Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This meeting is being broadcast and recorded for the public not in attendance. We will follow the published agenda. Public comments will be taken only when an item is open for public hearing. We need a roll call.

William Jones. Here. Steve Strutter. Here. Mark Long. Here. Dion Jones. Here. Donna Singh. Here. Janice Lewis. Here. Diana Sanger.

Here.

Everybody's had a chance to look at the minutes from the last meeting. Are there any comments questions suggestions or edits? Of the minutes if not, I'll ask for a motion to approve the minutes. I make a motion to approve motion to approve by Diane The second second bill road LLC, the 3.5 5 plus or minus acre subject properties on sea for planned commercial district and it's located southeast corner of Alexander Rd and highway 302 known as 7400 Alexander Rd. The request is to remove the stormwater retention power requirements and to amend the original development plan. I think this was the applicant requested this table. This has been requested to be table. So on the motion of the table or any comments. Motion to table from Steve Stratton. I have a second. Second. Second by Mark Long. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion to table passes. uh... number two consideration of application for the the second revision of bridges of camp creek phase two lot twelve submitted by shea skiing skiing engineering on behalf of property owner deepak patel the request is to vote to divide the existing two point nine three plus or minus acre lot twelve into two lots The subject property is zoned C4, planned commercial district, and is located at the east end of McGregor Crossing, approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of McGregor Crossing and East Bridges Drive. Do we have a staff report?

Thank you. Yes, the applicant is requesting to divide one platted C4 lot into two separate lots for commercial development at the eastern end of McGregor Crossing, a private commercial road between Highway 302 and Camp Creek. No zoning amendment is required as this proposal to subdivide is keeping within the general scope. of that project text and preliminary development plan for the existing subdivision. So it's just that one lot being split. Here are both proposed lots on the plat that was submitted. So this satisfies all the shape requirements for lots within the subdivision regulations. Next up we have the utilities leading to that lot. So currently there are all the necessary utilities leading up to the lot proposing to be split. And here's an explanation from subdivision regulations. on the requirements. So under the easement section of the subdivision design standards, utility easements must be provided on plats. Two sewer easements are drawn through lot 12A, one of which extends to lot 12B. Two drainage easements are drawn through lot 12A, both of which extending to lot 12B. However, there is no gas easement drawn through Lot 12A. To reach 12B, this should be added to the plat as there is a 5-foot gas easement running along the northern border of Lots 1 through 11. I'll point out that there's a 36-foot ingress-egress easement drawn across McGregor, crossing on the three plats for Phase 1A, Phase 1B, and Phase 2A. spanning across the northernmost portion of land within lots 1 through 11 and stopping at the edge of lot 12. The proposed plot shows a 24-foot ingress easement right here connecting to that existing 36-foot ingress easement. Thank you. So right here is that 24-foot easement in gray. But if you look right here, across all the other lots, you have a 36-foot egress easement. And this is also slightly off-centered from it. So we're requesting that it be aligned and matched up with that other dimension. And then as far as these other easements, we take no issue with that. It fits along with the drive on the southern portion of the lots. So that part is fine. And so Staff does recommend approval of the request, and the only things we added there are to add that five-foot gas easement along the northern boundary of Lot 12A to connect to Lot 12B, and then, like I just mentioned, increase the northern access easement to 36 feet to match the width and location of that lot. of that on lot 11 in order to ensure the extension of the existing road and sidewalk in the same dimensions and that concludes the presentation i appreciate that thank you any questions for staff is the applicant here to present hello

My name is actually Greg Russell. I'm a civil source engineering and land surveying. And Mr. Skeen had a conflict and asked me to come and help him out this evening. So you've got me instead of him. He indicated from our discussion that he didn't have any issues with the comments. And so I have a limited knowledge of the area, but I can answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant's representative? thank you thank you is there anyone to speak in opposition of this application all right so open it up to Commission for any discussion when asked for a motion I'll make a motion to approve based on SAS recommendations Motion to approve by Donnie Singh. Can I have a second?

Second.

