City Council - Regular Meeting

And uh first on the agenda, we'll jump right into it. Number one, we'll have public comment on agenda related items. So you have uh anything to say regarding anything on the on tonight's agenda. Uh you may come forward at this time and speak. Please state your name and address.

David Lucky, uh 110 Clarendon, Hendersonville. Um, I wanted to talk about the uh the zoning ordinance, the ZOKO. Last, uh, I think June 18th, uh, they had a public session where they went over the zoning ordinance and then allowed for a public to make comments on that. We made a number of comments and then compared the new um the the final draft with the original draft and there there weren't really any substantive changes made and I I just talked to to Brian uh about some of them. We had some real concerns about the the commercial part of it and how the the parking was layered in and the setbacks and from a public perception or standpoint, you know, we provided comments and and the public wasn't made back aware of whatever changes were incorporated. Uh, and I I might be the only zoning geek out there that that actually went through it all, but uh I can meet with uh Brian or planning separately and go through it. But I just made a number of number of comments that that we had addressed that we thought that could really impede uh or make development harder than it needed to be and made it more complicated than it needed to be. And I wanted to make sure those were addressed.

Yes, please. Oh, I I don't I've got like four pages. I was Are you going to share that with Do you plan on I am I'm just going to give it to him and and we just talked about sitting down, but you know, if there was anybody else out there besides just me that wanted to understand the changes that were made from the from the original to the the final draft, uh they might want to go over those. Okay. like if you had like a little mini workshop or something,

I'd appreciate it if you get them to him if you would then send it to us because I've asked a lot of people in the development community to provide feedback and a few have. So I I really want to see the thoughts that they or the challenges that they see for myself. So I think that'd be helpful to all of us do that. Okay. Well, I'm not going to stick around for y'all's discussion because it's the last one on the agenda and as stimulating and as stimulating as it probably will be, uh, I'll just get with with Brian and he can forward it on to to you guys, but it's it's probably worth taking a look at from a a functional application of the new zoning code. Okay.

All right. Thank you'all. Thanks, David. Anyone else wishing to speak on agenda related items? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment on agenda related items and we'll move directly into item number two. This is Kirk Patrick at Peach Valley and Woods Fairerryy. Who has this one? Jillian. Thank you.

Yes. The owner and applicant requests a recommendation of approval to city council to annex 5.73 acres with a plan of service. This property is located north of Peach Valley Road and east of Woods Ferry Road. Um, so as you can see on your map, it is surrounded by city limits to the north, the west, and the south. Um, there is one property here that is not within city limits. Another one right here, south of Peach Valley. And then this blank property, this one and this one are owned by the same property owner. Those are annexed but do not have zoning at this time. Um the applicant is here this evening. That's it. Engineering. Do you'all have anything to add on this? No. Is the applicant present this evening? Okay. Um any discussion from the commission? It's really a question for staff. I understand the zoning is one step. And then you look at whatever they're wanting to bring forth on this. But what is the default zoning when it get if it gets zoned into the city? What would be the comparable default zoning that comes with it?

Right now there isn't a default zoning. It would come in with no zoning. That will change with our new zoning code where we will bring it in at the A equivalent uh when it gets annexed. But right now it would have no zoning until zoned. Oh, so that was my other question is it's currently zoned A rather than R40. It's current zoning right now. No zoning. Yeah, it's it's county zoning. Yeah, it's county zoning right now, which would be rural residential likely. Yes. Okay. We've worked it 140 rural residential. That's what I was thinking.

Yeah, we we've worked it into the new draft for the zoning ordinance to be able to sort of give it an assigned zoning upon annexation uh as part of the the uh annexation action. Um, which makes sense.

That that then eliminates us having unzoned parcels for some number of years. I don't know how long it may take for them to come and apply for zoning, but um kind of avoids us. And with the proposed new zoning ordinance, we would also be zoning any of those unzoned currently unzoned parcels. So, kind of hitting two stone two birds with one stone. Okay, that's all. Okay. Anyone else have comments or questions? Yes. Uh, Woods Fairy and Peach Valley, are those already annexed into the city? Uh, they are already in the city in that area.

Is south of the street county or is that city? Uh, anywhere you see the color is city. Okay. Yes. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, we'll move to the next item. Number three, Kinsley preliminary master development plan. Who has this, Jillian? I do. Yes. Thank you.

Um, so this is a preliminary master development plan for the Kinsley PMDP. This property is located directly adjacent to Kensington Downs. Uh, right here. This property is within an existing MRO zoned area. As you'll recall, a lot of this block uh north of 386 and around the Green Lee area was zoned MRO and PGC a number of years ago without master plans. Uh so they all require it once they come in uh for a development request. Uh this development is showing predominantly in the MRO zoned area. Uh you'll see Long Hollow is on the right side of your screen. This front leg is agg they're not showing anything uh occurring with that mostly within that property and just using the existing MRO zoning and its entitlements. Uh this is about 82 units uh both town home developments and single family. Uh this uh property also shows an extension of Grandstand Boulevard through the property which is an important connector collector through uh our the plan Gallatin and our comprehensive plan. This connection will eventually go all the way over to Bison Trail. So through Twin Ponds, the crossings all the way over to Big Station Camp. So this is just another leg of that connection. This plan shows um planned open space, an area for stream buffer as well as additional parking predominantly for the town home development uh with buffers surrounding it. They did include a pretty extensive pattern book uh not unlike what we got for Kensington Downs a number of years ago. So with this plan, they are asking for some exceptions within the MRO zoning district. That's not terribly unusual

for MRO zoning um because it's really the way that it's written, it's it allows up to a very large density over 14 units per acre. Um but the zoning is just not really laid out to uh incorporate the setbacks nec lot sizes for a town home development. So the town homes in particular, they are asking for exceptions for setbacks, lot sizes, and lot widths. They are also uh this pattern book also includes information about the architecture. So instead of just the 70% brickstoneone requirement, they are asking to utilize the pattern book. I'll have it in here, but it has a certain percentage of a certain percentage of homes will be 50 60% masonry with cementia siding being the other percentage. So that is outlined in the pattern book in some detail as to what materials are allowed, what styles have to be uh put in place. Um which was very similar in design to the Kensington Downs pattern book. That one had a similar motif of a certain percentage of homes will have a certain percentage of brick. Again, this property is does not have any kind of master plan. So this is just a PMDP level plan. It does not include a reasonzoning, but with the recommendation of this body, it will go on to city council. Thank you.

You engineering, do you have anything to add? Uh, yes, sir. Our main comment is to extend road A as a collector to Long Hollow Pike. Okay. Can you uh I guess before the uh applicant comes forward, can you shed some light on that? Sure. Probably guess add some more context. Sure. Actually, Aaron, our traffic engineer, I think he's prepared something for us. Thanks, Aaron.

