Municipal Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, awesome. Good evening, everyone. I'm going to call this Gallatin Municipal Planning Commission meeting to order. It is 5.01, so we appreciate everyone's patience. At this time, I guess we'll have a call to order, give an invocation, and then we'll say the pledge. So if anyone would rise, please. Dear Lord, thank you for this day. Lord, thank you for this time together. Lord, please be with us tonight as we make important decisions for our community. Please keep everyone safe as they go home. In your son's name, amen. Tiffany, can you do the pledge, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. You may be seated. Mary Ann, will you do the roll call, please?

Chair Morrell?

Here.

Mr. Hamilton?

Here.

Mr. Pereer?

Here.

Mayor Brown? Councilman Pham?

Here.

Mr. Strother? Ms. Reed? Present.

Thank you. Does the Secretary have minutes from May 4th, 2026, Planned Commission Work Session May 18th for approval?

I do, Chairman. I have minutes dated May 4th, 2026 from the Work Session and May 18th from the Agenda Meeting, and I make a motion that we approve without any changes.

Okay. Do you have any objection to that? No. Okay. Okay, we have a motion. Do I hear a second?

Second.

Second. Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. Minutes are approved. At this point, we will move on to public comment on agenda-related items. Please be aware that there are several items throughout the regular agenda that have public hearings. I will point out that we already had our public hearing for item number 11, which is the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance and Map Zoning Code update adoption. If you have anything you wish to say on that item, please come forward during this public comment if you wish to say anything. So at this time, we'll open up public comment on agenda-related items. I think no one wished to... Yes, sir. Please come forward. Please state your name and your address.

My name is Reggie Mudd, and I live at 440 North Water Avenue in Gallatin. I want to speak in regards to the new zoning ordinance. I'm in favor of it. I went to a couple of the early meetings. I did not follow it all the way through. It looked like some very positive changes we were doing. But I'd like to be very careful in making sure we don't have a lot of unintended consequences. My wife and I personally own several old buildings on the square in Gallatin, and I'm fearful if the new zoning ordinance was enforced strictly, then we'd be in bad shape because there's not parking there. There are a lot of other things that... I think the codes and everybody else has been very fair with over the years. But some of these changes that I've been told about would require site plans and all sorts of things that create a lot of expense for property owners. So I would just hope that we would proceed with common sense and do what's right. I'm still in favor of the ordinance. I think there's a way to do that where we're not... penalizing people that own old properties, that sort of thing.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Seeing none, I'll close public comment on agenda-related items, and we'll move to the consent agenda. The consent agenda are minor items, things like plats and preliminary plats and such. We have four items on our consent agenda tonight. Number one is surety renewals and extensions. Number two is... preliminary plat for Hidden Creek Commons. Number three is a final plat for McCain Station commercial phase two lots one through three. And number four is the crossings at Hidden Creek, Bison Trail, and Springdale Lane extension final plat. Is there anyone from the commission or staff wishing to remove anything from the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion for the consent agenda.

I'll make a motion that we approve the consent agenda without any changes.

Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Consent agenda passes unanimously. Next, we will move to item number five. This is the first item on the regular agenda. This is 1429 Southwater Accessory Structure. Brad.

Brad Hickman, staff planner. The owner and applicant request approval of a site plan for a 1,200 square foot accessory structure with alternative architecture on one acre lot zoned R15, medium density residential district located at 1429 Southwater. You can see it here on the map where it's located. They gave us a pretty good site plan, falls within lot coverage, falls within the setbacks, and there is a similar metal building just about four or five lots north of it. The Planning Department recommends denial of the resolution, number 2026082, with the following two conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there a member from the applicant present?

Austin Christian, 660 Coles Ferry Road, Gallatin, Tennessee. At this point, I think we've been through this several times. So I appreciate you guys working through this. I know that I think y'all are potentially voting on the potential ordinance change tonight. And I just want to say thank you for working through it over the last several years. with that ordinance change and making it as smooth as it can be considering the previous ordinance. So that's pretty much it. I don't know if you guys have any questions for me about this particular project, but pretty similar to the ones previous.

Awesome. You're in agreement with all of the staff's comments? I am. Awesome. Does engineering have anything to add? Sorry, I forgot to ask.

No, we don't. Okay, awesome. I was a major anyway.

I know we spoke about this one at the work session. I mean, this one's pretty straightforward in line with all the others we've had recently. So with that, I will make a motion to approve with all staff comments. I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you all. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to number six. This is the Bowman, Massey, and Mayberry Comprehensive Plan Amendment. All right. Yes.

Good evening, Kimberly Attlee, staff planner. The owner applicant is requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment. It's located highway 31 east and south of Bright's Lane. This is two parcels, a totaling of 255.32 acres. The comprehensive amendment plan is to amend the plan Gallatin community character map and the sub area designated map. And this is here as we're on for this. The community character map will change from the rural character to a general urban character area. The area is right up there at the top. Up on here. You'll see the next page. And there it is on that. And then the expansion will be for the Gateway Green suburb area. Again, that will be from that area up here. We just recently went with the Gregory property, and that's right there. And now it's changed, and it's going to be up there. So the staff does recommend the resolution 20-26-077. Thank you.

Engineering, do you have anything to add?

We don't have any comments.

