Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So, I'll call the meeting of the plan commission to order. And before we do the roll call, I' I'd like to introduce Mark Long long, who is our newest planning commissioner. So, tonight's his first night and uh you'll be under fire tonight. So, good to good to have you with us. So, now we'll have the roll call, please. Pat Dor here. Dion Jones here. Janice Lewis here. Mark Long here. Diane Singer here. Donnie Singh. Steve Stratton. Okay. Uh you've you've received in your packets the minutes of the June 10th, 2025 meeting. Are there any corrections or additions needed to the minutes? If not, do we have a motion to approve these minutes? I make a motion to approve. All right, we have a motion by Miss Singer to approve the June 10th, 2025 uh minutes. Do we have a second? I have a second. All right, we have a We have a second by Mr. Jones. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Then the minutes have been approved. Uh the first item is a consent agenda item. it's uh an item that's considered routine or non-controversial in nature that does not warrant a full staff presentation or board discussion. Uh I will read the consent agenda and if anyone wishes to have the full presentation, we will do so. If not, we will vote directly on the consent agenda. It's an application for the first revision of final plaid of lot one and lot two of Dancing Oaks Plan commercial development subdivision submitted by Byron Houston, Houston Engineering on behalf of John H. White at all property owner. The request is to add a storm water easement to the existing previously recorded plat. The

subject property is zone C4 Plan commercial district and is located on the east side of Hacks Crossroads just north of Progress Way. Is there anyone that wishes to have a full presentation on this? If not, I need a motion to approve the consent agenda. Make a motion to approve the consent agenda. We have a motion by Mr. Jones to approve the consent agenda. Do we have a second? Second. Uh we have a second by Mr. along. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Then the consent agenda is approved. Uh items number one and items number two on the uh old business has been red withdrawn by the applicant. So we will not even present this at uh at the meeting tonight. And that gets us to item number three. It's 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, Inc. The request is subdivide 5.72 plus or minus acres into um three is two supposed to be two commercial lots, isn't it? two commercial lots rather than three. The subject property is on PUD plan unit development is located at the southeast corner of Malone Road North and Church Road East and this was tabled to this date at the meeting of June 10th, 2025 and we'll now have the uh presentation staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We apologize for not updating that element on the agenda. actually as you didn't mention the two lots and not three for the

benefit of those who might not have been here at the last meeting and for Mr. Long the new planning commissioner I will quickly go through kind of the background on this application and then focus on what is new and really in front of you for consideration today. So this was initially submitted last month. This is for a piece of property that is at the souththeast corner of the intersection of Church Road East and Malon Road North in the Robinson Crossing subdivision. You have the residential area to the south and this particular corner in the project text was allocated at C4 for commercial development. At last month's meeting, the applicant suggested a three lot division of the property as shown on this drawing area view. Lot one was 2.18 acre, lot 2 1.65, lot 3 1.89. These gray areas indicate what were proposed as a cross access easements to service those lots. At the rear, this area in blue that was a storm water management area regional in nature which means is intended to service all the three lots. The area in green that is a buffer 20 ft wide buffer as was required in the project text. The intent which is really why is this application in front of the planning commission? Why is the property owner bringing it in front of you uh for subdivision of the property at this time? There is a potential buyer was a potential buyer of lot two for a car wash and lot one for a convenience store with four pumps. Under current city regulations, for you to be able to get any building permits to put up any

building on uh on platted property in the city, you have to first plat the property and record a plat. So that is why it was brought before you. This is the plat as it was considered at last month's meeting. The project text for Robinson crossing approved by the county back in 2004 and then the whole of that subdivision or that PUD annexed into the city in 2021. That is entire 231 acre was annexed into the city in 2021. Had multiple areas. The area that is of concern to us is this area 9 5.72 acre in size total that project tech specifies that convenience stores and car wash as an accessory used to the convenience store are permitted by right in this particular area. N what this means and this is very important is the application before you is for the subdivision plat is not for the reasonzoning of the property. It's not about the use. The use of that particular area is dictated by the list of permitted uses in the project text. That is not what is before you for consideration. So the planning commission or the board of adaman you only get to answer the question that the applicant ask basically instead of chasing rabbits here and there. So what is before us is subdivision plat division of the lot not about the use. These uses are specified in the project text. So if the applicant is proposing or intends to use this particular area for a car wash or convenience store, it's important for the applicant to know that the city changed regulations regarding convenience store with gas pumps back in 20 November of 2022 requiring that there be conditional use permits. However, for project X, it was

open back then to whatever is allowed in the project X. At the beginning of this year, in December of last year, December 17, 2024, the city updated those particular regulations making convenience store with four pumps in plan development subject to conditional use permits, but also granting vest vested rights to projects that were already what we call projects, which basically those particular developments that were already under review or at various stages. ies of review. Under those vesting right provisions, there are certain steps that the applicant must meet in order to remain vested to do the gas station if they want to proceed. A preliminary plan must be approved by June 30, 2025. Under the subdivision regulations of the city, the master outline in the project text for PUDS qualifies as a preliminary plan. So the next critical deadline is a final plan. It must be approved and recorded by September 30th, 2025 in order for the project to remain vested. That's why this application is before you now because the developer or the property owner is trying to meet that September 30th, 2025 deadline. After that, the other deadlines that he has to meet, the civil plan must be approved by the end of this year. Building permits must be pulled by end of March next year. and any construction must be completed by December 31st, 2027 to remain vested for a convenience store with gas pumps. As I did indicate, the project text has some very generic statements, conceptual statements with respect to, you know, all these drawings like you always have for for PDS. Usually, you have this this drawings that are preliminary development plans. They are conceptual.

to give you a vision of what the applicant you know intends this area to look like and it will have some general language that allows for the various degrees of flexibility. This project text preliminary development plan also included three driveways going out to church road one coming out on Malon Road. Uh it was conceptualized for two lots, smaller lots. Two lots are joining at the intersection of Malon Road and Church Road and a larger lot kind of rabbing to the south and to the east of those two smaller lots. Conceptually at the time back in 2004, it had these large uh shopping center, you know, because retail is permitted by right in this particular PD in this area. So you had this large shopping center that was uh proposed here. One of the things to note is you you had nothing in that particular area for storm water management back in the county at the time. You know there was nothing for storm water management but that is required today. So the scope of review before you as I did mention is not about the specific potential use of the lot. It's not about a convenience store with fuel pumps or gas or car wash. That's not what is up for let's say debate or discussion. Uh the future land use of the proposed lots portion to approve zoning therefore cannot be the basis to deny the subdivision of this property. Subdivision plat really address two main things which are up before the board for consideration. Two principal things. The first is how those lots are partitioned. If you have a building on it, for example, if there a building on that property, does that building meet the new setbacks that the new lot lines are creating? So, do you meet minimum lot area where minimum lot area are required? If you're in an ARO district, for example, minimum lot size is 1 acre.

If you propose a lot that is half an acre, then the subdivision plant cannot be approved. It's not partitioned properly, so to speak. And then the second thing is whether utilities are available and sufficient to service the lots that are proposed. These are really the two things that are the heart of a subdivision applications. If you propose a subdivision to develop, let's say, a commercial development and there's no water in that area, there's no seawater in that area, then the city will have a hard time approving that because you don't have the infrastructure to service it. or if you propose streets that are too narrow to service a large warmer, you know, then the city will not approve that. So, it's really about how the lots are petition and the availability of the infrastructure to service those particular developments. The B requirements point the city to the outline plan that is proposed or presented in the project text for the development. As I did indicate, it suggested three lots generally lay out in that particular area. One above 0.4 acres and then the large one was 4.92 acre. That was a general vision conceptual. This is what was proposed back in 20 uh back last month that you took a look at with respect to architectural elements. it proceeds to construction or the building and building design. The project specifies that the applicant would have to provide CCROS for review and approval. You know, any single family residential parts of the development that have been developed, they have their own CCROS to promote high quality development in there. So those ones are recorded. The 20 ft buffer is required between any commercial and residential development in the Robinson Crossing commercial

area. This particular area shown here in plate two. Basically what was required by the county then which is enforcable today by the city is 20 ft wide buffer with a 6 ft high fence and and he said wooden fence with brick column. That's that's really all the county did require. 6 ft high wood fence with brick columns. That is what was proposed there. And then you have those evergreens that are staggered. That was what the county approved. The application before you at the end of last month's meeting. The property owner did state his intention to have this car wash and convenience store on separate lots. And we interpreted that to mean under the zoning ordinance an accessory use and the principal use have to be on the same lot. You cannot have them on separate lots. They're on separate lot and they are principal the Austin on their own lot. One is not accessory. That then caused the applicant to request that this be tabled for him to revise a platform from a three lot to a two lot subdivision with intention of putting these two uses on one lot. So the application before you today is not for a three lot subdivision that you had last month but for a two lot subdivision. Lot one and lot two. Lot two wraps around lot one. Same kind of general intent that you had or vision that you had in the master layout plan. In that master layout plan, you had a building that extended throughout all of these areas. Conceptualized back then in 2004, it didn't account for storm water management. In this development, that storm water management is being provided, you know, in this layout plan. So, your lot one is 2.60 acres and lot two is 3.12 acres.

These areas in gray are cross access easements that can be used by both owners of lot one and owner by both owners of lot one and two. That cross access easement also extends to the stormwater management area giving each of them rights to access that detention pond behind it for maintenance purposes as may be necessary. The buffer area as was required in the project text is maintained in this particular design. What you really have conceptually if you compare the conceptual design to what is being proposed to you today it looks like this. Basically this will be your lot one proposed lot one and this will be the proposed lot two. So conceptually that is what what you have. The subdivision regulations require that the plat should all plants in the city are required to comply with the subdivision regulations in order to be approved. If a PL does not meet subdivision regulations, it cannot be approved for plan unit developments. Approved master plans outlines subdivision regulations say they constitute sufficient preliminary plat approval. Once they approved, the final plat should conform substantially with the preliminary plan. That's what the subdivision regulations say. There has to be substantial conformity with the preliminary plan. The basic purpose of a PUD as stipulated in the subdivision regulations of the city is to allow flexibility in the development of the planned of plant communities. So the subdivision regulations of the city recognize the fact that when dealing with PUDS, there will be elements of flexibility. That is just the nature of PDS. Otherwise they would not be PDS. So the real question before the planning commission is does the two lot plaid

substantially conform to the preliminary plan. That's really the question before the planning commission. Does it substantially conform? This whole word conform can be construed in various ways. There are people that look at it very strictly as exact but that is not really what it is in the development well or in the zoning well you know to construe it very narrowly as it has to be exact. I don't know of any plat in this city that we've gone from a preliminary to final and everything is exact. Even in residential developments when you approve a preliminary plot and then they go and construct the roads, the infrastructure, they lay the sewer lines, you always have certain adjustments here and there before you get to the final plot. That is general. A key element in determining substantial conformity is legality. If that plot meets the law, then it substantially conforms. That is the first point to look at. Is it legal? Is what is being presented in front of me? Does it meet the law? If it is legal then it substantially conforms. You can forget about every other thing, every other factor. Legality is a key is the main element. And in looking at lot sizes, because really what is proposed before you here can be looked at as a change in lot size. In looking at lot sizes, the key place you look for in any project text or even in the zoning code is in what I call bulk requirements. That's where setbacks lot minimum lot size all of that language is present in the bulk requirements for the Robinson crossing project text. It says areas are designated with a reference district refer referring to zoning districts in the Duro County zoning regulations. So this particular area for example is this is area 9 and it's referenced in the Duro County zoning regulations is the C4 zoning district and the project text says the minimum