Yeah, no problem. So, um, with our current major thoroughfare plan, um, we've got, you know, Long Hollow Pike that connects Greenley and, um, Long Hollow Pike. And we have what's called the Bison Trail extension that will basically parallel um Long Hollow Pike in that area that will connect Greenly to um Big Station and um the crossings at Hidden Creek. They're building their side from Big Station. Uh Kensington Downs has done Grandstand Boulevard. This would be a continuation of that. Um and Twin Ponds will be doing theirs as well. We had a project in the current major fairfare plan to also provide some connectors from Long Hollow Pike to this Bison Trail extension. Um, you can think of Bison Trail Extension as a major collector and Long Hollow Pike is identified as a minor arterial. Um, and we've got St. Blae that's kind of halfway between Greenley Boulevard and um, Big Station Camp Boulevard that will be improved to be a collector. So, what we'd really be looking for is kind of a more of a vein instead of an artery, if you want to talk about it like that. Um, halfway between the St. Blaze connector and the Bison or Big Station Camp, which will be um Twin Ponds, they'll be doing a collector street like that. So, we'd be looking for something um in between St. place in Green Lee, which is what we would like to accomplish with with this development, having that extension from um the extension of Grandstand Boulevard out Road A to Long Hollow Pike. And based off of the the land in in this area, this may be one of the last opportunities to to get that that connection in. Um and it's really

important that as as we go through and and plan in this area that we really think about these things. Um because if we don't if we miss out a connection here or somewhere else then that means the the St. Blaze improvements they have to be it's more major. Um and we want to make sure that you have multiple grid systems in the connections so that um one isn't overwhelmed and and cause more of a traffic concern at those more major intersections. Okay. I guess Go ahead.

I just want to make sure I understand what you're describing. When you said extend road A to Long Hollow Pike, you're talking about that culde-sac extending that through the AG zoning property over to Long, correct? Yes. Okay. So, I I guess my immediate question does that leg actually show up on the major thoroughfare plan?

So, we have in this area that's bounded by Long Hollow Pike to the north, the Bison Trail Extension on the south, Green Lee on the the east, and Big Station on the west. We have project 16. It shows up in a couple different spots on there. It doesn't show up as lines on a map that are identified, but it that project is a walkable, bikable, small scale collector system for emergency or emerging residential areas. So, it's kind of meant to be uh we want the collector system from Bison Trail to Long Hollow Pike, but just weren't sure where to to put that on there. So, it is identified The collector is that runs east to west

or is north to south. North south. Okay. All right. That's correct. Okay. Anything else to add? Did Did they I guess did a traffic study come along with this? This is a PMDP. Okay, that's right. And then Jillian, you mentioned that obviously this would not change the zoning, but because of the zoning, the PMDP is required to go to council. Yes. And then they would follow up with the FMDP. Yes. Okay. Yes, sir. More. The the large parcel that's says AG zoning. I mean, obviously, they're not going to leave that open space. What are the plans for that? Is that supposed to be a future phase with more houses?

Um, it's not included in this PMDP. Uh, they're not asking for zoning that would establish that. Um, the applicant can maybe speak more to that, but right now it's not included.

Okay. It's all fair. Okay. All right. Uh at this time uh it we'll call for the applicant to come forward. Is there an applicant present? And yeah, y'all can come forward up to the front. Got our whole team here today. Uh my name is Bill Charles. My address is 357 Riverside Drive, sweet 210. And I brought with me uh my landscape architect and my civil engineer with CSDG. Thank you guys for letting us present this project. Um the plan that we have uh submitted to you guys really just incorporates the areas that we're showing. We're not asking for any uh zoning or plan approval for the section that is outlined as AG zoning. That's not part of the submitt tonight. Uh we have not yet decided with the sellers whether we're going to purchase that property or not, that last leg. Um the conversations that we have had with uh the city engineer was uh in the event that they do need a connection to Long Hollow Pike, uh if we do buy that leg, we would not be opposed to working with the city on a rightaway that would allow that extension in the future if that was the case. If we end up not buying it, uh we could certainly ask the property owner to allow for a rightaway

through that property um as as a help to try to solve the problem. Okay. I I guess my my immediate question was I'm assuming with you guys not purchasing it, the h the house that's there would remain a single family residence. Uh, and then even if I guess if y'all did purchase it, then it y'all would decide what to do with it at that point, whether the house remained or not.

That's right. Uh, and there's been a there's been a lot of stuff floated around on that parcel. Uh we've talked about if we did keep it, we would carve it up into uh two and a half acre lots and leave it under the straight base zoning and have maybe two uh lots coming off of Long Hollow Pike as a residential type connection and then two coming off of that cullisac and they would kind of meet in the middle. Uh we've also talked about uh originally months ago we talked about having a single loaded street uh with planning and with engineering that would uh extend part of the way into that AG zone property and we backed off of that because it was a very inefficient road to to do. So that's kind of why we've been back and forth on the thing so many times frankly. But I think ultimately um understanding where the city needs a connection road to Long Hollow Pike and we're one of a few options in which that could happen. We were very happy to try to figure out a solution to solving it if we needed to provide a rightway. We just uh haven't had a chance. We we received that comment u late Friday. So,

but at this time y'all don't even know if y'all are purchasing the property. I'm sorry. At this time, y'all don't even know if y'all are purchasing the property. No, we have not closed the property yet. We still have several months left to to make that decision. Okay. Any comments from the commission for the applicant?

Yes. I had a question uh on I guess the bottom of the page. I don't know if we can go to the grading and drainage laid out. there. Um, so kind of where grand stand is on that where that connects that detention pond that's located there. So that will back up that detention pond will be right next to the homes from um Kensington. Is that uh yes, that's correct.

Okay. Do we have any like fences or something or I don't know. That just seems like if you have a detention pond and you have children kind of playing in the backyard, I don't just anything that we typically do. No, not that I know of. We have had it where like if they've been particularly steep or if there's a drop or we have people have put up fences through the construction process. It just depends on how deep it actually is. That's what I've experienced. I guess a question for staff. There is It looks like there's a buffer that separates the actual lots and the homes of Kensington and this property. Is that correct?

Yeah, Kensington Downs has a buffer yard behind it. Okay. Intended to be a dry pond, correct? Uh, yes, that's correct. Okay. And then it it looks like you've got an existing stream that it dumps out into that also traverses through Kensington. Correct. Okay. Um, and then I guess question for staff. Looks like your single family homes I guess surround or the perimeter of the property uh with the exception of that bottom left corner. Uh, but everything else that touch like all the all the homes that touch the AG to the north and to the uh west is single family product. Yes, it is.

Okay. And they did do some larger buffers in areas where they could Okay. The one to the north is larger than required. Okay. Um and I think the one to the west is a little bit larger than required as well. Okay. Appreciate that. Can I get your name? Your name, please. Uh sorry. Luke Tally, CSDG. Yes, sir.

