Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to uh call this June June 10th meeting of the city of Olive Branch Planning Commission um open or to order. Uh reminder that this meeting will be livereamed and recorded on the city's YouTube channel. Can we get a roll call? Pat door. Dion Jones here. Janice Lewis here. Kimberly Remac here. Diane Singer here. Donnie Singh here. Steve Stratton. All right. Thank you. Um, everyone's received their minutes. Have has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes? Are there any suggested changes or edits? If no, I'll ask for a motion to approve the minutes. Um, motion to approve. Can we get our screens? Thank you. There you go. Thank you. Uh, motion to approve by Jazz. Second. Second by Diane. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. We'll move on to uh there you go. We've got two uh two items uh from old business that have been asked to be tabled. The application to amend the project text for Oak Park Oaks at Parkview Heights area 3B submitted by David Baker Fischer Arnold Incorporated on behalf of Trey Hart Mainland MCA Olive Branch LLC property owner. The request is to permit the development of the area for single family residential condominium dwellings and to approve the associated preliminary development plan. The 6.96 plus or minus minus acre subject property is zone PUB plan unit development and is located at the northwest corner of Park View Oak Circle and Park View Boulevard. There's an

accompanying application combine lots 1A and 1B into the into a single lot. Uh could I read both of those? and just ask for a motion for both those application for the first revision to Oaks at Parkview Heights phase 2 area 3 subdivision submitted by David Baker Fischer Arnold Incorporated on behalf of Trey Hart Mainland MCA Olive Branch LLC property owner. The request is to combine lots 1A and 1B into a single lot one of 6.96 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zoned plan unit development and is located at the northwest corner of Park View Oak Circle and Park View Boulevard. Motion to table both applications until July 8th, 2025. Motion by Kim, second by Mr. C. All those in favor? Any opposed? The motion to table is passed. Number three on old business application for preliminary plat for Highland Lake subdivision submitted by Nick Kunin Civil Link on behalf of property owner Bryant Cashion FSB and Company LLC. The request is to create 20 residential lots and two common open spaces from 6.94 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zone R3, planned residential district, and is on the west side of Highway 305, just north of College Road, known as 4225 Highway 305. And this was tabled to this date at the meeting of May 8th, 2025. Motion to table application until July 8th, 2025. Motion to table. Second. We have a second. All those in favor? I

I motion passes. Number four, application for now. Is this one going to be tabled? No, sir. Okay. Yes, it's prepared for the report. All right. Thank you. Application for a final plat for Center Hill Farm subdivision phase one submitted by Nick Kunan Civil Link LLC on behalf of Johnny McBride member Center Hill Development LLC property owner. The request is to create 88 lots and 40 and four common open spaces from 48.28 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zone PUB, planning unit development district, located on the west side of Center Hill Road, approximately 700 feet north of Valley Oaks Drive, east and about 1,800 ft south of Highway 302 and Center Hill Road intersection. Can we get staff report? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, planning commissioners. Before you is a request to consider the final plat for Senate Heath Farms subdivision. Regarding a general location of the subject property, this is Fox Creek subdivision. This is Brayborn. If you're heading eastward towards Masha County, this will be Highway 302. This is the intersection of Highway 302, Gurman Road and Sahi Road. If you go south then this is a subject property that you're looking at. Phase one of the subdivision essentially in encompasses this area that has been that per this picture you see graded. It will consist of 88 beautiful single family residential lots. Basically this area marked here in the boundary in blue

and the lots shown here in red. So there will be 88 single family detached residential lots. The final plot that you have align with the preliminary plot that was approved by the board of adaman on August 20th 2024. As such essentially it meets zoning requirements which were reviewed in that particular plan. The smallest lot size being proposed is 8,916 square ft which aligns with that preliminary plot and the project text for Senate he farms subdivision. Lots 22, 23 and 24 which are these lots down here are join FEMA flood plane shown here in yellow. Why it is generally advisable for all the lots to have finished flood elevations indicated on them. It is very imperative when those lots are joined or have any part of a female flood plane uh close to or in them. As such, it is important that the finished floor elevations be added to this plat especially for those three lots. Common open spaces are proposed in this subdivision. Two of them are mainly for storm water management at this location. And down here there's a third. There three actually. There's a third. This is another common open space with a storm water detention um area. Right down here you also have street boulevards that are proposed. These Wesley Banks Boulevard has got medians. This area shown here in green. Those are medians that are proposed to be common open spaces. They will be within the public right away but be maintained by the homeowners association. Utilities have been generally constructed on the side. uh water and seaw wall infrastructure.

New streets are proposed which include sections of Lucy Drive, Wesley Banks Boulevard, John Hamilton Way East, uh Beckett Lane, Moly Melin Lane and Jack Thomas Boulevard. These are street sections included in this first phase that will be extended into the second phase except of course Becket Lane that um has been fully constructed in this particular phase one. 911 and our GIS department have reviewed these names and they have been determined to conform with uh the policy city's policy with regard to street naming. So they do not duplicate other names within the E911 system. Total number of these street sections will be 6,723 ft. They are all proposed to become public street upon the recordation of this plat. So these will become public streets. One thing that I think it's important for me to mention with regard to these utilities and transportation, I just left the site about 5 minutes ago heading to this meeting. Uh last week I was under the impression that at this time when the staff report was done the first lift of asphford would have been laid but it would appear that because of weather conditions that has not been done. Generally when it comes to major subdivisions in the city we do not move forward final plat to approval by the board of adamant without the first lift of asphalt at least having been laid. That is city's policy that has been our standard practice. It's also why in your packet you do not have a memo from the city engineer. When it comes to minor subdivision plat planning can generally handles that handle that when it comes to major subdivisions where you're building new streets, you are laying new utility lines is imperative that the city engineer and the engineering department go out they inspect the infrastructure and they provide you the

