Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Andrew went that way. I just need one. I need one. I don't I don't know. Everybody else might need one. I just I need Okay. Why are we going to do this now?

Nice. Yeah. All right, it is 6 o'clock. We are going to start our meeting for July 28th, 2025. First off, I want to thank and thank everyone that's here. I want to welcome our new uh commissioners. Um, so as we get started, we'll kind of go through. This might be a little slow

today as the new commissioners kind of get acclimated to how we uh how we run these meetings, but we are we are glad to have y'all here. Um, our first uh we're going to do our call to or our roll call right now. So, I guess since we we're just just uh just say your your name and just say that you're here. So, go ahead and start. Uh, Miss Fedell. Okay. Mark Crawford, w six

Kirby Carter. Chad Engle. K. Freeman Ward three Mars Taylor Ward five and and and uh uh commission commissioner commissioner wear yep is absent. All right. If everyone will stand we'll do our pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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.

All right. Next on the agenda is uh the elections of the chair, vice chair, and secretary. Do we'll start off. Do we have a nomination for chair? Yes. Go ahead, commissioner. I would like to nominate Chad Chadi for chair. Second. All right. We have a a motion and a second. Do we have any? All right. Roll call. Chadam. Kirby. Yes. Jan, yes. Yes. Mark, yes. Yes. Taylor, yes.

All right, that motion is passed. Do we have a nomination for vice chair? Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Kirby Carter. We have a uh Do we have a motion for Kirby Carter? Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Yes. All right. Any uh any discussion? Roll call. Um Chad Kirby Jan Lquida. Yes. Mark, yes. Calvin, yes. Taylor,

yes. All right. Uh, that motion has passed. Uh, do we have a next on to secretary? Do we have a motion for secretary? I make a motion for Miss Janice Bedell for our secretary. We have a motion for Miss Vedell. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Commissioner Freeman. Any discussion? Roll call. Chad. Yep. Kirby. Yes. Wait, I got to do that. Yes. One sec. One sec. Jan Lita, yes. Mark, yes. Calvin, yes. Taylor, yes.

Okay. All right. That motion's passed. Okay. Okay. I thank y'all for letting us go through that. Now, we'll do a approval of previous minutes. Do we h do we have a motion or do we need any discussion or corrections? Okay. Mr. Chair. Yes. I move that he pass the previous minutes dated April 28 1st, 28, 2025, May 19th, 2025, May 23rd, 2025, June 9th, 2025, and June 30, 2025. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and second. Any discussion? All right, roll call. Kirby, yes. Jan, yes. Mark,

yes. Lita, yes. Calvin, yes. Taylor, yes. All right. On to new Okay, there's no old business. On to new business. We're going to be starting with case number 2025-071. It's a case uh this case is a request from an applicant Ben Smith to approve a preliminary plat for a subdivision of one parcel resulting in 23 parcels and one rideway for the purpose of creating a public street with residential lots. At this time I will turn this over to our planning director.

Thank you. Um if you could Billy scroll down to the aerial view. Here is the aerial view of the land being proposed to be subdivided. Um the parcel wishing to be subdivided is listed as 4560 Nail Road West. There's currently a single family residential structure on this lot. Um access to this house from Nail Road West is made to the west of this parcel. Two drainage areas run through this parcel. Uh on the northern portion there's a drainage area for the overflow of the pond in Ravenwood G subdivision. Um on the southern portion there's a stream that originates south of Nailroad West enters the property and exits on the western border of this parcel. And you can kind of see um in the middle of that parcel on that southern border, the uh tree line that goes straight up and down and kind of curves towards the west and then it meets that other um visible stream coming in at an angle from the other um the other side. Um and we that will be discussed a little bit more later in the report. Uh if you scroll down to the zoning, um this is the current zoning. This parcel is currently zoned AR. The applicant has applied for a reszoning request to change the zoning to R10 in order to build according to the plat being presented. Um and that that'll be at a a later case proposal. Um, after approval of the preliminary plat, a final plat showing any necessary corrections will be presented to the city as well as a separate reasonzoning request to ensure that the final plat and the resoning do not conflict in any

way. Next slide or yeah, scroll down please. All right. So, um, uh, below we have a screenshot of the submitted pre preliminary platform review. Uh for good recordeping uh we're showing the entire plat on the next page even though it makes the words and numbers too small to read. Um if you scroll down you will see that image there. That's the full plat. And then on the next page um we have a more zoomed in clear shot of um the upper portion. So we have lot one, lot two and lot three being shown here. um that we can we can go back and revisit any of these at any time. Um I have another zoomed in spot. Um shown above is lots 4 through 23 as well as the common open space. Um and then we can revisit that at any time later. Um I provided everybody with the general notes section. I provided everybody with the typical R10 lot diagram um which basically shows the um lots being 145 ft by 70 ft um for those typical um rectangular R10 lots. Uh and then I have another diagram here of the typical street section being proposed. So, uh, shown above is the proposal for the ride-of-way dimensions. Uh, a 50- foot rideway conforms to the 50- foot minimum stated in the ordinance for local streets. However, it needs to be noted that the street width measuring face to face needs to be 34 ft as opposed to 33 feet. Now, this is only because um something new coming in the future. Um it needs to be noted that um

the city of Horn Lake is moving to a new standard of 34 feet face of curb to face of curb, six inch curb measured at the top, 2.5 ft of grass buffer and a 5ft sidewalk. Um whereas the edge of that sidewalk would be the edge of the ride ofway. Um, and just for some background, the most recent subdivision for single family homes, commonly known as the Sage Creek PUB, was approved a few months ago using these exact same measurements. And uh that that really sets a good precedent for what we want to see. So, we would actually like to continue what that subdivision had gotten approved for. Uh this gives us a uniform right ofway design all throughout the city and it makes it easy to determine where the city property starts. It gives a visual natural buffer between the sidewalk and the street for pedestrian and driver safety and gives enough space for on street parking. As we know that on street parking is a necessity for well functioning neighborhoods. Uh this will give enough space for friends, family, and other visitors to park without preventing traffic from passing on both sides of the street. And so the worst case scenario is leading to a situation where on street parking becomes banned due to narrow streets, then resulting in code enforcement having to give tickets and tow cars parked on the street. Uh this would especially be bad in this neighborhood where there are no close alternative streets to park on. So um we are requesting that this drawing be modified to show these for mentioned dimensions preferred by the city. Um and then I have the subdivision design standards posted here if anybody wants to revisit this. This is the ex everything in italics. Uh I put them in

italics because that that is the exact wording from our ordinance. So um scroll down to the plain text. Um planning staff finds that this proposal conforms with most of the criteria. Um there are some concerns with a few things though regarding letter A. Uh it should be known that it is highly appreciated that the developer is willing to connect the new street to the existing private roadway. Every new subdivision of this size should have two ways in and out for emergency purposes and this appears to be the only way to achieve this. A culde-sac does not seem appropriate as the minimum culde-sac length of 500 feet would be surpassed. And that would be the the planning department is currently waiting on an answer on the city's ability to purchase or accept by by donation the private road weight in order to improve it to the local street standard. The planning department cannot yet answer if the city has the budget to do this. It is a highly unusual situation to have a parcel in the city that is a privatelyowned roadway that acts as the only access to multiple residences. This should have never been allowed to exist in the first place. And um however, now it's the city's responsibility to reverse this by acquiring that lot one way or the other. And uh regarding letter B in the list above, um while we are pleased with the proposed subdivision name and glad to see the proposed street name match it, we believe the proposed street to be a continuation of Jordan Drive, the new street proposed on the plat needs to be changed to Jordan Drive. Um if you look at the aerial view, it is um straight up and down a continuation of that street.

