Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Thank you, God, for this day that you have given us. We ask, Lord, that you would be with us in our county making this city. This we ask in your name we pray. We say amen. Amen.

Motion to approve minutes from May the 7th. Second motion.

Second.

You go, sir.

It has been moved and properly seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Ayes have it. So it is. Motion to approve urban renewal.

Good morning. Thad Varner with Butler snow we work with Madison County on the financing matters I was here in February to talk about the proposed conference center and hotel development in Ridgeland over the Behind the top golf where it butts up to the Madison City line in the Ridgeland City line just south of st. Catharines and the reason for that was If you just get a little bit of history the county and the city have come together with Makita to provide a financing plan to finance a new conference center for the county. They'll be connected to a hotel project being financed by a private developer, the Prado Group. As part of the financing package to ensure we get as much private money as possible to pay the debt service for the bonds the county will issue to build the conference center, We've created an urban renewal district. The urban renewal district allows us to use private monies from the Prado Group and other revenues to pay debt service so that the county doesn't have to be on the hook for the entire amount of the debt service. So the county Back in February, passed a resolution establishing the Urban Renewal District as the parcels that are, Andy, did you give them that plat?

Yes. It may be easier if you put it in front of them this morning. Okay, okay.

This plat that we sent out earlier, if you notice the top three parcels up there that are numbered 17, 15, and 13. are the initial urban renewal district that the county, the city approved, and that this board then, by statute, said this development conforms with the county's comprehensive plan. What has happened since then is that in going through the engineering phase and the planning phase for construction of facilities, it was determined that some of the money that we were going to borrow on the county side to provide for the construction of the conference center would also be necessary to be put into the ground in the other parcels that comprise the entire plot of development, which is everything north of Sunnybrook Road there on the plat, to provide for water, sewer, other utilities, ingress, egress, And a decision was made that we need to expand the previously approved district limits to include the entire Prado development from Topgolf all the way east to the side of their line there. So that will be parcels 17, 15, 13, 11, then coming down from the left to the right, 16, 14, 12, and 10. Like I said, all of those are owned by that Prado development group. We've been in a lot of meetings with the city and the county to kind of figure out the best way to utilize public funds, i.e. bond money, to help with the implementation of the water, sewer, utilities, and right-of-ways that we need to construct the facilities. So a decision was made about a month ago to expand the footprint of the Urban Renewal District to not only be the three parcels we've already included, but to expand it to the other parcels that are within the entire development. So on June 1st, the county considered this expansion and approved it 5-0. On June 2nd, the city considered it and approved it unanimously. So now the third step is for this board to say that the expansion of these parcels for the Urban Renewal District continues to conform with the county's comprehensive plan. So that's what we're here to ask you for today, is the final step in this expansion of our district so that we can include water and sewer and the road infrastructure necessary for the development.

Any questions? The opposition? I entertain a motion. So motion.

I'll second.

been moving properly second all in favor thank you very much site plan for livingston building mr president and board members i do have the certificate of appropriateness from mlhd they had their meeting on june 8th at 6 so i do have that

And they were, yeah, they were fine with it? Yeah.

Okay. Go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I don't have anything unless somebody has any questions. Your name? Todd Sandridge.

Any questions? Yes.

This is one of nine commercial buildings that are left in development. We'll be submitting, you know, over the course of the next couple years.

In opposition, I entertain a motion.

So moved.

Second.

It's moving properly. Second. All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it. So it is. Thank you. Motion to open public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Turkey Ridge holding. Good morning.

Good morning. I'm Harry Wilson with FC&E Engineering representing Turkey Ridge.

Any questions?

This is, I guess, our first one on concrete crushing plant to come before us, and I'm sure it's come before you before others have. Do you mind telling us, it's temporary, what happens afterwards?

