Municipal Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the agenda of item one which is public comment on agenda related items. If you have something you'd wish to comment on as you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record and keep your comments to five minutes. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Michelle Juvants and my address is 1335 Long Hollow Pike. I'm speaking on um item two, Kensington Downs phase five. And I'm here to put a few things on the record. Uh the last time this FMDP was in front of you was one year ago at the October 7, 2024 planning commission work session. At the time I spoke to you, as did my neighbor and my husband. We stated that the FMDP in front of you last year was not consistent with the PMDP and was not consistent with what had been promised to us in 2017 and 2018 by the developer and by CSDG. I want to be sure to put on the record that last year at the meeting after we spelled out the specific things that were promised to us and were changed, I expected you to actually take what I said seriously. and to require the developer to keep their promises to us. Instead, the vice chairman who was running the meeting that night completely brushed aside what we had said and made comments essentially that the new plans that the developer had presented were fine. The vice chairman completely disregarded us and the other planning commissioners followed his lead. It was clear that the developer was going to get their rubber stamp from the planning commission even though all the agreements and promises that had been made to us eight years ago had been erased. Because of the planning commissioner's dismissive treatment of us and preferential treatment toward CSDG and toward the developer, we hired a lawyer to represent our interests. Let me say

that again. We as citizens had to spend money and hire lawyers because of the planning commissioner's blatant disregard of the truth and preferential treatment towards CSDG and the developer. I have um a letter that our lawyer sent last year and I think some of you probably haven't seen it so I'll pass it around when I'm done here. I think you should see it. And I would also like to put on the record that um there are three of you that recuse yourselves every month on items for financial conflicts of interest. You not only rub elbows with CSDG and other engineering firms, you are actually doing business with them. You are making a living off of the things you're voting on. And this looks shady. And from my experience last year of having to hire lawyers just to get you to do the right thing, it is also affecting your voting decisions. Mr. Chairman, I am asking you to recuse yourself from this item number two and from anything else represented by CSDG as you are currently working with them on your Highway 25 townhouse development. And I'd like to call on the mayor to replace the chairman, the vice chairman, and the secretary as these three planning commission members are making a living from things they vote on regularly, and that's not how it should be done. some of the details on tonight's uh FMDP, even though it's substantially better than what was presented last year. Um when I looked this morning at the cross-section of the burm that we were supposed to be, we were promised a minimum 36 inch burm, it looks like it's 2 and 1/2 ft. Um so 2 and 1/2 ft is not three feet. Uh I

don't know what else is different. I haven't noticed anything else, but that is that is something that I expect you to do the right thing about and I'll just pass this around for anybody who wants to look at it. Thanks.

Thank you, ma'am. Evening. Pascal Jans 1335 Longor Park. Um, just a quick question on the comprehensive plan amendment. Um, I'm wondering how uh a an applicant uh who has nothing to do yet with a city can request legally an amendment to plan Garatin. Uh his property is not in a city yet. Uh it's still going through process uh of being annexed. Um so uh you know if we do that means anybody can come tomorrow and ask for an amendment on a plan Garatin. Somebody from Chicago or for Los Angeles going to come and say hey why don't we change plan garatan uh that should not be I don't know how we can do that legally. That's my first first mention on that. And my second mention is uh if it dare to be changed uh because the applicant told us he wanted to do industrial and because on a new zoning code we have actually um a new zoning was just industrial. Why you we use that opportunity because it's in front of you now to actually create uh an industrial uh base uh on the plan Gatan because it's not there. There is nothing there.

My main concern uh by uh changing how it is uh that the applicant can tomorrow come back to us and decide to change the industry all to identity and if we just change a plan Gatan like that he's going to be able to do that. So um we know that with the new Zoko we're going to have industrial uh block. Why don't you guys talk about that and instead of going to um uh general urban uh and create really quickly an industrial character area we can add in a plan gallon because I think that's missing somewhere. uh we just have four different staff who doesn't meet uh industrial so that should be a pretty easy to do in couple of session and make sure that B industrial is there so when we switch to the new code um we actually don't have to come back there to change the plan G that's just an idea thank you

thank you sir Hey everybody, uh Rosemary Bay, Gallatton Economic Development Agency, 132 West Main Street, Gallatton, Tennessee. I am here to encourage you to look favorably on changing the comp plan in this area and um down the road if you want to look at creating an industrial character area would certainly love to help you define that and how you would implement that. uh my predecessor um did not um take um a he did not participate a great deal in how you were creating the character area mapping. Um, so if if I had been here and then well I was here then, but I would have encouraged you to consider this area a much broader industrial area because of all the infrastructure that is already there. And um in my opinion, yes, industrial construction can seem a little um uh strong or intense. But once you have that industry in place, the impact on the neighbors, whether they remain a farm or uh the roundtree residences and there are lots of plans to protect them if you end up doing this ultimately the industry itself has a lot less impact on a lot of our infrastructure, schools and those sorts of things. So please consider this favorably and again um if you feel like you need to create a character area for industrial um please let me know and I'm happy to participate in that. So thank you very

very much. Thank you ma'am. Anyone else wishing to speak under public comment on agenda related items? All right, seeing no one indicating they wish to speak, close the uh public comment. We'll move on to the uh the agenda item two, Kensington Downs phase 5, final master development plan.

Good evening, Kimberly Atley, staff planner. This is an request uh for the owner applicant is requesting final approval for the master plan development for Kensington down phase 5. That's 26 single family lots. It's on two 62 acres. It's zoned R8 PRD. It's that last portion of a larger subdivision that's being developed tonight. We're coming back to you in regards to um a couple of items. This, you may remember, came in last year about this time. Um we'd had to work on the buffer, uh some swells, uh some burm, uh landscaping. So, they have come back with some new information. I'll get you to where you need. Okay. Everything on the uh east side has it will be existing tree lines or keeping existing tree lines, preserving that on the east side. Um on then they're keeping the street uh landscaping and then everything on the west side and the north uh they've enhanced the buffer yard. Um and then that we're talking about the uh the west swell and the east swell. They are on here. We have requested for the north swell um detailed information tonight. Um I think engineer needs they're going to be talking about the traffic analysis and possibly the curb cut and some more information on the burn. Thank you.

Uh yeah, I can chime in. Just a couple of things that we were focused on with this review was um as you all know when we ask for streets to be uh stubbed out that are going to connect to future properties. We always like to have those go as close as practical to the boundary just so that when the next person comes in to connect to that, we won't have to worry about, oh, you know, we're having to build 50 more feet or 100 more feet to to make this connection. And so, just so that everyone's doing their part and that connection can be made without too much worry. And then the probably the bigger thing is um the development uh through the traffic impact study on the front end was required to put a traffic signal in if it met warrants at Grandstand Boulevard and Green Lee Boulevard. Um we've asked for them to do a traffic impact or a traffic signal warrant analysis. We're not uh confident that this will meet warrants. Uh but we feel like we we need to at least get the the signal warrant analysis completed and then if it doesn't meet warrants, we get to the the end of this, they're 100% built out, still doesn't meet warrants, we feel like it's appropriate to have some kind of contribution to go towards the construction of this in the future. Uh we had an item on the agenda tonight that would see an extension of Grandstand Boulevard and so we know that this is the Bison Trail extension that would connect to this and at some point in time we we feel like it a traffic signal will show up there. So want to make sure everybody is is paying their fair share as they come along. So those are our main things.

