Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All this meeting to order. Thank you all for being here tonight. I'll start with the opening prayer. If you'll please bow. Dear Lord, thank you so very much for all of our blessings. Watch over us, Lord, and protect us. Help this committee tonight to do the right things. Guide us, Lord. Make sure we do everything that's good for our city and follow all the rules before us. Lord, thank you for blessing this community, watching over us personally and protecting us, and thank you for all the blessings you've bestowed upon us. All this we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Next is the roll call. Zach.

Altizer. Here. Evans. Here. Hardwick. Here. Hasty. Here. Kerr. Here. Martin. Silkwood. Slattery. Here. Wessel. That makes seven present, two absent.

All right. Next we have an introduction. So Mr. Steven Wisenred, you'll step to the podium. You can take care of your introductions.

Good evening. As you all know, we've had some staffing changes here in the last six months. I'd like to introduce Frank Mills. He goes by Tater. He's the new city engineer. Tater comes originally from Georgia. He's a graduate from West Point in 2004, served two tours in Iraq for five, that was a five-year period, correct? 16 years served with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before he came to work for the city as a design engineer, which was just a little over a year ago, and then was recently selected as our candidate for the city engineer position. So welcome, Tater.

Thank you. Welcome aboard. It's hard to call you Tater, but welcome aboard. I've been told that that's what you want to be called. Well, welcome. All right. Next, we have a public hearing requested by Hendersonville Planning Department to hear comments on amending the Hendersonville subdivision regulations for the city of Hendersonville. Okay, it was requested by Henderson Planning Department for the purpose of receiving public comment on proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance for the city of Intersville, and in my understanding, nobody signed up for that?

No, for either the subdivision regulations or zoning, and the zoning one will close, and the subdivision, I mean, the zoning one will keep open, and the sub regs will... We're going to close out.

Okay, so with that, everyone, we have, there will be more detail following this tonight, but we will close out the... subdivision public hearing after tonight we will leave open the Zordon zoning ordinance public hearing and that will continue on until our next meeting okay we expect there will be open business with that that will still be available for the public to have a conversation on for a later date so just to make sure everybody understands that next we have public comment on agenda items only and I don't believe anybody signed up Nobody signed up for that either. Is there anybody in the audience that wanted to speak to that and did not or forgot to sign up for it? We'll move on. Thank you. Next, I have acceptance of the agenda, and tonight there's only one item on the consent agenda, so everybody sees that. Do you have any issues with it? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second, and we can vote on this by voice. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Moving on. Minutes. I'm sure everybody's had time to look at their minutes from the last meeting. Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second. We will vote on the minutes. We can do this by voice also. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? All right. That passes. Next is the consent agenda. I'll read this quickly. New Maple Glen site plan owner, Maple Glen Holdings, LLC, location 313 East Main Street, parcel 159JA031.01. Lead planning staff, Timothy Witten and Caitlin Shin. Everything on this one is fine. Is there any questions by anybody? It meets all the expectations, so I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right. We'll vote with this one electronically.

Motion pass with seven yeses.

Thank you. Next. We have a site plan, a grin of everything's been agreed to on this. It's two 16 Sanders Ferry assisted living site plan owner, Greg. Location two 16 Saunders Ferry road parcel 1 64 0 2 5 0 0 lead planning staff is Timothy Whitten. Uh, Timothy, I know there's some issues about this. Isn't there a waiver involved? Yes. Okay. Um, can you explain that to us? So if anybody has questions, they can discuss it. Sure.

So, um, the original site plan for this was approved by the planning commission Obama in December of 2021. And then they did, uh, they later came back and did an amendment in February of 2023. Um, as part of that amendment that included a waiver to allow that existing shed that's out there to encroach into the required landscape buffer. That waiver was granted. Since the site plan has expired, the site plan requires renewal to reinstitute it. That waiver that was granted, it expired with the site plan. That needs to be renewed as well. There is one additional staff comment that I have. That is that since the original site plan was approved, There was a zoning ordinance amendment that took place since then that increased the amount of parking required for assisted living facilities. So it went from 0.2 spaces required per unit and one space for every two employees. It went to 0.5 spaces per unit. and one space per employee. So that new parking ratio more than doubled the amount of parking required. So they will need to add parking to this to bring it into compliance with the new regulations. They have agreed to do that. There does appear to be room behind the building. So that parking bay that's at the back of the building, that's 40 spaces. So if you duplicate and copy and paste that again to the back of that minus six spaces, They could pick up the additional parking required for this. So that is a staff comment that we need to provide that required parking.

Okay. Commissioners, any of you all have questions? Okay, go ahead. Commissioner Hardwick.

Can the owner step to the podium because I've got a couple of questions. Then the first one, I guess, is for Timothy. So when we renew this tonight, how long will it be good for then?

Three years.

Three years. Thank you for coming and for redoing this. It's obviously been a long journey, and I remember back in – 21 and when we were starting all of this and the long nights that it went the Curious when do you plan to to build this?

Can I interject one thing will you tell your name and your address, please? Just for the record Gregory Lutfi 216 well You can give this address.

I give 216 Sanders Ferry Road. Okay.

Thank you Sorry about that

We intend to build it, probably start breaking ground, I would say, within the next six to nine months, realistically.

That's all the questions I had.

Okay. Commissioner Slattery, I saw you were in the queue. Did you pull out? I pulled out. Okay. You're done? All right. Well, with no other questions, no other questions for the applicants? I'm just going to summarize a couple of things that I heard. So we're doing the waiver for the shed we have to do again with this application, okay, or it's a garage. And that was going to be a part of it, if I remember right, correct? Correct. Okay. And then it goes from .2 and one parking spot per two employees, and it's going to .5 with a one-to-one ratio. Correct. Okay. Okay. So they have to add that parking in order to make everything compliant with today's terms. Correct.

I changed my mind.

Okay. Commissioner Slattery wants to ask something.

I apologize. Thank you for being here tonight. I know you've worked a lot. You spent more time in Hendersonville than you ever thought you would, didn't you? It's a good place to be. Yes, it is. Thank you. I think we all agree. I do have a question. Just refresh my memory once. The access for this is going to be from Sanders Ferry or from, what is that, Hickory? It's coming from Sanders Ferry.

Connie?

The access is going to be from Sanders Ferry directly across from the access into the park?

Pretty close.

Is it lined up?

Right here. Yeah. Just blew it up for you.

Thank you. Oh, thank you. That helps.

Yep.

That was part of the amendment from the first go around to the second go around was to shift that driveway entrance so it does line up with that park exit. Okay.

I mean, it's better if it lines up than if it doesn't. It would be even better if it didn't go out on Sanders Ferry, but we are where we are. All right. Thank you.

All right. No other questions, so I'll entertain a motion. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

With all staff comments, including the extra one about parking.

Okay, I have a motion with all staff comments from Barry Hardwick, and it will include the waiver for the shed, the staff comments related to the parking, and that's it, correct?

Correct.

Thank you, Barry. Do I have a second?

Second.

And I have a second, so we'll vote on this one electronically.

Motion to approve, pass with seven yeses. Thank you.