So the name should reflect that. Finally, regarding letter C, planning staff is not sure that lot one contains enough space to be far enough away from the stream. U we know this was modified and um from the actual first submission and and we do appreciate that. Um but uh there is still a lot of concern with that lot number one. Um, we've had many reports of this stream overflowing and spreading out over a large area due to the pond directly to the east that spills over into this area. We are recommending combining lot one and two in order to have any proposed structure as far away as needed from that stream. Similarly, planning staff is not convinced that this overall subdivision design takes into consideration the current passage of water through it. Planning staff would like to receive a detailed explanation of how that current intermittent stream running from south of Nail Road and into the new subdivision will be altered and exactly how the water will move north through the area as well as a more detail um explanation on how this hilly landscape will be flattened. Looking at the aerial photo at the beginning of this report, it appears obvious that the water from this intermittent stream converges with the other intermittent stream mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. And so there are concerns that the detention pond may not be able to handle all that water coming through the area um due to the m due to the uh convergence when those two streams hit together. Uh we have reports that the water just backs up and takes a while to get through to that uh singular stream. And so um we would like to see more

information provided to the city before um the the final plat submission. Um there do not appear to be any issues with the other criteria after that though. So, moving on down, um we have some more requirements um for easements. Um I have that put in the italics there. Um requirements for letter A for easements are listed in the general note section of the plat. Um and everything was fine there. As for letter B, uh there are major concerns about two drainage courses running through the proposed subdivision. As previously mentioned, there's no indication drawn on there of the stream uh running through Raven Ravenwood G Pond through lot one. Um letter B states that there should be an easement drawn for this. Similarly, it is understood that there's another drainage course running through the southern portion of the property. It's the same one I mentioned before. uh where the water appears to flow into the subdivision and in the direction of the proposed detention pond. It appears this one may be less defined and less substantial, but we may need more clarification as to exactly where exactly on the lots this water will be chained. So, moving down to uh standards for blocks, I have those ordinances and italics there. Um and so for um the review of that, the proposed plat appears to conform to all the regulations on block design. Next up is design standards for lots. I have all of those regulations in italics there. Um the proposed plat appears to conform

to all the regulations on lot design. Next up is design standards for public sites, facilities, and open spaces. Again, I have all the regulations in italics. And um for this rendering, we have the plat proposes a common open space at the left end of the curb away from the busier road. Um this is the most ideal location for the common open space. And this lot includes the mailbox cluster which is also ideal. Um the actual usable portion of this common open space is on the smaller side though but it's due to the necessary drainage area. But this appears to be an acceptable compromise since drainage is the major concern for this area. So uh in conclusion, the preliminary PL sta planning staff cannot com comfortably recommend approval for this proposal due to the numerous concerns that have been reported about flooding in the area. planning staff does not have enough information on how exactly the massive amounts of water in about the um massive amounts of water that pass through this land that will be rechanled when the land becomes significantly altered for the subdivision. However, if the preliminary plaque were to be approved, planning staff would only recommend approval if lots one and two are combined, if the street name is changed to Jordan Drive, and if the right-of-way dimensions are revised as described in the report, as well as if there is substantial evidence shown that there's a good plan on how to safely channel the large amounts of water in and out of the proposed subdivision.

So, uh, I have the possible motion put up there with those three points I just made. Um as well as um um please note that actually a fourth point being that uh we would like to see a detailed plan of action um presented to us one way or another one way or another explaining how that water will get on and off the lot safely and efficiently. That concludes the presentation. Thank you. Uh uh Andrew, uh quick question I have on that is um you had mentioned uh that the that that there's a private drive and you said that that should have never happened. Can you explain why that should not happen? I mean because I've seen private drives before and for multiple houses.

Yes, sir. Uh we're we're really speaking from a a planning perspective. Um it's it's really not a good practice to um have one owner of a lot um own the only access to other people's houses. Um you know, it it may work out for one group of people, but as time goes on, you may have disagreements on upkeep of property. Um building it when it erodess, washes out, crumbles away. Rare cases, but it it has happened. um disputes between neighbors on uh blocking access, um having cars in the way, having material in the way, putting up fences, um having junk in the road, having potholes, having you know any issues with the private roadways. U and you're saying so there's not a a dedicated easement across there for that for that roadway because usually what I see is an easement or I mean you can't and and even though if someone tried to block it you can't legally um drylock somebody out you know they have a right to access the properties across there regardless

yes sir who owns it. Well, uh the uh planning perspective is that uh whenever there's any access to any single family homes or any businesses, it is always best practice to have city streets go as far as possible to that business or to that home. And uh the city should be the ones to maintain it and um keep all those roadways free and clear. But as of right now, that's not But what they have right now is not illegal. It's just not what you would want to see. Okay. Correct. It is not illegal. It is It is just not ideal. And um

and if I may, how that happened is that part uh used to be walls. It was county and it got annexed and that's that's how that was a private road. Well, I just I just know I mean I sell houses all over and I just know that I see a lot of private roads that go to multiple houses in all kind in in this county and and in every every county in Mississippi it seems like and so I was just curious what why the planning department had that stance.

Yes, sir. Um, now I I know the city of Horn Lake has always historically struggled in converting these anomalous properties into something that makes more sense. Um, it's always just been a, you know, a money issue with the city and uh, manpower issue and um, we may not be able to fix that now, but I just want to start a new trend and just get it, you know. Well, I mean, only reason I'm saying is because if it stays private, I would be concerned about pushing more traffic. That'd be my number one problem. I mean, and and if we can't if the city I mean I if the city takes it over, that could cause some issues. If they don't take it over and then that that would cause cars going down there. Then my other comment I want to make or get some clarification on is the water. Now, if there's a if there's a natural stream going exactly where all these lots are going, if the at least my um from what I've had happen in in in my experience is that once you start either trying to move, cover, or divert, a lot of times the water goes underground and it causes it to be wet all the time.

Yes sir, we are concerned about that. Um, you know, water is going to go where the path of least resistance is. And when you have fastmoving water that's always running a certain direction, it's very tough to get it to try to go somewhere else. Um, so we do have a lot of um concern about possible erosion no matter how you try to change the land. uh we we do want to see a good plan of action before comfortably passing any um final plat.

Then my other question is is have we and if I'm not mistaken that Ravenwood detention pond has been a problem in the past. I don't know if it is today. I just know that it was in the past where that detention pond always clogged up or wasn't being maintained by whoever's supposed to maintain it. What I will say is um and I try to get as many citizens as I can to get things to me in writing. Um I I don't have um a lot of physical evidence that the um pond overflows in that manner. But I get lots of phone calls. I get lots of walk-in complaints. Um,

well, I'm just saying it's been brought it's been when when we were doing the subdivisions for Ravenwood for board, that was one thing that was bringing in and I know that we couldn't determine if the city, state, or county was supposed to be maintaining it. Yes. And I just I just wasn't sure if that was ever corrected or not when they put all those town homes and those new homes in.

Yes, sir. Yes. Yes, sir. A lot of water does go to that pond. Um, I I know from studying other projects, uh, working on other projects, um, looking at where our storm drain systems go, um, I can tell you a lot of our city's storm water, a lot of our other ponds throughout the city and our drainage ditches and our storm water pipes channel water all to that exact pond. And then the water from that pond does overflow into that intermittent stream. And I call it an intermittent stream because it is not shown as a solid blue line stream on Dinnotto County GIS. And so I know that um you know Dinnotto County GIS is not perfect and so you can't just look at where the solid blue line streams are. There are other intermittent streams that take in a lot of water and this is apparently one of those areas.

All right. Does anybody Is any other commissioners have a question for Andrew? If not, we can bring the applicant up. I have a question. Commissioner, I mean, planning commissioner Andrew, our concern about have you ever visited that pond? See what kind of uh covers that's in there that

Yes, sir. I I've I've been out there. I've walked around the pond. Um, it's a very large one. And so, um, uh, I guess I will admit I have not been to that pond on a very rainy day. On a week we've had a ton of rainfall. Um, I've been out there multiple times, but it's always been on uh, sunny days when I was out for other inspections. So, I I I myself have not physically seen that overflow. I've only heard about it. I

understand that with real respect, but my concern is the drainage that's going to the retention pond. Do we have enough drainage that going to get that water out of there? All I could say is it it passed inspection and I mean, as far as I guess another question, where where does that water from the detention pond go? I know it's supposed to slowly come out regardless if it overflows. Does it not go into that water waterway speaking of that? Can you go to that aerial view? I'm looking at Yeah.

I just I want mainly doing a lot of these questions to let the new commissioners know where we where we've been and some of the things that we've discussed. And we also know that Horn Lake floods a lot. So,

if you uh look at that image there, um that top right corner, um you could see a pond there in that top right corner on a different lot. That's the Ravenwood G pond that we're talking about. And you could see that um stream is very visible going diagonally across the top of the lot. And it does connect up to that pond. And so um it travels from from east to west um diagonally down and then um it eventually goes out across the stream midway through that screen. And so that that bottom stream there goes from south to north and converges up there and then the first stream we were talking about it goes from uh east to west.

