Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Thank you everybody for being here. We're going to call the meeting to order. All right. First thing we have is the opening prayer. Miss Slattery, will you do that for us?

Yes. Thank you. Would you bow your heads with me, please? Heavenly Father, we come to you this evening thankful for all of the many blessings that you bestow upon us as individuals and as a community and as a state and as a country. We thank you for the unending grace that's shown to all of us. We would ask your continued care for those that have been so severely affected by this winter storm. Bring them heat soon, Lord. We know it's a challenge. We'd ask that you would be with us tonight and guide our words and our decisions that they may be favorable in your sight and make good decisions for our community. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Zach, will you do the roll call, please? Yes, sir. Altizer here. Evans here. Hardwick here. Hasty here. Kerr here. Wessel here. Martin. Silkwood here. Slatterie here. That makes eight present, one absent.

Thank you. Okay. Next, we have a public hearing. This is a request by Marge Properties LLC to add the use motor vehicle dealership to the Manser Creek Final Development Plan. Properties located at 1220 Center Point Road on the north side of West Main Street on the west side of Centerpoint Road as identified by Summer County Tax Map 16146. 0. And we have nobody signed up for that public hearing. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. So, we'll mark that closed and move along. Public comment agenda items only. Again, no one was signed up for that. Was anybody in the audience wanting to sign up for it? Just didn't get to it. All right, we'll move ahead. Thank you. Next, we have the acceptance of the agenda. Do I have a motion? Have a I have a motion and a second. Did you get that, Zach? All right. And we'll do it just by the electronic vote.

Motion to accept the agenda. Pass with ads's. Thank you very much. Next is the minutes. I take everybody's had time to look at their minutes from last month. Any questions, comments? Do I have a motion? I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a second down here. Okay. Uh we we can do this by voice. All All in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Any abstain? We're good. Did you get all that, Zach? All right. Next is the consent agenda. And the first thing on there is Forest Park phase 3 preliminary plat owner Gen T 102 LLC Beaser Homes location 1685 Saundersville Road parcel 137038.00 uh lead planning staff is Zachary. You want to tell us about it?

Sure. Um let me pull this out real quick. So phase three of the forest park development um which is overall development includes 612 housing units across 269.7 acres. Um phase three cons uh contains 24 type C lots, four type D lots and 29 type E lots. Um everything aligns with the approved development plan. Um so yeah. Good. I see they've agreed to everything. So, anybody on the commission have questions, comments?

Okay. Two other phases. Oh, so should we go ahead and just do all of them? Thank you. Keith mentions that we also have Forest Park phase 4 and Forest Park phase six. All of them are on the same consent agreement and they all have agreed to everything that's been brought forth from the planning department. So with that being said, I'll if nobody's got questions then we can accept a motion to move on. So move. So we have a motion to accept. And do I have a second? I have a second. Who was that? Todd.

Oh, Mike. Thank you. Uh we'll do this by electronic. Motion to approve the consent agenda pass with ads's. Thank you very much. Yes, you go right ahead. Keith,

I I will mention mention uh for the planning commission for uh Mr. chairman uh is that this um this particular uh Forest Park uh development uh this this will be the last large U subdivision that we have in the city. So I just wanted to kind of kind of note that there's there there will not be another subdivision of this size uh you know due to due to the land that's available and things like that. But I just kind of wanted to mention that.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the development plans. Maner Creek final development plan. It's the ad use owners MGM Industries, Justin Brian. Location parcel 16146.00. Lead planning staff again is Zachary Coleman. So, sure.

Tell us about it, Zach. Uh so the applicants requesting the addition of motor vehicle dealership as an approved use to the amended FTP uh for Manser Creek. The current amended FTP was approved on September 9th, 2025, so pretty recently. Uh the site is located at 1220 Center Point Road. Um it's currently zoned general commercial plan development um and consists of 23.18 acres across three tracks. Those are track B, C, and D. uh in the FDP uh tractor supply was previously developed on tract A of the development and that uh acreage is not included in that 23.18 acres. Um based on conversations with the applicant, there's a business um a large-scale rental business that's interested in developing TrackX C into a motor vehicle rental establishment which is a permitted use in the the current amended FTP um that also sells used vehicles from their fleet. to do so. The motor vehicle dealership use must be added to the approved amended FTP. Uh the currently approved uses are included um for your review in the packet. Um farm equipment supplies was limited to tract A in the amended FTP to allow tractor supply to operate while preventing the use of other tracks of the development for the same use. Um, in considering the approval of the proposed addition of motor vehicle dealership as a use, the planning commission may recommend such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance, and operation of the plan development as deemed necessary to guarantee performance of all conditions. Um, and then in this case, in making a motion, uh, in addition to acceptance of all staff comments, the planning com commission may recommend that the addition of the motor vehicle dealership use be restricted to track C, um, and further restricted to the operation of the proposed business. Um, applicant has agreed to all staff comments.

Thank you, Zachary. So, is anyone here from Would you step up to the microphone? Please tell us your name, your address. You can field questions from all the people up here. [snorts]

Um, hi, my name is Ryan Woodson with uh Barge Civil Associates. We're located at 666 Charlotte Pike. Um yes, we had discussed this with planning staff and we are um amenable to um just designating this particular use to track C um and and you know kind of forfeiting that use on any of the other tracks. So this is uh just just the add the uh addition of the motor vehicle sale use and that would just be for track C. Okay. All right. Go ahead, Miss Slattery.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure I understand because it's a Centerpoint address, Centerpoint Road address, but is the main access going to be from M. Where'd you go? The main access going to be from Main Street? Am I reading that correctly? Uh, it the part the property is uh addressed off of Center Point Road. Um there are a couple of existing curb cuts on Main Street and we believe that at least one curb cut would remain for this tract off of Main Street because you can see on the screen there it would be isolated from the rest of the property although there would be some shared access um drives going through but um obviously that would all be kind of figured out with final final plan.

Okay. My con Thank you. My concern would be that that is becoming a busier and busier little section of Centerpoint Road as people are coming off of Vietnam Vets and to be bringing an auto hauler in through there versus out on Main Street where you have more lanes of traffic and a little freer flow of traffic. Is that the intention or have you thought through that yet? So, we are, and speaking for the owner here, still in conversations with a potential buyer uh who as as was previously mentioned is a motor vehicle uh rental company. And so, they are still working on a a site plan that I'm I'm sure would come back, okay,

and be, you know, reviewed by staff at that point. So, all right. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? I saw somebody else in the queue. Okay. Commissioner Hasty. Uh you're saying a mo motor vehicle dealership, but you just said basically an automobile rental facility. The uh the request is for an ad use of motor vehicle sales. Um but it would be primarily a rental agency that was previously me mentioned that would sell their vehicles, some of their fleet vehicles after they have.

But with a dealership, do you plan on having a maintenance facility? I believe for this particular rental agency we're talking to, they would have uh some maintenance facility, not, you know, not a very large one, but a small one on the property, not like a normal automobile dealership. No, this would be a primarily a a vehicle rental um company with uh like I said, they just some of their fleet vehicles after they've rented them for a long time, they they try to sell those Go ahead, Commissioner. I mean, chairman director free. Sorry. That's every time. I will get a pro I would get a promotion there.

No.

Uh, I just I just wanted to mention uh there there's definitely nothing wrong with looking at the uh at the request and and uh it it could it could turn out to be, you know, something very nice right there. We just we just need to be careful because the request right now is just for track C, which is cool, leaving it just for that track C, but it's adding uh the use of motor vehicle dealership. Uh but if we approved it as it's requested, then we're just adding that. It's not really tied to I know what the intention is, but it's not really tied to anything. So, uh, I just wanted to for the planning commission is as you move forward, uh, is just kind of realize that that's that's something that if approved as requested without any more specificity of exactly how it all works, uh, then you're approving uh, motor vehicle dealership, which could include a new motor deal vehicle dealership or used car sales. So, it could be it could be either one. Uh, but uh I know that's not the intention of what the applicant is requesting, but we just we just need to look out for that, you know, to know that, you know, whatever whatever does get approved that it's kind of addressing concerns. So it's not just a a used motor motor deal dealers dealership or for that matter even maybe even a motor vehicle dealership a new motor vehicle dealership. So thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Just to you know reiterate the point you guys is you know right now they have the right for a motor vehicle rental establishment. They're asking to add car sales. So, you know, if you start opening up the door for car sales, you know what it could become. So, and and what they're telling you here is we have the right to push it to a certain point to a certain lot or a parcel. So, [clears throat] what we're, you know, what do we as a committee want to do? What are you wanting to push? What's what's this parcel? What do we want to make of this parcel?

Can we limit the auto sales to an automobile leasing facility? I believe we could probably find a way to do that because they're looking at a nationwide auto I'm sorry, auto rental facility and then we could probably find a way to tie it to a nationwide facility that wants to sell their used or overflow cars. Okay. and then maybe find a way to limit to a percentage of the available space to that or even maybe dictate where that available space is because this is the entrance to the city, right?