Okay, the next one on the agenda is the YMCA Pavilion Edition Revision Site Plan. Owner is David Shipman. Location, 102 Bluegrass Commons Boulevard, Parcel 158AB01200. Again, lead planning staff is Timothy. Tell us about it, Timothy.

Okay, so the YMCA received staff-level approval to construct a pool restroom and a community pavilion behind their building next to the pool on Bluegrass Commons Boulevard. On the next page of the staff report, you can see what staff approved of the two buildings there. I'd say a substantial amount of brick on each facade. YMCA then came back later, I think they had done some cost estimates and came back to staff and requested to reduce the amount of brick. And we kind of went back and forth and ultimately what you see on page, at the bottom of page three and the top of page four is what they're requesting. to reduce the amount of brick, increase the amount of fiber cement board. Staff was not comfortable with, at the staff level, approving that reduction in brick. We were comfortable with the first one. The second one we thought would be more appropriate for Planning Commission to take a look at, make sure they're okay with it. So, yeah, that's all I've got. They will be, I did want to mention, they will be increasing, replacing the buffer along this section of the YMCA, between the YMCA and the road. And the roadway. Okay. Director Free?

Yeah, I just had one thing I wanted to quickly add on top of what Timothy was talking about. is this is something that we were going to do at a staff level, but with the reduction with the brick, we weren't comfortable. That in no way is any indication that we have any concerns about it. We don't necessarily from the staff have any concern. This is really just a technical issue that it was just a little bit beyond what the staff was comfortable with with our authority. And that's the only reason that it's here. It's not necessarily one that we could have approved, but we just didn't think it was okay to do. So I just wanted to share that. Thank you very much.

Well, anybody on the commission want to speak to it, ask a question about it? How do you feel about it? Okay, Commissioner Kerr. Yes, anybody from YMCA here to speak to that?

Just tell us your name and your address, Cal. Sure. Cal Gentry, 112 Keene Valley South, board member with YMCA.

Well, thank you for coming. Just a quick question, and maybe there's some history I don't have here, but why are you reducing the brick?

I mean, why is that such a big deal? It's a cost-saving measure. Uh, truly that's what it is. We had designed it. We wanted it to be mostly or almost all brick, but when we got the cost estimates back, it had just exceeded our budgets. Uh, so that's the reason for it. We did replace it with vertical Hardy plank, not, not vinyl or anything. So it's still going to look really nice. Mainly just a budget issue. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Slaughter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Thank you for being here. Um, Approximately what percentage increase or reduction in BRIC is your requested change versus where you were? Is this a 10% reduction in BRIC, a 50% reduction?

If you don't mind, Julia, do you know the numbers offhand? Phone a friend. Yeah. I'm a civil guy, so I don't do...

So I think the answer depends on which elevation that you're viewing. So our primary elevations, the ones visible from the street. If you don't mind, pull that down just a little bit closer. I know I'm very soft spoken. So our primary elevations, the ones that are most visible from the street in the parking, it is approximately a 10% reduction. We're still within the design guidelines on those elevations. It's our secondary elevations, the ones that are between the buildings and the ones that face out. towards the pool deck where we've made the most reduction. And those probably represent closer to like a 30% reduction from where we were previously.

All right. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner hasty.

Thank you. I think, uh, some time ago we kind of went overboard with the brick and everything was brick. That's what we wanted to see. And it had been relaxed some. But I think we're letting the pendulum go a little too far the other way. You know, as you drive through town, you see an awful lot of hardy board. Wish I was in the hardy board business right now. Nobody's making a lot of money. If it's properly screened and the staff says they're going to redo the screening along Bluegrass Drive, and they're talking about most of the reduction being on the interior. I'm going to support it, but I've about reached my limit when somebody comes in and says, I don't want to do it because of the cost. If you all remember, I voted against the park project because they said they didn't want to spend the money to put in the curb and gutter. They asked for a variance because it's cost. Quality growth in Hendersonville should be expensive. And that's what we want for this community, I think, is quality growth and meeting our regulations. I'm going to quote Beth Longmire. We're getting too many variances requests up here. Follow the rules. We'll approve it. I'm going to support this one because of the zoning and mostly the interior on the reductions. But I think we need to be careful that we don't let this pendulum go too far the other way. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hasey. Any other commissioners' comments, questions? Okay. I'm going to echo one thing that Commissioner Hastie said, and that is I'm going to support it simply because the major reductions are to the interior. But I do agree with him, and I'm not saying that brick's the only answer. But we do have a group of rules we need to follow, and people need to stay around that and stick to it. But with this one and it being all to the interior, I can live with it. So I'll support it too. Now I'm ready for them. I'm ready for a motion if anybody wants to offer one.

I'll make the motion with all staff comments.

Thank you very much. Do I have a second?

Second.

All right, I have a second. We'll vote electronically.

Motion to approve, passed with seven yeses.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. When are y'all building it?

Now.

It's getting dark. Yeah, exactly. It's getting dark out there. Y'all be careful.

We'll be in a nice edition.

Are you sure you don't want to do some fundraising before you leave? You don't have to sell this mini brick now.