The way it generally works is you would accumulate some concrete material. Generally speaking, I think you would rent or contract out a crusher. And the way I think we anticipate this working is that the crusher might be out there for a couple of weeks, and then you've finished up your stockpile. We don't think we would operate but maybe three or four times a year at this particular site. And I really don't believe that there's gonna be an issue with noise that anybody would really hear. My research suggests that the noise at two or 300 feet away is about equivalent to what you'd hear in your own car driving 60 miles an hour. So just, I don't think anybody's gonna know it's there. I think this first round, we'd be there a week, maybe two weeks, and we'd operate during normal business hours.

On this temporary, is there a time frame that we are supposed to denote in our?

You can, I guess, sort of like a dirt mine.

Eight to five, something like that.

No, I'm talking about duration.

You know, if you want to grant that for... We wouldn't run on Sunday for sure, and I doubt Saturday either. I think that would be...

So you're saying no Sundays, no Saturdays?

I think that we could agree to that for sure.

So very similar to what Dirk did. As Dirk said, we have no Sunday hauling. and we do those for a year and they come back and get basically renewed if there's any issues or whatever you can address at that point.

Well in the pit mine it goes back before the board for an extension it wouldn't come back to PNZ if you put that on that.

Yeah this has still got to be approved by the board anyway so

Scott, how often do we have to come back on the mine?

Once a year. Once a year? Yes. I mean, if that was a condition that...

was required next meeting, it would give me an opportunity to have Mr. Elmore be able to address it at the following meeting if we get to that. We certainly don't have to run on a Sunday at all. Like I said, I don't think anybody's gonna know it's there, gonna be in, gonna be out, and I don't think you're gonna hear it.

Any opposition? I entertain a motion.

Second.

Does that motion include anything that you've discussed?

Well, the year is already.

Not on this. On the third line it is. If you wanted to put it on this, that's up to you guys. You don't have to. Okay.

So, I mean, if that's the condition on the others, just say for the year.

All right, with that motion being amended, all in favor?

Aye.

Ayes have it, so it is.

And a quick quick question. So that once a year thing we would come back through planning and zoning and then and or you would go back to the board of just go straight straight to the board of supervisors.

It wouldn't be another public here. Okay. It's just a letter of approval.

Sure. We certainly appreciate it. Thank you. Amazon.

Good morning. My name is David Wong with Amazon. I'm a senior water strategy manager this application. It's for conditional Sorry Conditional use sorry my apologies For a reclaimed water treatment plant This isn't supported the mega site property for the cooling water just to give a higher perspective of what this plant will be is will be taken effluent out of the Beatty's Bluff wastewater treatment plant. This is part of the cooling water supply to use reclaimed water as opposed to potable water to transition next year, the site to the reclaimed water treatment, reclaimed water supply for the data centers there. And so this will be a treatment plant for that use.

Any questions?

Just to be clear, when you say reclaim, this will be part of a process where you will reuse the water? You will treat it and reuse it rather than drawing from resources?

Yes, ma'am. Currently, we have the data centers that are in operations are using the potable system but that's a temporary situation um the permanent solution or the permanent uh plan is is using the the wastewater coming from babies and we'll further treat it at this facility to quality so that we can use it in our cooling process or in our cooling for the data center so um

Rather than it being dumped in the big black, it's coming back to the mega site to be used and then goes back through the system.

Any other questions? Opposition? I entertain a motion. It's been moved and properly seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye's having it, so it is. Thank you. Metropolis.

Good morning. Good morning. I'm Elamin Bashir. I'm representing Metropolis Holding Development.

I'm sorry, sir. I didn't catch your name.

Sure. Elamin Bashir.

We are requesting to have roughly a three acre tract of land rezoned from industrial to residential, which is consistent with the surrounding usage.

Mr. President, board members, I do have all the return receipts on this. It was quite a bunch of them, but I did get them all. They were all mailed on time. All the return receipts to the letters mailed to the surrounding property owners, I do have those receipts.

Any questions? The opposition. Come to the mic, please, ma'am.

My name is Patricia Dorsey Miles. And the question is, how does it benefit or hinders the community, the surrounding communities? How does it benefit us? How will it benefit us? Well, we're planning on building within the next two to three years, and our land is part of this, so we're just trying to see. How will it benefit us?

