Municipal Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

voting meeting at the end of the month. With that, we'll jump right into the agenda. The first item agenda is public comment on agenda related items. So, if you're in the public and you have a comment about something on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity to speak. As you come forward to the podium, give us your name and address for the record and keep your comments to five minutes. So, with that, public comment on agenda related items is open. All right, seeing no one jumping out of their seats wishing to speak, want to close the public comment on agenda related items. We will move on to item two, Edmonton State Bank parking edition, a site plan. Good evening, commissioners. Charlie Pier, staff planner. The owner and applicant is requesting approval of a site plan to relocate existing ATM and construct a 10space parking lot on a 0.19 acre lot. that is zoned as CS Commercial Services located at 242 West Broadway. So, let me just jog y'all's memory real quick. This um site plan came to you guys about a year ago for approval for a alternative parking plan because they were over the maximum allowed parking and they want an exception to the uh the surfacing of it. Uh that original plan included a full um cross access to I think this is the commercial strip center over here. Um that plan has since been revised and resubmitted to us to now cut off that um access alto together. So staff thought this was a fairly significant change to the plan which is why we are bringing it back to you guys. Thank you. Right. Uh, do I have a representative for the applicant?

Uh, good evening. Allison Turner with Green Lit Design. Happy to answer any questions you have. Um, what we're trying to do is eliminate that cross access easement altogether. Uh due to the configuration of this lot, you can't see it on this particular view, but on the overall view and anyone that's been through that parking area, it's um unique and there there would be a lot of conflict with the traffic going in and out of the drive-thrus and then um you have to snake your way through the parking on the southern end there to get out. a lot of it's one way and I think it would just be very confusing and it's it really probably doesn't save you much time going trying to cut through there anyway and creates more problems than it's probably worth um in particular in the owner's opinion. So, we have the owner here and we also have a representative or the owner, I believe, of the strip center adjacent to the north and neither party wants this.

But, so that's where we are at this point, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. That was my main question was if the adjacent property owner was also in agreement that they didn't want Did you have a question? Okay, you just um Yeah, I don't have a problem taking it out quite frankly. the you know I was actually in that parking lot a couple of days ago and it is a confusing parking lot to navigate. So but can can we go back to the slide with the parking and what you're proposing to put in? Okay. So this is going to clean up the drive aisle going beside the bank and give some better parking and move an ATM machine.

Yes, that's where the um well it's been a mattress store and a yeah karate store and has been torn down now and so that lot is vacant. they, you know, purchased it and tore it down. Uh, but in order to make this connection and add this extra, uh, area for the ATM machine so that it's internal to the building instead of a separate external and allow some parking there as well. Okay. Now, I think that's going to go a long way to make that parking lot function much better. So, any now that we've gone back and seen this, do you mind going back to the aerial one more time? [clears throat] So, that building is gone. on the one on the

Yes, that building to the north is gone. I remember when we did that cross access, it was to help with that building, but if it's all getting absorbed in, there's no need for it anymore. I think we increase the flow of traffic through that area. Any other questions, feedback? Engineering. It is not our recommendation that that is removed

because when when we had the plan um come in to us before, which was approved uh at the end of September of last year, um it included tearing this down and redoing the the parking area. And we had we asked for the cross connectivity to be shown. it was shown. That's how it got approved. And then when they wanted to reconfigure the the parking spaces again, um it came in as an administrative site plan and they had removed that connection and we couldn't. That's that's why it's here. Correct. Okay. That's that's why it's here. That was my other questions. Okay, that makes sense.