My head's still back on the other issue. Um, I'm trying to get my head wrapped around that. If if that prop property that's says AG on it, if that's not even part of this, I'm it's confused me why it's submitted with this plan. Um, they don't own that. And I understand engineering's need for the connector. And I agree it's probably needed, but why does that tie to this development that they're showing us right here? I mean, if they didn't own that property and didn't show it on the plan, we would just say, "Let's make sure we have a stub out so that when that future property develops, it gets connected."

And maybe Jillian could help with this, but it's it's all the same property. It's just has two separate zonings. So, south of that uh that culde-sac is MRO zoned and the north is a zoned. We're just trying to focus on I guess the MRO zoning with this. That's why we showed the whole property in this particular image, but then focused in on the MRO zoning for the remaining sheets just to, you know, make sure the property itself was covered in in visual. Okay.

But I mean, I I guess I John, to your point, I mean, if this if this property if the AG ever develops in the future, then we at least have the stub to extend if we needed to. But for now, it would be it would remain a single family home. that's already there today and functions and we they're at least they're at least providing a in my opinion they're at least providing a turnaround to get back to the main collector. We did discuss a little bit regarding um fire access and you know the fact that this property kind of only has one way to get in and out right now. uh with Grandstand Boulevard dead ending and this will extend Grandstand but still uh you're you're just sort of extending that culde-sac at the end kind of thing. Um so that we did note that there is a note on the plan that um they're going to end up sprinkling I guess the units with uh once they get past the first 30 which is the rule. Um we may have some discussion with them about how to implement that or what the best scenario is to try to do that. But

how how many single family homes it is? Uh 32 single family. Okay. So really they're going to be required to sprinkle the town homes anyways.

Yeah, actually they would. So really that only means two homes would be sprinkled. But um I mean in in my opinion they're at least making an effort to have stubs. I mean they've got one, two, three, four stubs essentially to future properties which would connect at some point. I know some of these properties may not develop for quite some time. Um, but I think the bulk of the collector, which would tie Bison Trail to Grandstand, they they've certainly made an effort to include that in their in their proposal. And then the additional three stubs that would stub out to the additional property in the future, I think goes a long way. So eventually, I mean, they're going to have how how many acres is the MRO zone, Jillian? You may know, bro.

About 29 28 29. That's not included in the AG. Sorry. I think it's 21 acres. 30 33 acres total total. How did one map and parcel get two zonings applied to it? We have that happens a lot. So, this was there was a very large I think it's you can see it on the pattern book. So that's when all this area, this MRO, like Kensington Downs used to be MRO, a bunch of this PGC, this MU, that all came in at the same time, a number of years ago.

And I think it it may have something to do with the fact that a lot of the lots along Long Hollow Pike, only go back so far. At least this is my opinion. And that's why uh some of these got double zonings. Yeah. I'd like to kind of preserve to kind of Yeah. to match the rest of the properties along Long Hall Pike.

I don't have any questions. I mean, the only other comment I'll make is I I'm see wanting the connection, but I can also see not necessarily needing the connection to preserve what's along Long Hollow Pike and the fact that the home is just going to stay there. So, you're potentially going to have I I think that the access to the property obviously in the right now in the interim is not tremendous, but you've at least got a collector road that comes back out to Greenley that this that this serves. Um, and then they're making a pretty good effort to have future connections to the adjacent properties around them. Anyone else have anything to add? Do we have an aerial that kind of shows where that existing home is located on that parcel? I know it's not exact, but

it's about halfway between the culde-sac and long haul Pike. I think like in the middle of the parcel or is it one side to the other?

It's okay if it we don't have something. I can look it up later. I was just curious. Maybe it's

okay. Uh, do you guys have any other questions or comments to commission or staff? Um, I think one other thing we want to talk about with the lot setbacks that we got comments from staff, I think in general we can accommodate some of those with the rear setbacks and the encroachments.

Um, as well as the side setbacks. That was something we discussed as a team and we can make those adjustments uh based on the comments. Um, and then the street section, we emailed staff earlier today regarding the Grand Sand Boulevard with street trees. Um, originally we just had extended what we did at Kensington Downs. Sounds like now if you were to do street trees, you need an eight foot section. Um so in order to not change that street section, we're going to pull the trees out of the rightway and just keep the sixoot grass strip that we currently have. Okay. Um but still provide the street trees along Grandstand um outside of rightway. Yes. Okay.

And then I know there were a bunch of comments regarding existing vegetation. Obviously we will get a tree survey and the intent with the buffers is to save as much as we can. Um, but once we get that tree survey in, that'll kind of help dictate where where we can do that and supplement material. Okay. Outside of that, we're in agreement with most of the comments. State your name, please, sir. Uh, Chris Jansen, CSTG. Okay. See no other comments. We'll see you all back in a few weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Item number four, Huffsteadler PMDP, FMDP. Where's this one?

Good evening, commissioners. Kimberly Atley, staff planner. The owner applicant is requesting an approval for a PMDP revised FMDP for the hosted property. It's located on north of Long Hollow Pike and east of Arlington Pike Park, excuse me. It's zoned R8 PRD and it's approximately 15.1 acres. Um, the purpose of this is to separate it from the Fox Creek development. And this is what they're proposing to do. So, they will have a 50-foot easement that will be aligned right through here that will be accessible until the Fox Creek development. um finishes the utilities and the infrastructure to that property. They are proposing a one single family home on this property.

That is all I have. Okay. I don't believe the applicant is here, but Okay. Is there an applicant present this evening? Okay. Uh engineering, do you all have anything to add? We would just like to see the total increase in impervious and if it's greater than 800, then storm water quantity and quality would be required

with the okay with the FMVP. That's fine. Um obviously this is per the original plan. This this should be a reduction, but obviously they would the original plan had to capture water quality and quantity as well. So I understand that. Um commission have any questions or comments for staff? Um, I mean, this seems pretty straightforward. My only comment is going to be what happens to the uh or the only concern I had going into this was was the uh what happened to the original master plan for the entire development and does it negatively impact that master plan? But it sounds like what we were discussing earlier, it doesn't the original master plan still meets the requirements that it has,

I believe. So, we're double checking to make sure the minimum open space and the density is not anything that would be outside of the allowances of the zoning. Yes. Um, but it does take a large chunk of open space out of the development. And it does remove some lots, not very many. Yeah. Eight or nine.

Um, and some pavement from a road extension not going in anymore. So, this would be phase four, the last phase of Fox Creek essentially being removed before that development's even built. I guess question for engineering. Uh with this obviously uh with this leg not being installed of the road not being installed now, is there going to be a culde-sac required at the end of that road? Is are they just going to pull into their driveway at the end of the road? Like what's that going to look like?