Thanks N. Do we have a representative for the applicant here? uh Luke Tally with CSDG and uh we're generally okay with all comments. Happy to uh talk a little bit more on the road stubouts. I guess from a year or so ago when this first came through, we met with planning and uh engineering separately and and kind of talked about, you know, keeping those enhanced buffers on the north and east side. So, we came together as a team to kind of pull those back and maintain as much buffer as we could. So, happy to amend as needed. I know there's just some some back and forth that needs to be done with staff on that one.

And, you know, I I I wasn't half the meeting when this was here a year ago, but you know, it sounds like there were some agreements that were made with the adjacent property owners for these buffers. So, um, are you guys complying with that with what the owner you they all agreed to? I mean, uh, yes. If the staff would like to, uh, address that, too. We feel like we've we've met the conditions that they've, uh, I guess we met about after last year's meeting. There were some meetings outside the work session that took place, too, that kind of further enhanced these buffers. So, okay.

Yeah. I just want to make sure but if there if there was an agreement made with the adjacent property owners then you know from the owner or from the developer it needs to you know needs to be compliant with that. So that's I just I'm going be looking for that at the voting meeting that whatever agreements were reached that you know you know the promises were that were made are getting kept. We'll make sure the exhibits that were approved with the PMDP are included as attachments for you guys. Okay. At the voting meeting. Yeah. So it's clear. Yeah. I mean, if if the PMDP showed a buffer and it showed things, then that was the and that was the agreement at PMDP. We need to make sure all this matches, you know, and look, obviously there's if there's a reason something can't match, explain what it is, but um but I want to make sure we're we're following through on what we originally promised people.

Completely agree. Um so, any other questions? No, I think you covered it. Um, and I guess so the and to that point, you know, where the road stub can't go to the property lines. I imagine that's part of pulling it back is for these enhanced buffers. If you put the road stub all the way through, it kills that part of the buffer. Is that exactly? So that that's where I guess some conversation can be had outside this meeting if we need uh we thought we were meeting a a planning condition by doing that, but I think engineering still wants the road to go there. So I I think there were other people in the meetings last year too that may no longer work with engineering. So

Gotcha. Was there a provision if if if the roaded doesn't extend on the property line the I'm assuming the right of way the easements all those things exist. Just becomes a question of who pays to build the last 50 60 feet if it ever comes to fruition. Is that Yeah. Yeah, I think the challenge with building burm uh landscaping ditches that may go across this future rideway or will will be a rightaway is if it does get extended. Yeah, you you then have to cut all that stuff back and you're going to get off the rideway. Yeah.

Uh you probably are going to get onto private property, but you're certainly going to get onto this HOA property. Uh so that's I if if that's the direction that the planning commission wants to go with allowing the burm to be there. We just we need to make sure that we protect the ability to extend or we're just effectively killing the the extension.

Yeah. And that's I I don't want to kill the ability for it to extend in the future if everything were to change for some reason in the future. But to your point, you know, if there's an easement or allowance taken into an effect with making sure that the ability to make a connect in the future doesn't go away because of the need to get into HOA property or something. So, I'm sure that can be dealt with with some language or some easements on the plat if that's the direction that it ultimately lines up. But I I I don't I definitely want to see the ability for it to someday connect if ownership changes and different things. But um but also understand the agreements made to get this buffer in that that is a problem. So yeah, anybody else have any other comments, feedback? Yeah, I need a pretty good idea of what we're going to be looking for.

All right. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Item three, uh Meyers Hill reszoning with preliminary master development plan. Yes. The owner and applicant are requesting to zone 77.55 acres to the R8 PRD medium density residential planned residential district. Uh this is for 190 single family lots. You guys have seen this a couple times. Um they have done some reworking uh to better coordinate with the fact that they are next to the park property providing better park access. Um they have added a roundabout to accommodate um some of that potential traffic going from the park and also down to Hicks Lane. Um there is still a note on the plan about improvements to Hicks Lane. Uh but we always want further clarification to make sure it's understood that those improvements would need to go from the east side of the property all the way to Dobins Pike. That's kind of imperative for that Hicks Lane access. Uh access for this property has been the main issue from the beginning. Um they have also uh limited the stream crossings to two. So there's a couple culde-sacs that are result of that. Um and they are planning around a cell tower easement as well as a gas line easement and any kind of stream buffers. Uh we've done some additional comments about making sure we're providing quality open space in here. Not just stream buffers, not just easements, although they are well meeting their requirement even without the south tower easement being included. Um they have also included uh architecture for us. Uh they do indicate that they're going to do 70% brick on off facades uh with this architecture and also they provided an exhibit showing the potential city park connection um in their packet for discussion purposes. Um and I believe the applicant is here tonight for further discussion.

Thank you representative for the applicant. Uh Jim Harrison, CSTG. Just wanted to first off thank Jillian for reviewing all that. We the biggest change as you see on this plan from when we had it last last time up here was um we reconfigured the central roads with roundabout essentially creating that secondary park access. Uh that took some time to coordinate those things. Um probably the best way to see this, you could see the roundabout and the central drive that goes out to the west on Dobins Pike, but there's a drive that goes to the south. Julian, is there is it possible to move back to that overall view? Um yes. Uh so that one you can see the roundabout in the center of the development. You can see how it relates to the park over on the right hand side or the east side. But what this does, we've uh coordinated with the school. There's school property and there's there's city property on the south side. And we've agreed as part of this to dedicate rightaway and do some things that are associated with that to allow for that access that secondary access to extend down to Albert Gallatin which is a major major arterial but also reconfigure the internal drives to to go out to the west. So it creates not just a secondary access, it creates a secondary access with two legs off of it that could go either south or or west. Uh so uh that was the biggest change. One of the things uh we will do as part of this is uh we provided some information about open space but I wanted to mention this Jillian if you could switch it back to the one that's

got the green. There you go. The other So I wanted to talk through this a little bit. Um we have provided usable open space on this. We don't really have it labeled up quite like should be. Uh, one of the things we will have is we're going to have uh, two play area play lawns as I would call it. They're more centrally located and more on the west southwest side of the site and then two play fields that are on more on the eastern side of the site and those are in common open spaces. The other thing I'll point out that the sidewalks um that are there are going to be walking close to mature tree stands and positive things like that. So, it's going to be a very walkable community with preserved areas. We have enlarged the area a little bit around the cemetery and then enlarged the area on the west side which is up facing Dobbins Pike to create more of a natural transition into the project. So all those things we uh we're confident will bring a better community uh a more walkable community uh and also a community that presents good activities for the families that live there in those new homes. Um we just want to say thank you to uh many people here at the city and and others that have helped cooperate and kind of work alongside us to to pull those things together. uh we have agreed to uh to to pave as part of this Hicks Lane. The timing of that we'll we'll we'll we'll keep square away the timing of that. Um on the resubmitt um some of that kind of connects up to the language that we've got up to down to the south with the rightway dedication as well. So we're prepared to make those commitments and do those things as part of condition of the plan. So just here to answer any questions,

but you know when this when this came through originally and it failed quite frankly, um I think the open space and the Hicks Lane were the two things we talked about the most. So are you saying you you have a path to widening and improving Hicks Lane all the way to Dobins Pike now?

