Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

This Board of Alderman meeting is hereby called to order. Welcome to the September 15th, 2026 Board of Alderman meeting. Pastor Jared Brooks of First Baptist Church is gonna lead invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, which I'll lead. Please stand.

I just want to say before I pray, thank you all so much for all you do to serve our city and our community. Let's pray together. Heavenly Father, just come before you, just giving you all glory and honor and praise for who you are, for your incredible, amazing grace and mercy that you pour out on us. God, I thank you for our mayor and I thank you for this board. All the citizens they represent, all the staff that serve our community so well. I know they carry such heavy burdens and God, I pray they find grace and rest in you and just encourage them and so grateful for the way they serve. And Father, for this meeting tonight, God, the agenda is set and just pray for grace and wisdom, discernment, unity around just the very best direction and any decisions that will be made for our community's best and for your glory. And God, just thank you for the word, God, that those promises that as we trust in you with all our heart, lean not on our own understanding and all our ways acknowledge you. God, you'll make our path straight. So I pray for that over this evening. And we pray all of this in the mighty name of Jesus, God, your perfect life, substitutionary death, glorious resurrection. We pray.

Amen.

Amen.

Thank you. Be seated. Thank you, Pastor Brooks. Ms. Stewart, would you conduct roll call?

Aldridge? Here. Collins? Here. Dickerson? Here. Earhart? Here. Gammage? Here. Hamilton? Here. Wallace? Here.

thank you all present uh quorum obviously established for anyone speaking tonight just a reminder that our meetings are streamed live on the city's youtube channel and also archive for playback at a later date and for those of us up on the dice we should have our microphones on green whenever we're speaking so people can hear us and understand what's taking place board you have the minutes of our september the first 2026 meeting Any comments, motions to those minutes?

Motion to approve.

Mr. Gammage, motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second. Mr. Collins, any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Is Ms. Renee Lentile, is she here, our representative? Come forward, please. I'll beat you at the microphone. How about that? public comments if he needs them he can have more than three minutes I share this proclamation with you from myself and the Board of Aldermen whereas service dogs provide visual assistance to individuals with disabilities enhancing independence mobility safety and quality of life for thousands of Americans including veterans children's and adults in our community And whereas September is recognized nationwide as Service Dog Month and observance dedicated to honoring the profound contributions of service dogs and raising community awareness about their important role and the rights guaranteed to their handlers. And whereas organizations such as Canine Companions and other accredited service dog nonprofits train and support service dog partnerships, empowering people to lead fuller lives and promoting inclusiveness in Olive Branch and beyond. Whereas the City of Olive Branch strives to create a safe environment for all who live, work, worship, and play in this area, including partnered with trained service dogs. Now, therefore, I, Kenneth R. Adams, Mayor of the City of Olive Branch, along with the Board of Aldermen, do hereby proclaim September 2026 as Service Dog Month. So we're proud to have Leif with us tonight as well. Thank you very much for being in attendance. Board, following the agenda, we have our consent agenda. Those items that are more administrative in nature, items 1 through 14. If you've had a chance to review those, any comments, questions, or motions?

Motion to approve.

Ms. Hamilton, motion to approve. Is there a second? Second miss Aldridge in discussion. All in favor. All opposed motion carries now with the planning Commission consent items again administrative in nature items a and B. I may is to set a public hearing date for consideration of application to amend the project text. for 7400 Alexander Rd commercial development submitted by Brittany Scott Casco civil have a property owner Alexander Rd LLC this 3.55 plus or minus acres of the property is on C for planned commercial district and is located at the southeast corner of Alexander Rd and highway 302 known as 7400 Alexander Rd This request includes eliminating the fountain requirement and making other changes to the project text as preliminary development plan. This is a public hearing date to be set for October the 20th. Also set for October 20th is item B, a public hearing date for consideration of application to amend the project text of Malco West planned commercial development submitted by Robert Barber on behalf of property owner Robert Bailey, Eagle Land, LLC. The 3.22 plus or minus acre subject property is on C4 planned commercial district and is located on the north side of goodman road at the south end of grand folio drive the request is to add hotel as a permitted use on lot four final platte malco olive branch subdivision phase three approved by the board of aldermen on december the 16th 2025 currently unrecorded public hearing date for both these are set for october the 20th 2026 is there a motion to approve those public hearings but for those day that date Dixon and Wallace, any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I'm to consideration of application for a final plan or tease minor lots of the business made about Greg Russell civil source LLC on behalf of property owner or any or tease a scatter of the request is to create 2 single family residential lots total in 10 point 11 plus or minus acres of subject property is on a are agricultural residential district and is located on the east end of state line road East.

