Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You try to get literal or something. Adrian,

look. Still early though. We ain't got started yet. [laughter] Ask us again in an hour.

Still fairly. I know. Even better. Oh, excuse me. park area little picnic tables.

Apparently, we spent a blue fortune on it. That's what I was wondering. Crap. studying the supremacy clause, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, the uh federal sovereignty from lunch sovereign I know that you can do that [laughter] [clears throat] again.

How did that happen?

[clears throat] Rich County Commissioner coming here for that 109. You hang a left on Franklin Road and go out. There's a warehouse on the

I have to write it down. No [snorts] extra traffic on the protests and having a basically person. It's a detention facility. Call the meeting to order. I ask Chris Cra to do our invocation.

Let us pray. Father, we gather this evening uh as your people trying to make decisions about our community and its best interest. We pray that you will guide our thoughts and actions tonight and uh forgive us of our sins in Christ. Amen. Amen. Amen. Join me pledge to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Are there any public comments at this time? Not we'll move to the staff reports.

Always. You have an update in your packets of all the plans that staff has reviewed and approved since our actually December meeting since we didn't get to do this last month. Uh so that's in there as well and an update on the council items that have been acted on and the permits that have been issued. Christy, can you go to the next slide? We also did want to pass along a message. Our long range planning division has an upcoming meeting. They're about to kick off their Hartsville Pike area plan study. There is an open house. It'll be in this room on March 5th from 6:00 to 7:30. So, if you have any uh if you live in that area or have any thoughts about the future of the Hartsville Pike area now that the T dot plan project is wrapping up, uh you want to attend that meeting. You can scan that QR code or go to the link on the page, find out more information. If you have any specific questions, you can reach out to Paul Corder. His contact is on there as well. And there's handouts back on the tables if you want a copy to take with you.

Committee reports. Any changes to the agenda? No changes. Changes. We'll move to the public hearing. We have one public hearing tonight and it's on the proposed amendment to the future land use plan for about 11.46 acres at 519 Maple Hill Road from mixed housing to rural preservation open space in Ward One. I'd like to speak to this. [clears throat] There are no comments. Then we'll close the public hearing. Move to approval of the minutes. Start with the meeting January 27th, 2026.

Motion to approve. Second. Second. Who was it? David. David. Okay. Motion's made and seconded to approve the minutes of January 22nd. Any discussion? Not. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Minutes are approved. Meeting of February the 9th. Motion to approve. Second. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the minutes of February the 9th. Discussion. If not, all in favor say I. All opposed. Those minutes are approved. We'll move to February the 17th. Motion to approve. Second. John. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the minutes of February 17th. Discussion. Not. All in favor say I.

All opposed. [clears throat] Those minutes are approved. The consent agenda. There's three consent agenda items. Consent agenda item number one is request by DRPTN1 LLC for final plat approval for Waverly phase 11B of 59 lot sub or conservation subdivision on about 1316 acres at an unressed property on Pleasant Ridge zoned RS9 and Mard 4. Consent agenda item number two is a request by DRPTN1 LLC for final plat approval for Waverly phase 14. This is a 52 lot conservation subdivision on about 11.08 acres underressed property on Martha Libro Road. It's zoned RS9 and Ward 4. And consent agenda item number three is a request by Storeplace self storage for site plan approval for storeplace highway 109 a non-residential development on about 6.06 acres at unadressed highway 109 north at zone planned business industrial park in ward 6.

Does anybody object to these items remaining on the consent agenda? There are no objections. We'll bring it to planning commission. Motion to approve consent agenda. Is there a second? Second. Second. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the consent agenda. Discussion. All