Are you saying your land is a part of or next to?

Well, it's next to where that land is across from where we're going to build. Okay.

So to answer that question. Speak into that mic.

Sure. So to answer that question, her proposed plans to build a residential home is consistent with what we're proposing to do, and it'll only complement the area. The most recent bills in the area WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. SO THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA IS QUITE HIGH. SO I THINK IT WILL COMPLEMENT IT.

I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION WHILE WE'RE TRANSITIONING. REMIND ME, WHAT ALL IS UNDER R5 SPECIFICALLY?

R-5 is the patio home district.

Yeah.

And I think a lot of Magnolia Heights in that area, which is to the north of that property, the residential portion, is R-2.

So it exists.

Excuse me?

It exists already because it's R-2 and he's requesting R-5.

He's requesting R5 across the road from that. The difference is square footage of the lots.

So it's residential. So it's going from industrial to residential. It matches what they're trying to build.

Other than the lot size.

Other than the lot size.

So R5 is going to be smaller.

R5 is 7,000 square foot minimum. Okay.

lot size that's the lot size or two is ten thousand ten thousand six hundred okay okay i'm straight now thank you good morning my name is felicia miles um speaking of the land um my family owns approximately probably five acres total across from mr brooks was he's uh speaking of um my question is to him are you planning on selling the homes or renting the homes out

Yeah, so these homes will be for sale. They're not rentals.

Anybody else? I'll entertain a motion.

I have a question.

Sir? Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, you're the developer.

Yes.

You will. And so, I don't know if you've gotten to that part in your planning, but it will be a subdivision, basically. Yes. You're developing a subdivision with covenants.

Yes. Whatever existing restrictive covenants that are in place with the neighborhood across would carry on to that development.

So this is an extension of that neighborhood, though? This is independent? This one. So it's... All of those?

Yes, so it's in this.

I'm sorry. You'll just replicate those covenants?

Yes, absolutely.

Will your covenants have any restrictions for rental property?

So the original homes in Magnolia Heights were built in the mid to late 60s.

Right.

There was another development that came along 20 years after that was done by Dunlap Homes. This property borders that last most recent development. So whatever restrictive covenants that Mr. Dunlap Holmes followed will be implemented in the same restrictions. The only difference is the size of the lots. These lots are 70 by 100 deep, which is 7,000 square feet of land.

So I'm sorry. If, if this is new, and you're wanting to follow or replicate, like Amanda said, you'd have to establish them. So we need to establish what that needs to look like. Because if the concern is rentals, I think that needs to be specifically stated, and it needs to be part of our approval process to kick it up. That's just my, my opinion. Because I think if we're saying that we're not going to rent and we're only going to sale, I think that needs to be part of what's approved to kick up to get him started.

That restriction would have to be in the covenants.

Yeah. And I don't see how we have covenants.

I'm pretty sure that the newest subdivision you're talking about probably doesn't have that restriction. And what we're saying is that we think yours should have some restriction on rental.

OK. So. How does that how does that look in application? because the district the r5 district specifies the the setbacks the height of the structure and all of that so

He's right. Yeah, the R5 section of the ordinance spells out all the setbacks and minimum height, minimum square footage of the light, all that type of thing. Your covenants can be more restrictive than the ordinance. They just can't be less restrictive, if that makes sense. In other words, this is kind of the minimum. You can take it a step further if you want to. As to your questions as far as covenants... you can condition this approval today. And remember, we're just doing the rezoning. He's still got planning and all that kind of stuff. You can condition this on covenants which state or which address rentals. Okay. What we've done before is we Or, for instance, in the neighborhood that I live in, rentals are allowed, but the entirety of the parcel has to be rented or leased. In other words, you can't rent rentals. it has to be a minimum of a one-year lease agreement. That lessee, the person leasing that house, is subject to all of the same covenants, restrictions, and all that his neighbors are as far as upkeep of the yard, paint, all that kind of stuff on the outside. Those leases, I have seen those in covenants where those types of leases have to be submitted to the homeowners association, number one, so that they know that there's a renter there. Number two, so that they can approve it and kind of hold hold the owner of the house accountable in the same manner that the person leasing the house is. Those are just some options. Some covenants don't address rentals at all. That's up to you guys, but that's just kind of a consideration as to why we have handled things various times in the past.