Second by Steve Stratton. Any other comments, questions about the motion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Number three, a new business consideration of an application for the first revision of Lot 3 of the second revision of the G.D. Dethleman subdivision submitted by Shea Skeen, Skeen Engineering on behalf of property owner Peggy Poff, I hope I didn't get that wrong, and Lisa Marie Reisinger. property owners. The request is to divide the existing 5.45 plus or minus acre lot 3 into 2 lots. Subject property is zoned AR. Agricultural residential district is located at the northwest corner of College Road and McElroy Farms Drive. We have the staff report.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To bring us up to where we are here, this would be south on 305 just past Church Road coming up to the intersection of college and 305 a landmark would be the Dollar General I'm going to take a left and head east on College Road probably two miles into College Road on the north side of College Road is what we'll find this piece of property at at this time it is just this area along with this area so a lot one and up to what to what 3 is in the middle. So the proposed use is for single-family residences as you said there are 2 lots lot 3 and what the that's lot 3, a lot 3 be but 3 is landlocked so existing easement will be used to serve slot one as you can see here this heads North and that will extend will notice in your uh recommendation that the maintenance of this road be shared between the three lots the final plat does meet the applicable zoning requirements those sidewalks are currently in the vicinity staff does find that the sidewalk requirement may be waived and staff recommends approval subject to multiple conditions As you can see here the lights are a 2 lots, they're both sound a are they both meet the minimum lot size of one acre for the a our district. They both meet the setback requirements to lot with us set building setback line is at least 110 feet. The plant does meet all zoning requirements. Here are their next steps. The applicant does not request a variance or a deviation from the standards of the zoning ordinance that is for the waiver part. So you'll notice that the sidewalks were waived. Staff does not find that there are any variance or deviation warranted. You can see staff recommendation and next steps are upon recommendation by the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Mayor of Alderman. When approved, the board said plat will need to be recorded. Once the plat has been recorded, a building permit may be issued for development on the lot. See staff's recommendation. That is the conclusion of my presentation. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? I've got one. And this is just for my edification. What if there's a dispute on the cross-access easement? If I buy 3A and the person on 3B doesn't clean up their, a tree falls, what is the legal, how is it legally binding that they'll all all or they'll you know, take care of it.

What's the legal by so hypothetically a tree falls. Yeah, this is a tree fall on the easement is true.

A lot on on the easement on the easement in front of 3 B.

Yes, sir. You notice you have an exhibit there with your plant on that plant there is a note that does talk about shared maintenance of the cross access easement. Is it a condition It is not a condition because I had added to the plant. So it is on the plan about the shared access easement along with the maintenance paving and widening. You will notice that it is a requirement for the driveways to be paid.

And so it and that's on the notes in the plot. The owners lot 13 and 3 B Shelby response for driveway widening, paving and maintenance does is that the legal is that the legal teeth in behind it? OK, that's that's all I was looking for. Is the applicant here?

To present.

Yes, Greg Russell was civil source again. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Any pretty straightforward. All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant's representation? Thank you. Thank you. There's anyone to speak in opposition of this application?

No.

All right. I'll open it up for the commission for discussions and ask for a motion.

I make a motion to approve subject to the staff recommendation.

1, 3, 6, got a motion to approve by channels of the 2nd. 2nd, but Bill Jones. Discussion on the motion. If not all those in favor, Sam and the post. The motion passes. a new business number four consideration of an application for the final plan of shirley home subdivision submitted by greg russell civil source llc on behalf of property owner scott lawhorn the request is to create four commercial industrial lots totaling 10.96 plus or minus acres the subject property is zoned c2 highway commercial district and m1 light industrial district and is located on the northwest corner of frontage road and exchange drive known as 8263 frontage road we have staff report

Thank you Mister chairman. Again just to give us some direction here this is north on 78 up to craft road would take a exit there pull back left and head West down the frontage road you can see the water tower shadow here so we'll take a left in front of that head north on frontage road. There's will find these lights. Mister law horn has recently paved this back in here. We can also see some truck repair in the front here. And we can see some retail here in C2. So the subject property is currently unplatted. The original, if we were just looking at the property before here, this is 10.4 acres. We're up to 9.6, so 10.96 acres. These are all going to be zoned. You can see here is commercially and one in one. The proposed final plat establishes these four lots. Public utilities are available for the proposed lot. Staff does recommend approval subject to various conditions. We've got a little bit about access and infrastructure here. Proposed lots one 2 and 4 have direct they don't have direct frontage, but they have frontage on to using this lot lot for has access to frontage road. But they have direct access to frontage rate which is a public street access to lot 3 will be provided with across access easement as you can see here. No additional street improvements to frontage road are required as part of this proposed plant. So again, we talked about it. Here is the final plat. It talks about the four lots. It also shows the existing buildings. You can see the C2 and M1 as highlighted with the numbers one, two, three, and four. These are the bulk regulations which are applicable. The new lots do meet the zoning and bulk regulations. The existing industrial buildings are shown on the plat. They do comply with the applicable setback requirements. Overall, the proposed plat is consistent with the applicable zoning standards. Here is our recommendation along with just some If you wanted just to see for yourself which addresses were C2 and which addresses were M1, you can also see the existing land use here and the future land uses industrial distribution, which all of these fit into very well. Again, as we talked about with the last presentation, the next steps beyond you all will be to forward this to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for consideration. When approved, the said Board When approved, the plat would need to be recorded. Once the plat has been recorded, a building permit may be issued. So with the recommendation of the Shirley Home Subdivision, here are the six conditions, and that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

I had a question concerning...

Just the zoning, overall zoning of all four lots. If it looks, now I may be wrong, but I see on the chart it says camper storage for lot four.

does that include like truck storage and does the c2 zoning accommodate that like if they did decide to park trucks there or would that rather have to be an m1 c2 zoning uh truck storage depends on you know what kind of truck storage we're getting into but that's uh truck storage it would be permissible um if it is a paved lot and there is direct access it would cover that sir it would cover that in c2 it wouldn't have to be an industrial zoning Well, I mean. The question was would the sea to zone allow for truck storage.