So, do you really want that right up there in the front? Sorry about that. Do you really want it right up there in the front of everything? So those are the questions before us right now and that's what the commission or the that's what the planning department is asking of us to think our way through. I agree. But we got more cars than you can stack right across the road. So they're there anyway and already but if we could limit the sales to a facility that is leasing and say I don't know how you would

govern or I think it probably safer to go back to rental versus leasing. Yep. Okay. Well, I'm open to suggestions. Any other comments?

I don't think I have a suggestion yet. My concern is that this one little track would have the ability to potentially turn into Jack's used car lot if businesses change and national rental companies decide to do something else. We've allowed this little tiny piece, to your point, right at the entrance coming into Hendersonville to be a used car lot. and we've talked about the Westlake district plan and what we're hoping to do with with that end of Hendersonville. So, I I have some trepidation about allowing this little tiny piece of land to be potentially businesses change, priorities change, but it could be a little tiny used car lot.

Well, it could be unless we're very selective in the way we Yes. the way we allocate this. I think I like what both of you were suggesting that it it be tied to a rental company. It be tied so that it is an adjacency to their business and not the potential to be Jack's used beater cars. The only business. Yes. Commissioner Kerr, I see you're in the queue.

Yeah, this this is to the planning staff. Are there any rules or at least specifications around the cosmetics of what that might look like in terms of landscaping? It is kind of the gateway to the city. I mean, are we trying to add any requirements about dressing that that track up?

Uh, yeah. Uh, when uh it might have been a year ago, but it was maybe definitely se several months ago, uh, the owner did bring in and kind of clean up their final development plan. And as you can see on this where the highlighted area is, uh they've done a very robust uh buffer right through there with some increased landscaping as well as what we [clears throat] work with the Jeep dealership uh across the street where we have the columns and the fencing. They're going to mimic that over on this side. Uh so so I'm pretty comfortable with that those elements of it. And as far as the parking lot itself and the buildings, they're going to have to meet our requirements. So there's going to be more landscaping and and [clears throat] things like that than you know probably a a car rental place would even like. Uh but there you know but all those things are going to be required. So I feel comfortable that on the quality of the parking lot, the building, the buffer that's in front of this. Uh I think I think I think that'll be fine. And the use that, you know, the use that's already allowed is already for a rental car, which you know, it could have the whole place full of cars. It could look the same as a as a as a car dealership, but of course, it wouldn't function that same that same way. And I think it's just it's just probably as the chairman was saying finding that right balance that the applicant is comfortable with and the planning commission's comfortable with to to maybe move forward with the request but you know making sure we're not open the door for something we we don't really want in the future which is really just used [clears throat] car sales there if that makes sense.

Yeah. And I I agree with that and I I have a similar concern about it being quote a car lot versus a car rental location. U just in terms of that that area, how many units or how many cars could you accommodate on that lot?

Well, the the lot right now is five acres, a little over five acres, but it's heavily encumbered by, as you can see on the screen there, um flood plane and floodway, which we're pulling the parking out of that. I mean, I think it would probably be um let me see how many spaces I think we'd have here. I mean, probably a hundred or less than 100 spaces, parking spaces, and that would be both um for employees as well as the the product, the rental cars. So,

so if you went to the rental car option, I mean, having a hundred rental cars, that's a lot. I mean, I've traveled a lot in my career and you go to all these different airports. That's a lot of cars to have sitting, you know, for rental. Now, granted, probably wouldn't be a hundred units sitting on the the property, but

I um again share the same concern and and I think we should consider offering up some type of amendment uh similar to what uh Commissioner Hasty had about rental use only versus car lot sell the selling of cars. So, I just wanted to voice my concern and in support for his his thought there. Thanks. Any other commissioners comments, Commissioner Hardwick?

So, if I if I'm [snorts] hearing correctly, we want we want to say yes, it's an approved use for car rental. And are you guys comfortable if we say car sales as long as the primary business is rental and the sales is a dimminimous use to the to the rental business? Are you guys comfortable with that?

Yes, I'm Caleb Morris uh part of the ownership. Uh yeah, I don't see any problem with uh the primary use being the rental agency and the secondary use being the the sales of the the cars after they're done with their term. I does that solve the issue that if 10 years from now national car sales or national car rental goes away I think buy here pay here lot can't go in there because they're not a rental they can't go in it's primary sales lot because that would be against this the use

go ahead from what I understand is we need to make sure it's a primary use of rentals, you know, and some, you know, there are some sale, you know, some car sales companies that can have rentals or leases, which is one of the things I'd like to stay away stay away from. Yeah. So, it needs to be a predominant business of leasing. I mean, of car rentals. If if you guys are okay, I will make that motion with that wording.

Let me throw one thing in there. I think one thing we need to need to include include in your motion is just the wording that this um this use [clears throat] the wording you did but then addressing the use of the car sales as accessory to that primary use accessory to then that way it's clear it's just an association with and it couldn't be anything that's just freestanding uh car sales and if somebody wanted to do that they would need to come back and [clears throat] uh you know and add that particular use or or get it clear time and see what the commission at that time would say. Yeah. So I think that would

before you offer your motion, Commissioner Kerr is the So uh and just to get back I like I like what you're you're trying to do. How I mean should we put borders around what primary actually is? Should we quantify that in terms of X percent of your business should be primarily in the rental business versus um sale? I mean, so and maybe that's already embedded uh Keith in in what you already do, but I think it's important to put some parameters around what primary actually means. Well, I do like the fact of what Commissioner Hardawick was saying, dimminimous accessory, which means that it has to be less than 50%. Okay. then that's it. You know,

that's the answer by those two words. So, I like the way you've worded that. And you could even say less than 50%. Yeah. On your motion. That be that'd be good if you wanted to dominus. I mean, our lawyer's not here. Is probably He's right back there. There he is. [laughter] Oh man. What is the legal definition of dimminimous? Is it a minimum amount? But Mr. I like his idea. Excuse me, Lance. Jason's losing his mind that he can't hear you. Uh I like the minimus is minimal, but I like Well, that's why I was thinking not. It can't even be 48 or 49%. It's got to be minimal.

I I think it'd be a good idea, as Commissioner Kerr suggested, to maybe put some kind of percentage on it. What kind of percentage does he Can I offer up a thought there? I can't speak to that. I'm I'm not the buyer as far as what the what the percentage is. Um we can definitely go to them and ask that. Um my question would be I mean can we do this for knowing this is going to be majority rental company and sales. Can we do this for the first buyer and then have it fall off that it can't be car sales after that? I don't think so. No. Yeah. Once it's there, it's there.

Okay. Um, I mean, I think 50/50 is a definite, you know, that less than 50% is totally doable. Anything less than that, I would definitely need to speak with them on what that what that percentage is. I just don't know their business to that level. I'm thinking 8020. Yeah, that's to me that's dimminimous. So,

yeah, I might uh and Timothy can maybe chime in on this. Typically, when we're looking at accessory um uses, we're saying 33%. I mean, that that's usually what we we say. I'm not saying we got to limit that here. The plan commission can do what it wants to with it. This is a plan development, but typically when Timothy and I are dealing with u accessory uses that are allowed, we're looking at, hey, does it take up, you know, more than a third? If it does, then you're getting into primary a primary use. I think a third is um is manageable. We'll just have to go and see if we still got a buyer at a third. I mean, that's that's up to them.

If they want to come back and argue, we're I'm we're here next month. Yeah, that's for them to do. [laughter] Not me. So, I don't want to get too much in the weeds, but 30% of what of the number of cars sitting on the lot or the available space? That was going to be my next comment. was 30% of the business or 30% of the available space. Yeah. Okay. And I think we, you know, we don't want to get into the monitoring of people's business. I think we need to get into the monitoring of their space. So, I think available paid space. I mean, I I would like to go 8020, but I understand the 33% and I I can get there. That would drive up with what we

and and Keith brought up a point. He said 33% of the paid space. Okay. So, not the entire outlying parcel that's in the flood plane. Commissioner, thank you. So, I want to make sure that I'm understanding that because I agree. I don't think it needs to be a percentage of business that that's that's not our business, but are we saying a percentage of the number of approved spaces or the percentage of the amount of paved property? Because that's two different things. I was going to say paved parking spaces unless someone corrects me. Yes, I I I'm happy with that. Thank you.

Any other commissioners questions, comments, input? Commissioner Hardwick, if you're ready to offer your motion. I'm ready to hear it. You guys correct me if I don't get this right. So for lot C, lot C only in that rental is an approved use as an accessory of no more than onethird of the paved parking spaces that are on the site plan. A dimminimous use, they can sell their used fleet that comes through normal turnover of the fleet.

Okay. And I'll second that motion. Now the next thing we need to do is vote for it electronically.

Motion to approve. Pass with eight yeses.

Thanks you guys for your patience. Thanks for walking us through it. Okay. Next on our agenda, next on the agenda is our other category and we have let's see Manser Farms phase 18 section one setback deviation final plant owner Wilson Bank and Trust location is 124 Manor Way parcel 1144 N020.00. This is Lee planning staff of Caitlyn Shin. Anything else you would like to add to it? And by the way, this is from a previous deferral also. So this is from January January 6th uh planning commission meeting.

