Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All this Planning Commission meeting to order for July 27th at 6 p.m. And can we get a roll call?

Chad Ingeke here. Kirby Carter here. Mark Crawford. You know. Lakita Fox. Here. Calvin Freeman. Here. Maurice Taylor. Here. Janice Vidal. Stan Carroll. Here. And me here.

All right. We have a quorum. If everyone will stand, we will do the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to. all right i hope the commission's had a chance to review the previous minutes from our previous uh the minutes from our previous meeting do we have any corrections or do we have a motion i'll make a motion to approve uh we have we have a motion to approve the minutes do we have a second all right we have a motion a second all right do we have any discussion roll call kirby carter

Yes. Mark Crawford. The key to Fox.

Yes.

Calvin Freeman. Yes. Morris Taylor.

Yes.

Janice Vidal. Yes. Stan Carl.

Yes.

all right minutes approved from the previous meeting we'll move uh old business there is no old business so we'll move on into new business starting with case number 2026-006 it's a site plan for a gas station at interstate boulevard and nail road and at this time i will turn this over to our staff for their report

Everybody hear me all right? So this is case number 2026-006, a request for a site plan approval for a convenience store gas pumps on a three-acre lot within the DeSoto Commons PUD along Interstate Boulevard. Convenience store gas pumps use itself was previously approved through conditional use case CU 2082 in june of 2022. at that time the conditional use and site plan were handled as separate approvals the three three acre lot proposed for development was later created through case number 2026-005 the desoto commons a8 subdivision which received final approval in may of this year the case therefore serves as a site plan associated with the previously approved conditional use The proposed development includes approximately 4,800 square foot convenience store, fuel pump area, 24 parking spaces, including two accessible spaces, internal circulation, sidewalks, landscaping, stormwater improvements, and a screen dumpster enclosure. Planning staff found the overall site layout to be generally consistent with all applicable development requirements. Planning staff is recommending two minor conditions. First, crepe myrtles and Japanese cedars shown on the landscape plan would need to be replaced with species from the city's approved tree list. Second, staff recommends a clearly defined pedestrian connection between the convenience store and the sidewalks along Interstate Boulevard and the private roadway. Both items can be reviewed and approved administratively by planning staff without requiring the case to be returned to the Planning Commission. Since the staff report was written, the planning staff received an updated building rendering and additional information regarding the proposed exterior materials. The building will use a combination of white brick and a brown composite material designed to provide a wood appearance, storefront glazing, and contemporary accent materials. Both the white brick and composite material are acceptable under the architectural standards of the city. Planning staff has no additional concerns regarding those building materials. Planning staff therefore recommends approval of case 2026-006 with the planning commission's consideration of the two recommended conditions. This is the updated rendering here. So all the white area on the building is brick and that

brown areas meant to be like that composite material that they hang on the outside that we've seen on a couple of recent cases uh resemble wood all right does anybody have any questions for us from the staff report to our director do we have any questions for the applicant or do for them to be coming up here

Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicant.

All right. Is the applicant here? Go ahead and state your name and your address, please.

Byron Houston, Houston Engineering, PO Box 3087, Oxford, Mississippi, 38655. All right.

Thank you, sir. Go ahead. My question is, is this going to be one of the biggest gas stations in Horn Lake, this proposal?

I don't know if it's one of the biggest, but, I mean, it's a pretty decent size. It's got some, like, five fuel islands on the front and three lanes of diesel on the side.

What, a tractor trailer?

Yeah. Okay, that's all. Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions for the applicant? Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Is there, who will be providing the petroleum?

I'm not sure who the provider will be.

Yeah, this is Ron Patel. The petroleum will be provided. We haven't negotiated yet, but it will be Southern Petroleum or American Petroleum, one of those companies who does all the fuel stations. So it will be one of those people.

Any other questions for the applicants? Thank you all very much. All right, so do we have any other discussion or do we have a motion?

We agree with all the conditions also.

Okay, thank you.

I had a question if their conditional use is at five years so if this isn't done because it's under a year now to get it done is it is he going to come back and offer another conditional use my understanding is that there wasn't a time limit put on it unless I put that in the notes

I don't have the notes in front of me, but if there were a five-year conditional use limit set on it, then yeah, it would be due for renewal once that comes up. But I want to say that it was just for a gas station to be put there.

And then the memorandum that they had on gas stations is, since this was approved back in 2022, it's still... Okay. I just wanted that to be right.

Yeah. That's, that's why this case is kind of confusing because the land use was approved back in 2022. So that's already in right now. And if someone else were to apply for a gas station somewhere else, they would not be allowed to do that through the conditional use process.