Back on that back lot on lot number four, that was my main concern.

You're talking semi-tractor trailers.

Yeah, semi-tractor trailers and stuff.

Are there any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here?

Last time I promised. Greg Russell with Civil Source. Representing Ms. Shirley Holmes and Scott Lawhorn this evening on this. The purpose of this plot is to... Well, they mentioned, staff mentioned that lots one and lot three are retail. Lot number three is feral gas, and they, in that particular lot, they fill up the five-pound tanks for grills. And then on lot number one, they are renting that and re- modeling it, I guess, so that they can fill the big residential tanks. So it'll be two different divisions of the same name of the company, but they operate separately. And so with the modifications that they want to do to the site to accommodate those big tanks required it to be planted, required to build a permit and required to be planted. We were able to give that extra property that he discussed on the south side there because they also own that adjacent 20 acres too. That's all I have. Do you have any questions I'll be happy to answer?

Any questions for the applicant?

uh same question uh what's what's lot four being used for right now i know it says camper storage but yeah i'm sorry no no problem uh what is what's lot four being used for currently as it sits right now at this time i don't know um there's been several things that have been kicked around and and i don't know i see i don't have that updated image and i see i know he's paved it it looks like he striped it so i don't know um you know the um Roy Holmes and Scott Lawhorn have Mr. Roy's past, but they operate a construction company, paving company, so it could be to store some of their stuff. I don't really know. Scott was using lot number one as his personal storage space for his equipment. And so since Farrell took that, then maybe he's just moving it to the back. I don't know.

And so right now, the reason you're having it plotted is for construction on lot one, is that right?

That's correct. Specifically, they want to build a dock back there in between where it says lot number one and this building. they want to build a dock there and that would be a concrete dock and it's raised so the employees can get up there mess with you know fill the tops of the tanks and it also gives them safety from you know an impediment from a truck and then it's also going to have proposed to have a I like to call carports you know the the middle with the thin metal over the top of the just keep employees out of you know out of the weather, but that's that's what they want to do and you can't get building permit unless it's platted and the platform right catch 22.

Any questions for that. Staff did you have that. yes upon referring back to the zoning ordinance again we did not find that truck storage drop yard would be permissible in that back storage lot okay um so i'll come back to greg if i may um the the the image that we're looking at looks like it's it is striped for tractor trailer storage in fact there's some trailers out there. And you said see to would not allow that I mean I'm sorry yes, see to not allow that.

Correct right now what they have back there is camper storage so what you're seeing from the satellite view. The camper storage yard.

So I just want to make sure that that if If we approve this and they plan on putting semi trucks back there instead of track instead of campers that if we approve see to they won't be allowed to do what it looks like the images is showing that they want to do so I just want to make sure that. Shirley Holmes is OK with us approving see to or or considering see to if it turns out that they really wanted to park something different back there.

So the campers are okay and the trucks are not?

The application before the planning commission is for the subdivision plot not to rezone the property to C2. So the application before the planning commission is for the subdivision plot not a re-zoning action. The property is already zoned C2. Now in the C2 zoning district, you can have campus storage. You cannot have TRUCK STORAGE OR KIND OF DROP YARD TRUCKING ACTIVITY. BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN PACK THEIR OWN TRUCKS. THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM EVERYBODY DRIVING AND RENTING THE PROPERTY TO PACK THEIR TRUCKS LIKE YOU HAVE IN DROP YARDS. THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN PACK THEIR OWN TRUCKS WHICH ARE PART OF THEIR BUSINESS. It's like employees packing their own cars on their property. That is permitted in the C2 district. But if you wanted to turn it into a drop yard, anybody can come out from elsewhere and pack trucks and so on. That will have to be a conditional use in the M1 or M2 zoning district.

All right.

Thank you. So Ferragas is permitted to park Ferragas trucks on that property. Thank you. You're welcome, sir.

Yes. So if he wants to change that use to that use, then we would have to come back for a zoning on that to make it compliant.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone to speak in opposition or in favor of this application? No. All right. Bring it back to the commission for discussion. Ask for a motion.

make a motion to approve based on stats recommendations.

A motion to approve by Donnie Singh. Can I have a second? Second. I've got a second from Mark Long. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. One more, you can't leave yet. Consideration of an application for the 3rd revision of Ross Road Plaza subdivision submitted by she's skiing skiing engineering on behalf of property owner Marvin Boland the request is to to divide the existing 4.8 0 plus or minus acre lot one into 3 lots the subject properties owns the 2 C 2 highway commercial district and is located at the southeast corner of Ross Road and West Sandage Road known as 5 5950 Ross Road. We have a staff. presentation.