Do you want me to just hit the highlights? Don't go [laughter] through all of us have heard the the rugged details. Do you guys want to hear anything more about [laughter]

All right. So they are requesting a deviation for the building setback encroachment of the front setback by 1.8 ft. the right side setback of 0.23 feet, the rear setback 1.9 feet, and then an encroachment for a retaining wall. Um the we did get the HOA approval. Um there was one of the requirements from the HOA was that the HVAC be moved to a different location. They have agreed to remove it and put it in the back of the home. Um, and there was one other stipulation with the HOA um, approval, but I'm going to actually let the owner or the applicant's representative discuss that.

They have agre they have agreed to all staff comments. Thank you very much. Will you step forward, Marty? Tell your name, address.

Marty Cook, 100 Bluegrass Commons. Uh, here on behalf of the bank tonight. First off, just appreciate you all allowing the defer deferral last month so that we could kind of further shore up um our team and the in the approach and try to get some final details worked out with planning which we we've met with them and and hopefully we have a a path forward that everyone can be comfortable with. Um, you know, the goal here by the bank is to make this property marketable so they can sell it to an enduser who can make these repairs and make this a home that someone can live in and that the neighbors won't see as an eyesore and the city won't see as an isore. And you know, the the the bank has been dealt a uh a pretty unfair hand here and has already, you know, foreclosed on this property at a loss. They've expended considerable resources getting it to this point just so they can be able to sell a unencumbered um piece of property to a buyer. Um so, a couple of things just to clarify. As Caitlyn said, the HOA had two requests. One of them was to to move the HVAC unit to the back of the of the home, which the bank is agreeing to go ahead and do that at their expense, do that. Now, their second request was related to a concrete pad behind the garage. And for reasons that are over my head, but we have contractors here that can that can address this if needed to do that concrete work that that needs to be part of the larger overall construction project related to the structure and the driveway. And it would not make sense economically or I think from even a construction or engineering

perspective to do that peace meal not as part of the whole project. So the bank's certainly not opposed to that and and is willing to make that part of the um the the requirement for the ultimate end user but they don't feel comfortable doing that themselves right now. Um, so that is one one thing that we would ask. Um, you know, the the goal again is simply to have these variances on record so that it runs with the property, makes them be able to sell it, and allows the next owner to do the work that's necessary to bring it within the variances that we're requesting you all approved tonight. Um and and and and one thing one additional thing the bank has agreed to do while the bank would not um does not wish to have any hard and fast deadlines on them as to when the property would be sold or when work would be done because that that's simply difficult to know. They have agreed and we've talked with with Keith about making sure that they do stay in communication with the planning staff as far as how their marketing efforts are going, whether they have a contract in place um and and when they expect it will close and the new owner will begin work. So, we're certainly willing to do that. Um and and the bank is more than willing to do that. So, that's our that's our request. Um, if there are any specific questions about the actual work that would still need to be done by um the next owner, then the Derek Free is here and he's a contractor who can address that if you have technical

questions on that that are over my head. Thank you, Commissioner Kerr. I saw you were first. Uh, yeah, thank you and thank you for the presentation. [clears throat] Uh, just a couple of follow-up questions from previous meeting. Um, so the way you described it to me, it sounds like the bank is not going to do not going to correct the deviations. You're going to sell it to somebody else at some point that's going to correct the deviations. And the goal today was to get the deviations technically on record so the new buyer whenever that is determined would make these fixes. Right. That's correct.

That's that's a little bit of a change from where where we've been going on this, I think. I think the last couple of meetings, well, I think few of them have been uh deferred. The bank was actually going to do the changes to the to the property. We had the contractor here talking about um and I had asked at at a couple of meetings to come up with, you know, a budget, what that looks like, and is the bank prepared to fund that. So going from that to now the bank's going to find a buyer and they're going to fix it is a little bit of a change to to me it is where we were headed. So and I and I hear you on the on the timeline and I and and I can appreciate that. Um I'm not as focused on the timeline of the sale as I am timeline of the fix. And that's really what I'm focused on. So, and it's great you guys have are looking at a maybe a plan to sell it, have a new buyer do the work. I'm not sure that that advances the cause here for me anyway. My my approach is to make sure we get that eyesore fixed for the neighborhood. Um, so maybe I don't know if it's representative from bank can talk to us a little bit about how this has shifted between two meetings. I I certainly would appreciate that.

Sure. And I think Wes wants to speak, but I mean part of that I think was as this developed and the cost of that became more apparent that did tend to shift the the the thinking and whether that's something the bank could undertake versus someone who is truly going to invest in this as their home.

Yeah, Commissioner. Yeah, thank you for the question. So that's exactly right. you know, from the first meeting as we got into it, we continue to tabulate those costs and see, you know, the project to get it back online. You know, the bank, I think we talked about the last meeting, we're not in the construction business, you know, um dayto-day, we felt it's more prudent, better to sell this to a next owner that their focus is going to be get this thing done, get it done right. Um and you know, as a contractor doing that, that's their job. That's what they do. we feel it it move more expeditiously if we go that route as well. Um you know to kind of frame the cost I guess as as Marty said um so far you know we foreclosed at a loss we spent about $50,000 so far on getting HOA fees current taxes surveys trying to provide clarity for that process for whoever takes it over. Um, and frankly, you know, just uh again, our job, our goal is just get it to that point so a contractor, reputable contractor buy this property, finish it, and as he said, just get rid of the eyesore, just make it right, get a homeowner that lives in there. Um, so I think as as we went along determined the scope of that project and the speed at which it needed to occur as well, we felt best, hey, it it's it's better to transfer this to a new owner, sell it to them,

and get it moving in the right direction in a quicker manner. So ju just to to go back to to the budget question for a second g given the fact you guys have kind of put pencil to paper and have looked at the at the cost and you guys decided that maybe you're going to shift on this project would that make the uh a new buyer I mean would that be too much for somebody to take on you know do do you think I mean the fact you guys don't want to do the work I certainly could appreciate it you guys are not in the real estate business but shifting that to a new buyer or does that delay it even further down the road that this doesn't get fixed? Yeah. Um but that's more of a question.

No, great great question. Yes, sir. So, um to be honest with the commission, you know, we realize that when we sell this property, we're probably going to take a further loss to your point right there. Because of the cost incurred, we know in order to make it marketable, we'll have to sell it at a fair price, you know, in order for a contractor or whoever to invest in it and bring it to completion. Um, so hope that answers it, but we realize, hey, we're probably going to have to take a little further loss on this as we get into it.

So maybe this is a Lance question or or planning question. What are the guarantees that if a new buyer decides to take on this isore and make it, you know, a nonisore? What do can we bind them to these deviations? Can we bind them to do the changes to the deviations that that have been identified by planning staff? Yeah. And after question or your question I believe yeah we could we won't issue a certificate of occupancy. Um is that your understanding right? Yeah. So we wouldn't let it anyone possess it without the requirements being fulfilled.

Okay. I got it. That that makes sense. Yes sir. Okay. Great. Thanks. Yep. Commissioner Slatter. Thank you. I just want to make sure I think Todd asked the question that I was pondering and I think I understood the answer but there is a process that would prevent new contractor buys the house bank goes back to banking contractor doesn't do everything I can answer that okay

yeah um of course it's all it's all risk risk with the bank risk with a another owner. Uh but uh whoever owns it, I mean the bank sells it to somebody and you know maybe sells it uh to a developer or builder that maybe is in a better position to do that kind of work versus what they would charge the bank to do that work. Um you know uh it could it could move it al along a a lot quicker. As far as the hooks that we have, we got big hooks in this thing. the house is going to sit there until it's resolved. And so if the planning commission gives these deviations and and variances, uh they're there and uh you know uh until whoever and it's not doesn't have to be the bank. It could be whoever owns it. Uh until they resolve it, nobody's going to live in it and it's going to continuously be, you know, be an issue. And um so um so really really the only way forward for this thing to not just sit there is somebody, you know, to do it that can do this work and that financially somehow it makes makes sense to do it. Uh but but as far as the the requirements and the hooks, we we have those, you know, so it won't change with the owners. And to be honest with you, if the bank hadn't foreclosed and uh the uh the the party that built it, we wouldn't even be dealing with the bank. They you know what I mean? We'd be we'd be dealing with the guy that built the house. So really, whoever owns it doesn't really matter. It's just whoever's responsible uh is uh they're going to have to get that resolved. And I think all these things that are listed and Caitlyn kind of went through them. Uh all of these things are going to make this a better property definitely than it is today. And all these things even

though they're pretty significant, you know, um they can be done and you know, somebody can eventually live there and it it look like a you know a nice a nice property. You know, the big drawbacks on this thing, I think we've all discussed it, is the, you know, god-awful amount of concrete and improperly placed, you know, concrete over this whole thing and and the plans that they have. And so these plans that we're talking about, whoever they sell it to, the items they don't check off, they still somebody else still has to do that. And if they don't do it like what uh what the planning commission uh gives the permission, they'll have to come back to the planning commission to to work uh work those details out if they want to do something significantly uh uh different. My guess is if the bank moves the HVAC or does whatever it does, then turns around, finds a a reputable person or builder that has the capability to do this. As soon as they would get it, uh I would think they would move as quickly as possible to resolve it. So they're not sitting there on their money, you know, month after month. I I would think it would accelerate accelerate it. Uh, so yes sir, if that's if that's helpful, I

it is and there's only so much we can reach out and control. I appreciate fully the bank wants to get to the handoff stage and anything that we can do to facilitate that in a way that protects the integrity of the community. I'm all for that. I don't have a problem with this.