property 600 feet east of the intersection of state line road east and la riz les larkin lane staff report please andrew thank you so first we're showing the location and general information this property these properties are zoned ar agricultural residential district the application does meet all the bulk requirements when looking at the subdivision standards Access to lot one right here is going to be by a 30-foot ingress-egress easement right here where the cursor is. And then access to lot two will be either a 30-foot ingress-egress easement or from State Line Road. And so altogether, the 4.77 and 5.34 acres are about 10.11 acres total on both of the lots together. Right now, it's vacant land. The land use is vacant right now. However, the future land use designation is suburban neighborhoods, so this will be an appropriate subdivision. So the final plat here, it's oriented differently than in the aerial photo, but right here is Stateline Road and then here's Frontage Road. And so it's showing all the appropriate easements and So for the subdivision infrastructure and utilities, there's existing public utilities in the area, and that includes 8-inch and 4-inch water main lines, and 4-inch water main line runs within an abandoned right-of-way. And for some background context, that was set by a board order dated April 16, 2013. There is a 20-inch Valero crude oil line identified as an active line and then a 15-foot easement on the 4-inch water main line and a 50-foot easement on the 20-inch crude oil line. And so just for reference here, we do have it shown on this map if anyone does want to refer back to that.

and so the planning commission unanimously recommended approval of this final plat and that concludes the presentation thank you mr hawkinsmith board any questions on the staff report so mr hawkinsmith when the naysayers say the days of the large lots are over with an olive branch that's not correct is it there's two right here about five acres each

Yes, sir, there's always going to be a few.

Always going to be some large lots, right? Okay. What about the applicant? Is the applicant here? Anything to add that hasn't been covered?

Greg Russell with Civil Source. No, sir, I don't have anything to add.

Board, any questions of the applicant? By the way, Mr. Russell? Thank you.

Thank you.

In questions, comments, or motions on this particular item.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

Second.

Mr. Hart, motion. Second, Ms. Hamilton. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I'm 3 consideration of application for the second revision of dancing Oaks planned commercial subdivision Smith about Dylan Walker Houston engineering on behalf of yasser sailor property owner. The request is to divide the existing lot of 7.01 plus or minus acres into 2 lots. The subject property is on sea for planned commercial district and is located on the Northeast corner of progress way and had to cross road. Thank you.

So the proposed area to be subdivided is at the northeast intersection of Hacks Cross Road and Progress Way. He got a lot one here and lot two. And then so the piece going to be cut out here is lot one a and that's going to be 1.36 acres of that total. And so the proposed plat is here showing the lots to be subdivided. And everything fit the subdivision standards. This was a really straightforward subdivision. A lot of what's there is going to remain, so there's not a whole lot to really review there past cutting out that little piece. And that does conclude that presentation. And the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for that one.

Board, any questions regarding the staff report?

What's the current building on the existing lot? Is that the convenience store there? Or is that the tractor?

That's the C store.

The C store there. Okay, that's what's already there.

Opened maybe a month and a half ago. Right. Alderman, huh?

Do we know the intended use on lot 1A?

I do not have that information right now, but the applicant may be able to speak on that.

Is the applicant here? I know Mr. Houston's here. Good evening.

in Byron, Houston, Houston Engineering, P.O. Box 3087, Oxford, Mississippi, direct 655. And the owner does in the future intend to put a building there 5 to 7,500 square feet, I believe, with rental bays. And it was kind of previously planned when we went through the project text to build get the development started and everything. It's just that we didn't have it subdivided exactly like, and it really decided later on how you actually needed to subdivide it to facilitate what he was looking to do.

So like suites in a small strip mall?

Correct.

Any other questions, board? Thank you, Mr. Houston.

Thank you.

motions or discussion Mr. Dickerson motion to approve as presented is there a second second Mr. Collins any discussion all in favor aye all opposed motion carries thank you yes save us a parking space on Saturday Mr. Houston save us a parking space on Saturday I know you're not going to have much traffic at Oxford Smart man. And while I'm breaking protocol, I failed to recognize our mayor's youth council. They're going to be in and out on different trips, so raise your hand if you're part of the 80 mayor's youth council students. Great to have y'all tonight. Item four, consideration of preliminary plat of Robinson Crossing section 22. I area for submitted by Joe Lauderdale on behalf of property owner pleasant he'll land and develop a company LLC. The request is to create 28 single family residential lots and 4 common open spaces from 14.48 plus or minus acres subject properties on P U D plan unit development district and is located on the South East to the southwest corner of church road and parish row report please.