lot area the minimum lot size in this area 9 shall be as defined in the zoning regulations of the surro county as applicable to the reference district for the particular person in question. So how small any lot in this area 9 has to be would be as dictated by the C4 zoning district in the Duro County zoning regulations. This is what is legally stipulated in the project X. And if you go to the C to the Durotto County zoning regulations, what it says with respect to C4, it says the minimum lot area within de development has to be 20,000 square ft. There is no maximum lot area. So in so far as a lot meets the minimum 20,000 requirement, it legally conforms. It legally conforms. If it is proposed to be 19,000 ft, it does not. It will have to be denied. If it is above 20,000 ft, it legally conforms. The second element is how have we interpreted this conformity substantial conformity in the city. Has it been exact or has there been a wiggle room you know for certain changes to be made taking into consideration the fact that the basic purpose of a PUD is to allow flexibility in the development of planned communities. An example is for the C4 property area is the ACRPD. This is the project X preliminary development plan was as was proposed. If you look at these two lots here, lot three 1.37 acres, lot 2 1.10 acres. If you look at what was finally approved in the subdivision plat, that area is 2.69 acres.

It's far larger, much larger than the lot you have there. So there's always been as far as CD's interpretation of that element of conformity when it comes to PD's transitioning from preliminary plat to final plat there is the element of flexibility. The same applies if you look at uh fair heaven PUB this is uh C4 prop area this is opposite flying J this 1.5 acres 1.5 acres 2 acres 2 acres 2 acres if you go to the current final plot that is approved that is a 2.23 in two three acres in an area that is that was conceptualized to be 1.5 and all of these would approve without going back and changing zoning codes and so on and so forth. So this is how the city has historically interpreted this element of substantial conformity. Staff proposes three motions before the planning commission for consideration. Should the planning commission find that the plat reasonably conforms to the Robinson crossing PUD as uh 2006 outline, then it may approve this particular subdivision pl subject to these conditions one to six. Condition number two requires a provision of those CCRs uh before the plaid is recorded. If you determine that it does not substantially conform then you can recommend denier of this particular plot to the board of zoning to the board of adamant. You can further recommend that any amendment that the applicant in this denier you can recommend that the applicant submit an amendment to the project text to come concurrently with the subdivision plan or you can table this item with directions to the applicant to be heard again at the next meeting. Those

are basically the three recommendations motion recommendations before the planning commission. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any questions of staff? Just couple questions. Well, just maybe mainly one the examples that you gave on the changes to the on the changes. What was the time time frame between the initial approval and the the change? Most of these are within like acri I think acry was approved like 2019 and then the the subdivision plat the project text I think was 2019 and then this subdivision plat we just approved them last year. So if you're looking about five years or so a fair haven was 3 years time frame this one has been out there for almost 20 years plus. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No further questions. Is there someone here to represent the application Byron Houston and Houston Engineering, PO Box 3087, Oxford, Mississippi 38655. Uh appreciate y'all's time and uh looking at this. uh we believe that we conform to the uh to the PUD and uh we would appreciate y'all's approval and I believe right now there's some works in there's some behind the scenes works to maybe modify the plan to where we don't there's the uh the sea store would be 10 years down the road and we may come back to get this additional subdivision or something like that but um right now we appreciate the approval and then we'll move forward U trying to work things out to possibly amending the text.

Any any questions? No questions. And thank you. Sorry. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. This is a plaid. is not normally required to have a public hearing, but we'll have a public discussion if we could only have one representative from the homeowners of of Robinson Cross. And is there someone that wishes to come up and speak for or against this application? Once again, we're just going to limit it to one person. If not then public discussion is closed and I will uh entertain to the commissioners any further discussion or motions or comments they wish to make at this time. I make a motion. Uh, since the final plat reasonably conforms to the Robinson Crossing PUB of 2004 outline plan and other aspects of PUD's map series and project text, I recommend to the board of aldermen approve the application with conditions one through six. Okay, we have a we have a motion by Mr. Jones to approve the application subject to the staff conditions one items one through six. Do we have a second on this? Second. All right, we have a second by Miss Lewis. Any further discussion? Any other comments? If not, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Then the uh motion carries and the application is approved. Item number four under old business is an application for a preliminary plat for Highland Lake subdivision submitted by Nick Krun and Civil Link on behalf of property owner Brian Cash and 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 on R3 Plan 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 June 10th, 2025. We now have the staff presentation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. to bring you where we are here. Again, as you did mention, on the west side of 305 north of College Road before Cedar Creek Drive, uh this adjoins Old River Farm. The proposed single family residential subdivision is to consist of 20 single family lots with two common open spaces. As you hit on, the site will be constructed in one phase as proposed by the developer. Currently, the property is zoned R3, a planned residential district. The developer proposes a new public street with the main entrance off of 305 where my cursor is and interconnectivity through the west. We would go through here and we'll find Highland Drive. The subdivision would not be gated as proposed and approved in the Highland Lake project text. The plat generally aligns with the approved project text and the subdivision regulations of the city. Staff recommends approval subject to various conditions. As we just talked about the uh subject property is zoned R3 planned residential district. The project text approved uh by the board of alderman was on April 5th, 2022. Establish the zoning regulatory provisions of the property. The permitted uses are mainly single

family residential. The bulk requirements shall be stipulated in the approved applicable project text. The submitted plat does not violate any of the such requirements. The smallest buildable lot as you see within your packet is 5,000 or yeah 5,727 square feet. The largest, as you'll find, is 10,94 square feet. We've also got two land areas here noted um in the middle of the plaid. These are your two common open spaces. If you'll notice here, as the uh arrows did show, we've got some conditions at the end. And I wanted to note this that this uh red line joining the blue line is a trail network that is proposed within the uh project text and was approved by the board of alderman and also that the um condition number two. This was uh agreed to in a meeting uh the developer shall construct a 6-ft tall cedar fence along the northern boundary. That'll be this boundary here. And it also bounds uh common open space 22, which is this one here, and lots 10 through 15 for Highland Lake subdivision uh to be built at the time of infrastructure. Also, as you note on your packets, I did give you a list of exhibits starting with the aerial map through the preliminary plat. What I did add to that exhibit is a letter of opposition. Uh this is a letter of opposition from a Mark Matthews. He has a um interest in Old River Farm. This letter of opposition uh outlines a private agreement between two individuals that was brought to the attention to the

city. Uh what the city did is provide that to you as a mention. Um it can be noted that uh this was brought to your attention. Uh please read through it. Again we want to note that this is between the individuals and it's about these proposed streets. So uh this proposed street which again we uh can go back here. This is Highland Drive uh would be an extension of the existing Highland Drive. So that's coming off of Old River Farm. Um it uh need a 50 foot uh rightway to be dedicated uh in public uh to the public in the future. So this section of Highland Drive should be conseded with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and a pavement width of 30 feet face to face of the curb. Uh the pavement uh width of the existing Highland Drive. Again, just want to keep bringing this to your attention where it's at here. It's if it's off of Old River Farm. So, Highland Drive is part of this Olivia Circle East and take a take a right and go east on Highland Drive. Uh, the pavement width of the existing section of Highland Drive, as noted here in my my photo, is only 19 foot face to face of the curb because it was intended to be a one-way street. Uh, this uh new plan for the Highland Lake subdivision would be public infrastructure. So, this would be a public rideway. With the current proposal for this road to become a two-way street, the developer of Highland Lake would need to widen the existing pavement of this road to a pavement width of 30 ft. The proposed street will meet the public street standard uh for local street types. So again, off of 305, this is running north and south. Uh you would take a right in right out uh entrance here. Um, as you took a right, as you're

going south, you could take an immediate right into your Highland Drive. That is proposed 30 foot wide pavement width for your public street taking you all the way over here to the west side. If you'll follow my cursor, lot one. Um, this is the existing pavement here. As you'll note, um, this car here is actually on 30. This car here is this is 305. This is Highland Drive. So utilities are in the area of course. They just uh went through Old River Farm. We went down 305. Utilities would need to be extended across either road to the subject property. The developer would be responsible for the state extensions. Full set of construction plans uh shall be due to the city engineer planning staff for review. So our next steps upon recommendation by the planning commission a preliminary plat will be presented to the board of alderman for approval. City regulations allow the subdivider with the approval of the con uh with the approval for the construction plans by the engineer to proceed to construction of subdivision infrastructure. Of course, final plat would be needed and to be approved by the planning commission and board of alderman to be recorded before building permits would be issued on any lot. So, uh on to our recommendation. Again, we we recommend approval of the preliminary plan and would recommend the same the board of alderman following these 14 conditions. As I said, I'd like to bring to your attention number two. Uh this was an agreement uh that the um owner uh gave to city staff that um he would devel construct a six- foot tall cedar fence on the northern boundary of common open space 22 and lots 10 through 15 for Highland Lake subdivision at the time of infrastructure.

And number six, a trail network as proposed in the uh approved project text. of trail network shall be constructed in the common open spaces as required and approved in the project text preliminary development plan for Highland Lake subdivision. That concludes staff presentation. Happy to take your questions, please. Okay, thank you. Any questions to staff? Um, real quick, you may not may not be able to answer this question, but the the letter from from Mark Matthews, um, does does he have any legal recourse that could impact not not legal not legal recourse towards the city, but legal recourse towards the this develop Highland Park, Highland Lake, excuse me. Yes, sir. he he would have potential legal recourse that he could take against the other developer. But again, that would not be a city issue. Right. Okay, that's all I Any other questions? No further questions. And is there someone here to represent the application? Nicholas Kunan, address 3629 College Road, South Haven, Mississippi. I have nothing else to add unless y'all have questions. Anyone have any questions? No questions. I've got a question. Oh, okay. I got one. Uh, you okay with the potential legal recourse? Um, both are my client. So, uh, they'll work it out at some point. All right. You gave a correct answer. Yeah. Any any other questions? No further questions. Thank you. Once

again, this is a plan does not require public hearing, but I will open it for uh public hearing if one person wishes to come forth and uh you know give their viewpoint for against it. Does anyone wish to come forward? If not, then the public hearing is closed and I will open it to the uh commissioners for any comments um recommendations or motions that need to be made. I make a motion to approve. All right, we've got a motion from Miss Singer to approve the uh application and I'm I guess subject to the staff recommendations that they're before us. Do we do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Mr. Jones. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? And the uh motion is carried and the application is approved. Now, under new business, we've got an application for a zoning map amendment submitted by Ben Smith, uh, Smith Walker Engineering and Surveying on behalf of property owner, Acre Family Trust. The request is to reszone two parcels totaling 28.59 plus or minus acres from AR agricultural residential district to R1 single family residential district for the purpose of a detached single family residential subdivision. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Hamilton Circle North and Hamilton Circle West east of Hummingbird Drive. and we'll now have the staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this particular application has an accompanying preliminary plot, but I will prefer to present them separately otherwise there are too many elements in

