Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we are going to go ahead and get started with the planning commission for September 29th, 2025. It is now 6 o'clock. I am calling this meeting to order. And if we could have a roll call, please. Here. Mark Crawford here. Nikita Fox here. Calvin Freeman here. Maurice Stale here. Janice Fidal here. Jesse wear. Chad Engle chairman is here.

All right. If everyone will stand, we will do our pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, I hope everyone has had a chance to look at the minutes from our last meeting and if we need to discuss or if we have a motion to accept.

I make a motion that we accept the minutes from previous meeting. All right, we have a motion to accept meeting uh the minutes from the meeting of August 25th. Do we have a second? I think second. All right, we have a second. Any discussion? All right, roll call. Yes. Mark Crawford, yes. Nikita Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman, yes. Maurice Taylor, yes. Janice Videll, yes. Jesse where here

we don't have any old business so we will move on to our new business. Uh we'll start with case number 2025-121 reszoning from AR to AR and R10 at 4560 Nail Road West. I will uh take this and let our staff present presentation. Thank you. Um, this case is a request for the reszoning of the property at 4560 Nail Road from all AR to a mix of AR and R10 to match appropriately within anticipated plat application by the same applicant at a later time. So, I put up the aerial imagery of the property there at 4560. And then on the next page, it's the same image but with the zoning. So this property is currently zoned AR in its entirety. The surrounding properties to the west, north, and south are all AR as well. The properties to the east have PUD zoning with the majority being approximately quarter acre residential lots for single family homes with some town homes as well. And then um here's a screenshot of the um the the breakdown of what they actually want to reszone. So uh as I mentioned earlier, it's just a part of the current parcel that's being requested to be reszoned. So that kind of that darker shaded area in the the bottom right corner of that parcel is going to be is requesting to go from AR to R10. So, um,

for the staff review and comments, um, the requirement for a reasonzoning is that the applicant for an amendment of the official zoning map shall have the responsibility to demonstrate the appropriateness of the change based on the following criteria. Uh, A, how the proposed amendment could conform would conform to the comprehensive plan and its related elements. uh b why the existing zone classification in question is inappropriate or improper. see what major economic, physical, or social changes, if any, have occurred in the vicinity of the property in question that were not anticipated by the comprehensive plan and have substantially altered the basic character of the area which make the proposed amendment to the official zoning map appropriate and D demonstrate the public need for the proposed zone district amendment. So, uh, in response to letter A, the applicant states that the R10 zoning will be positioned to accommodate increased residential demand in the area. A portion of the property will be converted to R10 zoning, while the remaining land will retain its AR designation to maintain compatibility with surrounding ARZ zone properties and uphold the intent of transitional land use identified in the plan. In response to letter B, the applicant states that the full AR zoning is no longer appropriate for the section of property closest to the developing residential areas. The existing AR restricts higher density residential use, which is increasingly in demand due to nearby development trends. Development trends such as Ravenwood east of the parcel. Reszoning this portion to R10 allows for more efficient and practical use of the land while preserving the AR zoning along the perimeter to the west to respect adjacent AR parcels. In response

to letter C, the applicant states that the surrounding area has experienced notable residential growth and infrastructure improvements, including nearby subdivisions and road expansions. These changes have shifted the area's development character going from rural agricultural to low density suburban residential. These new trends now need to be accounted for by reszoning to a more appropriate R10 designation. In response to letter D, the applicant states that reszoning a portion of the property to R10 helps meet local housing demand and diversify housing stock. It allows for residential growth in the right locations while maintaining AR zoning where it best fits. This will allow for more efficient use of the infrastructure, balanced land use, and a mix of housing options that serve both current and future home buyers. So, um, as part of our review, um, planning staff does not disagree with any of the applicant statements presented in response to the four criteria. For the record though, we must note that the proposed land use map in the 2003 comprehensive plan, as seen on the next page, shows this parcel listed as low density residential. The parcels to the west are are low density residential, while the Ravenwood parcels to the east are shown on that old map um as medium density residential. While the proposed request would deviate from the 2003 proposed land use map, it would only be for a part of the current parcel and would still create a smooth transition of the same zones. This proposal does not ignore the intent of the comprehensive plan. The current zoning designation of fully AR may be construed to be inappropriate as time has progressed and the city and county have grown in population and increased in

demand. Furthermore, the last phases of Ravenwood of the Ravenwood neighborhood to the east are being built out and have increased the prevalence of denser lots in the vicinity. A new gas station and building with multiple commercial bays are being built close by as well. The density being proposed fits with the character of the growth directly to the east and seems like it may fit in smoothly with that growth. As for the public need, we do not necessarily this see this proposal as we do not necessarily see this proposal as something immediately needed, but we will agree that if any new future subdivision um as a result of this resoning um it can fix flooding issues on the property and nearby properties while also creating the new neighborhood park area. then this resoning could greatly serve the current residents in the immediate area. So basically uh this does present an opportunity to improve those potentially um bad conditions such as flooding. Um so based on the criteria required for review, planning staff does not see any strong reason to reject the reasonzoning request. And so that's just a screenshot of the um land future land use map in the comprehensive plan. And then next page is the letter the applicant submitted and um all I have next is the proposed motion and that concludes the presentation.

Thank you. Um, quick question on uh on this one. Um, so moving from R A R to the area section for R10 is so they can put more houses in that area because it's not allowed under the AR. Is that correct? Um, so it's so the houses going in can fit properly with both zones. So they're planning for AR zoned houses and R10 zoned houses.

And then the other question uh would be is is I know we don't have our new comprehensive plan, but will this still fit within the new comprehensive plan? I know that we're because I don't want to I I'd hate to know we do something and then we realize that it doesn't fit something that we're getting ready to have here in a few months. So, for the new comprehensive plan, um obviously it's not out yet, but we would support more density and um higher density zoning um pretty much all over the city. Okay. As as generality.