Thank you so Robinson crossing is about 232 acres South East of the corner of church and Malone roads. The PD for this was approved in 2005 by the state of County which was then annexed in 2021. And so in that there are 298 platted lots and over 250 existing homes. And that's within this yellow dotted line right here. So section I, preliminary plat, proposes to subdivide 14.48 plus or minus acres into new streets, being Bolivar Trail West, Bolivar Way Cove, and then to extend Bolivar Trail North. And it'll be 28 single family residential lots and four common open spaces. And so all of this is going to include this green strip here along Church Road and the residential street. Another common open space green strip here. And then these gray boxes are going to be the residential lots. And then another common open space right here. And so this is just some general views of the existing areas that are going to continue this aesthetic. And then so moving on to what's in the master plan. So the 2005 PUD master plan for Robinson Crossing has the project text for area four showing a minimum lot size requirement of 8,000 square feet. And then the minimum setbacks, they show 25 feet for the front, 5 feet for the side, and 20 feet for the rear. And then the minimum house size is going to be 2,400 square feet. And it'll have access from Pilon Park. And Bolivar Trail will be extended through Section I and connect to Bolivar Trail West, which will provide future access to Parrish Road. And so that new area, it's going to be right here where the cursor is, and it fits perfectly with what the PUD that was approved is showing. And so with that, the Planning Commission did unanimously recommend approval, and that concludes the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Hockensmith. Board, any questions on this staff report?

I do have one question. Do we know whether these are custom-built homes, or does a builder come in by the lots and build the houses? Do we know?

So since this case is for the the planning process that's that wasn't not a part of our scope of research so the applicant could probably answer that question.

Is the applicant present is the applicant of this subdivision present? We just don't know at this point is that correct?

Yes, sir. For us, we were just looking at whether this matches the PUD requirements as well as the subdivision requirements or any other applicable requirements. And so that particular piece of the puzzle is a little bit later in the process. The building process on that specific issue is not necessarily addressed. Any other questions?

Mr. Wallace, motion to approve as presented. Is there a second? Second. Second. Mr. Collins, any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item five, consideration of application for preliminary plat for South Branch Subdivision, PHG, submitted by William Kissel, WH Porter Consultants, PLLC, on behalf of property owner Michelle Terhune, South Branch Development, LLC. The request is to create 22 single-family residential lots from 15.72 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zoned R3, planned residential district, and is located on the north side of Douglas Drive between Wisteria Drive and Brent Hogue Drive. Report, please.

So first we have the request and project location. The proposed subdivision will be located within the yellow shape shown in the aerial photo, which is approximately 15.72 acres zoned R3. The subdivision will extend from the existing Newberry Drive north of Douglas Drive and between Wisteria Drive and Brent Hope Drive. And so here is a screenshot of the proposed plat. The proposed subdivision will contain 22 buildable lots and two common open spaces. A new street is proposed in the shape of a loop connecting to Newberry Drive using the same right-of-way dimensions as the street it connects off of. So it's going to connect right here where the cursor is, perfectly connect with the existing street, and then just continue north into a future phase of the subdivision. And so right here, you have one common open space which will be used for detention, common open space A23. And then at the corner of this loop, there's going to be common open space B24. This will be a true common open space with an open field and a mailbox cluster. And then so for the analysis, since this is a regular zone, not a PUD, we definitely made sure to match it up with the subdivision regulations. And so these sections are pulled directly from the subdivision regulations. So there's gonna be no permanent dead ends or street jogs. as those are not allowed in the city, and there will be no residential alleys, which are also not allowed. The proposed right-of-way will be 50 feet, which meets the minimum requirement, and so this design ensures proper connectivity. This plat meets all the requirements for easements. It meets all the requirements for block design. It meets all the requirements for lot design. All lots are appropriately shaped. for public sites, facilities, and open spaces. It passes all those requirements, as I just described in that previous slide. And the proposed subdivision is in keeping with the general character of the area. And for subdivision and street names, all requirements in this section are met. And for that street one notation, planning department will make sure that the final plat, when recorded, gets an appropriately named street name. And then the last regulation that we made sure that it matches with is under Article 6, Letter E. It requires sidewalks on both sides of all streets and also a curb and gutter. And so this proposed plat satisfies the requirement and this exact drawing is shown on the plat with the five foot sidewalk, 4.5 foot strip of grass and an appropriately sized roadway. And so with that, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this plat. And that concludes the presentation.

Thank you. Questions on the presentation?

Mayor, if there's no further discussion, I'll make a motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Mister Hart is there a second. Second Mister Collins. Mister Gammage. Any discussion? All in favor. All opposed motion carries. Item 6 consideration of application for final plat of the reserve subdivision formerly known as Cherokee Park submitted by Jennifer Brown property owner. The request is to create 9 single family residential lots from 7.26 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zoned PUD Planned Unit Development District and is located on the west side of Crumper Boulevard, bordered on the north side by Camp Creek Canal and approximately 500 feet north of Albatross Drive.