About how many homes do you think will be in your subdivision?

So we have 13 lots plus the green space that's required by the zoning district.

13 lots? So it'll only be 13 homes?

Only 13 homes. I do have a subdivision plan if you'd like to look at it.

I'm good.

That brings to mind another point that we have raised previously, is that rentals are not to exceed a certain percentage, so that the whole neighborhood is not owned by one person and he leases it all out. In other words, if they got 13 lots, whatever percentage not to exceed at any one given time, so we could put put that in our motion that any is a condition on the zoning reason yes as a condition

Do you have a square footage of the house size that you have in mind?

Yes, there's a range between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet.

I think.

So are you developing the whole area? Because if I look comparatively at these other sections, it seems like there's more.

So that space you're referring to is 2.45 acres. And that whole 2.45 acres will be subdivided into 13 lots. Plus the required green space that the ordinance required.

It seems like double the area of this, and this is around 14 lots. So this is the space, correct?

Well, it's a portion of that. It is a portion. Yeah, that was the tax parcel on that. Okay. But it is a portion, I think, is.

So it's not that whole area?

No. Okay. It is not.

I thought the same thing. Awful big looking on the map. Maybe my perception is right.

Okay. Okay. This just shows the zoning, not necessarily the parcel.

Well, that is the parcel.

But what he's asking for is a portion of that parcel. Okay.

And it's on the west side, correct, on that west side of that parcel?

So that would be the north. That would be the north side of the parcel.

Question, come to the mic. Come to the mic.

Good morning. My name is Linda Williams, and my property is 106 Payton, and I live in the St. Charles subdivision. My property, he says, will border the patio houses. You all have a copy, and I was wondering, is there any way that I can get a copy of what you have? He said 13 lots. So how many patio houses do you plan to build if it's 13 lots? So you plan to build 13. And I was under the impression that it would be four patio houses. And I was wondering, can I get a copy of what you have? Because I don't know what it even looks like, how he's going to divide it up. But my property borders where he wants to build the 13 patio houses or whatever.

I don't think ours shows that.

Okay. You have a copy of that? Because I don't.

She has.

She'll show you right there. She's coming behind you with one. And let me be clear, ma'am and commission, this is just for reference. This is just pictorial. He still has to go through the platting process. Okay. I think this is just giving you kind of an idea, a conceptual idea of what he's talking about doing.

Okay. Okay.

You have to speak into the mic.

I live on Payton, Payton Lane. I don't live on Center Street. I live on Payton Lane, 106 Payton Lane. That's where I live. Can you see it? Yeah, I know what Center Street is.

The conversation has to take place in the mic. It's live.

I'm just looking for Mass Street, Peyton Lane.

It's on this one. It looks like it comes off of St. Charles Street. Is that correct? Yeah. So you're right here. And then I guess the homes will be over here. It looks like there's a little bit of a difference.

Good morning. I'm D.R. Export. This is my mother. I live with her at 106 Peyton Lane. And our property... Yes. Right. Right here.

This is our property, and I think what's being developed is this property.

No, above that on the other side.

On the other side? Okay. That's our property.

Our property borders this lake right here. So this property is what's being developed. Right. We were under the original impression that this was going to be developed.

No.

So that was the confusion.

Any other questions?

That's the only question I wanted.

We've got one more back in the back, Dr. Rousey.