Okay. This item does come with the public hearing. At this time, I will open up this public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak on this item. Seeing no one wishing to speak, I'll close the public hearing and call for the applicant. I think similar to work session, I don't think they were here. But I mean, this is very much in line with what has happened up till this point. I think this is also in line with what you were saying, Kimberly, with adjacent property. So I don't have any other comments or questions. Does anyone else from the commission have questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the resolution with no changes.

Okay. So I have a motion to approve with all staff comments. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Tiffany. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Passes. Thank you. All right. Now we'll move to item number seven. This is Savannah Marketplace Cottages amended PMDP and FMDP. Kimberly. Yes, sir.

The owner applicant request approval for the amended PMDP-FMDP for the Savannah Marketplace Cottage, cottages, excuse me, located south of Nashville Pike and west of Gordon Crossing. It's 11.47 acres. It's zoned MU. It's 87 single-family detached units on 2,100 square foot lots. Okay. The request here is to modify the layout to accommodate a two-car garage, increasing the parking space per dwelling to four spaces. The lot frontage will increase from 26 to 30 feet. Reduce the number of lots from 96 to 87. The designated off-street parking decreased from 66 spaces to 37. So we'll go through here. The architect does meet the approved PMDP. There was a question in regards to the buffer yards type 25 buffer yard that the applicant would like to discuss in making it 25 foot. They have the PMDP required them to have 30. They want to talk about moving that to 25 foot to accommodate the area. There is a three foot berm that's on the south side of the town on the south property and 25 all the way around. The plat will need to be recorded on the access easement on Gordon Crossing to be on private road. And then a right turn lane on Nashville Pike may be required. Engineering can elaborate on that more. This will need to be voted on as a minor or major amendment. Due to the decrease in the density, staff recommends the amendment to be considered a minor amendment to the approved preliminary master plan for the Savannah marketplace.

Okay. Awesome. Thanks, Kimberly. Before I go to you, Mitchell, I'm going to open up a public hearing first, and then once we close that, we'll come to you. So at this time, we'll open up a public hearing on item number seven. Seeing no one wishing to speak, we will close public hearing and go to engineering.

Sure. So throughout the PMDP process, we asked for an updated traffic impact study, specifically looking at the right turn lanes from Nashville Pike into the development. We got the traffic impact study back, and it is recommending both access points have right turn lanes. So the westernmost access or right turn lane is warranted with this project. The middle, I'll call it, right turn lane is warranted today. So we have two projects left, this being the cottages and then the two and a half acre parcel kind of attached to the cottages.

Can you identify where those are on the map? That's what you were asking, John.

So I'll call this one the westernmost access, and then this one would be the middle access. Okay. And then the Gordon Crossing signal would be here. So the traffic impact study has recommended both westernmost and middle access point have right turn lanes. Again, westernmost is warranted with this project, with the development of this project. The middle right turn lane is warranted today. We've got two projects remaining, the cottages, this project, and then the two and a half acre parcel. So we would leave it up to this body basically to determine how those projects share the burden of the right turn lanes.

Okay. Question for context, with the right turn lane being warranted today, is that something that should have been implemented before?

It's probable. However, an updated traffic impact study was never done.

When was the original study done?

2004, I believe. So a long time ago.

So when the project was originally brought through. That's right. Okay. Anything else to add?

The Gordon Cross and the Nashville Pike contribution.

Okay. Which I believe is a condition. It is. Okay. Is the applicant present this evening?

Hello, my name is Greg Gamble. I'm a landscape architect for Savannah Marketplace, and I'm here tonight with Randy Hoffman, who's representing the developer, and Wes McGill is representing the engineering for the plans that have been submitted. As mentioned by staff, in the PMDP, we had 96 homes. That's been now reduced to a total of 87. The lot widths have increased from 26 foot wide to 30 foot wide. And we are providing more parking on this plan than previously. Each home will now have a two-car garage and two parking spaces in the driveway. So we've increased from 257 total parking spaces in the master plan to 385, an increase of 128 spaces from the previous approval. We've also increased the open space from 2.2 acres to 2.48 acres. In the staff conditions of approval, comment number nine says provide the layout and landscaping and the berm details in the rear buffer yard. We will be complying with the requirements for the 30-foot buffer yard with the resubmitted post-PC plans and will not be deviating from that requirement to a 25-foot buffer. Wes McGill is here as well and would like to speak to the off-site turn lane.

Thank you.

Wes McGill, civil engineer. Yes, regarding the off-site turn lane, we're in agreement with staff conditions. We discussed modifying the condition of approval to have both turn lanes provided. And we will determine with the traffic study when the second turn lane is warranted based on the CO. So that will be updated post-planning commission. We also ask that the conditions state in some sort of fashion that TDOT is the governing authority. So if possible, not to tie it to the CEO if TDOT, for some reason, does not approve the improvements of the turn lane plan as presented to staff today. So we're proposing that that turn lane stay within the shoulder and the existing sidewalks that are on site today so we don't have to get into existing utilities.

Okay. I guess two questions out of that. So, Mitchell, are you in agreement with the approach of keeping the sidewalk where it's at?

Yes.

Along Nashville Pike? Yes. And then can you, I guess, confirm with this project which turn lane would go in?

Yeah, that's kind of what, based on what you said, are you stating that both right turn lanes would be for the cottages?

I believe that's what we've agreed to being with one of the two projects, one of them for sure, and then we're going to let Randy.