say I. Opposed. Consent agenda is approved. New business item number one. New business assignment number one is request by exitor 109 Lebanon LLC for site plan approval for cedar tree a non-residential development on about 326.4 acres at underress property on Lebanon road some plain business industrial park and interchange commercial in ward 6. There's minor corrections and no corrections that are needed. The development agreement for the trail from Cariban Park agreed to during the annexation and zoning process will need to be approved before final approval of this site plan. City's legal department has received and reviewed a draft of this agreement. This property had a preliminary plan to divide the property into six lots and provide a public road across the site approved in 2022 with five variances for block lengths. The site plan was approved with six variances in July 2025. So, a total of 11 variances have been granted for this project. Thus far, nothing has changed on their plans since they were approved in July 2025. They are back here today with a variance request. That variance request is for foundation plantings being needed along the facades facing all public roads. The building in question is building D on their plan on the east side of the building. Dappling believes the planning commission did not understand this request when uh to move the foundation plantings along the screening fence instead of eliminating them altogether when they asked for this variance back in July 2025 when it was denied. The choice to face the dock doors towards the road creates the conflict with the code and the required landscaping. This is a choice by the applicant. Staff opposes this request because it is self-imposed and the code can be met without the variance as demonstrated by other buildings in

this development. Building needs to be redesigned to not face the dock doors towards the road so that the foundation plantings can be placed in their intended location and meet the code as required with the plans approved in July 2025. staff recommends denial because the plan fails to meet the code and there is no valid reason to grant the variance request just to give you a little bit more info on this one. So, we're looking at building D. It's this one on the western most side of their site, the long one running north south. Looking at their landscaping plan a little closer. Uh the code would require there to be a foundation planting along the entirety of this facade because it faces a public road running north south. They're in wanting to move those plantings along the land the screening for the docks instead of eliminating it. This is however exactly the same as what they had provided back in July. They have changed the wording in their variance request but the plans if you compare them side by side are no different. You kind of already see the scale, but the plantings have already been moved in the in the July picture there up on top and on the February one. They're exactly the same. So, we don't see any new evidence uh in this case to grant the variance that was previously denied. Uh there's some pictures they provided the screening. This is what you'd see if if they get uh the variance request. We think the buildings need to face the road. This is going to be a connection between an arterial road 7 uh highway 70 and a new collector road that's on our major thoroughare that they're helping construct part of. So we do think this road will get a fair bit of traffic on it just kind of running parallel to highway 109. So we do think it will have a good amount of visibility. So needing to meet the requirements here as they have on the east side of this road, we think need to also be met on the west side of the road, which would mean relocating the docks to allow for the uh foundation plantings that are required.

Like to speak to this item.

Good evening. Byron Gil with Rochelle McLol 109 North Cast Avenue represent the applicant. We've got uh representatives from the developer owners, the engineer, and another council here that has represented this project in the past. Understanding of the prior request was to remove the foundation plantings. This is a different request in the sense that it is now the request to to move them to the road. Uh Josh, if you would go back to the picture of the the line line of sight from the road. Yeah, that'd be perfect. So the project was approved with the screen wall and if we move the foundation plings in front of the screen wall at the road it just gives it a better a aesthetic look. The issue is we've got a a major spine road to the north of the building which Josh can show you what that is. the north side of the building we have uh complied with and exceeded transparency and and plings on that side because that was the original spine road through the project. Through agreement with the city, we have now turned that uh north south road to the east side of the building to exit onto Highway 70, thus creating this issue that we've got. So, we're trying to be good corporate citizens and figure out a way to make it look good. Uh the developer is also agreeing within the development agreement that was referenced in staff reports to add requirements that that wall and plannings be maintained through that development agreement. So there will be an ability for the city to make sure that that stays looking uh as good as it can going forward because I I've talked to several of you and some of the concerns were you know what happens with future uh looks of this area. So the the request simply is to move from the foundation to in front of the wall which

we feel is a better look for the drive and that is some of the concerns that have been expressed. Happy to answer any question that anybody has. [snorts] All right. Anybody else like to speak? Please, we'll bring it to the planning commission. Motion to deny. There's a second. Second. Motion has been made and seconded to deny this site plan including the variance. Is that what you're saying? Yes.

Yes. I'm Yes, sir. That's correct. Yeah. I'm following the staff recommendation on this. Uh I also want to point out um in talking with the staff earlier and uh perhaps if I'm wrong council or somebody will will uh you know set the record straight at some point but I had noted that there have been several variances that have already been um supported here. I I wrote down 10 of 11 variances. Uh they actually requested and this would be number 12. So, it's not like we haven't tried to work with the applicant here. Um, just want to make sure we noted that.