Yeah, I gotcha. All right. Any questions for staff? And just to clarify, the new comprehensive plan, um, we we're not going to put in anything in there that would go against what we're recommending now. Understand? I notice on page 16, um, are they prepared to address the flood issue? And it says here about a neighbor park area.

Yeah. So, uh, what I was trying to say about that is, and this is just one way to look at it, if if you're having someone that's wanting to develop an area, it presents a perfect opportunity to have the engineers and developers address certain site problems such as flooding. uh you know, you get a chance to fix blight, you get a chance to fix old structures, you get a chance to get new infrastructure in there, and then you get a chance to fix any issues with the slopes and flooding. And then, of course, with a new neighborhood, you're going to get a uh a new park out of this. So, that's just to hit on the criteria point for the uh the public need.

Any other questions for staff? All right. Is the applicant here? Go ahead and state your name and address. 8180 Airways Boulevard, South Haven. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant or does the applicant have anything they'd like to say?

Um, as for the flooding issues, we've addressed them. Um, they just have got to be built. Um, going off of what Andrew is saying, uh, there is a substantial common open space area. I forget which lot it's between, but um there will be a park there. Um but everything has been addressed. Now it's just getting down to the construction portion of it to make it happen. Any questions? Well, no questions today.

All right. Uh this is a public hearing, so we're going to open it up to anybody that anybody that would like to speak, you can come up now. All right, we're going to close this public hearing. Uh, and we are now going to uh do we have any other comments or concerns or do we have a motion? Do we need some more discussion? Go ahead, commissioner. After reviewing case number 25 121, planning commission recommend approval for the request of LP LLC for reszoning the property at 4560 from A to A and R as shown in the draw in the staff report. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. All right, we have a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Nay. Hi.

Yay. Yay. Yeah. Jesse. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. On to our next case. Case number 2025-123. It's a variance from setback regulations on Pine Oak acres plat revision. I will once again turn this back over to our staff.

Thank you. Um, so this case is request for a sideyard setback variance for lot 18 within the Pinnoke Acre subdivision. The variance is request is required because the detached garage at 5515 Jordan Drive currently encroaches upon the shared property line with lot 19 under the proposed plat revision um, which is case number 2025-122. The garage will be located 5.5 feet from the adjusted side property line whereas the minimum sideyard setback required by ordinance is 20 feet. Approval of this variance would permit the garage to remain within the reduced setback and allow consider consideration of the associated plat revision case number 2025-122. And that's going to be the case right after this one. So, uh, up on the screen there is the full property. Um, as you can see, and so the Dninnesota County GIS lines are, um, just an estimate, but, um, in this case, it's, uh, pretty accurate. Um, it's showing aerial view of lots 18 and 19, uh, where that blue line is going across that detached garage. Um the garage at 5515 Jordan Drive currently encroaches on the property line and so um the variance would allow it to remain 5.5 ft from the adjusted line in a future case but we have to go through the variance case to make sure that the plat would be allowed in that case. And uh if anyone has questions about that, we can definitely talk about that. So this parcel is currently zoned AR. All properties surrounding both lots are

zoned AR except for the Nicole Place development to the west which is zone PUB. And then here is a screenshot of the actual plat um that's going to be presented in the next case. So shown below is a screenshot showing the details of lot 18 and lot 19. The proposed property line adjustment places the detached garage at 5515 Jordan entirely within lot 18. The garage is located 5.5 ft from the adjusted property line and within the 20 foot side setback requirement. And that uh that setback line is that um kind of that longer dotted line within the solid line on both of those lots. So um the requirements for the variances um so where the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would result in the peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property. The planning commission shall hold public hearing on 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. So the applicant's response is the garage on my property currently sits on the property line I share with my neighbor at 5555 Jordan. It was built in 1992 before the property was annexed into the city of Horn Lake. I purchased the property after the

garage was already in place and was unaware that its location would create an issue which makes the situation unique to my lot. Um the next is B 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. The applicant's response is that I am trying to sell my property and to do that I need to move the property line. So my garage is completely on my lot. My neighbor has kindly agreed to move the line 5.5 ft onto her property to account for the utility easement, but she did not agree to move it an additional 15t needed to meet the full yard setback. Without this adjustment, I can't use my property the same way my other homeowners in the neighborhood can. Letter C is that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant response is that my neighbor agreed to move the property line 5.5 ft but not the additional 15 ft needed to meet the full setback. Because this property line only shared is only shared between our two lots. The situation creates a unique condition for my property that is not caused by my actions and does not affect other land owners. And then letter D is that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The applicant response is that approving this variance did not give me would not give me any special privilege that other property owners in this district don't have. The need for the variance comes from the current location of the of the garage and the 5.5 ft that my neighbor has agreed to move the property line. There's still plenty of space between the garage and my neighbor's house. This area has not caused problems in the past and my neighbor understandably does not

want to give up any additional yard to accommodate the full setback. So, the um applicant answered all those questions sufficiently. Um and so for the planning staff review, we have that upon reviewing the same criteria that the planning commission must review, including the existing location of the garage, the agreement of the lot 19 property owner, and the unique circumstances of this property. Planning staff finds that the criteria for a sideyard setback variance are met. Therefore, uh staff therefore recommends approval of the variance to allow the garage to remain within the reduced setback and to facilitate facilitate consideration of the associated plat revision in the next case. And then I have the proposed uh motion there and that concludes the presentation. Thank you. Uh Andrew, uh quick question. So, if I'm understanding all this is that the the garage was built before the applicant actually owned it and he bought it with with it on when it was in the county with it on the on the property line as it sets.