Yeah, Hicks Lane uh is in a very different condition from what it was back when we brought it through the very first time back I think two and a half years ago or something like that. It was a couple years ago. Um, since then the road department has widened out part of it and flattened out a crest curve that was in it. Uh, and so it's much wider. There's gravel out there right now. So, it's mostly a paving operation. It's a little bit of maybe a foot foot and a half or so in a place or two, but we've gone out and measured it and double checked it. So, Hicks Lane is in a very different condition. And so that's part of the the conditions of the approval for this, but you'll also have a south route that will be in right away going out to Albert Gallatton as well. So really, it's got a couple of different versions of redundant access once it's all said and done. But that overlaps, we wanted to make sure and the reason we deferred it last time is because what we were hearing was we needed to do some significant things to provide for the secondary access for the park and that gave us time to change those things and adjust those things and uh wanted to make sure we had that right so that it was functional uh for the future secondary park access as well. Um, and the last thing I've got on it is kind of talking about open space. You know, we couple of meetings ago when we were having the discussion about um, putting a pause on resonings. You one of the things I mentioned was whether we did that or or it didn't ultimately go through is is trying to look at the direction that the city and the planning commission's going with the new zoning ordinance and and looking at projects that are coming through asking for resoning in the process. So just are they at least trying to get to the intent, the vision? I mean, you know, we've put out the the direction we want to see the city go in and open space is a big piece of that. So, I'd like you to take a look at the open spaces and kind of the intent. I know it's not codified into ordinance yet, but with the new

zoning ordinance, the quality of open space, and and show us how this is going in that in in that intent. That's something I'm I'm interested in.

And what we what I verbally kind of went through real quick, we'll we'll make sure that's part of the document and that's that's codified with within the document. We do uh we do have 43% open space. Part of the one of the play fields actually overlaps the cell tower easement and some of those things. It's very good way to overlap the uses, but that's only one of the open spaces. We want to make functional use of everything that we can on the site to make the community better. So, those are the comments I had. Does anyone else have any feedback or comments for the applicant? I appreciate the working on the connection to both the school property and the park.

All right. Nois has any additional feedback. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. Um item four is the Frank property annexation. I'm going to recuse myself from that item because I have a personal interest in and ask uh Mr. Pere if he wouldn't mind taking that item for us. Item number four, the Frank property annexation plan of service. Um, which staff member is presenting that?

Uh, yes, I am. Uh, the owner and applicant are requesting annexation of about 5.09 acres. Uh, this property is south of Highway 25 and east of Highway 109. Um this is one of the last little um gaps in uh this area of the city that is not actually uh within city limits. Um so the annexation of this uh would create um the consistency on this street for services and things of that nature. This item did go as a petition to city council. So they have completed that step and gotten the okay to apply um and come before this board before this would go back to city council. Um this would include not just the annexation but the plan of service. Um and there is not a plan or a zoning uh shown at this time. Thank you. We have representative for the applicant present. Thank you Mr. Pier. Cal Gentry representative for the applicant. Just here to answer any questions. just bringing this last little piece in the area into the city.

I'll open it to questions. I'll just lead by asking, is the R15 track immediately to the west of this already annexed? Is this the last piece not to be annexed? The last one. Questions? Hey, you just asked my question. Wanted to confirm this is the last piece. Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, we'll see you back in a few weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Back to you. All right. Thank you, sir. Uh, item five is Gregory Roundtree Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Yes. So, this property is located on both sides of Roundtree. It's about uh 325 acres. Uh this area is going through city council right now for consideration of annexation. Um this came before planning commission last month. Um and it is proposed for industrial development even though there's no zoning or or plan attached to that but that is the intent of this annexation. Uh with that our comprehensive plan uh in plain Gallatin and our character area have this land up here shown as suburban and rural. Um these are not very compatible with an industrial use particularly the rural character area. Um and the character areas really do lean more towards residential guidance rather than commercial industrial guidance. Um, so not just with this map, but also the sub areas. There's two kind of two parts of this amendment that they're requesting. So the first part would be to change that northern area from rural suburban to general urban. Um, most of the rest of the industrial area is general urban. So that was the thought process um as to why that would make sense. it is adjacent to it with the property to the south in our industrial park also being general urban. But to go along with that, we would also anticipate that this number four sub area uh be extended onto this property. Uh that area is the Gallatin Gateway Industrial Center sub area. Um which would prep it for the industrial development that's intended to go here. Um, so this because of how the character map set up, the character map actually extends to our urban grow growth boundary. That's why you can consider this even though property is not in the city. You could have anyone within our open growth boundary. We could consider

amendments through that whole area. So it's not in the city yet, but that's why we we can look at this. You just have to do this step before we would reszone the property. So this is an anticipation of that. You could even do it the same time as reszoning it if you wanted to. um which we've seen before. Um and we are here for any additional questions you guys have.

Um I guess to you know when I had my call with staff before the meeting this morning one of the questions you know we brought up the fact that we didn't create a character area for the industrial um just you know similar to what Rosemary had mentioned. So, I guess my question for for staff would be I I don't know that I'm comfortable changing this to a, you know, a general urban residential type use. I would I'd be much more comfortable doing at the same time we're doing the zoning so we know exactly what's going in there. But is it is it possible to create and not you know instead of just saying okay I guess general urban you know how long does it take us to create a an overlay for for an industrial use to have better clarity that that's the intent. So I do think that's a valid concern. I mean because you know we're we're changing the intent of an area that you know several years ago we put as you know residential you know low density. Uh, I think we all understand the intention is for it to be industrial, but you know, is it possible just to to amend the plan to add the industrial overlay and make that on this property? Does that work?

I don't think it runs as fast as what this potentially would be. Um the the concern that I would have I guess is that um you'd have to run it through a public process of trying to ask the public, hey, what do you want to how do where else do we want on this uh character area map that should be considered if we're creating it? You know, are we just creating it for this one project? um or are we creating it so that it can be applied in different areas? And I don't I don't know that it's a a quick process to go through all that public input to determine where that is. You know, this this is the reason why playing Gallatin took many many months, even years to to get through some of that type of process. So, um I do agree. I think it's important to have a another look at our uh character area map and and how we determine what those land uses are. Um but I do think that that's maybe a part of a bigger project that we do.

I I agree. I I mentioned it early in the process with the Zoko process that once the zoning ordinance gets done, these character maps are going to have to be relooked at, you know, now that we have a new ordinance. But um but at this point I ask we have an applicant representative for the applicant with us. Um but those are my just quick questions before we go to the applicant.

Hey, good evening. It's Zach Elliot with Green Lit Design here to answer any questions y'all might have on this. Um I mean Zach would I guess my question staff just said you know the the change of the the plan could be done concurrently with the reasonzoning, right? Yes, you could do this the same time as the reasonzoning. Okay. Do you guys have any problem just doing all this at the same time? I think you're have an easier path quite frankly.

Yeah, I I definitely understand the logic there. Um I I think we'd want to just you know consult with uh amongst ourselves and and kind of make sure there wasn't a sort of a rationale like you're saying that the timelines on these things you know I think there may have been a rationale to try to go ahead and get out in front of of putting a putting this in the comprehensive plan first since that had a longer lead time. uh when you speak to sort of I think the tailoring it to a specific project. I don't think that is necessarily the idea. I think that the idea is making this amanable to industrial uses. But it's not I don't

Yeah. And I'm not push I'm not pushing I think the industrial use is a much better use for that property than residential. The road networks and that side of Gallatin can't handle that being developed and it's and it's contiguous. It would, you know, now that we expanded out with the the meta development, it you have a portion at the southwest that is contig, that would be a contiguous expansion of the industrial zone. So, or not zone, excuse me. But but I guess that might be something might be something to look at, talk with staff if if asking for the change to playing Gallatin concurrent with the zoning that puts the industrial use on it, I'd be much more comfortable with that. Okay. Because it's it gives some assurances that the intent really is the industrial. Yes. Um, and if it, you know, I don't think it slows your project down, but that'd be something just to talk about.