memo stating the conditions of those lines whether everything is okay to move forward for approval by the board of arament. Those the first leave of ask I didn't indicate has not yet been laid. As such, I will be making a bit of an um a revision or to the staff recommendation. This is the final plot as proposed. The layout generally conforms. I did indicate it basically matches what you had in the preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of this phase one of the final plaid for Senate Hearm subdivision subject to a number of conditions. A couple of them that I want to highlight. Number four being the need for the finished floor elevations to be added especially to those lot 22 23 and 24 that are join the FEMA flood plane flood hazard area. It's important condition number five. The plot currently shows the currently shows the eastern property boundary line for the subdivision almost to the center line of sen road. It's important that that be moved westward to the boundary of the subdivision itself instead of putting it to the center of the road. That's basically what that condition number five is addressing. Condition number seven is a standard. The developer shall submit to the city of Olive branch a letter of credit of sufficient amount as will be determined by the city engineer plus a 25% contingency for the completion of all uncompleted public improvements required in the land area constitutive of these phase one and any asbute. That does not mean everything in the subdivision can be bonded so to speak. There is a minimum that has to already be in place and then the rest can be

covered under a letter of credit. That minimum of course includes that first lift of asphalt. The developer this is a requirement in the preliminary plat. We do not yet have it. The developer needs to provide the CCROS for the subdivision. Usually that has to be reviewed together with this final plot and approved. As such, before this plan moves to the board of adamant for approval, we need to have those CCRs uh covenants conditions and restrictions reviewed to ensure that all the provisions in there align with the project text and with any of the approval conditions for the preliminary plat. The building permit shall not be issued for construction on the proposed lot until that first lift of asphford is in place. My hope was that that would have been done by today. That not being the case and following standard process and procedures in the city instead of tableling the plot, I would update this condition number nine to basically be that before this moves forward to the board of adamant, we need to have that first lit of asford in place and we need the city engineers inspection checklist and his memo. uh personally I'm not very comfortable presenting final plat to board of adaman without the city engineers recommendation because final pls really are not planning function is more of engineering stuff that concludes staff's presentation thank you thank you any questions for staff um it just one for me so are you suggesting that we change number nine to or include number include the language in number nine that uh before it's sent to the board that there's asphalt. Yes, we need I've discussed with the city engineer. He says basically he's not going to send out engineering inspectors

out there to go and inspect the site and give him any point until those things are in place. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here to speak on this? Nicholas Greenon, address 3629, College Road, South Haven, Mississippi. Um, bars to address any questions y'all may have. The CCRs, we do have them ready. We can submit those and have them ready before the board meeting. Uh, anything else? Just let us know if you have any questions. We're good with all the conditions. Any questions for the Nick? You guys on track to get that asphalt poured before the meeting? Just wait. It just got hit with all the rain this past week and just held up. So, as soon as it dries up, I can get it down. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. All right. Thank you all. Uh, is anyone here to speak in uh favor of this application? Is anyone here to speak in opposition of this application? All right. I'll leave it to the u bring this back to the to to the board or and planning commission make a motion to approve with all the staff recommendations including updating number nine to reflect that the uh asphalt must be poured uh and the civil engineers um recommendation must be given before it's presented to the board. I have a motion from Donnie including the the edit to number nine. Second that motion. I have a second from Kim. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The motion moves forward. Thank you. New business number one. This is an application for a final plat for area 9 of Robinson Crossing commercial subdivision submitted by

Byron Houston Engineering on behalf of property owners Pleasant Hill Land and Development Company. This the request is to subdivide 5.72 plus or miners acres into three commercial lots. The subject property is zone PUB plan unit development and is located at the southeast corner of Malone Road North and Church Road East. Uh before we move forward for for staff uh presentation, I've been informed that there are a number of people here to to speak um on this application. I just want to remind everybody that this is this is a request to subdivide. It's not reszoning. So therefore, it's not an advertised public hearing open for everyone to speak. However, because it is a public meeting and I'd like to give every give an opportunity for representatives from the neighborhood to speak. Um I will be asking for for representatives and we've got a couple of people who've already submitted uh their their uh request to speak. So, first we'll have the uh planning staff g give us their report. The application the applicant will make their presentation. Then will be an open discussion from the planning commission. And then I will ask if there are a couple representatives from Robinson Crossing who would like to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. Then we will seek a motion from the planning commission. Again, this is for subdivision, not a zoning change. Can I get a report from staff? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Planning Commissioners before you is a request to consider and approve the final plat for Robinson Crossing area 9. This area is constitutive of 5.72 acres bounded here in white. So to give you a

general location in the city, this is Church Road East. This is Malon Road North. is now been punched all through up to uh Gurman Road. Robinson Crossing subdivision the residential part of it is to the south of this particular piece of property of this particular area 5.72 acres. This is a PUD a plan unit development. What that really means is the development conditions or specifications for this piece of property are as they are specified in the project text not in the general zoning ordinance of the city. So in the review of this subdivision plan, the provisions or the specifications of the project text rule really the binding they determine, they dictate what has to happen on this particular side. The applicant proposes to subdivide this area 9 into three lots, three commercial lots. Lot one being 2.18 acres. Lot two 1.65 acres. lot 31.89 acres. The property as I did mention is at the souththeast corner of the intersection of Church Road East and Malon Road North. The development or the subdivision plot proposes a crossaxis easements between these three lots which are shown here in gray. So you have one cross access easement or two cross access easement that will provide direct access to Church Road East and one cross access eastment to the rear that will provide access to Malon Road North. A storm

water detention area is also proposed at the rear of the property. This will be a regional detention in the sense that it would take care of the storm water from all three lots. So each of the lot would not have a separate storm water management facility. All the three lots will be managed on one side at this particular location. There is a 20 ft wide buffer shown here in green proposed between the subdivision lots the beautiful area of the subdivision lots and the residential area to the south. That 20 ft wide buffer is what was required in the project text for Robinson Crossing. So that conforms aligns with zoning requirement or what was required and approved in the project text for Robinson Crossing. The development intent at this time. One may ask why is this subdivision before the board? Why is you know why does a property owner want to move forward with the division of this property at this time? Um there is a development intend to construct a convenience store with four pumps and a car watch on these one or two of these particular lots in this subdivision. And I will touch more on this in the next slides in terms of this particular intent to give a bit of a background historical background on this subdivision especially because in the approval of the subdivision plat it has to align with the project text. What does this project text say? The project text for Robinson Crossing was approved by the county board of supervisors on March 3rd, 2004. That is over 25 years ago, 20 uh years ago, 21 years ago.