Yes, that's what I understand. Okay. All right. Does anybody have any questions for staff? I'm understanding you. Yeah. Go ahead. understanding this property was built right before it got annexed into all lake, right? Yes, that's what I understand. And the um I believe the land owner is here in the audience today. So, if the if the applicant would like to come up, go ahead and state your name and uh address for the record.

Yes, sir. Thank you all for having us tonight. This is kind of a unique situation for us. It really caught us off guard. We weren't expecting such a thing, but it is a hardship case. My mother's 89 years old. We're trying to get the house sold so I can take care of her. My dad died and she's by herself. And so this is your mom's? My mother. Yes, sir. Okay. Still in the county. She's still in the county. She's in Austin Road, but we're trying to get closer to her because never know when she's going to need it. Gotcha.

And uh the situation with the house was the house was built uh I think in the 80s, but um when they built the garage on, it's my understanding they did pull a permit through the county and we've been paying or they've been paying taxes on it since 1992. And we were shocked to find out that it wasn't uh it was over the line just a little bit. So I talked to my neighbor about it when I told him I might sell you know the the the line is o it's over a little bit and Henry and the guy on it before and my husband never worried about it. She's not worried about it at all. I said what do I need to do? Said no worried about it. Just sell it but I can't sell it to get it right. So I talked to um Mr. uh Jeff down at at the trying to find out where I'm nervous y'all. Please excuse me. I used to get in front of crowds like this. But I talked to Jeff Fitch down at Hernand and he told me to get in touch with with Andrew or Billy, which I did. I don't do everything properly. I didn't want to try to change anything without doing it the right way. And we went through it. I've talked to them and they said, "As good as you've been to us, you've painted our house, you cut our grass for 20some years since you've been here." U of course I wasn't a legally owner then, but I helped. But I bought the house for my sister-in-law. Uh my h my wife's half the house my sister years ago and now officers come up and we didn't they didn't know it either. They didn't know it was over the line. Only the the owner next door did and they never had a problem. She said don't worry about that garage. We're not going to tear your garage down. Said we're going to move the line over every what is required and we'll have it done. So I talked to Billy and Andrew and they've been very kind to help me. And there was a utility easement I think a 5ft utility. So the labor said don't worry about that. We'll go five and a half ft to make sure everything's in coordinates. But once uh Mr. Schineering uh did the new plat, it showed a variance that we didn't expect another 15 foot on top of the five. And I talked to her about she Philip, we can't just

go that far. I mean, and they they're so kind. I mean, I can't ask them for any more. So, that's where I'm at tonight. That's why we're here trying to get this variant straight so we can get our plat straight and get everything in order. Okay. Has has anybody from the city talked to the talked to the neighbor? We have a letter from the neighbor stating that they're okay with the 5.5 and Okay, that's that's all I want to make sure that we had that. All right. So, does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Thank you'all very much. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

Is there anybody uh we're going to open this up to uh public comment. Is there anybody here that would like to speak? All right. We're going to close the public hearing. All right. Do we have any other discussion or a motion? I'll make a motion. All right. Go ahead. After review of case number 2025-123, the planning commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the garage at 5515 Jordan Drive to be located 5.5 ft from the proposed property line within the required 20ft side yard setback. Second. All right, we have a motion in a second. Any other discussion? All right, roll call, please. Kirby Carter, yes. Mark Crawford, yes. Lita Fox, yes.

Calvin Freeman, yes. Marius Staylor, yes. Janice Fidel, yes. Jesse wear. That motion has passed. Moving on to case number 2025-122 is the Pineoke Acres Plat revision to move the property line. Now we'll turn this over to our to our staff for presentation.

Thank you. Um so uh this is the same subject but this case is actually the plat um revision. Um so this is a request from applicants Monica and Philip Hall to approve a plat revision within the Pinnoke Acre subdivision to address the shared property line between lot 18 and lot 19 which is 5515 and 555 Jordan Drive. Um so And the next page is the aerial view of that uh 555 property and the 5515 property. And so um I guess we can skip ahead to the uh plat drawing. Um here's the full plat. Uh you can um if anyone has any specific questions about the property lines and the setbacks um the required setbacks for the zoning and the encroachment or any of that uh please feel free to let me know. Um but basically all this proposal is doing is moving the line away from being over the garage to be

that new solid line. Um, I'm just trying to keep it as simple as possible. So,

if anyone has any questions, please let me know. Um, now the next page is going to show all of the subdivision design standards. Um, we can absolutely go back to any of these design standards that um, anyone has any questions about, but um, I will skip ahead to the conclusion because this is a subdivision that was already drawn out, platted out. Um, um, and it followed the prior design requirements. And so all this case is doing is literally just moving that singular property line to not be over the garage.

All right. Do we have any questions for uh for staff? Question. Yes. Go ahead. Uh Mr. Andrew, my question on this proper line drawing. This going to be uh recorded with the county with this adjustment and all that or who going

Yeah, this is going to follow the same um platting procedure that we do. Um it it's basically going to have to get uh the required signatures and stamps and then uh be sent to the county for recording. So it it it's just uh um it'll go through all those same procedures. It's just kind of unique in that this is just revising one line on a previously reported PL. Okay. How we going to act? Cuz I know when it come down to property tax, the people know that, hey, they're going to be getting additional feed for that area that that the lady giving away for garage.