Okay. So, and then we can continue a conversation about the the overall character area maps and industrial and cleaning some of that up once we get the new zoning ordinance done. But does anybody else have any questions or Yeah, Ben Allen, city attorney. I just wanted to bring up something really fast. Um, it can be done at the same time. However, uh reasonzoning has to be consistent with a comprehensive plan. So, just we need to be sure that at whatever night that happens, a comp plan gets voted on to be amended and then it has to be two separate items. Yeah, two separate items. But yeah, to be safe, we need to make sure the comp plan becomes earlier in the meeting. Yeah, that Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure that that's clear up there.

That makes sense. I just think it's a lot clearer when we have a a zoning request with a plan for the industrial use at the same time. there's clarity on what's being asked for. This is also already underway. The annexation process is already in in rowing for this. So,

I'll also just comment too, we we did consider the question about, you know, general urban having, you know, a potential for 15 dwelling units per acre. And we felt like it was okay in this instance ma mainly because number one uh you have the sub area map that goes along with that but also uh if you compare our other industrial areas most all of those most of that area is all general urban in nature. So um and then the the third thing is that even if general urban is what the character area map shows uh and someone comes in and says hey I want to change and I want to do residential here that's a decision that the city still gets to make you know we don't we don't have to u apply it in a certain way you know we can do it as long as it's consistent with our comp plan. We can say, "Yeah, we think we think it needs to be in this direction." And if you justify it with the fact that you've changed that sub area map to include to be included this in this direction, I think that's your justification that it could happen that way. So,

and I misspoke. I meant to say general urban is what we're I knew what you meant. Not industrial. Other comments or feedback, questions? All right, let's see none. We'll see you back in a couple weeks. Thank you. Um, item six, I should have mentioned this at the beginning of the meeting. Trent Park um deferred today, so that's not on the agenda. My apologies if you're here and sat through that long to get to that one, but Trent Park is not. It will not be on the voting meeting this month. Yeah, it will not be on the voting meeting next month. They've just deferred it

October. Um, okay. So, that takes us to item seven, GDE substation rebuild a site plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Carpenter, staff planner. The owner applicant requests approval of a site plan for GDE substation rebuild on 7.32 acres zoned uh R40 uh low density residential located at 225 or 255 Nichols Lane. Um, so it's a little bit easier to see from this angle, but they are expanding to the south along uh Woods Fairy Road. Um, preparing with a gravel base to um expand when it comes time. Um, other than that, they're pretty minimal details for that. Um they are showing a fence um calling out that it will be vinyl coated. Um and then since this is a public project um there doesn't have to be a variance for the barb wire. Um outside of that staff has mostly minor comments on this item.

Thank you. Do we have a representative for the applicant? Brandon Hassan, Gallton Department of Electricity, 135 Jones Street, Gallatin. We had no additional comments and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Where do you get more power? This will get more power to the southside as well as improve existing infrastructure. So, right. All right. And staff's comments are fairly minor. No issues getting everything worked out. All right. Well, we need more power on this side of town. So thank you. We'll do our best. All right. Appreciate. Thank you, sir.

All right. Item eight, Lowe's of Gallatin outdoor sales display plan final a revised final master development plan.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of a revised final master development plan for Lowe's of Gallatin outdoor sales storage display area on 14.80 80 acres zone PGC planned general commercial district located at 1301 Nashville Pike. Um you can see here maybe a little difficult to see but they have a hatched area from the 2004 FMDP that shows storage basically up against the store here on the side as well and then some here in the parking lot. Uh, moving forward to 2020, they had a tool rental feature added and uh they have some storage here and I believe here in the back as well. And then it brings us to current where these areas here, here, here, and along here have been added for outdoor storage. box trucks, uh, tractor trailers with stock in them, things like that. And I believe an applicant is here today to comment on this.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have a representative?

Good evening. Uh, my name is Todd Borto. with Lowe's uh improvement warehouse uh 1000 Lowe's Boulevard, Morrisville, North Carolina 28117. And yes, we are asking for additional storage uh of material. So, if there's questions that I can answer that might help, uh we'd love to hear it.

Yeah. No, absolutely. I um I I frequent this particular low store multiple times a week. Um, so I'm very familiar with it. Um, and I will say I've noticed over the years the outdoor display area just continues to creep and creep and get bigger and bigger and more and more. Um, so and you know, quite frankly, it doesn't look real good. So I guess my question to to you guys is there's clearly other municipalities where you have stores that have outdoor storage that's screened that's, you know, aesthetically looks pretty good. Is that possible to to to take some of those practices that have been done elsewhere and implement that here in Gallatin?

Um, we've done quite a few. We have 1,700 stores throughout the US and we we do run into this issue where we need to do some screening. Um, it it is entirely up to planning and zoning as to what that screening may be. We would love to be able to do the port the um temporary fencing like we're doing in that existing area that was approved before. Um if that's satisfactory um it it it becomes difficult where oh that real quick.

Great. Thank you. So in in this area in this area here we have our tool rental area. And then what we have here is permanent storage would be bag goods and block and that that is too heavy to lift to steel kind of thing. and then um lumber and block and stone across the back of the the the store here.

But um I brought up with staff on our call just getting ready for the meeting earlier was to try to take a look at some stores that have some outdoor storage that maybe is a little more desirable. So maybe over the next couple weeks we can try to get you something that you know is an example of what I'm talking about. I didn't I didn't have time today to to really put a lot of work into it. But

So, are you talking more solid solid wood fence wall screening or um I don't I don't I don't have a particular thought at this point on it other than just um I think there's a way to make it aesthetically look better, you know, for something that was intended to be a parking lot that's now just becoming a more of a storage area. Um, but I don't I don't I don't have anything specific on my mind at this point. So, I think that's just something we'll have to take a look at.

Right. And we are asking for temporary storage in the front up there by the garden center. Some additional because we we are doing a massive amount of mulch during the spring months is what that's primarily for. So, with that, um, we just don't have the facility here to put more storage. You know, typically we have a bullpin in the back of the store. Yeah.

Where we can put uh material that needs to be brought out, you know, and we just don't have it here. We're we're on a much smaller site. So, that's why it looks like it's a little overflowing in some areas more than than you would at a store that has, you know, uh 18 acres or, you know, something with 600 parking spaces in the field. That mean y'all going to build a bigger store? Do you want us to close this one down and build a bigger store? No, I don't know. I mean, today I don't want to do that either. You open a bigger one and then close this one.

You know, it's funny. We we are building the same size store even today. Um it's more of a you know what's inside the store stays inside the store. It's the mulch and the brick and the block and that heavy duty stuff that's out there, you know, 16 foot long timber. So, it's it's hard to build a building 200,000 square feet and make it pencil. I understand that. Any other feedback or comments? Uh, I guess question for staff. Uh, with additional storage, does it impact parking and parking lots or parking spaces? It obviously takes up parking spaces and still is placed right within the parking lot. So,

um, what they've got, I mean, they've got tool rental areas, they've got sheds,

they've got mulch, they've got tractor trailers that hold your, uh, your, uh, straw for when you're seating and strawing. um multiple rows of the mulch when it when that rolls in in the springtime. I mean, it covered the whole back row of that parking area. So, yes, it does impact the parking. And frankly, I mean, again, it doesn't look aesthetically pleasing at all to have all that stuff out in the parking lot. Um they did get some areas as was mentioned in the be beginning that were approved in the beginning when the site plan was approved. This area right here that's shaded in dark that was approved for exterior storage. So so they are allowed to place uh items in that area. They also have any of the areas all along the front of the store here pretty much as display area for items that they they use. And then right here where this arrow points to, there's a small area that was designated when they got their site plan approval for their tool rental. So, um, we realize that's a small area and they do have some big equipment, but we suggested that they use this area back here, um, just right along the the side of the building for those larger pieces of equipment and not have them sticking out in the in the parking lot where they're wide out in the front. Um, we realize there's a lot of stuff and so we I mean we're open to suggestions that they can make to, you know, potentially use this area, screen it off, um, make it not accessible or something like that

and and store uh, build some tall shelves or something like that so they have they can use their space efficiently. But um out in the front in the parking lot area does not seem to me like the the right area for storing all those things on the southern end where the building supply area is now. Uh, is that being utilized? Um, let me get orientated here. For the bank where the bank is along the back side of the building.