Any other questions for I have a question Andrew. Have the applicant been made aware of these conditions that they need to meet? Um, so yes, we uh this is actually um you know, we had that first meeting. We've been talking with the um with the applicant. Um the applicant did read the first report and actually revised it to what we had criticized in the first report. And so even though this is y'all's first time seeing this, this is actually the second iteration of what we've received. So, the applicant is aware of um the um

if the applicant would want to come up and just state your name and address for the record. Mike. Oh, that should pick you up just like that. Okay, cool. Chance Walker, Smith Walker Engineering Survey. All right. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? I can just give a full spill. Maybe that'll help before

Okay, go ahead. Um so I I have uh first meeting um I was made aware of the first staff report. Um we amended the preliminary plat uh to meet the first staff reports request. I haven't seen the second one. If I'd have seen it, I would have come a lot more prepared. Uh, I have a full set of construction plans, uh, detailing, uh, a detention facility, uh, underground drainage, everything that you're asking for, I have. Um, typically after in in my experience, uh, the we we provide a fully engineered set of plans submitted to the city for city engineering review. um within that city engineering review, they look at all the questions that you're asking for. That's what that's what we're here to do is to design things to make sure no one gets flooded. Um we also have to go through the state MDEQ to get permits that regulate these waters that we're talking about. Um as well as Army Corps of Engineers. So any kind of outfalls that we have in these streams, we have to go to the state and to the core to get permits to disturb them and to discharge our outfalls into. Um they regulate the flows in these streams. Um as for that existing retention pond, the outlet structure, I didn't design it myself, but it seems to be undized. So I'm not saying there there is a problem there. Um I can't control that at this moment. Uh we have no intention to do anything with that north stream that you see going through lot one. Uh we can combine lot one and two. That is perfectly fine for us. We can fix that. Um lot one however there is a buildable space on it. It's fully surveyed. There is with and we so MDQ requires us to buffer from from the

banks of a jurisdictional stream 50 foot a non-disturbed buffer. um that is regulated by the core. So uh that including also the setbacks there is a buildable area. Um FEMA has not established any flood zones around this uh this stream. That being said, if people are saying it is flooded, I mean you know that's just the way the way you know FEMA would have to be notified. Um but we can we can combine lot one and two to make it larger if if that's if that's what is needed. No no problem there. Um, as for the the the north south stream, uh, that's coming off of nail exiting off into the private drive that is coming onto us via a 48 inch corrugated metal pipe. That's it. So, we are we we have to design this property based on the that 48 inch and the slope and the uh the design flow that comes onto us. That's the only thing that we have. Um, water is not overflowing off of nail. So, the only thing that we have coming on to us is a 48 inch pipe. The reason you have flooding right now is because the exit out of this site is a 36 inch pipe. It's choking it. It it it's it's I don't know if it was made that way or if if the private drive and then the the uh the ditch. It's a lot of different equations could have could have happened, but a 48 inch is crossing onto us and it exits via 36. So, logically, the math doesn't work. Our plan, we're designing a detention facility where we provide enough storage to hold the 35 acres of water that's coming onto us as well as everything that that we're generating and then are going to release it slower than it is now. So, that is what we're required to do legally from an engineering standpoint. And I have those design plans and if if I knew that, you know, this this was

going to come up, I would have brought them. But typically we don't provide those until we get some sort of approval and then we get with Neil Schaefer city engineering and everything gets reviewed and approved and we move forward with the state permitting. Okay. So a a question for you Andrew. Um what what happens if the city can't do the uh the private road and turn it into a city road? Does it does it revert back into a culde-sac? because we wouldn't have that private road would mean that we would not have access to that private road.

Yes, sir. That that that was the uh original proposal. Um if the fire department and um city finances in combination don't allow for um the for today's proposal, then this would have to revert back to the previous one. Um, so yes, sir. Okay, that's all one. Okay. All right. Any qu any other question? Any question for the will the 48 in pipe address the water in your opinion? Will it address the water?

Oh, everything um he's saying about that. That is is that's his realm. So, we're going to we're going to keep all the questions about flooding and engineering over with him. I just want

and I mean you know just it is lowland rightwood section F which is the last phase is being built now where you see the green um it it it comes I mean it's it's a 3 to1 slope for probably 8 to 7 8 ft coming down onto us um we're coming off of nail so we we we have to hold we're going to be tying onto that 48 inch that's coming onto us we're going to tie it on with the manhole and we're going to run a 48 all the way on everything is going to be underground ground um running into the uh detention facility. So So there will be no excess runoff other than what we're creating.

No issues with gas lines there. There is over on the other side at Horn Lake and Nail Road. There's the issue where there's flooding and we can't do something here because there's a gas line and there's this here. So if if there's utilities in So have you even looked at that at all yet? you're saying this, but I want to I want to know for sure this is not Well, it we'll deal with it if we get there. No, I want to know for sure that you've already looked at this because we've got the opposite problem on that corner and those residents on that corner are paying dearly with flooding issues and we just don't want to set that up on the other corner when we already know what's going on on the opposite. Right. Yep. No, everything we we vote everything has been served. We we know where every bit of utility

think and are sure where all the lines are and can show that. Yes, he he probably hasn't seen it because it's not typically a part of the city's process to see that far in advance. Um and he Neil Schaeer is the one that typically looks at it from a planning standpoint. He's he's doing you know he's he's looking at logistics and stuff of that nature. But when utilities, storm water, drainage, water, absolutely hindsight being 2020 though with as bad as it's flooding over there, we just don't want to do that again. Completely understand. I have some one other um should we put that other condition addressing the water or it's okay not to?

Uh well, so what I mentioned earlier was that um you know, this is a preliminary plat and so this still has to come back and uh as Mr. Walker mentioned um It is normal for the details to come after that's but um you know with all the kind of PTSD we've had with flooding issues and um you know finding out things after the fact um I just wanted to get way ahead of the game here and look at every single detail we could find. All right. All right. So do we have do we have any other questions or do do we have a motion? Only question I have concern when that pond fill up.

I can't touch the pond. He Yeah, he can't touch it. It's on It's on a It's on a different lot. Now, I've been to it. Okay. There is a The outlet structure seems to be undersized being built and then some structure because of the flood. I I I I physically can't I can't do anything to the pond. Yeah. Thank you. You can have you can have you can you can have a seat. Thank you. So, do we have any other discussion or question for Andrew? Any other discussion? Do we have a motion? I'll make the motion.

All right. Go ahead. After review of case number 2025-071, the planning commission approved the request for the preliminary plot of Golden Eagle Estate on the condition that the applicant revise the plot to show the issues mentioned in the report including from 1 to three. All right, we have a motion to um to to approve uh this preliminary plat. Do we have a second? Second. We have a a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All right. Roll call. Chad. Kirby. No.

No. Okay. Janita, you second. So Mark, no. Calvin, nay. Taylor, nay. All right. The motion did not pass. Thank you.

All right. On to our next case. Case number 2025-102. It is a case. This case is requesting uh reszoning for property at 769 Southwest Access Drive from C4 to M1. and we will turn it over to our planning director for his report.

All right. So, um first up we have the aerial view of the property and um right there at the intersection as stated. Uh on the next page we have the zoning of it. So the property is located in a C4 zone with the portion in the planned business park zone. The adjacent parcels are also zoned C4 and PBP. The proposed use on the property is for commercial parking of 18 wheelers and other commercial vehicles. Um uh this is not an allowed use in either C4 or PBP zones. And uh this is the reasoning for uh wanting to reszone it to M1 if if anybody um was wondering. Um the section in the Horn Lake Code of Ordinances zoning chart um categorizes the use as semi-parking lot secured and guarded. Um in order to qualify for this use uh it has to be zoned M1 and be secured and guarded. And um so if you go to the next page um we do have a submitted site plan here if anyone wants to look into this. Um now this is the detailed plans of technically for the reasonzoning case. We don't need to uh go into this quite yet. Uh but if anyone has any questions on this, we can absolutely jump into the details. Um you will tonight receive the um as the next case. If this case passes for the reasonzoning, you will see another case requesting

uh approval for this 18-wheeler parking. Um so with that being said um that concludes that presentation um and we do have the possible motion there. All right. Uh quick question. I was if I was looking at it, aren't there 18 wheelers parking there now?

So um glad you brought that up. Um there are 18 wheelers currently parked there. uh when we looked into our records, uh nobody has ever gotten approval to do that. So, uh I am not sure why 18 wheelers were previously allowed to park there. I don't know how they got away with it. I don't know how there was a sign there. Um there's a gravel lot with 18 wheelers there. And with the fact that we have never received a complaint for that, um, we have never been notified by code enforcement about that. We have never been notified by any alderman about that, um, or any citizens about that. To us, that's a sign that the use seems to be working well. The use seems appropriate. Um, I know there's a lot that could be said about um it looking bad and it being a nuisance and it being ugly and it being non-desirable and it lowering property values nearby. But as I mentioned before, we've never received a complaint about 18 wheelers parking there. And so this is actually our first proposal for requesting it to be legal there. And what what kind of um I mean what is the requirements for um the surface that has to be there for parking to be allowed?