So, the motion's been made and seconded uh to deny this site plan. Further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion say I. I. I. All opposed. No. Okay. Thank you. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. It's 55. Motion fails for lack of a majority.

Motion fails for lack of a majority. Thank you. That's a different experience. Okay. Motion fails for lack of a majority. So, all right. Um therefore is there uh any other motion? Motion to approve with the variance. Motion [clears throat] made seconded to approve with the variance. Discussion on that motion. No discussion. All in favor of this motion say I. I. All opposed. No. [laughter] Please. Done. I I I no I no no no no

I no five well boys if here's that we're at a this [clears throat] fails this fails because of lack of s as well. So if if that's the case um parliamentarian what do we do at this point? You have the option of debating it and attempting to get a majority. You only need one vote either way. Or you move on or what? Or move on. I make a motion that we go along with the with the following agenda and move this to the end. Then considered at the end. Considered at the end.

Does that require a motion, Andy, to revise the agenda? I mean, yes. Yes. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to move this uh reconsideration to the end of the agenda. All in favor of that motion say I. I.

Opposed. Okay, the agenda is adjusted. We'll move to item number two. New business item number two is a request by CRG for site plan approval for cubes at Sparta Pike Adenzo, a non-residential development on about 43.62 acres at 1532 Sparta Pike. So in plain business industrial park in Ward 2. A few minor corrections and no corrections are needed. There are a list of variances to go through on this one as well. Variance number one for building articulation being needed every 50 feet on facades facing roads and open space. The applicant is not providing any articulation and this varies the code by 100%. This is a self-imposed hardship and staff opposes this request. Variance number two for transparency on the west and north facads the minimum of 20% transparency is needed facing the roads and open spaces. The facade facing Canesville Road which is on the west side has a transparency of 10.45%. This has been increased since the preliminary meeting which at that point was 3.89%. Whereas the facade facing Russell Barnes Way, which is to the north, has a transparency of 5.6% which has been increased from 1.25% that you saw at the preliminary meeting. This is a self-imposed hardship and staff opposes this request. Variance number three, foundation plantings are needed along facades facing public roads. This is on the north side of the building. Uh the choice to face the dock doors towards the road creates the conflict with the code in several ways. In this recent bill, the applicant has moved foundation plantings to the loading area screening along the fence instead of um getting rid of it alto together. But this is still just a self-imposed hardship and staff opposes this request. Variance number four, loading areas visible from public view shall be screened.

They're proposing a chain link fence which is not an opaque fence as required. The use of mesh or slats within a chain link fence is not allowed on any fence in the city regardless of what it's attempting to do. A masonry wall or wood privacy fence is required along with proper landscaping. The choice to face the dock doors towards the road is creating the conflict here. This is self-imposed hardship and staff opposes this request. Variance number five is for street tree placement. Street trees are required to be placed within the planting strip between the sidewalk and the road. There is an existing electric line that is in the planting strip in this location. So staff supports this request to place the trees behind the sidewalk instead. to work out this conflict with the utilities and our updated zoning code made this so this wouldn't even need to be variance request anyway. They're on the old code so that doesn't apply but just want to give you a heads up that they would not need that under the new code. Variance number six, flat roofs shall have parapit walls on facades facing rightways.