Oh, boy. Okay. Next we have the zoning subdivision zoning and subdivision regulations. First is zoning ordinance. Text amendments lead a planning staff is Keith free. So go ahead, Keith.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we have a lot of things to go through. I'm going to try to go through it fairly quickly, but I'm trying to cover everything. Uh, so I'm not, uh, not leaving anything out. So it's going to take a little bit of time. to do it. One of the things, you know, we carried over the zoning ordinance public hearing to next month, as well as what we're going to discuss right now. My recommendation would be to carry this over to next month, this item. And one of the reasons is that we had several items on the original a proposal for the revisions. And in the interim, there were several things that we came up with that needed to also be in there, several things impacted by state laws that were just brought to our attention that had passed. So that's why this has fallen a little bit different path where we're actually going to be going to the Planning Commission at this meeting and also at the August meeting. One thing that we're going to do is I'm going to talk about the things that were in the initial proposal as well as the addendums. But what we're going to do is I think Caitlin's going to pull up the version of the document with everything in it, all the addendum and all the different things, and I'm gonna go through and do the best I can to make sure that we're We're covering everything because we want to be as transparent as possible. There's a lot of minor and small changes, but there's several major changes in here as well. I'm going to do the best I can to cover those briefly. And as I go, just if you want to stop and dig deeper or ask questions, just get my attention and we'll stop and go deeper. The first item there, as you can see on the executive summary, they're just general little grammatical corrections and reorganizations, nothing significant, just little insignificant changes. The next item is I've got several different things and I'll explain these. These are kind of a high priority change. Some of these are adding a new use called food truck court major and minor. And on that one what we're looking at is there is a an area that we're defining and calling it Midway anchor West district sales area. This is along the West Main Street area where we're defining a boundary that encompasses commercial property along a portion of that corridor and and I'm gonna discuss about it. It's gonna be impactful for another thing I'm gonna talk about in a minute, but the first item is food truck court minor. This would allow food truck court minor as a principal use. This is a use that would allow up to four permanent food trucks to be located within this district by right. Of course, you'd have to do a site plan and make all the improvements to the site. But one of the caveats is that you would have to have at least a minimum 2,000 square foot building. That building could be enclosed or it could be open air, but you had to have a facility like that to go along with it. Part of that idea of having the building with it is we didn't want to just have something where you could have food trucks and a lot. We wanted there to be some structure, something brick and mortar that was associated with it. We feel like this will stimulate some additional investment within that corridor, which could potentially lead to more restaurants that grow out of the food trucks. and make use of more of the property within that area, as well as giving that opportunity could relieve some of the pressure of individual food trucks going at different places across the city, where sometimes they're allowed, but the most time they're not. because we have pretty restrictive requirements, so it would give some relief to that. The food truck court major, this is totally different. It's not limited to that area, but you could get the food truck court major, and that would be not limited to a certain number of food trucks, but it could only be done in association with a planned development. is what that would have to be. So that would have to come to the Planning Commission, go to BOMA. So it had to be something that was a pretty good deal to do that. The area up here on the map that you're seeing right now, that's the Midway Anchor West District sales area that's in red. All those areas are commercially zoned, but this is an area where we have most, a lot of our older properties. And we've got a lot of property within this area specifically along the railroad track, where there are deep lots that really two-thirds of the lot are not even being utilized. And so we felt like these types of uses with a minor food truck court could be something that could be used on those areas. Additionally, another use that we're adding that we don't have right now is artisan manufacturing. And what this is, we've run into a lot of situations here lately where we've had really small kind of super, super, super light industrial uses that had to go to the BZA to get a conditional use permit to operate. It didn't make any sense, but they fit into a industry type of a zoning. They fit into a manufacturing type of a zoning by the definition. which didn't make any sense. So what this allowed, this allowed this type of artisan manufacturing, some of these things could be like a small label coffee company, could be, one example would be like a boutique bar, backpack like a backpacking or you make backpacks or something for hiking we had an example of that so those types of things and I think these are some of the type of things we want to encourage and by this zone this change in the zoning ordinance would help stimulate some of those things these are also things that we would like to encourage and see some of these uses mixed in our dockside neighborhood we feel like that would be would be very good This area that I did define for the Midway Anchor West district sales area, what I'm proposing with this is a little bit different and we may want to talk about it if somebody has some additional questions. I do have concerns long term in regards to used car sales citywide. I know there is a concern just with the number of used car sales that we already have. And what I am proposing to keep keep used car sales going in commercial areas in the future if things decline in different areas, then all of a sudden it's ripe for a used car sale lot. In order to kind of limit where used car sales could go in the community within that same boundary that's on the red on your map, that's where I want to limit where any future used car sales can go. I still want to keep the thousand foot distance requirement within this smaller area, but I also want to increase the opportunity since we are decreasing the overall city opportunity within this area. If somebody wanted to do a used car sales and they were less than they were just they were more than 500 feet away from an existing used car sales, then they would have the potential to operate by permitted right. But the catch is, is the site that they would develop would have to, the curb cuts and the sidewalk and the landscaping and all that would all have to be, and the site, would all have to be brought up to today's standards, as well as 40 feet off of the back of the curb would have to be a more intense landscaping that would not allow for any parking or promotion of sales vehicles anything so it almost you know creates a buffer which that could be a positive for this stretch that we're looking at access management issues open curb cuts the need for new sidewalks and the need for additional beautification this could you know could could be if someone chose to do this even though we're getting an additional used car sales it would be attractive in that nature. As well as if you had an existing used car sales that wanted to expand on the next lot, then they could do that as well as long as they didn't come any closer to 500 foot to another used car sales, but the new lot and the existing lot gets thrown into the new, it all gets thrown into the new and they have to bring it all up and keep it all 40 foot back and do that. And, uh, so go right here.

So I, I appreciate what you're saying and I appreciate the attention to beautification requirements of used car lots. And this is more an observation. There's not a solution to this. I appreciate not wanting to expand it to other parts of Hendersonville, but at the same time, we are designating that end, which is the gateway end of Hendersonville, to our automotive corridor. It is right now, and I appreciate what you're saying. I don't have a solution to that, but I would like for us to continue to think about ways such as the beautification requirements that you've just outlined, those new site requirements that would require it to look better than just you know, Earl's used car lot on some free available blacktop. I just remain concerned that the gateway end of Hendersonville, we're talking about putting obelisk entry monuments to the city, but that's the entrance to our city. It's where we're saying we're going to keep all of the automotive. So solve that, and then I don't know what we do, but it remains a concern. Adding more car washes remains a concern of mine. They're very attractive from a business model standpoint in the state of Tennessee, and they take very little land to put them in, but they just continue to deepen the impression that that is the auto corridor of Hendersonville.

And this is where the vast majority of all our used car sales are. Yep. It doesn't mean a used car sale lot couldn't go away and something else goes there. And we think that will occur at some point in the future. But probably in the near term, five to eight years, 80, 90% of these used car lots are going to maintain and be used car lots. If for any other reason, because we're limiting any new used car lots in general from a thousand feet to each other. But my, my, my big concern is, is looking out 10, 12 years from now. And I mean, let's just use an example, uh, that everybody's probably familiar with the two gas stations over across from Winston hills. Well, those aren't planned developments, those are commercial. And we're gonna eventually have our underpass. I don't know what those could maintain as gas stations, but if they didn't, they're poised to be used car sales, again, right at another entry point to the future. And so really what I've got is, I am talking about restricting where we allow it now with the conditions that we have, with the potential to do the thing with the 500 foot. But if it's something, and we can discuss it and it's not really a vote, it's just kind of giving me the general direction. If that's not something So it's really two items. One is, is the Planning Commission generally comfortable with me restricting used car lots to this area with the 1,000-foot requirement that we already have? And then the second item would be, in addition to that, is the Planning Commission comfortable with allowing new used car lots in those parameters like what I talked about? And if that second part isn't something that the planning commission is generally supportive of, then we can take that, we can take that out. So basically what's going to happen is everything we're talking about this evening, any little changes in things, we're going to make that. And then we're putting that back out to the public, uh, on the new revisions and it'll be a combined set. So we can change, I can change things at this point because we're still going through a whole public process.

With the 1,000-foot buffer that we require between any existing and a new used car business, approximately, I don't know if you have any way of having this number right now, but approximately how many additional used car businesses could be built in that corridor?

Tell me if I'm wrong, Timothy or Caitlin. Generally speaking, Within this corridor with 1,000, there's hardly any. There might be one over near the Jeep dealership kind of an area maybe, but that's planned development across the street there now. But really, for the most part, within this specific corridor, there's all the used car sales that there can be and meet that 1,000-foot requirement.

That 1,000-foot buffer also extends across the street. So if I've got one here... Across main street, they would be within the thousand foot. Right. It measures.

We measured along this. We clarified some language in this proposal, uh, to clarify how we've been doing it, but we do it along the street. So it's from lot line to lot line along the street frontage.

So, so across the street, they could put one in directly across the street.

It'd be within a, it'd be within a thousand. So it's really any direction that it works out from the edge of property line to the edge of property line along a street. It even, even across the street. And so it's very, very limiting.