The property was annexed into the city of Olive Branch with the PUD zoning intact on May 28, 2021. So when the property was annexed into the city, it came with the project text as it is. that project text remains binding unless the city amends it and there has been one amendment to it by the city of Olive branch. So apart from that one amendment every other provision in the project text as it came from the county remains binding. The entire PUB the both the commercial the residential area senior living facility area consisted of 231.60 acres. What is before you concerns only area 9 5.72 acres not their entire 231.60 acres. The master plan as I did indicate shows this particular area 9 areas 1 through 7 are for single family residential development. They are not part of this subdivision application. You have over 300 lots that are currently platted uh with over 250 homes built. Those lots are not part of this subdivision. The only thing you're looking at is this area shown here in another popular color. Area 8 which is to the east of this area 9 is planned for a retirement housing that also is not part of this subdivision. The subject property is only this area 9. The project text for this area 9 specified back in 2004 that with regard to the permitted uses

this is zoning issue. Convenience stores are permitted. That's by right. And then you had car wash as an accessory used to convenience store also permitted by right in 2004. Since then the city of Olive Branch having annex this property into the city has made one amendment to the project X as I did indicate that happened in 2022. The board of adaman in 2022 the board of adaman of the city adopted regulations amending the city's conventional zoning districts C1 C2 C3 M1 M2 M and M2 to only allow convenience stores with four palms if they were subject to subjecting all of them to a conditional use permits that happened in 2022 that included requirements for them to be located at a signalized intersections with no more than two at a four-way intersection. That happened in 2022. At that time, these project X already existed. You can say was grandfathered in some regard. In 2024, last year the board expanded these regulations to require convenience store with fire pumps to obtain conditional use permits in plant development districts. So in 2022, plan development districts were not covered. Basically what that ordinance said was convenience stores with four palms will be permitted in plan development districts subject to whatever is written in the project text. In 2024, the board decided to change that language and actually name the different project text in the city that permitted convenience store with FOMOs, especially those that permitted them by

right to explicitly make explicitly make them subject to conditional use permits that included Robinson Crossing this particular development. So the board of adaman amended a project text in 17 plan development districts and the the language regarding this Robinson crossing in that project stated that the 5.72 area 9 which you are looking at today planned unit development located at the southeast corner of Malone Road and Church Road to remove convenience store from the list of permitted uses and add convenience store with four palms as a conditional use. So that ceased from being a permitted use and became a conditional use based on that amendment that those particular regulations were also associated with another ordinance which was an amendment of the zoning text of the city itself. That amendment provided for what I call vested rights to what were termed projects. These basically were developments that were already in the pipeline. You had projects that were already reviewing the site plans for example before these new regulations went into effect. The board did not want to impose regulations on them where you have to go back and redo everything from a friendship already under review. You have convenience stores that were already under construction. The planning commission actually recommended these regulations for the B's approval if you may recall. And in those vested rights provisions which the applicant is intending to take advant uh uh subject this particular plat to timelines were stated therein for you to be vested. In

other words, for you not to be required to go and obtain a conditional use permit before you move forward with a convenience store with four ponds, you ought to have the preliminary plat approved by June 30th, 2025. You ought to have the final plat approved and recorded by September 30th, 2025. So the application before you is essentially to get this plan approved and recorded before September 30th 2025 not 2029 sorry that's supposed to be 2025 so as to to to be able to remain vested under the current uh provisions. If the plant is not recorded by that date then to have a convenience store with four pumps there they'll have to go and get a conditional use permit from the board of zoning adjustment. So summarily those are that's the key why you have this application before you at this time. The Robinson crossing plan unit development is not limited to to to the use. It incorporates this zoning issue. It incorporates a master development plan and these are images regarding illustrations regarding that master development plan. The area 9 you are looking at for example was envisioned back in 2004 when the project text and preliminary development plan were approved to consist of three lots or three paros one two and a larger area three. So that was the master plan series on which lot lines and building footprints were shown. You also have ingress egress areas listed. I will touch on this in the course of the presentation as we move forward. I should underline this. The project

text approved by the county had language in it which specified that this layout expressed the general intent of the development. It acknowledge the projected has general statements acknowledging parts of the map series are essentially general and conceptual and they are subject to amendments. This is common with project X. the extent to which one changes from those preliminary layout plans which may then require an amendment to the project text is usually determined by the planning commission on the board of adan. So this is conceptual at a time when anybody comes up especially when it has to do with commercial development. We all know that with the passing of time things are going to change. They're going to be adjusted. But to what extent can you change before that becomes a before there is a requirement for the project text amendment? That is generally determined by the board planning commission and the board of adamant. The PUB project text states final plans for each phase will be required. So once the project takes the the subdivision plan is approved site plans still have to be submitted. That is the next phase of the development. There will still be site plans that will have to be reviewed and approved. Those site plans when they are approved are also subject to the vesting provisions. If you see here it says civil site plan approval by December 31st 2025. So if the developer wants to move forward with this, they have to get a final plan approved, recorded by September 30th. They have to get the civil set of plans approved by December 31st to be able to move forward with that particular

