Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, it's six o'clock. I'll call the meeting of the Olive Branch Planning Commission to order. If we'll have the roll call, please. Pat here. Dion Jones here. Janice Lewis here. Mark W here. Diane Singer here. D here. Steve Stratton here. and you've received in your packets the uh minutes of the February 10th, 2026 meeting. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? If not, do we have a motion to approve the minutes? I make a motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion by Miss Singer to approve. Do we have a second? A second.

All right, we have a second by Mr. Long. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Then the minutes have been approved. Okay. Under new business, the first item is consideration of an application to amend project text for Trinity Park Plan Development submitted by I'm a Tossam Nasser on the behalf of Moheim Nasser property owner. The 16.21 21 plus or minus subject property is on PUD plan unit development is located at the southwest corner of Highway 305 and Church Road East known as 8961 Church Road. This request is to add medical medical cannabis as a permitted use within area 7 of the PUD. and the applicant requests to table this until April 14th, 2026. So, I need a motion uh from the commissioners to uh table this until April.

I make a motion to to table it until April 4th. We have a motion by Mr. Jones to table this application until the April meeting. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Mr. Long. Any other discussion on this? All in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? So, uh, this will be tabled now till the April 14th meeting if any of you here for that. It'll be here next month. Uh, I would like to move on to item number four if we could because that item also has a request to be tabled. It's consideration of an application for a zoning map amend amendment submitted by uh Michael Lebo Allen and Hosell on behalf of property owner DInnesota County School District. The request is reszone 42.5 plus or minus acres from PUD plan unit development to AR agricultural residential district. The property owner intends to use the site for a career tech center for the DInnesota County School System. The subject property is located on the east side of Craft Road in the southeast corner of the future expansion of West Sandage Road in Craft Road. And the applicant requests to table this until the April 14, 2026 meeting. So, do I have a motion from the commissioners to table this? Make a motion to table April 14th.

Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Jones to table this until the April 14th meeting. Do we have a second? Second. And we have a second by Miss Lewis. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any oppose? And the motion carries. And this will be tabled until the April 14th meeting. Now back to item number two on our new business. It's consideration of an application for revised preliminary plat for Carson Creek submitted by Greg Russell civil source on behalf of property owner Mari and three Wy road group. The request is to create 25 single family residential lots from 38.6 six plus or minus acres. The subject property is on R1 single family residential district and is located on the east side of Davidson Road just over 400 ft north of Tram Court Drive. We'll now have the staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is a revised uh preliminary plat application. This is for 38.62 acres which you noted is vacant. It's currently zoned R1. Uh the zoning will not change. The uh primary lot size of R1 is 12 12,500 ft. The uh square feet. The preliminary plat for Carson Creek that suggested the original 78 lots was originally approved by the board of alderman on October 19th, 2021. This new preliminary plat represents the first step in subdivision process if approved will be followed by submission of construction plans for administrative approval. Uh the subdivision that we are going to be looking at uh this evening is 25 lots. So from 78 uh down to a reduced number of 25. This subdivision is proposed to be developed in one single phase. The smallest proposed lot we'll see is 1 acre. The plat does meet both zoning and subdivision regulations. Staff does recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to multiple conditions. Again, uh to bring us up where we are, Davidson Road uh runs north and south. Uh you will have uh exited or turned off of Goodman Road down here where the pointer's at and went due north uh past Compel Church um all the way up to where you're almost even with the new uh south branch. um subdivision. You'll notice on the map here on the right hand side uh the where we're going to be talking about this subject property is surrounded by PUDS and also to the south uh these large 1acre lots. You'll notice I have noted that on the top already for us to start understanding that there is no regulatory requirement for a buffer