each. They can get very confusing. So, I want to deal with the criteria separately. So the property we are looking at is a 28 about 28.58 acre consisting of two parcels. So both this parcel and this parcel are part of this reasoning. Both of them constitute the subject property. So every time I say subject property it refers to both paros not just one. and it is the subject property is located south of Bluebird Lane. This is the intersection of uh Craft and Bluebird Lane where you've got that gas station, you have the water tower. If you continue south, you get to Hamilton Circle north. You make a right. And once you pass Mary Drive, pass the first house, the next large vacant area there, that is the area of the subject property. You have these two parcels at the south corner here. They are not part of this reasoning. Kevin will deal with those other these other paro. So the subject ple is only these two 28.58 acres. It also lies along hummingbird drive. If you continue southward on hummingbird drive from bluebird lane it goes down to that dead end street. Couple of I think about two years ago or maybe last year, the planning commission recommended that the board of Adaman approved the subdivision of this 7415 Hing uh Hington Circle West property right here that is not part of this

particular reasoning being proposed. The general area as you will see it consists of you have smaller lots along Merida Drive, Mary Drive in the Hamilton Place subdivision, an IV trail, but to the north you've got large estate lots along Bluebird Lane. This is these are very old subdivisions have been in existence for long. The both parcels constituting our subject property are currently zoned AR agricultural residential which requires that lots be minimum 1 acre in size. The AR district can also be developed with open dishes without any requirement for sidewalks. It adjoins to the east an Arawan district area along Mary Drive. In the northeast is also zoned AR. This particular area if you cross over to the west partially borders AR. These are very large estate lots old subdivisions. If you come a bit move south west in this area that is Ivy Tree it's a PUD with smaller lot subdivision in the south you have R1 district in Hamilton place this area zoned R3 that's of future development of Hamilton place that particular phase is already approved for smaller lot too so the request before you is to reszone these two parcels from AR agricultural residential to1

single family residential. The purpose is to construct detach single family residential houses on a total of 71 lots minimum 12,500 square ft in size. That's a minimum lot size in the Arowan district because the property is currently zone A which requires lots to be minimum 1 acre. In order to develop this property for lots that are minimum 12,500 ft in size, the two parcels have to be resoneed. That is the reason you have these reszoning requests. In the Arowan zoning district, the lots must have be at least 85 ft wide at the building set back line, front building set back line. Basically, that's a lot width, minimum 85 ft wide. The developer proposes that the houses will be have minimum 2,000 square ft heated area. That excludes porches, garages that that those are excluded. The gross density will be 2.48 dwelling units per acre in the R1 zoning district. Minimum density maximum permitted density gross density is 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The developer does not propose this to be phased. So all of it will be constructed at once. and the developer also does not propose to connect at this time Mary drive onto this subdivision. So this hatch area you see here that will simply be dedicated as future right of way. The reason being the developer only owns land to the center of this street if you're going north. It doesn't own the entire

property. The rest of this property is owned by the Blakes who are not interested in selling the property at this time. So he can only deal with what he has. Basically developer can only deal with what he has. This is what is proposed to the north where this development will adjoin the re rural estate subdivisions larger than 1 acre lot. The developer proposes a 25 ft wide green buffer with a 6 ft high cedar fence and brick columns. In this particular area where you have these arrows here and here there is no those have been cleared. The trees that are there have been cleared and the developer proposes to to replant them. Basically you have two storm water management areas. one closer to humming hummingbird drive at this location and the other just behind the property owned by Mr. Blake a smaller one at this particular location for the management of storm water issues regarding this infrastructure and this layout. All of these will be hatch out in the preliminary plat. That's really where we we'll get into the details on this. The real question before the planning commission now in at this particular point is whether this property should be reszoned from AR to R1 under state law to do that reasoning the plat must meet one of two conditions. Condition one there has to be plent commission has to find that the existing zoning is in error. The applicant does not claim that there is any mistake in the existing AR zoning district. Staff also does not find that there is any existing there is

any mistake in the existing a zoning district designation because this property was annexed into the city in 1990. At that time it was zone AR and since then there has been no reasonzoning of the property. So this is the zoning of the property for the past 30 years or so. uh it's been like this since it was annexed into the city. So the applicant neither claims a reasoning a mistake not does staff find one. The second criteria which is really in two parts. The first is whether there has been a change in the character of the area to warrant the resoning of this property as proposed and whether there is a public need for this reasoning. Regarding the change in the character of the area, this is the subject property under consideration to the east. Look at this area. This lot along along Meridair Drive. This is the Hered Acre Craft Road subdivision. It was reszoned in the year in 2000 from AR the same zoning district that you currently have the subject property to AR1, the same reasonzoning that the applicant is requesting. The lot sizes range from 12,798 ft to 25,353 ft². The character of this particular area has changed from the early 2000 from what was agricultural, rural, residential to a suburban neighborhood. So this entire acreage has changed. If you look at all of this area, it was also there have been multiple reasonzonings from 1996 to 1997. All of them reszoned from AR agricultural residential to AR1. The lot sizes ranging from 12,53 ft to about 28,000 square ft. The area all of this area has changed from agricultural rural residential to

suburban neighborhood. If you go to the east, further to the west, where you have Ivy Trace subdivision, there have been multiple reasonzonings from 1996 to 1999, reszoning that whole area, that whole PD from agricultural residential to PUB with a lot sizes ranging from 9,600 to 46,000 about 46,000 square ft. So all of that area has also changed from agricultural and rural residential to suburban neighborhood. So basically what you have is a piece of property that is today sandwiched to the west, to the east, to the southeast. And this area, this vacant piece, well, this large piece right here, which is this is also approved for the Hamilton Place subdivision, part of the PUB. It's a PUB zone R3 plan residential district for lots that are suburban neighborhood in character. These are lots that are generally ranging in size from about 12,000 to uh 15 to 30,000 square ft. So what the applicant is proposing aligns with a general change in character of the area that has occurred in the last 25 years or so. The only other area that has not changed is to the north and that is certainly going nowhere. Those lots are already developed as royal estates. With regard to whether there is a public need, the key area that determines a public need is what a comprehensive plan says because a comprehensive plan policies articulate the public needs of the city with regard to land use. The comprehend future land use map in the comprehensive plan designates this

subject property as suburban neighborhood. It specifies that the character of this area has this area has lots that range in size from 6,000 ft² to 30,000 ft² with most being 12,000 to 15,000 ft² range which is exactly what the applicant is proposing. So what is being proposed align with the comprehensive plan and as such uh meets the public need criteria. Based upon a finding that the character of the area has changed significantly overwhelmingly predominantly from agricultural and rural residential to suburban neighborhood and that the property subject property is designated as suburban neighborhood in the future land use map as such meets the public need criteria. Staffs recommend that the planning commission recommend approval of this reasoning to the board of adaman. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions to staff? No questions. Do we have someone here to represent the application? Mr. Chairman, my name is Corey Brady, 9967 Bentwood Creek Cove, Caerville, Tennessee. Uh Chance Walker, Smith Walker Engineering, 8180 Airways Boulevard, South Haven. Uh, as always, the song does a fantastic job in this presentation. Pretty thorough. So, we don't really have anything to add, but we're here to answer any questions that you may have or provide any more commentary. Thank you. Any any other questions? No further questions. And thank you, sir. Uh, now we'll open for the public hearing. And, uh, I have two names here from the signin

cards. I'm Is it Jan? Let's see. Janette Owens, if you wish to come forward and make some comments. We ask that you limit your comments to three minutes or less and um only one trip to the podium and anyone come after try not to be repetitive on that. Thank you very much. Janette Owens, J A N T 7571 Hummingbird Drive. I speak in opposition to the construction of 71 new homes. I believe this development would result in a significant loss of natural habitat for local wildlife, displacing animals that may rely on that space for survival. It also reduces the limited green space our community has left. green space that serves not only as a refuge for nature but also as a vital resource for mental well-being, environmental health, and community connection. We must consider the long-term consequences of this decision. Once natural space is gone, we cannot get it back. I urge the planners and decision makers to explore more sustainable options that preserve our environment and protect our local ecosystems. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your comments. Uh Bobby Barrett, if you'll come forward, please. Hi. Hi, I'm Bobby Barrett, 7266 North Hamilton Circle. I've been there over 40 years and I apologize for the mask. My husband's had some treatments.

Um, I agree with what this lady just said, but also the traffic problem that is on North Hamilton Circle has been known for many, many years. We've had so many accidents, so many people going off the road. One gentleman lost his life in the curve of the road and um because of that um it's a two-lane road. We have traffic that comes in from Ivy Trails, from Hamilton Place. People come from Craft Road, Goodman Road, the movie theater. Even though you're not supposed to turn left, they do. Um the church that's going to be built on the corner is going to be a lot more traffic as well. Um people in our street, you can't go for a walk on Hamilton Circle anymore. Kids can't play out in the front yard from my neighbor across the street because of cars losing control. and the police have they go up and down the road, but the racing the um daytime, nighttime, it's not just limited to the daytime. So, it with it being a two-lane road, there's never been any speed bumps. We've asked about them before and we were told we had to get a um get everybody's signature to do it and we're not able to do that. The litter is terrible from what's already there and maybe there is a plan for the road that I don't know about. I didn't see that the access. I didn't understand it where the roads were going to go in and out onto Hamilton Circle.

