Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, it is now 6 o'clock. Uh we are going to call the uh planning commission meeting for May 18th uh to order. And can we get a roll call, please?

Chad Ingi here. Kirby Carter here. Mark Crawford here. Lita Fox here. Calvin John Calvin Freeman. Maurice Taylor here. Janice Fidel here. Stan Carl here.

Okay. If everyone will stand, we will do the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. Okay. So, oh man, that is very very hot. So, we're going to pull that back. Okay. So, uh, has everybody had a chance to read the previous minutes? And if so, do we have a motion?

I make a motion we approve the minutes the meeting at April 20th, 2026. All right, we got a motion to accept the uh, previous minutes. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion second. Do we have any discussion? Roll call. Kirby Carter, yes. Mark Crawford, yes. Kea Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman, Maurice Taylor, yes. Janice Videll, yes. Stan Carroll, yes. Okay.

Okay. Uh, there is no old business, so we will move on to our new business. Case number 2026-067 is a request for recommendation of a conditional use permit for a lounge bar tavern land use at 45 or sorry 6541 north highway 51 north reading is going to be hard today. I want to pass this over to our staff for uh for presentation.

Thank you. Um, all right. So, as stated, um, this is a request from Annie Jackson to renew the conditional use permit for the lounge bar tavern land use at the Cheers restaurant at 6541 Highway 51 North. Um, on that second page, we have the zoning. Um, this parcel is zone C4. The parcel to the north is also C4. The parcel to the south is M1. The parcel directly across the street is owned PUB. The lounge bar tavern land use is allowed in the C4 zone with a conditional use permit. Um for the flood layers, the entirety of the parcel is in the AE flood zone, specifically the 100-year flood zone, but the applicant is not um building anything on site. Um no new structures. So, next we have the um as far as the site plan goes um we always request that something is turned in uh reflecting any changes on the site or the current conditions of the site. So, shown above is the current layout. The applicant does not plan to make any physical changes on site. So, as part of the review process by the planning commission for any conditional use permit request, the planning commission must determine whether or not this proposal will substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion, substantially increase fire hazards, adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, adversely affect the general welfare of the city, overtax public utilities or community facilities, or be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. So, planning staff does not believe this request will substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion or substantially increase fire hazards. Planning staff does not believe this will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood due to the fact that the directly adjacent uses are

used car sales along with the fact that the land in front of this restaurant across the street is vacant. There are no nearby homes that could be negatively impacted. This land use does not conflict with anything in the comprehensive plan. As far as affecting the general welfare of the city and overt taxing utilities or community facilities, there is some concern. The Horn Lake Police Department has brought to our attention the fact that they are needing to spend a disproportionately large amount of time at this establishment, especially late at night. They have they have had to have officers respond to the lot or monitor the lot for uh multiple times for various reasons over the past year. There is suspicion that people at this establishment are regularly being allowed to consume alcohol past midnight, which is illegal under the city's ordinances and allowing this to happen may contribute to the disturbances happening. Allowing the land use of Lounge Bar Tavern at this location may possibly have a negative impact on the general welfare of the city and may be overusing the city's police department. However, the alternative to not allowing this land use would mean that the business would most likely allow customers to bring their own alcohol, which might present an even worse situation. So, uh, in conclusion, planning staff believes that the best possible plan of action here is to allow the business to renew their conditional use permit to operate as a lounge bar tavern and for the city to come up with an alternative way to prevent risky situations on site. Um, the city's board of alderman could certainly impose specific conditions on the business each time the conditional use permit comes up, but it may be more worthwhile for the city to instead adopt laws that could be applicable to all other similar businesses in the city.

Just as one example of the many things that could be done, the city could eventually make it a law that all restaurants serving alcohol for on-site consumption outside of a special overlay district must close at 1:00 a.m. Um, and that's just one of the many things the city could do after this case is passed. Um, just do a classic text amendment that would apply to everybody. Um but this this ultimately goes to the board for final approval whichever way they go. Um but um this planning commission may recommend whatever it chooses. So I do have the possible motion there. Um and that's just a possible motion. It could be whatever the planning commission uh decides to amend. And that concludes the presentation.