Yeah, the the Fox Creek construction plans address access to this property. So, in the intermediate, there will be a 50-foot easement to get back there, but as the Fox Creek development develops, they'll follow the road system and have a tie on um their driveway will actually access off a culde-sac off Culac. Okay. All right. That was my question. That answers my question. Okay. Thanks, Kimberly. I move on to item number five. This is 138 134 and 138 Richland Court right away. Brad,

good evening, commissioners. Brad Hickman, staff planner. Uh, the owner and applicant request approval of an abandonment and vacation of 22 acres of public rightway located between 134 and 138 Richland Court. Uh, you can see the property here. The applicant is the homeowner to the north. Uh, this was originally put in place to connect Rogers and Richland Court. Um, with this body's recommendation, this will go on to city council. Okay. Thanks, Brad. Engineering, have anything to add to this? Yeah, in general, we have a strong stance on connectivity, so we're just not in general not in agreement with this abandonment.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, is there an applicant present this evening? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Please state your name and address. James Wright, 134 Richland Court. Okay. Do you have anything to add or any questions? No. The propertyy's just been abandoned for a long time. We've took care of it for 25 years. So, we just want to split it with our neighbor to make it right.

Okay. Um I remember that my my im immediate question for staff is is there a is there a plan in place to extend this road and tie to Richland Court? I believe this actually is I don't have a timeline but it is planned to make this connection. Okay. I don't see how that would ever happen. It's been 25 years and a done with it and it's just growed up like crazy and we've took care of it. So, okay. I'm looking I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I'm looking for a larger map so I can get my bearing. Where is Richland Court and Rogers Road? North. Yeah. Near the hospital. North of Steam Plant Road. It's been there a long time. Okay.

Yeah. I know there's there's various areas around town that have this situation. Um it's my understanding that the city is going through the process right now of determining um what locations are this exact uh I guess situation. Um it was my understanding that there was supposed to be a plan being put together to actually extend these and construct these. Um cuz I know there's there's this one. There's a few over off the uh Lakeshore uh Lock 4 pen uh area that are like this. Um I mean I I would be I guess before the 18th. I would be curious to see if this is indeed actually in a plan to get extended.

Okay. Especially with it being so long since we've touched it. But I I I'll speak just from my own observation. The only abandonments I've seen the city agree to abandon have been ones that were relocated. Some Yeah. No, it was some little weird utility thing that was a uh fra uh it's not fragment, some word I'm looking for, but anything with any potential of connectivity. I just feel like that's going to be a hard task for us to give that up because

I mean I'm just I want to set what I think the expectations should be. I don't get a vote on the council. Yeah, but those houses that's behind that's been there for years. Yeah. I mean, nobody's done nothing to no new houses are being built over there. There's just nothing there. I understand. It's just with the with the, you know, increased traffic flow that happens everywhere and people taking different directions to go places and I'm not the engineer. I'm not the one who would say, "Oh, this is what needs to happen." That's that. Yeah.

Yeah. And I think uh obviously in the in the past there's been some inconsistencies on on uh I mean now I I'll tell you this. Now, if the development along Richland Court were to come come through, we would require the rideway to be constructed with current construction. Like if if this was a new construction subdivision, that rideway would be constructed and built. I know back in the day there was a lot of inconsistencies on, oh, we're providing a stub. We'll just give the rideway, but we're not going to pave it. We'll leave we'll leave the pavement up to either the city or the future developer to the to the east in this in this situation. But if this project the neighborhood was to come before us now, we would require the entire rightway to be constructed all the way to the property line.

So I've got a question about Rogers. Does it carry all the way through to Kro or does it go to another street that next to Kro? It's meandering, but essentially this would connect K Road to Steam Plant. Ultimately, if Ro like once because Richland Court goes down to another culde-sac, so Rogers would tie and you'd have to take a right and go up to I believe it's Steam Plan Road

over the railroad track that's behind it. I mean, the the hard part about this too is this would provide another I don't know how many homes are in the subdivision, but this would provide another access point for fire and emergency personnel to access the site if and when there was ever an accident at the front end of the of the development. I The only thing that gets me is it's been there for forever. I mean, for a long time. Yeah. And I don't see any improving back there. Yeah. To make that happen. Everybody's been fine back there till then. So,

and like I said, we took care of it all this time. And there's a lot of trees that need to be took care of, too, to keep them falling on our house. And we just want to be able to do do that, too. Understood. There any other comments from the commission? It's not that much property either. You really look at it. It looks big there, but it's not that much. I understand. Okay, John, you got any com comments? No, just that um I'm a big believer that connectivity is important and even if this isn't connected now, once you give up that right away, any possibility of connection goes away is gone. And uh um and I think there's another discussion involved as to

who needs to be maintaining that. Maybe there's even a discussion involved that the city needs to commit to some plan, be it a 10-year plan or a 15-year plan or whatever, that that will do something with it or not, but I'm not in favor of abandoning the possibility of making the connection. Okay. Anyone else? Didn't mean to make that sound like a voting thing. That's okay. Part of the discussion. So, really at this point, if we don't do this, then is the city going to start taking care of this? That's certainly a very valid question. I mean, yeah, that's a question I I mean, if I live there, that's a question I would be that I would be, you know, for property. Yes.

Yes. Sidewalks and the like. I understand. Um, that's a great question. I mean, I I think it's a valid question. It's It's certainly something that needs to be discussed. Um, I think regardless of the of the decision that occurs at the end of this month, does this I mean this is just a recommendation to council, correct, Brad? Okay. So, any any recommendation we give at the end of the month is going to go to council. Yeah. And so, at that point, you'll have an opportunity to get up and and speak to council as well. Uh, regardless of our recommendation, um, and then it's going to come down to council making a decision. Um, and I if if I were you and I I live there, I would be asking the same question. Yeah, no doubt. So, um, do you have any other questions for us at this time?

I'm good. Thank you. Okay. I'll see you back in a couple weeks. Next, we'll go to item number six, First Baptist Church Edition site plan.

Good evening, commissioners. Charlie Pier, staff planner. The owner applicant is requesting approval of a site plan to construct a 14,800 foot 804t addition to the existing church campus on 4.21 acres zoned as CC core commercial located at 225 East Main Street. So, for those of you who are not familiar with this project, about a couple months ago, First Baptist Church came to this body to get the eastern half of their property reszone to Core Commercial with the um intent of expanding operations on their campus. This is what the current layout is for the church as it stands right now. And this is the proposed um addition. It'll go on the southwest corner here behind the main sanctuary. Um there is going to be re relocating the ADA parking spaces to more central part of the campus. Um and adding another access point over here. Um staff had some minor comments on this to just further define the parking over here, make it striped. Um for the landscaping portion, uh staff wants to see additional trees along the southern uh border here because this is still a parking area. So for our zoning ordinance, there there needs to be some perimeter landscaping. And then staff would also like to see the trees get readded to the northern part of this property as it was consistent with the master plan a couple years ago. Trees not being there, I believe, is in violation of that. And then lastly, staff wants to see um alterations to the parapit on the new building to be able to screen the AC units from view on all sides. Thank you.

Thanks, Charlie. Engineering, you have anything to add? We just had some clarification and cleanup items on this one. Nothing major. Thank you. Uh is there a member from the applicant present?