development intent. In 2004, what was envisioned and what was put on the master outline plan, you had two small lots and one large lot maybe that was intended to be for you know it looks like a shopping center if you look at the layout that was what was envisioned back over 20 years ago it was probably also planned for a convenience store and accessory car wash the the the the language in the project text says says convenience store is permitted by ride. Your car watch is permitted as an accessory use. Market conditions with respect to this particular use have changed over time. If you go back to 2000, early 2000s and really see what was happening. If you look at the convenience store that we have at the intersection of Church Road and Highway 305, I think it's opposite CVS. Is it CVS or Walgreens? CVS. At that intersection, you have a convenience store and then you have a car wash, little car wash by the side. That is a kind of the way car washes were being done at, you know, back then. You had a convenience store and then you have a little car wash that was more of accessory to the convenience store. That's the way this was written. So the depth of the property was pretty small. It wasn't a large piece of property different from what you have today where car washes have basically become this long full scale developments. The PUB project text also states that the final site plan is required for each phase. So this phase one will require a a site plan and that it must comply with the regulations to establish that it is substantially conform to the conditions

of the outline plan. I wish to underline this that it substantially conforms to the conditions of the outline plan. That is the outline plan. Whether it substantially conforms or not that is subjective. That is for the planning commission to determine that's for the board of arament to decide the scope of a subdivision plot review. It's very important to emphasize this. Subdivision plots are not about the specific potential use of a lot. I have provided all of this information regarding convenience store and with gas pumps and car wash as background information. It is not determinative with regard to the approval of this plot. If zoning permits a use, zoning permits it. If zoning makes a use a conditional use, zoning makes it a conditional use. Subdivision plat do not go into determining whether a piece of property should be used for a particular uh should come under the particular type of use or not. So the application before you is not about reszoning the property to permit a convenience store or not to permit a convenience store. That's not the application before you. Therefore, the future land use of the proposed lot persuant to approve zoning cannot be the basis to deny the subdivision plaid of a piece of property in the city. Legally you cannot do that. Subdivision plat address two things two main things. First, the partitioning of the property whether that partitioning in terms of lot sizes meets the minimum lot sizes in the zoning ordinance. For example, the A1 zoning district in the city or let's just say the AR district in the city requires lot size to be minimum 1 acre. If you propose a subdivision in the AR district and the lot size is half an acre, the city will not approve it

because it doesn't meet minimum lot size. So the partitioning of those lots have to meet such B regulations as lot sizes, their configuration, the setback requirements. If you have a building on it and you propose a new property line, does that building meet the setbacks that you are proposing? That is the first thing that subdivision regulations address. In the case of plan unit development, it has to comply with the project text and associated preliminary development plan for Robinson Crossing in this particular case. So that the first thing has to do with the partitioning of the lots not the use. The second whether there is available and sufficient subdivision infrastructure to service those lots that has to do with utilities. It has to do with streets. If a developer for example proposes a subdivision along a small local street that the type of development proposed there, you know, let's say you're proposing a a development for 50 lots, but you don't have sewer to service those lots. The city has a right to deny because you don't have the subdivision infrastructure to service those lots. So really the two issues before you in the review of this subdivision are the partitioning of the lots and the availability and sufficiency of the subdivision infrastructure. That's really what this subdivision plan is about not the intended use. The first element the partitioning of the lots and conformity with the plan unit development or the project text for Robinson crossing the 2004 plan that you have before you show three lots in this area. So this area had to be partitioned into three lots broadly speaking one 2 three. The proposal before you is also

for three lots. So you had one, two, three. Let me step back. So the first two, those two small lots, the project, the outline was drawn to scale. If you take that scale and you measure it, it really comes up to about 0.4 acres in size. Each of those two smaller lots, the larger one was 4.92 acres in size. The proposal before you is still to create three lots, but each of one of them will be 2.18 acres, the other 1.65 acres and the other 1.89 acres. Generally, what zoning addresses is minimum lot sizes. Generally, what zoning really addresses minimum lot size, not maximum lot sizes. In looking at this, it's for the planning commission and the board. And as I did mention the project text indicates includes language that certain adjustments can could be made you know as you move forward in the project text or in to the platting phase of the subdivision. These two lots were only one 125 ft deep. The current ones are prop as proposed are four over 400 ft deep. The bulk requirements and this is a zoning element. The bulk requirements in the project text state and I quote directly development of the community will be guided by the outline plan. What you have laid before you is the outline plan for area aid. The preliminary site plan and the area use descriptions. The question before the planning commission is does what is proposed conform substantially in size and the general layout as it was approved in the project text for Robinson crossing regarding this particular area. The second element deals with the availability and sufficiency of the

subdivision infrastructure that has to do with streets and utilities. There is a 12in water line across the street that is sufficient for commercial development. There is an 8 in sewer line to the north at this intersection. There is another 8 in sewer line to the south. Is a responsibility of the developer as in other developments in the city to extend those lines to service those three lots. There is also a gas line shown here in yellow. There is sufficient utility infrastructure within the area of these the vicinity of this particular subdivision to provide for the commercial development of those lots as proposed. With regard to streets, church road is a five lane road. It has sufficient capacity for uh commercial developments, especially neighborhood scale commercial development. This is basically the same thing you have in other areas along this particular road. It should be take we should take note however that this particular intersection is not signalized different from what you have maybe at the intersection of uh craft and church there's a commission note there that is signalized pleasant and church is signalized get well if you move further into south urban getwell and church is also signalized that's the only difference you have with this particular intersection but in terms of street capacity yes church road is minor arteria Malon road is a collector street. This is really at the intersection of a collector and a minor arterial road not small local streets as you would have within residential developments. Regarding circulation and storm water management, these are key elements of subdivision infrastructure. The prelim the outline plan as approved in 2004 called for three points of

