any questions about the usage or anything like that, we had you come up here and Okay. And and and actually, it's a good thing that we ain't asking you to come up here. I'm just telling you it's a really good thing. Anyway, so go ahead with your motion. After review of case number 2026-027, the planning commission approves a sketch plat for Alden Lake section one. All right. Do we have a second? Calvin Freeman. Second.

All right. We got a motion in a second. Do we have any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Motion's been approved. That's That's a good thing. I'm telling you, you can ask Chance right there. He he he gets sometimes gets a lot of uh coming up here asking questions. So, this is a good thing. All right, moving on to our next case. Case number 2026-050. final plant for Eagle, Golden Eagle minor lot subdivision. And once again, I will turn this over to our director for staff um presentation. Thank you. All right. So, uh, the applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot containing a house on 14 acres into four lots by creating three new smaller lots along Nail Road. Um, so that right there in the yellow is the um the whole parcel. And then here we have on the next image the zoning of it. So, um the neighborhood to the east is uh PUB um zoning for single family homes and then to the west we have um residential homes on AR lots just as this one at 4560 is. Um on the next page uh we have and this is the full scan of that image. Um the next page will show more detail. So, we have the entire lot with the existing house and then the proposed three lots uh to the south of that and that um is all along nail road. So, on the next page, this is a more zoomed in and clear view of that. And then um on the next page um even more zoomed in to those

three proposed lots that would be cut out. Um, I've also included the notes section if anybody wants to reference that. Um, and so we can go back to these images if if anybody has any questions. Um, so planning department staff reviewed the plat to check if it met the city's current subdivision regulations as presented below. Um so for easements um and specifically for uh the easements of 10 ft in width dedicated and um on the rear lot lines and 5t on each side um for specifically for uh certain utilities. Um this does not conflict with any of that. Um next for um section 35 34-58 um on letter B um for easements it says whenever any stream or important surface drainage is located in the area which is being subdivided the subdivider shall provide an adequate easement along each side of the stream for the purpose of widening, deepening, sloping, improving or protecting the stream or drainage course. The adequacy of the easement shall be determined uh by the engineer. Uh there does appear to be an important natural drainage channel that runs through the property being subdivided. Um we believe this should be addressed by the applicant. Um, however, it is understood that with the three large lots being created, there may be space for adequate drainage to be moved to the west without negatively impacting any structures in this subdivision or other subdivisions. But, um, this may be need to be explained and shown on the plat. And all we mean by that is um it it may be needed to show where the water coming out of that

pipe along Nail Road is going to go and if that will be diverted to the east and then or sorry to the west and then to the north um to make it to the creek on the other side of that private driveway. Um, moving on to streets section 34-57. Um, with no new streets being proposed um um inside the subdivision, this proposal should still make some provision to smoothly connect to the street curb and sidewalk as designed on the east side of the lot along Nail Road. Um, and all we mean by that is if you look at Nell Road, um, we have the Ravenwood subdivision as having a, uh, an emergency lane, a curb, a strip of grass, and then a sidewalk. And so, um, we are hoping that this would in some way, uh, be able to accommodate for a continuation of that. Um, however, we we do understand the, uh, um, how the property line does stick out and we do understand the um transition from private property to public property on that part. So, we understand the complexities on that, but um we're hoping that we can maybe get an explanation of the intent to tie into that. Um and then next up, uh we got for street names. No street names are being proposed, so it passes that. Um and then section 34-57. Um um planning staff is not yet convinced that this proposal gives due regard to the topography of the property as the lot being created in in the middle will be directly over the current drainage

channel that follows north to the creek. Um again we understand this low spot may be filled in. So clarification may be needed as assurance that the proper drainage will be created um after the plat is passed. Um and then I have please see below for the land elevations and the aerial imagery showing the waterways. And so um I just put that on there so all the commissioners can see visualize what I'm talking about here. That middle lot is going to be directly over um where you see all those where you see that tree line go directly out from Jordan Drive and then curve northwest um north of that pond and then eventually into the creek. Scroll down just a little bit so or up a little bit so you can see the full property. Yeah. So that um there is a lot of water that will pass through that tree line. You can kind of see the um yeah that bare spot there where the water passes and then there's a drainage pipe there and then it goes to the creek towards the west. Um so then next we have um the right-of-way widths and location of major and collector streets shall conform to the rightway widths and location of such streets designated on the transportation plan. Um nothing conflicts with that requirement. Um next we have minimum widths of streets and road rideways. Uh this does not um conflict with that in any way. Uh next we have um angles of intersections on the streets. Uh this does not conflict with that in any way. Next is medium corner radi at straight street intersections. This does not conflict with that. Um next is about street jogs. Uh there are no street jogs being proposed on the plat. However, the