Drew Ferguson, Greenwood Design. Uh we're in agreement with all staff comments. The only question I have for you guys is uh trying to get that plan uh to show the landscaping on East Main Street. Uh it looks like they planted it and then something happened to it back in 23 24 and it's not there anymore. I know when you say you're trying to get the plan, are you trying you request requested that from staff or there's no plan? It was never planted. Oh, but is there a plan? No, there was something planted. There was some like shrubs planted. Yeah, they were supposed to plant trees. Oh, okay. The trees were never planted. They they took out some dog um some u like repairs

brat pairs at the end of 2021. They were supposed to replace those with other trees that we have. Okay. So, is the comment that y'all add that back to y'all's landscape plan for this one? Okay. I would agree. Yeah. Just getting some clarification so I can let the client know. Okay. Any questions from commission? Just wanted clarification. I know that when the courthouse came in, the Baptist church lost a lot of its parking and this has taken up another section in reducing parking. I don't know if the Baptists are starting to walk to church or um but what is there going to be plenty of parking with this additional square footage? Yeah, they they still have parking to the south of uh Oh, south of the road is their lot of that they own all that.

That's all that. Yeah. Okay. Anyone else from the commission have questions for the applicant? I This seems pretty straightforward. I mean, I uh John's question about the parking was one of my only other comments, so that kind of answers that. Yeah, they've got plenty of it. Okay, awesome. Do you have a quick question? Is that going to be like a little drop off area? Yeah, it'll be one single way traffic. Gotcha. And that's also in the CC zone. So we can't really regulate the parking. Yeah. Anyway, there's no parking required. Yeah, technically church. Yep. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Thank you. See you back in a few weeks. Item seven, Clear View Heights, section five. Brad,

thank you. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of a minor subdivision plat to resubdivide lots 35 through 40 creating three lots on 0.57 acres zoned R six highdensity residential district located south of Hatton Track Road and west of Anthony Street. uh this came before this body before to be reszoned with this identical plan uh from R10 to R six like the surrounding properties. Uh we just mostly had minor comments for cleanup. uh engineering would like some rideway dedicated up here along Hatton track and to that end we would u ask the applicant to ensure that the properties are still the minimum size for R six

are are they they are currently but with the dedication of the rightway we just want to make sure that they remain that okay engineer you know Brad Brad mentioned it. We'd just like a rideway dedicated basically 25 ft from the center line of Haten Track Road. Okay. Is there an applicant present this evening? This is Bruce Rainey's project. I don't believe he's here.

Okay. Uh that would be a great question to understand or at least have an answer to leading into the 18th. Um, if you want to relay that to him, that would be great. Okay. Any questions from the commission? John, you got anything? Okay. Fire sidewalk along the property frontage. It's a great question. Engineering, Mitchell? No, I don't believe so. No, it does not. Brian, is that because it's just a plat and not a master plan? Okay.

I mean, it it will essentially be three single residential homes once it's done. Okay. Brian. Yeah. Two of the houses are existing. So, if they were three vacant lots, I would suggest they put in sidewalk and comply with our subdivision regulations on that. Okay. And the 25 foot we're asking for is to set up the development that will potentially come to the west, which is Sunset Farms. Yes. They'll be using Hat and Track extensively for that. Okay, thank you. Anything else? All right, we move to item number eight, crossings at Hidden Creek Infrastructure. Charlie,

the owner and applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the crossings at Hidden Creek Infrastructure. This is on 14 plus or minus acres zoned as MRO, multiple residential and office and PGC planned general commercial located west of Big Station Camp Boulevard and south of Long Hollow Pike. So this is the uh infrastructure for the Bison Trail extension that will eventually connect up to um the Kington Towns development up there over by Greenley. Uh staff had minor comments on this to fill in the remainder of the surrounding property uh owner information that's required in the checklist and then to uh lighten the contours along the um proposed uh roadways. And then lastly to show the stubouts for the uh crossings at Hidden Creek Development for the residential portions and then to remove the uh certifications here because this is only a preliminary plat. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you engineering. Just some cleanup items. Nothing major on this one. Okay. Uh is there an applicant present? Uh Thomas Williamson with Kimley Horn. Uh we agree with all comments. Okay. Uh any questions or comments from the commission? This one seems very straightforward and seems to be in line with what already is going on out there. So I don't have anything to add. John, you go.

All right. See you back in a couple weeks. Thank you. Okay. Item nine, Ogden Nashville Pike final plat.

The owner applicant is requesting approval of a final plat for Ogden Nashville Pike uh to subdivide lot number 19. This is on 2.87 acres zoned as MRO, multiple residential and office located south of Nashville Pike and west of Greenley Boulevard. Uh this plat is before this body because we are subdividing the slot into um three that meets the threshold to be here. Um the lot sizes that are proposed are consistent with the MRO um zoning minimum lot size and then staff had minor comments for just cleanup items for the surrounding property owner information and to include our certificate of addresses and street names.

Okay. Thank you. uh engineering. Our only major comment was to extend the sidewalk to the property line. It's existing, but it doesn't make it all the way there to the bills on the green or to the northeast. Bill is on the green. Okay. Is there an applicant present? Julian, I was going to ask if this was your project. It is not. Okay. Dakota Beasley, Greenwood Design. Um, we're good with all staff comments. Don't really see any problem with them. Happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, that seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't have any questions or comments. Anyone else from the commission? Okay, see I'll see you back in a couple weeks. Thank you. Item number 10, Sar Regional Medical Center. Kimberly.

Yes. The owner applicant is requesting approval for a final plat for the Sumner Regional Medical Center. It's located west of Big Station Boulevard and north of State Route 386. It's zone PGC. It's um 24.58 acres. And the purpose of this is to create a new lot for the future roadway improvements. And this is part of the big station um big station camp development. The applicant is um is working on getting a owner agent letter for us um which we all have by May 18th hopefully. And I do not believe the applicant is here tonight.

Okay. I guess I'll ask anyways. Uh well, engineering, do you have anything? No, nothing major to add. Okay. Is the applicant present tonight? Okay. They're not. Uh my only question I guess for staff and engineering is I know that uh whenever we approved the master plan for this there was extensive discussion around uh approval from the hospital to for this uh for this proposed infrastructure to go through their property. Obviously with this uh did they actually I'm assuming they got that and that's how it got through council because they need that was a condition of approval.

They had like a a contract an intent that one is yeah they had that set up for the development now that we're actually platting land off. Yes. We want a little bit more than that but yeah they had contracts with intent set up already signed by the hospital at that time and they are working on that right now. Okay. So my next question is, is this actually creating property or are they dedicating this right away to the city? This is just splitting the property, okay, and creating a non-buildable lot. Okay. So the plan will say that, but it's just I believe to sell it to this other property to the other property and then they would dedicate right away.

They'll do additional platting to actually make it right away. Okay. Does is engineering comfortable with the amount of property that's been shown? And does do I know Erin left, but does the improvements to I guess that intersection fit within the area that's presented? I believe so. Yes. Okay. On both.

