Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Now we'll get roll call.

Chad Engi. Kirby Carter here. Mark Crawford here. Kea Fox here. Calvin Freeman here. Morris Taylor here. Janice Fidel here. Stan Carl here.

All right, we'll go on to the next part of our agenda. Approval of the previous minutes. Does anyone have any questions or do we need to notate anything or do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, I move that we approve the biggest March 30, 2026. Okay. Second, Lita. Yes, ma'am. Roll call. All right. Roll call.

With Kirby Carter. That's the weird part. Mark Crawford, yes. Kea Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman, yes. Maurice Taylor, yes. Janice Vidal, yes. Stan Carroll, yes. Okay.

Okay. Moving on. We'll move on to case number 2026-060. And we will let the planning commissioner take over. Thank you. Case number 2026-060 is a request from applicant Creative Constructions LLC to approve a plat within the Dotto Commons A5 Commercial Subdivision lot one. This plat would separate the property from the surrounding land that is currently combined into a single parcel. The separation will facilitate future development on the site. Um and then there within that uh yellow box is the the area that this plat would come from. Everything in blue is currently one single parcel. Um this subject parcel is located at the west side of Interstate Boulevard um between Nell Road and Kirkandol. The land highlighted in blue is all currently identified by the same parcel number. And this plat would allow for the site within the yellow box to stand as its own parcel. Allowing this parcel to be separated from the others will allow for future development of the site. And then as for zoning, this is zoned PUD, planned unit development. Um, and then for the actual plat submission, below is a screenshot of the submitted plat for review. Um, we just have the the full image here and then on the next page is going to be the more closeup image. So shown below is a screenshot showing the details of the lot. The proposed property lines would isolate the property in the 7.48 acres west of Interstate Boulevard between

Nail Road and Kirkall Lane. And if anyone has any questions about the drawing, we can scroll back and look at that. So, next, um, as usual, we always put the the actual ordinance text in the report so everybody can read through it and go back and reference it um at any time. So, um, scrolling through these, um, we have our review, um, on page seven, uh, regarding letters A through L. The proposed plat revision does not propose any new streets or alterations to streets. So, um, it passes all of those criteria. Um going to the next page um for the next set of criteria regarding letter A. The proposed plat shows 20 foot building setback on the rear of the property and a 50-ft building set back on all road frontages. Additionally, there's a 20ft utility easement on all sides of the property except around the square lot at the intersection of Interstate Boulevard and Nil Road where the utility easement is 10 ft. Regarding letter B, there are no identified streams located on the proposed lot. However, a small portion of the site is located within flood plane zone AE. The plat has provided easement specifically for utility and building setback lines. Um the building setback includes the area on the plat marked as flood plane zone AE preventing any structure from being built there. Um the next section is about block regulations. Um the plat appears to conform to all regulations on block design. Uh scrolling down to the next page. Um for the next set of regulations,

um the proposed plat appears to conform to all regulations on lot design. And then um scrolling down more for the next section uh the proposed plat appears to conform to all regulation on light design. So throughout the review um it passed all the criteria. So in conclusion, uh based on the criteria that the planning department and planning commission must consider, planning staff recommends approval of the plat for commons A5 commercial subdivision. And that concludes the presentation. And in the possible motion, just note that that A8 should say A5.

Sure. Does anybody have any questions for Andrew? She said no. Okay. The applicant applicant present. Okay. If you'll step forward and just give your name and address for the minutes, please. Ron Patel, Creative Constructions.

Thank you, sir. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Patel? Houston engineering is engineer Mississippi. I don't think that microphone's on by the way. Um, okay. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Patel or Mr. Houston?

Okay. Thank you, sir. This this one a public hearing? I didn't think so. Okay. All right. Well, okay. Does anyone else have any anything any motion? Madam Chair,

Commissioner Fox, sorry, trying to do better. I move um after review of case number 2026-60, the planning commission recommends approval for the request for the plat for the Zodto Commons A-5 commercial subdivision. Second. Right. We have a motion and a second. Mark Crawford Kea Fox. Hi. Calvin Freeman. Hi. Maurice Taylor. Hi. Janice Fidel. Yes. Stan Carl.

Yes. Motion passes 6. Okay. Moving on to case number 2026 just 005. Um this is for DInnesota Commons A8 Commercial Subdivision. And we'll turn it back over to Andrew.