middle lot will eventually need a driveway that may become a street jog. it to me it does not seem possible to provide an adequate space for future driveways on the three new lots that will meet this requirement. Uh there is some concern over this particular intersection at Jordan Drive having limited visibility and eventually allowing for three driveways at this intersection seems risky. And so all we mean by that is um if you put the three lots there in front of that intersection, you'll have three new driveways and that middle driveway may not be able to um be distanced enough away from um that uh Jordan Drive entrance. Um, and then even if you were to try to put it directly in front, um, that property line, um, it would not allow for the driveway to be perfectly in line. So, basically, you have to have any, um, any driveway directly in front of that other road or spaced far away enough to where it it's not slightly off. Um, next we have um regulations about culde-sacs. There's no culde-sac being proposed, so it passes that one. So, in conclusion, planning staff believes that this may be a much safer and more manageable subdivision proposal compared to the previous proposals that were submitted for the same lot. Um, however, there is still some hesitation regarding how the storm water will flow north onto this property and how it will flow off toward the west. This drainage area should be addressed on the plat in some way. Also, it does not appear that the

three lights can provide adequate space for future driveways to be laid out in a way that can avoid producing a street jog. Lastly, while this part may not be required, it is requested that the applicant address how the road, curb, and sidewalk along Nail Road will tie together smoothly with the similar design so that the front edges of those three proposed lots get curbs and sidewalks that extend from the eastern edge to the private driveway on the west side. Planning staff is researching all future plans the city may have for the design of the Nailroad Rideway to ensure any future recommendations by us do not conflict with those plans. And so basically, we'll we'll gladly work with the applicant on the the front edge design. Um because we the city is still um working amongst itselves on the overall rightway plan for the entirety of Nail Road. And so I know that we we're working on um potentially adding uh an extra lane on Nail Road from 51 all the way to Hurt Road. And so we're still working with our engineers on if that's going to eventually continue west or if it's going to stop um where it's currently at at um at two lane. So, um, that concludes my presentation and let me know if anyone has any questions.

Does anybody have any questions for director? I do.

Good night. Microphone's very loud. Um, I know you talked about like the parking and stuff and I just wanted not really a question, but I just want to kind of put it out there. If there's not very much room for a parking space like a driveway, we see it all the time, especially on two-lane road east where you have these lot line houses. They're very close together. They have more than one two cars. They're all up and down the road. So, that would be something we may end up facing on Nail Road as well because there's going to be nowhere else for them to go. Correct. Uh, so what I was meaninging in my report was about um, Billy, can you go to I guess the um the zoomed in plat for the Yeah, that right there. So, what I was meaninging is we're just right at this point, we're not going to regulate where the houses are going as long as they fit within the setbacks. Technically, at this point, we don't care. But we're just assuming the houses would go maybe in the middle of the lots. So, they would have very long driveways, but I was really referencing where those driveways would come out at the ends. And so, um, we're just assuming the driveways would be proposed dead center for each lot. But where that, um, causes a potential conflict with our ordinances is that middle lot. Um the driveway would be slightly off center from the Jordan Drive road. And so uh the way we're reading our ordinances is that that would be a street jog. So technically all driveways should be directly dead center from each other be um because it provides for you know safer

um safer situations pulling out. But um even if you were to scoot it way over to the western side, then the other lot to the west of that would then have to move its driveway way to the west and then you have that private driveway um potentially being right next to the uh lot two driveway. So, like every scenario we ran, it just seems like too many driveways too close together at that Jordan Drive intersection.

So, let me ask you, uh, Andrew, you're you're you're saying that you can't have two two driveways to the to property. Well, I got to get to lot two and three. You can't have two. You can't have those two together because I know they do that in subdivisions a lot.

Yes, that is a great point. Um, that's something we're kind of struggling with here. Um, looking through our ordinance, um, it says street jogs resulting from failure to align streets on either side of an intersection are prohibited with a minimum offset of 150 ft between center lines of parallel streets being required. And so, you bring up an excellent point about subdivisions. Um the way we're looking at this, we're just really hesitant to apply that same thought because of the nature of Nail Road. Um there's like a major hill and a dip at that point on Nail Road. And then you have Jordan Drive um there which um already kind of a dangerous spot to pull out. So we just have some hesitation about that.