Um so for parking to be allowed, it does have to be paved. So it it needs to be a paved parking lot in the city of Horn Lake. Okay. Uh do we have any other questions for our uh Go ahead. What are the requirements for facilities like restrooms, things like that? So, uh, technically we for it to be a permanent parking lot. Uh, there are no requirements for that. No requirements for that. Requirements for just a parking lot. For a parking lot as its own use. Any other questions for our director?

This is the same area that had a conditional use, correct? Yes. Um for the fireworks, right? So if this gets resoneed, that'll automatically terminate.

So um the way we read the ordinance, um I know this will be extremely awkward. Um this is a case that has never happened in the city the city's history before. So, this did land on a gray area where um we did not see anything specifically prohibiting a fireworks tent from operating there if there is space for it and there are no vehicles there. So, if there's no vehicles present and it's a vacant lot, then a fireworks tent could go there.

Okay. I was just curious because everything I found I could not find where it could a fireworks tent could be under an M1. So that's why I wanted clarification. Yes. As far as zoning, um fireworks are not limited to specific zones. Um it's just specific material and dimension requirements on lots. Any other questions for Andrew? Yes, Commissioner. Okay.

Uh, so that'll that'll be completely up to the business owner. Um, the applicant like to come up. Yeah, the the planning department um has no specifications regarding that. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Good afternoon. Apprentice Mitchell 3774 Com Circle. All right. So, does anybody have any questions for the applicant? You can go ahead and ask that. Sure, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. I do have a quick presentation then if I can answer questions after that. Maybe I can answer any questions.

Okay, go ahead. We'll just do that. Let you go ahead and have your presentation. Thank you. first one.

So, it's very brief. Um, as as it was just noted, that there has been parking here at this location already for over 10 years on gravel. Um, as as Mr. Andrew admitted with no complaints from any citizens, all the miss commissioners ever. Um, I just acquired the property a few months ago. Um, so with with the fact of knowing that it has already been parking there, it never had any problems, gravel. Um, I met with Andrew and told him I wanted to bring the property uh into compliance. um to make sure that moving forward there will be no issues with it. Get building, get permits for it, be on record, be official, pay my fees moving forward. Um, next slide. So, we talked about I just talked about the gravel side of things. Um, there's only one other 18-wheeler parking lot that I that that's close to us, which is on State Line and two lane. It's been there about two years is on gravel as well. I know that's South Haven, but very similar to what's already been done here in Horn Lake with the gravel park. Um, next slide. So, the plan is for me to clean it up, get it looking nice, um, a little bit better than what it already is without any problems. I got an outline see over here. I got an outline of u the entrance to exit fire hydrant. Um I know there's not a requirement for for uh utilities, but I do plan on putting a porta potty out there. Um which will

have service twice a week. Um in the next slide, please. So just a couple of bulletin points. Um when I took over this property, there was already the drivers there parking and this is the only location with 18 willer parking within 500 ft of 55 and 2 miles of I69. It's highly sought out area. People need somewhere to park when they're driving these 18 willers. Um there's about 18 hotels within 1,000 ft of the property. Most of these hotels, some of them are in Horn Lake, of course, some are across the interstate in South Haven. They can't what their these 18 drivers are doing, they're going to Target, uh, Kroger and parking in their parking lots. Most of them get told because it's illegal to park in private businesses overnight. So these visitors who are drivers are looking somewhere to park to where um it's allowed and this will be an opportunity for them to come park and not have to worry about being told getting extra fees and so forth. Um that's also going to bring a benefit to the neighboring businesses. So, you know, when these when these drivers are delivering goods to Horn Lake, uh these business can let the drivers know, hey, we got somewhere close by to park and you don't have to worry about your car, your your trucks being towed or broken into, anything like that. The last thing on that is I know we mentioned about this being a u requirement of of paved parking but uh I'm asking uh maybe not in this since it's just this is the um reszoning aspect of it but when we get over to the conditional side of things I would like to continue using this parking lot the

way it is the way it has always been without any problems with gravel parking and that's it in case anybody I have a question for

well so I appreciate that. Um so the thing is I do want to keep the main thing the main thing which is on this one is for the reszoning or the yeah the reasonzoning of the of this particular spot before we get into any of the other other stuff. Um so as far as the resoning this would have to be reszoned to make it even considered for commercial parking. Um, but is what else? What else does the M1 provide by right if we was to approve it? What I'm what I'm saying is is because we've got into that trap before where we approve something for the intent of a parking spot and then the next day later on the new owner may you know the owner sells it and it's a new owner and then by right they can have um things that we don't want in that location. So I just want to make sure that we changing it is not going to could not change any that

Yes. Yes sir. Um so the um as you mentioned this is a resoning case. So if it is uh going from the C4 PBP to M1 um by reszoning it to M1, all of the allowable uses in the use chart under M1 would be allowed here. Um however um you do have the applicant presenting in the next case exactly what that use is going to be. Um, so

and I and I truly understand that. But right

that but that does not mean that that our applicant will always own it just like he just bought it and and so when he bought it though it had been whoever owned it prior to had always allowed that to go on and no one in the city caught it. Now that he's owning it now, that changes everything. Just like if I had a business with a sign that didn't meet regulations, as soon as it changed owners or I had to do something, I have to put a new sign that meets regulations. That's that's our ordinances here. So now we're changing ownership. So that does change how we have to view that. And if it changes ownership again, I want to make sure we don't have things going into that location that we didn't intend.

Yes, sir. Absolutely. So, um if ownership changed, um it would still be M1 if the new owner um wanted to bust up all that asphalt and put a building there. And um what go what would go there would be um let's see uh I mean it's a long list. It's it's our use chart. Um anything from uh amusements, commercial, indoor uh to art studio to auditorium to automobile dealership, bakery, retail, bank, uh bingo hall with conditional use, bus terminal with conditional use, cabinet shop permitted. Um campground conditional use car wash permitted. Um church permitted thrift store conditional use. Contractor storage indoor conditional use convenience food store permitted. Um daycare center conditional use. Uh driving range permitted. Dry cleaning permitted. Um emergency medical facility permitted. Um event, reception or banquet hall conditional use. Um farm, feed store permitted. Flea market indoor and outdoor conditional use. Um hospital permitted. Grain elevator commercial um conditional use. Greenhouse permitted. Grocery store permitted. Gymnasium permitted. Uh laboratory permitted. Lawn tree or garden service permitted. Lumberyard conditional use, machine shop permitted,

mini warehouse permitted, mobile home pre-fabricated building permitted. Uh, mobile home sales service and repair conditional use. Uh, funeral home permitted. Motor vehicle repair less than 12,000 lbs conditional use. Motor vehicle service, minor repair. No outdoor storage of vehicle supplies permitted. Motor vehicle service and repair, conditional use. Dance academy Academy permitted. Neighborhood park permitted. Nursing home. Sorry, that that one's not allowed. Uh, office permitted, park permitted, forest preserve permitted, parking lot permitted, pawn shop conditional use, um, photo processing permitted, plumbing shop permitted, print shop permitted, um, public service facility permitted, um, radio TV station permitted, recreational facilities for employees permitted. Um, recycling collection center permitted. Recycling processing center permitted. Religious, philanthropic or educational institution permitted. Repair service shop for bicycles permitted. Restaurants with indoor seating permitted. Restaurants carry out permitted. Retail shop sales and services permitted. Retail truck route center service conditional use. Roadside stand for display of agricultural products permitted. Sawmill permitted. Sewage treatment facility conditional use. Uh shooting gallery indoor conditional use. Short-term lender conditional use. Solar farm permitted. Tattoo parlor conditional use. Uh telephone service or switching center permitted. Temporary business permitted use. Um theater drive-in conditional use. Um trailer, boat sales, recreational vehicles, camper sales and storage lots permitted. Uh transportation terminal

for air rail truck and water permitted. Used car dealership conditional use utility substation permitted. Vehicle wash permitted. Wholesale merchandising permitted woodworking shop permitted and record services with temporary storage of junk cars conditional use. So that is everything in M1.