We're fairly matched out then. Yes.

What, what does this map show here? Caitlin, is that the map of the used car lot?

This is the current map of the used car lots based on, um, the thousand foot rule.

And what's the color that says there's space?

Everything in black is not. You cannot put a car lot on anything colored in black.

Oh, I like that map. Yeah. I like that map.

Orange shows where you can put currently. So you can see there's. Can't put a car lot. And then the yellow shows where existing car lots are.

Yeah. Commissioner Kerr, I see you're asking a question.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just a quick question. Any car lot outside of this perimeter that's in business today, would they be grandfathered into this?

Yeah, so they could continue as they are. They couldn't expand on additional lots, but they could just continue to operate as they are, which is kind of what's going on now. So that really wouldn't change. It would impact anything that wanted to go new, Outside of this outside of this boundary gotcha. Thank you and and I kind of threw the whole 500 foot thing in there because what I'm looking at where you know, we're looking at the whole West Lake West Main Street So we're trying to we're trying to accelerate improvements along there specifically beautification sidewalks curb cut, you know access management and limits like that and and I don't know that anybody would necessarily utilize this 500 foot thing, uh, with this particular use, but it could be that we just limit the area with the existing thousand foot requirements and we don't do the 500 foot thing. So, I mean, there's, you know, that's, it's nothing, it's just something, a proposal that I'm, you know, that I was willing to tee up, uh, to kind of see what the planning commission thought. And 1,000 foot would stay in place even if we did the 500 foot for new. But we don't have to do the 500 foot. But I do need just a little bit of direction on what to do with the change I'm going to make for next month. Or if everybody's good kind of with the way it is, that's fine too. And I can just keep it kind of the way the proposal is.

Well, I like the idea of limiting where else in the city new used car lots could spring up because they can end up peppering and they can potentially change the character of an area rather quickly. So I do like consolidating it to this zone, to a zone, maybe not this zone, but to a zone. And since that's where the predominance is today, that makes the most sense to limit it. I like the 1,000 foot because it does prevent somebody buying an adjacent piece of property and filling in a gap between themselves and the next one.

Right.

I like what you're suggesting.

All right. Let me go on to the next. Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you. The next item is measuring. talked about that. This is one thing we had, you know, we've discussed this quite a bit about independent living facilities and You know, independent living facility has been a use. So it could be homes that are single-family homes that are independent living facilities, duplexes, townhomes. It could be multifamily independent living. And it's been, for some reason, for years, it's kind of been its own use. And every time one of these issues has come up, then the main issue has been, especially when it's higher density, the issue I think that keeps coming up is, wait a minute, that's just rental. I mean, it's age-restricted rental, but still it's functioning as rental. So the changes that the staff are proposing here are to keep the definition of independent living, but take the use out. And the use will just be whatever structure that it's going in. So if it's single family, it's going to be SR1 and where that's allowed. If it's multifamily, then it has to be in multifamily zones. If it's townhomes, it could be in the townhome zone. So then that way it's not driven because of the use. It's driven by the type of the structure that it is. And then also, then we don't get all tied up into that, well, that got approved for this, and then how are we going to police that they're really doing 55 and older? I think we got into some of those discussions with the TBN thing, which really I think what it came down to, because that's the most recent one, I think in the discussions was really more about the density, but the age-restricted part of it kind of confused it a little bit. It still all got approved and everything, but it just confused the whole issue, and there was really no reason for it to. But it got brought up because that's what the use was. So we think this will help create less confusion.

Excuse me, Director. Because currently the use as independent living does not have any additional requirement around services provided or anything like an assisted living facility might. And you brought it up. This came up during the millennial cottage discussion at TBN. I think that's an excellent way just to take that off the table.

So it could still continue to happen. It just needs to happen within the zones of the densities that it's allowed to happen. So that's a pretty good size change. Also, just a small thing, but small equipment repair is something that we're... allowing it as a permitted use in dockside neighborhood so we've gotten to that issue in dockside neighborhood where somebody's just doing something very small but again it's it's the uh... definite we change the definition of small we didn't have a definition i don't believe of equipment repair and then we made it small equipment repair you know somebody fixing jukeboxes or radios or you know, small electronics and things like that.

Does lawnmower fall into that?

Lawnmower, let's see what that definition said.

Landscaping equipment. Landscaping equipment.

Yes. Is included, right? So yeah, it could be. It could be working on lawnmowers or it could be that. We don't have a lot of that, but it could be, at a small scale. And I think the definition does limit some of the things. It can't be really outdoor noise associated with it. It all has to be...

It has to be primarily indoors. Yeah.

It does have that requirement. Yeah.

Then on the next thing, these are some pretty significant changes. And I'll discuss this a little bit. On hotel motels... I want to remove that use as a permitted use in office. And in general commercial, I want to change that to conditional use. And it's still permitted in MXC, so the plan development in MXC. And I'll tell you my thought about this. My thought is, I think there's a couple more things Hotels that are going to probably be built. There's one out by Texas Roadhouse There's another one that's over by the other hotel near the library Within that area that was already approved But they've got those two hotels and I would say two or three more hotels are probably all the hotels that we we need and by allowing this hotel to be especially like an office and And I think this came up in the recent rezoning and the annexation over on the church property off of Stop 30 that we had, I think, last month. And what this will do is one of my concerns, having a proliferation eventually of too many hotels, it does create... a very large building that over a period of time, if it's not maintained or if you have too many of them, can become disinvested and basically gets to the point where it's too expensive to tear down because there's too much in it, but it's not worth enough to really maintain it and maintain it at a high-quality hotel. So that's kind of my thought, and I don't know if the Planning Commission kind of sees that. Sees that the same. There's still opportunity for a hotel, but it would have to be in a planned development type of setting. But it kind of removes some of the direct permitted use. Also assisted living, currently assisted living is allowed in office and neighborhood commercial. It didn't really make any sense why it was in neighborhood commercial. And then if you remember with the discussion on the annexation rezoning on the church property, That was zoned to office, and that use came up. And it hadn't really quite came up before like it did at that meeting, and it seemed kind of odd that assisted living was allowed in office when it's allowed in all these other zones. Plus, looking at office and looking at the office that we have available that has not been developed, I think we want to be more guarded on what type of uses go into office and make them really more office related versus hotels or motels. Also, looking at nursing homes, nursing homes were allowed in neighborhood commercial. That didn't really make any sense, so removing that. Also, this is one that's currently a big issue around the country, are data centers. And so on the data centers, basically what we did is they're allowed right now in general commercial dockside neighborhood and office. We're removing it being allowed in those areas. And then we're in industrial, we're changing it to conditional use. And then what we did is in there, we gave some specific criteria for if you were gonna get a conditional use, what it would have to be. And keep in mind, somebody could do a planned development. So you do a conditional use on a straight zone property, and you would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. But if you were doing a planned development, you would do something that might be a conditional use, and you could do that through the planned development process. So it's still possible. but it makes it where it's not directly by right anywhere. And if you did go through the process, now we have some criteria to fairly judge and measure it on specific criteria. I think this was, looking at the zoning ordinance, this was a pretty big open area right now on what that is. We do not have the amount of zoning ordinance undeveloped property that really large data centers would be looking for. So I don't feel like this is really a significant threat, but this kind of this kind of makes it where we're being more responsible with it. When this was added years ago is really kind of before data centers really took off. And I think we didn't really know. It seemed like that would be a good thing. But now we certainly understand It can be a strain on resources. So it's just for each community to kind of look at that.