Okay. And then only other question I have is is I know there was rework of the uh driveway for the hospital that tied back to this road. Does that occur on the hospital's property or does that occur off property which would result in needing another easement? likely and we may not have the answer to that question. Yeah. But I would be curious about that as well. Okay. Anyone else? Yes, Brian.

If you'd like, we can do an overlay of the proposed plans onto this and make sure we've got everything. That would be great. That would be great. Thank you, Brian. Anyone else from the commission have questions? Mayor, you good? Okay. All right, we'll see you back in a few weeks. Item 11, the bank the banks phase 1A and two 1 A2 final plat.

Yes, the only applicant is um requesting approval for a final plat for the banks phase 1A-2. It's located south uh east of Lock 4 Road, north of Peach Valley Road. It's zoned R8 PRD. It's 14 acres. Um the proposed is for 36 single family lots ranging from 6,000 to 11,700 square ft. It is part of a larger development. Just last month we just finished up with um one 1A and the amenities. So that's the lower section right there. So this these

Okay. Right now we have a um it's 36 homes and the one thing we are looking for right now is that there will be a 20ft emergency access coming off of uh lock four going through lot 15. There's also a 10-ft greenway public greenway easement that runs along lot 4 and an 8 foot uh private mulch um trail that runs throughout the subdivision. Okay. engineering. Do you'all have anything to add to this? No, we just had some cleanup items. Okay. Is African present this evening?

Jason Taber, fourstar. Um, we agree with staff comments, so nothing to add. Okay, awesome. Uh, my only question is I know, uh, Kimberly, you had mentioned the, uh, fire access. Does this does this phase also include the connection to the um park? Isn't there supposed to be an extension to the park? No, that'll be that'll be next. Yes. Okay. The access room is right here through lot 15 right here. Okay. Sorry. The next page and it'll come up right about here. Okay. Cool. Another phase. I believe it's phase eight. this. This is the next section.

Okay, that was my only question. This seems very straightforward. Uh, and seems to match the FMDP. So, I don't have any other questions. John, do you have anything? None here. Anything else from commission? This seems like a very much a consent item in my opinion. Okay. All right. See you back in a few weeks. Thank you. All right. This one, item 12, 511 chambers. Charlie,

the owner applicant is requesting approval of a final master development plan consisting of three single family homes on 0.36 plus or minus acres zoned R six highdensity residential located at 511 Chambers Street. Uh staff had minor comments on this mainly pertaining to the architecture. Uh they would like to see uh the brick water table get uh built up around the entire perimeter of these um structures. Um the the architecture presented is not consistent with the zoning ordinance uh 70% brick and stone requirement. So with this FMDP the applicant will have to um request a alternate architecture plan. And as far as density calculations go, um the three units that are proposed on this lot are well within the density requirements. Thank you.

Thanks, Charlie. Engineering, do you have anything to add? Yeah, we had several site and storm water comments, but we feel they can be addressed with the engineer. Okay, thank you. Uh will the applicant please come forward?

Drew Ferguson, Greenwood Design. Uh yeah, we're going to request a um revised architecture. Uh he's doing hardy siding. Okay. Uh similar to what we've done in the area and he's good with the brick water table. Uh as far as engineering comments go, we'll work with the engineering department and get those squared away. Awesome. Anyone have any questions or comments for the applicant? Okay. This seems pretty much in line with one question or comment that I'd like to just give them on the architecture. Um I I don't know if it's the same house plan for all three of the houses, but it would be nice to see a little variety. So if they can change it up on the elevations for

Okay. Yeah, I'll talk to the client. That'd be great. Um yeah, this seems very much in line with the other stuff that's come in this area. So I don't have any questions or comments. Anyone else? All right, see you back in a few weeks. Thank you. Item 13, Nexus, multif family phase 2.

Yes. The owner applicant is requesting approval for a final master plan development for the Nexus multif uh multif family phase 2 located right here. It's zone MU mixeduse development. It's about 16.93 acres. The purpose is to build a 300 sorry to build 300 dwelling units and an amenity center. It's going to be located right well tag right there. Um just last month I believe last uh let's say June they finished the first phase one of the multifamilies and this is the second phase for that. There 300 units. There'll be four stories and threetory buildings. Landscaping meets the requirements. We have asked them to um to look at moving some of the HVACs out of the easement along with the trash uh recept receptacle there. They need to move that out as well and add more covering more of the HVAC system for visibility. The elevations are consistent with the phase one that just got approved. So this these are the buildings.

Okay. Engineering, you have anything to add? We just have minor comments on this. We will get construction plans later down the road. Okay. Thank you, Brad.

Uh, good evening. Brad Snder, CSG. Uh, all the comments are relatively minor, so we'll get those addressed, but here for any questions. Okay. Uh, yeah, this is very much in line with phase one. Um, I like the architecture uh very much uh similar to what we've seen before uh with phase one. So, this seems pretty straightforward to me and matches the FMDP or the PMDP. So, any questions for the applicant? Okay, see none. See you back in a few weeks. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Item 14, Preston Park Office Building, FMDP. Uh, the owner and applicant request approval of a final master development plan for Preston Park office building to construct an office building on 5.96 acres zoned PGC, Plan General Commercial District, located east of Warwick Road and north of Nashville Pike. This is part of the Preston Park development. Uh, this body recently saw lot five come through. Uh, this is lot four. We noticed a crosswalk missing here that showed up on the PMDP. We'd like that included again. And uh, examining the plan, we'd like to see a crosswalk and adjoining sidewalk brought in next to this entryway. Uh so we have asked uh them to evaluate that as well. Uh some of the landscaping buffers in the rear of the property, uh they're listed as 12 and 15 on the plan. 15 is required to be adjacent to MRO behind it. So we'd like that cleaned up as well. This is PGC. It has elevated uh landscaping requirements. So, we would like to see the uh uh shrub rows to block headlights in the front of the property. I think about 50 will be required here. Uh the architecture is stone and brick. Uh it's a departure from the previous project with the gabled roofs, but it does seem be fairly nice.

Thank you. Great. Thank you, Brian. Uh, engineering, do you have anything to add? No, minor comments, storm water, site, but we'll address it with the engineer. Okay. Thank you, Drew.

Drew Ferguson, Greenwood Design. We agree to all staff comments. Uh the only question is do we have to do both those um accesses off the rightway sidewalk to the property or just one of them? Uh in the comments it was just showing options you could go left or right. Okay. So just want to see one of them. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We're good with all staff comments. So Okay. Any questions for the commission? Yes. On the previous building, the one to the right of it, we had questions about the rear elevation architecture. Uh, will the rear elevation of this be 70% brick or stone? Mhm. Great. Yeah, this one was in a ordinance with the zoning ordinance.