Any other questions, feedback for the applicant? No. All right. Think we'll see it back in a couple weeks. Thanks. Uh item three, Windsong residential phases 2A and 2F, amended preliminary master development plan and revised final master plan. Uh good evening, commissioners. 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 Windong Residential phases 2A through 2F to realign the proposed walking trail amenity on 95.18 acres zoned MRO multiple residential and office district located west of Southwater Avenue and north of SR 109. Uh you can see the original approved walking amenity here highlighted in yellow. This is from one of the last approved FMDPS. And then the proposed change here. Uh there are grade issues the applicant um wishes to avoid here meeting up with this road u from the connection that would have come over here around there's a fairly steep grade through there. Um so this is the alternate proposal. Um a quick blue bean measurement showed the original for me to be 4,129 linear feet and the proposed to be 3,397. So it's about a 732 linear feet reduction. Um so it will be smaller. Can't say that number is exact but it will be smaller. U another issue we would like to address is since the the applicant is asking for less of this amenity u it was originally

described as a natural material. So we would like something more durable. uh an asphalt uh ch you know something something that wouldn't wash or blow away. Staff thinks that would be a better solution. Thank you. All right. Thanks. We have a representative for the applicant. [clears throat]

Good evening. My name is Michael Nutelli with Natelli Communities and um our family company is the developer of the residential portion of Winsong and with your indulgence um I want to read quickly through some prepared remarks so that I don't forget some important facts about background and provide some context. So with your indulgence, um, certainly

greenway walking trail shown in the PMDP that was approved in May of 2019 proposed a natural surface path with minimal impact on existing vegetation and natural resources. That walking trail is an amenity in the Windsong community and does not connect to any citywide walking trail, but does connect to the extensive side uh sidewalk network within the Winon community. The amended ordinance approving the PMDP did not require as a condition of approval that the walking trail be an asphalt or concrete trail. Nor was it ever contemplated or proposed that the walking trail have anything other than a natural surface. Consequently, we've not budgeted for that trail to have anything other than a natural surface. Much of the alignment of that walking uh walking path was planned to be adjacent to both sides of the stream that runs through the middle of the property. And some areas, as Brad had mentioned, have steep ops, particularly on the south side of the stream. Um the that walking trail alignment uh that was approved was approved uh prior to our involvement uh with the residential portion of Windsaw before we acquired or developed it. And so we didn't have an opportunity to weigh in on that alignment. Had we we might have observed those conditions earlier in the process uh and been able to modify it. Be that as it may, um I requested a uh an on-site meeting with uh planning and engineering engineering departments with Brad and Brian um to walk the alignment to take stock of the natural topography along the original walking path alignment. Um we met on site on uh September 17th and you know we were all in agreement that the walking trail alignment on the south side of the stream would be infeasible due to steep slopes in that area making the trail difficult to navigate and maintain. Conse consequently we reviewed

an alternative alignment that day through much flatter areas which we all agreed would be a better route. I then emailed a sketch of that alignment to Brad and Brian and Brian responded that it looked good and Brian Brad responded that staff would not recommend approval as the proposed alignment was shorter than the original. The original length of the walking trail uh based on Reagan Smith's feedback was 3,900 linear feet. And the length of the revised walking trail alignment that we uh submitted was what that we walked and that we then submitted uh was 2520 ft. Upon receiving the feedback from Brad that, you know, it was shorter, I visited the site to evaluate other candidate areas that were relatively flat um to add to the walking trail. And I found another uh segment of approximately 850 ft which Brad included that is at the northern side. Um and that starts near the playground which has uh on street parallel parking in that area. Um and the the playground itself will have an additional 250 ft of path around it and to and from it. Um whether we account for that in this total measurement or not, I'm I'm indifferent, but just so that you're aware, we'll be adding some more path over there. Um Reagan Smith sent the revised uh walking trail alignment including that additional segment on Thursday and the comments we received back on uh Friday uh indicated that the you know planning staff wanted us to you know provide an asphalt path which again was never

contemplated and wasn't a you know required uh condition of approval. Um with regard to the resulting minor reduction um which you know if you count the area around the uh the playground itself the delta is only 280 ft that it's somewhere you know between 500 and 700 ft. Um and you know with that reduction we'd be happy to try to you know find additional relatively flat areas to construct additional path or you know we're happy to provide some additional amenities around the playground area such as benches or or that kind of thing as an offsetting amenity. I don't know how much you know about uh our collaboration with the city which I think is very positive and I hope planning staff and the engineering department would would also agree. Um we've made numerous accommodations um that have been requested by the city to undertake various improvements that were not part of our plans and they were problems that you know we didn't create. and we've probably invested close to $200,000 um including constructing two additional storm water basins that were not part of our plans. One in the northwest corner of the site where the stream had flows and is an outfall in that corner and that has contributed to you know flooding historic flooding before this property was ever developed in the Hellwood Estates neighborhood. We also uh the trigger for that was that silt laden water was flowing through that stream and it was coming off of the commercial public shopping center as documented by your former storm water inspector Christina Banister. But we did