Quick question. Yes, sir. What is the definition of a data center?

We can pull that up here real quick.

I mean, is it going to be different than what a call center might be or something like that?

Yes. Let me see what we did on that. Do you mind reading that, Caitlin?

Not at all. A building or group of buildings used to house computer systems and associated components such as telecommunications and storage systems for remote storage, processing, or distribution of large amounts of data does not include a call center.

Yeah. So a call center would be different. I think before people really understood what data centers were, they kind of thought data center, call center. It kind of sounds like maybe that's... a little bit familiar, similar.

So do we have anywhere in the city where a data center could be built right now by right? Yes.

Yeah, in some of these zones, yes, it could be.

And if we change it, it will all be conditional use at that point. There won't be any by right. That's correct. They'll have to come get a... make their case to get their conditional use.

That's correct. You'd have to go through the BZA to get a conditional use, or you'd have to go through a planned development to add that use.

So if they wanted to do one in an industrial zoning that we have, It would, as a plan development, it would come through the planning commission? That's correct. Okay.

And if it wasn't a plan development, then it would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get that approval. So I think this kind of will address probably what the majority of people are sort of concerned with. But it still gives an opportunity. You know, we're not completely shutting anything out. It just has a responsible path to what would go through. One more quick question while we're on this.

So we obviously have a new developer building some big warehouses. If they came in and someone wanted a 50,000 or 30,000 square foot data center, would that still have to come in as a conditional use for that particular building?

Yes, it would. Okay. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Heavy commercial adjusted. Yeah, okay. That we've already talked about. One of the things that we did, currently gas stations are allowed as a permitted use in Dockside neighborhood. We're not saying that wouldn't be a bad idea, but we're changing that. proposing to change that to conditional use so it's not permitted. I think it could be appropriate in that area. I don't think that Dockside neighborhood, we've necessarily designed it to be an area where you had a convenience store gas station, but it would make it where you had to get a conditional use permit to do that. So that would be good. And then that, let me see. This one, item number six, accessory structures. This was a very slight change, but it'd make a big difference. We've been having, over the last couple of years, we've had a ton of folks go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for detached accessory structures, not necessarily to live in, just garages or outbuildings and things like that. Because of their lot size or the size of their house, it was very limiting on how much they could put in their backyard. And probably I would say 95% of the folks that go to BZA that are asking for another 200 square foot or 150 square foot or something like that, they get approved. And it just, you know, it's kind of a... cumbersome thing to make somebody go through. It's actually quite expensive. It's almost close to $1,000 to go through that process. In most cases, it's pretty simple. It's not necessarily people getting right on a property line or building a monstrosity in their backyard. What this does, it changes it. There's requirements that say depending on the size of your lot and your house, then it's the lesser. So it was like 50% the size of your home or 1,000 feet, for example, and you can do the lesser of those. So then you might not be able to do 1,000 feet. You might only be able to do 800 feet. square feet and what we change we're proposing to change is to change that from the lesser of those two things to the greater of those two so that so that it kind of sets where you could do if you had a bigger house you could do more square footage but if you didn't at least you could do a reasonable a reasonable square footage and and this is kind of coming from the idea these aren't these aren't necessarily uses we're talking about in backyards these are just things that are accessory to the residential nature like a garage or you know outbuildings and things like that and kind of it's something on looking at it from where the planning staff's kind of coming from on it we regulate so many things that giving just a little bit of relief to people's backyards that let them make an investment in their property and utilize their property to a reasonable extent is kind of what drove this change, plus administratively to reduce the number of variances and conditional uses that are going to the Board of Zoning Appeals. that are just kind of really very small items. And so that was kind of what that is. The next item, language. Can you go to that on item number seven about the language for construction and design guidelines for fences? Let me see what that. Can you clarify Caitlin real quick? What that's what that's covering.

This was referring to the, um, clarification just so that if there was any confusion or if someone's looking, they know what the materials that are allowed for that area.

Okay. Yes, this is something that we're already doing. We're just kind of codifying it because it has been confusing in the past. Thank you, Caitlin. Item number eight, minor home occupation. Yeah, currently... Yeah, there's no clarification on how long a minor home occupation goes for. We kind of had a two-year expiration, but that's not realistically what we do. I would note we've had an explosion of minor home occupations where people are working out of their home. I think just over the last two years we've had almost 750, and we're adding probably 20 to 30 a month. that are being added. These are things, the majority of these things aren't really anybody selling anything out of their home. They're a variety of different services and things that people have that are web-based or different services they're providing to people that aren't coming to their home. That's been a real growth industry. And looking at the map, we don't have the map there this evening, but the map of distribution of where all these are located, it's equally distributed throughout the community. It's not in one area over another area. It's equally distributed out there. So a lot of those, if you're sometimes in your neighborhood and you may go home for lunch or during the day or something and see a lot of people there, some people are working remote, but there's a lot of people, they're operating a business out of their home off of a computer, and that's their livelihood. And so you may see them actually in the neighborhood during the day just walking their dog or something. And I think this is having an impact on daytime lunch as well, that there's more people in the city during lunchtime during the work week that are utilizing restaurants as well. So very, very interesting. This is something on item number nine, major home occupations for dockside. This was something that Mayor Clary wanted us to look at a way that if you're in the dockside neighborhood and you have an existing home and you're not gonna tear it down or add anything to it, you just wanna convert that home to a business so that you can do that without really having to go through a big fuss. you know, and bring the whole site up to standards and parking and, and all of those different things, uh, because you're really not changing anything, you know, with the, uh, with the home. And so what this does it, uh, in a creative way, we use the major home occupation only in dockside neighborhood, uh, to allow for this to, uh, to occur. And, um, It allows for homes to convert to commercial uses. And most of what I'm talking about is limited kind of commercial. It's not huge things. It'll be small things. But then it'll, with ease, let it convert back to residential is kind of what we're looking to do. And on that also, on the next page, on number 10, then on that dockside neighborhood home occupations, it allows me as the director to work with them on the parking to make sure it kind of works out. And so it gives them a great flexibility there. And this is really just trying to economically stimulate that dockside neighborhood. And this could be something, this change that we're doing, could be something I could see stays there, but really I probably see it's something maybe for the next four or five years we have, and then as things start happening in that area, we may change it and pull that back. But in this interim, I think it helps it because what we're asking the area to go from is to go from a conversion to residential home, small residential homes, to full-blown commercial. And that's a pretty big jump to make. So we need to try to make that jump a little bit easier so that we can get investment in an area and eventually get full investment throughout the whole area. Uh, number 11 and 12, no number 11 and 12. This is some Timothy. Can you, can you maybe speak to this in regards to kind of what we're talking about, about the parking? I think you had one additional thing you wanted to throw on there. And then I think I've got something after you do.