Good morning. My name is Rosie Medlock, and I do live in Kearney Park. I live at 613 St. Charles Street. and all the property is directly off of St. Charles. My question to the builder is the square footage of the homes are a lot smaller than the homes that are already out there. Therefore, the homes will depreciate our homes that we have. It won't depreciate. No. It will not depreciate. So if you're building, if we're building homes that are smaller than the homes that are out there, just as you build homes that are larger, they appreciate instead of causing your value of your home to go down. So someone explain that to me.

What drives value in houses? I'm an appraiser. Yes. What drives value in houses? is the condition of the neighborhood, the amenities of the neighborhood, and having newer homes is a plus. It actually, the older homes may hurt the value of the newer homes more than the newer homes will hurt the value of the older homes. And the size of these houses will not hurt the value of your homes in your neighborhood. It is the trend these days that neighborhoods have different sizes so that homebuyers will have more choices to live in a neighborhood. Some want smaller homes with small lots. Some want larger homes with acreage, you know. So the trend today is to put different size homes in neighborhoods. And that's really called PUD type zoning. But in this particular case, you are separated by a street and a new area. And he would be able to to have this rezoned and have different size houses. It's not going to hurt your house and your value.

Okay. And I did hear what you said. Now, with the homes being a lot smaller and like they would be more so like apartment-like approach, they are not apartments. They are not duplexes. So with it being zoned to an R of five, does that allow other Duplexes is only the patio homes that are presented?

Right. R5 is called a patio home district.

Okay. And we live in R2. Yes, ma'am. So what made those two very different?

The differences in... ordinance as to minimum lot size, setbacks, what are some other differences, Scott? Key differences, I'd say. They're both obviously residential neighborhoods, right? They are residential. R2 is medium density residential, different minimum lot size, different setbacks. to basically give it bigger yard, okay? Well, some people don't want that. Some people want the R5, which is still a residential district, still single lots. The lots are just smaller, lesser yard, lesser upkeep, lesser maintenance. It's just a different option.

So that was my main concern is that the value of the homes will not go down. They would... appreciate just like they have with a bigger when larger homes come to the area and that that was just a big question when larger homes come in the area the home value does goes up why is that and if you pull a smaller home in the value does not go down although it's smaller property why is that happening

Well, for the reasons I just stated just a few minutes ago, but what the main thing is that his house is going to be brand new. And anytime you have new construction around older construction, typically if the amenities of the neighborhood stay the same or increased, then that keeps the older neighborhood stable. And As housing is built, as long as the supply meets the demand for housing, you won't see as much appreciation in your houses. But if the supply diminishes in your demand, which is more people wanting to buy over what you have available, if you have less housing to supply, to meet the demand, that also raises your value. I don't know if that explains it or not, but building new around older subdivisions will not hurt the values in that subdivision. And y'all have a real nice park two blocks away, and that really helps. It's things like that that help keep your neighborhood stable. You're right again, your percentage of rentals. The lower the percentage of rentals, the higher quality neighborhood you will have. The more you enforce your HOA covenants, the higher the value.

Okay. My question to you is, are these rental homes or are these homes for sale?

Again, these homes are for sale. These are not rental units. And I would like to address two points that my neighbor and friend brought. And that is that these houses are somehow smaller. These houses are on a range of 1,200 to 1,300 square feet. The original houses that were built in Magnolia Heights in the 60s were about 700, 800 square feet. The newer ones across from that may have been 1,000. Three bedrooms, one bath house. The houses that we're proposing are three twos on a split plan. A split plan is more modern. It's more functional and more practical. So what we're bringing and developing is far superior than what is currently there, respectfully.

I did get some misinformation with that. All the homes out there, from my understanding, is the least of the houses are 10,500 square feet. And I got that from the zoning area when I came up to look at that information or called and spoke with them. They looked it up and they said that every home in Kearney Park is at least 10,500 square feet.

I think that's lot size. That's the lot.

That's the lot. That's the lot size?

Yes, ma'am. The minimum lot size is on R5 is 7,000 square feet. The 10,500 or 10,600 that you heard, that's an R2 lot size. Obviously, your lot size is larger than your house size.