Report. Thank you. So first we have the request and project location. The proposed subdivision will be located within this yellow shape shown in the aerial photo, which is approximately 7.26 acres zoned PUD. The subdivision will be a singular street extending from Crumpler Boulevard and ending in a cul-de-sac. the pud for this land was revised by the board of aldermen in 2018 to specifically allow for a plat of such designs similar to what has been submitted and so that pud amendment it exactly mentions this spot in the yellow outline And so here we have the proposed plat showing the exact lot with nine buildable lots on the south side of the street and one lot on the north side for drainage. Curb and gutter will be included along the whole street, but the sidewalk will only be on the south side in front of the buildable lots. And that comes directly from the 2018 PUD amendment that was approved. So for a part of the analysis, we have that the proposed design of the streets and lot shown on the plat do not conflict with the PD amendment approved by the Board of Aldermen in 2018. And this amendment was attached to everyone's staff report. So if anyone wants to go back and reference that it's in the staff report and also have a copy of it with me, the ordinance approving the amendment listed 18 conditions of approval, specifying design elements of the future subdivision, as well as other required actions and documentation. So for the street design, the plat follows the design requirements listed in the conditions. Condition number six states that the cul-de-sac street is allowed to be longer than the 500 foot minimum, with permission to waive it by the Board of Aldermen. Condition seven does not list any specific street name, but states that one must be chosen. The applicant wishes to name the street Blue Heron Cove instead of Wedge Cove, which is the name shown on the plat. And planning staff confirms that this will be acceptable. Condition number 12 states that the sidewalks will be installed only on the south side of the street and will extend to the east side of Crumpler Boulevard. So that's why it shows that on the plat. And so we decided to show a screenshot of lot 9. It's the only irregularly shaped lot. So while lot 9 appears to be odd-shaped encumbered by easements and setback requirements The Planning Commission in their recommendation They did suggest to have the common open space added to lot 9 however The home builder does intend to construct a house on this lot as they got permission by the board in the 2018 amendment for nine buildable lots. And so the applicant has after the planning commission meeting, we met with the applicant and the applicant provided a floor plan showing that a floor plan will in fact fit on lot nine within the building setbacks. And so here is after the planning commission meeting, they came in and provided this to us. Here is the floor plan. And the applicant has assured planning staff this floor plan with the bonus room built out and totaling 2374 square feet will fit within the building setbacks on lot nine. And so because of that, planning staff decided to cross out some of the recommendations by the Planning Commission. And so we have the strikethroughs here and then some revised conditions in italics. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins-Smith. I can go through any of those conditions if you would like me to.

if the board needs that, they'll advise. But any questions, board? Or do you need these items covered?

I do have a question. If we can go back to the overall plat design, please. What are our setbacks from the street? Are they 20 feet? Is that what I'm seeing? 25. 25.

So the platenotes show there's to be a front yard setback of 25 feet, rear yard 20, and side setback of 5 feet.

What's our standard? Our normal request is 35 feet setback?

So that would depend on the specific zone, but as this is a PUD This was a custom setback so If you want I could go back and dig through the other zones, but we do see this as a typical setback and

Because the only concern I have with lots this size and tight like this, and I'll be happy for the builder to address it, but I noticed in a lot of our subdivisions where we have compromised the setback, if I can use that term, we end up with cars parked on the sidewalk, cars parked in the street, tailgates in the street, because there's not enough room to park on the driveway and nobody uses their garage for cars anymore. They put their stuff in it and that's fine. I was just curious if we can get that to maybe 30,

Yes, sir, I totally understand I myself did have some concerns with the lot shapes, especially when you get towards the end I Completely agree there there should be space for a car to park in the driveway fully in the driveway if there is a driveway With this being the plat stage though we don't have the all the building plans to review as part of this case. However, those are valid points on the criteria regarding appropriate lot shape if this was a classic subdivision case. But with this being a PUD and with the special fact that the PUD was amended in 2018 to specifically allow for this type of design. It really constrains what the planning department was able to review. So it did put us in an awkward position to not really review it quite as hard as we would have on a classic subdivision.

Is the developer here?

They should be.

Developer, anything to add? Please come forward. Developer and representative.

Hi, I'm Jennifer Brown. I'm the owner 7435 Ashland Drive, Olive Branch. This subdivision will have an HOA with constraints specifically addressing parking, common areas, maintenance to ensure that this is a well maintained property as it is surrounded by golf course.

How can you assure that people, families with four or five cars won't park in the street or on the sidewalk with that limited setback? I know you'll have an HOA and I appreciate that, but can you work with a 30 foot setback?

possibly on the first the longer lot the first four or five lot it would create inconsistency because six seven and eight cannot be set back anymore right and i assume we're having front-end garages because of that yes they're all front-loaded are they going to be all set garages are they going to be pretty much in front of the house i know we haven't seen that i don't intend to share any driveway

And, Andrew, this is a preliminary plat. Can we work with that between this and the final plat on setbacks? Or if we approve this, it's...