Thank you Mister chairman just to get you. Dialed in on the location. This is the final plot for the 3rd vision of Ross road Plaza. It is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of West sandage road. Ross road right here there is a Convenience store located directly on the corner, but this application deals with these lots lot one lot two and lot three these are the suggested lots the parent tract is 4.8 acres it is zoned c2 highway commercial district and As I stated previously, it is at the southeast corner of the intersection, or roughly the southeast corner. There are public utilities available, namely sewer, water, and gas. The future land use designation is neighborhood commercial, as you can see right here. Moving along. I've included some site pictures of the existing buildings that are on site. This is the West Sandage Road frontage. here was centered road Ross road here and another the lot 3 Ross proposed lot 3 Ross read the bulk regulations are front setback 50 feet there is no side setback in C 2 and the rear setback is 20 feet the maximum building square footage is 10,000 square feet. Here's the submitted plot. It's pretty straightforward. Lot one, lot two, and lot three. I will note, and you'll see this in the staff recommendation, that staff does require, as does the subdivision regulations, that the plat include the existing buildings. The applicant is aware and they're going to submit a revised plat before the Board of Aldermen. That will be in the recommendation. So our next step is upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, the final plot will be presented to the Board of Aldermen for approval and the plot would have to be recorded before any building permits can be issued for construction upon any of the lots. So I'll move on to the recommendation and you'll see what I just mentioned. Staff does recommend approval of the final plot of the third revision of Ross Road. plaza minor lot subdivision subject to these following conditions. I'll note number five, add the following to the plat before it may be presented to the Board of Aldermen, the right-of-way dimensions of both Ross Road and West Sandage, or the total right-of-way width of each, and importantly, the location of all buildings on all lots, including lot three. That concludes staff presentation.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff? Is the applicant here to present?

Yes, I'm up again.

Yep. Greg Russell with Silver Source. I don't have anything to add for this plot. Any questions for the applicant?

No. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone speaking in opposition to this application? No. All right. I'll open it up for the commission for discussion and ask for a motion.

Motion to approve.

Got a motion to approve from Steve Stratton. I have a second. I have a second from Diane Singer. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. All right, number six. Consideration of an application for the final plan of Redeemer Baptist Church submitted by Rusty Norville. Civil Engineering Solutions LLC on behalf of property owner Redeemer Baptist Church, the request is to create a single lot of 2.35 plus or minus acres. The subject property is zoned R2 single family residential district and is located on the south side of Catherine Drive, approximately 300 feet southwest of the intersection of Catherine Drive and Highway 178, known as 5050 Catherine Drive. We have a staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is located, this final plot is located on the southeast side of Catherine Drive right here. Here's Highway 78 right here. There's a A close-up shot right here. Here's the church sanctuary. As I said, it's on the southeast side of Catherine Drott right here. There is a 2.35-acre parent parcel. It is zoned R2, single-family residential, and public utilities are available. I think it's important to note that the applicant has submitted a revised plat from what's in your... in your pocket. The applicant submitted the revised plot in order to include the building on the plot, the original originally submitted plot did not have the building so we requested that he put the building on the on the plot on the plot and he did submit it to us. He's sent it to me yesterday. So I did put it in the presentation here. It was revised on a 1026 to add the buildings as you can see right here. It's a pretty straight forward. The next steps would be approval by the Board of Alderman and the final plot must be recorded before any building pill permits may be issued for the construction of permitted uses on the lots as proposed. So staff recommendation is staff recommends approval of the final plat for lot one, Redeemer Baptist Church subject to the following conditions. As you can see, one through six. I did strike through item four because he did submit that revised plat that does now presently show the location of all buildings on the proposed lot. That concludes staff presentation.

Thank you are there any questions for staff.

And just for modification. The new down the board. What constitutes the waving of the what what do you have to show that to waive them.

Generally, it's sidewalks are not dominant in predominant in the area. we don't require construction of sidewalks along. If there's no sidewalks there in the area, then we don't require sidewalks to be constructed. Yeah, there's no sidewalks along Catherine.

Any other questions for staff? Does the applicant here present?

evening my name is rusty normal with civil engineering solutions 317 west market in dyersburg tennessee i don't have anything to add been working with staff they've been helpful so that's where we are i'm available for questions all right thank you any questions for the applicant thank you thanks is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this application or in favor if not i'll open up for to the commission for discussion and ask for a motion

make a motion to approve motion to approve subject to the conditions listed second motion to approve by janet lewis subject to conditions one two three five and six and we have a second from mark wall any discussion on the motion all those in favor any opposed the motion passes Number seven, consideration of an application for the final plan of Ortiz Minor Lot Subdivision, submitted by Greg Russell, Civil Source, LLC, on behalf of Property Owners USA Land Investing, LLC, and Arikneo Ortiz-Escarano. apologize if i messed that up the request is to create three single family residential lots totaling 14.50 plus or minus acres the subject property is zoned ar agricultural residential district and r3 planned residential district and is located on the east end of state line road east approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of state line road east and les larkin lane we have a staff report

Thank you Mister chairman as we discussed before the meeting the applicant has requested to table this application until the September 8th 2026 meeting. So he can submit revised information.

So we have a request to table by the applicant. More move forward to the motion.

Motion to table.