Gotcha. Just wanted to make sure people listen and knew that. Thank you.

Any other discussions? Do we have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

I'll go ahead.

After review of case number 2026006, the Planning Commission approved the site plan for convenience store with gas pump on lot one of the Minnesota Common A through H subdivision associated with the conditional use previously approved under case number 2082C you with the two conditions, replace all the trees, and provide a clearly fine pedestrian connection.

All right, so we have a motion to approve the site plan with conditions. Do we have a second?

Second.

We already have a second. All right, any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Kirby Carter. Yes. Lakita Fox yes Calvin Freeman yes Maurice Taylor yes Janice Vidal yes Stan Carroll yes motion passes all right on to our next case case number 20 26-0 9 2 for a takiri

I can't, express site plan. I'll turn this over to the director. Maybe he can do this a lot better than I can.

All right, so this is case number 2026-092, request for a site plan approval for Taqueria Express. New approximately 2,700 square foot drive-through restaurant proposed at 2550 Goodman Road West. The site consists of approximately 0.45 acres, is currently vacant, and is zoned C4 Highway Commercial District. The proposed site plan places the restaurant near the center of the property with the drive-through lane circulating around the west and north sides of the building to the pickup window on the east side. The plan includes 15 parking spaces, including accessible space with the adjoining access aisle, small outdoor patio, and a dumpster enclosure. Vehicle access will be provided through the existing driveway connection to Goodman Road West. The proposed building incorporates brick masonry, stucco-like finishes, storefront glass, and architectural accents. Goodman Road facade appears to satisfy the city's glass requirement, and the proposed red and yellow tan color scheme is consistent with the city's commercial architectural standards. The property is located in the 100-year floodplain zone AE. So the developer has submitted a floodplain development permit application and an elevation certificate will be required prior to the beginning of construction. Based on the submitted plans and applicable development standards, planning staff recommends approval of case 2026-092 subject to the required floodplain documentation and other city requirements.

All right. Thank you for that. Does anyone have any questions for staff on this?

Did they submit any type of traffic study with this?

Uh, no, they didn't submit any traffic study. That's something that you could require as part of the solution.

I know that that's usually a big topic right there in that, that strip area. So I didn't see it, but I wanted to ask, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? All right. Is the applicant here? If you'll just come up and state your name and address.

Nicholas Stevens, and I'm with Traditional Construction, the general contractor for the project. Our address is 5628 Pleasant View Road.

All right. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

I do.

All right. Go ahead, Commissioner.

I want to ask about when it comes to the when paid attention to the traffic flow in that area, it looks like it's kind of empty right there, but it gets really, really congested right there at that intersection at Hurt Goodman right there, and I know that was a big thing when putting like the scooter's coffee and different things. So going in right off of Goodman, making that right turn, it's not a problem, but getting across right there, it gets very, very messy. And then you've got that next light just right up the road. So it's not really ideal to have a light, but also traffic is going to get a little sideways there. So have you guys?

We have not conducted any sort of traffic survey or done anything in that manner. If that's something that we need to do, we have the resources to look into that, but that's not something that we have prepared. just wasn't sure if that's anything that you guys have looked at to see if it was you know no just sort of but also looking at the sort of what's in the area I think more of a casual approach to it whenever I say that sort of a just driving pass and sort of looking at traffic flows thank you thank you all right any other questions for the applicant all right thank you sir all right so do we have any other discussion or do we have a motion

Chairman, I make a motion.

All right, go ahead.

After review of page number 2026-092, the Planning Commission approves the site plan for Takiera Express, located at 2550 Goodman Road West, subject to the submission and approval of an elevation certificate prior to the beginning of construction and complies with all the other applicable city requirements.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, motion and second. Do we have any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Yes.

Keita Fox. Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Maurice Taylor.

Yes.

Janice Vidal. Yes. Stan Carroll.

Yes. That motion passes. All right, on to our next case. These next ones seem to be all related. Next case is case number 2026-094, Horn Lake Water Association rezoning. And once again, I will turn this over to our staff for report.

so these uh these next three cases 94 91 and 93 are all concerning the same property um the same development so 20 26 94 is a request by chance walker smith walker engineering to rezone property located on the west side of highway 51 between joy boulevard and nail road from m1 and c4 to r6 and c4 The C4 zoning along Highway 51 frontage would remain in place while the western portion of the property would be rezoned from M1 industrial to R6 residential to allow for future residential development. The surrounding area contains a mixture of commercial, residential, multifamily, and industrial zoning. Commercial zoning is concentrated along Highway 51 while the Willows of Horn Lake subdivision immediately to the north is zoned R6 and the Avalon apartment complex is zoned RM6. Industrial zoning remains primarily to the west and south of the property. The applicant has provided responses addressing four criteria required for rezoning, including comprehensive plan consistency, appropriateness of existing zones, changes to the surrounding area, and the public need for a proposed amendment. The planning staff believes the proposal creates a logical transition between the commercial character of Highway 51 and the established residential development to the north. Retaining C4 along the highway preserves the commercial corridor while replacing M1 zoning on the western portion with R6 reduces the potential for future conflicts between industrial uses and the adjoining residential neighborhood. Overall, planning staff finds proposal of C4 and R6 zoning pattern better reflects the existing development pattern of the area and provides a more compatible and orderly arrangement of land uses. The proposed motion is to recommend approval for the rezoning request.