I'm still curious, and again, this is beyond maybe the city's control. The HOA obviously has timeline requirements for completion of property. Is that clock starting over? Because at some point, I think Todd mentioned the eyesore factor. At some point, what currently looks like a the makings of a really nice skate park with all the concrete will start to deteriorate. Unoccupied, partially completed homes are are not a thing for a reason. So is there anything that the city has? So reputable builder buys it with all intentions, but are there any hooks that keeps that buyer moving forward their business? And I appreciate that we can't control everything and can't see into the future, but they decide, "Oh, I I've got big money problems. A bunch of deals have fallen through. I just continue to let this sit and sit and sit. Have we done everything that the city can do, that the planning commission can do, and the planning department can do to urge this to completion in a satisfactory fashion?

Yes. Okay. And I'll just be very straight about it. If it wasn't uh Wilson Wilson Trust Bank, right? Wilson Bank. Yeah. If it wasn't Wilson Bank and Trust, a local bank that has this, if this was anything else, I won't say banks names, but any other national bank, it would just be sitting there and it could sit there for years.

I mean, the only reason this thing has any breath of life to get resolved, which is no guarantee that it will, is only because a a local bank is involved. If this was a mega huge bank, uh this thing this thing would just sit there and then maybe maybe get foreclosed on and then maybe the county owns it or maybe the city owns it and and then you know and and so that's kind of how these things kind of work. So we're really we're really lucky to have a local bank that actually cares about the community that's trying to do something with it even though it's a bad it's a bad situation. Uh, so I I totally understand

and agree. I I support this. I do appreciate that you all are are going above and beyond the normal day-to-day banking operations to try to salvage this. And as a community, I think everyone appreciates that. It's just a lot still to be done. Commissioner Evans, saw you're in the queue.

Uh, yes. I hope you understand why I'm asking this question. having been a a home builder in the past and and uh having uh interest acrew on a construction loan. Uh does the bank plan to make an outright sale of this property or will the bank remain involved as a lender for the prospective buyer?

Yeah. So, um Commissioner, I would say, you know, options are on the table there. if we have a prospective buyer and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your question but obviously you know um if that particular buyer desired financing we would certainly look at doing that for this project for them uh as our involvement now we may have a buyer that comes along that may just purchase it outright and finish it out of their own pocket but certainly we've discussed and open to if we have a buyer they need financing we're we're going to look at that for sure yes sir and and it would be smart to do so. My point is, however, that with interest acrewing on a construction loan or

that's that's where the impetus is. That's where the motivation is. So, just curious, but thank you, Commissioner Hasty. [clears throat]

I appreciate the bank trying to get this resolved, but uh you know, in my little simple mind, I think what the bank's trying to do, saying we're going to lose x number of dollars on this place. So instead of us taking the responsibility of going out here and doing this work, we're going to just drop the cost, the sale price, and we're going to pass it on to somebody else. And then you guys are out of it. I appreciate what you're doing, but I look at it right now is you're the fish on our hook and you're wanting to put that hook in somebody else's mouth. And I can appreciate what the bank is doing, but I think our leverage needs to stay with the bank to get the project finished. I think we're all in agreement on meeting the setback requirements and I I'll vote for those that the HOA has approved and you're going to move the H the HBAC.

Yes, sir.

You know, I think we're agreeing on what can be done. It's just a matter of who's going to do it. And you're right. We have a use in occupy permit as a hook, but we got that hook for whoever's on the other hook. So, but I think the bank has a responsibility to see it to the point where the enduser can get a use in occupancy permit. Commissioner may if I may response. So to kind of go back to and thank you for for that comment kind of kind of going back to the beginning of the process when we foreclosed. We had a conversation about this and kind of what Keith said a moment ago. We have a choice. You know we can whether the bank is involved in the construction process or whether we're not and we sell it. What we have got to do, our responsibility in the community is to provide clarity for somebody else to finish that project out because we have seen, look, we've we've seen mega banks before where they do let these properties sit. You know, we've got offices here and like we've got that tie. So, we wanted to regardless of which route we wanted to go, we wanted to spend the money, get these plans and provide clarity so that it can get done. And I I understand yes sir what you're saying that that was just just a thought. So yeah.

Well again I think we all agree on what has to be done and we agree on that. Yes sir. It's just are we going to get it done now or we're going to let you sell it and let the next guy do it? That's the question in my opinion. And I think the guy that we're dealing with is the one should get it to the point where the end user can get to UNO. Commissioner Hardwick,

for Commissioner Hasty, would it be and I I need to ask the bank if they would agree to this that once they sell their buyer has six months to start the work or they lose all the variances that we've approved that because if they sell to a reputable builder they they're going to want the work done and especially if they know they lose their their right to the variances if they don't get if they don't get it in gear and get started. But if the reason I say six months is

if the bank has sold it, we're just at their goodwill that they're going to do this for the community and we have no recourse whatsoever. Our recourse at that point is is to whoever they sell it to, right? That's to the buyer. So, we're just going to kick the bucket down the road, maybe. And I understand. I just think that if a builder is going to buy this, they're buying it for the reason they want to make money. That they they see that they can buy this cheap from the bank. Bank wants to close their books and get rid of it. They're going to do spend it, make money, and that's all good and well, but you know, do we have the assurance that that's going to happen? We do not.

Is it just another risk that we take? It's a risk that we take. But I hear what you're saying. That's why I was thinking if we put something in there so that whomever buys it from the bank knows, hey, I'm buying this with a condition that I got to get it in gear. Lawyer Lance, you may be the best one to make some suggestions here. Is is the question, can we put a time limit on the variance? Well, I think it's I think it's more, you know, can you tie the bank and the future buyer together in making sure this project gets complete and can you put them both on the hook for a variance for that's what we're talking

for the completion with these variances that have been granted because the what what you're hearing here is the they want to see completion. So, the two lawyers are shaking their head. No, I don't think you can. and it runs with the land regardless of the owner. But I believe that you can put a condition on the variance that it expires at a reasonable time. Although these gentlemen probably don't want to hear that answer. Um I think that is a something that you could do as long as it's reasonable and rationally related. You put a timeline on the variance for the for the conditions to be met that's related to the variance, right? Thank you. Does that answer questions for y'all?

Commissioner Ker and I had that conversation earlier that went back and I uh yeah, I I agree I agree with Lance on that that you could you could do a time frame, but all of the other stuff is kind of getting outside the boundary of the request for the deviation. Um,

I think I'll just speak a little bit from this side of the the table. Okay. I think what you're having a problem with right now is everybody on this side has heard from you guys that you wanted the variances. You've asked for the variances. You've been granted the variances. You know, the planning department has worked with you on all this. You have a you have most of a plan laid out. You just don't want to execute it. and we want you to execute it.

That way it's done. So, can you find a way to get to execution because we've, you know, you've been generously granted a lot of waiverss by a lot of people, including the HOA, you know, and the neighbors over there. So, with that, can you get to a final execution? I mean, if you walked up here and said you got a buyer on the hook right now that we could talk to and make him commit to it, that would be probably something you could live with, but you don't have that.

So, can I let me ask one question and maybe goes back to lawyer Lance for just a second. What if we and I'd love to see you guys sell it. I would. I mean, if we could get it fixed and sold and you guys are off the hook and everybody's happy. Uh, and and maybe we can't do what I'm going to ask, but I'm going to ask it anyway. What if we put a stipulation if it's not sold within X months, then it reverts back to the bank to do the project, to finish it?

Sure, we can do that. Well, to me, it's kind of you're getting a hook on both sides because you're you still got the bank the hook and you've you've got the process as a hook to get that sale done. And if we could put a time limit that this commission agrees on, say 6 months to get to get that property sold. That way, you're motivated to sell and we have a hook in you to say if you don't sell it within six months, you have to fix it. for us to grant the deviations. That's a that's a thought. The deviations expire. Yeah.

Yeah. Like I said, you can do it to where the deviations expire and whatever time frame that the commission comes up with. I mean, one is a deviation expiring. The other is, have you actually transferred the property to somebody that's actually going to fix the property? And I I realize the deviations are the hook for the most part, but you know, it comes back to the spirit you guys are wanting to do what's right for the community, right?

If you're a motivated seller and you got the right buyer and the right builder possibly that gets this work done, that's that's the goal is to get it fixed. Um, and I do think that what Charles said is right. we are letting one fish off one hook and trying to hook another one. And that was my question kind of the start of the of the conversation. So I I would ask you know for us to think about a time period if it's six months if they haven't sold the property that either we uh the deviations expire

all right then we're back to square one or the bank says hey we are going to take it from here and we're going to execute and we're going to build this out and do what we need to do. So, um, I just don't want to I don't want to leave here without somebody on the hook to do this.