Yeah. And so the um the planning department really has nothing to do with that aspect of it. I mean, the the county is going to know that the property lines will have changed and the county will adjust the taxes accordingly. All right. Do we have any other questions for staff? Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Do we have any other discussion or do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. Um, before I do, this should be after review of case number 2025-122. Correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes,

the planning commission approved the request for the plat revision of Pinnoke Acre subdivision on lot 18 parcel parcel number 208305 010 0000001800 0 and lot 19 parcel number 2083051000001 [Music] 900 0 by Monica and Philip Hall. I'm glad you hadn't do all that. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion in a second. Do we have any other discussion? Roll call, please. Kirby Carter, yes. Mark Crawford, yes. Makita Fox, yes. Calvin Freeman, yes. Maurice Taylor, yes.

Janice Fidel, yes. And Jesse Wear. All right, that motion is passed. Thank you all. All right. Next case is case number 2025. A conditional use permit for a machine shop at 1949 Tapen Drive for applicant I Ivory Canard. Is that person here? Okay. Just want to make sure. All right. I'll turn this over to our uh staff for their report.

Thank you. Um, this case is a request by Ivory Canard representing F29 Tactical LLC at 1949 Tap and Drive for a conditional use permit for a machine shop. Specifically, the proposed uses include laser engraving, gunsmithing, gun sales, manufacturing, and merchandise sales. The use as a machine shop in the C3 zone comes attached to footnote number nine, which is machine shop and sheet metal shop with no more than five employees and no objectionable noise or other conditions detectable from surrounding properties. And so, uh, here's the aerial view of where it will be located in the surrounding properties. Um the next image is the same but with the zoning layers. So this business is in a C3 zone as well as the parcel to the east. The other surrounding parcels are in the C4 zone. Um and then the next image is a site plan. Um this property is approximately 0.14 acres. The applicant intends to not change the exterior of the property. The existing parking spots will be maintained and all activities relating to the business will take place within the existing structure. And so, um, for the planning staff review, um, we put that as a part of the review process by the planning commission for any conditional use permit, the commission must determine whether or not this proposal will a substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion, b substantially increase fire hazards, c adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, d adversely affect the general welfare of the city, e overtax public utilities or community facilities,

and F be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The planning department requests that all applicants applying for conditional use permit submit written statements addressing the criteria that um both the planning commission and the board of alderman must investigate during their meetings. Um and then so we have a uh screenshot of the letter submitted to the planning department. And then uh under that um we have the planning staff review. So in reviewing letter A, planning staff does not think this use will increase traffic hazards or congestion. The proposed use will have limited retail traffic and has more than enough parking to accommodate both customers and suppliers. In reviewing letter B, planning staff agrees that the proposed use will not substantially increase fire hazards. No changes to the existing structure are proposed and the building must adhere to all relevant fire regulations. Um, in reviewing letter C, planning staff does not think this request will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The surrounding area is commercial and industrial in nature and this use is consistent with nearby businesses on Tap and Drive and Sart Drive. In reviewing letter D, planning staff does not believe that the proposed use would adversely affect the general welfare of the city. The location is far from any residential properties and must follow the wording of footnote nine that requires no objectionable noise or other conditions detectable from the surrounding properties. Um therefore, the proposed use. Uh if the proposed if the proposed use became a nuisance, it would violate the conditional use permit. In reviewing letter E, there is no indication that this request will overt tax public utilities or community facilities. The applicant does not plan to have energy

intensive processes occurring on site that would put stress on existing infrastructure. And in reviewing letter F, this request does not conflict with the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is commercial in nature which is consistent with the future land use of the area in the comprehensive plan. So in conclusion, upon reviewing the same criteria that the planning commission must review, planning staff recommends approval for the proposed use as a machine shop contingent on adhering to the word wording present in footnote number nine. machine shop and sheet metal shop with no more than five employees and no objectionable noise or other conditions detectable from the surrounding properties. And then I have the proposed possible motion there. And that concludes the presentation.

Thank you. All right. Does anybody have any questions for staff? All right. if the applicant would like to come up and just go ahead and state your name and address, please. All right. Does anybody have any questions for our applicant? I do. Go ahead. Can you um elaborate a little bit more of what you will be I have an idea. I'm just I'm just curious. Can you elaborate a little bit more of what exactly you'll be doing?

I I manufacture NCO firearms. I gun. So my lasers, they're desktop, so they don't make no much noise, more no more noise than a little small speaker. So, and then they're vented. They're vented internally. So I have a vent. It runs through it and um I guess filters out all the harmful chemicals. So it's no more than a desktop fan or a little small speaker. And I mainly use them just to put like serial numbers and designs on the on on the items. So yeah. So if I brought you like some stainless steel, you can Yeah. make whatever out of it. I laser engrave like cups and keychains and stuff like that as well. So like if I have a bracelet you could put it okay that's phones airpods anything they can be lasered from

we did that when my brother was in the service and so I was I thought that's what you were wanting to do but I was just curious. Thank you. Yes ma'am. And you don't and you and you you have no plans to have any more than five employees. Well I can't have any more than five. Yeah. Right. Myself. So as a as a as a FFL, I can't have no more than it anyway. So Gotcha. Okay. And everybody has to go through a background check that works for me. So Gotcha. It's just me and one other employee right now. So All right. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

All right. We're going to open this conditional use uh case for the public. Does anybody have anything they would like to say? All right, we're going to close the public hearing. Do we have any other comments or do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. All right. Go ahead. After review of case number 2025-107, the planning commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit for a machine shop at 1949 Tap and Drive in the C3 zone for a period of 5 years upon the conditions set forth in footnote number nine. Machine shop and sheet metal shop with no more than five employees and no objectionable noise or other conditions detectable from surrounding properties. Do we have a second?

We have a motion in a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Moving on to case number 2025-124, text amendment on gravel driveway renewal regulation. And now I'll turn this back over to our planning director.