Thank you. This is uh for case number uh 2026-00005. This is a request for applicant Creative Constructions LLC to approve a plat within Dotto Commons A8 commercial subdivision. This plat would separate the property from surrounding land that is currently combined into a single parcel. This separation will facilitate future development of the site. So, scrolling down, this is actually the same parcel as before. It is one gigantic parcel that uh the applicant is splitting up for future sites. So, this one is just across the street from that other parcel that we just looked at. Um it's located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate Boulevard and L Road. The land highlighted in blue is all currently identified by the same parcel number. And this plat would allow for the site within the yellow box to stand as its own parcel. Allowing this parcel to be separated from the others will allow future development of the site. And as before, this is zoned PUD. And then uh here is the actual submission um of the drawing of the plat. This is the full the the full drawing. And the next page will show the the closer up details of that drawing. So shown below is a screenshot showing the details of the proposed parcel. The proposed property lines would isolate the property in the southern 3 acres between Interstate Boulevard and the core 5 development. And if anyone wants to go back and take a look at the details of that, let me know. So as before, uh we have all of the design standards here for anyone to reference. So uh

going on to uh page seven, um we have regarding letters A through L, the proposed plat revision does not propose any new streets or alterations to streets. So it would technically pass those requirements. Um, on page eight, regarding letter A, the proposed plat revision shows 10-ft building setbacks on the rear and both sides of the property and a 50-ft building setback on the frontage with Interstate Boulevard. Additionally, there's a 20ft utility easement on all sides of the property. Uh, regarding letter B, there are no identified streams located on the proposed lot. However, a potential drainage course is located along the east side of the property. At present, the proposed plat shows the topography of the site, highlighting elevation change on the east side of the property where the ditch is located. The plat does not explicitly mark the ditch as a protected area for drainage. As development is proposed for the site, drainage will be a major factor in the review process. Additionally, the parcel to the north of this proposed plat must not be negatively impacted by the drainage of this parcel. So, consideration must be given to how drainage leaves the proposed site. This would primarily be handled during the site planning process though. So, this proposal does not violate this requirement. Um and then going down to regulations on block design. Uh the proposed PL appears to conform to those regulations. Uh going to the next page, page nine. Um the proposed plat appears to conform to all regulations on lot design. And similarly uh down near the bottom, the proposed plat appears to conform to the next set of regulations on lot

design. And so um in conclusion, planning staff recommends approval of the plat for DInnesota Commons AA commercial subdivisions. And that concludes the presentation.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Andrew? And if I may, um, just I know you'll probably come into the office after this later anyway, but if you do want to have the building moved closer to the to the street to allow for drainage on the back side, um, we're totally open to that. Um, this still has to go to the board of alderman anyway. And so just have that discussion with us if you want to move the building closer to get more drainage in the back. I know you have the building setback lines on the plat um but you can get out of that through um you could still have the plat recorded and then later file for a variance to get out of those setback regulations. So just just let us know.

No questions. Does anyone have any questions for the um applicant? I do. When he mentioned the talking about the drainage and everything, are you are you all okay? Like do you do you already got some ideas in place? neighborh.

Okay, great. I just know the road falls apart right through there, so the flooding would definitely add to that. So, we just wanted to make sure. Okay. Thank you.

Gotcha. Thank you, sir. Okay. No other questions? Okay. Do we have a motion? Madam Chair. Yes, sir. After reviewing case number 2026005, the planning commission recommend approval for the request for the for the plat for dotto common alpha 8 commercial subdivision. Okay, I got a second. Second. Okay, roll call. Yes. Yes. Freeman. Yes.

Maurice Taylor. Yes. Janice Vidal. Yes. Stan Carl. Yes. All right. Motion passes 6. Um. All right. Our next case number is 2026-049. This is a site plan for solar installation at public storage facility and we this is in W 5 and I'll go ahead and turn it back over to Andrew. Thank you.

All right. So, uh, this case is a request for approval of a site plan revision for the installation of solar panels on the existing structures at 10002 Goodman Road West by Greenwave Solar. So, we have the the full property there on the screen highlighted in blue. Um, this is a storage facility and so the parcel consists of approximately 4.6 6 acres. There are several existing structures on the parcel used for rental storage. The property is located at the northeastern corner of Sutton Place and Goodman Road. This property is zoned PUD and is a part of the fifth revision to the Sutton Place PUD. This area of Goodman Road is commercial in nature as seen in the commercial zones that surround Suten Place PUD. So for the site plan review, um uh we do have the solar panels shown um being placed there inside that um inside the red box. And then below that is a much closer up view of that same thing. And if anyone wants to go back to any of these, let me know. Uh the proposed revision of the existing site plan would allow for the installation of solar panels on the roofs of the buildings on the southern portion of the site close closest to Goodman Road. There are no planned alterations to the site other than the addition of the solar panels to the roofs. The model of solar panel to be installed can be seen below. Um this one's really straightforward. Um they're all they're doing is just putting the solar panels on the roof as you could see in that previous diagram. Um planning staff recommends approval for the addition of solar panels to the public storage facility at 10002 Goodman

Road West. The solar panels will help reduce energy costs without altering existing operations on the site. And that concludes that presentation. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Andrew? Storage facility. You said um I'm not sure what you mean. This is at 10002 Goodman Road West. I thought that's it's the uh the the orange and the orange and tan building. Okay. That's what it is. Yes. The public storage there with like the lighthouse. Yeah. Oh yes sir.