But any additional traffic is going to make a bad situation very very bad. Um there has been some lights that were installed at the curve of the road. I appreciate that. Um but we've had semitrs that have come down to go to Aldi's. They've torn out the power lines before which has nothing to do with the new subdivision. Uh, but I'm just trying to emphasize how bad the traffic already is. If that is something that's going to be addressed and that I just don't have the information from for, um, I would like to know, but for longtime residents on this street, more and more traffic is just it's a nightmare to try to consider. And I appreciate y'all's time. I'm not comfortable doing this, but I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward. Is there anyone else that wishes to come forward and please state your name and address? Um, my name is Beverly Stewart and I'm at 7397 Carmen Drive um in the Ivy Trail subdivision. And I'm sorry I didn't get my card up earlier. I just had that question. But one of my concerns is about this new sub subdivision is you're building new buildings in the area just ac across from the Ivy Trail subdivisions and there are vacant spaces talking about the character of that area altogether. You're building brand new units, a lot of brand new units in that area. And we are concerned about how Ivy Trail itself is going down and the roads are not being resurfaced so that our area, our

common area that we already have looks good for the character. There's also three vacant units on uh Hamilton Circle with trees that the grass is growing up and we don't know what's going to happen with those uh vacant spaces either. So, it seems to me counterproductive to build brand new units in that same area and you have units and spaces in the Ivy Trail area that's going down as well. So, that's my concern about the project. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I think we have one more to speak. Thank you. I appreciate it. My name is Henrietta Tubs. I live at 6794 St. Michaels. Uh where they're trying to build is on the back side of me. And I do understand what they're saying about all the traffic and everything, but uh my concern is the sizes of the houses. you know, uh, we, uh, I've been blessed to be there 21 years, and I do not want my property value to go down because they want to be a several smaller houses and everything. And there is a lot of uh, new people coming to the neighborhood. So, they are roaming around and I just feel like with all that extra traffic, like they said, that we're just going to get people that we don't need when we living a comfortable life right now. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we will now close the public hearing. Any questions of staff? Do we have any questions before? Uh if not, then I'll open it for any comments, discussion, or any motions that we wish to make at this time. Uh I'll make a motion based on the five

the character of the subject property area has changed in the last 30 years from agriculture rural residential to suburban neighborhood which is which the requested resoning aligns with. There's a public need public need for the resoning is evident in the future land use map designation of the property. I recommend that the board of alderman approve the resoning. Okay. We we have a motion to approve the application subject to any staff recommendations that we have. Do we have a second? Mr. Jones made the motion. Do we? 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 motion carries and and the application is approved. The the second part of this is an application for a preliminary plat for Acory Farm subdivision submitted by Ben Smith Walker Engineering and Surveying on behalf of the property owner Acory Family Trust. The request is to subdivide the 28.59 plus or minus acres into 71 single family lots and two common open spaces. There is a companion application requesting the reszoning from AR to R1 single family residential for the purpose of a residential subdivision. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Hamilton Circle North and Hamilton Circle West east of Hummingbird Drive. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, planning commissioners. This is a companion application to the reasoning that you just acted upon. The preliminary plot before you involves a proposal for 71 lots um with this street network as shown minimum lot size being 12,500

square ft. Uh homing Redbird Drive will be offset with this new street that is being proposed. The purpose is to avoid this becoming a railway. You know, everybody just going across from one end to the other crisscrossing hummingbird drive. So, the developer proposed to kind of jock those streets. The second element, yes, there would be a a a connection of this subdivision down to Hamilton Circle. So you have one connection down on Hamilton Circle North. With respect to Mary Drive, the developer does not propose to connect Mary Drive to this new subdivision at this time at least for two reasons. First, as I did mention the the way Mary Drive is currently laid, half of the ride of way, if you were to extend it northward, half of it would be on the subject property and the other half would be on the property that is owned by the Blades and they are not interested in selling their property at this time to be part of this subdivision in any way, shape or form. As such, you really cannot extend this road northward and align it properly without some use of the BL property. It really would not work. For that reason, the developer proposes to rather dedicate a I think it's 20 ft wide, 30 ft wide routeway for any future connection or expansion of that particular road. These proposed road would therefore end in a hammerhead. This would need to be revised to meet the city's uh fire code. It's currently drawn. It needs to be revised to meet the fire code and it will be best for that to be done before this moves forward to the board of adamant.

The BLS have been concerned and they have asked me several times whether this will make their property landlocked. Most likely what is going to happen is whoever comes to build a house here, this is 1.9 acre parcel. Whoever comes to buy that and build a piece and build a house here will most likely just put a driveway from the end of this hammerhead going into that property. So this will not be landlocked from that particular perspective. Um I have discussed that hammerhead it needs to be you know there will be no connection to Merida Drive. It needs to be redesigned to meet the city's fire code. It is the opinion of the city engineer that the possibility that this road will ever really connect to me drive is very very slim from an economics perspective. It is not foreseeable that we ever buys this property in future 1.8.9 acres will produce will be able to create lots here sufficient enough to go ahead and build this road. That just will not happen. So it is most likely rather that this will not be built and merid will just simply be left as it is you know terminating nowhere. In order to avoid that there is need for the provision of a partial 50 ft radius as currently shown here in green. Um so that in future if the Blakes's property is platted then you can acquire the rest of it and city can go in at some point and just complete that that road and provide a turnaround that that ends mer drive Merry Drive instead of having these roads that are forever uncompleted in the city you know so that is the transportation element of this plan all the streets will be constructed with curb gutter sidewalks And they will all have storm all the lot will have storm water management in

these areas within the subdivision. No amenities are proposed at this time when the planning commission approved Camdom Cove of College Road. That subdivision only proposed 35 lots similar in size to what is being proposed here. and the planning commission required them to have an amenity for the subdivision known as being proposed here and that is that is one of the conditions of approval that has included with respect to utilities water lines are available along shown here in blue along hummingbird also water lines along Hamilton Circle north that the applicant can will be able even on Merit Drive will be able to extend into this subdivision see what is also available shown here in green. It will be the applicant's responsibility to extend all these utilities including gas here in yellow as a gas line. It will be the applicant's responsibility to extend all these utilities to service the proposed lots based upon the finding that this plot made the subdivision regulation. Subject to it being reszone to this property being resoneed to R1 staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of this plan subject to a number of conditions 1 to 14. Condition number one being that the board of adamant reszones the subject property from AR to R1. If the reasoning doesn't go through then the plat is useless and the plot will not meet the minimum 1 acre lot requirement. Condition number four, the developer shall revise a preliminary plan to pro to provide a fully curbed hammerhead street design that meets the international fire code requirements of the city before this plan is presented to the board of condition number five addresses the provision of that partial 50 ft radius on Meridair Drive.

Condition number six, because these lots are generally small compared to the 1 acre lot, um the tendency is for developers to go in and clear cut everything just bring down every single tree in the subdivision. We need the the there is need for and it's a matter of practicality. You really cannot develop lots that are 12,500 square ft in size and and preserve all the trees in that area. Um you have to grading of the site will affect the roots to build the roads and so on affect the root of trees. So the developer condition number six requires a developer to replant for every one two to two and a half caliber deciduous tree shall be planted in the front yard of each home prior to use and occupancy of the house. Two trees shall be planted for corner lots or lots that are 80 ft that have at least 80 ft of frontage. Basically all the lots in this subdivision do because to meet the arrow one zoning district you have to be minimum 85 ft wide. So really they will be required to have two trees. All lots shall be side or rear loaded. It will be tough to get it rear loaded on this side except you have a design where it kind of have a driveway looking at the back looping at the back. Most of them will have to be sideloaded. That has been the general development character in this city. Once lots hit 50 um feet 50 ft wide and above. Condition number nine revise a preliminary plat to provide at least one common recreational amenity in the subdivision. Uh condition number 10 addresses general roof design. Condition number 11 basically homes shall be minimum 2,000 square ft of heated area as was proposed by the developer but then also adding that a minimum 75% menisary type

construction for all the facads of the houses in that area along Mary drive is 100% brick if you go out there is 100% brick so the developer has a leeway there to 25% you can incorporate other material Yeah. 14th condition at final PL submitter, the developer shall submit for concurrent review draft CCRs uh for the homeowners associate association which shall include provisions for the management of all common open spaces. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you. Okay. Any questions of staff? No questions. Uh, does the applicant would would wish to make any comments this time? Mr. Chairman, again, Corey Brady, 9967 Bentwood Creek Cove and Chance Walker. Chance Walker, Smith Walker Engineering, 8180 Airways Boulevard, South. Obviously, Chance is here at an engineering capacity. I'm here in a planning capacity representing Garden Street Communities, the developer of the preliminary platform before you today. And I I I just want to underscore what has already been stated very thoroughly by staff that this is compliant with the R1 zoning. This is consistent compatible with the recommendations of the comprehensive land use plan in every way. The lots that are proposed again comply with the R1 zoning that we previously adjudicated but also they exceed many of the lots in the size of the adjacent lots in many adjacent subdivisions. Ivy Trails for example. Um we are offering a an elevated minimum heated floor area above and beyond what is typical in the area at 2,000 square feet. That was mentioned in the staff report. And all of the conditions that have been brought forth uh we agreed to with the exception of number eight that we just want to discuss is all it is. And that condition states that all lot

shall have cider rear loaded uh shall be side or rear loaded. And that's referencing the garages. And I have some illustrations that I I can hand out. Luckily, I brought four today, but um I can't give one to staff necessarily. I I thought we'd be able to project it for those in the the crowd. These are just standard lot illustrations that show the types of homes that we intend to develop on these lots with the two driveway formats just to show you why we want to discuss it. What we're asking for is the word all lot shall be to to allow us to allow some that are street facing for for the lot sizes that we'll show you. But I I'll convey what those illustrate. What you'll see is four sheets of paper. There's a standard lot configuration and then a corner lot configuration for two types of homes. And on each of those, you'll see a proposed condition for the driveway and then an alternative in parenthesis that says conditioned, which is the side loaded, which turns the garage 90°. And if you notice on the conditioned version, to get in a side loaded garage, we need an additional 25 ft from that garage face. And on our smallest home, if we were to apply that 25 ft, we're on the property line. on the other homes because we're the size of these homes are larger. We're actually encroaching beyond the property line seven feet or and some change and that's in there. So, you can see from a practicality standpoint how that may not work. But on corner lots, you'll see each of those floor plans show how a side garage could function in those cases. And we very

well would be willing to and capable of developing those sideloaded garages. So, those are the illustrations and those are the items we want to talk about. The rest of the conditions we agree with. The um the the brick and everything else that's the character of these homes will will exhibit that. Also want to underscore that we had a neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago, met with everyone were very much respectful. Everyone that attended was very respectful. We had some good commentary. This plan was what presented to was what was presented to them at that time. So, if there's anyone that has any questions, I'd like to be able to address those after we discuss the garage situation, if you will. Is it are are the illustrations clear for I mean, does it is it is there any questions regarding the the illustrations with what they show? Got a question. the the example you gave for the side load um had it coming from outside outside of the proper outside of the the hatch more. Yeah. And so I've got two questions. The first one is the the the 10 and I really want to give How about I I save my questions because I want to hear from the public first. Sure. and then let you respond to the public and then I will I'll voice. The only other thing I wanted to add to the commentary about the garages when you look at the area the context of the neighborhood 90% of the existing homes in this district have street facing garages. But the exception, I'm sorry. And the reason we the reason we go for side facing is because 90% of those 90% you've got people parking in their driveway which end up parking on the sidewalk which end up parking on the street. Understand? And so there's and so there's reasons behind the request for side load or reload. Well, again, we want to just discuss the

options. Not every, not all. We agree in some practical measures the side loads do work well. Again, it's not it's just that term all creates somewhat of a practical difficulty. It's all we'll get into it. Maybe we can find some common ground after we hear from the public. Any other any other questions? We've got one more question. I have a question, but mine is on um number number nine. Yes, ma'am. So I understand then by this that you have met with the residents and you have agreed to revise the preliminary plan to provide at least one common recreation amenity area in the subdivision. Yeah. Yes. So um in the common open space one I believe which will be the largest storm water uh management facility. We we're proposing a a walking trail uh with the pavilion. That's that's also where the mailbox cluster is going to be located. But it it will be uh amended to show a walking trail uh with with a some type of pavilion for events and of that sort for the subdivision. And as far as you anticipate um will the land have to be raised of all trees in that particular area in order to construct the the storm water. So typically with mass grading the trees do come down. Um we we do our best at locations to to uh save as much as we can. Um at this time it's hard to say but but typically mass grading creates the trees to to come down. So Right. And what about um providing with the walking trails planting or does that come later at a later time? Planting of uh appropriate landscaping, some trees to make Yeah, there'll there'll be definitely be landscaping. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, it it'll