rushed as fast as we could to construct that and do it without any hesitation. The engineering department also asked us to construct another storm water basin on the northeast side where water from offsite sources east of Southwater Avenue runs across the property and historically also flooded contributed flooding in the Hailwood States neighborhood. We paid for the engineering for that. We managed the engineering. We subsidized the construction dollars for that sediment basin. We contributed the ground. We provided the city easements and and so forth. And I'm not looking for a pat on the back. I just want you to know the level of cooperation and you know our gestures of goodwill. We installed a lot of sidewalk that the commercial developer was supposed to do along with the already trace that didn't at the request of the engineering department and happy to do that kind of thing. However, it feels like a little bit of a, you know, respectfully a punitive and, you know, unfair situation that we're being requested to pave an asphalt trail that we never accounted for and was never required. So, with that, um, I'll close by just adding that, um, as a procedural matter, I'm hoping that our request is considered a minor plan amendment rather than a major plan amendment since we're not asking for any increase in the number of units. We're not asking for a change in the use and we're not we don't believe affecting the circulation within the community which is provided by the approved network and extensive sidewalk network that connects to adjoining communities and to the shopping center. I appreciate you're allowing me to speak to all of that.

Absolutely. You might hang out in case we have some questions though. Sure. I'd be happy to. So um I guess first for me can you just define when you say natural a natural surface what is that what kind of is that grass a mulch what are you what are you guys envisioning for that

it can be shortened grass mowed shorter it can be dirt um we were planning to do wood chips and mulch because we have to consider the impact on the HOA who's going to take this over and when we create the HOA we consider you know what we're leaving them with them as obligations and it's going to be very very expensive to maintain if something else is used other than asphalt which we don't as I said so we give that some thought and you know arborists are looking to lose wood chips and seemingly there'd be an opportunity for the HOA to team up with local arborists to you know who want to get rid of those wood chips to replenish the path and then our the landscape maintenance company for wind song would spray that path periodically to maintain weeds and that kind of thing. So that was our thinking.

No, that that helps. Any uh anybody else have questions? No, my question was who's going to be maintaining the pathway? Yeah. Okay. So, the HOA would be in their they would have to maintain it. Oh, yeah. For sure. Yeah. and they already know that and they coordinate common area milling and all that kind of thing. So,

well, I I would like to say that um I'm very familiar with this because I have done work with Mr. Natelli and and matter of fact, our agent works for me walked this site with engineering in him. So, I will certainly be recusing myself when this comes to vote. Um, the only thing I will tell you is that the topography of that area that he's deleting, don't try to put a path there. It doesn't work. Um, and I think everybody's in agreement on that. So, he's not just trying to get out of something. I think he's trying to replace it with other amenities to make up for the loss. And that's all I'll say about it. Um, and I'll go on record as recusing myself when it comes time for a vote.

Uh, I wanted to speak to like planning's comments. So our initial version of what we saw did not include the additional block of path. So the decrease was what prompted us to be like okay we completely understand the slope situation right but can we improve this additionally since you're not doing as long of a path. Got it.

So that's where the comment came from of additional a material we had concerns about things washing away not being able to be kept up. um it doesn't necessarily have to be asphalt, but we were just wanting to open up the discussion on what other materials would work and make it not a burden on the HOA, but also ensures that it will stay over time. That's where the discussion came from. So, just some context. Okay, that makes sense. But it sounds it sounds like you guys are working hard to get as close to back to the original linear footage as possible or as practical, I guess, is probably the the way to to say it. So I think I think that's yeah

we're happy to try to you know find more area that said we're trying to find flat area and this is one of the flatter sites that I encounter that but that said there are still a lot of slope areas and while it would have been nice to put it close to the stream for nature watching and that kind of thing there are slopes there and then to the extent any work is done you're going to be putting silt in the All of that has to be considered.