Thank you. Um the city of Horn Lake adopted an ordinance in 2006 that required all driveways to be composed of solid material such as concrete or asphalt as well as brick or pavers when approved by the planning director. The city made an exception for all driveways made of gravel that were under the ownership of any person who paid for a permit by September 30th, 2006 to allow those driveways to be legal non-conforming driveways. These permits are supposed to be renewed once a year by September 30th in order to be allowed to continue to continue the legal status of the gravel driveway. The city has kept a binder with these permits for gravel driveways and has been renewing them since 2006. Upon reviewing the contents of the binder and analyzing prior payment history, it has been discovered that multiple people have been renewing their driveways by paying for multiple years ahead of time. It is uh my interpretation of the ordinance that this practice of advanced payment for multiple years is not within the intended spirit of the ordinance. However, differences of opinions between certain planning staff have led to the city attorney advising that this ordinance be amended to be clarified for all parties. And so for context, the entirety of the before and after of letter H, grading, surface, surfacing and maintenance is shown on the next page, but only H2B will be amended. And so just to keep it simple, the uh amended sentence will be highlighted below. So literally the only thing being changed being recommended for change in that highlight um is the part where it says um whereas the renewal payment shall consist of one

single payment in the exact amount that renews the permit for no more than one year. Thus meaning that the city shall not accept any renewal payment to cover multiple years. So that is literally all we are asking for. Um just a clarification um just to make sure that nobody can do these multi-year advanced payments that they have to come in and pay one year at a time. Is that to help with accounting for the planning department? Uh, that was really just to clear up a internal disagreement in the planning department.

Okay, we'll go with that. All right. Do we have any questions for uh for for our director?

Question. My question is given a notice that identified Uh, no. So, um, well, I mean, obviously we're going to do all the legal postings and and change the ordinance the legal way, but, um, theoretically, the way this ordinance was designed is if people want their gravel driveways to be permitted, they have to come back every year and pay their $10 to renew it every year. So, um we're going to respect the ones that have paid, but um as of now, my understanding is that we'll respect everything that's currently on the books, but um from this point forward, once it's passed, we're going to enforce you can only pay for one year at a time. So y'all y'all y'all will accept the ones that have already multi-paid, but it just no more multi-paid going forward if this is passed by the alder board of alderman and us.

Currently that's what we want to do. Yes. Okay. Yes. that's already annual to them when they come in.

I mean, it it it's a I I don't remember the exact number, but it's a finite list of people that the only people that would be coming in are the same ones that have been coming in every year since 2006. And so, they know to come in. They've been doing this since 2006. They they come in once a year and pay, but a few of them have snuck in extra payments and people in the past have taken them. And so, um, theoretically, if nobody comes in in the next year to renew, then all the gravel driveway all the gravel driveways are no longer permitted. So, it it's really on them to come back once a year. And

maybe I maybe I can help clarify. We don't send out a renewal notice. What what he was going to say is though, are are there going to be any notices given to those that have already paid multi-year to let them know that this has been a change? Okay. Because the ones that have been doing it yearbyear, they're doing it like what the intent was and that nothing changes for them. But those that have done multi-year, they there's one of them may end next year, one may be two years from now. Will they get noticed that they're that we can absolutely do that out of courtesy? That's all I'm asking is just let them know that that that that they'll have to renew yearly once their time is up. That's just a simple courtesy letter we can send out. Okay. Yeah. All right. Do we have any other any other discussion? But I I will add if if the city attorney

says wants us to do anything different um we will follow that. If the city attorney wants us to revoke the permits given and then give refunds, we will do that. I get it. I get I understand. But but the citizens are not going to lose their money either way. They either going to get a refund or they're going to have to come in every year. Correct. What I'm saying? We are able to do refunds if possible.

Okay. Yeah, that'll be up to the the attorney. Any other comments or Right. Do we have roll call, please? Oh, wait. I need to open this up for a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak? All right. We're going to close public hearing. All right. Any other comments or concerns? All right. Ro, uh, we need a motion. I'll get it right here in a minute. Ready? I'll make a motion.

All right. Go ahead. After review of case number 2025-124, the planning commission recommends approval of a text amendment to the code of ordinances to revise appendix A, zoning, article 7, off streetet parking and loading H, grading, surfacing, and maintenance 2B to read, the permit shall be renewed by September 30th each year, whereas the renewal payment shall consist of one single payment in the exact amount that renews the permit for no more than one year, thus meaning that the city shall not accept any any renewal payment to cover multiple years. All right, we have a motion in a second. All right, roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. On to our next case. Case number 2025-125. It's a text amendment to the zoning ordinance by establish a moratorum on gas stations, car washes, liquor stores, and vape stores. And I will turn this back over to our director. Thank you. Uh on August 19th, 2025, the city of Horn Lake Board of Alderman approved a motion to initiate a moratorum on the approval of any proposed gas pumps, liquor stores, car washes, and retail of vaping products. The board established that they desired for the moratorum to be lifted once a study is completed showing if we have too many of these land uses or an appropriate amount of them as well as any other information that can allow us to make informed decisions on the distribution of these land uses. As this moratorum would technically be an amendment to the zoning ordinance, the planning commission must consider this proposal and give its recommendation to the board of alderman before they can officially make a motion to implement it. So um what we have as the proposed ordinance would be the city of Horn Lake hereby establishes a moratorum on the approval of any proposed gas pumps, liquor stores, car washes, and retail of vaping products until a study of these aforementioned land uses by a third party analyzing the appropriate concentration and distribution of these uses has been completed and delivered to the city for review. So that's what we have proposed and uh if anyone has any questions uh let me know.