All right. Does anybody have any questions for uh for our staff? Um, currently in Horn Lake, what's the closing time for um, visiting serving alcohol?

So, currently uh, there's technically not a required closing time. The ordinance states that um selling, giving, dispensing, or permitting to be consumed um beer or light wine has to stop at midnight. So, um it's it's a very specific nuance there. No one's allowed to drink alcohol past midnight, but there's no closing time. Any other questions for our director? All right. Is the applicant here? Yes. If you do, would you like to have something? Do you have anything you'd like to add?

Yes.

All right. Can you go ahead and state your name and address for for the

651? Okay. Anybody have any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, sir. All right. This is uh we're going to open this up to the public. Does anybody uh have anything they would like to add? All right, we're going to close the public hearing. All right, do we have any other uh com conversation or do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. After review of case number 2026-067, the planning commission recommends approval of granting a conditional use permit for a loungebar/tavern at 6541 Highway 51 North for a period of one year.

All right, we got a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we got a second. Any other discussion? All right, roll call, please. Kirby Carter, yes. Mark Crawford, yes. Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman. Maurice Taylor, yes. Janice Spidel, yes. Stan Carl, no.

All right, the motion passes. Thank you. All right, we'll move on to our next case. Case number 2026-069. It's a request for approval of a variance from room number minimum of a hotel at lot one of Wilson Commercial Subdivision. And again, I will turn this over to our staff for presentation. Thank you. Uh this case is a request for a variance from the minimum number of rooms required for every new hotel built in Horn Lake, which is 100 rooms. The land owner wishes to construct a hotel with 60 rooms. There is a limitation on the type of land use allowed on the landowner's parcel as the board of alderman approved a resoning for this property on July 18th, 2023 which reszoned it to C4 but on the condition that the only commercial land use allowed as a hotel. With the given constraints of the shape of the land to accommodate the building itself and the parking spaces needed, the applicant designed a building and a layout that was the most feasible and appropriate for the site. The applicant had a site plan for a 60 room hotel approved by this planning commission on April 20th, 2026 on the condition that this variance is approved. So, next we have the aerial view of the property um shaded in that blue color. the applicant does not own the parcels adjoining it. So there's no current option to expand the boundaries of the parcel. So next we have the zoning here. Um as stated in the introduction, this parcel is zone C4, but with the special condition that the use on the property can only be a hotel. The adjacent parcels are zoned PUB. Directly to the east is zone PBP. The

address of 6934 is PBP and the address of 6831 is M1. And so we have the flood layer shown on the screen there. The southwest corner of the slot is in the 500year flood plane. No part of this lot is in the AE flood zone. So there's going to be no issues with building and flood zones there. Um next we have the site plan shown on screen. So uh shown there is the general site plan that was presented um at the site plan request meeting. This was approved on the condition that a few modifications were amended to the striping and on the condition that this variance request was approved. So in that next image uh there um we have the facade of the building and no issues regarding the architecture were voiced by the commissioners at the site plan request meeting. planning staff has no issues with the architecture as well. Um so on the next page there we have the requirements for variances. Um so our um ordinances list specific procedures for reviewing variance applications. These four criteria have to be addressed. Um and that is that special conditions and circumstances. Uh we have to make sure that um um the planning commission makes findings based upon evidence presented to it as follows. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same district. uh that literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant and that granting the variance requested will not confer on the

applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. And so we do have the letter from the applicant um on the next page. Um and then um I'll skip ahead to the planning staff review. Um if anyone wants to go back to that letter, we can absolutely do that. Uh planning staff feels that the applicant has sufficiently answered all criteria in the letter shown on the previous page. Planning staff agrees with the contents of the submitted letter. Specifically, we believe that special conditions and circumstances do exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same district. With the special zoning restriction on the land that limits the property owner to the hotel land use paired with the small acreage of the lot, there is a special there is a limited amount of space on the lot for parking outside of the building footprint and drainage areas. The literal interpretation of the regulation in question can certainly be considered to deprive the applicant of something many other hotel builders have enjoyed as multiple other hotels in the area do not have 100 or more rooms. The requirement of having a zoning of hotel use only and having a smaller lot that cannot accommodate for the necessary spaces was not directly caused by the applicant. We have not found any evidence that granting this variance to the applicant will give any special privilege that was prevented to anyone else. And so we do have the possible motion there. And uh that concludes the presentation.