Andrew, is there a reason or have they explored the possibility of putting the solar panels on the north side of the roof that it would not be facing Goodman Road and be a visual deterrent? Um, we could certainly ask the applicant. Um, I don't know. I'm assuming that got the most sunlight, but uh we can ask the applicant if we're worried about the aesthetics of it.

I just have that would be a concern, the aesthetic value that if we open the door here for this business on facing Goodman Road, others may come in and want to do the same thing. I'm not opposed to the solar panels, but just not that they would be in view of Goodman Road. That's understandable.

And one last question. Do you know the size of each panel? Is it approximately 4 by 8t like a conventional panel that I've seen? One second. The applicant might have those notes as well. Here we go. Sorry. Yeah, the drawings in this uh the drawings in this report doesn't have it. Is there any other questions for Andrew before we have the applicant come forward?

Okay. All right. Is the applicant present? Can you state your name and address for the minutes, please, sir? Hi. Thanks for having me. My name is David Wiggins. I live at 407 Boulevard Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15217. Okay. Can you um are you able to answer Commissioner Carol's questions about the size of the panel that he was asking? I am. Yeah. The panels are 89.69 in by 44.65 in

89.69 in by 44.65 in. So, it's about 90 inches by 45 in. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? Did you want me to speak on the reason why we have them facing south? Please.

Sure. Um, so typically in uh the northern hemisphere, you get a lot more sun when um the panels are facing south because that's where the the sun will be mostly. Um so if we were to move the panels onto the north face of the roof, it would be a lot less production. Um, but if you are concerned about the panels being visible from the road there, you've seen the parcel is quite large. I mean, there are other places that we could install the panels. Um, the reason that we chose this place in particular is because it's the closest to the utility meter and so that will be the shortest run of uh wire and trenching out to the the meter there. So, you've explored the possibility of moving the panels on the front building to one of the back buildings other than just having a longer throw.

That's right. Yeah. Um it it is it is reasonable. Um we we could certainly do that if that's something that the commission would want us to do because the the front building really um hides or obscures the back buildings. And it wouldn't be as obvious if those on the front building was moved to were moved to a building in the back.

Yeah, I mean I I do think that's true. Um I mean I I do feel that cars driving by at, you know, 45 miles per hour are probably not going to be paying super close attention to an industrial building that's on the side of the road covered in panels. But if that is an issue, we're happy to move them. So that is an option you'd you'd be willing to put. Okay. Yeah, we would be willing to move them if that's something that you'd want. Absolutely.

So, I have a question. Just going by um can you go back a slide, please? So, right. Yeah, right there. Like go down just a little bit to right here where there's the panels on that front building. There's a the adjoining one there. There's an empty space. Is there a particular reason why there's no panels there? Yeah, so that would be the slope of the roof uh would block the panels from getting the sun at certain parts of the day. Okay. The production reason. Thank you. Just didn't want. Thank you. Does anyone else have any more questions? Okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. All right, no more discussion. Is there a motion? Madam Chair, Commissioner Freeman. After reviewing case number 2026-049, the planning commission approved the request for the site plan prescribed in this report at 1002 government road west. Um, can you include the movement if you're going to do that?

What? I'm sorry. You wanted the the panels move. So, is you are is that going to be included in the minutes? You want the uh the um Yeah, you need to include that if that's going to be a part of it. request that the uh looking reveal that the um what you call it satellite solar panel solar panel be adjusted on the uh north side is that what you want me moved from the south to the north that's how you want it you the one that made the motion I think it was just not necessarily moved from the south to the north move to a different place

from road building.

Okay. Yeah. So be it. Second. Okay. Keep relocated to another building instead of the faith building. Okay. Did your second still stand? Kea. Okay. Okay. Ready. Mar Crawford. Yes. Kea Fox. Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Morrisy Staylor. Yes. Janice Fidel. Yes. Stan Carl. Yes. Okay. Motion pass. Well, the motion passes six to zero.

Hold on. I'm right. The next one is I I have one quick question. Yes, sir. Uh so I'm going to be the one enforcing it so I don't want to get in trouble. Okay. Um are y'all talking about the the front little just shifting the ones on the front side to the back side of that same building? No, just he said another building would still get sun. There's plenty of room. Okay. Just want it removed from the front side front building on Goodman Road is is what?

Okay. And then so y'all are fine not reviewing the next proposal that's going to be drawn coming to our office then if everything is gone from that front building silver panel box. Yes. Okay. There's several buildings that looking at the plant that are in the back that would accommodate that many okay that many solar panels. Just making sure because we're going to get a new drawing and I want to make sure that y'all are okay with what we get.

And the applicant says that I know it's a I realize there's a longer throw for cabling, but I think the aesthetics would outweigh that from the front building. Okay. I'm just saying if you put them on the back on on the same building on the other side of the roof, no cars would see that as long as, right? Yeah. So, I just want to make sure that they could do that plus the others, but um nothing on that front building is what the motion was. Right. Okay. It's on the face side. Good. The face side, right? Well, okay. Just making sure.