The backside. Yes, it is not up against that curb at currently. It's more up against that uh the building area. Yeah, that go ahead. What we were what we're trying to do is get it up against the curb so that we have we leave that fire lane for the fire department. Okay. But adjacent to the building, not in the parking lot. The rear storage. Yeah. I'm talking where your building area is now. Uh lumber. Oh, the lumber canopy. Yeah. On the other side of the lumber canopy. Oh, I I can answer that one. Yes, it's being utilized. Yeah. Seems like everywhere out there is being utilized.

Yeah, exactly. It's a small it's a small site. Yeah. For us and our business has grown. The model has moved. Um springtime is a is a huge financial impact to obviously help the city out and you know helps us out too. Uh we're we're in the business to, you know, to sell sell stuff. That's what we do.

And our code enforcement officer has um taken several pictures out there and um we can provide a little bit better of a visual for you all to help you see what is going on back there. One other thing I want to point out is back in the back here, there's a whole uh new condo development that's supposed to be going in back there. So, um, trying to store a bunch of equipment along the back side of that store is going to make it pretty unesthetically pleasing for anybody, you know, looking at that backside there. And yes, there is, I think, a small tree line, but it's going to be thin enough, especially during the winter time, that you would see right through it. You'd see all that stuff packed up. And there's a significant grade change back that

I was going to say that I think where the the the elevation for where those condos are going is higher than the top of the store.

Yeah. If you you know what I mean? It's like I don't so probably less concerned about that. I I guess just some final feedback as I've been sitting here thinking thinking through it. Um and you know as Brian was talking about it I guess if I'm you know the goal of the night is to give you some direction. It's not to make the decisions. Um, so if I just threw out the this the equipment rental lined up where it is to me doesn't bother me personally. Okay. The, you know, on your we'll go left-hand side. We already had the approval for the outdoor storage for the landscape stuff. That makes sense for it to be over there. But maybe what you need to look at is you've got storage buildings, trailers, all those other things that are over there. And you may maybe that maybe the thing is to look at which one makes the least amount of money and restrict that back for your bagged mulches and those big things and get it all in one area so it's not dispersed all throughout the site. I think that would help a lot. So um but if you could try to consolidate it more to that one side for your seasonal stuff where you need the extra storage that might that might be an easier conversation to have. Again, I don't it's personal one person, but the the equipment rental storage there kind of makes sense because you're backing trailers up to it to hook up to the skids somebody's rent and those types of things. I I get that. I think what I find visually um you know, turn off. I'm just person I go to the store a couple times a week and there are times I go in there and it just doesn't look good. And so, but I think it's, you know, maybe you can take a look at, can you consolidate some of these things from the garden center, the seasonal stuff more towards that, you know, plan left side and but it may mean you have to take a tradeoff on some of the other things you've got in those areas. So, that'd be kind of my feedback. So, if I may, just as a comment, um,

typically in a store like this where we would have that issue and that situation going on, we would expand that garden center and push the the fence all the way out to the outer edge of that parking and, you know, that would solve everybody's problem because we would screen it just like we do everything else, but there's nowhere there's no room to put it. But, but then you've blocked the fire access. So, we're we're between a rock and heart. I know that there's the there's the still vacant lot to the right of the store. Is have you all had any thoughts about approaching that land owner for some future expansion out there? But there's there's a couple of acres sitting there. There's a lot of grade difference right there. There's a million dollars worth of grading in that.

Um it is most of what's in there is actually fill from where they've condos behind it. So there's I think what five five plus feet of fill that they've recently placed on that. It would have to be removed. Oh, it would be I'm just I you know though not real estate if I can't get a garden center approved through our financial partners. How can I get you know a couple acres of land with a million dollars worth of hauling off of dirt? I I get it. I didn't say it was a great idea. I just said it was an idea. It was a great I think it was a pretty good idea. Yeah. But all right. Um any other comments? I mean you

we're looking for direction. Yeah. We, you know, my fiduciary responsibility is to get this approved so that we can uh, you know, do business in in the spring and put the merchandise in there that we need to. Uh, I'm looking for direction as to, you know, what kind of screening are we looking for? I mean, we could throw a million in one ideas. You can go on the internet and if it's not going to satisfy who's going to make that decision, then it we're just wasting our time. and we we want we want to put our best foot forward here. Well, if y'all could help us out, we would truly appreciate it.

Well, I think you know my comments about consolidating the back storage and all to the one area. I'm not even about adding screening on that. Just getting it organized to where it's take where it's not spread out throughout the whole property, you know, because I understand the seasonal part. I mean, the the pallets of mulch and all that stuff, it's not there all year. It's your heavy spring as you transition into it. Um but um yeah, the the issue we have is that we we already have approval for those areas up there in that area. Right. But you but you have approval for that, but you've taken a lot of liberty using a lot of property that you don't have approval for. Yes, sir. So, we could also just as easily say make it all disappear except unless it's right there.

Yes, sir. You can. So, and I don't want to do that. I'm I'm looking for ways to find how you want me to screen it to make it less unappealing because this is how Lowe's does this is how we do business unfortunately. I understand. Uh what about a consideration for storage area here? There's quite a grade change. The road is elevated here. There's a lot of screening along the top. Yeah, you've got the you've got the retaining wall and you get the grade change there. So, in this area consolidating it, would that be possible?

It could be. Sorry, we speak, but it's a it's a challenge because that's the area that your contractors go out with the trailers um getting it out in that lumber system. You start taking up chunks of that parking lot, it actually would cause them a problem, but just my Well, actually, we have pro sales on lumber side. Yep.

And then we've got garden center sales on the other side. So, we try and keep them as far apart as possible. You know, the whole springtime where you buy five bags of mulch for 10 bucks and then you drive up there and our employees load it for you, that's our, you know, quick quick serve that goes through there. So, we want to have it there to be able to pull stock from that lefthand side of the building out into that parking area. So, it it's we're looking at two different things. Obviously, we're putting it wherever we can, and I I know the pictures that are there right now. Um, I can't dictate when the mulch comes. Uh, those are people far above my pay grade. So, all I can say is you can't do it. I I can't say you can do it, but you can only do it through 8:00 to 9:00. You know, that's the that's the kind of thing where it truck services and the deliveries and all that stuff. It's it's a nightmare. Like I said, way above my pay grade. So,

have any other any any thoughts that are more specific? I'll just say I think it's the applicant's responsibility to propose what solutions they are. I mean, I don't think it's the planning commission's job to to determine, hey, what are what are the right solutions here? I think they're supposed to provide those solutions to us and we say whether we like them or not. But I mean to me that's appropriate

and this is our solution and you're if if so if this is what you want to move forward with I mean I think you know I've given you some feedback on some ideas to make it consolidated or if you if you choose not to take any any of that into account and come back with this that's your that's your discretion. Understood. We appreciate that. And I wasn't being flippant or I wasn't trying to say you guys make the decision for us, but I said there's there's I I completely understand and you know in in my past life, one of my first jobs is I was a vendor rep manager for in the low stores for your hardscape goods. Okay.