All right. Does anybody have any questions for our staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? All right. Would y'all like to do y'all want to say anything? you just state your name and address.

Um, good evening and thank you to the board for your time and consideration tonight. We're requesting a variance in the 100 room requirement in our letter um for the proposed property. This request does not seek any special treatment. simply speaks practical realities of the site as as you saw the limitations and it reflects the you know the existing hotel landscape in the city. So we believe the request is reasonable and requests. All right. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. All right. We will now open this up to the public. Does anybody else wish to speak? All right. All right, we're going to close the public hearing. Does anybody have any other questions, concerns, or or do we have a motion?

I have a question. This went I know you weren't here, but back in 2023 when this was approved for only a hotel, did people not realize the qualifications for a hotel when we say, "Hey, this is only for a hotel." Yeah. I'm I'm really not sure what they were thinking at that time. Um I'm not sure if the applicant remembers that time period. But um

well, I don't have a a perfect memory on it, but I do remember that that the board was looking at that and that that the applicant wanted to do, you know, it was just it they didn't have no no site plan or anything like that. They just wanted to put a hotel there. And I believe that the commission at that time did not want since C4 opened so much stuff up, we wanted to make sure that that the applicant at the time stuck with what they had said they wanted to put on there. And that that was before we would even have known that that that lot would have been too small because we didn't have no sight plans at the time if I if my memory serves me.

Yes, that that makes a lot of sense. I know when a reasonzoning happens, a lot of people freak out about the entire list of uses that could go on any particular lot. That that makes sense. We just didn't have you here last time and so we were we were like, well, how do we not know? How do we not? And we it it just kind of kept circling back. I was just curious since we had some dates in on this a little bit more just to just to kind of see on there. Oh, I apologize for not being here last time, but I'm glad that I could clear all that up. Okay, so do we have any other questions or comments?

I have one more on here. Our last conversation, they said they were open to doing the parking lot ADA assessable because their measurements were not accurate. Is it's not in this paper. Will that still stand? Yes. um the uh the site plan case would still hold them to that. So I I will be expecting a updated drawing and then we'll we'll enforce uh whatever was um approved at the site plan case. All right. Any other questions, comments? So a question. Okay. So So we don't have to include that in the motion. No, this will just be a variance for the number of rooms. Everything from the previous case is still valid. Okay. All right. Do we have a motion?

I'll make the motion. All right. Go ahead. After review of case number 2026069, the planning commission approves a variance from the city's 100 room minimum to allow the proposed hotel at parole number 1 08736050 0000100 at the corner of Interstate Boulevard and Express Drive to contain 60 rooms. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Kirby Carter, yes. Mark Crawford, yes. Kea Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman. Maurice Taylor,

yes. Jenny Swidell, yes. Stan Carl, yes. Okay. All right. Motion passes. Thank y'all. All right. On to our last case for today. Case number 2026-075 is a request for approval of a site plan for a new driveway entrance and modification to the parking area of 601 Express Drive or Expressway Drive. And I will turn this back over to our staff for his report.

Thank you. Uh, as stated, this this case is a request for the site plan approval for right height at 601 Expressway Drive to build an additional entrance/exit to the interstate boulevard uh and to revise their parking lot design. Uh, right height owns the large parcel which while Dotto County owns the smaller parcel which uh y'all are going to see in the images. Uh, Dotto County has given approval for the modification to be done. Right. Height has has provided us with the letter approving this consent to the project on county land which can be seen on the next page. So, uh this is the letter from the county. Um the soda county board of supervisors agrees to the plan to install a new drive entrance on the property located on Interstate Boulevard known as Right Height. This project is on economic development property and listed as 601 Expressway Drive. So, we have the aerial view of the property here. Um it's actually two separate properties right now. Um if you look closely, you see that red line splitting that triangle piece. Um I drew that yellow line um around both properties just um for the purposes of this this uh presentation. Um next image shows the zoning. So the main parcel is zone PBP, the right height property, and then the small piece to the left is actually zone PUB. That's the county property. Um, but the county is not going to be using that small piece of property for anything. Uh, anyway, so and they consent to this project. Um, so everything's good with the zoning. As far as the flood layers, um the piece where the new driveway is proposed contains 100year and 500year flood layers. The parcel owned by Wright