Want to put when I was listening when I what I heard the applicant say is that it diminishes their output if it's on the north side of the building because of the northern hemisphere and everything else. But if you could re relocate those to a back building, you could be on the south side of that building that's on the back of the property. That's Are we good, Andrew?

Sure.

Yeah. Right over here. So the little complicated satellite that's part of it. But that building faces east west. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. You're welcome. Um, we're moving on to case number 2026-150. This is a site plan for a hotel in Ward 3. And we'll turn it back over to our planning commissioner, Andrew.

Thank you. Case number 2026-0 or 150 is a request from applicant David Bray to approve a site plan for a hotel. And we have the aerial imagery there. The red line kind of doesn't show up on the screen well, but um that parcel is shown by the the red lines on that land. Uh to the next page. Um, one second. Oh, that's certainly weird. All y'all's packets have the the correct

thing, right? Yeah.

Everyone has the hotel. Okay. Well, I know y'all know what the hotel looks like, so but all the commissioners have the correct um drawings in there, so I'm going to just move forward with the presentation. Um the parcel is zoned C4. The land use of a hotel is permitted with footnote 28 which says a building in which lodging and various related services are provided for more than 12 persons for compensation in contra distinction to a boarding or rooming house or in as herein defined. Hotel shall be considered a commercial use. Three stories or more, all interior access to rooms out of a lobby and a minimum of three amenities such as pool, restaurant, lounge, fitness room, and conference hall and must have at least 100 rooms. Uh for further reference, the zoning ordinance also defines hotel. Uh, interestingly, the footnote and the definition have slightly different wordings that generally say the same thing. Um, so I'm not going to reread it. Um, and then going down towards the end of the page, we have, it should be noted that enforcing this requirement of having a minimum of 100 rooms will very likely prevent this design from working on this piece of land. Planning staff sees no issue with allowing 60 rooms in this building. There does not appear to be any more room for parking. if more rooms are required. Um I would suggest um asking the applicant uh why the number 60 was chosen. Um I'm just assuming that it would be for 20 rooms per floor. Um and if there's any way more rooms could be added. Um just eyeballing it looks like

they're maxed out on their parcel. So, I'm guessing that's why the number 60 was chosen. Um, so as far as the total number of rooms, since that is a dimensional and number requirement, this could be allowed with the grant of a variance, the planning commission could approve this on a condition that a variance from the room total requirement is granted at a later time. And so I I know the commission's done things like this before where um you could still get the approval, but if you come back for the variance um at the next meeting. So we in your packets you have the full site plan shown um on the first page on page three and then on the next page for the site plan drawings we have the more zoomed in view. Uh, the parking spaces are 9 ft wide by 20 ft deep. The city of Horn Lake requires that spaces be at least 10 ft by 18 ft. The proposed spaces are deep enough, but not wide enough. The depth may remain the same, but the width of each space should be expanded to 10 to meet the Horn Lake requirements. And um, uh, please let us know if that's going to be not doable. Um but on that next page on page five we did have the site data copied and pasted there showing the proposed use total acreage ground floor area the required parking which is at 60 and then the parking provided at 88 with 48A accessible spaces. Um so there is some there's seemingly some room to work with there. Uh the requirement for driveways and driving driving aisles for two-way traffic is 24 feet. The proposal passes this requirement. Um there are not enough

landscaped islands as this requirement is no more than 10 contiguous parking spaces shall be provided without uh no more than 10 contiguous park parking spaces shall be required without benefit of a landscaped island. However, we understand that this would take away parking spaces if this were enforced. The design of the locations of the parking spaces and the um landscaped islands seems very reasonable and aesthetically pleasing. So, planning staff is fine with the drawing as is. Um and we don't see a need to add more um landscaped islands. The dumpster enclosure is included and um it's in an acceptable place. The building appears to fit properly within both 50- foot front building setback lines and the 20 foot building setback lines. So all those setback requirements are met. Um as required for all new buildings, the 5-ft sidewalks will be constructed along the front of this building on both sides and with an ADA ramp at the corner. So all the requirements for sidewalks and ADA ramps are met on this proposal. Um then I have the data notes shown there. Um again there's more parking provided than is required. So we're hoping that widening the spaces to 10 ft would only take away a few and they would still have more parking than required. Um, and then I also put the uh curb dimensions on on your um on the page five there. So everything passes those requirements. Um, and then next is the ADA uh details. While this proposal may be acceptable for the federal ADA requirements, the