This is a self-imposed hardship and staff opposes this request. Cross access between same uses on adjacent properties is required. The creek in this location does not pose a hardship as presented. The grading of the site poses a self-imposed hardship. Cross access through the site would serve the industrial property to the south. If Black Branch Road is cut off, this property may be secured in a way that does not prevent the cross access. This is a self-imposed hardship and staff opposes this request. And finally, variance number eight, screening of the trash compactor is required. All trash compactors visible from the road need to be screened. The applicant added a sight proof chain link fence around the trash compactor located within the street facing loading dock area. The chain link fence is not opaque as required. The use of mesh or slats within a chain link fence is not allowed on any fence within the city. A masonry wall or privacy fence is required or proper landscaping. The choice to place the trash compactor facing the road creates the conflict with the code here. This is a self-imposed hardship and staff opposes this request because the plan fails to meet the code as evident by the numerous unsubstantiated variances. Just go through these in a little bit more detail for you. That's was a lot. Their variances can kind of be broken down into a few categories. They have eight of them in total. Variances one, two, and six. That's building articulation, building transparency, and the parapit wall on the roof. Those are all architectural variance requests. These are all just choices by the applicant of how they want to design their building. We don't see any reason they can't comply with the code in this case. So, there is no hardship on those, but those all do have to do with the building design. Varian number three, four, and eight, that's the foundation plantings, the loading area screening, and the trash compactor screening are all related to how the site is laid out. This is a corner lot. Uh, similar to the last

project, we we talked about facing the dock doors causes a lot of hardship with our code due the to the landscaping requirements. There's no reason the dock doors have to be faced towards the road there. And so, the landscaping can be placed as as required. Clearance number five is the street trees. Like we said, we support that one because there is a hardship with the utility conflict in that location. And number seven is the cross access to the adjacent property. The adjacent property will be served by Black Branch Road, which is the SWC in the north to the northeast of this property, but that's a 40 plus acre site. So having just one way in and out across a creek is not does not meet safety requirements. So having that secondary access from this property would give them another way out if something were to happen on that property. And the creek in this location is only a stream order two or three, which is not a severe enough stream to uh be a hardship. We need a four or a five as our codes written for that to be a valid reason not to make a connection. Uh like we said in our report, they can gate the property and are showing it as gated. The area that would be providing the cross access is not gated and would not impact their ability to secure their property uh based on how it's shown today. body like to speak to this.

Hi, uh good evening. Uh Kevin Scott with CRG. Uh I'm here uh representing the developer of the Cubes of Sparta Pike, which is the overall uh 200 acre development. Uh so good to see you all again. Um also in the room tonight is representatives from Denzo. Um Mike Moran, our uh lead architect, George Stock, uh our civil engineer are here as well um to answer questions as as they come up. Um this project has been in the works for about a year and a half. Um it's been a lot of hard work with Denzo. um directly also involved has been uh Cory John's coordinating things on behalf of Wilson County EDC and the state um to Cord Denzo to get them to place um this building in the city of Lebanon. Uh and then uh our council person Jerry Ashley has been instrumental in this uh process. uh obviously very supportive of this project at is it's a substantial investment into reward bringing a lot of jobs um that previously uh just didn't exist. Um so as we discussed at the preliminary meeting I think it's important to note here that Denzo is acquiring the land and directly uh investing and constructing this facility themselves. Um that means they are a long-term corporate neighbor and stakeholder in the community. Um, this is not, you know, a five-year lease or um, you know, us staying in. Um, you know, it this is truly Denzo stepping up. Um, and the $70 million direct investment marks on one one of the largest investments in the city in the past decade. Um, so it's just just significant scale. Um, Denzo and our architect will speak more to the design specifics. Um, but what we've what's contemplated here is truly a state-of-the-art logistics facility. Um the level of investment that goes into this building is approximately twice the

level of a typical distribution building uh that you would see uh throughout uh the Middle Tennessee region. Uh it's designed to be extremely modernized, heavy office component, enhanced safety features, sustainability practices, and the ability for them to expand their both their uh footprint with a building expansion uh and adopt technologies such as robotics uh and whatever comes uh as they grow uh within the city of Lebanon. Uh these enhancements match their long-term plans. Uh the design matches their corporate values. They'll speak a little bit more to all those things. Um, so we're really excited uh to present this to you guys um because we know this will be one of the nicest, if not the [clears throat] nicest uh new facilities uh in the whole Middle Tennessee region. So, thank you.

Just one question before I ask anybody else. Uh we obviously have a lot of warehouses here because of of reasons that are that are again obvious. We're also proud of our zoning codes. A lot of effort goes into that. what would make this warehouse so special that we would want to uh grant all these variances?