It it is I but to Jillian's comment I think the you know certainly you know as long it needs to be something that's maintainable. It's not going to wash away so that the amenity stays in existence. I think I think that's probably the the intent of the concern is ensuring that what's constructed is able to to function and be there long term rather than just a [clears throat] excuse me something that's there during the construction that disappears. So, um, to the major versus minor, I just in my opinion looking at it, I don't think this goes to a major if you're not changing the road network, the city sidewalk network. This is a modification to an amenity. I don't I don't I don't see I don't think it hits that standard to be a major amendment. So, um,

just brought it up because I wasn't sure what Yeah. No, no. Opinion was, so I was eager to hear. Thank you.

Yeah. No, that's it's good. It's good to ask for an opinion. So, um, but I I guess there's my opinion. I mean, this was already approved as a natural surface trail. It, you know, I maybe if you've got a little more detail when it comes back of kind of what how you're going to do the materials would just be helpful for just information. But I I think if you're trying to get as close to the original intent in the size and scope of the amenity, I have a hard time, you know, saying that you you lose the right to to to not have to put asphalt on it. I mean it's that is a big expense. So um so I think probably just a better understanding of what [clears throat] I I don't know even if you got just like an idea colors. Hey, we think these areas are going to be short in grass. We're going to have mulch over here. Just something like that just to give us a little bit more knowledge what the intent is and um I I think we can work this out. Does any anybody else have a question or feel free to disagree with me too. I don't I'm not the only one up there.

Agree. Okay. I think we have a game plan. All right. We'll see you back in a couple weeks then. All right. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Item four is Wawa Gallatin Nashville Pike amended preliminary master development plan. The owner and applicant requests approval of an amended preliminary master development plan and final master development plan for a Wawwa fuel station with food service and an associated fuel canopy on a 3.70 acre lot zoned as PGC plan general commercial located north of Nashville Pike and west of Harris Lane. Little bit backstory on this um particular site. This is two of the commercial out parcels for that um Gallatin Gap master development plan over there on Nashville Pike opposite of Brown's Lane. Run through couple of the comments here. Um first off is the access going from um the the private um roadway here going up to the gas station. And um staff would like to see that uh sidewalk relocated to the northern side of the property just so that it can improve access for those who are living in the apartments to be able to get to this establishment. Um there is a fairly steep grade change from this axis going down into the stream area. So whether or not there is a sidewalk there, a guardrail would be needed just for safety purposes. Um in our um pre-application meeting there were talks about having a right in right out here instead of a full access. So staff will be working with the applicant in the engineering department to get that squared away. The landscaping plan is here as follows. Um the now mind you the plan general commercial zoning district requires

additional landscaping for um certain uses. So, we'll be sure that the applicant will have to adhere to those as well. Um, staff had minor comments on this, just mainly adding a couple extra trees along uh Nashville Pike to give it a little more uniform um look instead of being overly populated on one side versus the other. Um the architecture for the Wawa is pretty consistent with the um other proposed location that is going to be in the city. Um this does meet the 70% uh brickstone requirements. So there is that and then the canopy will be the same canopy as with the other um location as well. Uh this would be a considered a minor amendment um unless something major comes up with it. Um it's not particularly adding uses that are not approved in the plan already and no other major substantial changes like that. Um lastly on the lighting plan, um this is the proposal for it. Um not a lot of foot candles going out into Nashville Pike or into the um apartments on the northern side as well. So that is pretty good in our book. Um, we do ask that a note be added to ensure that the lighting from the canopy portion of the gas station be at least shielded so it's not shedding any excessive light onto surrounding properties.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Do you have a representative for the applicant?