city of Horn Lake requires that these spaces be 12.5 ft by 20 ft. the depth meets the city requirement but the width does not it will make sense for these spaces to at least at least match the same width as the other spaces at 10 ft. So if what I'm saying is I think it would be okay if we allowed the 10T width um as it it does surpass the the federal requirements anyway and it would match the regular spaces that Horn Lake requires. But uh that'll be up to the planning commission to which one to enforce. And then next on page six, I have the rendering for the front elevation of the hotel. So shown above is the front elevation of the hotel. The architecture will include various materials including brick, stone, and panels. This will be three stories and the building will include a canopy in the middle in the front of the main entrance. Planning staff agrees that this architecture is very acceptable and aesthetically pleasing. Planning staff finds no issue with the architectural design. Uh similarly, the rear elevation, it's the exact same architecture. Uh it matches the front, which is very appreciated and is acceptable. And then next shown above is the north side elevation. This matches the design of the front and rear. and we do find that acceptable. And then next we have the southside elevation and that matches the design of all other sides which we do appreciate and uh we agree that it does look very nice. So in conclusion, planning staff recommends approval of the site plan though on the condition that all parking spaces be increased to 10 ft wide and that a variance is

granted to allow for the 60 total rooms. And um then we have the possible motion there. And that concludes the presentation. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Andrew? I do. And I'm a bit confused. The requirement for an hotel is 100 rooms, right? That's what our ordinance say.

That's what the ordinance says. You're saying you'll allow 60 room, but on page three of eight, it's saying you don't think 60 rooms um could fit or sustain such an amenity. If they want an hotel, they should be able to come as close as possible, you know, to the 100 room. So, how much are we accommodating them? not mean we're going to have other people come in buy a plot of land decide what they want and they put put and that's not what we are about. I understand giving a variance for like 20 less room but if you buy the plot you need to put what can hold on your plot cuz you don't meet the requirement for a hotel so you shouldn't be putting a hotel there. That's just my you know cuz you're you it's written here that you don't think even a 60 room You can't hold on it. So what are we doing here? We're going to be changing all the requirements. Somebody else come in, get a plot of land, decide, oh, we want a 30 room hotel. Uh, no, that's not going to happen. We don't, you know, we need to be consistent in what we want. Cuz if they go to if it's in South Table, they're not going to allow it on Lake shouldn't allow it either. That's just my concern.

Does anyone else have anything? I had a question. I have madam chair. I had a question for Andrew about the ADA parking is I see you got all on one side. Would this feasible if it would be two on the other end of that entrance? I just just observation. Sorry, can you ask that one more time? ADA parking. I see you got them all on one side where the people on the far end got a wall case in, you know, inclement weather. The way I see it, it's technically the closest um parking spots to the entrance. So I I I would consider that as definitely passing the requirement.

Okay, that's it. I see what you're saying. one, Madam Chair, in regards to the ADA parking as well because it says that the city of Point Lake requires that the spaces be 12 and 1/2 ft by 20 ft and um in the motion it says that it be 10 ft that we will move forward. We know what the 10 ft.

Yes. The the the way I was looking at that is you see the uh well in your in your packets you got the the the offloading areas as 8 feet wide and then five feet wide. So when I was and then you also have the landscaped island. So, I do see a lot of wiggle room there in how you could redesign the widths and um I know that in order to have that space for them to, you know, have the side loading available um and still keep the four ADA spaces, um it would make sense and pass all requirements. if it was expanded to the the 10 ft. That way we're not we're not forcing any ADA spots out.

Actually, um I want to piggy back off of that because if you go to page six in our thing where it talks about it, you see right there where it says van uh accessessible handicap sign here, the ADA says that a van accessessible must be at least 11 ft in width. So even the 10 still will not meet the requirement for van accessible with it will be a car but if you have van ADA says it's 11. Yes. If you if you would have to have the the van accessible as opposed to I guess like a generic ADA space if I could say it like that.

Right. Because if you if you think about it with a van I have a van. I mine's not a handicap accessible van, but you need that space to get your chair out to open it up to be able to utilize it. But these spaces are primarily when it says van accessible. These are the people that are driving in a wheelchair that or they have a loved one in a wheelchair that's going to be coming off. And you have to have that space. That's why it is so irritating when there's not enough space and it's marked because that's exactly what those lines and stuff are for is so that chair has room to get out. And if this is going to be a hotel, people are going to have luggage. They're going to have they're going to need space. So, I feel like if ADA says at least 11, then the 12 and a half feet that the city of Horn Lake requires would be exactly what I feel like would be what would be best for these, you know, people that, you know, have the disabilities and need that space. But it's just my sense.

Sorry, Commissioner Carol. So piggybacking on the ADA, I'm in agreement with Madame Chair because if you have the van, some of those vans have a ramp that comes out on the horizontal on the side and they need that extra space. But is my question is four spaces adequate for this size of facility? Uh yes. I believe the just going off of memory the requirement is one ADA space per 25 regular spaces.

So this definitely does meet the requirement. So if we ex if I'm understanding what you were saying earlier about the wiggle room then those spaces those four spaces could be expanded to three and one of those spaces could be added on the on as far as the what I'm looking at the bottom of those pages where there's two four six seven spaces is there could be a handicap space there or two could be. Yes. As long as it's close to the entrance.