Mr. Chance, would you would you like to come up and address uh address I have a question before that please for Andrew? Well, you can ask Andrew a question. I'll go ahead and have him come up. All right. Thank you, Andrew. Question for you. Yes. When we're going to make the um possible motion based on recommendation, should we have the issue of the driveway to be addressed as well as the easement? emotion.

I mean, technically, this is kind of the complicated part here is that's not uh required on the plat. So, I would not feel comfortable mandating where that driveway should go, but um I'm just trying to think if we've ever done that for any other case. Um, the way I'm looking at it is if we propose this plat for approval, we should expect the driveway to go wherever they put it

with. Yes. Wherever they propose it within the bounds of our driveway regulation. So, right now the regulation is you can't pave any any driveway within 10 ft of a property line. So, right now they would have the right to pave within 10 ft. Okay. of any of those property lines. So, Mr. So, go ahead and uh Yes. Can address all this for us.

Uh I know I was up here previously on a 30 lot. Um and I I think I I want to distinguish between what was previously proposed and what is now proposed. And I think Andrew understand this completely, but we were proposing a major lot subdivision and now we're proposing a minor lot subdivision. Those two regulations are completely different in in city of Horn Lakes subdivision ordinances. So, and I could be wrong, but I believe the minor lot subdivision does not require proposed infrastructure at the time of platinum metal. Correct. So, I don't know if you want. So we a major lot subdivision I am legally I have to provide infrastructure design everything that engineers look at city engineer will prove for us to build a monot subdivision is take is essentially taking a piece of agricultural property and cutting up into acre and a half lots. They're cut up in a way so we can maintain our own utilities on site meaning well well water's water's adequates but but sewer will be on site. Um, we are proposing the continuation of Nail Roadway dedication as you can see on the hatched piece of property. However, we aren't proposing any improvements along Nail because we simply aren't required. Correct.

Yes. And I I I feel like I tried to um show that on the report.

Yeah. So, it now major lot subdivisions are different. we would be required to do that, but because it's a minor lot, we we aren't required to do that. Um, so that's why you don't see curb and gutter and the continuation of nail road improvements. Um, with the drainage easement, we can show an existing we can propose a drainage easement on the existing flow of storm water. That doesn't mean that the house cannot be fit on it. It can it can go north of it or south of it. These are acre and a half lots with 155 foot of frontage. They're they're quite large. I know it doesn't seem like it on paper, but 155 foot of frontage for a single lot is is quite large. Um, and so we we don't typically put a drainage easement there unless it is a jurisdictional stream. This one, however, is what they call a wet weather conveyance. Meaning the property owner right now can go out there and move that ditch whenever he wants it without the city's approval. I mean, he can go right now and go move it without any city approval. So, we don't typically put an easement on that because it's it's up to the property owner's free will. If we put an easement on it and at some point he decides to move it, then that can provide some implications with the city and what what is truly accurate on paper and what is truly accurate in the field. So, there's some implications to it, but we're more than happy to add add a drainage easement if if that's what it takes. Um,

any questions for the applicant? All right, I have one more question. It's for you, Andrew. I have to go back to him. So your he says they're prepared to put the easement and in the motion based on the possible motion we have is that okay if it's approved based on what he's saying to you now or you guys have I I feel like he answered everything. I just want to be clear and you know I I I agree with everything that that he stated. Okay. I just want to Okay.

All right. I I I got it's not really a question still, but something I want to say. Last time we talked about this area, we talked about the area of the road. He kind of brought it up. We talked about how this is a very blind spot off of nail road. That's a very dangerous area. There's a school bus stop right above there as well. So, we're just asking for an incident if we add to the traffic and stuff through there. And then on down nail road when we go into Twin Lakes, there's a lot of blind drives that are high risk right through there. we're just we're just going to be tag teaming nail road adding this on here if we're not careful with this. So, I just think that's something we should really take into consideration whether it's a minor it's a smaller thing than what was previously approved or not. I still think the traffic is going to be a huge area right through there and I would hate for there to end up being accidents and there was even brought up one time even a possible light or something right through that area. So, I feel like this could definitely be be um adding to some trouble right there on that that busy area. And like I said, it's numerous school bus stops as well.