ingress and egress onto Church Road. The applicant proposes to reduce them to two. So you have two one year and the other year. That is better than having three. Usually when you're dealing with arterial roads, you want to reduce the number of, you know, points for people to be entering and leaving the site. the more you have the more uh you subject the development to accident risk due to terms. So what they have proposed in terms of access to church is actually better than what was approved in 2003 in 2004. The outline plan also included. So this is you can say vested you know the applicant has a right to this. This was approved back in 2004. Access to Malon road that was shown here in in the outline plan of 2004. That access is maintained in the final plat before you. The applicant also proposes a storm water management area. This is over 85 ft wide. In addition to the 20 ft buffer zone to the rear that is 100 ft and then you have your um cross access easement. So the buildable area of the lot the distance from the buildable area right up to the single family residential lots at the back is really about 120 ft per the proposed plans. Why the plan unit development did not contain specific architectural requirements. It makes reference to the need for CCROS that is the conditions covenants and the covenants conditions and restrictions to be provided for review that has not been provided in this particular uh application. It that is not accompanying this plat before you. So there is need to have those CCRs

staff recommends or there are three motions before the board for consideration. The first you may recommend approval of this plat to the board of adaman subject to a number of conditions one to nine. Condition number two being the need for those CCROS to be provided, reviewed to make sure that the numbers, size and materials regarding signage, you know, the architecture of buildings, everything will align with what we have in the project text. These CCROs will be reviewed and approved by the city's planning and development department before the final plot is recorded. So that is one condition you have before you. approval subject to these nine conditions. Uh the civil side plan for grading all of those needs to be provided, reviewed by the city engineer and approved. This lot number two, number one has a cross access easement that does not touch lot two. Normally you want to have those cross access easement touching the adjoining lots in one way or the other except the applicant only proposes to have the cross access at the rear. Now where the circulation you have them it appears that from the project text approved in 2002 the outline plan contemplated having the cross access at the rear of those lots. If you look at the layout of of those smaller lots, the motion to you can also consider a denier of this application on the basis that if you find should the planning commission find that the final plot does not conform to the Robinson crossing PUB outline plan or other aspects of the project text, the map series or the project text. Uh recommend therefore that the board of Adaman deny the

application. This was required that the applicant would should either revise the plot to have the layout the same as it were in 2004 or to file an amendment with that project X with the outline plan for you to consider that amendment concurrently with the subdivision plan. Alternatively, you may table this application if the applicant is, you know, open to revising the project text to in any way, shape or form to align with the proposed subdivision plat before you similar to what you did with Bristol Oaks. So that is the third option that you have. the applicant is willing to make any amendments, you can recommend that it be tabled onto those revisions are made and brought before you regarding the project text. In that case, you will review both the subdivision plat and the project text amendment concurrently. Those are the options you have before you for consideration. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you. Uh thank you staff for very detailed presentation. Jets, anyone have any questions for staff? Two questions. First question is you did just say that there is an amendment pending that um would be a a possible reason to table this. Is that correct? No sir, there is not an amendment pending. You have the option if you determine that the final plot before you does not conform with the general outline of the project text substantially as it was approved back in early 2000. You could, if the applicant is open to amending the project text so that the outline plan reflects his new preliminary uh the

final plan layout, then you could table it and ask him to go and submit a request to amend the project X. But at this time there is no application to amend the project X or the preliminary layout plan. You don't have that before you. So my second question is um despite the fact that it appears that in 2024, December 2024, we we addressed a concern that some things needed to go before a conditional board. Um and the fact that there's some degree of the overall layout and concept of area 9 changing from a four four acre and then two small lots to larger lots. We're still up against a timeline of September of this year that they're try we're trying to get this through before then so that those conditional terms and the other things don't apply. Is that correct? Yes sir. Those those timelines are they hard dates. They are they are law basically that's the zoning ordinance. Only the board of man can amend those laws. But obtaining obtaining a conditional use permit doing any other thing those are hard dates that they have to meet. If they want to remain vested if those dates pass then they are no longer vested. To get have a convenience store there with a car a convenience store with four pumps you will have to get a conditional use permit from the borrow zoning adjustment. Thank you. You're welcome sir. I have one question. Um so the preliminary plan has already been approved on this correct the outline plan the outline plan with the notary yes that basically meets that constitute the preliminary plat because in this particular case you do

not have the requirement for new streets and new major utility lines if there were no roads there then you would have had to do a new preliminary plan but because you already have new streets you have public utility lines, a preliminary plan is not required. The outline plan satisfies the preliminary plan requirement. If if the developer didn't want to split it up into three lots, I mean, all he would have he would by right be allowed to build a gas station like one big gas station in the in the entire lot, would he not? Can you I didn't If he didn't want to split it up into three lots and just keep it as one lot, all he would have to do is record a final plat and present a civil site plan, right? before September. Before se before September. That's the alternative. Before before September. Yeah. If he came up with just one lot Yeah. subdivision, of course, that that one lot subdivision plan will come before you for review and approval. And you will still have to make the same determination whether one giant lot is okay when the outline plan call for three. Sure. and and it's not uncommon in the city in the project text standard practice as I've seen with basically subdivision especially commercial developments. Sure. At the time when the project text the outline plan is being done nobody knows exactly how things are going to look like. So there is always language in the project text that says this is generally conceptual. Certain things may be adjusted as time goes on. The extent to which you permit an adjustment is what you are really determining. I just gota and maybe you can't answer this, but if if the lot stayed at 0.4 acres and he wanted to build a gas station, would it comply with our you I'm sorry, a convenience store with fuel pumps, would it meet