Hey, good evening. Landon BS with Kimley Horn. Um, sort of as Charlie said, the site's sort of been approved or has been planned for the law for from from the start of this process and got a few things that we need to work out with engineering as far as coordinating storm water. And then the only other item I would like to bring up is the access to the Ford property site. We understand that at one point, excuse me, it was requested that they install a cross access easement and that the city would be coordinating that to get that added to the plat. Um, our client is under the understanding that they can't go on anybody else's property without a an access easement being there. So, we would just like to see that from the city side if that's been done. Real quick, the preliminary master plan overall for the whole site um shows this access. However, when this um whole lot was platted off into its individual parcels, the access easement was not shown over here. This lot will have to be platted as one lot because the original plat shows two. So, there is probably an opportunity to be able to work that easement out.

Okay. Engineering, you got a Yeah. So we we're still working with with the adjacent Ford dealership. Um in 2014 on their site plan, it showed a 76 foot access easement across the entire frontage along Nashville Pike. And um back when that it that site plan never got a plat. So that access easement was not recorded on any plat was it recorded separately with the um Sar County Register's office. So, we're working with the Ford dealership to get that recorded. And I and this is one I do think the cross access is a big deal um with the access in the Nashville Pike coming from the Ford dealer and and through this site to the signalized intersection. So,

for sure, but I'd really like to see that one get worked out because the city and T do DOT would not allow a direct connection from this this property to to Nashville Pike. So, having the direct connection through the existing Ford site is Okay. Okay. Um, that's that's the only concern I've got with it. Anybody else have any comments or feedback? Okay. All right. We'll see you back a couple weeks.

Thank you. Item five is the Premier Academy of Gallatin final master development plan. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of a final master development plan for the Premier Academy of Gallatin, a proposed daycare facility on 0.59 acre lot located at 1168 Nashville Pike. Uh you can see existing conditions and some of the trees they proposed to remove along with uh a gravel road that you can barely see anymore. is mostly overgrown, but uh some tree removal through here and here. Uh then the proposed facility with the additional asphalt um a parking lot in the front adjacent to Nashville Pike. We have a fenced off playground here with some of the trees remaining. A smaller tot here in the rear. Uh access is still through the existing access over here behind I believe that's insurance company I think it's farmers

all state no it's a all state state farm state farm there are no proposed changes currently to the building itself so staying uh true to the Nashville corridor plan the overlay thank you thank you do we have a representative for the applicant Jake Vincent with Reagan Smith here to answer any questions you have.

Um, I guess the only question I have is and is I don't know if staff is something you know getting access out of the back of the property straight into that alleyway that's back there. Is that something y'all looked at or did y'all talk about that? I know it's been several several of those properties have had that done through there. So, that was something that that we looked at and we had mentioned in in the preapp, but based on the the survey that they got back to to get the slope of the driveway. Okay. It was going to be is not going to work. Correct. Okay. That's they they preferred that the developer was we tried to do that. Met with engineering a couple times, but it's not not feasible. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. That makes sense. Um, no. I'm I I'll be honest. I'm kind of excited to see this one. That's a a great spot for that use.

So, we did have one exception. We got one of the comments, the planning comments was about the side buffer yard, the 10-ft side buffer on the west side. Um, we would need um I guess to get creative there. the existing parking lot and existing drive are right on that property line and there's not a lot of room between the existing structure and the property line to get a drive aisle for the employee parking. They're calling that the employee parking um on the the front um along Nashville Highway. So, it would just be Yeah. Right there. Um is is what they're calling the employee only parking. and we'll we'll add a sign there at that drive, but um it's going to be tight to get a 10 foot side yard buffer and the planting requirements right there. So, we're open to suggestions for

I I will say this corridor, it's very common to see alternatives for buffer yards. Um you have a lot of existing trees, which is great. Um the comment came because that's the requirement for the code. So, you'll be asking for an alternative buffer yard. Um, yeah, they just ask for alternative buffer yard and just show it what can be done. Yeah. So, you can get your parking to work. The the intent of this corridor is that it maintain that residential look. And so, the intent of of that probably matters more than strict adherence to a buffer yard.