Okay. I just wanted that list done and just so when y'all are considering this just Mr. Apprentice probably has great intentions to have it as a parking lot and I believe the man's going to do what he says. We have to look at the future also. And I I I wouldn't want a recycling center because we have one already that's in Horn Lake and we know what kind of I know what kind of problems we've had with it. So, just an idea of what what you'll have to think about before because everything else except for one lot is all C4 in that area. So, do we have any qu Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Prince?

I want to see. So, if we if this is um approved, it's going to go to M1 because whatever he needs is only allowed in M1. But like Chad was saying, if somebody new come, what you going to do? Reszone it again back to the original C4. It depends what can we put that put there. It it it depends if that person wants a C4 type business or M1 type business.

But as I read off there are there are a lot of categories and um the M1 uh anything with an M is an industrial zone. Um, I know there's a lot of overlap between commercial zones and industrial zones, but um, the more industrial uses are for M1 and M2, and then the more commercial uses are for C1, um, C3 and C4.

So, do does anybody have any questions for applicant? because I think having a trucking park parking I'm at my I have family and friends that have been doing trucking forever and one of the things I had to do was drive to West Memphis and pick them up all the time. So truly understand how that how those drivers are needing a place to park. I just want to make sure that we definitely know what we're voting for before we do. So do we no other questions? Oh, okay.

I do have just a quick question. Um, Andrew, I know that you had mentioned MD dot had mentioned something doing around there. If we did reszone this and it changed the zoning, would that interfere anything at all with some of the plans with what MD dot's doing and how we are connecting Interstate Boulevard with Pepperchase with South Haven with whatever MD dot's trying to incorporate? Is this going to affect that anyway whatsoever? uh from everything I've seen that there will not be any overlap, but I I will absolutely double check. Um I I'll check all those planes again.

All right. You can you can have a seat, Mr. Prince. Thank you. All right. At this time, we're going to open it up for for the public. Is there anybody that would like to speak? All right. We'll allow anybody wants to speak three minutes to say what they need to say. So, you can go ahead, sir. Roads Thompson, 80 5847 Getwell Road, South Haven. I just wanted to uh I'm here to just protect the investment that y'all approved a couple month ago, month and a half ago. Uh the reasoning of this property uh and we we're planning on building a nice building there and I presented it to y'all a couple months ago. So, I'm into protecting investment. question I have for for the planning director. Does this meet the comprehensive co uh plan?

Um as we are um under the current one, yes. Um from everything we have seen it it is we're still operating under the old one and it is very basic. So um the way we see it, yes, it does. Okay. And has there been any changes to the neighborhood basically on this to allow this change? Uh, no. That that area has pretty much kind of it's been the same for a long long time. Um, I wouldn't say anything has significantly changed in that area. Okay.

So, I'm just here to say and and you know, I'm I'm not against truck parking at all, but I don't think this is the appropriate place for the truck parking. I know it has been there for 10 years uh completely probably overflowing from the hotels or whatever that case might be. But we're trying to build a nice uh strip center slash office warehouse space right down the street there uh that we presented to the committee a few months ago. U and I just think that this is the gateway to u Horn Lake. uh real close to the gateway of Warner Lake. And that being said, I just feel like there's another place that this could be uh applied or used. There's other ground there. You know, y'all were talking about the flood area. In my opinion, some of this needs to be in some of the flood area where it doesn't really affect the houses or any of that stuff. That's just my thoughts. But I just wanted to, you know, make my voice heard. And one more question that I had for y'all. I never received a reasonzoning letter for this.

Uh yes, sir. We can issue the re We typically issue the reasonzoning. Um are you talking about a verification? Yeah, just a notice that this was going to be on Oh, yes, sir. Uh this um is published in the Dninnesota Times Tribune. Okay. There's no cards that go out in No, not in Horn Lake. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is anybody else like to speak? All right. The public portion is closed. Do we have any other discussion or do we have a motion? Mr. Chair. Yes. Go ahead.

I move after reviewing case number 2025 as 090. Planning Commission approved recommend approval for the request by Mim LLC for the reszoning of property at 769 Southwest SS Drive from C4 to M1. We will make a correction. This is for for uh case number 2025-102. Yep. Correction 2025-10. Okay. Do we have a second? Second.

We have a motion in a second. Do we have any other discussion? Roll call, please. Kirby, nay. Jen, yes. Dita, no. Mark, nay. Calvin, yes. Yes, Taylor. Yes. And this is a tie ch.

Nay. Okay. All right, that motion did not pass. So that means we will not go to 90. Is that correct or do we

um I would actually defer this to the applicant. Um I as far as keeping a standard procedure here um the applicant paid for the opportunity for the the next presentation. Um would you like to move forward? Okay. So um we can go ahead and just hear the the details of the case.

All right. Uh this is for case number 2025-090. This is for the request for use of commercial parking. Um, and I'll turn this back over to our director.

All right. So, uh, we should have the aerial view of the property up on the screen there. Um, same as before. U, next page, please. All right. So, then we have the zoning. The property is located in the C4 zone uh with a portion in the plan business park zone. Um the adjacent parcels are also zone C4 and plan business park. Um the proposed use on the property is for commercial parking of 18 wheelers and other commercial vehicles. Um it's currently not in allowed use in either C4 or plan business park zones and the property must be reszoned to M1. Um so this request today is for the conditional use of that uh semi-parking lot that semi parking lot secured and guarded. So um next slide please. Um here is a site plan which is required with every single conditional use application. Um, as seen in the image above, there will be one entrance and exit located on the southwest drive. The plans call for two rows of semi-truck parking on the perimeter of the lot. A future LED monument sign will be placed on the corner of the Southwest Access Drive and Interstate Boulevard. Planning staff believes that um this will be a good use for the lot as it has been used for unpermitted truck parking in the past. Uh as stated by the applicant in the application letter, there will be room for 26 18-wheelers parked on the lot, the manner in which the property is secured and guarded uh should be expanded on and investigated by the planning commission to ensure continuity with the surrounding properties. So, um, as part of the planning review process, uh, for any conditional use permit request, the 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, and be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The planning department requests that all applicants applying for a conditional use permit submit written statements addressing the criteria that both the planning commission and the board of alderman must investigate during their meetings. Additionally, the planning staff will review these criteria as well and any conclusions will be presented to the planning commission and the board of aldermen. Below is a screenshot of containing the applicant's responses to letters A through F. And um of of course the um applicant has responded. Uh the approval of this application will not increase traffic hazards or congestion. The approval of the application will not increase fire hazards. Um the approval of this application will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhoods. This is a commercial zone property. Um when asked uh yeah will this adversely affect the general welfare of the city? No it will not. Um whe whether this will overt tax public utilities or community facilities? No it will not. And um whether or not this will be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Uh approval of this application will not be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. So, those are the applicants responses and um in reviewing the letters A through F, there does not appear to be anything with this proposal that would negatively impact any of those specific criteria. Um there's no expectation that this would increase traffic or cause congestion, increase the risk of fire, adversely affect the character of the

neighborhood, adversely affect the city, overuse any um utilities or be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Um so based on those bullet points um there was nothing conflicting directly with those and uh we have the possible motion there and if anyone has any questions about the site plan presented uh we can absolutely go back to that.

Okay. So, uh, Andrew, you'll have to explain to to me. Um, since the since this did not get approved for M for the M1, then uh there there there is no conditional use that can be

um I will point out that um both the reasonzoning case and this conditional use case, they both have to go to the board of alderman regardless of the vote tonight. Um all reasonzoning cases first go to the planning commission for recommendation to the board and then um all conditional use cases are um planning commission recommended to the board. So um the board will have the final say on both cases. So it it does make sense to just go through the motions and hear and rule in this case. All right. Does anybody have any questions? Andrew, if the applicant would like to come back. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

All right, this we're going to open this up to the public. Does anybody like to say anything for the public? All right, public portion is closed. Do we have any other discussion? Can I ask him a question? Okay, go ahead. Mr. Mitchell, just just curious. Um, just looking because that restaurant that's there, that habuki or however you say it now, there's that you have to turn on that same road to get in and out of that restaurant. Is there ever a thought or possibility of there being another entryway into your parking lot or only this one particular one that's right the opposite of their only entryway? Um, this south side of the property. Yes. It's undeveloped, but yes.