Good evening. Randy Hoffman, the developer. What we'd like to agree to is, of course, this kind of is a surprise to us. As mentioned, the one is already warranted. I've owned the property since 2016, and this is the first time I've heard of a right turn heading into the property. So it caught us by surprise. But to answer the question, what we would really like to do is, with this project, because the cottages are what's warranting the the right turn, we'd like to put it in. With it, based on whether TDOT will allow it or not, and then the other, what we're calling the middle one, be tied to the mixed-use buildings when they come up. So we're agreeing to do both of them, but we'd like to stagger them so not to have to do them both at the same time.

With TDOT's approval, obviously.

With TDOT's approval, of course. And we had submitted a, we don't have it with us, but we had submitted a design and asked Mitchell and the team to approve that design to try to make minimal impact on the existing infrastructure out there, and they've agreed to that. That's the other condition is if that changes, we may have to be back up in front of you.

That makes sense. Whenever I saw the condition, my initial concern was if you had to completely widen per I guess what's out there today, you have White House utility district easement. You've got a massive retaining wall on site that if this would have been, I guess, implemented at the time that that retaining wall went in, it probably would have been a little bit easier to install. But now that the retaining wall is in, it makes it a lot more difficult.

That could compromise the integrity of the wall.

Yeah, it could, very much so. Whenever you design a wall that's 40 feet from the edge of pavement and now it's only 20 feet from the edge of pavement, it could likely not be up to the design standards that were implemented at the time.

I know this area has recently had resurfacing. Do you know off the top of your head how wide the bike lanes, and maybe this is Mitchell, how wide the bike lanes and that bike lane buffer is and the shoulder?

I don't know exactly. I mean, it's going to be within the current footprint without the turn lanes considered.

I think right now there's a shoulder, like a really wide shoulder.

Okay. There is. And when we made the improvements, when we installed the access points, the western one and the middle, that was back in 2021, I think. That's why it would have been nice to know this at the time. We We had to put the infrastructure in. We put the curb and gutter. We put the sidewalks, those other things. And that's why we would really not, besides the retaining wall, we don't want to tear out stuff that's perfectly good.

Yeah, makes sense. Okay. Mitchell, you had mentioned, I guess, that with this, I guess, Julian or Kimberly, can you go to the condition that this is referencing?

Condition 15. 15?

Yeah.

Can I take a shot at revising this?

Yes, please.

So we would like Condition 15 to state, construct eastbound right turn lane on Nashville Pike at westernmost access. This right turn lane is warranted by the turn lane analysis and must be operational as recommended. So instead of the way that it currently reads, one, this Condition 15 is currently talking about the middle right turn lane, and then it is also attaching it to a specific building permit, meaning number one, essentially. So what we are recommending is, or what the condition is going to state is based on the traffic impact study or the turn lane analysis, they will say when it is warranted. Okay, so the traffic. Which building permit.

Okay, which building permit, meaning if there's 87 homes, it could be the 25th, could be the 50th.

Okay. And for the record, we're okay with that. Again, the only thing we'd like to add to that is pending TDOT approval.

Are you comfortable with that, Mitchell? I mean, it would make sense. It's TDOT jurisdiction.

Sure. I mean, if we don't get TDOT approval, then the condition goes away anyway. Yeah. They are the governing body. That answers my question.

Okay. Can we just add to the second sentence, this right-turn lane is warrant is, I guess, per the updated traffic impact study and TDOT approval? Mitchell? Say that again. I guess, can you repeat the second sentence of your condition?

This right turn lane is warranted by the turn lane analysis and must be operational as recommended.

And then you could add herbage. Yeah, there needs to be something to make sure that if TDOT approval is not granted that this doesn't log jam this whole thing.

Sure. We could say contingent on TDOT approval? Uh...

I don't know. I mean, as I interpret that, it says contingent upon TDOT approval. If TDOT approval doesn't get it, then he doesn't get his building permit.

You could say this condition is deemed satisfied if TDOT doesn't approve or something like that. I'm happy with that. Sounds good. This condition is deemed approved if TDOT doesn't... Yeah, sorry, this condition is deemed satisfied if TDOT does not approve.

Okay. You sure you can't stay on the board? Okay, so we need to do a couple things right now. Before, I guess, put a pin in that, Marianne, before we... amend this condition, we need to vote on whether or not this is a major or minor amendment.

I'll make a motion that it's a minor amendment.

Do we have a motion on the floor for a minor? Do we have a second? Okay, so we have a second. Any discussion on that? I think it makes sense. Okay, all those in favor of a minor amendment, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay, so we have a minor amendment. Next, we have to go to a vote to amend condition 15. So do I hear a motion to amend condition 15 with the language as just stated?

Motion.

Okay, so we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by John. Any discussion on that amendment? Seeing none, call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay, so the condition has been amended. Any other questions or comments from commission staff?

Just one question. I'm going to make sure I understood Wes correctly. Y'all are not asking for a modification to the buffer yard, the 30-foot buffer yard?

That's correct.

Okay. I have no other questions.

Okay.

Any other questions from the applicant? Okay.

I have one quick question. Yes. So on 15, we're changing that from the center right turn lane to the west right turn lane. So there is not going to be any condition that relates to the center right turn lane? Not with this plan. I don't think we can make a condition. That'll be in the future. Yes.

Okay.

Okay. That being said, no other questions or comments. I'll entertain a motion for the whole plan.

I'll make a motion to approve with the 24 conditions as modified.