Okay. Yeah. All right. Anything else, folks? All right. We'll see you back a couple weeks in. Thanks. All right. Item six, uh, the crossings at Hidden Creek Jenkins Lane infrastructure final master development plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Carpenter, staff planner. Uh, the owner applicant request approval of a final master development plan for Jenkins Lane extension with 22 single family lots on a portion of 7.05 05 acres zone PGC plan general commercial and MRO multiple residential and office zone districts located east of Big Station Camp and south of Long Hollow Pike. Um so planning staff had mostly minor comments on this just to update the title and add phase and some other smaller changes. Um however, engineering has included uh conditions for the traffic impact study for these two intersections for Jenkins Lane uh at Big Station Camp and on Bison. I believe this is Bison Trail, right?

Um to be updated to reflect uh turn lanes. We just wanted to have them take a take another look at that to see if there was a need to have a separate exiting left and right turn lanes. Okay. So, be a minor impact overall. Okay. Got it. Um the architecture will be the same as other phases. Um with that, we have pretty minor comments.

Okay. Sounds like we have a representative for the applicant. Landon Allison with uh Kimley Horn. Um yeah, happy to take any questions. Um on the engineering note on the on the traffic impact study, I'm working with my traffic team tomorrow morning, actually take a look at that study and we'll work with you on any changes that need to be made there. Um and any layout changes accordingly. But um no other comments on or questions on any other comments, but happy to take any other questions.

I I don't have any questions. It seemed pretty straightforward to me. Y have any questions for applicant? All right, we'll see you back in a couple weeks then. Sounds good. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, item seven is Nexus TN phase 2 south section 7 a final plat. And then also got phase two and eight. You want to do them both at the same time? All right, seven and eight at the same time.

Good evening. Kimberly Atley, staff planner. This is Nexus Tennessee talking about phase 2 section 7 and8. And this is the final plat. The owner applicant is requesting approval for the final plat. It's located south of West Albert and Gallatin Avenue and east of Highway 109 is zone R8 PRD. Um section 7 has 6.3 acres and section 8 has 17.8 acres. There are roughly at 6,000 square plus 6,000 square plus acres um lots, sorry, lot size. Um 28 uh single family detached lots on phase 7 and 49 on section 8. There were some minor comments, nothing major. It's very consistent with the FMDP and this is the last section of phase 2 south of the nexus. All

right, great. We have a representative for the applicant hiding in the back.

Uh good evening. Brad Snyder uh with CSG. Nothing nothing to comment on that. So just minor comments to address and just here for any questions. Thanks for having minor stuff. Um, any questions? It's pretty routine stuff. Thanks for coming out tonight. All right. All right. Um, and then item nine is Tomkins Farm phase 2B. A final plat.

Sir, this is owner applicant is requesting a final plaque for the phase 2 section B. This is the last section of the Tomskin uh farms. It's uh located east of South Scotsville Pike and south of East Broadway. It's on 10 and a half acres. It's zone MRO. This one has 40 lots. It's a total of 87 lots for the entire section, but this is the last section of the Thompson Farm. Minor corrections. It's very consistent with the FMDP.

Thanks. Do we have a representative for the applicant? Alson Turner with Greenwood Design representing this item. We're fine with staff comments. Okay. Yeah, it's I mean final plat's all consistent. All kinds of good easy stuff. Okay. Well, thanks. We'll see you back in a couple weeks. All right. Is this down to other business? The staff, engineer, anybody have other business? I do not have anything tonight.

Okay. Um, well, I'll I have something for you, though. So, um, you know, it's, uh, long time ago when, uh, Paige asked me to serve on the planning commission, I didn't know that I wanted to do it, and I've learned a lot. It's been a wonderful adventure, but back at the end of September, I did let her know that at the end of the year, I'm going to be stepping away from the planning commission and uh, spending some more time with my family and doing some more traveling with the kids in college. So, but it's been a wonderful honor and the work we've done in Gallatton's been great and I can't say enough good things about the city staff and uh and just the people that I've been honored to serve with. So, it's been a it's been an honor and a privilege and uh but December will be my last meeting. So,

have lots of praise for you and I guess there will be time for that. But yeah, that's Thank you. Well, I I wanted to say something earlier so it wasn't at the very end and I just disappeared. So, but it's been a conversation we've been having for a while.