Sure. So, um, number 11 alternative parking requirements. So we've had a number of, um, projects recently and in the past. where the applicant was requesting reduced parking. You all recall the floor and decor came through a while back, asked a couple of times for reduced parking, and then in and in moving supplies. They didn't ask for reduced parking, but that was an industrial building. that really didn't have much parking need, but they had to fulfill the city's parking requirements for that. So for a commercial building or an industrial building or any other building, for that matter, outside of a planned development, there is no parking waiver to reduce parking. If you're in a planned development, you can ask for that, but in a straight-zoned building, mean the parking ratio is what it is that's what's required so we thought it may be it may be a good thing to provide an alternative path for somebody to explore the possibility of doing less than what the city requires by way of a a parking study that's what this that's what this section does is it allows only for new commercial and industrial buildings, allows somebody to submit a parking demand study that's conducted in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking generation manual, allows them to submit a study to the Planning Commission and make their case for why they believe for their particular business that they should be allowed to have a reduced number of parking spaces. So that would apply just to new commercial and new industrial buildings. And then for existing buildings where the entire building shell gets converted to a new use, they could ask for the same thing. And then the criteria by which the Planning Commission judges that is the submission of that study. The Planning Commission looks at the study and determines whether or not they believe that justifies the reduced parking. Um, so that, that kind of bleeds over into the next item, number 12, where we looked at particular parking rate or parking ratios for particular uses. I mentioned the, the foreign decor, um, in and in moving supplies. There's been some others, um, so specifically warehousing we've seen where our current parking ratio, one per 1000 is quite a bit more than those warehousing have, have need for. Um, so we looked at some surrounding communities. We looked at, um, uh, Nashville and Gallatin, Franklin, um, and Mount Juliet and, uh, And Gallatin, of those, only Franklin had as intensive a parking ratio for warehousing as Hendersonville does at 1 per 1,000. Everybody else ranges from 1 per 2,500 to 1 per 5,000. Gallatin is 1 per 5,000. Nashville is 1 per 2,500 for warehousing. So what we propose for warehousing is to go from one per 1,000 to one per 3,000. One of the things to think about with warehousing is, you know, recently there's been a lot of advances made in automation, so the need for parking for that use is even less than it used to be. The other alternative for that was to try to go to just a – employee-based model. But there we felt like, well, there may be some warehouses where they may only have two employees. And then you've got a large building, two employees, they've got minimum parking. What if that building converts to something else that has a more intensive parking demand? And then they have to, they either can't go in there or they have to provide a massive amount of parking to allow that use to go in. So doing the square footage seems like a better compromise. You're still going to get some minimum amount of parking associated with that use, but it is reduced. And then looking at floor and decor, that floor and decor is more of a retail model than it is warehousing. It is a warehouse, but their warehouse is their inventory. So when you go in there, you're... you're looking at, you're going through their warehouse area. So in looking at that, it made sense to divide up our, just to refresh your memory on the floor and decor. When they first came through, I think they had to have 300 parking spaces. They asked for a waiver of 66. They were denied. Came back later, asked to have 43 of those spaces waived. That was granted. I think initially they said they only needed like 120 spaces. And I went back and looked at aerials of other locations, like in Florida and different places. Their parking lots are very underutilized. The users that go there, They're looking at very niche products. It's not like going to a Walmart where you've got a huge range of products, big range of people looking for products. So, foreign decor has a lot in common based on the bulk of the items they sell has a lot in common with something like a furniture store, like Lazy Boy. They've got big items. very niche market. There's not a whole lot of people like, you know, looking for a big range of products. So what we did was we proposed to break down that general retail parking ratio into, we still have general retail parking, or sorry, retail goods establishment at one per 250, I believe it is. But then we added uh, a category for bulk merchandise sales, which, uh, we put at one per 500. And again, that would be like floor and decor or lazy boy. Um, and then a separate category for home improvement at one per 400 home improvement. It's kind of a hybrid between a Walmart and a, like a Lowe's, um, Sorry, a Walmart and a bulk merchandise store. They do have bulk merchandise, but they also sell a lot of small stuff. They have a big range of products, so it has more parking demand than would like a Lazy Boy. So that's kind of how we broke that down. And then we added a definition for bulk merchandise sales and then home improvement store. One thing we still need to look at, and we'll come back to you with next time is we need to reconfigure our definition for heavy retail sales and leasing because that definition includes home improvement stores. So we need to refine that definition to weed out home improvement centers and then reconfigure that parking ratio. But we'll come back to you with that particular piece next time. And then one final thing I did want to mention is tonight you all heard that the 216 Sanders Ferry, it's an assisted living and memory care facility. So they got, I think they had 24 memory care units. But they're having to expand their parking because we increase we were more than doubled the amount of parking required for assisted living So they barely they barely needed the parking that they were providing another they're doubling that And you know it may be worth looking at and do we need to I look at reconfiguring that parking ratio. Our nursing home parking ratio is one space per bed and then one space per employee. One thing we might want to think about is on this alternative parking allowance where you can do a parking demand study, maybe we want to open that up to not just for commercial and industrial but add institutional to that. So give somebody an alternate path to at least be able to come to the Planning Commission and present a study showing why they believe they need reduced parking.

Quick question. What about parking for restaurants and QSR? Do we have – are you looking at that ratios as well?

We did not.