Okay. We have a motion. Second. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Next, we will go to item number eight. This is McCain Station Memory Care, FMVP.

I have to recuse myself from this one.

Good evening, Commissioners. Charlie Pieri, Staff Planner. The owner and applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the McKinney Station Master Development Plan and a final Master Development Plan for the McKinney Station Memory Care Facility on Commercial Lot No. 3, a 3.38 plus or minus acre lot located south of Sweet Briar Way and north of State Route 386. The applicant is proposing a memory care assisted living facility that is gonna go on to commercial lot number three, which has since been subdivided with the most recent flat approval at this meeting. The second of the three lots here. This facility will be accessed by two access easements. I say these are easements because via the plat they will serve the out parcels as well. The access easement for this parcel and this one up here. And the same for the bottom down here, both which will be for future development. Staff had a lot of concerns about landscaping previously, and we've worked with the applicant to have more enhanced landscaping for this site to follow the PGC standards. Given the TVA easement that runs on the southern side of this property, The applicant has made sure to have adequate landscaping that is compliant with the TVA standards. These do not currently meet the zoning ordinance requirements because of the TVA easement. So the applicant will be requesting the alternate landscape of a yard exception. The architecture is comprised of a brick and stone with some metal accents consistent with the McCain Station Master Development Plan architecture requirements. AC units are going to be screened. All of them will be on the interior of the facility facing the courtyard. And this is just the overview of the lot we're focusing on, this lot up here. Staff recommends that this is going to be a minor amendment because there is no substantial increase in density to the overall development and no change in the intensity of the use. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. At this, does engineering have anything?

This project will be subject to the big station camp TID contribution. And other than that, just a few stormwater comments.

Okay. Thank you. At this point, we have a public comment section for this item. So at this time, I'll open up the floor for public hearing. Seeing no one else to speak, I will close public hearing and call for the applicant to come forward.

Wes McGill, civil engineer. We're in agreement with staff comments.

Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from commission? Any thoughts or discussion on a major or minor amendment?

Looks to me like, I mean, it's a minor. I'll make a motion that it's a minor amendment.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor that's a minor amendment. Do I hear a second? Second. Second by Albert. Any discussion? I have an agreement with you, John. I think that this, obviously, use is previously allowed. I think it's just a rearranging of uses on the overall master plan. So, in my opinion, it's a minor amendment as well. Any other comments on that? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. So it's a minor amendment. Any questions or comments on the plan as a whole? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve with all comments.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor with all comments. Do I hear a second?

Yeah, I'll second.

All right, so we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll go to item number nine. This is East Broadway Retail Shell, amended PMDP and revised FMDP.

The owner and applicant requests approval of an amended preliminary master development plan and revised final master development plan for the East Broadway retail shell development consisting of 10,368 square feet multi-tenant commercial building on 1.93 acre lot located north of East Broadway and east of Municipal Drive. Municipal Park Drive, excuse me. You can see the property here. The changes mainly from the previously approved FMDP are to the west of the property. You can see them here where the stormwater is being moved underground. Here you can see the previous where they had the above ground retention, the parking is There's additional parking added here above the stormwater that would be moved underground, and that is to accommodate the additional use of food service in the building. It was pretty much split half and half with retail and services before then. The planning department recommends approval of resolution number 2026-083 with the following 12 conditions. This does have public comment. and we do recommend this as a minor amendment.

Thanks, Brad. Engineering, do you have anything to add?

Just a few stormwater comments, nothing major.

This does come, as Brad said, come with a public comment, so if there's anyone wishing to speak on this item, you may come forward at this time. Seeing no one wishing to speak, we'll close the public hearing, and we will call for the applicant to come forward.

Brian Muller, civil engineer on the project. I'm in agreement with all staff comments.

Awesome. Yeah, like we talked about at the work session, this seems pretty straightforward. I don't have any questions or comments. I think everything I had was previously addressed, and we've already seen this. There are no other changes to this plan outside of just adding parking. I will entertain a motion.

Move to be a mount amendment.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor that it's a minor amendment. Do I hear a second?

Second.

Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? So it's a minor amendment. Do we have a motion on the floor for the approval of the plan? I will make a motion for approval with all staff comments. Second by the mayor. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll go to item number 10. This is project lasso site plan amendment landscaping request.

Yes, the owner applicant requests an approval for an alternative landscaping plan for project Lasso Roy. It's located north of Steam Plant Road and east of Rappahannock Wire Road. It's located in IG, Industrial General District, and it's on 13.84 acres. Basically, they're changing their landscaping. It was okay from the first time, so this is actually all right as well. This is an industrial area, little traffic on this property, so staff has no issues with this.

Okay. Awesome. This does not have a public comment. Engineering, do you have anything to add? We don't have any comments. Okay. Is there a member from the applicant present? Jim. Jim.

Jim Harrison, CSDG. I'm actually substituting for Brad. Staff explained it fairly well. These adjustments really help us to adapt to what's really going out on the site to maximize landscaping, those prominent corners, but it also is an industrial area. It also allows us to not do a lot of over-excavating in between the road and the parking, which allows us to maintain some grades. It will help us screen the parking as well.

Okay.