Motion to table from Bill Jones. Second? Second. We'll give a second to Diane Singer. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. Number 8, consideration of an application for the final plat of DeSoto County Schools Career Technical Center East Subdivision, submitted by Jay Kaufman, Allen, and Hochul, Inc., on behalf of property owner DeSoto County Schools. request is to create a single lot of 42.50 plus or minus acres to be used for the career technical center the subject property is owned ar agricultural residential and is located on the east side of craft road in the southeast corner of the future expansion of west sandage road and craft road can we have a staff report

Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners, before you is a request to consider a one-lot subdivision plot for the DeSoto County Schools Career Center East. You have acted on the rezoning of this particular 42.50 acres as it were from the Funderburg PUD to the ARL zoning district specifically for the purpose of the construction of this school. That reason in application was approved by the Board of Admin. With regard to the location, this is Church Road East. I think there's a convenience store with fuel pumps under construction at this location. This is Craft. So if you just get to the intersection of Church Road and Craft and you head north towards Goodman Road, it will be at this general location where the existing right of way for West Sandwich Road intersects with Craft Road North. So that is a subject property under consideration, a zone A agricultural residential. Utilities such as gas lines, sewer lines are generally available in the vicinity of this property. There is no public water available to this particular 42.50 acres. However, in order to service the proposed school, the City of Olive Branch is committed to extending water to this piece of property. So all public utility infrastructures will be available at a time this is developed. Staff has already received construction plans for administrative review and approval. for the career tech. This is the plot as proposed. It meets zoning regulations and subdivision regulations of the city. Staff recommends approval subject to the general conditions one to five, which you call attention specifically to condition number four and for the reason. Condition number four provides that if the Board of Admin approves the rezoning, project text, and associated preliminary development plan for the Desoto Innovation District to the west of the subject property, then the developer of the subject lot shall construct just five feet wide sidewalks along the street frontage of the property. If the board denies the said re-zoning and associated development plans, the developer of the subject lot shall construct an eight feet wide trail section along the street frontage of the property. You will recall the Desoto Innovation District is proposed to be on the east side, on the west side of Craft Road. Per the plans of that district, Nail Road at this location is intended to cross at about this point. and the trail system coming from the ball fields will go to our long church, extend on craft, and if the Desoto Innovation District is approved, then the trail will cross at this point into the Desoto Innovation District property. And as such, the trail will not extend to the 42.50-acre lot under consideration. If that is the case, then all you really need in front of this property is a general sidewalks. as required in the city, you will not need a trail. However, if that is denied, then the vision is basically to carry that trail up to the property for the Distributed Innovation District, have a trailhead there, and kind of terminate the trail at that point. So that's really what that particular number four is intended to address. The Board of Admin was, I hope at the time of this report, that before this meeting maybe the decision would have been made as far as the the idea is concerned the Board of Adam and table to that application to September 8. So even at the next meeting when these will be decided. The fate of the decision to innovation district was to be up in the air so that is why you have that condition before that concludes stops presentation. Thank you.

Thank you are there any questions for staff. Is the applicant here.

Good evening chairman, planning Commission members and staff. My name is Chris Ashbrand. I'm architect with Allen and Hochul here to answer any questions and then also just ask for a couple of clarifications on staff recommendations. The first question I had was, I believe it was the. The first staff recommendation that improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Song had previously mentioned that our branch had committed to extending the water to the site. So just requesting clarification that the water is still expected to be provided by the city of our branch to the site and the other improvements would be by the developer. And then the second item was the. Item number four. It's kind of a timing issue, and I think we could work through what we've had meetings as recent as today with DCS. The project, DeSoto County Schools, the project is currently out for bid. There's a lot of dirt work on the site that we're trying to get underway before winter weather comes because this facility, the school system needs this to be operational in the fall of 2028, and we anticipate that it's about an 18-month construction window. So in speaking with the superintendent of DCS, they're going to provide they're going to commit to doing whatever five foot wide sidewalk or eight foot wide sidewalk that is required. It's just the timing of it. We need to get this project under construction before we hit winter weather. So I guess the first question, the eight foot wide trail section, is that just similar to a five foot wide concrete sidewalk, but it's just an eight foot wide version, or is it something above and beyond the width of the concrete sidewalk?

Do you want to answer the questions now or we'll wait? All right. Um, those are your two questions. Well, we will answer the questions.

Sure. Sure. And, and just, just again, just to stress that we're trying to get this project under construction, uh, and pull a permit. Um, we actually received bids on this project, uh, September 1st. I understand that the innovation district meeting got. Table or the discussion of that got tabled until the 8th So again and speaking with DCS they will provide whatever sidewalk we actually have an allowance in the bid to cover Whatever the sidewalk is in excess of what we anticipate the cost being so just just understanding that we're trying to get this project under construction because of when expected winter weather bringing bringing wet at this time of year uh necessary we need it but we just know there's a lot of dirt work to move so that that's all just the the timing of it all right we will answer your questions are there any questions for the applicant no questions we can go ahead and um i've got a question um

And I've got a question for staff.