Okay. So there's a possibility like in the works of another. Okay. I just was curious because I know just that one way in I thought you get a couple of trucks backed up then and I didn't want you know then they would be saying you know that's our our business. They're not able to turn in people aren't able to get in. So I was just trying to look at it from that side too. It has two interesting but only one is open and the other one is undeveloped but I'm in the process of getting it worked out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. Do we have any other discussion or do we have any other questions? All right. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair,

go ahead. After reviewing case number 2025 090, planning commission recommend approval for the request by MMI LLC for the conditional use permit for semi trucks lot secured and guarded at 769 Southwest SS Road for a period of 5 years. You could could we add that it be paved like Andrew had mentioned paid. Yes, sir. By the ordinance

with with the pavement of the lot with the condition of the pavement. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Do we have any other discussion? All right. Roll call, please. Kirby, yes. Jan, yes. Lita, you're Yes. Mark, no. Calvin, yes. Yes. Taylor, yes.

Okay, got to call everybody. All right, moving on to our next case. 2025-098, conditional use permit for motor vehicle services and minor repair. I'll turn this over to our director.

All right. So, thank you. This case is a request u by Prenice Mitchell of Goodman Auto Center LLC to use the building at this address uh 2484 Goodman Road West as a motor vehicle service and minor repair business. The structure to be occupied already exists on the lot and appears agreeable to the applicant for this type of business being proposed as it appears designed to have multiple garage doors to accept vehicles to be serviced. Below is a Google Street View captured in March 2025 of this building to show its current design. And uh as as you can see that that building already exists there. Um it's got one, two, three, four, five garage doors there and a um extra office spaceworkspace over there on the left side. Um the next page is the aerial view of the property. Um, this is at the corner of Hurt Road and Goodman Road. Um, and then there's one entrance on each of those roads. Uh, next page, please. This is the zoning of that property. This parcel is in a C4 zone. The lot adjoining this lot is C3, and the lot directly across Hurt Road is C4. Both of the lots on the southern side of this intersection are zone C3 as well as well as the adjoining lots to them. Um for the site plan, the applicant is not intending to change anything on site. Um and so basically what you saw in that aerial view is going to be the site. Um, however, the board of alderman where this will eventually get to may require special conditions on physically improving the property and layout. Um, and the planning commission can

absolutely recommend any of those improvements as well. So, for the planning staff review as part of the review process by the planning commission for any conditional use permit request, the 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, overt tax public utilities or community facilities, or be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Um, so um, as stated before, the planning department requests that all applicants applying for a conditional use permit submit written statements addressing the criteria that both the planning commission and the board of aldermen must investigate during their meetings. The planning commission must review letters A through F shown above. And then the board of alderman must review the other criteria mentioned in the letter. As part of the reviewing and reporting process, the planning staff will review all of these criteria. And any conclusions will be presented to the planning commission and the board of alderman. And so below we have a screenshot of the applicant's letter of intent as well as a separate page by the applicant containing the questions and answers. So, that's a letter of intent. Um, I'm sure everybody's had a chance to read that. And then here we have the answers to those questions before. And so, answering those questions, uh, this is from the applicant. Uh, the approval of this application will not increase traffic hazards or congestion. Approval of the application will not increase fire hazards. Approval of the application will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhoods. This is a commercial zone property. Um, when asked, will it adversely affect the general welfare of the city? No, it will not. Um, will it overt tax public utilities or community facilities? No,

it will not. Um, will it be in conflict with the comprehensive plan? Um, the answer is the design and location of all parking. Um, oh, sorry, the approval of this application will not conflict with the comprehensive plan. And so that's from the applicant. Um when it comes to the planning department's review um in reviewing letter A, planning staff does not think that this will increase traffic hazards or congestion. Uh there has not been any evidence of other businesses of this exact same use um causing traffic hazards or congestion in Horn Lake. We have multiple businesses of these types and we have not received any complaints of traffic congestion. Um, in reviewing letter B, planning staff cannot make a determination as to whether this proposed use will or will not be a fire hazard. However, there is nothing currently suggesting this proposal will cause fire hazards as only specific tasks mentioned to the planning staff so far um was oil changes and tire changes. Um we would like some more clarification on all of the uses going to occur in that building. Um that will give us a much better understanding of all fire hazards that may be coming. Um, but as far as the other places in town that do oil changes and tire changes, we do not have any complaints of fire hazards or multiple fire incidents um or any fire incidents. Um, in reviewing letter C, planning staff does not think this request will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. While a motor vehicle service and minor repair business may be seen as a nuisance to nearby residences,

we must note that the opportunity to have a tenant move into the building means that the building and the lot now get cleaned up and taken care of by the new business operators. The planning department agrees that this building was designed to be uh was designed to service vehicles. So this is an indication that this use was previously not seen as a negative use for the area. Um in reviewing letter D, planning staff does not see a reason to believe that this request will adversely affect the charact sorry adversely affect the general welfare of the city. There are multiple businesses of this kind throughout the city already. Uh, as stated before, this building appears to be designed for this kind of proposed land use. Um, as I noted before with the multiple garage doors there, um, planning staff believes that it makes sense for the building to contain a business that the building was designed for. Furthermore, having a business move in move Having a business moving in gives the city an opportunity to address the condition of the property, including but not limited to the leftover supplies on the lot from the previous tenant, the condition of the parking area, the vegetation, the signs and disrepair, and the missing fence gate. Um, in reviewing letter E, there is no indication that the request will overt tax public utilities or community facilities. There does not appear to be any anticipated strain on any public utilities or community facilities. And other businesses of a similar nature in Horn Lake have not yet appeared to cause issues with overusing utilities. And in reviewing letter F, the request does not conflict with the comprehensive plan. This is a commercial

land use in a commercial zone along a street intended to be commercialized. Um, and then in conclusion, upon reviewing the same criteria that the planning commission must review, planning staff did not see any reason to recommend denial for the request. However, the planning commission must do its own review and deliberate over that criteria. And so, I have a possible motion up there on the screen. um recommending approval with those conditions u if it were to be approved. All

right. Thank you. Um so do we have any questions for Andrew? If I'm not mistaken, this used this at one time was a um transmission repair shop and then it went to a hell doing uh hell storm repair for cars and stuff. So, it does seem to have that look to it. So, anybody have any questions for Andrew? Um, I just need clarification on the use of the building. I know you said, um, if you'll come on up. Yes. Um, I believe the applicant would be happy to answer those questions much better than me. Thank you.

The applicants here asked that question. I just wanted clarification on what the use would be. Um in one part of this um motion it says oil change and tire change, but then in another section I see that's going to be used for uh car rental services as well. Um well the car rental service is already an approved use in the chart. So I'm just here to address the car repair side of things. Okay. Thank you for this.

Yes, ma'am. And I'll say for clarification, um this was before this is y'all's a lot of y'all's first night. Uh we had a previous case, um I believe a few months ago where uh the same exact use came up. And so the actual use we're looking at tonight for conditional use approval is um motor vehicle service and minor repair. So that is what's in the use chart and that requires a conditional use in this zone. And so when we looked um in the previous cases for what does a motor vehicle service and minor repair mean? Um, a previous applicant had uh asked us and the city attorney um if it could just mean tire changes and oil changes. And the city attorney uh the previous city attorney um agreed that oil changes and tire changes fit under motor vehicle service and minor repair. Now, as to what else that could be construed to mean, um that previous conversation um brought about any use where a car could come into it and out of it within that one, 2, three hour period. Um we never set any parameters on a uh time limit. Um, I wouldn't get into that, but we never set any parameters on time limit or we never set an established list of uses for this use. But the um whole point of a conditional use process is for the planning commission and the board of alderman to if they want to come up with that list,

come up with a hard list of uses um, and then other physical changes they would like to see on site. So I got a question. So with that said, is that the intent just to do oil changes and and minor? Just minor in and out in a day. In and out in a day minor, nothing major. There's no there will be no u major engine repair, I think, is the best way to put it. Okay. Now, would it would there be any chance of any cars staying overnight? And if they did, would they be behind the fence or inside the building? Uh both. It would behind the fence. Will be it'll be a repair fence by that time. Um, as you probably all know that the fence has been down. Oh yes.

Uh, either behind the repair fence or inside at all times. If it does stay overnight, it's because there's a part being ordered. Maybe the customer didn't get back before closing time, something like that. But it never be like we're just keeping your car for days. I understand, but things happen. I mean, I've had I mean, I've I've had my car stay at Firestone overnight when it should have been really back to me or something. So, um, any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. All right, we're open this back up for discussion for the public. Does anybody like to speak?

Oh, don't be shy. Y'all can come on up. All right, we're going to close this uh we're going to close this uh this public hearing. Do we have any other discussion? All right, roll call. Oh, make a motion. I'm sorry. I'll make a motion. I'm I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm I'm This is a long night. I don't we don't usually have seven cases in front of us. I'll make a motion. Okay.