All right. Do we have any questions? Okay. I have a question. Um I just want to make sure that I understand it right. So if they do like just a an just a building that's a strip mall, they can lease those out to whomever. This will also include that, right? Even though it's not a freestanding liquor store or vape shop. Yes, it'll um it'll restrict the land uses um regardless of building type even in areas that they're legally allowed in by right.

Yes. So um this would cover um anywhere in the use chart where a business is currently allowed um where it has letter P for permitted or C for conditional use. Um this would apply to uh all lo all zones, all locations, and any type of building. Okay. All right. Do we have any other discussion? All right. We're going to open this up for a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak? All right. We're going to close this public hearing. All right. Do we have a motion? I'll make the motion.

Go ahead. After review of case number 2025-125, the planning commission recommends approval of a text amendment to the zoding ordinance establishing a matorium moratorum and the approval of any proposed gas pump, liquor store, car wash and retailer vaping products until a study of these affirment land uses by a third party analyzes the appropriate concentration and distri distribution of these uses has been completed and delivered to the city for review. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion. Second. Kirby, wait a second.

We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All right, roll call, please. Kirby Carter. Mark Crawford. Aita Fox. Calvin Freeman. Yes. Maurice Taylor. Janice Vidal. Yes. Jesse wear. All right, that motion passes. Now we'll move on to our last case for the night. Case number 2025-126, a text amendment to revise the rental property licensing act. And once again, we will turn this over to our director, Mr. Andrew.

Thank you. Improvements may be needed to the city's rental property licensing act in order to decrease any chances of possible f future litigation against the city and in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness of the RPLA. So below in the first section is the full current text of the RPLA and the section after that is a possible revision to that text. In the proposed text section, any text which has been added or replaced is highlighted in yellow. While some text has been deleted um will not have notation of it. However, the conclusion section of this report will explain the areas where any text was deleted for the proposal and why. For the purposes of this report only, I've underlined the defined words to help them stand out. So basically what I'm saying is all this text right here that's the exact wording of what's in our current ordinance everything in italics. So um that's just so everybody can read it and reference it and um discuss it if needed. And then um in the regular font I put the proposed text. Um keep going a few more pages. So, here is the proposed text in the regular font. And then the highlights are the um things that I added in. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, if something was deleted, it's just deleted. But I do have the conclusion section explaining what was deleted and why. So, um I don't know how I really want to present this one. Um I'm assuming everybody's read

the full packet. Um I guess I can Well, I don't know. There's a whole lot of edits that we suggested here. Um basically what we wanted to do is uh revise the purpose section just to make sure that we're not lying about our purpose for why we implemented RPLA. So, um what I had added was um an extra section saying by allowing the city to quickly and accurately identify the owners of such properties in order to notify them of any necessary improvements required for the safe habitability of their rental units. I just feel like that's an honest purpose of why we implemented RPLA. um or at least that's the reason we should be implementing the RPLA. And then the next change I made, you can go to page 12 of 19. Um I just cleaned up some things in our uh business license requirement. Um these are just some definition things that I cleaned up. Um however, I did put in another clause. It says the purpose of the business license shall be to permit the listed person on the license to own, operate, manage, or maintain rental units within the city given that all other provisions of the RPLA are followed, including but not limited to the additional requirement of obtaining a separate rental license for each dwelling. This is just kind of another explanation or definitional thing that we just wanted to clarify. The next se the next section is specifically about the rental license. And so again, I added some more explanation there. The rental license for each dwelling shall display the number of rental units in that dwelling. The rental license shall display the

address of the dwelling, but any addresses of the rental units within the dwelling will not be required to be displayed. Um so basically um any rental house can have multiple rental units and of course one apartment building can have multiple units in that building. So we're not going to require that all those units be listed on the physical license um because we're we're just going to have that on file anyway. Um and all we really need to know is the number in that building and our rental fee is going to let us know how many units are in the building. So the next edit we made um um in letter E that was just to clear up some uh definitional things. Um, letter F, we are requesting to repeal the display clause in there. And that display clause was a requirement to have the um license for every building posted at the rental office. But a lot of these owners just own some rental homes and they don't own a rental office. So, it just seemed impractical and uninforcable. Um, this is one of this next section is one of the main reasons for the revision tonight. Section 8-136, rental license fee. Um, the major edit here is that we want it to say the annual fee for rental license shall be $100 per rental unit within the dwelling regardless of dwelling type. So before this edit, it said um

before it said that every um rental unit in a rental home was $50 if the owner owned one to three homes, but then it was $200 per home if the owner owned four or more homes. And then it was if it was an apartment building, it was $50 per unit plus $500 per building. Um, we had uh discussed the pros and cons of different fee schedules and uh we were advised by the city attorney that um the current fee schedule could potentially open us up to um housing lawsuits and discrimination lawsuits by differentiating fees. on um house versus town home versus apartment. And so basically we were advised that it would be better just to have one singular fee regardless of housing type. And so that's why um it was suggested to us to have the $100 per rental unit. Um and then the next section um we wanted to change was section 8-137. This is a big one. Um the previous um the previous section as it stands right now requests that with every application the applicant has to turn in a application showing the Let me jump ahead to it real quick.