Yeah. Well, I I I think we can e each person in their specific uh expertise can speak to that. um you know a core of the past year conversations with uh Denzo, their North American operations, their Japanese corporate um you know as they're selecting their home um they want to be mindful and I think you'll see it in the rest of the presentation and the modifications of the variances as we've gotten feedback from the first meeting of staff is that you know while they want to be neighbors and and and move to city of Lebanon and make it their home they want to bring a little bit of their home to the facility as well. So, one, it's form it's form that matches function. So, some of these things are specific to their operations and then some of the aesthetics behind the building match their, you know, Japanese corporate values and um they can speak a little bit better to that, but it's kind of a twofold reason. The building doesn't quite exist currently, which is why they're not taking a spec building. It's highly specialized with intense levels of investment. Um, but really it's it's designing the building from the inside out and that's creating certain discrepancies with code. Um, where if you're just building a shell warehouse, make those modifications on the front end, but the level of

So, basically, you're saying you're not attempting to identify a hardship. You just want it because you want it. Well, I I each variance has different uh uh uh reasonings behind it and and we feel that there's hardships um as as we're about to present we've presented to staff. Um but I'm I'm just trying to give you the overall thought on why the facility looks like the way it does and the thought that's gone into Yeah. Anybody

else want to speak? [snorts] Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee. Uh, my name is Chris Ramsey. I'm vice president who'll be in charge of this logistics and distribution center. I've been in Denzo for over 28 years. I'm a native Tennessian. I spent most of that time in our Marble manufacturing facility. Um, I want to spend some time to kind of share with you about what we are as a company and what we see. So Denzo is one of the world's largest automotive components and system suppliers. We are focused on shaping the present and future of the industry. Our headquarters is in Japan, but we are a global company. We have over 158,000 associates worldwide and 23,000 of those here in North America. And then in the state of Tennessee, where we've been for over 35 years, we have over 5,000 members in the state of Tennessee. Um here in Wilson County, uh we are currently located in a place that we've been leasing since 2016 off I40 and now we're excited to uh go into this new endeavor with the city of Lebanon. And during that time in our 35 years in the state of Tennessee, we have never laid off a full-time member uh in that entirety. Um, so our decision to build here in Lebanon City is based on a lot of factors, but more more importantly, excellent quality of life, the workforce, and the location. So we really thank you for allowing us to become a more permanent part of your business community. We are a company that believes in safety, quality, respect for our associates, and also respect for our community. Um you will see in our emphasis on safety in our facility plans as we have included in our global our global best facility standards. Our facility will be modern, climate controlled and highly technical while including numerous team member and familyfriendly uh amenities such as walking trails and a picnic area. It

will be led by one of our strongest leadership teams and operated with by skilled engineers and logistics planners and technicians and operations personnel. This will be our largest logistics operation in all of North America. We look forward to being a good corporate citizen in Lebanon and continuing to engage with local leaders like yourselves in the community. And I appreciate you giving me some time to explain more about who we are as a company. Thank you. Thank you. Else.

Hello again. Um the [clears throat] architect Mike Moran from Kleco and LJC. Um I would like to address a couple of issues within uh the variance requests which chairman was asking about. Um the articulation of the building. Um Denso wants their buildings to have uh similar qualities throughout their network.

Uh modern, minimal, and efficient. uh their design aesthetic comes from what they call the spirit of credibility which means that they present a familiar architecture appropriate and consistent for a global company. Um and they want to present a welcoming environment for customers and employees. I think in the plan uh you can see that we've addressed the entrance to the facility to Kainesville Road which is truly the main public thoroughfare uh bordering the site and so we have a parking uh for employees that's highly landscaped. There are some garden elements there. Obviously, all the foundation planting requirements are are respected in that uh facade. And as was mentioned, some amenity areas for uh for staff and employees and walking trails and some pavilions for outdoor activities. The operations areas uh we face to the rear of the building into what we consider to be the service road for the development, which is Russell Burns Way. And um you know that's an industrial road designed to support the very trucking and operations that were organizing uh facing that uh part of the site. Um they also want to present a sophisticated and sharp appearance with simple massing uncluttered composition and appropriate entries and efficiency in all operational details. So the architecture design that we're presenting is harmonized with other buildings within their ownership and that's primarily reflecting the architectural aesthetic that they are