between the proposed uh minimum 1acre Carson Creek which we'll see the uh new plat here in just a moment uh single family residential lots and the rule estate single family uh lots of joining the subdivision because they are like in kind. Here was the 78 uh lot preliminary plat that was proposed for Carson Creek. Again, we're reducing this plat down. We'll notice some new streets here as I pull up the next slide, as you'll see also in your packets. But we'll notice we're going from 78 to 25 lots. With these 78 lots, they were required in the R1 district to have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. uh that those would have uh been along these streets here as you see them outlined. We'll see new streetscape just here in a moment. Um also as I noted uh this buffer here now that we are m matching up um light kinds we will no longer uh have a buffer that will be represented. Here is the u a picture again. It's in your packet if you want to see it without the road crosssection. I thought the road crosssection would be uh important to understand at this point because we are going to a rural uh road crosssection that is a 50-foot rideway. Uh you've got 10t on each side of that with 20 foot u feet of asphalt, 10 for each driving lane. You'll notice these lots are a lot larger than what we just saw. I'll click back up here so you can get a visual. Um here are our 78 lots and you can see the number of roads and infrastructure and here are 25 ac or 25 lots 1acre uh lots. Again streets with the subdivision would be rule street standard open ditches without curb and

gutter and sidewalks. Um this is breaks down to basically less than AR zoning. It's 64 dwelling units per acre. AR zoning requires at least one uh acre per lot. This is an overlay I put here. Um you can see that we've got some detention here on either side. Uh we've also got the the road noted here on the preliminary plat. You'll only see the two main roads within this uh subdivision and then you see the uh the bridge area here and then the cults u on on either end of the southern boundary. You'll also notice that the road does come up here and stop. This is for future development. The reason they ran it this way, uh this ditch that runs along here actually uh is is very full of water at any time of day. And so they felt like whoever developed this piece of property may have some access here with this road. And so they left it where the uh little triangle lot would be accessible. So I did note about these lots. The smallest one is 1 acre. The largest one you'll see is 1.9 acres uh along the Carson Creek. That's what we've been talking about here. That runs northeastern to southwestern uh of the ends of the property. This is a common open space. So, it's reserved for storm water management. And we do have a condition that the developer will need to create a homeowners association and also tweak the CCRs that have been permitted or have been produced to us uh to a little more um uh zeroing on Carson Creek and not just so general in nature. and uh utility lines. We've got water, sewer, and um well, water and sewer within the area. So, they're within the the general vicinity of the property and

extensions to the proposed lots. It's the responsibility of the developer to extend all utility infrastructure to service each proposed lot in conformity with subdivision development standards of the city of Olive Branch. Our next steps upon recommendation by the planning commission of preliminary plat will be presented to the board of alderman. City regulations allow the subdivider upon approval of the city engineer to proceed with any required street improvements, storm water management improvements, construction and other utilities uh would be that would be needed to service the new lots. So after that we would come in for a final plat. It would need to be approved by you or recommended by you and approved by the board recorded before any building permits could be issued for construction on any of the proposed lots. Our staff recommendation, as you can see in front of you, uh we've got nine of them. Again, talking about those CCRs, what we want to see is number five, final plat just to bring it out. Final plat for the declaration of covenants and uh conditions restrictions needs to be customized for Carson Creek. The language should include the intent to impose 2,000 square ft minimum house size and design requirements for 2th3 brick or masonry. And we do have noted here on all sides a uniform mailbox which I'm uh under the impression these will be in grouped uh mailboxes at the front of the development. and the requirements that garage doors will not face the public streets. So, you've got eight of them there uh that I did not just uh go through. So, if you could read through those, that is the end of staff's presentation. Thank you. Any questions to staff?

I have a question. Um, I really would rather see sidewalks if possible, even though you're calling this a rural development. There's neighborhoods all around that that already have sidewalks.

Uh, yes sir, understandable. Uh, with your question there, if we look to the south and we can look at the names of them here, these are again rural road sections. Countryplace subdivision does not. uh Country View subdivision does not. Uh so those two would not and those are the ones that it's butdding up against. An AR zone. They're not required to have sidewalks. The lots the lots are so large that if we were to try to put sidewalks in front of them, it would just be a for lack of better word a snafu to try to get the when the sidewalk placed.

The future lot developed south of that or north of that, excuse me. Um, I would think they're going to be smaller lots than what we're seeing here, which possibly would have sidewalks as well. Yeah. I don't know. Yeah. Any other questions? If not, I I see Mr. Russell is here. Do you wish to come forward and and you you can also address the sidewalk question also?