All right. Any other comments? Yes. Go ahead. Wasn't that big concern as wellre? They were concerned with the drainage. Drainage. They were concerned with the drainage impact. No, we would be concerned. How?

However, and I want to be I'll put this on the record. The city engineer approved my drainage plan prior to denial. So, the drainage plan fixed the problem out there. It fixed it. We actually overfixed it. We were going to release water half the speed of what it is today. The city approved my drainage plan prior to that denial. That's that's a fact. There were still concerns. I I can only fight them via technical data, you know, that's all that's all I can do. Um, but that's that's what happened. It was denied based on adequate drainage complications. But, you know, that was I think what 32 lots or something. But this but but the but the plans were

approved prior to that because we were trying to prove the point that the engineering worked but it's all I can it's all I can provise the data. So so I I just want to recap make sure I truly understand it since this is a minor um subdivision no curbs and stuff are required not required to do it. We're not required to put any infrastructure and no and no infrastructure and no easements and and the drainage easement would be only if y'all I could put Yeah, that's that's something that we can do. Now, if if the lot owner goes out there with the Straho and moves it, the plat is going to be

Well, that's what I was going to say is that that it's a since it's a minor, the the owner has the right to move things as they see fit. So, I just want to remind everybody here that we're looking at the plat as it's presented for what it is, not what it was the last time he came up here and presented. So, I just want to make sure everybody's aware of that. Now, y'all can, you know, take that as you need to. I just want to make sure that we're we're getting the information that there's certain things that he's not required to do. We just need to see if it fits what we want. Um, and as far as the traffic, I just want to say I I I know that with the subdivision that you had before, I could see an increased traffic with three houses. I mean, I don't know how many times people come and go on a house. I mean, but they would be able to leave their driveway and see clearly, turn into a three driveways. It I don't know that the traffic's going to overly increase right there. It may I mean, it may there would be some, but I don't know that it would be the same as having 36 lots. So, so do we have any other discussion? Any other questions? Do we have a motion?

Chairman, I make a motion. After review of the case number 2026-050, the planning commission recommends tableabling the final PL as presented in this report. Oh, wait. Hold on. I'm sorry. What? We had asked about the table. We didn't have to. If you disagree with that, then you can you don't have to table. You can table. I'm reading the motion. No. No. Well, you you can Well, what I'm saying is that that was a possible motion. Okay. Now, if you're wanting to approve it as he's presented it, you can do that and then we can either vote yes or no on it if tableabling is if we had more questions. Okay. Gotcha. I would just read from here.

I know. Yeah. Yeah. So, I just wanted to clarify. So if you want to redo that then you can either recommend approval or not whatever but but tableabling it's usually if we have any more questions. So we're Gotcha. Okay. So then I move that we just accept it. So you want to approve? Okay. So you're going to recommend approval. Okay. Go ahead and keep reading. Recommend approval. Okay. So um again after review of case number 2026 050 the planning commission recommends approving um this report um titled go to Eagle Manor Lock Subdivision by Smith Walker Engineering and Surveying until the Well, I don't read that last.

Okay. So the motion is for approval of final plat. Do we have a second? I second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Kirby Carter, nay. Mark Crawford, no. Laita Fox, no. You're the one that made the motion. So, you got to be Yes. Um, Calvin Freeman. And y'all confusing me here. Yes.

Okay. Maurice is not here. Janice Fidal. Yes. And San Carol. No. Okay. So, let me see. So, no. Shall Kirby, Mark, Kea, and so I get four four.

All right. On to the Next one is for case number 2026-041. It's a site plan for a drive-through coffee shop at 960 Goodman Road West. And I will once again um send this to our director for report.

Thank you. So the current structure on site is proposed to be demolished. A new seven brew drive-thru coffee shop is proposed to replace the current structure and the entire parking lot will be redesigned accordingly. And so we have the aerial image of that property there in the yellow. Um next we have the zoning. Uh the zoning is C4. All parcels touching it are also C4. And then next we have the submitted site plan. So shown above is the site plan proposed for the seven brew drive-thru coffee shop. There are two lanes proposed which can hold at least 36 small medium cars bumperto-bumper. So perhaps slightly fewer cars in reality with comfortable spacing. The lanes are of adequate width. The parking spaces however are not of adequate width. For 60° spaces the code of ordinances states that the dimensions must be 10 ft wide by 20 ft deep. The spaces should be increased to 10 feet wide in order to keep the west curb at the north entrance the same. The proposed 18.44 feet may be acceptable for the depth. We would only ask that the east curb at the north entrance is widened to the minimum 24 ft as it appears to be skinnier on a measurement from the aerial view. The do not enter wording appears to be facing the wrong direction. The large concrete area in the center of the lot inside the 5-ft striped barrier is unusual. Um the planning staff recommends that a grass area in this space is considered as this would add a more um add more permeability and provide for a more aesthetically pleasing site. Lastly, a 5 foot wide sidewalk will be required along the front of the property line as this is required in addition to all new