height is not within any flood layer. Um and then the site plan details. Um I did a screenshot of the um entire scope of the project. Can you scroll up just a little bit or down a little bit? Yeah. So those three shaded areas are the three different project areas. Um so uh shown below is the full scope of the project with the only changes occurring on site being the three shaded areas. The shaded area on the west side is the expansion of the driveway and the um the shaded area on the west side is the expansion of the driveway to Interstate Boulevard on the separate parcel currently owned by Dninnesota County. Um and then the shaded area at the north side is a proposed revision of a parking area as well as an expansion of the parking spaces. The shaded area at the south side is a modification to the parking area. And so uh we have closer details on the next pages. So this first image here um it's showing that new driveway. Um the minimum width required for driveways with two lanes is 24 feet. This one shows 30 feet. So, it passes that requirement. That's really the biggest thing that we're looking for. Um, they're going to, um, do a continuation of the curb. Um, and then adding in a, uh, a guard rail with concrete footing as well. Um, everything technically passes on those requirements. And then on this next image here, um, this is the north project area. The proposed spaces are 9 ft by 18 ft wide. Um although the city requires that all parking spaces be 10 ft by 18 ft. Planning staff is fine with the proposal as shown because it it matches the rest

of the striping existing on the lot. So um for this one, we feel that it would make more sense for everything to flow better um with the same exact design as approved before. And so um additionally all driving aisles here are at least 24 feet wide. So it passes that requirement and curve and gutter will be included. So um it passes the requirement for that. Planning staff believes that this project area is acceptable as presented. And then next we have the south project area. The applicant is proposing to add multiple parking spaces by adding striping to the currently paved area. These new parking spaces for regular vehicles are proposed to be 10 ft by 18 ft, which follows the city's standards. All driving aisles proposed in this section are at least 24 ft wide. So, that requirement is passed as well. While this technically seems to pass the dimensional requirements, we feel that the applicant may need to address the seemingly small space given for tractor trailers to back up to the building. Uh there does not appear to be any regulation against this, but we are curious if this design will be truly feasible for drivers of all vehicle types. Um and then so in conclusion, planning staff does not find any issues with the proposed modifications to the site. Planning staff recommends approval of the site plan as presented in this report. Um we just may ask for some clarification on that third that south project area. Um, but that's the only comment we really had. That concludes the presentation.

Does anybody have any questions for the staff? All right. Go ahead. There's no date on this letter from the county. Um, yes. Um, that is true. Um, I guess the applicant can address when they got the letter. Um, but to me, this clearly references this site plan, but we can ask the applicant if if you would like on the on when they got this letter. Okay.

All right. Any other questions for Andrew? I have a question. You said they need to address um the issue with the tractor trailer backing up. So, are we supposed to argue Billy? you go to that third image. Is is the applicant here? Can you go ahead and come up and state your name and address for us, please? Jessica Sams, 2558 uh St. Charles Cove, South Haven, Mississippi.

All right. Thank you. So, I know that the question right now to the staff, but we can have you answer. is the uh is the area that the tractor trailer would be backing into on your uh on your property on that south side. Do you believe there's enough room for a tractor trailer to pull in on that?

Yes, we were just we were in in just in view of striping and um following minimum requirements but this is I can see the clarification on that and we were just wanted to just talk about okay what would be that is submittal. Are we submitting a vehicle um a vehicle tracking um example with that clarification to prove that this would suffice or how would that work? Because it was we was just trying to meet minimums. But if clarification necessary for vehicle tracking example, you can submit.