This is a final plat. Yes, sir, it's a final plat. I was looking at the wrong item. Okay. We approved it back in 2018. Right. I think one of the questions I'd deal with is about parking in the streets because it's not...

You're encumbered by the drainage easement, obviously. That's what's creating the bottleneck, I believe, on these lots. You're challenged to get them to fit in and get nine lots out of it. I can understand that predicament.

Let me ask you, what about... all the first lots are good to have to set back the more i mean those are deep lots 35 to 30 to 25 as they get not as deep i mean i created you with gil that's gone

And I don't have a problem as much on lot seven, eight, and nine, obviously, because you're pinched in. But you wouldn't want to impede traffic or anything, because that's on the dead end as well. Andrew, from a planning perspective, is it any problem with asking the first six lots to have a 30 or 35 foot setback and then stay with the 25 on the others? What would that do to infrastructure and sidewalks?

If I would definitely have to look at examples of building plans because I don't want to commit to anything on the spot and then find out that there's going to be a building plan that will not fit.

So Andrew, they're in compliance to the PUD that we approved back in 2018, correct? They're in compliance with that?

Yes, sir. This submission complies with the PUD amendment from 2018.

Did we establish setbacks in 2018?

Let me see, that specific amendment as well as the original PUD, it was all text and so I don't recall the specific setbacks being called out. I'm not seeing the specific setbacks being called out on that PUD original text. And so I know in the staff report, I did have the conditions listed. So I skimmed through that real quick.

Do we have a typical setback ?

So every PUD is going to be a custom zone. And that's typically a discussion between the developer and the planners. And so as far as like an exact PUD

set of setbacks I do not believe there would be any as far as I know there would not be any specific standards but I think Andrew's correct each bud would stand on its own it's basically a site specific zoning ordinance for a particular piece of property so Andrew's correct there's not a standardized bud or planned district setback it would be each one of them would be unique

Is your HOA covenants going to prevent parking on the street?

If I can, if at all possible, yes.

OK. I know that some of the subdivisions that have very active HOAs do enforce that and make sure they're not parking on the street. Now, some of the smaller ones that don't have very active HOAs, it's not policeable, but like Plantation, He's religiously not letting people park on the street. So I don't think if that's what your HOA governors are going to say, I don't think that's going to be an issue, especially since there's only eight lots on that side of the street. So we're not talking a bunch of cars.

But this being a public street, is it a public street?

It's proposed to be a public street. So typically vehicles would be allowed to park on the public street, but I would caution on any no parking on the street with the fact that we don't know the building plans that would fit on the lot. And so if we don't know the building plans, then we also wouldn't know the size of the driveways and then we wouldn't know how many cars would fit on those smaller lots.

That's my concern. I mean, I'm okay with the house sizes, but from what I'm seeing on these compromise setbacks, if you will, We've got cars all over the place, on the sidewalks, in the street, and it's just an issue for me. It may not be with anybody else. I like the subdivision design, and I like the house sizes.

I may suggest asking, if it's appropriate, to ask the developer how many cars may be able to fit on a driveway or in the garage for each of those constrained lots, just as a general prediction.

I can pretty well tell you from my own observation, a pickup truck today is 18 feet, full-size pickup. And if you've got 20 feet from the front door of the garage to the sidewalk, that pickup truck's basically in the sidewalk. And if you have two cars, that's the issue there.

Ms. Brown, are you far enough along that you know the type homes that are going to be built? Are you at that stage yet?

Yes, all the home plans have been selected, each one a number lot. I'd be happy to submit them to the city.

That may be something. If the board wants to table this to a date certain to let planning look at that with the applicant and come back with more information, that's one way to resolve it.

Yes, sir. My name is Juan Luis Alvarado. I want to be a heart builder. The other suggestion that we can have to avoid the cars is in the garage. It's going to be 18 feet wide. So I can bring the driveway, the width of the garage, so you can always have two parking spaces on the front of the garage on the outside and two on the inside. That avoids a bunch of other parking on the street.

And that's greatly appreciated, and yet you nor anyone else can control whether someone parks their car in the garage or puts all their stuff in the garage. Because you may have plenty of room for two cars in the garage, but if it's packed full of shelves and boxes and boats, then we have cars out. mayor if it's an option and okay with this just me speaking with um our developer i'd like to table it to a date certain to see if at least on lots one through six we could get maybe 30 to 35 feet and then on seven eight nine i'm okay with that just because of the compromised area there um would you like to go to the first meeting or the second meeting next month

what planning but if you're good as well playing how long would it take you sit with applicant and and worked out the design to see where these House plans will fit.