Uh Greg Russell, civil source 2696 Dawnwood Circle North in South Haven. Um I really don't have anything to add. It's um it's a revision of a subdivision that those crossings on that creek that is terribly expensive and it and the location of the sewer and the water also drove up the development cost that really made it uh not feasible to develop in that manner. So by going back and and putting these larger lots in and uh it it decreases a lot of the infrastructure that has to be put in and uh it makes it more feasible. Um, typically we don't put sidewalks in on those larger lots just because um, it's always been so difficult of I don't know why, but it's difficult to put a sidewalk in with the roadside ditch. Uh, there's always a conversation of should it go next to the road and it should go outside the road. And if it's outside the outside the ditch, I mean, if it's outside the ditch, then it's on somebody's property and and so it just has uh has never really worked out. Um the only weird thing about this development is that uh that road that stubs out to the to that little triangular piece and and I really had a problem with that. And of course, there'll be a temporary turnaround there. Um it's short enough that the fire truck won't have a problem with that. it's short enough that the fire truck can still back up. So, they've looked at that and that they're okay with that. But that uh that little triangular piece would be basically not developable just because of the the cost associated with crossing that creek. And so I wanted to provide some kind of access so somebody can develop that. Uh it it may not be but one lot, maybe two lots. I I

don't know what somebody has planned for that. But uh that it it looks weird, but that's what it's for. And and it's such a small piece and there's so much so little frontage. The only frontage that's left is on this north side of this property. And so without providing it there, they they're really cut off. It would be it would be a uh it would go probably as common area and then it would just sit there forever. So um that's all I have. We agree with all the all the conditions. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any any questions? Couple questions. Yes, sir. The smallest slots one acre.

I'm sorry. The smallest lots one acre. About one acre. Yes. And um but we're there's still the the requirement to have the garage doors not face the public street. Yes. from a from a design standard, you know, is do you have any issues with that? Not at all. Prefer it actually. Okay. And then um the the infrastructure cost, the cost to build on it since since you're going with the larger lots, which is which is odd. So, you know, most people kind for more for more lots.

Um what what is the what's the design intent? I is going to be larger houses because we're setting a minimum for 2,000 heated square feet. Um, you know, what's what's the design intent? Is this and this is probably just for my own

from the developer standpoint. We're kind of in a in my opinion a a a weird position because the land costs have been driven up so high and the building costs have been driven up so high. But the price of the homes obviously has gone up, but relative to all the other cost, they haven't gone up enough, right?

And so there with the development cost of well, let's take the old Carson Creek, okay? Uh the development cost in there just to develop it were pretty much close to what the lot sales cost were uh or what everybody's willing to pay so to speak for all the other subdivisions. Um so there was no profit margin in there for a developer. And uh again in my opinion there's a there's a ceiling there that's coming up that nobody wants to cross as far as light cross.

Yeah. And so they are trying in in this case they're trying to get the development cost down so that they can keep that uh that lot cost below that threshold. And that's that's the uh yeah there's there's got to be a sweet spot where you know honestly speaking speaking for the city I'd love to see you know $3 million houses put on those lots. I think it'd be a great opportunity right?

Um but obviously you've got the the building cost. So it's kind of kind of odd because not a whole lot of has changed. Interest rates haven't come down. Building costs haven't come down. But you're you got these larger lots and somehow somehow we've got to be able to sell them. I just I'm just trying to figure out if they're just going to be you know you know cookie cutter houses on these big lots or are we going to really intend to the the developer of this property is not a builder. So these will be sold. Okay. Uh and I don't have any idea who they'd be sold to. So I I don't know. I can't as far as the style and stuff I don't know. All right. That's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? No more questions. Thank you, Greg. Thank you.

Since this is a plaid, it's not required for us to have a public hearing, but I I would like to open it up to the public if you have any um if you wish to speak in favor or against this application for the plat only. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor against it? If not, then our public hearing is is closed. U I will now uh open it to all commissioners for any comments, discussions or motions.