Well, it's it's no further than the spaces that are up here on the side. And I'm assuming all of the room entrances are on the inside of the building since it's called a hotel. Is that correct? Yes. That those can definitely one of those could definitely be moved to the other side. If increasing to 12.5 ft would cut down the other spaces to three on one side, then one can definitely be shifted to the other side and also be obviously 12.5 ft. Thank you. So my question so we we have to make sure that those ADAs meet the requirement.

Yes. I mean, it can absolutely just be in the motion that um it's got to be to the Horn Lake specific standards. It's got to be specific. Yes. Okay. Oh, you're going to be on the should be on the standards of the home lake rule if it going to be 100stead of the 60 that valid breaking 50%. Yes. So, I mean this is going to be up to the planning commission. Um, like I said with it, the way I'm reading it with a as it being a dimensional and a number measurement type of rule, it does qualify for a variance if that is

allowed. So, I mean, this could definitely either be denied or allowed on the condition that they get the variance, but it would have to be in the motion. Commissioner Carol,

I have another question. Oh, I'm sorry, boy. Just so that I'm clear on this and from what I understand separate from this petitioner that the city of Horn Lake cannot the city of Horn Lake fire department cannot accommodate any building taller than three stories and this plat doesn't allow for a horizontal extension to accommodate the 100 rooms. Am I missing something? I do not know about that that fire department statement. Uh I'm not gonna answer yes or no on that.

I know the fire department has lad because I've been on it. Uh they have a 100 foot ladder truck. So So that would that would be 10 stories if 10 foot story. If it was a 12oot story, it'd be eight, you know. Well, it would accommodate the five the three the three stories. Yeah. Easily the three. Yeah, but if they were going to have a hundred rooms, they have to have Okay.

Okay. My question. So, Andrew, did you discuss with them about this not being able to have a 100 room and did they say, "Well, we can give 80. How did 60 come into, you know, play?" I don't remember. Um I this I I don't remember that. Okay. So maybe we have to wait for the you know the builders or whoever to come up and tell us. Okay. I cuz I I didn't I didn't um I didn't see this one being as controversial, but uh Well,

okay. All right. Well, you know what? Just you go ahead, Commissioner Carol. It's okay. I'd like to make a motion that we table this. Um, the applicant is here. Oh, gotcha. I'm sorry. No, no, that's okay. I knew he had something else to say. Can we have the applicant come forward, please? If you'll state your name and address for the minutes, please, sir. Radford 56 in Clair Park, South Haven. All right. You want I know there's lots of questions. Who would like to speak to fires? Commissioner Vadell,

what what um what's the number of room you decided to build initially knowing that we require 100 rooms? I did not know that. Wasn't made aware of this was in a pud and a couple of years ago we reszoned specifically for a three-story hotel. That's what was a and the threetory can only accommodate 60 rooms on this side. That's what it can accommodate. It was approved for a three-story hotel. That was But that was years ago, you know. And so I had to get it approved for a hotel first. But the hotel, the standard for a hotel is a 100 room.

I have three hotels right there at that junction. None of them are 100 rooms. 38 room. See what I'm doing? I have a 65 room at Linka. I have a 70 room best Western. So your plan was to build 60 on this particular site. What is available for me to build on that lot? A threetory and it's because we do not have enough parking to accommodate 100 rooms. It will not be 100 rooms. Okay. So how many rooms do you think in your opinion I'm asking? You think that site can accommodate? What we've accommodated? I think it's 60 rooms. You think it can only accommodate 60 room threetory hotel?

That's what we're trying to, you know. Okay.

Yeah. If I may add, I the way I looked at the drawing is, you know, I just assumed the 20 2020 and I I couldn't see a way to squeeze in anymore. and especially with how they are already um putting in the breakfast area and the the gym and the lobby and so um I I didn't see any issue with it. Um but I I know y'all have you know the rule in the ordinance and at the same time I don't know the history behind how those other hotels got approved. I don't know if the other hotels got variances. I don't know if this law popped up after those hotels were built, but uh I just wanted to present this um I wanted to present this case as is before we mandated anything on this applicant. So that that's just kind of the thought process on what we were going with.

Okay. My other question, I'm sorry. Will you be able to meet the ADA requirement as we request? Yeah. David Bray with the Bray firm 50. Um, yes, no problem with changing that to 10 and no problem with changing the ADA spaces to 12 and a half. Okay.