I believe This week, we can meet with the applicant if y'all are available, and we can try to get some specific house plans that fit on these lots.

If you can do that within a week, then I'll make a motion to take it. I have one other question.

Should I wait until the second? It's his motion. He said go ahead. That's fine.

Is this the subdivision that has on the south side, which would be the backyards of these houses, have the large dirt wall? And does the city need to be aware? I mean, I'd hate for it to come back and then we're dealing with... something we're responsible for.

I totally understand that. So where the cursor is here following this property line, they have cut into they have cut into the land, which then here on this property line created a pretty much a large cliff And so with that, there will be a retaining wall built along that wall. And so the applicant, we did tell the applicant, just in case this is asked, please bring a rendering or something. So I see that the applicant has brought a rendering of a proposed retaining wall. So yes, they are proposing a retaining wall. I did see a set of plans showing the drawing which does match this rendering here. So that would be specifically for lot eight, six, seven, and eight.

And does it affect nine? Nine's pretty well flat.

Nine is flat. So the retaining wall would be on the back side of the property line of lot six, seven, and eight.

So there's not a need for a retaining wall on the first lot?

There is a portion of it, I think, that's steep, but it also has a flat area. The retaining wall is not necessary everywhere. But they have taken that into consideration with the retaining wall.

And that would be lots one through five, where that slope comes down and flattens out before the...

So there's essentially a couple large hills. And so it's kind of a more gentle hill here. And so where this cursor is, it's a large gentle slope that kind of evens out. And then when you kind of get to this curve here, It's because it cuts into the land. The land rises here. There's a large hill. And so that hill suddenly rises behind six, seven, and then lowers down at the end of eight. And by the time you get to lot nine, the land is flat again.

Mr Hart your motion for 10 6 to table it to the first and I mean that yes may not make a motion to table this to meeting on 10 6 so that we can have time for staff to discuss with developer moving back to set lines. Lots one through 6.

Sir certainly seems resolvable without a doubt motion for to table to 10 6 for more exploration with planning and that is your second.

I second it.

Second, Mr. Collins. Any more discussion? All in favor of the table until 10-6 and put it back on the agenda?

No. No. Aye. Aye. Roll call.

Aldridge? Yes. Collins?

Yes.

Yes, your heart, yes.

Yes, well, you guys have it a table until October 6th and you'll be in touch with the planning Commission of planning staff and they work with you try to fine tune this between 910 6. Thank you. Mr. Dye?

Yes. Mayor, I just want to mention one thing, and I think it goes to the issue of perhaps the divided vote that we just had. And certainly, legally, there's never a problem with tabling something for further review. And if that further review can produce a consensus and agreement of the developer, and if the developer can accommodate that setback issue with the housing plans they have in mind, then certainly it sounds like there was collaboration and an agreeable resolution. So what I'm about to mention is about platting in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular application. When a plat is submitted, the board has less discretion to turn down a plat than perhaps you do with a rezoning or a project text amendment, something like that, where the board clearly has discretion to approve it or deny it, as long as you don't do so arbitrarily. On the other hand, when a plat's submitted, if a plat complies with the city's ordinance, the board has virtually zero discretion to turn it down. And so if this were a conventional zone, and if the setback complied with the setback that's contained in our zoning ordinance, The board should approve that plat, even if it later thinks, well, I wish that setback were larger. But if the setback complies with the ordinance, the plat should be approved. In this case, the question is, what is the applicable setback in the governing project text? Because this is not a conventional zone. It's a planned district. And so you have a project text that will set out that setback. And as I'm understanding it, we don't know as we sit here right now what that setback is. But if the setback is 25 feet in the project text, and if this plat calls for a 25-foot front yard setback, then the plat should be approved. The board has very little, if any, discretion to turn down a plat that complies with the governing ordinance, in this case the project text. If we knew definitively sitting right here right now that the project text called for a 25-foot setback, my advice would be to approve the plan as presented. But absent that knowledge, I think it's appropriate to table it for further research. And if that research results in a collaborative result, that's great. If the research results in a project text showing 25 feet, my advice would be to approve it as presented.

OK.

Thank you, Mr. Yes, rescheduled for the 10 6 October 6. Thank you. Next item. Public hearing date for consideration and action on motion declaring the condition of the following properties to be a minister, the public health and safety and direct any of the city staff or contract labor to clean the property for with staff.