our current regulations? If it was 0.4 4 acres setbacks distance from the current regulations require that convenience store with four pumps be on lots at least 2 acres in size. That is if you are not vested. That's a key thing because the application is vested which is what why the applicant is trying to move forward those regulations will not apply. But if September 30th passes and the final PL is not recorded then he has to go and get a conditional use permit and at that time the new requirements will be reinforced. the requirement to be at a signalized intersection. The requirement to have minimum two acre lot size will be in effect but at this time they are not because of the vesting element. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here would like to speak on this application? Byron Houston with Houston Engineering, PO Box 3087, Oxford, Mississippi 38655. Good evening. Good evening. Um, basically um the these puds are basically an outline plan and mostly area the areas of that pud or that plan development are for types of use and type transportation type items. Matter of fact, in the outline plan in the fourth paragraph, um, on the first page of the general statement, it advises that, you know,

the lot lines and some of the layout that's shown are subject to change due to top curfe, you know, that that lot's probably not to scale. First of all, um you can't build just about you just about couldn't build anything on a4 acre lot now because setbacks on the front that lot are 50 ft. You'd have 50 foot setback on Church Road and on Malone Road and then you would have the rear setback. So you'd be down to probably around 1500 foot building. But um generally PUD plans are aspirational and they're modified on a regular basis um without having to go back through and modify project text. Uh we believe that the plan conforms closely to the plan is you know just the shape of the lots is a little different but uh we would ask that you approve and uh we also don't agree with um uh a couple items. Item three, um, if we move the shared access easement that's running north to south on lot one eastward. Um, now I do agree that we can make that happen if we ex move the the west line of lot two or the east line of lot one. We can move it over to the center of that drive. That's no problem. We can modify that. Item five though, if we it refers to the the um access easement or uh access on Church Road to the far east. It needs to stay on that side because there is a 60 ft uh setback on that side that uh would make it problematic to uh to place a you know building on it like it needs to be. If we move the drive to the other side

of the lot, then you're going to squeeze that down and severely limit that that site. And one thing we did also, it also gives you further distance from the intersection, which does make it safer. It also gets you further from that other drive, which makes it safer. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Appreciate it. Any questions before I All right. As a reminder, this is not a Can I speak? Yes, sir. I'm I'm the applicant and I just want to say that this was done in 2005 and I don't know how many puds we've done in our lifetime on our properties and uh it's usual and customary in anything you do when you do a pud that you can make modifications and changes in them especially when they go for a long period of time. For instance, Snowden Park over there on GitWell was done in 1972 and I happened to be at the uh at the presentation and here we are 50 years later and basically did exactly the same thing that Bartholomew presented to the county back in 1972. But for these type changes to take place, I just feel like it's improper to try to make us live with something that was done in 2004. We have an uh the the city of Valley Branch change a regulation and imposed it upon us with a time limit and and you know we have time frames and we plan things way out in advance and we had planned to do a convenience store there after Malone Road came from Bridgetown all the way to college and all the way

to church and That was when we were going to do it. The city of South Haven has black ballalled convenience stores and now Ali Branch is blackballing convenience stores. So, we have this last opportunity to do a convenience store and we would like to do a car wash, but we would like for it to be on separate lots. I mean, it's a huge investment today, y'all. When you mention car wash, you might be talking a few years ago half a million dollars. Now, you're talking $ three.5 million. And I know that some of the people on this board know exactly what I'm talking about. It needs to be on two separate lots. Thank you, Donnie. But I I I just uh I just had to get up here and tell the truth. Uh my son Barry Bridgefor Jr. has spent more hours protecting these people that are here to oppose us. He spent he has spent hours upon hours upon hours. Every week he goes through there at least once a day. He reports back to my staff of anything that needs to be done out there. And I'm just very upset to see all of this opposition here and I just want y'all to know that. Thank you for my time. Thank you. Any questions? Uh just state your name for the record. Okay. All right. And again, as a reminder, this is an application for subdivision. This is not an open public hearing. Um, but I do have two names I'd like to um invite up to speak as representatives for the uh the neighborhood. Um, Eric Houston. Good evening. My name is Eric Houston,

4403 Robinson Loop East Branch, Mississippi. And I appreciate Mr. Bridgeforce's desire to not be held to what was approved in 2004 due to the passage of time, but that is not the resident's position, nor do we believe it should be yours. I am a resident of Robinson Crossing and I appreciate the commission and the vice chair allowing comment on this matter. I'm here representing my neighbors, hundreds of whom are concerned with this proposed development. We have concerns for the health and well-being of ourselves and our children. We have concerns for the noise and light pollution it will bring, the traffic that is sure to congest the entrance of our neighborhood. All valid concerns which the city itself used as a foundation for the ordinance passed in December, which Mr. Bridgefor is seeking to vest this property under. You can see by the attendance tonight that these issues are deeply troubling to us, the people who will most be affected by them. It's clear to us that the intended and proposed use of this property in 2025 is not in line with what was intended or approved in the PUD's master plan from 2004. But those concerns aren't necessarily a question this evening. I understand that. That's potentially for another time. What I would like to point out to this body is that even though the staff report has declined to make a recommendation to approve, table or deny Mr. Bridgeforce application, the facts are laid out plainly. This application as submitted is significantly and substantially different than what was approved in the PU master plan. As noted in section two of the report's analysis, in the planning department's own words, it does not appear to conform to the approved outline plan, the very question that is before you tonight. It's my hope that this commission, based

on the clear facts and substantial deviations of the application, should be disincined to approve it. The residents of Robinson Crossing are not opposed to development. We would welcome responsible, commercially viable development that upholds Mr. Bridgefor's initial 2004 investmentbacked expectations. Development that enhances our city and serves as an asset to the community. An amendment to the PUD that goes through the zoning process and that considers the perspectives, investment, and well-being of the homeowners and residents of Robinson Crossing would be welcome should Mr. Bridgefor seek it. It's our opinion that the facts of this application are clear, and we hope that the planning commission will make the right decision. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Thank you. All right. Uh, Hunter Brown is declined. All right. Um, I'll bring it to the planning commission for open discussion, debate, or motion. I will make a motion. I think I was actually on the planning commission when this thing first started to be developed. Hard to believe, but things have changed in 20 years. Um, and they have changed. And I think we addressed tried to address that in December of 2024 that change does happen and that one of one of the things that we needed to recognize is there needed to be some conditions to certain developments are underway. So, I would recommend to deny this application simply because the concept has changed and because it ultimately doesn't meet what we tried to put in place in 2024 of a conditional permit. Okay. I have a