So I'm very familiar with the outside store stock and coming up with ways to work around cities to make it all show up. So I I did that 20 years ago. Um so I I got a little bit of experience in the conversation we're having. So, um, but yeah. So, anybody else have any feedback? Okay. Look, thanks for coming. Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll see you back in a few weeks. Yep. Thanks. Sure. I'm on the right one. All right. Item nine, uh, gun subdivision 513 at 517 Nicholls Lane. Hopefully I read that right. I left my glasses at home.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The owner applicant request approval of a final plat for the gun subdivision for four lots on 7.69 acres of R20 lowdensity residential district located east of block 4 and south of Nichols Lane. So it's a little bit easier to explain this way. So this lot already exists. This is currently one lot. And then this is a separate parcel that was created at some point I want to say maybe in the 90s um which is under five acres and is landlocked uh currently. So, the applicant proposes to create basically this one lot with this access easement kind of going between one and two, then curving through to their current driveway to serve as the access for three and four. Um so kind of from here going through the middle and then serving these two par this parcel and then the created lot. Um all lots are consistent with the minimum lot sizes for the zoning and all of that. However, staff has significant concerns with access for all of this. um kind of starting um would be kind of managing this access along Nicholls in this current proposal is difficult at best. Um and technically it's an access easement serving three

lots which is not allowed under our current subdivision regulations. The kind of more complicating factor is the three driveways that you have here. So you've got one, two, three, um, which will all be impacted by this roundabout, which is coming as part of the improvements for the banks at Lock 4 subdivision and managing um, access for all of these properties. kind of in relation and in sort of conversation with this improvement. Um so outside of this um staff had mostly minor comments um outside of the name um they'll have to have a different name. there already is a guide and subdivision, but um Nick, I'll kind of let you take over and talk through kind of the roundabouts implication for this and kind of where we would want to go from there.

Thanks, Jim. So, um what Jim has on the screen, uh I don't know if you can see it. The well, I don't know if it even says, but this is a proposal from the banks subdivision. Uh, if you recall when the bank subdivision came through, they had several off-site improvements they were going to do, and this is one of those off-site improvements. As long as um it the the construction is feasible, this is the preference and this is what we're pushing uh the bank's developer to construct when that time comes. Now, it's still still probably several years away. I think they were this was probably at like lot 500 or something like that. I don't remember exactly, but uh so we're probably still 5 years away from them actually getting started on this, but at some point in the future, this is what our expectation is. Now, if construction is not feasible, they are able to kind of drop back to an always stop condition, which is obviously not going to be as um uh great of a level of service as the roundabout would be. So, our preference is is the roundabout. Um and and you can see that um actually one of the driveways on I believe it's lot two uh the one that's in the corner uh of the the subdivision at at the corner of Lock Four Road and Nicholls Lane. Uh yes, Nichols Lane, right?

Mhm.

Um it it it has the Circle Drive and the drive that comes out to the right hand side would would be in conflict with one of the splitter islands of the roundabout. So, it's likely going to be an issue at some point when we get to that. But looking at what we've got in front of us, uh the the challenge is that the driveways that they have on Nicholls Lane are currently spaced at the minimum. Uh the absolute minimum. Uh so you have a driveway on lot number two, a driveway on lot number one that are 185 ft apart, and um you're at the intersection of two collector roadways. Um I'm not sure if they are proposing to add a third driveway right in the middle of those two or if they want to combine um all three of those driveways to become one. Um our preference if they can come up with a way to um create um either the frontage or whatever to combine all three of those that are on Nichols Lane, the one proposed and the two existing to one. Uh that would be a suitable um solution. But as far as we can tell, the only way that they could do that is to actually create what we would call a private street. So, a private rideway with a private street so that they have three and even four of of the properties could all access through that private street. But the way they have it set up now, um I think they have the access set up so that it it could be legal. The problem is the spacing of the driveways. And so if we change the spacing of the driveways, then they're probably going to get into a situation where the the subdivision is not legal. So, we just got a little bit of a a back and forth. So, I'm not sure if um I don't know if they've received our comments yet. Probably. Okay. So, I don't know if they have a thoughts or solution. It was a little bit unclear uh as to lots uh three and four at the back. I

think that one of three and four is a flag pole that goes out to the rightway and then the other of three and four is the easement that sits on top of the flag pole. if that makes sense. I don't that description doesn't make sense. I'll try to explain another way, but that's the easiest way I know how to explain it. And so lot one um is not part of the flag pole. Um although it kind of looks like it the way that it's drawn. So it's it's a little bit difficult to to make out with the line work and the line weights that they have in there, but maybe the the applicant can go a little bit further into detail. But, um, I'll I'll stop, pause, and either turn it over for questions or you can ask the applicant.

Certainly, we'll hear from the applicant.

Go to Beasley, Greenland Design. Um, Nick, you are correct. I can't tell. The most southeastern lot is a flag lot at the moment. That's how we have it drawn. we can get that cleaned up with the line weight. I can see it doesn't look like it necessarily printed correctly. Um, now with that being said, the two lots on the I guess that's the northwestern side are only included in this plat technically to allow for the 50 foot um access easement. um with the sideyard setbacks on lot one. Um we have to get into lot two and lot three just ever so slightly to allow for the full 50 foot width. You can probably see the little breaks in there. Um other than that, that's the only reason those are in there. The idea with the access um like we said the southeastern lot, I'm going to assume that's lot three.

Yes. Okay. Um it it is the flag pole lot um with the 50 foot um frontage along um what is that nichls with an access easement coming off of the existing drive on lot one. So the intent behind this is to for lot one uh three and four to all come off of lot one's drive existing. Yes. then happy to answer any more questions because I know that probably wasn't explained. Believe it or not, I actually understood what you meant.

Um, okay. So, essentially you have you have an existing driveway that accesses a single property today and it would be modified to accommodate three. Okay. Um, how does that work in an easement from a regulations standpoint that you got three properties using the same easement? Does it need to be a private street to accommodate that? Right. Uh, the the problem with bringing three and four across the front of one is that you now have two lots going through one 50-oot easement. And our regulations only allow one lot to go to be accessed through an easement.

Each one needs a its own 50 foot of road ement. My understanding was they can have they can share that, but this the uh the easement would have to be turned into a a city standard street. Um I mean it would have to be a 50-ft rideway with concrete curbs and everything built to city standards, wouldn't it? And then it could serve three lots. If they make it a private street, then the regulations are much more loose. Um obviously it would need to to have fire access code um that it would meet. Uh but uh we we wouldn't require it to be a public street. Uh so Okay.

All right. So So the path forward for this sounds like it it needs to be a private road. That's an acceptable solution. We think that um that is one way to accomplish this. There may be other ways. Just looking at the map, how can you possibly get a 50- foot swath carve carved in there and still have your setbacks from your existing buildings? Does it work? works.

Yeah, they have it drawn. And that's what uh he was explaining. Between lots one and two, they had to they had to b kind of bend a little bit into lot number two. It's probably hard to see on your screen um at the scale that it is. I don't know if you can zoom in, but um they the two existing buildings on lot number one uh push the 50 foot uh width into lot number two. And so they have to create a new boundary between one and two that has some breaks in it to allow for the 50 foot to happen. But they do have enough space between the structures on lot one and lot two to get a 50- foot path through there.