So first we're going to show the properties on list a these properties are considered clean by staff. And so we made sure to have code enforcement go and take a picture of each of these properties said all the date stamps are shown on the picture here at 8, 7, 3, 1, center Hill road, the grass has been cut. At 8174 Industrial Drive the grass has been cut and 9461 Hickory Drive the grass has been cut and all those pictures were taken today. Here we have a property not yet cleaned or partially cleaned. As you can see, timestamped today, the grass is still high here at 7663 Richmond Cove, Angela Durant. And then next we also have property owner Michael David Hurst. uh four five five one camilla place and the grass is still high um as you can see the time stamp here september 15th for four five five one camilla place and uh just one quick note i just want to make sure that we proceed uh appropriately here i know the consent agenda or the the posted agenda uh shows camilla cove instead of camilla place So I just want to make sure that we can proceed with having this put on the list for getting cleaned if it says Camilla Cove rather than Camilla Place.

Was the property physically posted appropriately?

Yes, the property owner was notified the property did have a posting.

And was the is the tax parcel number that's listed on the agenda correct.

Yes, the tax parcel numbers correct and the names correct.

And then there was mailing to the address where the tax bill sent to the physical address for the state. As long as those prerequisites were satisfied and particularly the tax parcel numbers correct. I don't think that the reference to code rather than place is sufficiently deficient to warrant stopping this. I think you can go forward.

Yes, sir, thank you.

Thank you.

And those are the 2 properties that need to be cleaned and that concludes that presentation.

So you want to associated with the Angela Durst and Michael David Hearst property. Any comment cards filled out the student. Is anyone that to give comments about these properties. Anyone here tonight to give comments about either of these properties? Hearing none, public comments are closed. Board, any questions or motions on these final two properties that appear to still need cleaning? Mr. Wallace, motion to clean. Is there a second? It's all true second in discussion. All in favor. All opposed motion carries on the agenda of a new business consideration of recommendation to adopt various 2023 and 2024 international building codes and standards in a mid chapter 14 of the code of ordinances accordingly. Least touch base on item to they do go hand in hand. We can vote on. separately. We can vote on separately, but discuss them jointly. Consideration of recommendation to adopt 2014 international fire code and all associated codes and standards and associated fee schedule. We have captain code from the fire department with us tonight building inspector Pam as well Pam Simpson as well with us tonight chiefs here I know this has been a work in progress probably at least a year commend the staff for there was one meeting held that I held with the North Mississippi home builders board of the Association and received their input that input was followed up by staff members code and Simpson and they had a follow-up meeting with the builders of North Mississippi, the board members, and they were content and pleased with what was worked out and resolved, so I don't think there's any issue with the builders. It's pretty lengthy if you have questions. Staff's here to answer them, but they sure worked a lot on these and had input, gosh, for at least a year now, and I think, Mr. Dye, you've given legal input as well, and COO Riker's given input, but if there's any questions, staff's here to answer those. If there are no questions, can we take the item number one first, consideration of recommendation to adopt various 2023 and 2024 international building codes and standards and amend Chapter 14 of the Codes of Ordinances accordingly?

I make a motion to approve them.

Mr. Collins, motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. This Hamilton second discussion all in favor. All opposed motion carries item to consideration recommendation to adopt 2024 international fire code and all associated codes and standards with associated fee schedule. Mr. Dickerson motion, second Mr. Wallace. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item three, consideration of recommendation to approve additional services, contract with Renaissance Group in an hourly, not to exceed, amount of $6,500, increasing the contract amount from $241,000 to $247,500 and extending the contract time by 105 calendar days. for the project referred to as fire station number 6. Mister swims is this a sewer connectivity basically is that this item or is that the next one. So we're going to go to sewer connectivity for the fire station some of the final connection points for the fire station is what this involves.

Fire station. Y'all recall moving along well given by their lately it's is getting close to being completed when we started this project uh... there was uh... also city water sewer project that was kind of starting close to the same time so uh... that had water and sewer that went across the front that's created some of the problems that were here tonight with uh... with the utilities that uh... were trying to be extended both across the street and in front of the fire station and uh... also the fire station itself trying to bring their service lines out to that and get all that to work in coordination. So we ran into a number of problems during the construction of it. We met several times. There were several places where we had multiple utility conflicts, both with what we had out there existing and what we had with new, both with water, sewer, and gas. They had changes, I think, in how the fire station had to actually tie into the system. There were just conflicts some places we got to where they were running out their service lines and ended up with some of the changes we were required to make. with the water and sewer project where there were conflicts and they had to be lowered. And so it was a number of different things that had slowed down this project. We've had some issues with some of the water valves, with some things dealing with public works. So we've got kind of a list, I guess, from W&T who represents the company, they were the ones that actually built the fire station, asking for an extension of time of 105 days And they're also asking for us, and this is part of number four, under new business, asking for additional time to pay for some of those costs that I just mentioned. Part of it is WT's cost and part of it is for work that was done by the one that's doing the site work and the electrical contractor. So all that just has culminated, I guess, into a need for a change order and a delay in time. So we are We're requesting on number three. This is Renaissance, who represents us in the design of the building. They're also doing CE&I. So the $6,500 increase is for this gap period of 105 days that gets us to the closeout of the project. So we've reviewed that. We do think it's reasonable. And we are requesting for number three that we do approve Renaissance change order I don't see the number. But anyway, this particular change order for $6,500 for the additional work associated with that.

