Olive Branch planning commission recommends rezoning for 38.89-acre Bristol Oaks subdivision

The Olive Branch Planning Commission on a voice vote recommended rezoning a 38.89-acre property at the southeast corner of Pleasant Hill Road and State Line Road from ARO (Agricultural Residential) to R-3 (Planned Residential) and directed the applicant to submit a new, clean project text and preliminary development plan to staff before the Board of Aldermen public hearing.

The commission’s motion, which carried with all members saying “aye,” also rejected the applicant’s strike-through/underline project text as presented and added a condition requiring a 10-foot buffer along the rear property line with language to “retain or replace trees within the buffer.” The item was tabled earlier this year and returned after the applicant revised the plan to include stormwater management and 10% open space.

Staff recapped the application and the commission’s request from the Jan. 14 meeting: demonstrate a change in neighborhood character or public need, provide at least 10% open space, and add stormwater infrastructure. Planning staff said the current submission addressed those items, reducing lots from 51 to 42 and lowering density from about 1.32 to 1.08 dwelling units per acre. “The applicant has basically done just that,” planning staff said, noting added stormwater facilities, open space and recreational amenities on the plan.

Applicant representative Lauren Ward told commissioners the applicant continues to assert that a 2012 rezoning was a mistake but added the change-in-circumstance argument the commission requested. “My client still proceeds with that defense. There was a mistake made in 2012. That’s our position,” Ward said, and added that the revised plan provides the sidewalks, open space and detention shown to comply with current requirements.

A nearby resident who spoke during the public hearing raised recurring flooding and pump-station problems on adjacent property and pressed whether prior notes on drainage had been conveyed to engineers. Planning staff responded that the revised preliminary development plan shows a detention pond and that the city engineer will require stormwater calculations and construction plans; “they cannot discharge from this side more water than they are currently discharging pre-development,” staff said, describing the detention pond and piped conveyance in the plan.

Commissioners discussed a landscape/screening buffer along the rear lot line and cautioned that preserving existing large trees might conflict with grading needed for positive drainage. The motion that carried directs the applicant to submit a new project text without strike-throughs or underlines, include the 10-foot buffer, and “retain or replace trees within the buffer” if clearing is necessary for stormwater infrastructure.

The commission’s recommendation sends the item to the Board of Aldermen for public hearing. Planning staff said it will seek a revised project text from the applicant’s counsel and that, if received in time, the Board of Aldermen public hearing will be scheduled for May 20; otherwise the hearing would be held June 17.

The commission’s action was a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen; final approval, any additional conditions and the project text must be set by that board and through the city’s development-review process, including the city engineer’s approval of stormwater construction plans.