To answer the question about the the ADA parking spaces in more than one location. Generally, when we go above four, when we get to a situation where we have six or eight, we will we will put at least two different pods or possibly three pods. Um, but the benefit to having all four of them in location is does make them easier to find and signage. Um, and we can guarantee that that that entrance is coordinated with the architect that got no steps or anything like that and that we meet the ADA requirement. If this board prefers that we split them, we can split them. Um, but oftentimes what happens is that orphan space is is not as visible and not as easy for somebody to find at 10 o'clock at night when they're checking into the hotel. So, having faces together generally does have a benefit. Um I don't have a full-size copy of the site plan in front of me. Um it was a nice picture solar pan thing. I I think with the increase to 10 and the increase on the ADA spaces um we lose probably about eight spaces.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Car, Mr. Sorry. Uh, on the orientation just I'm not seeing it off hand, but what direction is the front of the building going to be facing? East. Yes. Facing facing east. As I pointed out in the staff report, the the east and west elevations match each other. It's not really a building differential or a large.

Does anyone have any questions? And Andrew, I have to defer to you. So, does that mean that it says here, okay, they'll agree to do the parking space, so they have to come back for a variance or are we going to put it in there? What what's the deal? What we've usually done with that is I mean we this is almost every every case that we come across where there's some small thing to change and parking is often one of those and so oftent times the planning commission

can approve the case on the condition that parking is increased to 10 for regular and 12.5 for ADA. and it could just be in the motion and then they wouldn't have to come back here. We would just administr the redraw. Okay. I think Andrew, so on page five. Yes. Uh one, two, three, I guess the third little paragraph down it says the building appears to fit properly. Yes. appears. Uh, yes, I'm referring to

So, it does fit or it doesn't fit?

Uh, it does. Um, the canopies close to the 50ft minimum building setback line and the um the north side of the building also fits just within the building setback line. And um I I guess I'm just going to be honest here. Um, I know a lot of planners lean this way, but um, I do not see any real purpose for the 50ft building setback line because I think it it wastes a lot of space um, on a lot of lots. And so, um, one of these days we're going to push to the planning department's going to push to get rid of that 50 foot minimum building setback line. Um, it's not here yet, but we're pushing to get rid of that one day. And so, to me, this uh drawing just it it perfectly goes within the the purpose of um what the 50-ft building setback was trying to enforce. So, uh, it certainly it certainly does pass that requirement. And I'm I'm referring to page four, the drawing on page four. It's got the um the building laid out with the canopy and all the other physical features, and it's it's perfectly within the the building setback line. Anyone else have any more questions?

Go ahead. Okay. Um, my comment is for you, Andrew. Um, well, to you guys, I will say that I've been to your hotels before. They're very nice. This this plat or plan I'm sure will be nice. U, but my comment though is not for you. It's for Andrew. I get that, you know, again, that they have old, you know, hotels that have been here that have been approved by past commissioners and as we move forward to start changing our rules and changing our policies. I just want to make sure that we are aware that if this is approved, we open the door for Pandora's box for other people to be able to come in. It has nothing to do with them in this this particular hotel, but I'm just saying it opens the door for others to come in.

If I may, um I I would like to point out um the the fact about the PUD being approved already. Okay. Um, if anything, y'all could certainly table this until like we read back to you everything in the PUD um for the the threetory hotel. Um, I do you remember what year that was?

Okay. Because that I think that was probably before I was director and so do you remember if it was a different person here for that meeting? because I I I certainly see the there's kind of an issue with if they got the approval for a three-story hotel um in the PUD that's essentially saying that well it's somewhat saying that this proposal is good, but at the same time I there is that s there is that 100 room rule which I I don't know if um that was a factor at the time. I don't know if the idea of that previous board approving a PUD was with the understanding that there was no way to get 100 rooms and three stories on that lot. So, I'm not sure what the thought of the the board of alderman was at that time.

Oh, can I say something? And the reason I say that is if there's a new proposal, I understand. I just want to be clear that just in case we approve this, I want it to be clear in it that we're doing it because that's all it can accommodate. Because we don't want to open the door for everybody to come in and think it's okay. We want to stick to a requirement just like defense. If there's a reason to do it, we have a real valid reason. I understand that it was approved. We need to put that in there. We was approved for that prior. So we, you know, we don't open a can of worm.

But I don't want to deny him if he's got a legit reason about the land size. But maybe it's not a hotel if it's less than 100 room, right? I'm just, you know, if every case comes and you can always do a variance to almost everything. If we keep doing that, we're going to be the exception of the rule and we're just going to get we're gonna get pottied on. But if it was approved two years ago, whatever, we need to put that on. We should have had it in here, too. We need to have something in the minutes indicating that, you know, this was approved. It wasn't built before, whatever. We need to have that in our motion. So, we have something to look back on going forward when we deny somebody else. That That's all.

Yeah. Um sorry, we just saw the the notes from the the board meeting. It was in 2023. Um it was actually a resoning approval for C4, but only for a hotel. That is an extremely unusual reasonzoning. Um I I do believe that's the only zone in the entire city that was zoned as a regular zone but on the condition as it being a specific use. Okay. So we want to incorporate that in our motion.