I can maybe address it. Yeah, sure. I'll address that. Yeah, we've talked about it, and we kind of stayed away from the residential because we've already done some things with that. But I think with what Timothy's saying, specifically for memory care, I don't think it needs to be lumped in with the assisted living. We need to probably space that out and do something. So we may have a proposal for that. On restaurants and things like that, we've looked at that. And keep in mind, our parking requirements that we have, there's not a national standard of a book you can go to that we've looked. There's not an each that says how much parking that each particular use needs, as you know, Barry. And so basically the parking that we have and I know we've made changes over the last couple of years and we're making a change possibly now. These have just been things communities have just done and maybe they've taken it from part of their parking requirements from another community and it's really not necessarily based in anything. But I think looking at it for restaurants, it keeps a lot of restaurants from happening. Small restaurants, the parking requirements kill them. And people want to know a lot of times why we don't have a lot of kind of Ma and Paul restaurants. Part of the reason we don't isn't necessarily our design requirements, it's our parking standards. They can't meet our parking standards because there's not enough room in the places a startup restaurant might want to go. So I think it's something we can definitely look at. I think the problem in looking at it and the difficulty in bringing something up is the challenge of basically just two places, Texas Roadhouse and Chick-fil-A. Not necessarily the new Chick-fil-A. I think that's actually managing that pretty well. But those two places and maybe a couple of other places are outliers. that they do not fit the pattern. They're so desirable, to provide enough parking at peak demand would mean adding 60 more spaces or an enormous amount of parking. So I think that's what's tough because I think as we look at restaurants and quick service and things like that, the majority of those things really don't need the parking that we're even requiring. But there's a couple, and when you're thinking about restaurant parking, most people in the community are thinking about like Texas Roadhouse for the most part, and they're wanting to make sure we got enough parking for that. But we didn't look at it real intently, but we can, and maybe we might at least throw something up that's reasonable on that. When it comes down to this parking issue, here's the issue. is we're nearing the end of development i mean we're not we're very near to the end of basic build out okay and basically what that means is a lot of our greenfield spaces or spaces don't already that don't already have a plan for something to be built on it there is very little of that left so you know we are nearing and actually partially in a phase of redevelopment and infill And so these issues over parking, these issues over how much building coverage you can have and some of those different things, they're going to become real major issues when you don't have that much land to work with and you're redeveloping something. We need to have the ability that our requirements aren't so restrictive that really don't allow the investment. But it's a balance because you could get an outlier of any business, some service that, you know, just, you know, one of the things like, you know, there's some dance studios and karate studios and things like that that have huge traffic demand at different times, but for the most part don't. But then there are dance studios and karate studios that don't really have that much traffic. And so it's really difficult to make that balance. But we'll look at that, Commissioner. Thank you for bringing that up. Thank you, Timothy, for sharing that, and he covered most of those things. We've got one thing there on number 13 about non-conforming signs. We're just clarifying something to prevent confusion. Non-conforming signs, remember, this November, we enter a new phase of non-conforming signage, and specifically poll signs that we have that... When a change of use occurs, then people are going to have to remove those signs. Also, if a sign is just left standing and there's not a business and it's a non-conforming sign, it will need to be removed. We're just tightening our language up because we know there can't be any confusion as we pursue some of these things. We already talked about data centers. On 17, this is just minor. I don't know, trailers was in there under the definition of motor vehicle dealership definition. I think it confused the issue, and so we took that out of there. And then under planning director addendums, these were kind of additional things. We've covered some of these. There's language here about completeness and application submittals and about written reports of deficiencies. There's a state law that just went in, is going into effect January the 1st that states is basically saying communities have 60 days, calendar days, to make decisions. And then from the planning staff, I think it's like 30 days. There's a 30-day requirement and a 60-day requirement. And if these requirements are not met in their specific criteria, then whatever it is somebody wants to do is approved. So something falling through the cracks or not getting done on time or something like that, there's just some kind of error or something gets delayed, it could mean that something gets approved that normally would have had to go through you to get approval. And so we've added language that tightens all that up. I was just talking to Zacchaeus this morning, and that we, I don't think we have, or maybe it was this afternoon, I don't think we have had anything in recent history that we've given anybody back that they've submitted us, and we've had some stuff that really the submittal wasn't really stellar, and we might even be missing something, but we try to work with people. That will change. because the clock starts when we accept a complete application. So if someone does not have a complete application, we will be giving it back to them. And then when we give it back to them, they're going to miss the deadline. And so it's going to push things back the next month. So for people's third party consultants that submit these things, they need to be complete. That's going to help us. But this is going to be new. But it's in reaction to the state law. These days that the state law are putting on us because of the way we're already set up, we're already meeting a lot of those requirements, but we're just adding some language to make sure it's clear, you know, what we have to meet. But in every city and county in the state, they're all dealing with this, trying to figure out what to do. Because what we don't want is we don't want somebody to submit something subpar, and for one reason or the other, it just automatically gets approved because we did not respond or do what we needed to do. So that's that. Also, it's a small thing, but we clarified on appeals of denial of a BZA where you appeal to. We tell them you appeal to a court of, I can't remember what it says, the appropriate court, but now we're saying specifically where you appeal to because we've had that question happen here recently. Also number four on the addendum, we're adding language for decision timeline for applications. That is associated with that new state law. And then about number five, surety release pursuant to state law. This is rushing surety release. So this is something that's going to be impacting when we release a surety. It's putting a very tight timeframe for us to respond to surety releases, where typically it can take a while. This is really putting pressure on the city to move forward on those. Item number six, this is the, that's that data center thing that I talked about. Also, we had to update the information about daycare centers and child and daycare home. A state law just passed and became effective in July the 1st. We just made aware of it a few weeks ago. But basically what it's doing is right now we have child daycare allowed as a conditional use in a lot of different zones and particular things associated with it. Now, anywhere industrial, commercial, or office is allowed, then daycares are allowed by right with no extra conditions that wouldn't abide by anything commercial. So that's a new thing. Also, it's going to be impactful on neighborhoods as well because What it's saying is a home-based daycare, which is basically a daycare that is completely inside of the home, not in a detached structure on the property, but within the home that those are allowed by right without a conditional use permit.

And that's a pretty big deal.

And it also has other different restrictions that have been removed to make it easier for that to occur. So that's all in relationship to new state law. And then on that final page of the addendum, On seven, this is just minor. We're just clarifying language about outdoor storage. We've had some confusion about outdoor storage areas, and we were already treating it a certain way, but we just wanted to clarify that in the language. And then on number eight, we added information about guidance for dumpster enclosures. And what this is, we're Within the Westlake area, what we're doing is we're going to have a set aside on dumpster enclosures where that we're going to allow something different than we allow in other areas for existing businesses. We have a lot of different businesses within Westlake that have a dumpster but they don't have an enclosure. and then they really can't meet our enclosure requirements about where it's at and the material and all of that. So this would give the option for us to work with those businesses to get a dumpster so you just don't have a dumpster out in the parking lot you know that's not not enclosed and and then also this isn't associated directly with this but we may actually we may actually create a grant program to incentivize businesses that have dumpsters that are just floating out there rolling in a parking lot to get them to enclose those and close those dumpsters number nine this is just a Yeah, this was minor. It was just about a wind movement, attention getting signage as being prohibited. I think we had a question of, I can't remember what it was, but there was a question about a certain kind of sign that we said, yeah, that sign is not allowed. And this just kind of clarifies by definition that a wind movement device is a wind movement and attention getting device. So that just kind of clarifies that issue. And then the last item on here was adding definitions of business day and development and added language to the definition of a day. This whole thing with the state law, it's associated with a business day. What we're referring to in most of the document are calendar days, but the state law on these specific items were changing. relate to a business day, so we just needed to clarify that so it wasn't confusing. And that's kind of the completion of all of the, and I know it was lengthy and I appreciate the patience of everybody, but I wanted to make sure, you know, this is a lot to go through, but I certainly wanted to make sure I touched on every item, and I'm open to any questions anybody would have, Mr. Chairman.

I see commissioner Kerr has a question. Yeah. Quick question on the addendum, um, seven on the clarified language and outdoor storage. I've had a number of, um, residents reach out to me about storage and what we can and can't do. And could you just clarify what that is?

Yeah. Timothy probably can.

Okay.

I think he worked on, on that. Would you be able to Timothy, uh, can you pull that up about the outs outdoor storage? Commissioner Kerr, what were some of the key points of like what they brought to your attention that were issues?

Well, I had one this week where somebody erected a tent and is storing restaurant equipment in there. and asked me what the rules were, and you'll probably get a call. But, I mean, that raised a good question. What is a temporary structure? Right. And how long can they store equipment like that in a neighborhood? Right. So that's the reason I asked that question.

That's a good question.