builds, all new commercial builds. Um so that's the um site plan there. Next we have the um the elevations shown. So shown above is the front elevation. Planning staff finds no issue with that architecture. Shown above is the back elevation. And again planning staff takes no takes no issue with the architecture. It's going to be the same materials on all sides of the building. So shown above is the right elevation. Planning staff finds no issue with that architecture. And shown above is the left side of the elevation. Planning staff finds no issue with that architecture. Um, we get a lot of buildings proposed with different designs on different sides, but this is the same all around. So, we really appreciate that. Um, shown above are the elevations of the cooler. And so that's going to be a separate structure, but it's going to be with the exact exact same design materials. So planning staff takes no issue with those elevations. Um, so overall, planning staff believes this will be a positive addition to the city of Horn Lake. Planning staff recommends approval on the condition that a few things are revised on the plan, including the revision of the parking widths, the revision of the width of the north entrance, and the addition of the permeable green space to the center of the lot and a sidewalk along the property line. Um, we would like the applicant to maybe discuss the reasoning for the solid pavement um, from the building all the way to the drive-thru lanes. I've already talked with them over the phone about it and um, I have heard the reasoning being the

need for uh, truck delivery space. Um however, just based on our measurements and um our review, we believe that you could still have um an area for truck drop off as well as some more green space put in there. Um but if the applicant would like to speak on that, um I would like to hear about that. And then um for our possible motion um we are putting the um need for increasing the parking spaces to be 10 feet wide. Um the north entrance being widened to 24 ft curb to curb and a curbed green space is added to the center of the property. But we purposely we purposely did not put in any dimensions cuz um I didn't want to constrain anything on the applicant to make it impossible for truck deliveries. And then finally, we added that the 5-ft sidewalk is added to the edge of the property line on the private property side. However, the applicant can put it on the public side um as long as they get MD dot approval. And that concludes the presentation.

All right. So, does anybody have any questions for our director? I have a question. I always have questions. Um, looking at this, the first thing that I looked at was the area because of just the traffic, but so the double the double lanes made me feel better. But I do have a question because we're talking about do not enter. So that the traffic flow goes all the way around. The other places to show where they're going to go in to park. Are we required to tell them to do like signage? But then I look that might be different properties where they would have to put signage to go around because you have to go in like on the very first picture that we have the very first page between hooters.

Yeah. Right there you can see like over there there's hooters. They'd have to go through and go around to go to the back to come in back there. Then over here, you got to turn it over here behind Kroger and go back in behind there. So, um, but they're tearing down that building, the one behind there. No, they're tearing that all out and redesigning the whole entire lot. Yeah, absolutely. But that's what I'm But what I'm saying though is is you can come in from one side, but it's not all like the signage where you have to turn in to get in back there.

I didn't know if that was was asked or brought up when you guys may have spoke. I mean, I I can ask the people, but that was just my my concern because I'm looking and people are going to be turning in thinking they can go park and then it's like, "Oh, wait, we can't." So, I like there needs to be something for guidance. Are you uh wondering about if um people are going to enter from Goodman Road and then go the wrong way and try to park those spots? Yeah. Like how how are we going to be able to tell people like I mean drive-thru only like are we able to put that in there like where we can

I mean they could possibly put a um I'm trying to think about um yeah I think it'll be it'll be u uh permissible for them to put a like a small do not enter sign in addition to the do not enter paint on the on the ground. Right. I just felt like they won't see that do not enter paint until it's too late. That's why I was curious. Yeah, I totally see what you're saying. Yeah, we do allow for we do allow for like actual signs. Uh I don't have this committed to memory, but I think we allow three foot tall signs that say enter and exit and do not enter and stuff like that. Um we will allow something like that.