I guess maybe I'm confused a little bit, but the driveway that's on lot one currently is not in the easement being created. So, is the it's going to be the same driveway modified through there or we relocating the driveway? The entrance off of Nicholls will stay the same. Obviously, there'll have to be a a fork right after you get onto the property that shoots over and then back. It would use the existing connection and it would come through that I see the 50s. I finally zoomed in enough that I can see it. Okay, I I'm with you now. That's how you're getting there. Okay. Um, so I guess my feedback would be, you know, it needs to be compliant. So, it sounds like a path to get there would be a private stream.

We're happy to work with staff and engineering to whatever we need to do. Anybody else have any feedback or questions? No. Everybody's nice and quiet tonight. All right. Thanks. We'll see you back in a couple weeks. Thank you. You guys want to do all these nexuses individually or do them all as one? Thank you for asking. I anticipated that. All right. Not to discount that there's a lot of work that goes behind each section, but I can simplify this.

Okay. So, we're going to do items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 at the same time. All Nexus um plinary plats, right? Okay. For different sections. Thank you for coming.

Nexus 10. It's phase three south section one, two, three, four, and five. It's located south of West Albert Gallatin Avenue and east of Highway 109. It's zoned R8 PRD. Section one has 60 single family lots. Section two, which I've outlined each one of them. Section two is 29. Section three is 51 single family lots. Section four is 49 single family lots. Section five is 50 single family lots. A total of 239 single family lots. There are um some corrections that need to be done, but overall there's no concerns. They're all obtainable.

Great. We have a representative for the applicant.

Uh good evening. Brad Snder with CSDG. Uh all the comments are pretty simple, so mainly just clean up stuff. Okay. All right. Thank you for keeping that many items easy. Anybody have any other questions? All right, we'll see you back.

Thank you, sir. That'll move us to item 15, Oakill phase 4 preliminary plat. Good evening, commissioners. Charlie Perry, staff planner. The owner and applicant request approval of a preliminary plaque for Oakhill phase 4 consisting of 117 lots on 117.5 acres located south of East Broadway and west of Roundtree Drive. So, planning department staff had quite a few comments on this uh particular item. I'll try to keep them short for you guys. Uh there is some missing uh R20 residential zoning information on this plat for the lots that are on the eastern side of this development and are also on this plat. Um we'll need that u setback information, bulk information and landscaping stuff to be put on the uh cover sheet. Moving into the development as a whole, there is quite a few lots that are within several of the streams that are on the piece of property and even encroaching into the stream buffers. So, practically everyone that has a stream buffer on them will have to be removed. And then lastly, we would like to have a little bit more detail given to the other pages of this plat. We'd like to have the lot lines at least darken a little bit so they're more visible. Maybe have the contours um faded a little bit so the plat is easier to read. And then we also would like to have the contour lines cut back to um the distance of every five feet instead of every foot that is um on this. And

then the engineering division has several uh discrepancies with this plat in particular and the uh ECP. and I can turn that part over to Nick.

I think the main difference, the summary for us is uh I don't know if you can flip back to the overall screen there. Yeah. So, uh the the the street uh that connects along the southern edge here, it's probably more the the eastern edge uh didn't go all the way didn't connect. there were there was a break in it culde-sac um from some of the previous submitts that we've had and and what they've submitted this time that the engineering construction plans don't match this um I think that they are moving towards this and this is the direction they want to go but they haven't resubmitted uh that to us so and we typically expect or what we do expect is the engineering construction plans that are submitted with the preliminary plat match um so the other thing to point out is um at several times throughout this process we've had an emergency access that does connect back into the industrial center um at the the culde-sac end of Commerce Way and um they have removed that with this plat um currently it's shown on the the ECP that is submitted but again it's not the same layout so just um some little bit of confusion we from the preapp that we had with this uh we We understand that this is the direction they're going, but just don't have what we need to to actually do a full review on it.

Thanks, Nick. Do you have a representative for the applicant?

Zack Elliot, Green Lid. Happy to answer questions on this. Um, couple pieces I um Well, yeah, sorry. Go ahead. You may have go ahead and address what he was talking about. Yeah, I mean I think let's let's talk about it because I mean you're you're you're here with the final plat that doesn't match the ECP. So yes, are you just a little too early or can you get

Well, uh, so timelinewise, um, and then I did explain this in our in our preapp is those stream buffers came in to us in between when we submitted the construction documents for the ECP review and we we knew roughly where they were going to sit, but we didn't have any HD done. So the HD hydraulic determination happened um, and so The line work you see there is still actually an an approximation. We sent out a surveyor who is wrapping those up this week. We're going to have those the actual true tops of banks of these streams actually, you know, geoloccated in the in the plan we submit. And I've I've got the comments printed here. Um so we're we are we are hustling to get these done this week. Um I think our we just wanted to understand if we resubmit the if we submit a new construction plan set to you guys and new calcs and everything that are that show this configuration of lots you know with the that gap bridge there across the before it was it was cut open. I'm trying to see what lot numbers those would be, but sort of there at the along the southeast midway along that southeast problem. Yeah, about there where those are some new lots that Yes, we took out the two culde-sacs and bridge the gap. Part of that was also not just because of the stream buffers and wanting to then get back a few more lots. It was also about, you know, traffic flow through the subdivision. um the fact that the two technically the two ends there are both called Ironwood Circle and currently they sit unconnected. The the

end up there in phase two which is that top top right corner and then the road that's coming in at the top left corner are both called Ironwood Circle as out there currently. So logically they needed to connect as one unified road. Um, and so that was part of our adjustment here. Yeah, this is a better layout.

It is definitely. Yes. Um, and I I think I I want to just get a sense of if we resubmit construction plans concittently with this plat or or if we submit it before um the the plat resubmitt for for this review. Are you guys is there is there any way we could go ahead and get a sense of the comments you have on what you've already seen or would you prefer to review a new plan entirely because it would be it would be we would appreciate you know if you've already reviewed it to get back a review before we submit a second round that's yes we'll have some modifications but you know there's some there's some degree of modification to be expected as the project progresses to you know to an extent but I I But, you know, this is this is significant changes, you know.

Yeah. I'm I'm going to leave that for Nick to answer engineering because I I think it's outside of the scope of the commission to weigh in on quite frankly. We as far as the actual plaque comments, we we are fully on board um and and agree. I I think um and I I do want to apologize for missing the bulk table there. That that that was an oversight on our part. So, we will get that revised um for to show R20 um along that's just for the lots along the that southeast. Yeah, north what am I trying to say? Northeast to southwest. Yeah.

So, we will we will denote those on the plan and um make it clear which are R15 R20. I will say those are drawn the ones that need to be R20 are drawn to R20. They are they are appropriately sized. They're minimum 20,000 square feet. I think from a feedback standpoint, the feedback I can give you is it is a more it's an improved layout for sure. Um I think you just need to get with engineering and staff to determine if you can get a level of information and corrections done in a timely fashion where they have time to properly review it before it comes back.

Right. And and then so timelinewise, you want to see a which which drives which I would think the plat is dictating what goes in the construction plans, right? Or they supposed to I know they're supposed to talk to each other, but when you're saying you don't like that the we submitted a a construction plan first and then changed it via the plat. I'm just typically you do your FMDP, your construction plans, then a final plat that all matches it, right? This is straight zoned, so there's no master plan. Gotcha. That's Yeah. Okay. What makes it more complicated? Gotcha.