If I may, as a chairman, if I comment, if I may comment on two things, two main things that have been raised. Usually what we have seen is the tendency in the city years is for folks to go from larger lots to smaller lots more density to make development work. At the same time the reverse sometimes true larger lots in urban areas are high value commodities. It's like living country life in the city center

and you are you have water available instead of a well. You have seaw water available, public seaw wall available instead of subsurface sewage disposal. You are close to restaurants that normally you not have in the country. You are close to shopping centers that you do not have in the country areas and yet you are living on this large piece of property with trees all around you and quiet. And that's part of the reason if you really look at this particular side is like a dead end. It's not connected to anything. So they're kind of isolated on their own and because of that those lots can be high value high value um as such they are they are really significant commodity in the city. So 2,000 heated area maybe the builder whatever ends up building this or the private individuals buy the lots and build themselves which is often what we see in these kind of developments is somebody goes in buys his own lot design his own house puts up a 3,000 ft house for because they have got a land for it and it ends up being something good for the city as a whole. With regard to sidewalks, a key reason why sidewalks are not required once we hit minimum one acre lot is that the density in those developments is become so small that folks can walk safely on the road itself. So the roads are not very busy. If you take the previous the plan that we are revising, you had 78 lots. That's going to be a busy road. And once you have a busy road with many cars on it, then you need a sidewalk where folks can walk on and be safe. But in this case, they have reduced it to 25 lots. So you're going to have very few cars on that road. And as such, uh pedestrians should be able to walk on the site of you know the paved road itself uh without coming into conflict with existing cars. So that's the main reason why in the zoning code once you hit that

minimum one acre lot for the entire development not just a few being one acre it has to be the entire development minimum one acre then we do not require sidewalks. Sometimes a developer may propose to add a tray that is something for a developer can freely offer but in terms of sidewalks requirement the city does not require that for density very low density reasons. As as a matter of fact, the density in this development is only 0.67 dwelling units per acre. I think it's just 0.67. So, usually once we hit one, anything below one, then we do not require sidewalks. Thank you.

Anyone else? I make a motion to approve the revised preliminary plat uh subject to recommendations one through nine. Okay, we have a motion to approve the application by Mr. Jones subject to staff conditions items one through nine. Do we have a second? I'll second that. We have a second by Mr. Singh. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Then unanimously carried has been approved. Item number three is consideration of an application for the second revision to lots and 13 craft road industrial park subdivision submitted by Mike Davis the reef firm on ha on behalf of property owner SM Lawrence. The request is to combine the existing lots 12 and 13 and create a single lot of 1.38 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zone C2 highway commercial district and is located on the northwest side of Industrial Drive approximately 840 feet west of Oldcraft Road known as lot 12 Craft Road Industrial Park 8211 Industrial Drive. We'll now have staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, as we discussed moments ago, uh, before I commence with the presentation for this item, I'd like to let the commission know that the applan has clarified some information regarding a gravity sewer relocation request. While we uh, which we received after staff reports went out, this request has been discussed with the city engineer and his comments have been incorporated into the staff recommendation. So the staff recommendations you'll notice are a little bit different from what you've received in your packets. Uh without further ado, I'll present the project. Um so this project is a simple combination of lots of lot

right here on Industrial Drive and Old Craft Road 840 ft. Here's lot 12. Here's lot 13. Uh both lots are 0068 acres and they front on to Industrial Drive. The proposed new lot right here would be lot 12A which would increase the area to a total of 1.3 82 acres. Uh a little bit of background on this. Uh it is in Craft Road Industrial Park subdivision which created 19 lots and was recorded on September 29th, 1988. Here's lot 12 and lot 13. The proposed combination of lots is for an HVAC business and a parking lot. There is an existing uh building right here as you can see. Uh the parking lot will be located proposed parking lot will be located on lot 13. Uh the zoning is C2 highway commercial with no minimum lot size. Access is from Industrial Drive which is a local collector road. Electrical water and sewer are available in the area. Um as you can see right here, there is an existing force man along the south side of the property. There's also a gravity mane right here which dog legs here comes along here. The applicant has requested to remove this leg of the existing gravity main and to tie into this manhole here. And then come here, install another manhole and then proceed northward and hook up with the existing install another manhole and hook up with this