It just wasn't like your normal to to get into the parking. You have to go all the way to the back. So that's why I was just Yeah, I totally see what you're saying. Um, however, I will say, and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, um, this is a drive-thru only kind of business. So, I was assuming that the parking would be for employees only. And so, to me, I'm just assuming if because this this is similar like to scooters that just they just do drive-through,

right? If they're if they're employees there, I'm going to assume that instead of driving to work and going through the drive-through lane, I'm going to assume they're going to drive all the way to the backside and then enter the parking area from the backside, then go into work. Um, I'm just assuming no employee would go through the drive-through lane to park in the parking spots. I just remember when the when all the branch opened there were a lot of people standing out front and stuff and so that's why I was just I was just curious because I don't know for a fact either. So

yeah and I'm not I'm definitely not an expert on seven brews business model and designs around the country. So I'm not sure if they are going to have the capability to do a walk up window. Um, but if there is a walk up window, then this may be potentially uh an issue. But again, um I we can definitely get into that. Do we have any other questions for director? I have a question. All right. Go ahead. I'm back with you saying uh how wide that space going to be with that do not enter 20 ft

that coming off a high speed. Well, the the plan shows 24 feet, which is the uh it is the minimum required spacing for um two-way drive-thrus. Is the applicant here? Would you like to come on up?

Questions. Uh first of all, kind of what he was saying is right Excuse me. The way that the parking is set up, this is a drive-thru focus. All parking is intended to be for staff uh whenever they come to park. So, they would be the only people you would expect to be in there. There is, in fact, an area where you could walk up and you would be kind of walking to the back of the building and asking somebody to come out and take an order, but it's not really focused towards that. It's focused for vehicular traffic only is is kind of their their deal. So that's kind of why we have it faced towards the north so that you could circulate in from the back as an employee. Uh it is a little embarrassing we have the do not enter sign backwards on there but the intent is for everybody to go around in the uh counterclockwise fashion. Let's see was there another question. Uh so so these uh uh these conditions for increasing the parking to 10 feet wide, widening widening the north entrance to 24 ft curve uh or doing some green space in the center of the property and the 5- foot sidewalk. Um is any of that going is any of that would you like to address?

Uh yes. As far as the green space increase, we can we can increase green space. Uh right now it shows the minimum of green space, which I believe is 15%. Uh we don't have a problem widening it out, but we just want to make sure that they can cycle a truck through there uh to do deliveries. Uh our original intent was to have that whole thing as green space, but our our truck guys said there's no way to deliver. So we hacked the whole thing off and we can find a happy medium in there. We're we're definitely willing to do it. One more question. Oh, go ahead. Because uh my concern is uh we could make that a one lane. It's just same thing like Zach speed

one lane when a vehicle of truck come he he don't know where to deliver at he get caught up during the driveway anyway we could just eliminate two lane and one lane that they could make a complete circle versus being stopped where do not enter and try to make a delivery. I don't know where this truck gonna park at. Right. Well, that's why we were having the truck was going to veer right when it came in and kind of deliver up on the right side in that big open area. That what was that what that my concern is. The other way to coming off the high speed landed truck new driver going to go, "Oh, he going to turn here

and then they go straight through the building." Yeah, I see what you're saying. The other alternative we were looking at was trying to get deliveries through the back, but turning in was real tight uh to get through uh from the north to south motion and then out. It's definitely something we can look at. Greatly appreciate it. Uh, any other questions for the applicant?

I do. It's not really a question, but the I I guess I'm the traffic person tonight that it really concerned me because of the traffic through there. It's just crazy, but I appreciate the double lane. Um, I feel like the truck will it it'll it'll figure itself out. It'll probably be one of those things. you you just have to trial and error for a second and try to see, I guess. But as far as the double lanes though, um I think that's going to be the best thing to help the traffic coming off of the road. Um will it's it judging by this picture here, it looks like it has like the median kind of thing separating it the whole way around or is it just going to be painted? It's a striped median the whole way around.

Okay. Will that interfere with your truck trying to come in if there's if there's a uh a curb? And that's why we that's why we took the whole thing out just to make it easier. But I think what we'll end up probably trying to do first, and I'm just kind of throwing it out there, is we'll probably try to put our green space on the right side to have kind of the middle part where the trucks would come through. And that's probably how we're going to try to make that solution work. Well, I'm grateful you chose to bring one to Horn Lake. A lot of people keep talking about it. Thank you. We're happy to come here. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other discussion? Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. I go ahead.