I think the last one was shown CMU for a while, but then y'all corrected that before we got it revised. Okay, awesome. Anyone else? Yeah, this this one seems straightforward as well. And then I guess just to keep you guys in the loop as far as the easement goes, we're still working on it with Kiki's for lot five. Okay. So, still working to try and get that that entrance installed. Okay. Thanks, Drew. We'll see you back in a few weeks. Thank you guys. Yeah. All right. Item 15, St. Blaze FMPP renewal.

Jim, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh the owner and applicant uh request approval to renew the FMDP for St. Blaze Town Homes consisting of 41 attached dwelling units on 3.44 acres zoned MRO located west of St. Blaze and north of Nashville Pike. Um so this was uh approved in August of 23. They are swiftly approaching um their expiration and look to get this renewed. Uh planning staff had mostly minor comments. Um there was a question uh on architecture that we got sorted. Um we will ask for um these foundations. Uh they're being shown as exposed concrete. Obviously, we'd want to see brick stone outside of that. uh planning had pretty minor uh comments on this. Um I know engineering if you want to talk through um the sidewalk on this or if outside of that that was really the only um main comment from our side of staff. Obviously, the other thing on this is that building code has changed. So, they will be required to sprinkle all units, but outside of that, that's really outside of our scope.

Okay. Yeah, we're good with the sidewalk. We just want to see the curving gutter that they're proposing east of the western most entrance extended all the way to the edge of the sidewalk. Other than that, minor comments. Um, we did not get a drainage report, so more comments could be forthcoming once we get that. There a drainage report that was included in the previous submitt. I don't know. I know that there was a lot of drainage report like comments that we had. I never got fully approved to my knowledge. There was always conditions that weren't fully met. Okay. But,

okay. Uh, is there a member from the applicant president? while he's coming up. Jim, you did make the comment about trying to find some locations for additional parking. Is that right? Yeah. Um, we did put a comment to ask for additional parking in this open space. Um, but yeah. Hi, Josh. Josh, you look with Los Design to address the the engineering comments. We do have a um a letter uh with our approval for for sign and seal engineering plans that have already been have been approved.

Um we are happy to to work with you guys to to add the the few things that you did you did add. Um but we do have approved plans. Um, we're happy to to provide water tables for the the architecture that is not that is it was approved for variance and the open space request for parking in the open space. We're a little concerned on that side just because the we may get three parking spaces and the lights will go into the the fronts of the the houses that are aligning that that alley. I know uh when we previously saw this one um we that I I think we y'all started out with less parking than what is shown and y'all actually added parking.

I I remember that specifically because that was like one of the only things we talked about. Yes. Um, so, um, I mean, I'm I'm really inclined to basically say that the the way that it was shown previously because we did approve it prove it previously uh is sufficient in my opinion. Um I don't know how many what is it one two was it 18 additional or no 15 additional spaces or 14 do you know how many parking spaces there are

so during the revisions we extended we expanded the um the out of garage the driveway parking yeah to to add individual spaces behind the garage. Yeah. And then we also added um additional like 45 pull-in spaces. Yeah, that's right. It it looks like there maybe 13 including a handicap spot. Um, one of the things that we noticed at least on the angled parking spots um kind of near the top left.

Um, those don't appear to have enough room and vehicles would kind of poke out into that uh road roadway. Um, so I don't know if those can be uh extended deeper or not, but um I think they may only have like 12 feet on one side before they start poking out.

Gosh, if you would just look at that. Yeah, that would be great. Um, but I know I specifically remember us having some pretty extensive discussion about this plan related to parking and before we sent it on to council. Um, so I don't I mean this seems pretty straightforward to me. I sounds like you're working with engineering on the uh various additional comments they've given you. So I would I would say continue to work with them and then does the commission have any other questions for the applicant? Yeah, this seems pretty straightforward to me. So you have any other questions? No, thank you.

Okay, awesome. We'll see you back in a few weeks. Uh, next we got item number 16, uh, 1436 Southwater site plan.

All right. So, Tiffany and Tener, uh, this will be new for y'all. Um, everybody else, this is a little bit back in the rolodex on, um, this was originally, uh, I believe in front of us in 2024. Um the owner applicant request approval of a site plan to construct uh office space and some storage space on 8 acres zone MUG mixeduse general district located south of South Park Circle and west of 109. So, this site to the south um has been approved for renovation church. Um and this is the property directly to the north. Um and so, um they have the office space here and then a storage building behind. Uh the plans indicate a apron and then a gravel uh potential storage yard. um behind it. Um, MUG is a um unique zoning that has a condition that uh no use, building or parking for any uh employer or any any use parking or structure that employs more than four people cannot be located within 200 feet of an existing residence. Um and so they've narrowed the um storage building down a little bit. They've added um they've narrowed this uh concrete apron down a little bit. Um and so what they're showing is the corner of this concrete apron, I believe, is 2 maybe 210 212.

Okay.

Uh from the corner of this uh existing home. um which would be fine. Um it's more kind of the matter of how this gravel lot gets used. Um the other thing um we were waiting on architecture. Uh looks pretty good for the office, looks pretty good for the storage building. Um both of these are um toe compliant from MUG. Um, I believe the other, uh, kind of real, not necessarily point of contention, but detail to be ironed out, um, is with the access to 109. So, um, if y'all remember, Renovation Church was granted a conditional use permit and a site plan around the same time as this.

Mhm. Um, as far as I know, Renovation Church has not done has not moved forward in the development process since. Um and so we have believe engineering had some some comments around the the 109 access for this property. Okay. Engineering. Yeah. Basically the renovation church access would be the main access to 109. Uh so when that is constructed we would ask that this proposed access be removed and then crossconnected and tied to the renovation church access. Okay. And so that's it. That's a condition on this plan. Yes.

Or will be. It will be. I guess question. Fill me in on on this. The the what's shown there in gray to the south is the proposed access for the church. That's right. Okay. So then the ex the proposed access for this office would go away and then it would ultimately the drive aisle that runs parallel with 109 would extend over and tie to the drive aisle that's in front of the office building. That's right. Okay. Is the grade in this area decent enough? I mean it's all fallen pretty quick down to 109 to 109. Yeah.

I mean the whole thing would be a pretty decent grading exercise. Okay. Um, I guess at at this point we'll call for the applicant. Come forward. Yes, sir.

Hey, good evening. Uh, Zach Elliot with Green Lid Design. I've got Mr. Godfrey, Joe Godfrey behind me here. Um, and and yes, these were the what what Jim has mentioned I think were the sort of main outstanding points. Now to speak to the driveway. We did meet with um Aaron Hixon last Tuesday, I believe. Um and he he gave his blessing on this configuration of what Aaron want. Yes.