Yeah, my only concern was you know it it technically passes everything I looked at. Um, I I found nothing where I could say, you know, this goes against the ordinance. Um, I'm just assuming um there would be plenty of I'm assuming everything's going to be painted on the ground and so tractor trailers would easily be able to back in when there's no cars elevated on here. There isn't any raised curves. This is strictly striping on existing pavement. My question is would there be what if all of those regular vehicle spaces um are filled

are filled and then is the assumption that there would not be any tractor trailers needing to back in there or pull out

pull out. Um it was under the assumption that the minimum width was suffice for that backing up or maneuvering um within those spaces required for tracking. But that is also a verification with our vehicle traffic traffic um that we can prove that that will suffice. And um I guess my clarification with that, how would that work if we as far as with parking and how what would be that minimum width for

Yes, there there is none specified in our ordinance. It just has the um you know the regular driving aisle requirement. So I just question just a just a quick question on this because I meant because I don't want to get in the weeds on this but is because everything is just striped for them to have the parking spots and everything like that and you're saying that they meet all the criteria. So would this be something that the planning commission department needs to be addressing or is this more of an internal thing for them to make sure they don't hit that the trucks don't hit the cars when if there is cars there? I mean, I'm just that because I mean, I've been around warehousing before and you I mean, they have a path the truck the trucks usually have to figure out a way to get in there if there are cars in the way. But I don't know how the city views that,

right? And it's in my opinion, I mean, we have criteria that we review and it, you know, passes and fails everything, but there's always things in our ordinances that get left out or things that our ordinances don't really uh cover. And this is one of those rare cases where um you know I'm I'm just wanting to make sure that we're not approving something that um could lead to trucks getting stuck.

Hear you. Um, but if this is what the company wants and I and there's nothing against it in our ordinances, then um I suppose um it should be granted. Um and if this turns out to not work um y'all can always come back for a site plan revision just like you're doing now. Okay.

All right. Any questions for the applicant? My question was for Andrew. You're saying if that's what they want, it's what the city wants. So I feel that you're to tell them what the city wants and then you guys work together if it's something we don't have to deal with. And and I kind of disagree with that. It's it's not I mean it's it's kind of what the city wants, but what's within what what is it within ordinances which they've met. Yeah. So I I'm I mean so and she's and they've already said that. I mean, I'm just saying we're already within city ordinances and I agree, but with the with the width, yeah, with the width and everything came up.

And I will point out that the um there should be uh raised um landscaped islands um every 10 spaces. Uh, however, um, for the purposes of what y'all were going for, I I see why everything's going to be painted on the ground. Um, but that's that is something to take into consideration. Um, could you also explain like why the extra need for parking on the south side as opposed to um on the north side?

North side. Well, this was uh it's bas basically retrofitting. They wanted to add more trucking spaces um on the site plan on C120. I believe the original trucking spaces in that area was 19. They bumped it up to 31. Um and then they wanted to add uh standard cars parking as well. That was already on the parking lot. Um, I believe they were removing 60 but putting back um a total of 95. So they were just restriping that original 16 adding more. Um so altogether it's like 54 standards and 35 um trucking and it was just accommodation on the they felt that the need was there and we as you know the engineers meeting the client what they want they felt the need of adding an additional trucking and standard parking. Now that original 90 degree that was to fit um and to meet that count which is what your concern is is the backing of that for that 90 degree section. Yeah. Okay. Well, that calls for us to just go back to the drawing board, make sure everything is clarified with you and then come back for a rev. I I'm I am fine with this as as shown. Um you know, this isn't something that the public is going to all drive up to and see. Um it's not like a grocery store uh where everybody goes up to the landscaped curved islands. So, I'm fine with with this for for this site.

All right. So, do we have any other questions? Yes, sir. the letters from the letter from the county.

Yes, that is right height that submitted to me. I would have to confirm with them on what that date is because they wanted to add it into this application before we started this, you know, process. We confirmed to them, hey, are you interested in buying this lot? We didn't know what that case was. And when they presented this letter, hey, no, we're going to do this drop. county knows. The date wasn't the issue. It was more so does the county know, have they been informed? Is it in writing? But I can get that. And how will I submit confirmation of date? Just let Andrew know. Just just call Andrew and let him know. Okay.

Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am. All right. Do we have any other discussions or do we have a motion? Chairman, I make a motion. All right. Go ahead. After review of case number 2026-075, the planning commission approves the site plan as presented in the staff report for 601 Expressway Drive and for parcel number 10873602000600.

All right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. We have a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Kirby Carter, yes. Mark Crawford, yes. Kea Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman. Maurice Staylor, yes. Janice Fidell, yes. Stan Carl, yes. All right. Motion passes. All right. On to other business. Do we have any other business? All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion. All right. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor say I. I any opposed have the same.