Yeah, I took a look at this. I didn't see any issues with this, especially with like you were saying, given the area. There's not a ton of. landscaping up and down this road. I mean, I think this at least does a good job of providing some screening and enhancing both entrances of the site. Is there any other comments from commission? There's no staff conditions, so pretty straightforward. Yeah, pretty straightforward. Actually, I can't remember the last time we had anything that didn't have any conditions. Actually, there was one earlier. Again, I can't remember that. So, okay, I'll entertain a motion. So move. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. All right, I'll give it to Tanner. So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, this time we will go to item number 11. This is ZOCO Gallatin Zoning Ordinance and Map Zoning Code Update Adoption.

Yes, so we took comments we received from the previous meeting and ones before that, incorporated them into the chart that was provided in your packet. Things that are in black are actual changes that we need to make and things that are in gray were just comments that didn't affect any kind of change. We ended up with about 100 changes and that could be as small as a typo or as large as adding a section, particularly the change of use language. to the document of changes that we're making based on feedback from Planning Commission and just discussions over the last two months. So that chart was in your packet. I'm happy to discuss anything that comes up with those if you guys have questions about any of it, but they should reflect your previous discussions.

And that was in addition to the thousands of other comments that we've already addressed.

Yes, these were just the ones we've had since we started this planning commission review process in May. Any other comments that we had before that are in the document that was in your packet. And actually the document in your packet was a PDF that included these chart changes in it as notations of future changes. So if you ever want to look at that as well.

Okay.

The biggest thing we spent time on was the change of use section, which is we've had a lot of discussion on that. And so we included what we imagine that language would look like in your packet and where we would put it in the document. It would appear in Article 21 as another type of plan, a change of use site plan. And we described when it was applicable, the process, the application process, things like that. So to go through it kind of quickly, change of use site plan would be applicable when the change in the current use on the property changes. This is for standalone buildings, single tenants only. And then also if that property is vacant for 30 months, that also triggers the change of use review. Which is already how we do it. So this predominantly projects what we do right now. A pre-application process, which is true for everybody. Application process, who makes the decisions. If it's a code compliant plan, planning staff can make the decision. If it's not, it would come to planning commission for alternative buffer yards. In particular, those are the ones you see. And we also did narrow it down to what things we wanted to look at. We didn't leave it open-ended. We said this list of things, buffer screening, landscaping installation, public sidewalk installation, driveway access evaluation, stormwater management, parking and ADA access review, non-conforming sign removal, trash receptacle, dumpster enclosure, and screening. Again, things we already look at. And that's predominantly what our change of use site plans right now handle, but we put it down in writing. We also added that we're not going to look at architecture for the purpose of change of use. We're not going to say you have a facade, a building right now, you need to somehow make that facade meet current code. That's not feasible for 99% of property. So we put it down there that outside of safety improvements that codes makes you do, we're not going to do anything with architecture for zoning code. Um, and then we added a section of what we expected those plans to look like. So what things would go into that? Um, mostly based off of the things that we wanted to look at. So that's very common in this code is it describes what things need to appear on the actual site plan document. We added a couple more sections based on our internal discussion. So elective site plans or site improvements. So if someone's adding a building or adding a parking lot, that's outside the scope of just a change of use site plan. You'll go through the development plan process as you would with anything else because you're actually making changes that you electively want to do. And then the last one, we formally stated on here that multi-tenant buildings do not count towards this. You wanna go into a multi-tenant building with a new tenant, as long as that use is permitted in the zoning district, you don't have a change of use site plan process. In addition to that, if your site, say you have a standalone building, say that site meets current code, you don't need to do a change of use site plan for us. long as the use you want to do is compliant. Say you've had a change of use site plan within the last five years where you either had to meet code at that time or you came to Planning Commission and got exceptions. We don't feel like you need to come to us again if you just did some improvements. We don't think that's necessarily fair. So we added that information just based on our internal conversations and trying to make this work and be laid out in actual writing. We also came up with scenarios, which aren't specific to any ones that we've done in real life, but are not dissimilar to what we commonly see. So I can go through them if you want to, or if you just had read through them, but I have five scenarios on there. Some of them required a change of use site plan. Some of them did not.

Yeah, I had asked for that.

Okay. Yes.

Pick your favorite and go through it.

Yes, absolutely. So our first scenario is a standalone building on a site. This is near downtown, but not in downtown. It has existing parking, no landscaping, and no stormwater measures. The previous use on the property was a law office, and they would like to put in an accounting office. So based on this code and our previous code, we would say both of those uses our office uses, they fall under the same category in our principal use table. So whether or not an office was allowed in that zoning district before or not, you can continue to do an office in there. You would not have to do any kind of change of use site plan because you are not changing the use of the property. So that's your first one. Next one, you have a multi-tenant building on a site on National Pike. Site has been fully developed since the early 90s and includes a non-conforming sign. So the existing uses in that building are food service, retail, and medical offices, and they'd like to add a nail salon, which for us falls under a general personal service. So as this use, um, and it's permitted in the zoning district. So if this use is permitted in the, in the zoning district, they can be added to the multi tenant building as a single tenant. And since the, and the previous use of that space does not matter. So because it's a multi tenant building and the use is permitted in the zoning district, this would not require a change of use site plan.

And specifically because they added, because it went to a multi tenant because it's a multi tenant building.

Yes. We do not do change of use site plans for multi-tenant building. We have no interest in doing that.

Does this distinction between a single tenant and multi-tenant, does this encourage somebody when they're faced with a change of use to carve out one office for somebody who's going to work remote, but they call it a multi-tenant building?

I suppose they could try and make it a multi-tenant building. I've maybe seen that once where something went from a one to a two, but I've seen it go the other way as well.