Um so I I think as far as you know, coordinating with renovation, you know, we've got a note on there saying this will be designed by others by renovation. And then when that happens, uh Joe will tie in his we'll reroute his uh driveway. But for now, the agreement was to be able to use the T dot. There's a T dot cut out there. So that was the the premise was go ahead for now and be able to just use the Okay. Existing driveway cut. Um and Joe, you're you're good with that? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Uh on the on the proximity issue at the rear to that dwelling, um I think Joe's got some things he wanted to share. I mean, we've this design you've got before you now that we submitted last Thursday, um the the storage building and the concrete apron for parking back there are both actually meeting the 200 foot of gap now. So, it's it's the gravel area is I think the area that's still kind of in question. Um but that's not intended to be for parking. That's for, you know, truck turnaround and other just maneuvering more things. So, and as you mentioned, it's a steep site. So, I mean there's, you know, we're if you look if you tab the grading plan, you know, it's Yeah. Yeah.

The It looks like, and I remember this this site, the I guess the church site being very tight. It looks like the edge of their future drive runs along the edge of the property line that separates these two sites. Is that correct? Um, the edge of their future drive. So, that easement, an ingress egress easement that's been recorded already. We've got the uh platbook record book on there. Yeah. Um the the proposed drive from renovations end that's up against that easement, but yeah. Yeah. It I mean it was all kind of designed with that placement in mind. Um

I guess with this once the church gets built and this this drive goes away, you'll have the front drive aisle that connects to the front of the office. You'll have the drive valve that runs around this the side of the church that ultimately ties to the storage building in the back. And then the same thing for the home back behind it is they would like the current drive that feeds all that would go away. Uh yes, yes, functionally you'd end up with a new collector back there. Okay. Um for for those various properties, including Joe's, he would tie it at that at that time. You want to? Yeah.

Joe God for God for Development Group. Uh just wanted a few comments on that. Um the 200 foot and the way this is written and the proximity around other projects that have been built in the area. It looks like that 200 foot mark. I'm not sure what they were basing it off of as far as other projects that are built with like the warehouse projects there and the four employee rule. Um cuz there are businesses in proximity to residences within 200 ft. And I don't know how the four employee rule is mandated um or monitored, but what I wanted to point out was that the building up front is actually where employees would be.

Mhm.

The warehouse building is really for storing kids steer and just equipment and different things. the gravel area because I originally wanted to put the building the other way, but because we had to stay 200 feet away, that is to be able to drive in with a truck and a trailer and be able to get into the building. It's not it's not for like a big parking lot or a big storage yard. Um, and so I just wanted to make sure that that piece of it isn't tied to the four employee portion of the rule because like I I have um my real estate company, I only have two employees, but then the development company has five, but they're over at another site. You know, it's like it's kind and I wouldn't want to have to worry about, well, you can't hire one more person and use that lot. Um, so I really could either maybe put a note that it's designated for access or something like that. Um, just so that we're I don't have to worry in the future that, you know, what do we, you know, if I do one thing, uh, as far as the number of people in the front building, it would trigger something in the back to not be able to to use it. understood. My my question to Jim is is is the language in the code because it's been a minute since I've looked at the MUG because it's

I've got it written on the plan. Does language in the code adhere to the building itself? Like does it mention the building or is it the site? So it says uh no structure parking or activity or structure parking and activity employing from four or more people shall be located within 200 feet of an existing dwelling. Okay. And then next question for Jim is with with the adoption of our new code, which I know we been probably looking at me like you can't can't talk about this. The adoption of our new code, MUG goes away. Yep. Which means that this statute goes away. Correct. Okay.

So what does that mean for that 200 foot? It would go away. Oh, it would go away. Yes. When would that happen? Uh hopefully soon. Great question. So if that happened, I would be able to flip that building around if I wanted to. There's no new version of this co of this requirement and the new codes. No, we didn't carry this over, but I mean there would be different requirements potentially that Yeah, there could be tell you right now that

so the the with the new code you not like yes mug goes away and that requirement goes away but what comes with it is additional requirements for your building additional requirements for setbacks site I mean there's a plethora of of additional items that you would have to adhere to likely um okay So, the other thing I was wondering is the home that's built behind it is actually sitting in MUG. Like, it's not in a residential area. And then you have other Yeah. You have other homes like there's a residence right next to the business that's next to mine. There's a house right on the other side. Like it's almost like the 200 foot thing wasn't really

thought through being adhered to or thought through or Well, MUG does allow single family homes. It's a It's a odd zoning, but we're not sure where that rule came from either. It's not the first time we've encountered it. Yeah. And not really known what to do with it. So, so I guess Jillian and and Jim, similar to the way that we we allow variances for setback requirements and things like that, are we allowed to provide a variance for the use of the lot? I don't think this is a master This isn't a master plan.

This isn't a master plan. So, it's a it's a site plan only. So I think our understanding would be yeah BZA would would have to be the one if to grant that or if it's determined if that gravel lot is activity. Okay would be the only question at this point right like everything else is out of it.

Okay so I guess next question following that is does this result in a condition? Does this result in a like what does this result in? because if I mean because if if and I don't know what what comments y'all provided on the on the plan thus far because I haven't seen that but um I guess just for the commission's understanding is there going to be condition on the 18th that specifies what they have to do if they want if they want to move forward with the approval of this site plan.

I think that's a possibility. I don't necessarily know how likely of a possibility that is because this is just a a code requirement. Um so I don't know. Well, he's already stated that his employees are active at another site. Yeah. So this this may require for some sort of uh plan or interpretation uh write up to to be done prior to the next meeting. So that that way we can use that as can that be included in justification. Okay. Thank you.

And would the question be essentially is the gravel lot an activity under the ordinance? Would that be the question that you answer? Correct. Well, is the gravel lot an activity that would affect the rule with respect to number of employees? Okay, that's all the questions I have. Does anyone else have questions for the applicant or for staff? I just started about to grow up a lot. Were there any staff comments on what we received today? Is it okay? It was just over. Okay. I just making sure because when I looked at I was like, "Yeah, nothing new."

Okay, great. Okay. Y'all have any other questions? Well, I'm not sure of where like where are we on that as far as what do we do next like to figure this out. So, staff here will evaluate that um over the next couple few days um give you guys some heads up on where we land with a determination on how that interpretation for that rule may go and then um we'll put that in writing for you so that we have one more reason for planning Thursday, right? Okay. Um, is it possible for y'all to get them y'all's decision before Thursday in the resid

just want to stay on the calendar thing? Yeah, we're not we're not going to delay it. Okay. Okay. On on the tractor trailers, you say your tractor trails will be coming in and gravel a lot to turn around. Correct. Correct. Will they be just to get in and out of the building? Okay. So, they won't be parked there overnight or anything of that nature. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. See you back uh see you back in a few weeks.

That concludes our regular or I guess still regular agenda, but that concludes the items uh 1 through 16. We're now going to move to item 17, which is the uh Soo Gton zoning ordinance, zoning code update adoption. Chairman, could we could I request a 10-minute recess? Yes, sir. 10 10 minutes. All I need. Okay. Yes, it's fine. I Yes. Just we'll Yeah, Tim is fine. Thank you. If you get back before then we'll go. We'll get back to it.