I was out there yesterday and looked at the houses in your neighborhood. I would say the majority of them are right around 1,000 square feet.

So these new homes would just have less of a yard, similar size homes, but just less yard surrounding the home. That's why the lot size is smaller.

Okay.

I'll do some more research. Thank you.

Ms. Rosie, what was your last name?

Medlock, M-U-D-L-O-C-K.

Thank you.

When Tommy Dunlap did St. Charles, did he have a minimum square footage in his covenants that you're aware of?

No, sir, he did not. Nor was he required to have 10% of green space. Correct.

if we're going to replicate those covenants and we want that lot square footage to be i mean the home square footage to stay at 1200 do we need to state that in this most of the time you have them you have a a minimum okay um in a in a newer i guess you'd say or more So that's not stated in these confidence.

That's what he stated, $1,200 to $1,300.

$1,200 to $1,300 can actually be a condition on this at this point because he agreed to it.

And that's what you're going to be able to correct?

Absolutely.

Any other questions? I entertain a motion.

I want to discuss just a little bit of percentage on HOA covenants on restrictions on rentals. In this particular case with 13, if you put too high a percentage of allowable rentals in there, that might not impact the neighborhood. But if you get a, if you continue to develop in that area and you get say 30, 40, 50 homes, patio homes in there, and you get a high percentage of rentals, then all of a sudden you have a lot of rentals in a neighborhood. So if we're going to put a restriction on rentals, that percentage needs to be, in my opinion, no more than 20%. In this particular case, 20% of 13 homes, I think, would allow three rentals. And if you keep it, but 20% of 50 would be 10 homes. And the reason you want to, in certain situations, maybe not necessarily in a residential, but if you get too many rentals, you start impacting the ability to get financing for homeowners. So we have faced that where I live. So I'm thinking that if we go R5, that we should limit in the HOA covenants to, I would say, 20%. That's my opinion.

Or 9. 9,000. It's your call. I just, I get uncomfortable with it.

Because like you said, as it grows, that 10 houses is still a number of homes.

I mean, it's like where we are. There's no rentals allowed. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's very small, but it's...

Unless that's a new development, Mandy, I don't agree.

It's in the last few years.

Okay.

Yeah.

He's saying no rentals.

Yeah, I was just trying to, Andy, back to our neighborhood, I understand in our situation there's constant new developments. People are trying to stay there while they build, but in this situation, I just don't see the necessity of it, of having rentals.

All right. What's your motion?

My motion is going to stay at 20%.

And minimum square footage, 1,200?

That will take care of itself, actually. You can't build too big. Because you won't get your value back. You have to stay within the character of the neighborhood to maximize the value of your house. And so he's going to maximize the value of what he sells, and he's not going to build too big. No, I'm worried about too small. He's not going to build too small. There's a minimum, right?

Right, 12,000.

okay well that's what he's stated here i think that's what she's asking if you're going to include that in your motion to approve is a minimum square footage to be included in the covenants along with your 20 percent rentals and what is the r5 minimum twit i don't think we don't have a minimum square footage of house right that's what we're trying to say

So we're proposing to build square footage between twelve and fifteen hundred square feet. Yes ma'am that's what I proposed to do. It seems as though The expectation is exemplified in my case, and I'm not sure where that is coming from. It's not reunion. or any other subdivision that you're referencing. So in order to keep apples to apples, I can't build a 10,000 square foot house out there or a 5,000 square foot house out there because it's not consistent with the surrounding area. We're not in business to lose money. We're trying to provide affordable, decent housing for people to purchase. That's all we're doing.

We're not selling lots. Absolutely.

All right, my motion is that his request for rezoning to an R5 for this area be approved with the restrictions that the minimum house size would be 1,200 square feet and also the restriction of 20% rental in that neighborhood.

I'll second that.

It's been moved and properly seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye's have it. So it is. Thank you. Motion to close public hearing. Who seconded that? Was that you?

That was Amanda.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion to accept July 9th as our meeting.

Motion to adjourn.