So the trail section that's been constructed, that the city's constructed from the ball fields, is that what you're looking for at this location as well? And I don't know if you've seen that trail section, but I'll let staff answer that question.

Yes, to begin with your question, yes, this would be an extension of the trail system from the ball fields. But within the ball fields area, it is more of a nature's trail. So this is the area, this is Ross Road. The trail system kind of mingles inside this forest area, so it's more of a nature trail. Asphalt, 10 feet wide also. When it gets along craft, you really don't have that forest environment to give it more of a nature trail look. It becomes almost like a wider sidewalk, to use the expression that he used. The same has been constructed, section of it has been constructed behind this convenience store with four pumps. It's basically a wider sidewalks, concrete sidewalk, if I can put it that way. If you have to construct that in front of this property as we discussed in the office, it will basically be within the public right of way. There is a north right of way there from the edge of asphalt on craft to the end of the property line is over 25 feet wide. So there is enough room there to put whether a five feet or an eight feet wide sidewalk, if you want to put it that way. And if you look at it as a trail to still give you that kind of a nature feel, it would be good that it be positioned. Usually we require street trees. to be planted every 35 feet along the public street frontage. So they still give you that kind of nature feel, especially when the trees grow to maturity. It would be good that whether it's a trail or a sidewalk, be positioned behind the trees. So you've got craft road, you plant the trees, and then you put a trail behind it. In that way, you kind of use the trees to separate the trail from the cars on the road. so to speak, so that is a design we looked at. And I think that in some regard addresses your question in terms of whether it's a sidewalk, you're just making it eight feet wide, yes. And it would need to be shown on the construction plans My advice will be, it's always better to over budget and then cut it off than to under budget. So you can design it as eight feet wide from the very beginning and then build it as such. If you have to then amend it based on whatever the board decides on September 1st. If you have to amend it to the construction plans and reduce it to five feet, then it's easier to do at that time. That would be my advice. Then condition number one, which you call attention to, the city is going to be taking this up to the board of our demand that would be revised to add that what I would be the responsibility of the city.

And should. Is it is it better for us to put on site improvements since this the city is going to do

The water is really the only thing that the city is committed to doing as far as the subdivision infrastructure is concerned. Every other on-site improvements, parking lot, the buildings, all of that is being done by the DeSoto County School System.

And it says in here, 2.3, 2.31, the City of Olive Branch is committed to extending a public water line. So it's in the document. And it will be in our, if it's approved. Understood. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm sorry. Were there any questions?

Yeah. So will this create a, and I don't know if this is for you or for them, will this create a school zone on that roadway? understand in the future you're talking about putting this this DeSoto Innovation District which would would have some transportation and are we gonna put a school zone right next to that

When you talk of schools zone, let's talk about the nice to be reduced to speed to 20 between 20 miles an hour between certain hours all that is it's possible it's possible it would depend the city engineer and public works department with the police that is they'll have to look into that that is very very possible because if you start having. depending on the number of kids you start having in there, what time of the day, and so on and so forth. There are a lot of other factors that take into consideration in declaring whether there should be a school zone at particular times of the day. So it may be the case that maybe you only have kids in there from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock, then you have to reduce the speed at that time. It just depends. But that will be something that we'll look at down the line. The Soto Innovation District is a different ballgame, different from what is happening on this particular piece of property. As a district, the Desiree Innovation District, as a district, it's basically just a planned development. They're just using the name district, it's just a name, so to speak. It's just the last planned development of over 600 acres. But yes, it's possible that the speed in that area may be reduced, but that's something down the line which the public works department, the city engineer, they will all take a look at that and determine whether that needs to be done or not.

Just clarify something for me. I'm a little bit confused. The DeSoto Innovation District modifications that were required by the Board of Aldermen last week, and is that coming back to us on September 8th after they make those adjustments?

No, ma'am.

Okay, good. Thank you. I didn't think so, but thank you.

All right, any other questions to staff? All right, I guess continue commission discussion and ask for a motion.

Let me say no with a caveat.

Yes.

Let me say no with a caveat. At this point, the motion do not include them to come back. But if the scale of the changes that are made It is too broad. Too many changes are made. It's possible that the board may look at it and say it's good that the Planning Commission put its eye on this. So that's a decision for the board to make on September 1st. But at this point, no.

Thanks. All right.

I'll ask for a motion.

Motion to approve, subject to the recommendations stated.

I've got a motion to approve by Janet Lewis. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Donnie Singh. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. And number 9 consideration of an application for the 2nd revision of dancing Oaks planned commercial subdivision submitted by Dylan Walker, Houston engineering on behalf of the officer Sally. A property owner request is to buy the existing lot one of 7.0 one plus or minus minus acres into 3 lots. The subject properties owns the sea for planned commercial district and is located at the Northeast corner progress way and hacks cross road. We have a staff report.