definitely have some sort of land landscaping. It'll be sided u trees and uh shrubbery and and things of that nature will be around the the walking trail. And and this may come later too, but just a quick question. Would the maintenance of these walking trails fall under the uh responsibility of homeowners association? Yes. To maintain. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? No other questions? And thank you. Uh I'll now open it for public hearing. We normally don't have public hearings for plats, but I think in this case it it's necessary if anyone wishes to come forward and uh make their comments about the plat only. And once again, you're limited to three minutes and and restate your name again, please. Yes. Bobby Barrett, 7266 North Hamilton Circle. Again, there is the entrance or the exit from this subdivision onto a two-lane small street. Is there any plan to make anything any different on that street so that the rest of the people that are using that street as I stated before there is already so much traffic on it and ever how many houses is planned in this subdivision is going to make a terrible situation a whole lot worse. If y'all lived on that street, I guarantee you, you would be reconsidering this. Craft Road, Ivy Trails, Hamilton Circle, the movie theater,

cars constantly. You can't go to your mailbox without fear that if you step over, somebody's going to hit you. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. Not to mention that Olive Branch has been wiped out of the character that it had for so many years. I understand progress. I know I'm old, 74 years old. I have seen Olive Branch change, but such a drastic change as it has been approved time after time is not considering the people of Olive Branch and the nature of Olive Branch. I just beg you to consider it. Even drive down the street yourself if you haven't already and see what I'm talking about. Sometimes there may be no one on the street and sometimes there's a charger that flies by and that happens more often than not and the police cannot be there all the time. Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to come forward? Once again, limited to the plat itself. Janette Owens, J A N T 7571 Hummingbird Drive. Do I need to re read this again or can we just No, just you can just state it your opposition if you wish to do that. So, we've already got you on record. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. And by the way, I'm on the corner of Hummingbird and Redbird. I'm on a corner and my garage is a side loading. So have the benefit of having people if they come

visit they can park on the street. Um there is some concern about where the fire department is on craft and bluebird. Sometimes you know we have that four stop sign with bluebird and hummingbird. A lot of times the vehicles don't even stop. They just blow through. And then you know you have your fire your emergency vehicles. they come plowing through. So, there's some concern there with a potential accident and a little bit of congestion, but you already know my feelings about nature. Thank you so much. And please state your name and address, please. My name is Barbara Blake. I live at 6805 Bluebird Lane about a house and a church down behind the fire department. And we have a terrific, like she said, four to come over Hamilton. Come over to Bluebird Street. See all the traffic that we have. No, none of the children could even play out. We We got up a a a boat to try and get uh speed bumps putt in our driveway. I've lived there 39 and a half years. Two different locations. I used to live at 6645 Blooper down the road. They are now building up a fence. They they bought that house not from me but a second owner to keep to have a quiet place to live and were told, you know, that as long as Acres were alive that they would not have anything to worry about a subdivision going in there. And the 91year-old woman next door to me towards Craft, her name was Long. I'm not sure of our address, but we were there when it was first built and had nothing but just a dead-end road. We've

gone through many, many, many changes. We cannot get a speed bump. We tried that two or three times. We were in this court office several years ago. Uh the the traffic is unbelievable. I can't even back out of my own driveway. I turn around and anybody else comes to visit me, turn around because you're going to get hit. There's been cars that have come over into our yard and got caught in the cover with a big old trailer. Uh about three or four years ago, there was a car that came over, went through our c off top of our culvert, tore it all up, went across our driveway, flipped over backwards upside down, and this is how the traffic runs 90 miles an hour. We have begged the police department to set up in our driveway. We have some small bushes. We're not trying to tell them to try and trap them, but just be aware of what's going on. And that's our main concern. Uh we do own the two acres that we are not going to sell. That's true. We're the Blakes. We love nature. We've camped and hunted all of our retired life. We've got a big pond and we have it open to any of the kids in the neighborhood that want to we stock it and we feed them, you know, with cat food. Uh it's just it's a big hindrance to have any more traffic coming down Bluebird and especially right there we should talk about Bluebird and Hummingbird. There have been more wrecks right there. I'm not going to say there's been a death, but there's been more wrecks right there than you can even imagine. And they've gone off into that little house right down at the corner at the very corner where it's going to back up to a pond. And I know she was kind of opposed to that. I'm not speaking for her. Uh she is a single parent that lives there. But please consider the traffic as far as any roads or any red lights or any four lanes. We need to be four lane or threelane. We need to be something because it's it's it's just it's a nightmare night and day. And of course the fire department, God love them. We're thankful to have them, but they're down there all back and forth, you know, and so they hinder

the traffic and hold it up. And that's my really only objective to it. And the size, the amount of houses going back there. I think that's a horrendous amount of houses for 29 point something acres in my opinion. And I think that also to tear down all of the trees. Thank God I'm keeping my two lots with my trees d right directly behind my house. But you know it is going to really destroy and look more like which we also opposed Ivy Trails. We I've been there 39 years. Like I say my husband passed away. I married the guy down the street because it wasn't too far for me to walk. So move my furniture and he'd been divorced a long time. Anyway, to say not any more than that, I just want you to just consider the traffic and widening the roads and having an exit on Hummingbird and also on Hamilton. I used to come through Hamilton. It was a shortcut to go to Aldi's and other places. But I myself drive so slow. I told my husband I like creeping along because they fly around that corner and you can't see around the corner till you get around that corner. And they did just put up some lights recently, but that's been just recently. Okay. So, how are they going to get out without running over somebody else, too? It needs to be forlaid anyway. But thank you. And I'm sorry I probably exceeded my three minutes because I appreciate it very much, y'all. Have a good evening. Okay. Uh, the public hearing will now be closed and I will uh entertain any comments or questions or motions from the commissioners. Uh, I've got a question for the applicant on the the lots on the north. Um, there's a I think a 25 foot buffer.

Yes. So you've got 25 foot buffer and with the you know when we've got all lots to be side and rear loaded and putting two trees in the front yard and the corners three one. Yeah. There's also some lots that don't have foliage and we're proposing to add it in that 25 foot buffer. So, what what what how much space does that give somebody because those look those look like the the the smallest lots? Not in depth, but but in width. And I really can't see the the widths of those on the north side. What are what's the they're all so 85 foot's the minimum. So, so about 150 foot deep on a 85 foot stand, 500 square feet. And so we'll go back to your your side load example. All your side loads had the driveway outside of the the the framework of of the house and and which which your illustration puts you right on the property line. But there's ways you can come straight up the you know you can position the house more central and then drive have the driveway come up and you cross in the driveway would be in front of the the courtyard front court loads. Yeah, is what I call. So, so your example shows shows one way of doing it and shows how that puts you on the property line, but there's other ways to do it and meet the meet the city's requests. So, would would you consider would you consider that? When we discuss the front courts, um, and I think it's a matter of opinions and they'll vary. A lot of front courts, your whole front yard becomes concrete because of the nature of that. And that's a look that don't want to develop and and the home builder doesn't like either. That's why we would rather put it on the sides outside of that front

yard so you have a traditional front yard in the front. Well, I understand courtyards and exactly what you're saying and it very well could accomplish that goal. It's it's not a look that we want to provide. Personally, I don't like them. I've lived in it uh before. I didn't walk out my front porch. It's just driveway. That's my personal opinion. Others may may vary, but we would prefer if it were sideloaded to be on the side on a corner lot if we could. And then we would use the depth of the setback to give enough queuing space. I heard you very loud and clear, people overhanging the sidewalks, and that's a bigger problem we see in a lot of our our traditional neighborhoods that have 15 foot, you know, front setbacks. Obviously, there's not enough room, so we don't do that. But in this case, we're setting the buildings back. Would would you be willing to put in your HOA covenants? Uh, no street parking. No street parking. Yeah. I don't know if that's something because they're public streets and we can't regulate that. Um, HOA can do do a whole lot. Well, again, not not being contradictory to it. I think it's something we can entertain. I can say my experience in my neighborhood. Um, we have 31 ft street, 30 foot, 50 foot rightways, traditional public rideways and parking on the streets and our attorney has advised the HOA that they cannot stop people from parking on a public street. That's Tennessee. This is Mississippi. But we actively pursued that because we had some issues in corners and blind corners where people were say it felt unsafe and felt like the cars are, you know, they were going to run into cars and it was proposed at the HOA meeting. Attorney said can't do it. So, and other instances they there's been a, you know, putting up no parking signs at the developer's expense and all of that. And again, none of that's I mean, it's just can it be regulated and that's the problem. And so, it's we've got to got to have a give and take and and that's that's what I'm saying. Yeah, we're here for that. If if we've got a give and take and you want to to frontload garages,

Yeah. We we we want to make sure that that the the neighborhood is aesthetically pleasing and maybe it's no overnight, you know, and and HOAs have their ways of of getting people to not they they can try they can they can do whatever they want, right? And so if if if that would be feasible, I think so. Al also and and we don't have anybody here representing the properties on the north side which are the large estate estate properties but you know backing up to those large estate properties I'm looking at four backyards you know as opposed to what I'm looking at now is there would there be any consideration because um let me back up a there been any what's traffic study on Have you done a traffic study on the on um what is that street? Homing home. Hamilton, I'm sorry. Hamilton C. Hamilton Hamilton Circle. What do you propose the increase in traffic is for those people who brought up their their concerns about additional traffic? What what what do you see as the additional traffic when this Chance may want to jump in, but from a matter of of a traffic study, a full traffic studies typically obviously done with the with the construction drawing. So, a full traffic study has been done. We've looked at trip generation analyses and things like that. And it's our understanding that that intersection of Hummingbird or Hamilton again is supposed to be improved and development improves those intersections. We're not contiguous to it, so we can't directly do anything about it, but I'm getting a little outside of my sandbox. Chance may be able to speak more to it. It's my understanding with the development that the Hamilton piece that was mentioned that is approved undeveloped there's potential for that to be approved. I I can lean on staff maybe they can add some color to it. That's that's the