And I can appreciate you guys are trying to to do what you do best, that's banking, but that's may not be the best what's for this community at this point or this neighborhood. So, we we've got to be creative. We got to think outside the box a little bit. This has been four years in the making. We got to be somewhat creative in how we get there. And we want to work with you guys to get there. I think I hear that, but I don't think I'm prepared to say, "All right, guys, you're off the hook. We're going to wait for the next buyer." I that doesn't advance the ball at all to me. So, that I'll leave it there. As I mentioned, I mean, I believe that you could put the condition that um within six months or whatever time frame that the deviations do expire. Um, I think you could maybe tie that to the sale, but I don't know how you could bring the bank back in after um, if it doesn't sell after six months and if you don't put an expiration of time on it.

Well, they had sold it in six months, excuse me, they had sold it in six months. If they sell it in six months, it's not an issue, right? I mean, it's over. Yeah. It's we're moving on. We've got the new buyer, all that. But at least 6 months, we've got this commission's got a kind of a a benchmark to look at. The community's got a benchmark to look at. And if we leave it the way it is now and and Commissioner Hasty's right, we're we could this thing could go on for another four years. We don't know. But today, we have them on the hook, right? And I don't I don't know that they should wiggle off at this point. Sure. Without some solution. And I and I I you know I want this finished. Um so

unless somebody else has an idea I haven't thought of. I can't think of anything other than the condition. Yeah. Well, do you have a comment? Yeah. Yes. Go right ahead. Thank you so much. I definitely hear you loud and clear. Appreciate the commission's thoughts. Can you tell us your name?

Yep. Sorry. Taylor Walker, chief lending officer at the bank. I was here until Commissioner C I come back tonight too uh to to continue to try to see this through. So, um I can definitely put myself in your shoes and understand, you know, that you you want you you want to get this done. You want it to be right for the neighborhood. Um I completely get that, right? And so, actually, the the bank feels the same way, too. That's why we foreclosed on this gentleman that could not get this project done, right? And so, you know, uh, we're we're in the banking business. We make our money off, you know, interest and we're not in the construction business. It in and typically in these situations when we take something back that we we foreclose on a property because bad things happen, unexpected, whatever the case may be, that's our, you know, that obviously the collateral piece and we we we take it and we sell it at a discount, right? I mean, we're already losing a substantial amount on the project. Commissioner Kerr, I mean it's we've already written the loan down. We've got So, you know, at some point that like I also believe in the free market, right? Big believer in that. And so, the whole thought process from the bank standpoint is as we got into this is a really this a big project, right? And so, you know, this is not something that we have the, you know, staff or ability or, you know, to to to take on. And the thought process was simply, let's get a clear path for someone that is willing to put their hard-earned dollars out there. I know you're asking what what holds them to that, you know, and I I keep hearing we're on the hook. Well, my thought the thought process from the bank if we can get a clear plan and we that obviously makes the property much more marketable, which today if the committee decides, you know, definitely your choice not to grant it, then it's a very it's less marketable, right? And I will tell you the bank doesn't have an appetite to get into a massive construction project. And so, you know, if we're able to get these and get a clear game plan of what needs

to happen and so we we will still have to take even a further loss on this just to sell it with the variances in my opinion because of the massive amount of work. So, it's it's not you know and I I believe the speed is another question I continue to hear from the the body which I completely understand. I think if we were able to sell this property to somebody, which we'll have to further discount after they get in there and they realize everything that is going to take place, they will be highly motivated to do it quickly because, you know, there's they're sitting on a loan. They're sitting on their equity. And so they would obviously be held to the same standard as any other builder to have, you know, X, Y, and Z done. And so I I believe the free market would take care of this problem. we will have to further discount to make it marketable um from where we're at now. So I just just just some pers perspective from the bank standpoint. Um I definitely appreciate your standpoint too. So

So I I think what I hear is that you agree that finding a motivated buyer would be the best path to get this resolved and and we keep the variances intact. Um but I think I also heard maybe I didn't that you would be willing to uh work with us in terms of a some type of timeline 6 months to to get this sale completed and then the variances actually expire at that point. That get that gives some finality for us and for you too. And I I think it would show that we're trying to work with you here. I mean we all just we could all just say no and move on. Yes, sir.

You guys have a problem on your hand. We're saying six I'm saying six months. We'll vote on it and see what people think. But at least we've got some at least we've got it identified in terms of timeline to think about. Um get you guys still motivated right now. If we walk away, we say, "Hey, yeah, you got these these variances, we approve them." That's it. I mean, you guys could take all the time you want. And I hear selling in in the interest. I hear you. Uh but if you could have sold it, you would have at this point. Um, so these variances are to have them on record like Mr. Cook said, that's important for the next buyer to see that. Yes, sir.

But again, I'm going to go back to say if we can come to terms in terms of timeline for these deviations and and a sale to take place, I think that that that gets me where I need to be tonight to to move it forward. If if clarification question so if we tie the deviations to a timeline that's just based upon a sale is that correct is that what you're thinking commissioner Kerr I'm just trying to understand

well I mean to me if if we if we if they expire based on contingent upon a sale and this is this is a Lance question I'm way out of over my skis on this but uh if we if we do the deviations based on a sale the expiration and six months happens we can this body can go back and revisit and say, "Hey, we think you've given six months and we're just not going to prove the deviations and you're just either that or you're going to have to fix it at this point." And and I'm not as tied to the deviation concept as I am to the commitment to sell it and get it in the right hands quickly to somebody that will actually fix this. And if you can't do that in six months, then you guys are on the hook. Fix it. I

I will tell you this sits in our um Oreo or other real estate owned. We we have a big motivation to to sell it. So it it's it's not something we're going to try to get the highest. We're going to try to move this off our books and we actually have an obligation. There's some regulatory obligations, too, that you know, they're much longer term. I don't think you you can't you're not allowed to hold other real estate on your books. I think it's I can't remember the timeline but approximately I want to say you know that might be five year time. So we we we we will um I promise you we want to get rid of this thing as quick as we can. So that are and we I know I don't uh I know that we at least have uh one person that has some possible interest in it as well already.

Um that they're obviously going to be much more interested if we can get the blessing for the variances and they have a clear path forward. Um I know we have other people that we'll talk to. We obviously work with a lot of builders and developers uh that you know they'll of course they want to get at the cheapest price. So we will have to continue to take even additional loss. Please understand that. So I um just to point out so let me interrupt. Uh comm uh director free would like to say something.

Yeah. And Lance correct me if if I'm wrong and I think I understand kind of what everybody's everybody's talking about and and kind of what Lance was talking about earlier. So, it sounds like to me that if it if the deviations were approved and then you just set the time frame and I don't you can't set the time frame I don't believe to the sale. just set it to the completion of the improvements and maybe do that for six months, uh, you know, or maybe a little bit longer, maybe eight months. And then that way if it's not complete, then the deviation goes away. And if the bank's still holding it, then, you know, then it goes back to where we are tonight. or if somebody else has bought it and they haven't corrected it, uh then they go back to where we are tonight and would have to look, you know, come back uh to uh to try to get a resolution. But I think putting that time frame not on a sale, but on on the actual completion of the uh the work would seem to me to then motivate the bank uh to sell it quicker

uh you know, before the deviation goes away. Uh, Commissioner Wessle, you've waited patiently. Yes. Um, I just want to show support for Commissioner Kerr and also Commissioner Hastings. I totally agree with what they've stated and I just wanted to make that um, that point. Thank you. Okay. And now, Commissioner Evans, you've very been very patient also. [laughter]

Second bite at the apple. And I'm ready to vote for the variances for the current owner. Uh the bottom line here is the bank is going to have to give somebody some attractive terms to sell this house to them. They're going to have to loan some money to this person and they're going to have to hope that this person completes this project in a timely manner and does not go bankrupt trying to do it or they wind up with the thing again. Uh putting a timeline on it. Uh if that would probably work. Uh but the timeline will be established by once again as I said at the last meeting the time value of money.

This thing is going to finish out correct uh very quickly because both parties the party that buys the house from the bank and the bank who makes the attractive terms in order to sell it uh that they're going to want this thing concluded sooner rather than later. And if somebody comes up with uh whatever hundreds of thousands of dollars they need to buy the house and complete the house, they're not going to sit there and and not do anything to the house. So the the I I think the the impetus is here to get this thing fixed. If we give these the current owners the the right to do uh to sell the project, it's kind of like a Sears Robuck kit house. you sell the house and you sell the kit to get it finished with. So, if we give them the authority to do this, then they've got the freedom to go out and and get this project finished. So, I'm prepared to vote for the variances for the current owners. [clears throat] Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, so now we can keep talking about this a lot and keep going through a big circle. Okay, [laughter] we have uh definitely got different opinions in different areas now. You know, we can Well, I see more people lighting up here. So, Charles, go right ahead. [panting] After sitting here and listening to all this, even listening to myself, Mr. Evans might have a point. What we're doing is just granting a variance or a deviation on setbacks and meeting those requirements. And we're going to give it to the bank. Now, if the bank drops the ball, they better hope they don't come back to here cuz that

we're going to let you off the hook one time. But we live here, too. So hey, you probably don't listen to the citizens the way we and the board of mayor and alderman do though either. Yes, sir. You don't get that end of it. But I I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Evans. Now we're going to grant you the variance. Now prove to us that you're a good steward of that variance and you're going to take care of the community. That's and go with it. Okay. Commissioner Kerr, you have something to say?