Thank you, sir. Before you use your request to consider essentially a replant of lot one of the down scene, or this is area one of these plant commercial district, the existing plant lots of layout essentially in this area one is lot one and lot two give you an idea of where we are in the city this is progress way going into legacy park industrial park this is hacks cross road intersection to the intersection at this point This is Wiseman subdivision, so the piece of property you are looking at is directly across the street from Wiseman subdivision. A convenience store with four palms has recently been constructed on lot one. What the applicant proposes to do, essentially, is to split lot one into three lots. Lord 1A, Lord 1B, and Lord 1C. 1A and 1C will be 1.36 acres, and 1B will be 4.29 acres. 1B will have the existing convenience store with four pumps. There are easements, basically the drive aisles that connect all these three lots are designated on the plot as cross-access easements for the benefit of all three lots. This area designated here in blue is a shared stormwater management area, regional in character as such. to be used by proposed lot 1A, 1B, and 1C, and lot 2. So it has been designed and sized such that future development on lot 2 will benefit that particular easement. For this reason, the hatch area as shown here designates that stormwater easement for the benefit of both Lot 2, so part of it lies on Lot 2, and part of it lies on Lot 1B. This is the plot as drawn. It meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance of the city. A key element to point out, this is a planned development. And usually when looking at a subdivision of planned developments, you have to compare it with a preliminary development plan. The preliminary development plan of this property did not conceive the lots to be so laid out. But in a very unique way, it included a language that is not very common with other planned developments in the city. Namely, it called for a maximum floor area ratio, what is called a FAR. in planning for the development of the entire piece of property and for the development of each lot, which is basically 25%. That is not very common to see in the project tax or plan development. What that means is whatever number of lots the developer proposes, you cannot have more than 25% of that lot basically occupied by the building. If it ends up being a story building, then the sum of, let's say it's two floors, the sum of the first and the second floor cannot exceed 25% of the total square footage or area of that lot. If it is three stories, the sum of the three floors cannot exceed 25% of the entire area of that particular lot. On account of that, It's possible to create or to redesign the lots and lay them out as they are proposed on condition that the development of each lot does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25 stipulated in the project tax for Downs and Oaks plant commercial development. That concludes staff's presentation including a recommendation for all these other conditions one through six. Thank you.

Thank you are there any questions for staff.

This is just for my own knowledge. I'm assuming that the sea store here was built before we passed all the new regulations that got that that now governs the source basically that has to be a red light has to get a conditional use permit that that was we implemented those rules before after this or under construction.

Those regulations, interesting question. Those regulations, I see where we're going. Those regulations were The C-Store is vested. The legal term is.

Yeah, there was that one and a half year period or what was it, two year period or something like that.

Yeah, the C-Store is vested in the sense that it was approved before the new regulations went into place. So they did not have to get a conditional use permit. They met all the milestones that allowed them to remain vested.

Okay, and that's why this one doesn't have to remain on the hard corner, right?

I'M GOING TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION. I NEED TO CONSORT WITH LEGAL ON SOMETHING SERIOUS. I'M GOING TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE REQUEST TO TABLE BY STAFF. I NEED A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. MOTION TO TABLE BY DONNY SINGH. CAN I HAVE A SECOND?

YEAH, I'LL SECOND.

SECOND BY BILL JONES. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? NO DISCUSSION? All those in favor. The motion to table passes. Are there any other topics.