Sure.

So.

Okay. And go ahead. These are fun. Do your second one.

Next is a standalone building on a site on Broadway. Site has some landscaping, but no front buffer yards, no sidewalk along the right of way, and no recent site plan approvals. So the existing use on the property, that would go away as retail, and they are proposing to change it to a financial office. So due to the change in use and the non-conformities on the site, the site must go through the change of use site plan process to address these issues. Possible improvements include buffer yard installation, sidewalk installation, access drive removal if they have too many, especially in the older parts of town, non-conforming sign removal, parking striping and ADA review, and dumpster enclosure and stormwater review.

Good examples. On the previous page, what was the fork in the road where it either was an in-office administrative review and approval or it goes to planning commission? Describe that fork in the road.

Yeah. So the way we do it now is if they want to do a change of use on the property and they can meet all the buffer yard requirements, their access meets code, their parking in ADA meets code, there's no exceptions that are needed or variances that are needed, then staff can approve it. But if there's something in there that's outside the scope of what staff can approve, it would have to come to this body. That's how we do it now.

If staff was dealing with it, so would there be a situation where staff would handle it in-house and deny it and the applicant wouldn't want it to come to this body, but they wouldn't be able to bring it to the body?

Typically what happens if we come at an impasse with an applicant on the administrative side, we bring it to you guys anyway.

I'd like for that to kind of be written into the code.

Okay.

Because I was thinking of one other thing I've heard Reggie, I'm sorry, I'm talking. Go ahead. Reggie Mudd mentioned something about older buildings. And a lot of people say, well, the community tears down its own building, old buildings. It doesn't preserve stuff. I want to give some latitude to older buildings, but I don't want to do it just based on an age of saying, let's say the building is 50 years old. It needs additional latitude given to it. Um, because there were some buildings I'm 60 years old and there were some buildings that were ugly and dysfunctional 50 years ago. Um, so I don't want to just say because it's old, it needs to, um, be grandfathered in. Um, But I want to make sure that those old sites that might be difficult to conform to the new code get to come to this body so that maybe a little bit of subjectivity can be applied, some latitude. How do you word this?

I think that's already, if I understand correctly, if I think Jillian's, if I understand what Jillian's saying, is I think that's already how it would be done. Is it good?

I don't know of any time we've reviewed something, administratively denied it and not given them a chance to go to planning commission just automatically.

Well, I'm good.

Yeah, that's what we would do.

I think some of the confusion, especially with some of the previous folks that have gotten up and spoke on this matter, I think some of the confusion came from the fact that they were unaware that we were already doing some of this stuff. It just wasn't written down. There was already a change of use site plan process, but it just wasn't

It wasn't as clear.

Yeah, it wasn't as clear.

It's in there, but it's not as clear. And I did want to speak to the square a little bit because that is one of the scenarios I had because that has come up in discussion. So the buildings on the square are unique in that they are on individual lots. but they're all connected to each other. It's kind of like one big multi-tenant building. We don't make the buildings on the square do change of use site plans. The only ones we have, there's been one or two we have, is when they added residential and that has a parking component. that we have to look at, or they were making substantial changes, like they're trying to figure out parking on the site. We had one up on Prince Street, if you'll recall, where they had parking on the street, which was existing, and they were doing facade changes. That was a big redo. But typically, someone wants to go into the square, it's an approved, it's an allowed use, business license and you go because the square doesn't have a four yard requirements, very limited parking requirements. The sidewalks are there. Like it's just the stormwater is not a thing because you have the buildings can take up the whole site. So we're not suddenly going to do change of view site plans for buildings on the square because it's really just a multi-tenant building here.

A couple of things. I was listening to the meeting as I was driving back from Nashville, so I heard the comment earlier. And so I appreciate what you said, but you also kind of squashed what was going to be my suggestion about something about buildings 50 years or older. But it makes me wonder, would there be some scenario in which we could include verbiage that said, you know, buildings 50 years or older may be afforded special consideration and accommodation if it contributes to the character of the city in some unique way or something like that. I just dreamed that out of my head, so it probably doesn't read as best as it possibly can. But I think that's important. And then not related to that conversation, but because I do have people call and ask me specific questions, and of course I'll answer them for them, but I always think it's better to hear the staff answer them in confirmation. And this was... a property owner who owned existing lots in a subdivision that was scared that their new zoning code was going to require different lot sizes. Now, if it's already platted, we can't be going backwards and telling you that you've got to have a new lot size.

Yeah, a platted lot is governed by its plot.

That's preserved perpetually. And I just want you all to confirm that so that I wouldn't have asked about it. But back to my original consideration, you know, just preserving those old buildings. And I would contend that even some of the ones that we've always viewed as ugly could find some way to be cool. You know, because I'm serious. Okay, here's an example. In the 80s, the old gas stations were super not cool. Now they're really cool, but there's only a couple around the city. So maybe there's something else like that that right now just looks so hideous and out of date to us. But in 10 years, it may be like... That would be so neat if they could turn it into anything useful. So I just want to leave the door open for creativity and creative changes of use that contribute to the character of the city.

One thing to remember, though, the buildings themselves are not even going to be part of the change of use site plan requirement. It's really your site, your landscaping, your parking, things like that, your stormwater. Those are the types of things that we're looking at trying to get updated. And we specifically exempted architectural requirements, right? So we're not trying to get at, especially the square buildings and stuff, we don't want to see the square architecture change, right? And what's left with that, you don't have a whole lot because sidewalks go right up to the buildings on the square. So I don't know that we could ever do change of uses with the square.