It was 2023. We want to put that in there when we approve it to say you know you have something to reference. Um well that wouldn't be necessary for the motion. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, at least now we have a reason cuz it's there to say so when somebody else comes in because essentially what it's saying is only a hotel is allowed to go on that land. But and it's the only one in the city that's like that. Is there any other discussion?

Is there any top do we need any anything else? Good. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Okay. Do we have a motion? Okay, I'll make the motion. If you can go ahead, you can go ahead. After review of case number 2026-150, the planning commission moves to table this petition until additional and complete information is available to the commission.

I'm the chair tonight. It's up to you. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? I don't want I don't see if not the motion does allows us to have to read this one first, right? Because it's written the Robert order allows us to have to read this one and either say nay or approve it and then do another motion. Right. That's not my understanding is that this is a possible motion that's recommended from the staff. Right. We have to start with that one first. That's all. Any No, no, you don't. You don't. No, he can. He can. That's what I was asking. Okay. So, let me get my thing.

Y'all can make whatever motion you want. If the motion fails, then it fails, right? And so, if he's he's he's made the motion to table for more information and then someone else can make a different motion. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Wait, let me get that. There a second. I'll second it. Table it. Okay. All right, roll call. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I got to make sure I get So, okay. Kirby. Kirby. Mark. Uh, Mark Crawford.

Don't know. Kea Fox. Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yay. You say yes. Yes. Maurice Taylor. Nay. Janice Videll. Nay. Stan Carol. Yes. Yeah. So it's it's Kirby. Thought you're going to have an easy one. Um how about nay? So no.

So not to not to table it. Okay. So, it's 43. Um, no. So, now that brings it back to the table. So, is there any other motion that wants to be made since this has not been passed the table? I'll make the motion. Okay. Commissioner Vel,

how do how am I going to do it? I guess I'm just putting it over there. Okay. I'm going to make make the motion. After review of case number 2026 150, the planning commission approved the request for the site plan as presented in this report by applicant David Brave for the par um parcel 108736050 000000100 and the condition that all parking space are increased to 10 ft and that a variance from the 100 room total is granted to allow 60 rooms. We need to amend that to 12.5. Huh? What? 88.5. Drive.

Okay. From 80 to 8. From 88 to 88.5. Okay. To 12.5. You have that. Okay. So, yes. Go ahead. So, we have a motion. Is there a second? So, second. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I got to remember any mark. Roll call, please. Okay, now roll call. Mark Crawford, yes. Kea Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman, yes. Maurice Taylor,

yes. Janice Videll, yes. San Carl, no. No. Okay. So, five and one. Okay, motion passes. Okay, that's all we have. Andrew, is there any other business or anything we need to address? I have a question to Andrew. Go ahead, Mr. Andrew. I know going to be a lot of activity on Interstate Boulevard. uh like this case here. We can see if anything we got plots I did wrong if then they going to be positioned like so we ain't got to fake this situation. I'm sorry. Can you ask that one more time?

With those plots all that activity going to be going on interstate boulevard what we see today and understand the plot there what we just did. All the other pl same for that whole interstate boulevard like that hotel the square footage where the space what it was allowed for them to put there or I understand you're saying that was the only one with hotel what about the next lot next to it going to be still the square same square footage or going to take the whole plot like the other previous plots.

Oh yes sir I see what you're saying. Um, so the applicant would have to after approval of the plat then they uh formally show us the site plan. And so I I don't want to speculate on what site plan they're going to present to us. What I'm saying I know this been done probably before you took office. Uh we talking about the pre next one but remember purchas it like they did the other one. it would still keep the same square foot or it gonna be that one parcel like the other one was and he broke it down. Yes, sir. I mean that that uh 100 room rule would apply to all new site plans

and so this one was just a very unique situation. Thank you, sir. Is there anything else? I know you. That's a good thing. I I I do just have a question. So when when they come and they do apply for things like this, and I know this one's an exception to the rule, are they told upfront that, hey, if this is what you want, these are our this is this is

a lot of these things go through multiple revisions and uh through multiple meetings. And so we try to tell all applicants the best we can everything in the ordinances. And so we we we try to we we try to specify as much as we can.

Okay. Thank you. I just know sometimes it seems like we get asked for a lot of variances and I think that's where the the frustration and irritability comes from is you know we're always the exception to the rule and um we don't want to be dumped on. We have rules for a reason. So and then the ordinances and things and I know this one was an exception but um 3 years is a long time too. So I understand things go up and whatnot but three years just to be presented with this that a lot a lot changes in three years as well. So I I agree with my fellow board members here that we I think we just wanted a little bit of clarification for it because asking for a variance repeatedly it does we want the business but at the same time we don't want to be dumped on either. We do want our city to grow and thrive and be beautiful. So, um, with that being said, if there's nothing else, is there a motion to adjurnn?

Madam Chair, I make a motion to adjurnn. Got a motion. All I second. We got a second. All in favor say I. I. Meeting adjourned.