After review of case number 2025-098, the planning commission recommend approval of a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle service and minor repair land use at 2484 Goodman Road West in a C4 zone for a period of 5 years upon the condition that the applicant fully repairs the fencing which shall include a gate in a manner that complies with all fence ordinances. Number two, second two and three. I was going to read it off. It's okay. All right. We have a motion in a second for approval for a 5-year period for and with conditions one through three. Do we have any other discussion? Now we'll do the roll call. Kirby, yes. Jan, yes. Aita, yes. Mark,

yes. Calvin, yes. Taylor, yes. Okay, pass. All right, that one's passed. All right, moving on to our next case. Case number 2025-092 is a case request by Daniel Weber at 4785 Windsap Drive for a fence height variance due to lowlying areas on the lot.

And I will once again turn this over to our director Thank you. Um you can start with um the aerial view of the property. All right. Uh is they're in the residential neighborhood. Um and then the zoning is there as well. This property as well as the surrounding houses are in the AR zone which is agricultural residential. um which um are the the largest residential lots in the city. Um as far as zoning goes, uh for the site plan, um the property is approximately uh 1.1 acres. Applicant is not intending to change anything on site. The existing fence is 8t tall, 2 feet higher than the permitted, six foot maximum. Uh the property has lowlying areas, so a taller fence provides privacy that a 6 foot tall fence would not. Um and so uh I've we have the requirements for variances posted up here. If anybody wants to go back to any of these, um we absolutely can. Um, but we put in here the uh requirements of the applicant needing to answer. And so, um, I'll just kind of go through the the letters here. Um, well, actually, this will be a lot of y'all's first variance case, so I I think I should actually um read through it here a little more carefully. uh were the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional hardship

upon the owner of such property. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on applications for variances from the terms of this ordinance and is empowered to grant approval of such variances from the strict application so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships. However, a variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted unless the planning commission makes findings based upon evidence presented to it as follows. A 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. Um so the applicant response is our lot sits at a noticeably lower elevation than the surrounding lots which is a condition not common to other properties in the district. Um the next thing they have to answer is 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. So the applicant response was that a strict six-foot height u fails to provide the privacy typically afforded to similarly situated homeowners which would deprive us of a reasonable use and enjoyment of our backyard. Uh the next one um is that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Um their response is the lot's elevation is a natural feature and not a result of any actions on our part. And then the last one is that granting the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other land structures or buildings in the same districts. Um

and this so their response was other residents with similar topographical chain challenges have been granted similar variances. Uh for example, case number 2021. Uh so approval of this request would be consistent with past decisions. Um and so uh we have the planning staff review being that upon reviewing the same criteria that planning commission must review, planning staff recommends approval of the fence height variance at 4785 WAP Drive. The lot is sloped in a way that a taller fence is needed to provide privacy to the homeowner and the six-foot maximum allowed by the ordinance does not provide enough privacy. Further details from the homeowner can be found in their letter attached to this report. And so, uh, the way this report is laid out, um, the applicants submitts are, um, on all of the next pages. And so hopefully everybody has had it has had plenty of time to read the letter, look at the pictures um and view all of the um arguments by the So that concludes the presentation.

All right. Thank you, Andrew. Does anybody have any questions for Andrew? All right. Is the applicant here? All right. If you can come on up and get just go ahead and restate your name and uh address for us. Daniel Weber 47851 subdrive. Has anybody got any questions for Mr. Weber? No question. But this is awesome. Thank you. Yes. Go ahead. How long you been residing at the address on? Um we're going on six years. Six years. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? Man, you're getting off easy today. Thank you. All right. We're going to open this up to the public. Does anybody like to speak? Yes, go ahead and state your name and address. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other discussion? All right. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion.

After review of case number 2025-092, the planning commission recommends approval of a variance for the height of a fence to be 8 ft at 4785 WAP Drive on land consisting of 1.1 acres under AR zoning. Right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any other any other discussion? All right. Roll call. Yes. Yes.

All right. Motion passes. Thank y'all. All right. Moving on to our next one is 2025-100. This is a text amendment on sidewalk requirements. This is an applicant of the city and I will turn this over to our fierce leader, Mr. Andrew, so he can uh tell us what's going on. Thank you.

Thank you. Um All right. So, um I you know just as I think everybody's received their um planning commission training training guides and so um it's it's really good to have all kinds of different cases tonight as your your your first meeting. Um this one here is a text amendment. Um if any of the ordinances in this city are to be amended, the typical process is um we hear the case here at planning commission and then the board of alderman approves that. Um, so as so for the introduction, the city of Horn Lake is ready to start leading the way in creating safer and more walkable areas for everyone within its borders. Everyone of all ages and backgrounds should have the ability to freely and safely walk through the city they call home. And the best way to provide for this is to ensure sidewalks are built in as many places as needed. When examining the how, where, and why people travel to their destinations throughout Horn Lake, it becomes apparent that there are many people of all ages and backgrounds that use the sidewalks for both recreational purposes, such as walking, jogging, riding bikes, or visiting a neighbor and out of necessity, uh, such as walking to work or walking to the grocery store. I actually see this all the time. And um with the wide range of users and purposes, this means that sidewalks are needed on all are needed on all road types from the local roads within neighborhoods to the larger and busier roads like Goodman Road West. It should be noted that there are multiple studies that have shown that walkable areas have

higher property values than less walkable areas. And this goes for both commercial and residential. And having sidewalks is a direct contributing factor in the this boosted value. Requiring sidewalks on all sides of all streets in the city would make the city look more complete. It would make the city safer for both pedestrians and drivers and make the city more desirable for future businesses and residents. The developers of the three most recent residential subdivision developments in Horn Lake, which are Sage Creek, Ravenwood F, and Ravenwood G, have all agreed that having sidewalks on both sides of all streets makes the most desirable product. And so they all agreed to pave them on both sides. But the city is needing this text amendment to guarantee that all developers in the future will follow in these same footsteps. And so I've put up there the current text um of our ordinance and it reads, "Concrete sidewalks not less than 5t wide and 4 in in depth shall be constructed on both sides of all major and collector streets with curbs and gutters in accordance with applicable standard specifications of the city. Sidewalks shall be constructed along at least one side of every minor street shown on the plat with the exception of culde-sac where sidewalks are not required. And then uh we have number one mayor and board of alderman may wave the above requirement for sidewalks provided that street rights of way are left unobstructed and graded in such a manner that sidewalks may be constructed at a later date. Uh we've come to find that the side that the city has never to our knowledge never paved these sidewalks at

a later date. Um uh material and comp compression tests of concrete shall be performed and submitted to the engineer. Uh we are requesting to keep that and then that the mayor and board of aldermen may in their discretion require a minimum fee of $15 per linear foot to be paid to the city in lie of complying with the requirement of sidewalks. um said fee to be determined at the time of each development based on current rates and/or changes. Said funds are to be specified and designated for further development of sidewalks within the city. We're deemed necessary by the mayor and board of alderman and in the best interest of the citizens. Like I said before, um I've never come across a case where that um fee of $15 minimum per linear foot in LU has been imposed on any developer. Um so we are recommending getting rid of that and replacing it with this proposed text. Concrete sidewalks not less than five feet wide and four inches in depth shall be constructed along both sides of all streets regardless of street classification or street type which shall include the space around every culde-sac and with any curbs, gutters and grass buffers as required by the city with number one material and compression tests of the concrete shall be performed and submitted to the engineer. So, um, that is the proposed text we are wanting to see and I have the proposed motion listed under there.

So, you're wanting to make that change and basically remove item number three totally. That's what I'm reading as the proposed one. Yes. So, uh, the way I laid out the proposed motion is, um, if you read out the proposed motion as is Oh, it's E in it. Um, I got you. It would Yes. um have the letter E say what is below.

Okay. I just I was just looking that we're we're removing that number three that was mentioned above in the current text. We're removing it which makes sense. Okay. and uh modifying that first sentence um where the city previously required paving sidewalks on only one side of every street and we've seen some developers do the bare minimum, some do the two. We want to see uniformity and see every single neighborhood just have the two on both sides.

All right, do we have any questions for Andrew? All right, this uh we're open this up for public. Anybody like to speak? We're getting thinner out there. All right, we're going to close the public section. All right, any discussion? All right, do we have a motion?