Yeah. So... But you talk about it being a site and not just a building, but using my previous gas station example, there's property on Northwater. It's a former gas station. I don't know the size of the lot, but in my head, that lot could be way too small to add any parking or landscaping to it, but it still could be a very neat use right there on Northwater Avenue. And so what kind of requirements would fall on that building to make it become... something that they can open. I just don't know if that's feasible to tackle that. I don't know if anybody has a better description of the property that I speak of, but if you went up to North Water, it's on the left. I think it was a graphic arts place now. I think it may be an Airbnb currently, but I could be wrong.

I mean, again, a lot of the buildings right along that area take up 95% of the lot area, right?

So where would you put stormwater landscaping or parking?

What would you do, right? What would we even be able to do? So I don't believe that we could implement it for the square. That's just outside really the realm of possibilities when you have a building that's like that that covers the entire lot. And if that's the case, then we wouldn't get any progress by saying, well, you need a parking solution, right? Because what are they going to do, right?

They're going to tear it down, and it'd be cheaper to tear it down and build something different.

That's what we don't want to see happen.

Yeah, I mean, you said Northwater. I was thinking East Main Street. I was thinking of the historic old gas station. Dry cleaners? Yeah, it was dry cleaners. And that's a site that I don't think you could retrofit to accommodate stormwater or anything, but it would be a single applicant. I'm not a single, a single tenant property. How would that fall if somebody came in and wanted to do, do you know which property I'm talking about? I probably shouldn't be mentioning a specific property.

It's not Boyer's, it's College.

No, I don't think so. Talking about the old gas station with the round columns, how would that be applied? That would be a single tenant property. If they made a change of use, would they have to conform to parking requirements and stormwater requirements on that property? have to look and see what they could do if it was a standalone building and that's where i'm wanting to try to give some latitude to a really historic that's one of the most interesting buildings up up and down that street right there but at the same time i won't name a specific property but in 1972 my grandparents took me to get a hamburger and french fries at the first fast food place that came in gallatin you can figure out where that is um and But it was just a fast food building back then, and it still kind of is. It's nothing special about it because of its age. And you were saying you're disconnecting the – you're not looking at the building or architectural changes. I don't want to come up with something that says just because a building is 50 years old, it gets total leeway. But I'm sure wanting to protect something that has character and adds to the community out there on Main Street.

He did great with his other stuff, I hope.

But anyway, you answered my question earlier. You said that kind of situation is going to come to planning commission, right?

Yes. If they can't meet the code requirements, we would bring it here.

Okay. Well, then we'll,

Planning Commission may not always look the same, and we've heard a lot of discussions about following the letter of the code, and that always frightens me because I, like I said, want to leave the door open for common sense and creativity and something no one's ever dreamed of before.

Fellow point? Mm-hmm.

You have to hope that seven people on a board can make an educated decision that's best for the city. I mean, that's part of why you're here.

I think it sounds so easy. All right, any other comments? Was your presentation done? I think, I mean, to piggyback on that, I think the added language for the change of use, especially with the scenario, the scenarios are going in there too, right? In the code or is that just scenarios?

That was just.

Okay, that's fine. I don't think that's necessary, but it does help provide some context. It does help provide context, but I think having the language spelled out like y'all have helps tremendously, hopefully addresses the comments that folks had. Um, the only other comments I had since the last time we spoke about this was related to the floodplain development section, but I think Brian and I have got that worked out. Um, obviously that that section is expanded quite a bit, uh, since our previous code. Uh, but it just, again, almost similar to the changing your site plan just highlights and provides more context as to what process the, the development or the property owners are actually going through. So appreciate you working back and forth on that, Brian.

Any other questions or comments? I'll also note that we do have Brian Wright from TPUDC who came for the initial informational gathering type stuff and the Planetpalooza and everything. Of course, he's left it to Bill and Anna to kind of help us get through most of the rest of the process, but he did come tonight just for, I guess, support. I don't know if you guys want to hear from anybody with the consultants tonight, but they are here for any comments or questions that you may have.

I will say I appreciate y'all's help and assistance throughout this entire process. Obviously, I know it's not easy. It doesn't happen overnight, so I appreciate the hard work that y'all have helped give. And I know we had a lot of comments, so I appreciate y'all addressing those. I guess if there's no other comments or questions, I mean, or entertain a motion, if Big moment. It's a big moment. I mean, this is not, like I said, this did not happen overnight. This took, what are we, a year and a half now? Two and a half. Two and a half since the initial. And it obviously is not, even if we vote on it tonight, it's still not done. So. I'll entertain a motion.

Well, if nobody wants to beat me to it, I will gladly make a motion to recommend approval.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment.

I'll second.

Second. We have any other discussion?

My trepidation is that there won't be robust discussion and opportunities for continued input and feedback once it gets to the council. There may be, but there may not be. That's fine. Would you consider the things that we discussed tonight that Mr. Pereira and I talked about helping us find a way to give some special consideration for character contributions?

You already have a motion on the floor. I'm just saying. How do I amend the motion with a, not a condition, but a change? Yeah, I'd like to put in print so that it gets to the council that we're making a motion to approve. I can't put a condition on council, but with the strong recommendation that council and planning commission have a joint meeting to spur and get the discussion going with them.