limits of my knowledge about that. Otherwise, all the contiguous streets adjacent to our development will be improved in accordance with whatever city engineers and subreg specify. And we we have an out onto Hamilton that will take you directly eastbound to Craft directly to the interstate from there or we south to Goodman Road. We don't anticipate a high flow of traffic at all going through Redbird. I'm not going to stand here and look anybody now and say nobody's ever going to turn and drive down Redbird's uh lane. It could happen, but it's not logical. It'd be a very low percentage rate of traffic on on that street. It's our understanding through talking with the engineers that we've talked with. So, so 71 homes, what's what's the general? You don't have to I mean at all 71 is it 71 homes? It would be a build out 600 that would generate 680 trips per day. About 15% of that would be your peak hour trips. So that's 100. And if you split those between the two connections between Hummingbird Drive and Hamilton Circle would be 50 peak hour trips. You know, at the busiest part of the day at the AM. So you're talking about, you know, less than one trip for I mean, you know, I mean, more than a minute would pass between trips. So I don't think traffic is an issue. Although it does appear that there's some existing problems on Hamilton Circle. So one of the things I don't think that it was discussed earlier is, you know, this is curb gutter and sidewalk section. So on all of those lots, you get seven or eight lots that are uh facing Hamilton Circle, those would all be improved. Instead of having an open swale section and those trees, you know, that would be improved with curb gutter and sidewalk. And then, you know, with the houses there that would have driveways out to the road, that might be something I think that would slow traffic a little bit. It would be more of a residential street as opposed

to we're driving by a bunch of trees and speeding down there. So, I I do think that's that you may want to take into consideration on traffic. And again, that's not to say anything that any of the residents said was wrong, but um I don't think that the numbers would show that traffic would be an issue in this particular case. Thank you for stepping in, Jason. That's insist on what we've heard. Again, we're doing our part for what we can do contiguous development in those approvals improvements. I think if if Oh, go ahead. the plan construction permits on on on the two elements. One the first one dealing with the with a driveway you know whether it's side loaded or front front loaded general policy and practice in the city has been if the lot width allows for side loading the development go side loading. If the lot width is too small, sometimes you have like in some of these PUDs that 40 ft wide lots, you really cannot put a side loaded and and and and make it meaningful. Most often in that case they have rail loaded you know using alleys. But if it is if the lot wheat is large enough, it goes sideloaded. Part of it and I think Cory kind of alluded to it. The HOA has very limited ability to control anything happen on a public street considered public right away. It's within the public realm. There is the police have powers there, not the HOA. We get put into it. Code enforcement gets put into it with parking on the street. city doesn't have all those resources to be spending with with all these arguments. That is the reason why the general policy has been if the lots are large enough beyond 50 ft put everybody on a silo and avoid this this this scenario. you know that that's generally been the practice uh with the board of

adamant the with regard to the traffic impact on on the streets and I think once you disperse this in two different directions yes there is going to be increased traffic on these roads there's no doubt about that if you develop it under the current AR district it will be half the amount of traffic that the arrow one will generate will be half but it will not be so much that the existing streets cannot handle. That's a real question. It would have been better if Hamilton Circle West and Hamilton Circle north was a three-lane road with a middle turn lane. That would have been far better. There is no proposal here to turn that into, you know, into a three-lane road. It's just two lanes. You will have in improvements on Hamilton Circle North. Um there will be a curb, gutter, sidewalk added to the side of the property that adjoins the basically if you look at your your screen that will be in the area the applicant is only required to develop in the frontage of the property. So it's not like they will go in and build the entire rebuild the entire circle. No, they that improvement will happen in the in the front of the property. But because they are splitting this it it will help in some in some regard. It will help splitting the traffic between Hamilton um hummingbird drive and Hamilton second north. Some of the traffic will go that way the other will come to the south. So I do think one point if I may, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that the perspective builder in this particular case specializes in single story homes as opposed to twostory. So to get that minimum 2,000 square feet, and I'm not sure I didn't see the exhibits that Corey provided, but you end up with a little bit of a bigger footprint at the ground level, which would make it a

little bit more difficult to do the side entry. a garage. Now, obviously, if you've got twostory homes and you've got 85 feet of width and you're doing a 2,000 or even a 24- 2500 square foot home, you usually do have enough room to do that, but it can present a problem with the single story. So, you may want to consider that. You could also uh with respect to the on street parking, you could also condition if you were to make a recommendation for approval that that provision be incorporated into the draft covenants conditions and restrictions which you would see again when this project came back through the final plat because remember what you're doing tonight. You the reasoning which you've already approved with the public hearing. Now you're just discussing the plat and basically approval of this plat gives them the opportunity to submit those construction plans to the to the city engineer. And then when that construction's completed or as it's underway, they'll bring this application back to you for final plat which time they'll put a lot of these items into those governance and restrictions such as brick content and the minimum size of the homes. and they can have that provision added in there if the planning commission were to request it to not allow for on street parking. So, I think you can address some of the issues and still maybe accommodate what the prospective builder wants to do. Yeah, we're more than happy to add that to the covenant. I think you and I are on the same page there to what Jason has said isn't 100% accurate with regard to the homes as well. Thank you for adding that commentary and Jason. But yeah, we're we're we're all agreeable on whatever we can do to curtail people from parking on the street. It's in everybody's interest. And also what we're doing tonight is the plan commission just recommends uh to the mayor and board of alderman. So the mayor and board of alderman will have that final Yes, sir. decision on on what we decide tonight. So

thank you. And you're still good with number nine. Question. You're good with nine? Good with nine. Let me ask just one thing. Would you consider uh reducing the number of units from 71 um units there? that would give a bigger uh would be less damage maybe to the subdivision uh to the neighbors and the ability to create more of a um a pleasing passive. So I I tried to figure out how to I'm choosing my words because sometimes I'm not the best. I want I want to be very clear that the we are well under what is permitted density in the R1 to you that doesn't matter. That's a number, you know, but we're not using it as a goal line in this case where many are. We're also the the comprehensive land use plan actually allows smaller lots or recommends for small lots. Forgive me for saying misspeaking. So we feel like the 125 is not only comparable, it's larger than several lots and it's comparable to the lots in the immediate area, but also the 71 lots. it development costs and land costs nowadays have gotten so high. If I lower the cost, the the the yield, the cost of those homes are going to go up. And there is an absolute line, a threshold that can't be crossed because we're taking out, for lack of a better word, the affordability of the home. We're trying to hit in a market that we want to be in what dollar branch supports, you know, and the less homes we have, the more those costs go up. And we have to still develop the very same infrastructure, the exact same number of home of of uh streets, all of that. And

then we are doing so with less lots to pay for it in the long run. So it just it just adds cost to it. And at the end of the day, I can say from a lot of experience, 25 years of experience or more, if we went in with 60 lots compared to 71, the disturbance in the subdivision is going to be generally the same because of that infrastructure. And I hope you know that I'm being genuine when I say that. That is a fact. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions? Thank you. We're at that point for more discussion or motions or comments from the commissioner. I'll make a motion to approve preliminary plat um subject to conditions 1 through 7 9 through 13. And and if if the board of alderman um decides not to not not to accept number eight that they add into 14, no on street parking. Okay. All right. Let me try to phrase that. U we've got a motion by Mr. Jones to approve application subject to items one through seven and 9 through 13. And item number eight I lost you on that. If you'll repeat what you want to do on item item number eight, if the board if the board decides not to accept okay to remove the requirement for side or rear loaded garages that they add to the covenants and restrictions that there should be no on street parking. Okay.

Have you got it down now? Yeah, I've got it through and add No parking. Okay. Is that Is that what you said? Okay. We've got a a motion by Mr. Jones. Do we have a second? A second. All right. We have a second by Miss Singer. Any other discussion on this? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Then the motion carries and it'll be and approved and be sent to the board of all. Thank you all. Thank you. I think at this time we need to just take about a five minute break and then we'll we'll start back

Item number three under new business is an application for a zoning map amendment submitted by Andy Richardson, RNH Engineering and Surveying LLC on behalf of Sunset Creek Farms LLC. Kevin Binham, property owner. The request is to reszone from AR agriculture residential district to R1 single family residential district. The subject 92 plus or minus acre property is at the northeast corner of Hamilton Circle North and Hamilton Circle West known as 6602 Hamilton Circle North. The property is intended to be used for detached single family housing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this property is at the uh northeast corner of the intersection of Hamilton Circle North and Hamilton Circle West. It's in the same vicinity as the previous application that was presented by a song. Um, this application, the applicant is Andy Richardson with R&H Engineering on behalf of Sunet Sunset Creek Farms LLC has been submitted for consideration of a reszoning request to reszone from AR agricultural residential to R1 single family residential. There is a concurrent application uh final plat application SD250019 which will be the next application presented. The present zoning is AR agricultural residential uh which requires 1 acre minimum.

Proposed zoning is R1 single family residential. The proposed parcel size is 0.92 plus or minus acres on property known as 662 Hamilton Circle North right here. As you can see on this uh map, the proposed lot area is 40,75 square feet which meets the minimum area requirement of 12,500 square feet for the R1 zoning district. The purpose of the reszoning is to create a conforming lot within the R1 zoning district to construct a residence. Presently, the property's vacant. Future land use plan is suburban neighborhood. Applicable regulations are the zoning ordinance, subdivid subdivision regulations, and other land use regulations of the city where applicable. So analysis, you can see here this table to the right. Uh the proposed lot does meet all of the bulk regulations uh of the R1 zoning district. So we'll go into the criteria which is used to evaluate a reszoning. They're listed below. The original zoning classification for the property was a mistake. The applicant submission states that the existing AR zoning designation has been previously applied to this parcel. That was a mistake. AR zone properties are required to be a minimum of 1 acres in size. The parcel has been less than an acre for many years and thus uh due to the surrounding residential nature of the surrounding area should

have been zoned R1. However, uh staff finding is that there is no mistake in the meeting of the law regarding reszoning in Mississippi. The property was annexed in 1990 and has not been reszoned since then. So basically it was it was annexed and it's been that way. Um the second is the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent to justify the proposed reszoning. The applicant submission is that this area in general would have been considered rural until higher density housing developments began to spring up in the area in the early 2000s. The character of the area of the surrounding area has changed in the last 25 years. There are now currently several several existing or proposed developments within a half mile of the subject property that is zoned to R1, R2, R3 or PUB with similarly sized lots. Um the applicant is proposing to reszone the subject property to R1 zoning to fit into the similar property sizes that are being developed within the half mile area of the property and have the ability to construct a house on the lot. So, um, as you remember from a song's presentation, there are several, uh, developments in the area, and you can see on this map, I've got them circled here, here, here, here. Um so the staff finding is that single family neighborhood development has occurred in the area upon vacant properties. Ivy Trails PUD Hamilton Place, Hamilton Place Phase 2, and Hamilton Circle have all been approved within the last 25 years. All having lots that are less

than one acre in size and mostly between 12,000 and 30,000 square feet. Thus, the character of the area has changed over the years from agricultural agricultural residential to suburban neighborhood. A public need exists for the reasonzoning. The applicant's submission is that the applicant avows that there is an existing public need for the reszoning of this property. With most of the lots in the surrounding developments already being sold and built out, the demand for homes is high in the community. Staff finds that Olive Branch has seen exponential growth in recent years. Thus, the housing stock needs to increase to accommodate the population surge. The future land use map designates the subject property as suburban neighborhood with single family residential as the predominant land use. properties located near many new residential neighborhoods in the Hamilton Circle area with detached single family being the dominant housing type. We've already touched on those. Uh from a planning perspective, a single family residential parcel most aligns with the character of the area to satisfy the public need for the ever growing housing market that Olive Branch has seen recently. The future land use map in the comprehensive plan 20 240 which articulates the city's land use public need policies designates the property in its entirety as suburban neighborhood. Olive Branch has seen population growth. Proposed construction of new single family housing in the city implies a response by the development community and the city to address the public need for housing stock volume meeting the needs of future city residents. So our