It currently reads that each owner must submit a complete list of dwelling or rental units, including vacant units by address to the building official at the time the owner obtains or renews a business license and six months thereafter. For each dwelling or rental unit, the list must contain the tenants's full name as listed on the lease or rental agreement. All vacancies and changes in occupancy must be submitted to the building official within 30 calendar days of the vacancy or change in occupancy occurring. Uh we believe this to be unnecessary for the mission of RPLA and do not want to be at risk of breaching any privacy rights that may be reserved for the tenants as well as for the landlords. The names of all tenants and all leases is not needed at any point in the process of making contact with the rental unit owner since we would already have the owner's contact information on the submitted rental license application and since the tenant would obviously contact the city if the tenant wanted action to be taken against the rental unit owner. So, we just see it as completely unnecessary. And we've actually had rental owners refuse to give us a list of all the tenant names. And honestly, we just have not pressed further once they rece once they refused to give us that list of names. So, um, going back to seeing the other changes. Um the next is in section 8-139 we have that um we added in an extra clause that stated after receiving said

notification and after receiving full consent by all parties as required by law. Basically, we put in there just clarification that we will not go into any rental unit without the consent of any required parties um including but not limited to the tenant and the land the landlord. And then uh similarly um going down to letter F um that's the warrant requirement. Um we just clarified some grammatical stuff in there and didn't change any meaning in there. Um then the next section that we suggested a change for is section 8-141 suspension of rental license. Um, our city attorney had some hesitations on this section. So, the best I could come up with was a new section titled letter D, protection for tenants. Um, nothing in the provisions of this RPLA may be used to put any tenant living in any rental unit in violation of the RPLA when the owner of the rental unit is the sole reason for any violation of the RPLA. So, um, I came up with that and, um, hoping that that can protect tenants from, um, any punishment that should be direct at just the landlord or the rental unit owner. And then the next section, uh section 8-142, um I had suggested to add a letter seven for short-term rental properties just as

clarification that um things such as Airbnbs should not be included in the requirements of RPLA or anything similar to that. And then section 8-132 um or sorry section 8-144 under violations. Um this was a big source of complaints for RPLA. Um, currently it says any person who violates any provision of RPLA should shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine in a sum not to exceed $1,000 per day for each offense. A separate offense shall be de deemed committed upon each day during honor which a violation occurs or continues. we were just suggesting to change the $1,000 per day to $100 per day. And so, um, the Yeah, basically what I'm saying in the conclusion is that um, it's still a punishment, but it's it's not overbearing. It's not um wildly over the top and it just seems like a far more manageable fine if it ever has to get to that point. So, um those are the edits we are proposing if anyone has any questions.

Sure. All right. Does anybody have any questions? Go ahead, Commissioner. Mr. Andrew, my I'm glad you brought the violation side up. When when it going to come to a point and this house all way rented out, we issue all the violation. Is is that uh something you could stipulate by putting in by shut down that whole house as a rental? That possibility?

Yes. So, if I if I follow what you're saying right, um it is a possibility. Um but um it's really really case by case. I mean it you'd really have to talk about a specific violation. What I'm saying is a person living in subdivision and they come to be a nuisance and new people get in keep going and going and that house going to shut down stop being rented out. I mean to the turn of food for thought but you know

Yeah. If you're specifically talking about nuisance things, that's that's a police matter. Um, RPLA is really RPLA is really designed to go after the owners who don't fix the plumbing, the owners who don't fix the heating and air. Uh, the owners who, you know, don't fix the roof, don't fix the wall, um, the owners who don't, you know, fix the fence that's fallen down. It's the physical aspect of the property functioning stuff. Yes.

So I do have a question then. Um okay that is once a violation is observed and y'all do a fine to the to the owner what compels them to uh I mean I guess at some point they have to renew the license.

Yeah. So, it's a a annual renewal and um you got to get your annual business license to own any property and then your rental license to own each building. And so, um basically there is that suspension of rental license section where if you don't comply then you can't have it renewed. Um, and honestly, we've the city's never gotten to that point. So, I can't tell you what we've done because we've never done anything. So, you you can't answer my next question. Okay, never mind. Anybody else have any other I do. All right. Go ahead.

On for clarification on page 61. So, you're saying that the the fee is you said $100 per rental unit. So, an apartment with 352 unit paid 352 times 100. Yes, that that's that's correct. I mean, currently um I I just jotted down some notes before and um the currently we have some apartments paying an annual fee like I think the Hamilton apartments are paying like $42,000 per year, okay, for their license. Okay.

Um, this would actually, and you bring up a good point. I don't know if you're getting to this aspect of it, but under the current um, okay, under the current fee schedule, the apartments are actually getting kind of a discount versus the rental homes. Mhm. But if we were to make it non-discriminatory on the face by doing the flat fee of $100 per rental unit, the apartment,

the apartments would would end up paying more and then the rental home owners would end up paying less if they were in that group of owning four more because they're paying $200 per house right now. I think 200 per o is fear, but that this would bump it down to 100 per rental unit within the building. So everything may even out. Uh we weren't able to finish doing all the calculations on which would get us more money, but we really were not concerned about the money. We were concerned, which we are, we need the money.

We were concerned about it being non-discriminately. Okay. Um another question. So if you rent your house, if you have your house, it would be only $100. It's per unit. If you have four bedroomedroom and you rent out the four be four times 100, correct? That's what we are presenting. Okay. You can have multiple rental units within a house. Okay. Okay. It's 100 per Okay. Yes. Go ahead.

If you're not making them provide a list, how do we know how many people just get into that? Well, so it it would be required to list it on the application because every currently every building has to have a rental license and the price of the license is how many units you have in that building. Now, Andrew, let me let me clarify real quick. Now, just because I I want to make sure that that everybody because I'm I'm thinking I'm hearing one thing and you're answering something else is that if I have a single family home, even if I rent to two different families, y'all y'all wouldn't know if I'm renting to two families or not. It would only be a duplex that would actually fall under the two because I mean if you had two families living in a house you it wouldn't be that it isn't two units even though there's two people living two families living in there.

Well, it would it would go by a lease. How many leases are there? I'm saying but if it's one lease and like if I leased it and then I had another family living with me under my own lease. I mean, and everything that they like she owns the house, I'm renting it from her and they are living with me. Y'all not going to know it. So, it only be that $100. Yes. But if it was a duplex, she would own the duplex and it'd be both of us having each side. That would that would be $100 a unit. Yes. It would it would go with the lease.