Yeah, I certainly want to offer an amendment to that. I I think we should put the eightmonth uh time limit that that Director Free had had articulated. So, the motion is to approve the deviation uh contingent upon the eight-month expiration. So, I've heard a motion. I haven't heard anyone second that motion. Second. So, we have a second. Yeah. Hey, what is the uh eight months tied to? What happens if [snorts] something doesn't happen in eight months? Completion of the deviations. I see a lot of heads and it's saying no. So that that tells you just complet completion of the project.

Yeah. Completion of the project, not just completion of these two. That's what you're asking for in eight months is that this thing is now ready for certificate of occupancy. People start hanging curtains and planning Thanksgiving in eight months. That's that's exactly right. H

happy to state I mean I've I've have completely understand the perspective and the timeline right because there is um I do kind of go back to I think it's Commissioner Evans about the the free market. So I don't think someone would sit on this. I I do believe if you know putting myself in whoever purchased you know it just thinking about timelines right um and if I put myself in a builder builder shoes um I I believe it makes it less marketable having a a timeline and it it's hard on these things you know to say exactly when we're going to sell it for sure right and so you think about and if we do finance it that's obviously appraisal is a process uh building building in construction. So, we we do a lot of that at the bank. And I'm not a builder or a a you know developer, but I would tell you most all projects that we see have two things in common. They typically take longer and they typically cost more. I don't know if y'all have experienced that. And so, there in lies the bank's concern with the timeline. I completely understand and appreciate it, but I do believe that makes it less marketable. Therefore, it would possibly sit longer, too. I would ask for the commission's consideration on that.

Well, if if Commissioner Evans is correct, eight months is not an issue. Time value money solves this. But if it doesn't, then we we're here in 8 months. So, and I think you can still be a good steward of the of the community and and still abide by the six the eight months. Well, right now we have a motion and we have a second. Is there any other comments from So, I have a comment while they're doing their thing. Go ahead. So, I would agree with Commissioner Evans. I think we need to

to just approve the variances and let them go. If if we're going to put a timeline, it's going to take these guys at least 90 days to get it sold. Probably six months. If a builder gets it, it's going to take them at least six to nine months to get all the work done. So, you're talking realistically a year plus to get all this done. Um, I if we were going to go the route of a timeline, I would tie it to the sale, not to these guys today. And I would tie it a nine months to a year for a builder to have to do it. But I would rather just approve it straight up the way it is. So my question is if we we have a motion and we have a second. If we vote no or we vote yes either way, but if it's no, do we have can we come back and do a vote to give them an affirmative and positive approval?

The answer is yes. And that was my intent. Okay. So my intent right now is we have a motion and a second. I [clears throat] say we vote that either up or down. And if it's voted down, then this board is free to make another motion for another solution. Okay. Okay. Or I can amend my motion. Or you can amend your motion if you so see. Can we now that we have Well, the second would have to also to agree to the amended motion. So, I'd need to make it first. Um, and then we can decide whether or not something you would agree to. So I I think I'm hearing Well, first off, if you're going to I think the more proper thing to do is withdraw your motion. Okay, I'll withdraw the that motion. Okay. Motion withdrawn.

You agree? I agree. All right. So motion's been withdrawn. You're wanting to add another motion. The new motion and amendment, but at this time you're trying to jump across what Barry So Barry I'm trying to sync up with what Barry said. Okay. So let's hear what Barry has to say. And if you would like, you can second his motion. Right. Okay. Because he was ready to offer that motion. As long as it has timelines, that's that's what I'm looking for. Okay. So, Barry, so I was going to make the motion, but we we had a motion in a second.

Excuse me. We had a motion and a second. So, I was asking a question. And the motion that I would make if that's what's being asked of me at this moment would be we just approve it straight up the way it is and we we take everybody's word at this point that

everybody's motivated to get this done and do we have a risk that we might get bit? Yeah. But I don't think so. Um so that would be my motion. Are are you telling me I have the right to make that motion at this point? Well, he's withdrawn it, but I'm going to ask you, do you still want to withdraw it knowing that Barry may not be linked up exactly with what you're I'll go back and reate the motion. Think we need to I think we need to vote on it. Okay. Yep. So, we'll vote on his motion. Original motion, but the eightmon incorrect. Um, Commissioner Hardwick has a motion on the table. Um, Commissioner Kerr made a motion to amend and then he withdrew it. No, Commissioner Kerr had a motion on the table first. Oh,

he thought he was syncing up with what Barry was doing. They do not agree totally. So, we are allowing him to keep his motion alive in his second. Maybe just state state it as a new motion. You withdrew that motion. So, go ahead and state. Okay. The new motion is

to put um the deviations expire. And I'm going to move it because I it's a brand new motion. I can I can change it around. I think given what I heard from Barry, although he he backed off of that, um I think what we should do is put a 12month expiration on the deviations at this point. Uh and if they're not done in 12 months, we will see them again and we can talk we can talk through that. No. So the motion is is to uh approve it contingent upon 12 month expiration of the deviations completion of the deviations.

Well, for them to they've got to complete before the expiration. So 12 months. So yes, completion of the deviations in 12 months. Just the de just those two deviations. That's right. And that's all we're talking about is getting the property fixed. Again, I don't care who it's sold to. I really don't. I just want it fixed. So, 12 months to get the deviations corrected. I have a question. Go right ahead. I I I'm sorry, Todd. I want to make sure I'm I'm still following your motion because there are the two deviations, the placement of the HVAC and the removal of the pad. The removal of the pad behind the garage. No, no, there's more than that. There's a ton more ton.

That's what I'm saying. Are are we only voting on those two or we're voting on everything? It should be everything. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. So that's that's the motion. Thank you. So it was 12 months. And do we have a second? Okay. We have a second with Commissioner Wessle. 12. I'm just want to I was talking the 12 months is triggered to what? To the completion of the dev of the deviations. When does it start? 12 months. No. reason

what he's saying. Well, the um they're asking I think if I don't represent them, you go right in. You're on our side. Yeah, believe it or not. But um they're asking what if um the 12 months started on the sale to make then they're concerned about the marketability still, but I'm not trying to No, I mean I I I think I stated the motion. I I'll I'll stay with it. So, we have a motion. We have a second. Okay, it's time to vote on his motion and his second. Does everybody understand his motion?

Any questions of it? All right. Electronic vote. [snorts] Yeah. So that motion fails. Sorry, Zach. No, it's okay. I thank you because I was like, oh, do I say it? Huh? Okay. So, motion to approve the uh suggested motion um failed four to four.

Okay. So, now with that motion failing, if the board has anything else they would like to offer as a motion, you're welcome to do it. Okay, hold on. Wendy has a question first or are you offering a motion? Oh, I'm not offering a motion on this. I'm I'm writing a lot of this,

but I do have a question for for Todd. Is the the amount of time or the presence of a parameter of time most important? And the reason I ask is I cannot imagine what the underwriting is going to be for the next poor soul that tries to buy this property from Wilson Bank and Trust. Um, so to I think Barry's comment earlier, this is going to be a protracted process to get it sold, to get it completed and and meet the requirements. So my question still to you is, is it more important to have a timeline or the amount of time?

Both. Um, I didn't offer that. I think that, you know, I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of the neighbors that live in that community. What is it you've been looking at for four years? All right. And so, we're we're waving our head over a year. I saw you guys say no when we said a year. So, this is I mean, we're not talking about something that you guys even anticipate being resolved in 12 months. I mean, I guess my point is that is the people that live in those neighborhoods deserve answers and deserve finality on this. They didn't cause this problem, and I'm not sure you guys caused it. You you guys are trying to fix it, and I can appreciate that. But for us to walk away, we're going to approve these these uh variances given the fact we've been four years into this process, I think that's that's just not acceptable.

That's the reason I made the motion. So to to your point question, Wendy, I think it's the timeline itself, the time, not the fact that we have a time, but the time that gets for the neighbors to get some closure on this. So that's where I was. Commissioner, any other you go right ahead.

Uh completely understand the the thought process. And so to your point earlier, the the the bank also did not create this problem, right? We we loan money. We had, you know, a licensed general contractor that obviously didn't do a good job. And so, you know, one of the reasons that we foreclosed on him is simply because he could not get the certificate of occupancy because we feel the same way like this this has to come to an end. So I completely agree and understand. Now how we get to that end, you know, is what we're here to, you know, request from the group tonight that we feel like these variances give it a good g a good game plan to somebody that's qualified to step in and would I do not think if somebody bought this project that they would sit on it for years. I think they would utilize their resources and get it completed because that's how they make money. builders typically they they want to move things quickly in and the market obviously is a little bit slower right now. Um and so I there therefore I think we'll have to continue to discount but we understand that the the four-year piece um and we we try to work with our customers too. So you know we try to give them every opportunity to succeed. Um and so I I think we've both been left with the situation. I I I would I would ask that we grant the variances without timelines would be the request of the bank. But but I definitely understand your your point. I I I think we'll be able to get it uh fixed. So, but but but understand

would you be would you be willing to come back? Hey, Todd. Yes. There's people ahead of you. Oh, I'm sorry. My bad. He's talking to me, so I No, he's talking to the board. Remember that. Okay. Commissioner Evans. Move to approve the variances requested by the owner. move to a motion to pass to approve the variances requested by the owner. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll offer a second so this gets voted on.