next steps this application would move forward to the board of alderman for a final decision on the reszoning. If property were to be reszoned and the accompanying subdivision application are approved, the next step in the development process will be for the applicant to file permits for construction. The recommended motion is based on the finding that the proposed resoning meets the reszoning criteria and does conform to the 2040 comprehensive plan. is recommended by staff that the planning commission recommend approval to reszone the proposed 0.92 plus or minus acre lot one located at 6602 Hamilton Circle West from AR Agricultural Residential to R1 single family residential and that concludes staff presentation. Thank you. Any questions to staff? If there are no questions, is there someone here that wishes to represent the application? Uh Andy Richardson, RNH Engineering and Surveying, 231 West Center Street, Hernando. And I'll be happy to answer any questions if y'all have any. Any questions of Mr. Richardson? Amy, would there be sidewalks developed here as well? Uh, no. No. They will simply just have a driveway off Hamilton Circle. That any that would be on the next application. We'll hit we'll discuss that. It be on the next application. Yes. Any other questions? No further questions and thank you. Open it now for public hearing. Anyone here to wish to speak in favor or against this application? If not, then the public hearing is

closed and I will just open it to any of the commissioners for comments, motions on this item. I'll make a motion to approve the application. All right, we have a motion by Mr. Jones to approve the application. Do we have a second? I'll second. Have a second by Mr. Long. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Then the motion is approved and the application is approved. All right. The fourth part is part of this. It's an application for a final plat for Angelie Point Subdivision submitted by Andy Richardson and H Engineering and Surveying LLC on behalf of Suny Creek Farms LLC Keith Binham property owner. The request is to create a single residential lot of.92 plus or minus acres. There is an accompanying application asking to reszone from AR agriculture residential district to R1 single family residential district. The subject 92 plus or minus acre property is at the northeast corner of Hamilton Circle North and Hamilton Circle West known as 6602 Hamilton Circle North. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh point of clarification on this item. Um if you look at your paper uh agenda uh at new business item number four, which is this application, there is uh it does say solo one lot subdivision on the on the paper agenda. However, a lastm minute change by the applicant was for to uh change the name of the subdivision to Ansley Point in honor of

his daughter. So therefore, um the application the subdivision is Ansley Point just just to affirm that. So um without further ado, uh this obviously is the same site. You've seen this map before. uh on the top here uh at the intersection of Hamilton Circle West and Hamilton Circle North. Uh background summary for Ansley Point Subdivision. Andy Richardson R&H Engineering on behalf of Sunset Creek Farms LLC has submitted for consideration the final plat for Ansley Point. It's a one lot subdivision of a vacant and unplatted 92 plus or minus acre property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hamilton Circle North and Hamilton Circle West. The concurrent application which you just voted on was the reasonzoning application ZP25006. Uh the parcel size is 0.92 acres. The purpose is to create one lot from a single unplatted parcel. It's vacant future land use suburban neighborhood and the applicable regulations are the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and other land use regulations of the city where applicable. And you can see here's the um the lot itself right here. Here's the the uh plaque down on right here in the lower right hand corner of this slide. So on the next slide, uh we'll look at um the utilities in the area. There are

utilities that are readily available in the area. There's a 12 in and 3-in water man located in the Hamilton Circle rightway right here. You can see in blue, uh, there's a 6-in gas man also located within the Hamilton Circle rightway right here. Um, there's an 8 in water mane with a hydrant located to the northwest of the site right here. Within the Hummingbird circle, uh, I'm sorry, Hummingbird Drive right ofway. An 8 inch sewer line with manhole runs al north south along the west property line right here in green ties in there's a manhole right here and there's also an east west 8 in sewer line which ties into the manhole along the north property line right here. So, uh, we'll move on to transportation. According to the comprehensive plan 20 240, Hamilton Circle and Hummingbird Drive, if connected, right here, it will come like this and go like this. That's an if it were be connected, would serve as an alternate minor route between Goodman Road, which is to the south, and Bluebird name Lane, which is a major collector. The proposed lot is midpoint between Craft Road and Davidson Road, which are both north south section line roads built on the onem grid system. Connecting Humird Drive and Hamilton Circle would create a north south alternate to reach Goodman Road and Bluebird Kerbo Lane, which are east west section line roads. Note that this is uh at the discretion of engineering uh at a future date. There is no as far as bonds go there's no construction of major public infrastructure is required. Hence

financial guarantee for infra infrastructure completion is not necessary before uh recordation of the plat variances and deviations. There's no variances or deviations requested uh from the standards of the zoning ordinance and or the subdivision regulations as as may be applicable to the subject property. There is no variance or deviation necessary. No wa as far as waiverss, no waiver of required subdivision infrastructure improvement is applicable to this subdivision request. So the next steps uh upon the 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, building permits may be issued for proposed development on the lot in accordance with city's land development regulations. So the staff recommendation staff recommends approval of the final plat of Ansley Point Lot One subject to the following conditions. Uh 1 through six lot improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. Future development on lot one shall comply with the city's various land development regulations. Storm water improvements must be approved by the city engineer. The requirement for sidewalks allow along Hamilton Circle is waved. The final plat must be recorded before building permit may be issued and minor editment edits are applicable to the final plat as may be required by city regulations and deemed necessary by staff. That concludes presentation.

Okay. Any questions of staff? Any questions of Mr. Richardson? No question. Uh we do not require public hearing. So I will open it for any comments, discussion or motions from the commissioners. I make a motion to approve the final plan of Ansley Point Lot One subject to the conditions 1 through six. Okay, we have a motion by Miss Lewis to approve the application subject to the staff conditions. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a second by Miss Singer. Any other discussion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Then the motion is carried and the application is approved. Thank you. All right. Item number five is an application for a final plat for Eagle Commercial Subdivision lots four and five submitted by Bob Farley, Farley Surveying LLC on behalf of Eagle Land LLC property owner. The request is to subdivide 6.41 plus or minus acres into two lots. The subject property is on C2 highway commercial district and is located on the west side of Hacks Crossroad just south of Burlington Northern Railroad track and north of Highway 178. We'll have staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this application um is for a uh three lot subdivision. I'm sorry, two lot subdivision right here. Proposed lot five as you can see. And then proposed lot four. It's on the west side of Hacks Cross. Um the applicant is Bob Farley with Farley

Surveying on behalf of Eagle Land LLC. The final platis for as I said a two lot subdivision of an unplatted 6.41 plus or minus acre property located in at the southwest corner southwest corner of the intersection of hacks cross right here and the BSNF railroad rightway which is right here on the north. Uh the property is presently zoned C2 highway commercial. The proposed lots are presently vacant and there is no minimum lot area requirement. As stated, the pro uh the present zoning is C2 highway commercial 6. 41 uh 6.41 acres on property located on the southwest corner of Hacks and BNSF Railroad Rideway. The purpose is to create two lots from a single unplatted parcel. Uh they are vacant. The future land use is commercial corridor and the applicable regulations are the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. So uh in sta the staff analysis is as far as utilities there is a 16inch water man running along hacks uh an 8 in water man and a 6-in gas man all located along Hacks Cross. There are also existing sewer and utility easements along the west property line. You can see right here proposed uh and which go to right here lot three to the south where there's a pump station. There's an existing pump station right here. Um these easements will be extended into lots So this easement is right here

would be extended into lots four and five which would allow for access to an existing pump station on the west side of lot three right here. As I stated earlier, there are also communication pedestals located along the northeast corner, located in the northeast corner of lot five, about right here. And the southeast corner of lot four right here. An existing electrical pole with dips servicing lot three is in the northeast corner of lot three. So there's some dips. There's a electrical pole with the dip right here to go underground off of an overhead electric. Uh transportation. Um according to the comprehensive plan 20 240, Hackscross Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Proposed lots four and five have public street frontage on Hackscross Road. A 75 foot crossaxis easement is proposed along the east property line of lot four right here. This easement is reduced to 50 ft on lot five. A conditional use permit was granted by the board of adjustment in May 2025 for a potential outdoor con contractor storage yard on proposed lot five. Condition approval of this cup required that the development of lot five be interconnected right here. So it be interconnected um with the southern proposed lot four for cross access purposes. There is an existing drive apron located. It's about right here approximately 140 ft south of the of the railroad right away. So it's about right here. Uh there is no construction of major public infrastruct infrastructure.

Hence financial guarantee for infrastructure completion is not necessary for recordation of the plat. Uh there are no variances or deviations from the standards of the zoning ordinance andor subdivision regulations. So that and there's no variance or deviations necessary. Also, there's no waiver of required subdivision infrastructure improvement to this request. So, the next steps 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 will be need to be recorded. Once the plat has been recorded, the lots may be sold or building permits issued for proposed developments on the lots in accordance with the city's land development regulations. So the staff recommendation is that the staff recommends approval of the final plat of lots four and five Eagle commercial subdivision subject to the following conditions. Lot improvements shall be responsibility to developer and not of branch. Future development on the lot shall comply with the requirements of the city's various land development regulations. Storm water improvements must be approved by the city engineer and MDEQ. Uh all ser all utilities and services shall be installed underground. The developer of each of the lot should construct a sidewalk along Hackscross Road Street frontage of the concerned lot. A bond or letter of credit for the sidewalks is not required before recordation of the plat. The final plat must be recorded before a building permit may be issued and minor edits are

applicable to the final plat as may be required by city regulations and deemed necessary by city staff. That concludes my presentation. Okay. Any questions of staff? I see Mr. Farley out there. If you wish to come represent the application, how are y'all? Bob Farley, 235 West Shu Avenue, Holly Springs, Mississippi. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Farley? No questions. And thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Long. You may run for cover. He's he's finding out what a long meeting is all about. So anyway, um I I will now open for any any discussion of motions from the commissioners. Make a motion to approve the All right. We've we've got a motion by Mr. Jones to approve the application subject to the staff uh recommendations. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Mr. Long. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Then the motion carries and the application is approved. Thank you so much. All right. Uh we got an application for a zoning map amendment sub submitted by uh German Pariggoy PE Kimley Horn and Associates on behalf of Land Grant LLC Mark Balding Property Owner. The request is reszone two parcels from AR Agriculture Residential District to M1 Light Industrial District. The first parcel is 1.11 plus or minus acres located on the

south side of Kirk Road approximately 760 ft east of Poke Lane known as 12 215 Kirk Road. The second parcel is 3 point is 2.55 plus or minus acres at the north end of Eastern Drive approximately 325 feet north of DInnesota Road known as 8048 Eastern Drive. Staff presentation. Yes sir. Thank you. Um this is a exhibit of the subject property. This is Pulk Lane running along the uh west side of the slide and this is Kirk Road along the north side. We're in an industrialized area of the city and the planning commission may recall back in November of 2021 you reszoned um 216 acres that's shown here in blue which is our M1 color from AR to M1. And what's happened here is the same industrial developer working under the uh corporate name of Land Grant LLC has purchased two additional properties that are on each side of that 216 acres or 1.11 acre parcel one and I'll call it the two and a little 2.55 acre parcel two. And so the request that you have before you is to reszone those two parcels that they purchased and make them part of that larger uh piece of land. And then the next item on the agenda will be a multi-phase plan to subdivide that total 220 acres into three industrial lots and public rights of way. So little bit of a picture here of the broader area where we are. Uh state line road up here to the north. Again this is Pulk Lane and Goodman Road down here to the south. Uh again, our parcel one is