After review of case number 2026-041, the planning commission approves the submitted site plan for 960 Goodman Road West by Cedar Creek Consulting on the conditions that the regular parking spaces are increased to 10 ft wide. The north entrance is widened to 24 ft from curb to curb. A curbed green space is added to the center of the property. And a 5ft sidewalk is added to the edge of the property. And can I amend that to where the curb green space is added um to the property to where it is a happy medium between you two? All right. We have a we have we have a second. All right. Any other any other discussion? All right. Roll call, please. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Maurice Taylor. Janice Fidel. Yes. Stan Carroll. Yes. Okay. Motion passed. All right. Uh on to the next case. Um is the Waffle House representative here? Okay. Just want to make sure you're here. All right. Case number 2026-011. Site plan for Waffle House remodel and parking area re revision at 865 Goodman Road West. and we will once again hear our staff report from our director.

Thank you. The Waffle House at 865 Goodman Road West is wanting to do a makeover of their restaurant, which will include upgrading their interior space, modernizing parts of their exterior and modifying their parking lot. The parking lot modification is to allow for more comfortable ADA access to the restaurant while also preparing for the possible changes to the entrance that may be coming from MD dot. So, um we got the aerial imagery there um of the property in yellow. Next, we have the zoning of the property. The zoning is C4 and then all the adjacent properties are C4. Um here we have the site plan. Um now there's a lot going on right here. Um but right here this is the fullest extent of the site plan submitted to the planning department for all the proposed changes to the layout of the site. And the next page will show a separate more detailed view. So, here's more closeup of the ADA spaces. The two existing ADA parking spaces on the west side will be moved to the east side. All proposed ADA spots are compliant with federal standards. The curb will be extended on the east side to accompass the pole sign, making it within a landscaped area. The curb on the west side will remain as is, and the parking spaces on that side will be converted to regular ones. And then um and just to be clear on that site plan there um the if anyone has any questions about the entrances um please let me know because this case is a little complicated with not knowing exactly what M DOT will be doing to the entrance. But Waffle House is um in our

eyes adequately preparing for that um that conversion. So they did add that um if you see at the top right corner of the screen there, the curb going around the existing pole sign. So it's not currently there right now. There's like a bare parking space with the pole in it. So, it's it's not a real parking space, but it's kind of it it kind of is one. So, they're cleaning up a lot of um cosmetic things on the site like that. And having that curb added there is a um a huge improvement to the site. So, uh moving on to page five. Now, we have the um the facade of the front of the restaurant. It's essentially going to look the same, but they're um upgrading some parts to that front. Um and then on the side, we have the left facade um with components being replaced as well. And uh but still essentially looking the same. And then same with the right facade. And then similarly, the rear facade, it's uh mostly going to be the same. and u it'll include a new awning as shown in the image above. And so all drawings of the facades are acceptable and still conform to the city's architectural standards. Um and so in conclusion, we have planning staff believes this is a great makeover to the location and welcomes all the proposals in the submitted drawings. This will bring a much needed improvement to the site. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested project. That concludes the presentation.

Does anybody have any questions for our director? Does anybody have any questions for the applicant before I bring him up here? Okay. I don't I don't I don't have a question, but can I just tell you thank you because I get excited when I see something that says they're wanting to do something to make it more ADA accessible. You just don't see that a lot. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. No problem. All right. Do we have any other discussion? All right. Do we have a motion? Make a motion. All right. Go ahead. After review case number 2026-011, the planning commission approved the submitted site plan as shown in this report for 86 865 Goodman Road West. All right. Do we have a second?

I second. Calvin Freeman. All right. We got a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

That motion passes. All right. On to our last case for the for the night. Case number 2026-040, site plan for preferred industrial site expansion at 6486 Hurt Road. And we will once again turn this over to our director for staff report. Thank you. This is an application for uh um of a site plan revision for a uh 4,000 square foot building at 6486 Hurt Road as part of the preferred industrial development. The parcel consists of approximately 4.3 acres. There are two existing structures on the parcel and this proposal is to add a third structure in the space between them. And so we had the aerial imagery there. Now we have the zoning. Uh the property is zoned M1 and C1. Adjacent properties along Hurt Road also have zoning of M1 and C1. Properties directly across the street are zoned R8. And so um the I'll add that the um building constructed um is going to be within that M1 part of the zoning. The proposed new building and expanded parking area would be located to the east of the building, east of the existing building and comply with the required easements and setbacks. And so we have that site plan um shown up there. Here we have the building elevations and the proposed building will be composed of gray metal siding, greystone and red metal roofing. The architectural style and building materials can be seen on the two existing buildings on the property as well as the existing as well as the image on the next page. The planning commission deemed these materials acceptable for the two existing buildings and approving them