Okay. [clears throat] Motion to approve variances um as is pass with six yeses, two nos. Well, that was difficult y'all. So, well, thank you for all the good discussion. We really do appreciate it.

And just from our position, we hope that you do well with this and sell it and and move it along. And you know, you've worked hard for these variances. We've given a lot. Again, we'd like to see a good work product at the end of this thing. And we we are all sympathetic to those neighbors also. But again, I just want to reiterate some of the points that we've had. If it was a bigger bank from another place that didn't have a community contact, I would suspect this thing would be sitting over there for more years to come. Okay? And I'm I'm banking on the fact that you guys are connected to this to our community and that you're going to get this done out of uh just good social justice. Okay. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. We we care and we'll I'll take a special interest in who we get this to and and get it over the finish line. So, thank you very much. We appreciate it. I got one question or request. Go right ahead. Is this something another that the bank will communicate with the staff and let us know what the status is on a monthly basis so that we can keep up with what's going on for these folks in the community. Good coordination and community and communication will go a long way to help you guys. I kind of stuck my neck out and I bent and went with you. So

work with us, communicate with us so that we know, so that we if necessary can communicate with the neighbors that we didn't let them down and you are going to in fact get it done and get rid of that eyesore. And just so that you know, Keith offered up that every month he'll communicate it in his notes to us. Okay, we're happy to do that. All right. Well, thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you all.

Thank you very much. That was some sausage. All right. Next thing is an action item. This is a little different, y'all. West Lake Gateway City entry sign monument design review. Owner: City of Hendersonville. Location, West Main City Limits. Okay. Lead planning staff is Timothy Whitten and Keith. Which of the two wants to Timothy? Thank you, chairman. Um, this is completely different. This is

this um [laughter] this project uh has its beginning in the the Westlake plan. And y'all may recall that um among other things among the land future land uses that it prescribed um it also uh found opportunity for uh gateway signage and um signage to designate the different subdists of the west of Westlake such as dockside and west. So the signage there on the screen was just a placeholder um kind of generic signage although it does look pretty good. Um so last year the plan department um in conjunction with the public works department commissioned uh the um some concept plans for signage for for a gateway sign at the west side of the city. Uh we used a existing on call contract with Gresian Smith and Gresian Smith had a existing relationship with the environmental designer um who does [snorts] signage and more than signage does um corporate messaging and sign packages for big institutions like international airports and the Mayo Clinic and Sony and um these big these big groups that um might have a campus and need need integral signage so it really conveys their corporate brand. Uh his name is David Park. He got real excited about this project when we gave it to him. Um made several trips to Hendersonville and just to kind of to pick up on the vibe of the city. So the criteria that we gave him were that the the sign needed to be um needed to express separation from all other cities. needed to be needed to be unique, needed to be memorable,

um and then clearly convey a sense of transition coming from Rivergate to Hendersonville. We need we wanted something that really sticks in your mind when you think, oh, we're going to Hendersonville. We want you to think of this, what whatever that is. So, he he came up with these concepts. Um you got those on screen? Okay. So, they're in your your staff report concepts. Uh

so page five of your staff report has concept A. That's a it's a take on our traditional monument style sign. Although it's more refined and more elegant than what we typically see, but it's got sort of a column on one side, large space for for a um for a cabinet. Uh there's a large a large stone base. Uh con gateway concept B is very different. Um very different take on that. It's not traditional or contemporary, very unique. And then concept C, which is the concept that the staff really liked and is is recommending. Um not what you typically see. This is this is very different. I don't know of any other communities uh in Middle Tennessee that have anything like this. Uh the sign is uh as 20 feet 23 feet tall and really it's it um it kind of transcends a sign. It's it is a sign but it it becomes more of a monument just by the scale of it, the height of it, the uniqueness of it. Um and then the the designer kind of picked up on the lakeside community uh feel of Hendersonville. The uh the uh final at the top has got the swoop has got echoes the swoop of a sail a sailboat. It's got the city seal on that which has got the sailboat on it. Um and then it uh is sort of vaguely familiar vaguely lighthouse look to it. So that's those uh those things pick up on the lakeside uh feel of Hendersonville. Um and then one of the things that staff likes about it is that it's got a very

small footprint, relatively small footprint to the other concepts. Doesn't have that long wheelbase or not wheelbase sign base. um which makes it really a lot easier to locate especially at this location which is across from Manser Creek which we just looked at this evening. Um this location would be right on on the Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram side uh where the guardrail stops, the sidewalk starts would have a smaller sister sign on the other side of it. uh and that location it's got a a good slope to it going down to a swale. So if we tried to implement implement our more typical long beefy monument style sign you start to look at construction cost to build up that from from that slope to give a level area for the sign. Um so you're looking at substantial increase in construction costs. Uh Timothy,

uh if you can just real quickly because we've got it up on the screen now where the folks can see it. Uh we had a little issue with our PowerPoint. Uh but just quickly go through those. Sure. Because it wasn't up on the screen as you were discussing it.

Sure. So the on screen is concept A which is the uh more traditional take on the monument style sign that we see in our the newer areas of the city. And then concept B, uh, that's the more contemporary. It's very different from the traditional style. Um, still got that long beefy base to it. Uh, city seal is is is predominant. This final at the top of the columns um, that's got the swoop of the sail. So, it's it's also picking up on that lake theme. Uh, and then the size of the previous

uh they don't really have dimensions. This is the these are more concepts. They don't have other than this one that's got the height uh on it, but I'd say that's roughly roughly right.

Yep. Um and then then concept C, which is the um the concept that staff uh prefers. It's got the small form factor, got height and scale to it. It's got uh it's it's a very memorable look to it. Um it's something that can be easily easily be replicable in other areas of the city. We might want to put it on the opposite side of the city or a new shackle and something like that can fit within existing rideway.

That's what I was going to ask. It would always fit within right ofways if you were to take this model. I can't say always because it depends on how much right away there is, but typ Yeah, I believe in most situations we'd be a uh it'd be a lot easier to find a spot for something like this. Okay. Could could you hit a little bit just on the uh the gateway C concept just kind of the materials of the sun

that are a little unique? So the um the the obelisk there is a C10 steel which uh which picks up on the the bridge that uh goes over the lake to the island in the center of the city that's got a C10 rail to it. Um and then the uh of course I mentioned the final at the top that the cap at the top that's got the the swoop that echoes a sailboat. It's got a light behind it with rippled rippled glass that kind of conveys a watery type feel to it. Um and uh yeah that and there is a possibility that that this does it just shows Hendersonville. Um there I think there would be opportunity on that Hendersonville sign would be would be facing oncoming traffic coming from Rivergate. I think there would be opportunity to if the city wanted to to put something on the parallel side that said something else like city by the lake. Um so it does have less room for signage than the other two but uh I think there is room to do more than just what's shown there. very unique

and uh this is something as you could see in Timothy's staff report uh that we've taken to the concept C uh to the Bulma capital projects uh committee uh for for them to uh to look at that. Uh but we um we wanted to get the planning commission to weigh in and actually take action uh on on this. We the uh Bulma has uh budgeted funds for us to move forward with this in the current fiscal year. So they've budgeted that and uh uh we're in the process where we really need to move forward uh [clears throat] with uh getting the final design and um uh getting it constructed or getting the construction starting uh on it as well. And I and I'll just I'll kind of um uh kind of echo what uh Timothy said. One of the reasons that the staff really likes this is it can be it can be very easily duplicated in many other parts of the city. And then I don't know, was there one on there? Was it earlier on your staff report thing that showed what the opposite side was?

It's not in my staff report. It is in the package that that y'all received. I could I've got it here. I don't think we have it on the image, but this isn't this isn't there's there's the first part, which is this part, and then on the other side, there's a smaller version of this, uh, that doesn't have any signage. Yeah. That's it. It's a smaller It's it's only difference is it's shorter. Yeah. Yeah.

And so, um, that's what that is. And then, you know, like Timothy was saying, especially that shorter version, this taller version is something that, you know, could be duplicated at other entrances, but the shorter version that's going to be on the other side of West Main Street uh that could uh that could go uh in different key points throughout the city and actually signage could be on there uh to uh define uh different parts of the city um you know, not just along the Westlake districts [clears throat] Yeah, in addition to the Westlake districts, it could uh identify other portions of the city as well by uh by name.

And our intent is to um have some landscaping behind this so it's just not sitting out there bare by itself, has some tall evergreens that would provide a backdrop for it and also provide really good uh uh low voltage lighting to light it up at night.