I think that would be helpful because, I mean, Mayor, like you're saying, I was talking to Brian Jillian earlier. I feel like that this could potentially go through without a whole lot of discussion. And I would hope that this document gets reviewed thoroughly by council as well before they take it to a vote. I mean, obviously, we've spent a lot of time on it. But yes, I would agree.

How is that properly worded? I can't order council to invite us to their party, but I sure would like to recommend it.

Kate, this body is concerned to the council and the request to have a joint meeting. We had a joint meeting with the comp plan.

Yeah. It wouldn't be dissimilar from that.

I think that's acceptable. All we have to do is get a schedule put together for a joint meeting, probably outside the regular council slash planning commission agenda nights. That's how it was done when we did the one with the comp plan.

Okay. Well, I think I can word that.

And do that prior to starting the formal process through the council committee meeting agenda.

Okay. Then I would like to make an amendment to the motion that's on the floor, and that is that a joint meeting be held with city council and planning commission members to spur discussion, and that meeting include catered food. I'll second that.

I didn't hear what you said it included.

Catered food. He wants catered food.

We'll have to be up to July 1 because the council's done a really good job of depleting that budget.

I'm going to write that down.

Okay. So we have to vote on that amendment? Of course.

Yes. We already had a first and a second, and that we hadn't voted. Do you have to restate the motion?

No, we just need to amend the... We're amending the... We're voting to amend that original motion. Any other discussion on that? Okay. All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. So we have an amended... He did. I did. He motioned, I seconded.

That was the amendment. I motioned, and then you seconded. Oh, she seconded. Oh, she seconded.

So now we have a motion on the floor, or an amended motion on the floor that's been voted on with a second. Any other discussion before we go to a vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Passes unanimously.

Thank you guys.

I look to see a big smile across the room.

Congrats, staff. We really do appreciate all of your consideration on this. It's been a lot, a big job going from the beginning to this point and we do look forward to finally being able to get some implementation of it here soon once we get through the council process.

And I am so grateful for you and Jillian and the staff because I know that we have been most tedious. But I feel better because we have been most tedious. But you've been most patient and answered a lot of questions, and I appreciate that. And I do hope that conversation and considerations will continue and that we will wind up with something that has as few unintended consequences as possible.

OK. Thank you, Mayor. At this point, I guess we've got other business? Yes.

One small thing. When I first started serving on this board, the packets were printed, and they were delivered to us in a manila envelope. And then it became a three-ring binder, and it got bigger and bigger. And this is coming from a guy who loves detail, and I love to see as much information as I can. But I've got to tell you that applicants have been really good about submitting them. awful lot of detail but it's getting to the point where i'm having trouble navigating through the whole packet because there's so many pages if the technology ever comes about and we have an opportunity to make some of these documents and some of these attachments and stuff supporting documents as maybe hyperlinks that you could drill into it It sure would be easier. Just tonight I was trying to scroll down and get to the conditions and couldn't quite get fast enough to get there. So I think there's so much great detail being given. If it could be done as drill-down attachments, it sure would be easier to navigate this huge document. Do you use your bookmarks? I do until I blow it up and it locks up.

I'm always accidentally shutting stuff or trying to open on the display screen.

We can definitely look in to see what we can do. We acknowledge that some of the packets are very large. This one had this whole zoning code in it. So that in and of itself made it a very large packet when it really wasn't that many agenda items. And sometimes the plan sets are really large. And we try and size them down as much as we can.

Better hope you never have a commissioner that insists on his lawful right to have it printed because you're going to have to bring a wheelbarrow in here.

I mean, yeah.

The zoning ordinance is a very big document as far as digital. It's got a lot of images, diagrams, tables, extra things that kind of make it a really big document. So it's been doing that to me on my computer here too. I've been slightly frustrated, although I did have my paper copy with me, and we did give you guys all paper copies of the zoning amendments. So hopefully you've been able to take your time to review all that.

Well, I was scrolling through it in my office, and I'm pretty sure that the light's dimmed because it was sucking some power. Just whatever you can do would be great.

Yeah, we can look at it.

Awesome. I guess the only other announcement, Tanner's last night with us. So appreciate your time, and best of luck.

Thank you so much. In all your endeavors.

Thank you. We appreciate you. Short time, but I enjoyed it a lot, seriously. So thank you.

You've contributed, and I'm so grateful for that.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. And you allowed John to make the motion for your minutes tonight, even.

Have we shared who's going to be replacing him?

I don't think we've announced it.

Except I blabbed it out front. Yes. Somebody on this commission let that out of the bag.

I don't mind letting my nose. I was going to share if everybody didn't know. Latasha Alexander will be joining this planning commission and I think she will contribute greatly. I'm excited about that. Tiffany, you may not remember her, but she was city attorney who sat right there during all of our planning commission meetings. So she has had an unusually deep and wide exposure to the Gallatin Planning Commission. Excited to meet her.

I'll defer to y'all, but do you want to make her secretary to make sure there's no gap in coverage or someone?

Ben, should we do that tonight? Maybe on another agenda when it's noticed. Or just prior to the next meeting?

She's already the vice secretary.

I don't think there's a need to do that. Once it's vacant, then we'll listen.

Awesome. Thanks, Ben. You're welcome. Anything else? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Motion. Motion. Second. All right. So motion is second. All in favor?