Thank you. All right, does anybody have any questions for staff?

I do, Mr. Chair. All right, go ahead, Commissioner. A question concerning, I know it's going to be a residential. I see the proposal is... I'M NOT SURE IF I'M DOING IT PREMATURELY. THEY DECIDE WHAT KIND OF SQUARE FOOTAGE HOUSES GO IN THE AREA.

SO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSES IN R6 IS DESIGNATED IN THE USE CHART. SO THAT RANGE WOULD RANGE OF HOUSING SIZE WOULD BE DESIGNATED BY THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR Go ahead commissioner So the property

Right here. Yes. I believe that the residential district wouldn't extend the entire length of the property, but y'all can correct me if I'm wrong on that. But the whole western side that's currently M1 would then be rezoned to R6 so that theoretically you could build houses all the way back there.

And the access to that property would be where?

From Goodman Road. So there would be a shared access to the commercial property on the front to access the neighborhood to the back, as well as connecting to, I think it's Joy Boulevard South right here, that comes in there, but the applicant can speak to that.

We'll bring the applicant.

If you'd like to call it out, go ahead, and you're welcome.

Good evening, Chance Walker, Smith Walker Engineering, 1102 Braymont Drive, Nesbitt, Mississippi. So the entire M1 district that you see on the screen, I believe it's in light blue, we're proposing that to be the R6 rezoning. That C4 portion will remain for the next case for Horn Lake Water Association office. Now, the back portion isn't a flood. They're it will technically be our six, but we can't put houses by my it's flood floodplain back there, but it'll technically be our six, um, just to keep everything fluid. Um, but everything will feed off of how we 51, uh, right there via shared access easement, um, through MDOT. I don't know if, if the sketch plot is attached or not, maybe that'll, that'll help.

I don't have it on this report. I might have it on another one.

But there's a portion of it, so that's essentially just a two-lot plat, and I may be jumping ahead in these cases, but that's the two-lot plat that we're proposing. That portion you see that's cut out, the small portion, that is proposed to be the new Horn Lake Water Association office complex, and then that arm that is going out into Highway 51 will be the shared access easement off of MDOT.

That's the access?

Yes, sir.

And that would... allow for emergency vehicles.

Yes, sir. And, and we'll also be tying into joy Boulevard on the backside or the west side. Yes. Yeah. It all interconnects. Um, but, but the, the property is, is deep as you can see there there's flood land back there. And I mean, we, we're not, we don't, we can't put anything back there, but in theory, yes, that will technically be our six. Can't really do anything with it, but it'll be our six.

Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing. I'm going to open it up for public comment. Does anybody would like to speak? You have three minutes. All right. Nobody from the public has come up, so we're going to close the public hearing. Do we have any other discussion questions or do we have a motion?

Make a motion.

All right. Go ahead.

After review of case number 2026-094, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request submitted by Chance Walker of Smith Walker Engineering to rezone parcel number 1087350000002900 from M1 and C4 to R6 and C4.

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. Lakita Fox. Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Maurice Taylor. Yes. Janice Vidal. Yes. Stan Carroll.

Yes.

All right, motion passes. All right, which brings us to case number 2026-091. This is for the Horn Lake Water Association Platte. So, I will take it over. I'll send it over to our director for that report.

All right. Uh, so case 20, 26, 0, 9, 1 is request by chance walkers Walker engineering for approval of. Horn lake water association 2 lot subdivision, which would divide parcel into 2 lots properties located along highway 51 between railroad and joy Boulevard and surrounded by a mix of commercial residential and industrial development. proposed plaque creates lot one, which would accommodate the proposed Horn Lake Water Association commercial development along Highway 51 and lot two, which extends from Highway 51 to the western boundary of the property for future residential development. As discussed in the rezoning case immediately preceding this, the western portion of the property is proposed to be rezoned from M1 to R6 to accommodate that residential development. The highway 51 frontage of lot two is intended to provide coordinated access for both the commercial and future residential portions of property, reducing the need for separate access points and helping transition development from commercial highway 51 quarter to the residential area further west. Planning staff reviewed the plat against the applicable subdivision standards, including requirement related to the streets, easements, blocks, lot design, and public facilities. Subdivision does not create or modify any existing public streets, and staff identified no conflicts with the applicable standards. Based on that review, planning staff recommends approval of the Horn Lake Water Association two-lot subdivision plat.