existing gravity line. So this 8 inch gravity line will be abandoned. this portion right here. So, here is the proposed plat that was submitted. Um, as you can see, here's lot 12. Here's lot 13. There is a 20 foot utility uh utility easement right here with a utility easement, a 15oot utility easement along the north property line right here. The next steps would be upon recommendation by the planning commission, the plat will be forwarded to the mayor and board of alderman for consideration. Uh any building permits uh before any building permits would be issued uh it would have to be recorded. So the staff recommendation uh the staff does recommend approval of the final plat for Craft Road Industrial Park subdivision second revision to lots 12 and 13 subject to the following conditions. As I stated before, uh these three lot uh I'm sorry, uh items one through three are the comments from the city engineer with lots I mean I'm sorry uh items four, five, six, and seven also applicable. That concludes staff presentation. Thank you. Any any questions to staff? No questions. Do we have someone here to represent the application? Uh Mike Davis with the Reeves Firm, 6800 Popular Avenue in Memphis. I don't have anything to add. This is a pretty simple

request to allow this uh existing company to expand. Anybody have questions? No questions. Thank you, sir. Since this is a final plaque, we do not require public hearing. So, at this time, I'll just uh turn it over to the commissioners for any discussions or motions that they wish to have. I make a motion to approve with the revised suggestions from staff 1 through 7.

Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Jones to approve the the uh application subject to all the staff conditions 1 through seven. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by M. Mr. Long by had the wrong one, Mr. Stratton. Uh any other discussion? If not, all those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? And the motion is carried. Application is approved. Thank you. And we're now here for uh other business which is a zoning ordinance updates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Both of them. Both of them. Both of them. Both of them go down. Both of them go down. Both of them both together.

Everybody gets two two sets. Two sets. bite me.

I'm about to be poncho pilot here and wash my hands off this one. So, I received an email from the vice chairman Ling Commissioner Jones here. So these two handouts, let me call them handouts that you have are proposals that he he emailed to me. I quickly went through a number of them. Some of the policy, the concepts, the ideas that you have in here are contained already either very explicitly or implicitly in the work that we have been doing right up to this point. You remember this big book other ideas are new they are novel. So the first proposal, the first document or so that you have the one that have city of that has city of branch planning commission workshop discussion zoning ordinance strategic proposals. That one four pages it's generic. The second focuses just on oldtown. So the second focuses on Oldtown suggested changes to C5 Oldtown district. These I've gone through these about three times. As I said, some of them are incorporated already. Some of the ideas are incorporated already in what we've been doing. Others are new. My proposal or recommendation will be for planning commissioners to take this. This is deep. This is sound planning. To be frank, there a lot of sound planning ideas in here. Some of them we have to look at contextual applicability. If I'm in downtown Atlanta, it's going to work olive branch will it work?

Yeah.

So, we have to look at the there are ideas here that are sound based on sound planning principles but you have to look at them in terms of context and and work our code because we don't want to write a code that is not effective in terms of you cannot apply it. So I would say one I give an example proposal number one we had we had split the agricultural residential district into the rural estate and the AR agricultural residential but we and then we had the agricultural district. We did not create a rural reservation conservation district. Some of the ideas here are in the agricultural and in the and in the rural estate district. some of the ideas here. Do we want to set aside a very specific district that handles just these conservation ideas put up to that 30% of trees and so on? Do we want to do that? And one of the things that we always want to take into consideration is okay where in the city of Olive Branch would is an example where you can fit this in. In that way, you're not just thinking of in the sky, you're working with reality on the ground to see how your regulations are going to work. So um the the highway corridor overlay I've thrown the idea of having an overlay district in this city multiple times. I am pro overlay districts. Uh it requires some additional work to know how to apply them because they are not based districts and I can discuss this at our next meeting. But an overlay district just kind of lies just as overlay lies over an underlying district add some other regulations to what an underlying district normally would have in order to achieve some very specific intent and not all properties may come under I give you an example. If you say property along Goodman road within 200 feet any property that lies within 200 ft of Goodman road on either side falls within