Yeah. And we do we do like with the lighting especially with this concept C uh you know we'll have to ex explore it but we like the opportunity we believe with LED lighting in that uh in the top of that where the glass is at and the sailboat uh design around it uh that maybe that could be could be different colors at different times of the year. Uh so that's a that's a possibility as well. Any comments from this planning commission? Go ahead, Miss Silkwood.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, first of all, I know this has been a long time coming and a lot of work, so I want to thank the staff for working hard on this and taking the time to look at it. And um, I really do like all three concepts. And, you know, I'm not going to create a stir and say, "Hey, we need to go with another recommendation." But I do feel like I need to go on record saying that concept A I feel has a little bit more of a stronger uh demarcation line between Rivergate and Hendersonville. My thought process on the obelisk tower concept is it feels like it's going to get a little bit lost in the tall trees over there, especially with the brown um you know tower. It's mostly sort of a brown kind of coppery color. Um, so but if if we were to go with concept C, one recommendation I would have is to mirror the height on the opposite side of Main Street rather than have one short and one tall.

A gateway. Correct. And then you would have that very nice, you know, white fence with the stone that they've done on the Chrysler dealership and they're going to do on the other side of Main Street and it would really feel like an amazing entrance. So those are my comments. I I like that idea. I do too. I like that. Yes. Any other comments? Oh, Commissioner Wessle.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. I agree with what Commissioner Silkwood is saying as far as about the entrance coming from the rivergate side and having the other monument, the concept A, as far as to more or less define that and separate it. But at the same time, I like the idea of having the obelisk um C because I think it's a one, it's a great design also with the materials uh to have equal on both sides, but also another plus to have the opportunity to have it located in other locations of the city and other entrances. And I think it really presents the image that um Hendersonville is projecting or is unique um in that in that it has the combination I think of what um needs to be presented um to just the general public. And so I think um having the obelisk and going to see at first I was going with A because it complements the other style signs that we have at various businesses with that monument sign. But I think I'll after I thought about it more and looked at it and this kind of thing, I really agree with the um concept C. Commissioner Hastings,

I I think either could be nice looking signs, but one thing I heard from one person, I don't remember who it was, but I think uh a key identification for Hendersonville is City [snorts] by the Lake. And I think whatever concept you go with, I think somehow another city by the lake should be part of the logo on that side.

Yeah. I think if um I think if you did it like what's on there, like that's kind of what it would be, you know, uh it'd have that same taller uh taller obelisk on both sides. Then you could have on that one side Timothy Hendersonville and then City by the Lake could be up the other side. So that that would definitely be a dramatic entrance as you're sure

as you're coming as you're coming in. And if we did the two, which you know, and maybe if if somebody made the motion for this would to include that l include that saying the preference is to have that same height on the uh other side. Uh I think that would be good. We may have to end up breaking it into two phases um you know depending on our on our budget. But uh but I do I do like it. I do like that. Very nice. Commissioner Slatterie.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question that there's one thing on concept A that I wish there was a way to preserve. I liked when I looked at that. I liked the very prominent acknowledgement of the date of establishment of our city that that we are deeply rooted in history and we're not a a Johnny come lately bedroom community but that we have real history here and with the lack of a of a more historical look to a downtown something about that seems important to me that that we more firmly establish our history. So, I don't know if there's there's only so much we can put on these obesque. I like them the more I look at it. I like the logic of the ease of placement. I definitely like Commissioner Silkwood's idea of having both of them being that 233 in height so that it does have a very grand entrance feel to the city. I just wonder if there's some place that we can acknowledge the the establishment date of our city. I I think the uh I'm not sure exactly what the size, but those city seals are

pretty good size. They're pretty good size and I think it has the date at the very seal. Oh, I know it's on the seal, but that if I'm So, I'm kind of doing my own scale over here. And half of that's about 11 and 1/2 ft. And I believe those might be about might be three feet. So, it'd be a pretty big See one here. See? Well, to to but I but I beat it to death. I was concerned to some degree about where that actually falls. Um, as traffic gets heavier on our roads, are you going to see that if you're in the other lane? Are you going to see that seal? Because it's not that far off the ground based on the scale at 233. Yeah. So, it's just

we can definitely look at incorporating something in there, Timothy, uh, on that on that date in addition to that. So, I think base or any place. Yeah, I think there'd be I think there'd be a place to put it on there. Thank you. Yeah, it be etched into the concrete cap. Yeah. Yeah, that would be do a do a more substantial, thicker cap and have it etched into the stone itself. A beveled edge.

I think that would work. I like that. Well, no other comments from anybody on the commission. So, we're to the point where I'd entertain a motion and just uh sort of go over it uh and and reiterate some of your guys' points. And that is I like the two monuments to make it look like a grand entrance into Hendersonville. Uh I personally have one of these big monument signs out in front of our building and they're hard to maintain and they do take up a whole lot of real estate. So if you if you are dealing with tight right ofways, it'd be nice to be able to replicate this all through Hendersonville as we could. But and I do like the fact of putting equal size on each side of uh Gallatin Road.

Now Charles, your point about putting city by the lake. Would you like to see it on the other sign that's opposing? Just somewhere on the sign. Whatever concept we use, just make sure that that's a theme that's on that side. the other side. Or what if what if you put it on I know it wouldn't be on the entrance side of it, but what if you put it on the back side of it for the people leaving Hendersonville seeing it? You'd see it. Just asking. If you got if you've got two, you could swap it on each one. Yeah. So that the one on the right has Hendersonville on the back side of it has City by the Lake and vice versa. Vice versa on the other one. So whichever way you go, you're seeing both.

Yep. That'd be cool, too. Yeah. Let them work their magic. And I think the idea somewhere there, it doesn't at least briefly established 1969. I mean, I I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that's something that needs to be glaringly big, but you know, at least it's there and recognized. All right. Is that all, Charles? You got anything else, Charles? Yeah.

Yeah. Well, anyone want to make a motion?

Well, I don't know. Has it been I think they're wanting us to make a motion of what we accept. Is that correct? Yeah. And that's what we're looking That's what we're looking for. It was presented to the capital projects committee and was recommended. Yeah. And was recommended to Bulma. But are you saying only concept C was recommended to them? Yes. Okay. Yes. And um the um let me think here. And so with a structure like this, you know, design review and it's not really going to have a site plan, but the planning commission is the appropriate body to and it's an action item agenda.

Yeah. Where we're going to where we're going to locate it and and the the general concept of the appear of the appearance and then that would let us uh let us move forward.

Okay. Well, it's an action item. So, I'm going to try to sum up what all of you have said that you uh would lean towards. So, with that being said, concept C, my motion is to accept concept C uh having two equal towers on either side of Gallatin Road. Uh I'd like to or the committee would like to see that we have in the concrete cap the year that it was established. And somewhere on the sign, if we can get the designers to appropriately fit it, city by the lake would be added also to the signs. Did I miss anything by that motion?

Now, do I have a second to that motion? Okay, I have a second to that motion. So, now we'll vote on it. Motion to approve. passed with eight yeses. Thanks you guys.

All right, so now we have the staff level projects approved. I won't take the time to read through all of these and the ones behind that are the pending. Is there anything that people have questions about that they would like to ask? And if not, then I guess the rest would be up to the director's comments. Go ahead. Thank you, Chairman.

Uh first, before I uh do my comments, I you know, one of the things that we added in the zoning ordinance was for me to make uh corrections in the zoning ordinance where there was omissions or just, you know, things to provide simple clarity. But a part of uh part of that is when we're doing that in the zoning ordinance is to make sure at least just to report that out uh to the uh planning commission, you know, what we're what we're little changes that we're making as well as we're going to be documenting those in the zoning ordinance. And Caitlyn can just real quickly go through and kind of highlight just some of those different uh corrections that we're making. One of the first things that was noticed um that we found was in table 9, which is our plan development bulk standards for residential. Um we had adopted the town townhouse residential zone um back in 20 few years ago um and we realized it was missing from the chart. So that has we're adding that back in. It is the same as the way it was approved originally um in the 2020 or 2022 edition of the zoning ordinance. So that has been being inserted back into the chart. The second item is the location of accessory building and structures. Um, we just wanted to clarify that when on corner lots that on an accessory structure that you can only encroach up to five feet on the interior side lot line rather than on the street side. So, we're including interior just to clarify. The other one was we noticed there was some um in our permanent encroachment table 12. We noticed some

of the um reference chapters throughout the in the chart were incorrect where we had made some edits this last round and the numbers changed. That's being corrected. Um and those are highlighted on page seven and eight. And then throughout the document I just there was some spacing a couple grammar errors just updated those. And then the last thing the items that were corrected I we have created at the in the appendices um record of amendments those listed that'll be how it is shown on page nine in your staff report. It is. I've already got it typed up ready to uh adopt once once we were through tonight. So, this will be how it's shown and that's all I've got.

Great. Thank you very much, Caitlyn. Anybody have a question about any of those? So, nothing nothing really changing. Uh just uh just kind of clarification and and hopefully we won't find very many, but if we do, we'll uh we'll make those uh uh make those corrections. Uh uh it's kind of late so I don't really I don't really have anything Mr. Chairman uh to add unless anyone has a has a specific question about anything uh for me or the staff. I don't see anybody lit up. Any questions? All right. I will uh welcome a motion. Okay. Do I have a second? All in favor? I

Any oppose? Thanks everyone. I appreciate y'all's hard work.