All right. We have the report. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Does anybody got any additional questions for the applicant? All right. Do we have any other discussion or do we have a motion?

I think a motion.

All right. We got a motion.

After review of case number 2026-091, the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request by Chance Walker of Smith Walker Engineering for the Horn Lake Water Association, two lot subdivision, subdividing parcel number 1087350000002900 into two lots as shown on the submitted plat.

All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, motion and second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Kirby Carter. Yes. Mark Crawford. Akita Fox. Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Maurice Taylor. Yes. Janice Bedown. Yes. Stan Carroll.

Yes.

All right, motion passes, which brings us to 2026-093 for the Horn Lake Water Association for the site plan. And then once again, I will turn this over to staff.

Kirby, I can't remember if the parcel number is in this motion or not, but you've done really well reading it so far. So this is case twenty twenty six zero nine three request for site plan approval for approximately forty eight hundred square foot office building for the Horn Lake Water Association on lot one of Horn Lake Water Association. Two lots subdivision case follows the rezoning and subdivision plaque cases. approximately one and a half acre office site is located along highway 51 and h2o drive or main zone c4 for commercial use the proposed site plan placed the office building near the center of lot one provides 28 parking spaces including accessible parking vehicular access is provided by h2o drive which is great great name Through a 2 driveway connections, allowing traffic to circulate through the site. Planet also includes a drive through payment window, dumpster, enclosure, stormwater detention along highway 51 side of the property and an area West of the building reserve for potential future development. The applicant also submitted detailed landscape plan. Landscaping provided throughout the site, including parking lot islands, streetscape plantings, foundation landscaping, and screening. Planning staff reviewed the proposed tree species and confirmed that all the species are on the accepted list of trees. One item planning staff recommended was more direct pedestrian connection between the office building and the proposed sidewalk along H2O Drive. Staff recommends adding a sidewalk connection from the building to the road along with marked crosswalks where the pedestrian route crosses the entrance and exit drives. This can be incorporated into a revised site plan and reviewed administratively following approval by the Planning Commission. Since the written staff report was completed, staff also received architectural plans and building elevations for the proposed office, which are on the screen here. The elevations show a gabled building with metal roof, a combination of metal siding, board and batten siding, brick veneer, and wood trim and accent elements. Primary entrance is emphasized by protecting gable and additional architectural detailing. These supplemental materials provide additional information regarding the appearance and exterior materials of the building and don't create any additional concerns to the proposed site plan. Overall, planning staff finds the proposed development generally conforms to the city's applicable site plan, parking, landscaping, and development standards. Staff recommends approval of case 2026-093 subject to the addition of the pedestrian connection and marked crosswalks and compliance with applicable architectural and design standards.

All right. Does anybody have any questions for staff?

I do. Have they been informed of the crosswalk? Yes. They have already been informed? Okay. And we can put that just noted in the motion?

You are good with that?

You're good with that?

Okay. So the applicant is good with the conditions. All right, do we have any other questions? All right, do we have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

All right, go ahead.

After review of case number 2026-093, the Planning Commission approved the site plan for the Horn Lake Water Association office building on Lot 1 of Horn Lake Water Association. 2-lots subdivision subject to the addition of a pedestrian connection between the building and a proposed sidewalk along H2O Drive, including mark crosswalks where appropriate, compliant with the city applicable architectural and design standard and final approval of the related subdivision plots.

All right, there's the motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Kirby Carter. Yes. Keita Fox. Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Maurice Taylor. Yes. Janice Vidal. Yes. Stan Carroll.

Yes. All right, motion passes. Thank you. Do we not have do we do we not have the applicant for the next one?

Does not look like the applicant for the next case is here All right now make a motion that we table it.

All right. We have a motion to table. Do we have a second? All right.

We have a motion in a second roll call, please Who made a motion Kirby second miss Fox Kira Okay All right. Ready? Yep. Kirby Carter. Yes. Mark Crawford. Nikita Fox. Yes. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Maurice Taylor.

Yes.

Janice Vidal. Yes. Sam Carroll. Yes.

All right. That case has been tabled. All right. Do we have any other business? Any other comments? All right, do we have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. He made a motion. I'll make the motion. All right, do we have a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. All right, we're all opposed the same. All right, we are adjourned.