Well, okay. Well, I'm just saying because they were saying multifamilies in one house and we may not know that depending on the lease that's written. And I just want to make sure they don't think that we're getting multiple. We're going around trying to find multiple people in a house. It's just going to be one house, one unit. It's one price. No. Unless they have two different leases and two ways in. That's that you're not going to know how many families are living in a house. Yes. Just any we got to That's the understanding. Any any other questions for Go ahead.

The short-term rental properties. I feel like there's a lot of play in those words. So, you said like a Airbnb. So, I might advertise this home as a Airbnb, but hey, I'll rent you for a whole year. And then I'm just I'm just saying like I feel like there's a lot of play uh in that. Is there a way that you can make that more detailed or something? I feel like there's a lot of cheat ways around that, too.

Yeah. Um I I put that in there to have the discussion. Um, I mean, currently we don't regulate them, so there's nothing in our ordinance regulating them, but um, I just wanted to keep it simple and, um, have this as an exception here. That way, in the future, we can have a whole other ordinance to address it. I was going to say now, and a lot of times short-term rentals, now how you police it, I don't know, but I know that short-term rentals are usually excluded from from that. That's that's pretty typical from what I've talked to other people about. But that's just my observation.

I just didn't know if there was any way in there that they would abuse it because anyway it can be abused. People will abuse it. Right. So, do we have any other questions for our director? All right. We're going to open this up for a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak? You know, you three have been out there that whole time and not said a single thing. All right, we're gonna Are you you going to speak? Okay, go ahead. Come on. Go ahead and state your name for the record. Larry McKinnon.

I just w with the what we're talking about with the uh rentals and all that. I was just thinking I guess it's two questions because I'm thinking of like a group home because that would be like renting per room, but do we even allow that in Horn Lake? I'm not sure. Yes, there's um some categories in our use chart that allow that as a business. Okay. Yeah. And so that actually let me let me um I think I may have included that language in here.

Um one second please. Um there is an exemption section in the current ordinance. Um the provisions of RPLA shall not apply to housing accommodations in any hospital, outpatient facility, rehabilitation center, assisted care facility or nursing home. housing accommodations in any convent, monastery or other facility occupied exclusively by a religious order with the 501c3 or educational certification. Uh onampus fraternity or sorority houses onampus dormitories that are owned, operated, managed and maintained by an institution of higher education, high school, middle school or elementary school. hotels, motel, RV park cabins, and uh housing that is owned, operated, managed, and maintained by a government agency or authority. So, that first one kind of

it hits on rehabilitation center, outpatient facility, assisted care facility, or nursing home. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? All right. We're going to close the public hearing. Uh, do we have any other questions? Oh, me. Go ahead, Commissioner. I'm so glad he said that. So, group home,

I do not feel like it would fall under this right here when we have some people and I know we have some people because you can go to Baptist Dodto right now and talk to social workers that we have people that are doing this in their home. They're taking elderly citiz senior citizens who don't have anywhere to go and they're taking their check and calling it a group home and just giving them a space. And they have lists at Baptist. I mean, people are doing this across the county, across the whole area. They're calling their home a group home. The the particular person signs their check over. That way, they are getting paid place to live and they're supposed to supply their food and all that. But this is not government regulated. These are people that are doing this and pe people are just I mean, a hospital sees it as easy way out. So, they're sending them there and it's not it's there's not being federally regulated. So, how I'm just curious. He made a very good valid point about the group home and then also what about, you know, we have the homes that are um halfway houses and stuff like that when you have multiple people. So, what like what would be the regulations for those two things?

No. Is a halfway house is that government run? Is that government? Yeah, I say that that would fall under that. But but this particular one, I mean, like they just give it a little name, they go for it, and if that's not on file with you guys, you wouldn't know, right? Correct. I mean, there there's honestly all the questions y'all are asking, people lie to lie to us on applications. They don't report things to us. Let me guess. Y'all have had these same questions throughout the department, too. Oh, yeah. Okay. So, yeah. So, on a daily basis, we

we have to fish information out of people and uh So, if you got a a list of this h I'm just throwing this out here. House 123 on ABC Street and you say that, but you could go and investigate this though. Correct. I Well, I don't know what you mean by that. No. Well, I'm just saying like if if there's something if if they're doing something like that that's not actually what what we're supposed to do, I mean, is there not a way that we can go and look into this? I mean, because then I was going to say you open up a whole new can of worms there. If you know about it, don't say something. Well, um,

the way we operate, we we receive applications and tell people yes or no on the applications. So, I'm just going to bring it back for the text that's in front of us for this change. Do we have any other questions? One question. So court enforcement police might grasp but whatever is happening inside the homes um you know we do have privacy inside the homes I mean we can't I mean we not going to fix every problem up here today that's one of the main we got

is to make sure we're not violating any privacy laws. um we have to make sure we're not accusing anyone of a a wrong land use before we really know what they're using. And I understand there's kind of an irony here where this is just the way it is. If if someone's not reporting what they're actually doing, sometimes we just won't know. And so a lot of times it's the good people that come and pay. So, it's just to keep honest people honest and we're we can't fix it. So, do we have any other discussions about the text amendments that we're trying to change right now? We got to have these discussions.

Do we have a motion? Oh, wait. Yeah. Do we have a motion,

Mr. Chair? Go ahead. After reviewing case 2025 126, planning commission recommend approval of a text amendment of the code of ordinance to revise the rental property license act as typed in the staff report presented by the planning commission for case number 2025126. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. All right. Motion. Yes. All right. Do we have anything else? Any other business? All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion. Hey, we have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose have the same. I