motion to deny by Steve. Do we have a second? Not receiving a second. I'll ask for a second motion. Alternative motion. Further discussion. Does anyone have any questions for staff? I have a question for staff. As Sanji, um our legally on this issue, can you elaborate? Um because I think we're kind of thinking it might be I would just like that to be clarified on what we're voting on legally. We're not voting on the use. That's the first thing. We're not voting on Thank you for clarifying that because we that's already been approved. Yes. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. The the use has already been correct. I just want to make sure that the public understands that. Um I see that there is drainage there. Um I see I'm not sure what the reason is for dividing lots. Um I think it's two and three. Is there some clarification there for that? Can you give me some clarification as to as to why these lots why there's why why do we have three lots there? Why can we not have one lot there? I think Mr. Barry Mr. Bridgeforall just stated something and I wanted to to kind of comment on that for the record and it's important.

He stated that we would like what the use they have in mind which is convenience store and the car wash. He said we would like them to be on separate lots. So that is kind of driving why you have these being divided into three lots. And I should caution something. The zoning ordinance of the city. The project text for Robinson Crossing says, "Convenience store with car wash will be an accessory used to a convenience store with four pumps. In the city zoning ordinance, an accessory use has to be on the same lot as a principal use, otherwise it's no longer accessory. So that that is just something that that it needs to to to take into consideration for the record as as we move forward on this. Secondly, I did mention that under the new rules um the lots will have to be minimum two acres actually is one acre not two. Jason just just check that. So the the reason for dividing this for three lots is based on the vision that they have. The intention to have these on separate lots as opposed to having all of them on on one lot. That's that's just the reason. Okay. And you have greenery or landscape of about 20 ft. Uh be it looks like there's lots houses that back up to that. Yes, ma'am. The project text that was approved. that will be a landscaped um Okay. And then you have the drainage and then you have the road itself, that easement. And you have another two easements um going out to Goodman. Okay. All

right. I just want to make sure legally that we all are on the same page. Yes, ma'am. That we understand that. Okay. Well, um I I've got a question before you. Okay. Uh, so I I just want you to clarify clarify the accessory the accessory part note that you just made. If it's subdivided and you put a convenience store on lot three, you would also have to have that car wash on lot three. Is that correct? Yes. Yes, sir. So it you can't have the convenience store with fuel pumps on lot three and the gas station on lot two. Yes, sir. Okay. Uh I saw one other thing I wanted to clarify because um could you restate the process like after approve or deny whatever happens here tonight um what's the next steps in this so that way everybody here would know it would go if you recommend denier the applicant always has a right to proceed to the board of adamant whatever your recommendation whatever recommendation you make today the applicant has the right to you say I want to proceed to the board of adamant it will proceed with your recommendation the board of adamant will make a final decision on it whether approve, deny. If the board denies it, it dies. Case closed. If the board tables it and requests that they make certain changes to the layout of the lots or anything, they can make those changes and bring them to the board for approval. If the board decides to approve it, the board can approve it and then they will proceed with the recordation of the PL. After the PL is recorded, they will have to bring in this civil set of plans, construction plans. Some project text specify that those construction plans have to come before you for approval on the board of some are very explicit. This project text is not explicit. It just says those plans would have to be approved by the city. So if you really wanted to get specific, you could the board of could, you know, and make that a condition in

the approval of the final plan. It could do so. this particular project text just says you have to submit the final site planners to the city for approval. Um so you still have a site plan approval stage and at that time for example right here on the plat you have an area that is designated for storm water management but in the approval of the site plans the civil engineer will have to submit engineering calculations to show that that area will actually be sufficient you know to manage that water. So it is currently designated. There will still be site plan review. You have landscape plans. You have architectural building plans. You have lighting plans. The photoometric plans. And one of the requirements of the city is your light at property line food candles has to be zero. So no light from this side no matter the use that you propose in this area 9 can spew to those adjacent residential property has to be zero at the property line. So all of that has to be reviewed in the next stage if the final PL were approved and recorded. Once that is done then they can pull and the building plans are also approved. They can pull building permits and move forward with construction of the site. Can you go back in the slides Sanji to um so that we can see the options there again on the application? Yeah. Thank you so much. Can I can I ask the the the applicant to um are you do you still want to go forward understanding the accessory use splitting it into three acres or if you split it into three acres but and your intent is to put a car wash.

Okay. Um Okay. All right. I'll open up the motion to the commissioner. Um I I'll make the motion to table this application. We have a motion to table by Kim. Second. We have a second by Steve. All those in favor. Anyone opposed? The motion to the table passes. All right. Uh we'll wait for everybody to clear out before we move forward. All right, we'll move forward with new business number Two, an application for final plat of Taylor Estates submitted by Byron Houston, Houston Engineering PLLC on behalf of property owners Billy Hall and Dorothy Lowry. The request is to create eight residential lots from 15.02 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zoned AR agricultural residential district and is located at the southeast corner of Davidson Road and Stateide Road East. Can we get a staff report? Thank you.