the highway corridor overlay district. Now that corridor may be your C2, your highway corridor district. There may be properties that fall within the highway corridor district but they lie outside the 200 ft. Because they lie outside the 200 ft, they will not come under the overlay requirements. The overlay may have very specific sign regulations because you're trying to create a gateway. You know, you say, "No, your signs can only be maybe up to six feet high. They must be brick. must be designed this way because you want to create a particular character along that corridor. Another piece of property may be still within the same C2 zoning district, but because it doesn't lie within that 200 ft, it would not come under those uh overlay requirements. So that's the way overlay districts kind of work. You have to identify particular areas in the city that you want to apply them to. Industrial residential buffer standards. This has this is these buffer standards will very much come into play when we're doing the unified land development code itself in which we are opening up other areas of the zoning ordinance the buffer the landscaping requirements for example uh the mixed use is a very nice idea here u I'm sorry I'm jumping over my myself I already describing very nice

the mixeduse neighborhood center district we had conceptualized A most often our mixed use developments are proposed as PUDS and so there the question should we designate some particular spots where you can have some small scale mixed use. I give you an example. Our big pots 40 acres and above now is going to be the dove landing for example. Uh world hospitality 40 acres and above Oak Park Town Center almost 70 acres 302 and hacks south east corner.

So these are large puds. They are mixed use. Is it a case when you take that kind of a scale of a mixeduse and you compare it with um the one that planning commissioner Don Singh has out outrage three acres there is no way the standards can be the same. So can we create areas where you have smaller scale mixed use neighborhood mixed use concepts that are usually very fitting for small towns. Olive branch is really not a small town 15,000 20,000 you know 10,000 at the same time we are not 200,000 300,000 city we're kind of right there in the middle and so we have to be able to create something that fits us so to speak. There are areas for example long church road where this concept can fit can very much fit in. Um that's something to look at and be able to to to see where we bring in. The others are standards. For example, proposal number five um that has to do with apartments. So when we get there when when when when when we get there those are some of the standards that we can incorporate into the text

because these are this is this is intense. You know this is you're welcome. We need to pay we need to pay some we need to give more time to it. My proposal will be that planning commissioners take this home, go through it and at our next meeting you will have this with areas highlighted in yellow and in green. The green will be where these ideas are already incorporated. The yellow areas will be where the ideas are not incorporated yet, but we can fit them in.

If we from a planning staff perspective, we are like, should we do this or should we not, we will not put it in, we'll let you discuss it. If you say we should put it in, then we'll put it in and bring it back to you at your next meeting to to I think that is the way we need to to move forward with this. And then Oldtown, the C5 district, that's your next handout. Let me use the word handout. is a I would say go through this. Go through this and read this picture old town. Walk in Oldtown and really ask yourself, okay, is this going to work? This is not going to work. This is going to work. This is not going to work. This a lot of these ideas here 98% will be very applicable in a traditional downtown. for some of these ideas to fit in squarely with our old time we we would need to take a caterpillar and bring down a lot of stuff and and start them up fresh. So sometimes in writing these quotes in writing codes we have to think about adaptability you know how do we adapt to the reality that we have on the ground. At the same time we have to look at if we want to go forward with what already exists how do we want it to look like? How does the city want it to look like? So those are some of the ideas that will be will be brought in probably before your next meeting especially this one on Oldtown. We're going to have the Oldtown meeting this month. Oldtown uh design review meeting this month to just kind of go through these ideas and have their own proposals that we can incorporate into the text and then bring it over to you. I will also have the threeperson working group board of adan working group go through some of these ideas after your meeting next next month and from there the hope is the plan is to bring the text before you for a recommendation to the board of aran at

your meeting in June no later than July that we go and after July we should start spreading our maps in frontier and getting down to really serious stuff of two hours Um and really serious after July I don't think we'll have a planning commission meeting that will be less than two hours just we need to get down and really once we start dealing with the maps themselves we got to go from each parcel to the next parcel and come up with justifications as to why we're changing and not changing things in the state of Mississippi you cannot just change the zoning of a property without meeting this reasoning criteria we really have to ask ourselves serious question questions as far those parcels are concerned. So from August in particular, I do think that each of our meetings will be at least two hours with one hour working session. So if we have reasonings that are controversial, they go on for three hours, then we should add two hours on top of that.