Yeah, I think this is just – it's just kind of clarifying, uh, where you can and can't put outdoor storage. Uh, so it's gotta be, if you do have it, it's gotta be at the side and rear of the principal structure. Um, it's gotta be screened. Um, you can't have, you can't have a principal use that is, that is outdoor storage. Um,

I don't think it specifically addresses what the commissioner was talking about. Yeah.

I think if you can send me something on that, just a little bit of specifics, then we'll look at that and we'll look and see if we can come up with a draft of something to address that question.

I think the citizen is going to write you an email. That's what I asked him to do. Yes. That would be very helpful. So you should hear from him. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners have questions? Comments? All right. Then we'll move past this one. Remember, we're leaving this one open, so it'll still be an open agenda item, and it'll be available as a public hearing for the following month, too.

Maybe if we can, maybe let's vote to move it forward.

To move it?

Just to move it forward. To defer it. To defer it. Yeah, let's do that. Okay. Just so it's clear.

So I'd like to have a motion to defer it for the next planning commission meeting. That'll keep it clean. So do I have a motion?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll vote for it on the electronics to make it official.

Motion approved with seven yeses. Thank you.

Now the next one is the resolution adopting the proposed revisions to the Hendersonville subdivision regulations. Keith, again, that's you.

Yes. Get that. This one will be a little bit quicker. The majority of these proposed changes are coming from the Public Works Department. These are things that are going to help tidy up a few different little issues. As you can see on the executive summary, the majority of these are low items. I did have an addendum of some additional things. I'll just go over these fairly quickly. The first thing is there were just some general grammatical corrections that have been made. Also, item number one, this was just to clarify access easements. There was just a little bit of confusion over residential access easements and commercial.

Let's see, lots must provide.

Yeah, this was just clarifying because we know how we're treating it in the planning office, but there was some clarity that needed to be clarified on how we're doing between the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. This is making sure that it's clear that you still have to meet the lot frontage for a lot not just the 50 foot you know access that it talks about in the subdivision regulations it's kind of a nuanced issue but this comes up often and this just this little bit of language will help help clarify that also we added construction plan review and detail approvals The item number two, this is just language that's clarifying some stuff about construction plan review that we're already doing, but just puts that in the document. Also on number three, adding language for ADA compliant client path. I believe what this is. And, uh, Tater, tell me if I'm incorrect. This is, we have ADA requirements that are different on sidewalks than maybe sometimes the sidewalk coming from a business to a public sidewalk, uh, on the slope. Is that, is that correct? Tater? Is that what that is?

I think basically we're just trying to ensure that any new business is providing that ADA accessibility from public right-of-way to the actual structure itself.

Great. Awesome. Thank you very much, Tater. Number four, this is construction plans. This is a leeway to suspend permits or issue stop work orders if construction is not progressing according to the construction plans. We're already doing this, but I'll give you kind of an example. You could have an issue where a subdivision had been approved and there were certain public improvements that were to be done. And the engineering or the topo that was approved actually was incorrect. And so they can't physically put in what they were approved for because of errors in their calculations. And this is if we catch that before everything is finalized, then it gives us leverage to say, hey, you know, we're not going to issue any permits on the rest of the homes until you get this resolved. And it gives us basically we already have it. So we're already doing this. But it just kind of codifies a process that we're already doing. Number five, this is just adding a simple note reference on final plats.

I think that's, yeah, is that it?

Yeah, just a simple note. Item number six, add language under section three about additional fees.

Let me see what that is.

Yeah, this is just relating to bonding and sureties and things like that. Nothing really big. Just some language. Item number seven, added appendix I for final plat notes. So it gives some specific language so that we have consistency on the PLATS. The addendum items that I've added, item number one, added language about completeness of applications. This goes back to the state law that has come out, as well as the add language for staff review and comments. And then number three, add language for non-residential driveways and sidewalk improvements. I think what this is is we have some slope requirements between the back of the curb up to the back of the sidewalk, you know, for where you might have a steep lot. But there's some things we needed to have specific language that when you get beyond the sidewalk that we have some control over what that slope is. And this will help keep – and Tater, you might want to – I'll let Tater – I'll let the engineer address that.

Yes, sir. Go ahead. Basically, the language we already have in our residential driveway is dealing a lot to do with, of course, ADA accessibility for sidewalk usage, but also for fire department access and not having any kind of scrubbing issues and also long cars. That language is in our residential driveway subparagraph, but we realize that it was not included in our actual commercial development deal. So in the name of due diligence, we just wanted to move that language over so that it's covered under both sub paragraphs.

Okay. Great. Thank you, Taylor.

Yes, sir.

Yes. I was, I was off on the residential versus versus the non non-residential. So this'll, this'll help it sync up with the, what we have on the residential. Item number seven, added definitions for day, business day, and development. These are associated with that new state law with the 60-day requirement. And then item number eight, updates dates for enactment. And that's just the enactment of the subdivision regulations. And I can answer any questions that anybody has on that, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise, this is something when we have the subdivision regulations, that doesn't go to BOMA. Subdivision regulations just stays with the Planning Commission, and that's something that you can take action on this evening.

So with that being said, do you all have any questions, any comments about that, anything you're unsure about? Because we will be taking a motion and voting on it. If not, then I'll accept a motion for it.

So moved.

Okay. We have a second? Second. And we'll do it electronically.

Motion to approve. Pass with seven yeses.

Thank you.

And I appreciate on both the zoning ordinance and on the subdivision regulations, I appreciate the diligence of the planning staff as well as the fire department and the public works staff as well. So these changes, you know, the changes in the subdivision regulations, we've changed So a lot of things a few years ago, this really tightens everything up. Uh, and these changes that we're proposing on the zoning ordinance, uh, this, this also tightens several things up from the major revision we did a couple of years ago. So I certainly appreciate everybody's everybody's work on that.

Okay. I did want to mention, um, very good job. This is complex information. You have summarized it where I can even understand this. Uh, but, and I like the heat map. I like the low, medium high. That's really good and helps us focus on what we should be talking about. So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Next we have the staff level projects that have been approved. Everybody sees the list. Any questions you have specifically you want to ask before we move on? All right. Staff level projects pending. Same thing. If there's no questions or comments. And the last thing is planning director comments. You got more to say?

All right, not much, not much. I do have just a couple of things, and I'll turn it back over to the chairman. We do have a couple of folks that are going to be rolling off of the planning commission that have served. diligently, Mr. Todd Kerr and Vanessa Silkwood. Vanessa, I think, was, Todd was just here in the last year, and Vanessa Silkwood was served since 2018, and so the mayor will hopefully be filling those, maybe filling it with two new folks prior to our next meeting, but I certainly appreciate their service there. One thing just that we'll need to do for housekeeping, Zacchaeus will include it on the next month's agenda. We'll need to fill Vanessa's spot in the secretarial role. Mr. Chairman, did you have anything you want to say on that?

I just want to thank you, Commissioner Kerr. We appreciate you being here. Thanks for everything that you added. And I hope Vanessa's listening sometime, but same to you, Vanessa. Appreciate you being here. You've worked with me for a long, long time, so we're going to miss you too. And again, thanks for both of you and all that you've done. Other than that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. You can do that. You'll be the last one. And do I have a second? Second. All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much.