1.11 acres and we're on the south side of Kirk Road, about 760 ft to the um east of Pulk Lane. And right now that property, and this just blows it up for you, that's just vacant wooded area. Parcel two, again, a little bit over two and a half acres in size. And we are at the north end of Eastern Drive, and we are several hundred feet to the north of Dodto Road. um that property is improved uh according to the tax records with a thousand square foot home that was built back in 1965. And if you kind of look at it prior to the industrialization of this area, um a lot of these properties were being used for farming operations and it appears that one is still being used in conjunction with a farm operation. These parcels were both annexed into the city effective in May of 2021. So, if we go to our resoning criteria, we've got our three. First is dealing with the original zoning classification and is it a mistake? And if you go back to the original map that the county adopted for zoning, those parcels appear on that as AR. So, clearly no mistake in the zoning. And then the next two deal with the character of the neighborhood and whether it's changed to justify the resoning and whether a public need exists for the resoning. So, this is one of those situations where you probably have a picture worth a thousand words. Um, on the left hand side you see our 2006 aerial map. This is showing you about a 1.75 square mile area. And you can see our two subject properties in yellow. You can see we have five uh warehouse big industrial buildings over here along the uh west side of Pulk Lane. And next to that is the 2025 aerial map. You can see all these big white rooftops. The number

of buildings in that 1.75 square mile area is increased by 11 up to 16. So clearly that's incontrovertible evidence that you've had changes to the character of the neighborhood. Um we have had a lot of slowed a little bit in the past four or five years but we have had substantial development of those warehouse distribution facilities during the past decade. We do have a limited supply of vacant land in the M1 light industrial zoning district and approval here would add land within the area and we do have adequate road and utility infrastructure to support industrial development. And one of the key parts about this site is its proximity to highway 302 um as well as the highway system that you can reach from highway 302. So, it's very well situated from the perspective of an industrial developer. From the city's perspective, you can see this is our future land use map. You can see our two parcels are in a larger area that is designated on the future land use map for industrial distribution uses. So, really from that planning perspective, the uh use of warehouse distribution is the highest and best use of the property. And as we know, our industrial development in the city does provide job growth. It does expand our local tax base and those are things that are both deemed to be meeting a public need. So have given you a recommended motion finding that the proposed resoning meets the criteria and conforms to the comprehensive plan to recommend that the board reszone the property from properties from uh AR to the uh M1 district. That concludes the staff presentation. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? And I think we have someone here to represent the application. If you'll come forward, please.

Hi there. Emma Donnelly Bullington, Kimley Horn and Associates, 6750 Popular Avenue in Memphis. Um, y'all presented it really well, but so I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any any questions? No questions, then. Thank you. All right. uh open it for public hearing. Anyone here speak for against this application? And I don't see anyone here. So, we'll close the public hearing. I will now open it for any discussion or motions from the commissioner. I make a motion to approve. All right. We have a motion by Miss Singer to approve the application. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second by Miss Lewis. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I any opposed then the application is approved and uh and approved. So our next one is item seven is the application for the preliminary plat branch logistics park submitted by German paraggo Kimley Horn and Associates on behalf of land grant LLC Mark Bowling property owner the request is to subdivide 220.21 21 plus or minus acres into three industrial lots rights away and one common open space and several development phases. The subject property is zone M1 light industrial district including two parcel proposed for reszoning from AR under the previous agenda item and is located on the south side of Kirk Road approximately 760 ft east of Poke Lane. Yes sir. So this is the uh depiction of the 220 acres that now includes the two parcels from the last item. And the proposal is to subdivide that 220 acres into three

industrial lots, rights of way and one common open space over three development phases. And we went over the location under the last item here, Highway 302, Pulk Lane, Kirk Road, Stateline Road. This just shows you, this is from your uh staff report, shows you a summary of the phasing plan. And so when I talk about phasing, I'm talking about the platting of lots and also the construction of um dedication of rightway and the construction of roads or widening of roads. So lot one is up here on the northwest corner of the three lots and it is just under 68 acres in size and phase one would include the platting of that lot and also the following improvements. Um widening out of Kirk Road which includes the dedication of 40 additional feet of rightway and then the construction of this north south road. You can see South Cross Roads Drive to the north and this project proposes to continue that road southward. So it would be dedication of right away with the first phase and construction of the road along that northern uh portion. Um phase two would include the platting of what's shown here as lot three just under 87 acres. Um, it would include the completion of the Kirk Road widening out with the 40 foot wide dedication over here to Forest Hill Irene Road. And then it would also include completion of South Crossroads Drive down here. So you would have a complete road system through the subject property with South Crossroads Drive and also Kirk Road widened out with phase two. And then the third phase is only the platting of the 53.52

acre uh lot three. And then this next slide just shows you that shown on the preliminary plat again with your phasing lines that I just discussed. As far as um South Crossroads Drive, um the rightway is 68 feet wide and includes uh two travel lanes and a 14t center turn lane. You widen that out a little bit because of the truck movement and that includes curb gutter and sidewalks. And so this would be for South Crossroads Drive and would it also include the uh dedication of uh or the same cross-section basically would be done in Kirk Road, but the rightway in that case is 80 ft uh wide. Um now there could be a potential need for deceleration or acceleration lanes. That would be determined by our city engineer who's also going to have to evaluate the need for other improvements. And one of the main items that we always deal with in Olive Branch and with these industrial parks is making sure that we're mitigating potential conflicts with additional truck traffic versus school traffic or uh traffic through neighborhoods. So we'll go back to this previous slide and show you what's also proposed for the second phase. And this is not any type of roadway improvement. This would just simply be the dedication of right of way with the intent to eventually widen out Forest Hill Drive or build Forest Hill Drive through that section of the property. And then we do have a common open space of about 3 acres over here that's in a floodway area that's pretty much undevelopable. and I'll go into that in a little more detail and talking about our Forest Hill uh right away um future dedication. So, this first slide shows you kind of a closeup of the area and we asked for

only 25 ft of rightway. This is our subject property and we asked for only 25 feet of rightway in this area because you can see that Forest Hill Irene doesn't really line up with the property. So when the property over here on the east side which may be coming to you uh in the form of a PD amendment shortly would develop we would get additional right of way over here and that would be at the point of potentially discussing the actual construction of Forest Hill Irene. As the rightway extends down the side of the property, when we get down to this part where you can see with these blue dash lines, this is the um area showing the ditches that are out there in streams. And then it would cut over here and become a 50 foot wide right away along the northern part of that uh ditch. And then again, this area over here would be a common open space that's undevelopable because it's in the uh floodway. So, show you a little bit about what we're trying to accomplish here with Forest Hill Irene because again, we want to keep this as a separate road from the truck traffic. So, again, I just want to reiterate, you know, we're talking about here's our subject property and we're talking about this is crossroads drive and that basically coming down to this point of the property. And then this shows you a couple of exhibits from our comprehensive plan. And this shows you the future alignment of this Forest Hill Irene road along the side of the subject property. And then this is a separate property through the center where some of these various ditches converge. And then you may recall reszoning the property that's located kind of to the south of where this number 39 is. That was part of uh the Kirk Farms development that the planning commission just saw within the past year. and you've approved that for future development of 603 residential lots. So

the idea and this this uh alignment of Forest Hill Irene actually is the spine road through the center of that Kirk Farms development. So you can see that'll be built as part of that development up to about that point. Again, there's a big property here in the center where those ditches converge, but this would dedicate, this project would dedicate right away down here to about this point. So the goal here would be to create a road where you could go from the residential area up here to the Center Hill Schools which are located up here. And you can see on this is a future land use map again from our comp plan. You could see that whole Forest Hill Irene Road alignment. It's pretty much the separator at least on the northern part between what would be our industrial area that would be located over to the west of it and the suburban residential or the more the neighborhood areas that would be located uh to the east of it. So again, the intent would be to eventually develop that road, not for truck traffic, but for uh residential traffic to get from the uh Center Hill Schools back down to the uh residential subdivisions here to the south. And this shows you a copy of the uh final plat. Again, I would point out your uh floodway area down here. You can see the dedication of the roadway here. You can see our right of way for Crossroads Drive for the industrial traffic and then also the rightway that'll need to be dedicated for the widening of Kirk Road. It is recommended for approval subject to the 10 conditions as noted. Most of those are standard, but I did want to talk a little bit about condition number four. And this just basically re reiterates what would be done in the

various phases as far as the public improvements go. Now, we want to make sure if they do decide to come to final plat with smaller lots, which is certainly possible, that we're kind of covering ourselves. So, we're kind of making it clear here with this recommended condition that upon phase two being completed that that road would need to be extended South Crossroads Drive all the way to the south part of the property and that Kirk Road would be fully improved in that second phase even if they do go with smaller lot configuration. Um, as far as um number five goes, um we're talking about the Forest Hill Irene rightway. Again, we're not asking the developer to build any of that. We're just asking for right ofway in the event that the road were to be built in the future. Um, now that could change in the event, the unlikely event that they turned around and said, well, we want to access that Forest Hill Irene Road for industrial traffic. That would change that factor. And I didn't really talk too much about Dodto Road earlier, but um if you see the subject property does go all the way down to Dodto Road. So again, the same thing would apply here. Provided that this developed a large industrial building and all of the access came from um this crossroads drive, there'd be no reason for them to do anything on Doddto Road. However, at some point if they did decide that they wanted to access Dodto Road, they could be subject to making some improvements out for Dodto Road. Even if it was something for just their, you know, employees to be able to come and use Dodto Road, there may be some improvements that would be warranted. But it does appear there's adequate and sufficient right away there to accommodate that. So, I'm happy to answer any questions um with respect to any of the conditions. But otherwise,

that concludes the staff presentation. Any any questions of staff? Any questions of the applicant? If not, then I will uh entertain any motions or comments or discussion from the commissioners. Make a motion to recommend the board of all approve preliminary plat subject to conditions 1 through 10. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Jones to uh approve the application subject to all the staff conditions 1 through 10. Do we have a second? Oh, I have a second by Miss Singer on that one. Uh any other discussion? All those in favor say I. Any opposed? And then the motion carries and application is approved. Thank you so much. Okay. Any other business? Nobody have any other business that I think No, sir. We have a We need to have a motion to adjourn. Then I make a motion to motion by Mr. Jones. Do we have a second? We have a second by Miss Singer. All in favor say I. Any opposing? And we are now adjourned.