All right, Mr. Chairman, that concludes staff's input. Thank you. Any question? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. So I just I mean I just came through the apartment. That's why um that one project that we have right behind it was like 110. Yeah. Um that would check all these boxes. I know and it will still

we we we we will the the the difference between what is being proposed here and what is being proposed here could have possibly led to the approval of that what is being proposed here allows the city to create you can say new A4 zoning districts multifamily designated areas that say if you come in and you want to build an apartment in branch and you meet all these standards then you can say you're 90% good to go there other elements that may come into play the board of adamant will have to to to look into that they may say yeah you can check all those boxes but we still want you to come before the board of forc reasons if you know for example if you are join single family residential or certain of single family residential you still have to come before the bord one for a reason. That one involved resoning and once you're in the world of reasoning and plan unit development things are I don't want to say political but political in this sense is not a bad word you know zoning is political there's nothing wrong with that it's policym and policy making is it's a political process so he that had to check all the boxes with regard to reasoning criteria and the board determined that it did not check all those boxes with respect to the reasoning criteria. But if the property was already re reszoned for multif family development and he met all these standards then he would not have been going through a reasonzoning process. The reasoning criteria would not have been applicable. They would have been able to move move forward except the board comes out with some other thing that And there's there's a lot there's

sometime we do it a lot with PUBS. It's sort of like we're we're open, but you got to come and ask permission instead of from a strategic perspective where we sit down and say, "All right, this is where we want that type of whatever. This is where we want it." And it's it's almost easier to to bring people in if you've already got those that zoning set up. So, I think for example that was my thought for most

I think for example in the Sandage area the poor area going towards Ross road over there where you have some of this land that is close to the industrial parks where is our housing the workforce where is it going to be and sometimes you can put in the development standards in a way that you have even in KV is one of the strictest cities around here. May take you a year to get a building permit for an accessory building. But you go there, you have apartments. German town, you have apartments. The question is where do you locate them? What are the standards? And how are you going to make sure that they don't become a liability to the city down the line? So those are those are usually three key things that you're dealing with. Just saying no apartment is not a way to go. In fact, illegally you may have some serious questions there.

So identifying the right pieces of properties. That's why I say when it comes down we can adopt this and put in the books in the zoning code the text itself then go down to the map and say okay this is where we think this should go.

It's a bigger animal. That's why we have to take a lot of time and make sure that whatever we're doing would not be a problem for the city of holy branch in future. It would actually align with Okay. Anybody else have any question? Let let me restate this to understand this. We're you wish for us to study this and then in the April meeting we will discuss both of them into into the So we've got homework.

Homework. Yeah. And then at the April meeting you will you will have this. So please bring your your this two sheets. If you have any comments you want to write on it that's for one of the reason we printed them just one-sided. You want to make comments on the back that you want us to discuss at the meeting that will be okay. when your agenda when we're sending out a packet to you for your April meeting you will have this with some of the ideas incorporated highlighted where they already fit in facilitate our discussion where we think that there are question marks where we can really focus on the discussion we will point that out in in whatever memo that we sent to you

it's good anyone else have any questions you know it's kind it's been kind of exciting I I moved to branch in 1983 I know James, you've been here a lot longer than I was, but to watch Olive Branch grow and develop the way it has and and I I know the growth is going to continue more so in the future than it has in the past. So, uh, looking at things like this is very important. So, we're we're looking at our grandchildren is what we're looking at. I hope my grandchildren want to come back and live in Olive Branch. So that's also section.

Yes ma'am. Yes ma'am. So even if there is no agenda private sector application for the next old town committee meeting there will be a staff initiated agenda item which will be addressed. So they will be the old town of the team meeting this March. And so anything that they question will be brought into

anyone else if if not I guess we'll entertain a motion to adjourn since the train is coming through the town through the city. Make a motion to adjourn. Have a motion by Mr. Jones to adjurnn. Do we have a second? I second. We have a second by Miss Singer. All in favor say I. I. We are now ajourned. But we did like preservation.