for this proposed building would allow for visual continuity on the property. And so um there's a picture of the existing building that was approved and um the architecture would be just the same. So planning for planning staff review we have that the proposed new building appears to conform with architectural material and design requirements in the city of Horn Lake code of ordinances. Added parking in the area between the buildings com conforms with the width requirement of 10 ft but the depth is not specified. The spaces in front of the existing building are shown to have a depth of 20 feet. So the applicant can confirm whether that is the case with the spaces in the new parking area. The dumpster pad is located adjacent to the new parking area, but it is unclear from the site plan whether a dumpster enclosure is included. All dumpsters shall be screened from site with the exception of industrial buildings exceeded uh 25 exceeding 25,000 square ft. the combined area of these buildings does not reach that threshold. Therefore, the dumpster must have screening that complies with the requirements in the dumpster enclosure section of the ordinance. So, in conclusion, uh planning staff recommends approval for the new building as proposed in the submitted site plan upon the condition that the art the added parking spaces are of adequate depth and the dumpster has an enclosure and the additional paved area has curbs that match the existing curb. And that concludes the presentation.

Do we have any questions for our director? Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Do we have any discussion or any motion? Mr. Chair,

you go ahead. After reviewing case number 2026-040, planning commission approved the request for the site plan presented in it report at 6486 Herk Road on the condition that the parking dimension dumpster enclosure will adhere to the standards within the respective ordinance and the additional pavement area has been has curves. that's matched to the existing curve. All right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. We have uh do we have any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Stan Carol. Yes. That motion passes. Thank y'all. All right. In other business, uh, discussion to move the April planning commission meeting to April 20th at 6 o'clock. Um, yes, I'd like to talk about that. Um, I I'll be at a conference that last um Monday, so uh I won't be able to do that meeting. And then uh that same week um well the week before uh Billy will be at a conference uh I believe Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,

Tuesday.

Tuesday through Friday and then Tuesday is a board meeting day. So we can't do that day. So that still leaves us with Monday, April 20th. Um, however, the um the fire chief had already set up a um it's like an emergency management type of meeting on that same day at the same time and I don't want to interfere with that meeting. So, I'm wondering if there's any way um we could show up maybe an hour earlier at 5 or maybe 4:30. Uh, we don't yet know the case load for that month, but and I I don't want to make any assumptions. I mean, we had a pretty heavy case load tonight and we got done by 7:10. So, I don't know if would 5:'lock work for everybody on April 20th.

April 20th, preferably 4:30 maybe, but I'm sorry. I don't get off work until 5:30.

Okay. Okay. Um, and we could possibly also meet at the same time at 6 PM in a conference room. Um, we do have a um front hall conference room available where all the commissioners would fit. Um, we wouldn't have a lot of space for um an audience. And so um it's just what are we feeling about that? I was say now we've had planning commission meetings in the conference room four. I don't know which one we've had. E we've had it in the mayor's conference room when we when they were renovating this and I know that you can have a small number of people especially the applicants and then you know and we don't have a tremendous amount of audience but it would accommodate the audience. So either there or in the other conference room there should be plenty of room for

Yeah. I know the mayor's conference room is a little bigger. Um, but we haven't asked about that using that yet, but we could totally use that front conference room. Um, again, we don't have a an agenda yet, so I don't know what kind of case load we're going to have or whether they're public hearings or controversial cases or not. So, so, um, it seems doable right now.

Okay. Well, I was just going to say if we're going to have a larger case load, then it would probably best to ask the mayor if we can use the mayor conference room. That way we can hold more people in the audience. If it's just a handful of us, then the front one would be fine. I don't think that would be a problem for us to do that on the 20th. Is everybody able to make it on the 20th at 6? All right. Do we have a motion to move our meeting to the April 20th? Make a motion that we move our April meeting to April the 20th at 6 PM. All right. We have second. Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose the same.

All right. Is there anything else? Any other any other business? That's it for me. All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Everybody's really excited to get out of here. All right. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? The same. We are adjourned.