All right, go ahead. After review of case number 2025-100, the planning commission recommends approval of a text amendment to the code of ordinance to replace current all of the current wording of chap chapter 34 subdivisions article 4 required minimum improvements section 34-89 minimum standards sidewalks to read sidewalk concrete sidewalk not less and 5 ft wide and 4 in in depth. Shall be constructed along both side of all street regardless of street classification or three type which shall include the space around every culdeac and with any curb gutter and grass buffers as required by the city. Material and compression tests of the concrete should be performed and submitted to engineer.

Second. And we have we have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? Go ahead. All right. Roll call, please. John Kirby. Lita, yes. Mark, yes. Calvin, yes. Taylor, yes. Jen, yes. Kirby, yes. Okay. All right. Motion's passed. All right. All right. Moving on to our last one for the night. Case number 2025-101. It's a text amendment to on the rightway of in of internal dimensions and I will once again pass this on to our director.

Thank you. So we have um for the introduction here um I just actually just wrote everything out um here. The city of Horn Lake has multiple residential streets with varying dimensions. Uh some streets are excessively wide for no apparent reason while others are so narrow that cars may not park on them anymore. Um many streets in this city also change widths okay when going from one neighborhood to another.

Some have sidewalks on both sides. Some have them on just one side and some have them on the other side. Uh, additionally, the right-of-way widths in residential areas greatly vary as well, and many of these variations do not seem to have any relation to the width of the street itself, the sidewalk, or the grass buffer within its lines, as many ride-of-way lines extend beyond the sidewalk. It has become apparent that there must be a required standard for all developers to follow when building local streets and all new subdivisions. The city has seen multiple instances of developers attempting to build the skinniest streets with no curb and gutter and no sidewalks in order to cut down on costs and maximize profits, but to the detriment of the city in the long run. It is the city's responsibility to ensure that developers build their developments in such a manner that will benefit everyone in the future. And the only way we can do this is by passing ordinances that they must follow. For decades, the city has been hurt by letting developers design their subdivisions and streets the way they wanted to. For the record, some subdivisions were approved by the city of Horn Lake, while others were approved by uh Dotto County and inherited from Dysotto County after the city annexed certain areas in the county. Uh however, it is now time for the city to require that all developers of all residential subdivisions build all of their streets to the same specifications in order to create a more uniform and orderly city that benefits everyone. So planning staff wishes to start with the smallest currently allowed rightway width that developers may build and that is 50 ft 50ft rideway. A 50-oot ride ofway is typically used for all local roads, which are the smallest roads found in

residential subdivisions. The 50- foot width is the most commonly proposed right-of-way width in neighborhoods because it allows the developer to pave the smallest amount of asphalt while giving the them the largest amount of lot acreage to build homes on. While the city has required this minimum width for many years, the real problem was that there were never any specified requirements for the internal dimensions of the rideway, such as the street width, the curb width, the grass buffer width, and sidewalk width. The planning department believes that the best compromise for the internal layout of the 50-ft rideway is a 34ft street measured from the inside faces of the curbs with um sorry that that should say 6in curbs and 2.5 ft grass buffers and 5ft sidewalks. This all adds up to 50 feet whereas the the edge of the sidewalk is the edge of the rideway which gives the additional benefit of knowing exactly where the city property starts and stops. So this allows for on street parking, safe walkability on both sides and a grass buffer that provides an adequate distance between pedestrians and vehicles as well as a space for certain utilities needed. And by that I mean like fire hydrants, mailboxes, um telephone poles, stuff like that. And so, uh, for the current text, um, I went ahead and just copy and pasted all of the current text under our street ordinances. Um, and then within that, we do have that, uh, chart. Go back up to that chart there. Um, these are all the street types in the city. We have a lot of street types. Um we have urban arterial uh which are um basically our more of our highway type streets and then we have scenic

arterial which are are um you could call them uh rural highway type streets and then we have the collector streets which are larger streets in the city. Um and then you have the local streets. So, when we're talking about building new subdivisions, um you typically see 50 foot rightways throughout all of these new subdivisions. This is the smallest allowable ride ofway that the developers can build. And um if you look there, you have local and in parenthesis you have rural. So, you have two lanes parenthesis rural and then two lanes parenthesis curb and gutter. So, the way we've always interpreted that is two lanes rural and then two lanes um residential um dense residential. Uh this chart is laid out kind of awkwardly. This chart terminology is um it doesn't really match a lot of other places in the ordinance. So, we've always had a tough time classifying street types in the city because our ordinance is just so all over the place on the street classifications, the street types. And so, um if you notice in here, um in this entire street ordinance text area, um we don't really have anything specifying what goes inside of these rightways. And you have the rightways of 114, 108, 106, 84, 106, 60, 74, 8, 68, 62, 56, 60, and 50, and 50. And so, um, we're just going to today just tackle

the 50-foot rideway. And um for the proposed text uh we would like this to say every ride ofway consisting of a width of 50 ft shall have a street width of 34 feet as measured from front of curb to front of curb and both sides of the street shall consist of a curb measuring 6 in in width a grass buffer measuring 2.5 ft in width and a sidewalk measuring 5t in width. So, I have the proposed motion there and that concludes the presentation. All right. Does anybody have any questions for Andrew? I have a question.

I I respectfully like this deal with the uh street widening. The issue is I have with these all going to be considered with the zero lot line houses when they build a lot the lots. So, um talking about the zero lot, the house so close together versus the one that's spread out. you know, I think were more efficient for houses that spread out versus zero lot line when

this um the street ordinances I had up there in the italics um and with the chart that applies to every single um type of development in the city. So regardless of lot shape, lot size, house type, um every future development in the city would have to conform to this specification um if it gets approved by the planning commission and board. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? All right, I'm gonna open this up to the public. All right, we're going to close the public. And do we have a motion?

I'll make the motion. All right. Go ahead. Let me take my

Okay. I changed it. After review of case number 2025101, the planning commission recommends approval of a text amendment to the code of ordinances to add letter M to the current wording of chapter 34 subdivisions article 3 subdivision design standard section 34-57 streets to read. Every right ofway consisting of a width of 50 feet shall have a street width of 34 feet has measured from front of curb to front of curb. And both sides of the street shall consist of curb measuring 6 in in width, a grass buffer measuring 2.5 ft in width, and a sidewalk measuring 5T in width. Second, wait.

We have a motion. No, sorry. We have a motion in a second. Do we have any other discussion? Kirby. Wait, wait, wait. All right. Roll call, please. Kirby, yes. Jen, yes. Kea, yes. Mark, yes. Taylor, yes. Calvin, yes. Okay.

All right. That one's That one's approved. On to other business. Uh, one thing I would like to bring up on other business is um, like I said, I'm I'm so happy to see all you new faces on this on this commission. Um, but I also want to just um put out there that we need to be thinking about making sure that we make this commitment as much as we can. And I know that we've in the past have had commissioners that have missed more than um three months in in in succession. So, I would like for us to really consider um putting rules in place for this commission that if we miss more than three in a row that we bring that up to the mayor and uh and the and the respected alderman for replacement of that person on this commission. Uh we've had too many times in the uh in this last uh part of the year in 2025 where we've not made quorum and it's very important that we actually um make the commitment to be here when we can. And I understand that things life happens and that some of us might miss, but we have to have at least five and it's not fair to the applicants that come in and spend their time to come in here just for us to tell them that they have to go home and either we have to have a special meeting because of our mistake or they have to wait another month to get their project done. So, I just want to bring that put that out there and um and and I think that's a rule that we should be following uh for this commission. Do we have any other other business? Um, I just remembered um I have a a plat in my office to be signed um by the

secretary chair and the secretary. Yep. So, and um as soon as we adjourn, I can go run over and grab it. Your your new duties now as the secretary. You get to go sign just like I do. Okay. It's great. You'll love it. All right. Do we have any other new business other business? Any additional other business? I have a question. Okay. I'd like to address uh as it's on the board, let people be mindful, listen to the uh people that come forward. We can't turn their head with a blind eye when we see other people doing the same thing like defense. Okay. I mean, if we're going to do that, we need to treat everybody, you know, be biased about it.

Okay. And uh one more thing um for U Morris Taylor um I have a sheet of paper for you to sign for um uh relating to the um the oath of office. Um we just needed one more signature. Okay. And where are we at on the comprehensive plan? I have another question. That's my last question.

Yes. So, um I actually uh met with uh Bob Barber this uh past week or last week at a conference and talked to him a little bit about it. Um we are going to meet up with him again on a um a final draft of what we were working on um about a month ago. And so it is it is still underway. It is still being uh carefully put together and it is coming to you as soon as we can get it to you. Okay. Thank you for do we do we have anything else? If not, do we have a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion. We adjourn. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed have the same. May I know it?