This application is submitted by Jay Byron Houston PE pls on behalf of property owners Billy Donhal and Dorothy Deli. The uh applications for a final plaque for an eight lot subdivision of an unplatted 15.02 02 plus or minus acre property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Davidson Road and Stateline Road. So you can see Davidson here and State Line here. And this is the property in yellow. The lots I've got numbered one through eight as you can see right here. And here's the subject property. Um the property is zoned AR agricultural residential which permits which does permit single family residential dwellings. Proposed lots are presently vacant and all lots exceed the required minimum 1 acre in area. Utility lines are read readily available in the vicinity of the property with an 8 in gravity sewer line. You can see it right here. uh a 4-in sewer force man here in red. You can see uh a 6-in water and a 6-in water man right here along Davidson Road. And then there's also an 8 in water man and a 4-in water man along state line. All infrastructure completion, if required, shall be the responsibility of the developer of the lots. No variances, deviations, and/or waiverss are applicable to the plat. Staff does recommend approval subject to various conditions. So, as previously stated, the purpose is to create eight lots from a single 15.02

vacant unplatted parcel. Surrounding uses are on the north up here uh AR single family residential the east single family residential south there is a church present and on the west single family residential the minimum lot size is generally 1.68 68 acres which exceeds the 1 acre minimum. The maximum density is 0.53 develop units per acre. The future land use designation is suburban neighborhood. As far as transportation goes, a potential grant through the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization would enable the expansion of Davidson Road. The roads have open swell ditches on either side and there are no sidewalks in the vicinity of the property. Therefore, sidewalks are not require and sidewalks are not required in the AR zoning district. So the next steps would be upon recommendation by the planning commission the plat will be forwarded to the board of mayor and alderman for consideration. If approved by the board the plat would need to be recorded. Once the plot has been recorded, lots may be sold or building permits issued for proposed developments on the lots in accordance with the uh applicable city land development regulations. So the staff recommendation staff recommends approval of the final plat of Taylor estates subject to the following conditions and you can see lot improvements shall be responsibility to the developer. Future development on the lot should comply with all requirements of the city's various land development regulations. All storm water improvements must be approved by the city engineer.

Unless otherwise specified, all utilities and services shall be installed underground. Add the design minimum finished floor elevations of each lot. Uh it must the final plat must be recorded before a building permit may be issued for any development on the proposed lots and minor elements to the final plat as may be required by city regulations and deemed necessary by city staff. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions for staff? Is the applicant here to speak? Byron Houston, Houston Engineering, PO Box 3087, Oxford, Mississippi 38655. And uh this one is fairly simple, whole lot easier than the last one. This one here u we just have eight lots and uh the minimum size, as you stated, was 1.68. and u my client does agree to all the the stipulations. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition of this application? If not, I'll ask the commissioners for any comments, questions. Motion to approve. Motion to to approve with staff's recommendations. Motion to approve by Donnie. Second. A second. Second from Diane. I mean Kim. God bless America. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The motion moves forward. Number three,

application for fi application for final plat for Caroline Corner subdivision submitted by Everett West West Surveying LLC on behalf of property owner Miranda Stra Strafos Collins Miranda Marie Bridal Mark Strafos and Caroline Strafos. The request is to create a single commercial lot of 0.952 plus or minus acres to subject property zone C3 commercial general commercial district and is located at the southeast corner of Goodman Road East and Highway 178 known as 9369 Goodman Road. Give me the staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh bring us up to where we are here, straight across the street. We could go west from where we are across the railroad tracks. See this beautiful yellow two-story wooden home that's been converted into a retail shop. Uh you see the driveway here with the parking area. Again, the suggested lot is zone C3, general commercial district. It's the intent of the property owners to remodel the landscaping along with adding a greenhouse and flower garden to the site. That'd be used to complement the bridal boutique boutique that's there. Um, except for the front and rear setbacks of the existing building that do not meet the current requirements, the PL beats or meets both zoning and subdivision regulations. Staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to multiple conditions. Got the plaid here in front of you. is also ex shown in exhibit 2. All existing utility lines, that'd be gas, water, and electric, uh are available within the general vicinity of this uh property. The plat does show a driveway and parking lot. Uh during our pre-application meeting, as noted in our staff report, fire inspector Captain Jason Code affirmed that the um parking lot and driveway complies to the city's

fire code to make the the uh fire truck uh accessible uh to the building. There would be a waiver that would be asked for the conditions. A five-foot sidewalk may be waved along the entire street frontage of the subject property as there are no sidewalks present along the south side of Old Goodman Road. Uh therefore, a waiver of the subdivision infrastructure improvement is applicable to this subdivision request. So, here's your next steps. Again, as we just said that uh with the previous um application, upon recommend recommendation by the planning commission, the plat would be forwarded to the mayor and board of alderman for consideration. If approved by the board, the plat would need to be recorded. So, our recommendation is that the planning commission approved the final plat and recommend the same to the board of alderman subject to the following conditions. Again, we'd look at um um I thought I had it on here for the uh sidewalk. It is number four. Number four, if you just note number four, we are going to ask that the construction of sidewalks along Old Goodman Road frontage of the property be waved. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. Happy to take any questions. Thank you for the presentation. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here to speak on this application? Come on down. Yeah, come on down. Yeah. All right. Mark is here. All right. What can I answer for you? Just state your name and your address. Mark Straus. Uh 10180 Cypress Lake Drive North. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. And anything to add to the application? I think I look forward to it. My little girl loves the idea of a bridal store and enhancing downtown. So, it's one of the reasons I bought that

building because it's the age and so close to downtown. So, yeah, just love it. Awesome. She loved it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone to speak in opposition of this application? Ask commissioners for any questions, comments, suggestions, or a motion. Motion to approve application. We have a motion to approve by Kim. Second and a second. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? The motion passes. And where are we at? Any other business for staff? Some ordinances you want to to talk about? No. No. Never mind. All right. I'll ask for a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Ooh. Ooh. I'm sort of hard of hearing, so we'll give it to Steve. I can hear better on this side for a second. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. All those in favor? I. Anyone opposed? The motion to adjourn passes. Thank you, everyone.