Thank you, Mr. Swimms. Questions or motions?

We're taking three and four together.

We're separate, but they kind of sort of tie together. We're taking three by itself right now.

Motion to approve.

Gammage motion to approve 3 is your second. Second second Collins all in favor. All opposed motion carries now force consideration recommendation to approve change order number 4 on the contract with W T contract corporation in the additive amount of $127,968.59 Increasing the contract amount from $5,686,270.87 to $5,814,239.46. Extend the contract time by 105 calendar days, making the new project completion date December 2, 2026, for the project referred to as Olive Branch Fire Station No. 6.

And this involves Mister swims up with sanitary sewer again as well as a a one inch PVC conduit to involved as well is that correct yes, the reroute of a lot of items that are listed there and that I'm number 2 kind of lays out some of the issues that they ran into that had created some of those problems and then the number one was was what W T had and had some of the issues that they have had so those together. Yeah, those 2 together and that's a 127,968 dollars and 59 cents that they're asking for a change order which is a 2.3% increase in the contract costs and so we are recommending approval for this amount.

COO record while we there could be something else but we think these are the largest items remaining on this project before we Enjoy a ribbon-cutting and move the fire team in there. So they're ready and we're ready So we're trying to push this thing along.

We're friends just by the end of the year Okay

The strong yes, yes, OK, I guess not my motion to approve motion to approve by Mister damage. Second by Mister Wallace all in favor. Motion carries. Next item consideration of recommendation to approve change order number 7 on the contract with Barnes and Brower in the active amount of $7,557 increase the contract amount from 2 million $754,406.75 to 2,761,938.75 for needed equipment referred to as the Olive Branch Animal Shelter. Report, please.

I'll be glad to answer any questions. They were just very specific items. I think that the animal shelter had seen you see where they had asked for what changes in the water hose rails, replacement of flush valves with a two to one inch ball valve for better water pressure and motor motion sensor connections for lighting controls. So we are recommending approval for this change.

These are items to help the staff at the animal shelter to be able to to clean easier clean the floors easier and also motion to take the light for when they come in after normal daylight hours bring in animals and that's what these 2 represent. Mr Dixon motion is there a second. Second all the job in favor. All opposed motion carries. Consideration of recommendation to approve final change order number 2 on the contract with Timbo's construction incorporated in the deductive amount of $2092 decrease in the contract amount from $1,478,491.20 to $1,476,399.20. and accept the project as complete, authorize final payment number six in the amount of $84,518.20 for the project referred to as the Olive Branch Airport Corporate Hangar 1.

is that this is the the final change order that's associated with this project for the hangers in it. A deductive amount that basically was impacted by concrete pavement, the active base and so we are recommending approval for this change or this final change over on this project.

less concrete and less aggregate material needed for the concrete for this item and then was actually salt on the front end so it's reducing the cost is there a motion or questions on that miss hamilton motion to approve is there a second second Second Mister Collins all in favor. All opposed motion carries out of 7 consideration recommendation to approve change order number 2 on the contract on score LLC in an additive amount of 15,720 dollars increase the contract about from 3,300,000 $395 to 3,316,115 dollars extend the contract time by 11 calendar days making the new project completion date February the 1st, 2027 for the project for 2 is the old town sewer rehabilitation project and Mister swims, I think this is a lot that had a smaller service line then was needed and it was found during the construction of the land of the new sewer line and it needs to be upgraded is that right.

Yes, for this was you know surprising for this project we really have been the old town, some of the surprises we thought we'd say haven't seen as many but this particular one did have an issue that was creating issues that I think the city's kind of been involved with through the years that they've had some backup problems and so I think we felt like that there was a an issue that the city needed to step in and and resolve with the service line so we are recommending that we do approve this 11 calendar days and this additional cost of $15,720 to correct this problem.

Mr Wallace motion to approve. Second Mr Hart in discussion all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Is your motion to leave executive session with intentions of going into executive session discuss items one through 5. Collins motion second damage all in favor. Opposed motion carries their motion to go in executive session to discuss personal matter airport department and in the Amherst apartment in the gas building department, the planning and building department and personal matter in the police department is a motion going executive session for those 5 items.

So moved. Second.

Mr. Earhart, motion second. Mr. Collins, any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? We are in executive session.