Yeah. They had a sketch plat, which about the only subdivision that we have with a sketch plat these days. Uh just to give a short response. Um you were working on the comments. Um but we we we do need these to match. Typically, you you submit the construction plans and the preliminary plan at the same time, which you did. Um, they just don't match. And so, we'll give you comments, but you if we send you a new plan, we can can it be in we can discuss. Yes. As a response to our comments.

Okay. We agree regarding the plant, we're everything on here makes perfect sense to me. Fortunately, tonight we're just here to give guidance and throw some of these talks out. So, anything else to provide? All right. I think you got some work to do. All right. Thanks. We'll see you back in a few weeks. Item 16, Codwell Place amended preliminary master development plan and final revised final master development plan.

Brad Hickman, staff planner. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of an amended preliminary master development plan and revised final master development plan for Caldwell Place to adjust lot lines within available open space for front porches on 18.3 acres zoned MRO multiple residential and office district located south of Nashville Pike and east of Cages Ben. Uh primarily like it says in the description, they're extending they're making the lots a little longer by a few feet. so they can get bigger front porches on them. Um, other than that, it was mainly some cleanup, some labeling were our comments. We did take this opportunity to meet with fire and their concerns with u accessibility for emergency vehicles and we have sent it was a late comments due to scheduling but we did send some comments about uh fire signs and 15 ft of curb on each side of the uh fire hydrant to be marked with paint. We have a representative for the applicant. uh Luke Thally with CSDG and uh we've uh had some discussion with staff already of engineering and and talked through some of the comments but generally in agreement with everything so happy to answer any questions.

You have any questions? Yeah, I I didn't have any concerns with what I saw with the changes. I think if anything, they're all improvements. So, well, we'll see you back in a couple weeks. Thanks. Thanks, Luke.

The call will place final plat. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of a final plat for Caldwell Place consisting of 120 town homes on 18.3 acres zoned Mro multiple residential and office district located south of Nashville Pike and east of Cages Bend Road. Uh mostly similar to the FMDP, a lot of cleanup and labeling was requested. Um they don't have addresses yet, but uh 911 has assigned them. All right. And we'll hear from the applicant again.

Luke Tally again. Uh consistent comments across both submitts. So we're uh yeah, no no questions on those and happy to answer any you might have. I This one's pretty This is about as straightforward as you can get. So I don't have any questions. Anybody else? All right. Seeing none, we'll see you back. Thanks for your time tonight.

Thanks. Item 18, Ashley's Place Parking Lot Addition Final Master Development Plan. The owner and applicant request approval of a final master development plan for Ashley's Place for a parking lot addition on 94 plus or minus acres zoned as MRO multiple residential and office district located south of West Smith Street and west of Cemetery Avenue. Staff had some minor uh cleanup comments. um wanted to show the overhead electric that is parallel to I think that is Smith Street if I'm not mistaken. Um to change the label on the uh sidewalk here to be an ADA uh access consistent with what is over here. And then to just call out the uh flood plane or flood zone that is over here like what type it is. And then lastly, just having the perimeter landscape that's around the proposed additional parking as required by code. Thanks.

All right. Thanks, Charlie. Do we have a representative for the applicant? Anybody here for Ashley's Place? Seeing nobody. Charlie, any any major concerns or anything we need to talk about with this? We we're drawing it. Well, so

all right. Well, then I have a whole list of questions. Hit us with what you got. No, this this is a a great thing in Gallatin and um it's it's needed. So, um All right. Well, seeing none, we'll see you back in a couple weeks. Look forward to engineering's drawings. So, u all right. Item 19 is Monday Anthony Street development final master development plan. The owner and applicant requests approval of a final master development plan for Monday Anthony Street consisting of three single family homes on a 21 acre lot zoned as MU mixeduse District located south of Deas Street and west of Anthony Street. Staff had minor comments. All right. And we have a representative for the applicant. I'll point out I don't know that our comments were minor. I guess they're minor in nature, but I think they would have a great effect on this layout. Um and and that's the fact that there's a minimum 5 foot grass strip required uh between the sidewalk and and the street uh that is shown they're showing the sidewalk to be flush um to Anthony and to Deas. And uh we would require at least 5 foot, but there is a roadside ditch along both of these streets. And so unless they're looking to add curb and gutter, storm water features or storm water infrastructure, uh they need to maintain the roadside ditch. Um and so that means that that minimum code required 5 foot grass strip is probably going to be more like eight or or more to make sure that the roadside ditch can be maintained.

And so again, there it's not, you know, a big comment when you see it on the paper. Uh, but to actually make it fit on this lot is, I think, going to be a a challenge. Uh, so those those are our our comments. 5 foot grass strip, 5 foot sidewalk, and um hopefully it can these guys have a brilliant solution to to figure it out. All right. Yeah. Dakota Beasley, Greenwood Design. Um, I agree with Nick. Yeah. So, so did you bring your magic wand? I left it back at the office. That's unfortunate.

Um, we did review these comments uh this afternoon. Um, and it's going to take some looking at and probably a little bit of site rework. Uh, it's something that we're willing to work with engineering on. Um, we just have to get into it and see what all it's going to take. Happy to answer any questions anybody might have though. I think I think your biggest challenge is going to be figuring this sidewalk out and, you know, and Hey, look, the reason for the grass strip is just a safety issue that y'all have a sidewalk right on top of a road. So, um hopefully you can figure something out. Hope so. You else have any feedback? So, all right. Well, good luck. We'll see you back in a couple weeks. Thank you.

All right. Uh other business. Anybody have any other business?

I sent you all an email this afternoon, but just reminder, uh TAPA conference is coming up. It's the October 20th to 22nd. Um hopefully that email provides you just an easy way to respond back and say yes, I'd like to go or no, I can't go. Um rather than having to draft a whole new email yourself and send it. Um we would like to see I I think John's right now the only the only ones who who's responded. Um I didn't send it to you because you've already responded. So, everybody else uh got it because I don't think we've gotten anybody else to say yes or no that they want to go. Um do do say no if you can't go. Uh so that way we know for sure if you aren't are or are not a able to go. Uh but price is the same for if you are there all three days or if you're just there one day. So it really doesn't matter, but we do need to know soon enough before they close the registration. So, uh, if y'all can take a few minutes to look at your calendars and see if that can be accommodated.

I don't see the dates in the email, so just remind me what they are again. Yeah, I'm sorry. It's October 20th to the 22nd. Okay. What's the deadline registration? Do you know? I don't know it yet. I It may only be a couple days before the conference, but um just want to make sure we do get you in in time. All right, I'll let you tomorrow.

And then also just a quick update on on Zoko. Uh we do hopefully anticipate receiving our final draft back here this month. So, uh, we'll be looking forward to starting up a process for review of that once we Jillian and I will do a check first on making sure that it looks good and uh, if we need to have them make any tweaks to it, but we're hoping by beginning of November we can start into our review process and get this thing moving. So, um, yeah, we're excited. And that's it for other business.

All right. Announcements. See at the podium.

I guess it's announcements. Um CDBG. Um we have a second public hearing next Tuesday night from 5 to 6 before city council. Um two public hearings are required as part of the process. Um we've been working hard with our HUD reps um who have been doing a good job. We've been trying to get data um from them since May. Um which is why the draft uh plans are scarce and I apologize for that. Um but we have a draft a citizen participation plan that will be going to city council um very soon and um the draft 2025 to 2029 consolidated plan and 2025 annual action plan that are out for public comment. So uh feel free to provide feedback um on either of those documents and uh look forward to seeing you next week.

All right, thanks Jim. All right, seeing no other business or adjournment, we'll be adjourned for tonight. Thanks everybody for the time.