What's the zoning update, if one may say. The regulations that the Planning Commission recommended for the Board of Aldermen's consideration regarding updates to the zoning ordinance, data center, signs, all of those. Those, the Board has scheduled a public hearing for August 18th. So that will be next week, Tuesday. The Deserto Innovation District, we've talked about that. That was tabled to the September 1st meeting. Just to you on other knowledge, other issues for the general knowledge of the planning commission. There is an upcoming training for planning commissioners, and I think our city attorney will also be there for that to give that training. It's coming up on August 19th. Is that next week? When is it, Thursday? Next week, is that Wednesday or Thursday? Next week, Wednesday. So next week, Wednesday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Northwest Mississippi Reuters office in Nesbitt. We're going to send out an email with our address to Planning Commission encouraging you to please attend that particular training session if you can. Something that I also wish to mention, it regards Planning Commission's actions when it comes to rezoning and subdivision regulations. The city has the authority to rezone property whether an applicant, to put it in a very raw way, whether an applicant requests it or not, whether an applicant, of course, whether the property owner approves or not, the city has authority to rezone property. which means the Planning Commission has authority to recommend the rezoning of a piece of property, whether the applicant likes the rezoning or not, whether the applicant likes the particular zoning district or not. A zoning ordinance says, even at a meeting, Planning Commission can recommend and the Board of Admin has authority to act same. If somebody recommends or requests a particular zoning district, you can recommend a lesser zoning district at a meeting. So if somebody comes before the board and says, I want to ask that this property be rezoned to C2, you can recommend that it be rezoned to C1. But you cannot recommend that it be rezoned to C3 without going back and re-advertising and kind of starting afresh. So you can recommend to a lesser zoning district, and you do not need the permission of the applicant to do so, the property owner to do so. The Board of Admin exercises the same authority. When it comes to subdivision plots, however, that is different. The city does not have powers to approve or does not approve subdivision plots without it having been requested by the property owner. The city just doesn't plot people's property. In the first place, for you to record, the act of subdivision is never completed until the plot is recorded. So you may recommend it, the Board of Aldermen may approve it, but if the property owner says, I'm not recording it, then there was no subdivision. Until the plot is recorded, there is no subdivision. And the plot will not be recorded until the property owner signs on it. So if you approve a plot with a particular condition or need that a property owner doesn't like, the property owner can simply decide, I'm not going to sign and record the plot. And so the act of subdivision never takes place. So zoning matters, the board can act, the Planning Commission can act with all its powers, whatever way it deems appropriate insofar as it meets the rezoning criteria. But when it comes to subdivision regulations, it is extremely important that we make sure that whoever is standing there representing the application is either the property owner or somebody authorized to speak on the application when it comes to subdivision plots. With regard to the requirement for sidewalks, which I think Mr. William Jones asked, there are two main elements in the city we take into consideration. In the ARL agricultural residential districts, sidewalks are not required. The reason being the lots there are minimum one acre in size, so they are too large. And it doesn't make sense. And usually those are . The traffic on that particular street is very low because the density is very low. Folks can walk on the road without the fear of coming into contact with too many cars. The density is very low. That's the only district that permits anyone to construct without sidewalks. In every other district in the city, sidewalks are required. If we have a situation as we had today, that you don't have sidewalks in the vicinity of the property, then yes, staff may recommend that those sidewalks be waived. If we have a situation where the sidewalks do not exist on the street, TODAY. BUT THERE ARE OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THAT ROAD THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITH REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALKS, THEN STAFF'S POSITION WILL BE TO REQUIRE THAT THAT PARTICULAR APPLICANT CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS. BECAUSE BASICALLY WE ARE SETTING IT UP IN A WAY THAT IN FUTURE ALL THE SIDEWALKS CAN CONNECT TO EACH OTHER. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO AVOID A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A SIDEWALK GOING TO NO WAY. THAT CONCLUDES ANY OTHER INFORMATION STAFF WANTED TO PROVIDE. THANK YOU.

I've got a quick question. And it's probably more for precedents in the past. There's no need for open up a public hearing for a final plan. But in the past. It has. What is the staff's recommendation for final plan to revisions to final plans.

At preliminary plat- Let me say that non-controversial.

Non-controversial final plat revisions.

Let me step back a bit. At preliminary plat, so we'll do preliminary and then final.

Preliminary, yeah.

Preliminary plats will generally apply when you have major subdivisions. Our recommendation would be, although, You do not have a statutory requirement for a public hearing. For preliminary plots, it will be advisable to open it up for public hearing. Because let's say you are dealing with preliminary plots subdivision. You're dealing with 50 lots, 100 lots. New streets are being constructed. The neighborhood, in some regard, is going to be affected by having all these many other lots coming into the area. So it makes sense to open it up for people to talk about the layout on the preliminary plot. Generally, at final plot, that preliminary work has been done. Houses have been constructed, or we just have a minor subdivision. If we have a situation where somebody has complained to staff, about that plant, maybe they know that a plant is coming up and they feel, oh, there is water coming from this area to our property, how is this going to protect us? If we have that pre-knowledge and as such that person has requested to address the planning commission, then we will notify you and it will be good to open it up for public hearing and listen to that person. That is at the kind of chairman's discretion. But a good practice would be to open it up and listen to that particular person if we have had those concerns raised before the hearing. If it's a minor subdivision plot, that is really non-controversial, so to speak. Some of them you could even put on consent agenda. Just one lot, nothing. You could even put on consent. That's fine. These things are ministerial. There's no requirement for a public hearing. You can go ahead and act upon it as such. If we find that it is a subdivision plot that has a lot of issues going on. There are street problems, storm water issues. It may be a minor plot, but that neighborhood has got a lot of issues that this plot may be affected in one way or the other. Then it may be wise, at chairman's discretion, to open it up for a public hearing. So sometimes you may look at just how many items you have on your agenda. So if you've got three public hearings, one of them is taking two hours, You have to ask yourself, do you want to sleep here till midnight, doing public hearings on every item, or do you think this is minor, non-significant enough for you to simply proceed in a ministerial way, conscious that that is not the end. They still have an opportunity at the Board of Admin to be heard. So it's really for the chairman to kind of get a feel for it. And if staff thinks that there are issues going on, we will send you an email. We will notify you. We'll let you know before the meeting and say, please, you may want to open this up to listen to the general public on it. And sometimes at a meeting, when folks come in, we kind of feel the flaw. We know those who are here to speak on particular items. We know there are folks here, then we'll let you know. So they don't come and then go home.

I think everybody scans the parking lot as they come in. All right. Any questions for staff? A motion to adjourn?

I make a motion to adjourn.

I got a motion to adjourn from Diane Sanger. Second? Second from Steve Stratton. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.