interested in building around uh wherever they have facilities. Uh speaking to transparency, um Kevin mentioned the idea of form following function and while we do have a warehouse with high value of contents, we felt that we could probably increase the amount of glass by um making openings in the what's called the clear story, the upper walls, so that we don't create a security risk to the warehouse, but we can let in some natural light and have a little bit more uh glazing and window compositional elements within the facade. So these drawings are revised from last time and show an approach to bring the transparency facing Kainesville up to 10% plus and the transparency with clear story windows on the dock up to 5% facing Russell Burns way. So, we're trying to meet you halfway. Uh, the foundation plantings, as was noted by staff, we really just want to move that foundation planning out to the screening fence around the north side of the dock operations area. It's It's not really true that we can make that dock go away by redesigning the interior of the building. And we touched on that a little bit last time um where we talked about how the client's material handling processes are reflected directly in the plan. Um we have a situation where we're facing a main public road on one side because of the corner lot. We're facing uh Russellurn's way on the north side which is you know our industrial service road. So we we need to face a dock to

one of those roads in the cross docked arrangement that the plan requires. So we picked Russell Burns way as the appropriate uh place to orient that to and plus it supports direct linear building over the long haul fitting into the rectal linear site. um fencing. We are proposing chain link fence as an alternative material with uh the the site proof slats. I looked really hard through the zoning ordinance to see um where this was addressed in the text and couldn't find any reference to prohibit prohibiting uh this kind of offense material. But I did find an illustration uh associated with commercial developments that says that uh mesh materials and inserted slats are prohibited. But you know we have an industrial project not a commercial zone project. So, it was something that we thought was a gray area and we felt that we were proposing a longlasting fence material that is appropriate for an industrial context and would be basically a backdrop for a significant amount of landscaping. Uh, two more. So the roof parapit issue, you know, we obviously have um roof eaves on two sides of the building. One facing the rear where we don't have the requirement and one facing the north where we do have the requirement. Uh the clients are interested in the gutter and downspout solution for rain drainage. Um it's an open design common for industrial buildings and um probably the safest and

most efficient uh for protecting the value of their contents. Um we don't believe that given the sight lines around the building you would ever really see the roof surface. And we're really just trying to have the same sleek uh line of uh the eve on both sides of the building. We would like to withdraw actually um the uh [snorts] variance number eight for screening the compactor. Uh we're we're happy to um screen the compactor with walls and a sight proof gate as is described in the uh in the ordinance. And um the uh waste collection dumpster on the south dock is permitted to be open per the code where um the code describes that uh if that collection area is located adjacent to a dock at the rear of the building, it's exempt from the screening requirements. So, um we don't think we we necessarily uh need to have number eight because we can provide the sidewalls with the front gate around the uh the compactor equipment on the north dock. Uh and I think George Stock will address uh variance number seven. [clears throat]

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh members of the commission, uh council member, uh my name is George Stock. I'm with Stocken Associates Consulting Engineers and it's a pleasure to be here. I've been here several times on the cubes at Sparta Pike 2022, 2024, 2025. Um, so again, I'm happy to be here. I'm talking specifically tonight with regards to the cross access between adjacent uses. Uh, that was one of the items that we had talked about previously when we were in front of you on the preliminary plat. And that is Black Branch Drive. That's the street that's just to the um basically it's in the uh northeast corner of this lot for for Denzo. I think under the criteria and the purpose of this cross access as stated is to encourage shared parking and shared access points on public street circulation plans prepared for all non-residential and mixeduse development shall comply. There's some criteria for you to consider and this is what we believe is the hardship. One is the topography, the other is the presence of uh natural features and the other is vehicular safety factors. So when you look at the property and you may recall the preliminary plat moving several hundred yards of material then it's all rock. So yes grading self-imposed in order to develop this industrial park that this commission approved. Um there's tremendous topographical challenges just in the existing condition. But as you look at the drawing and you look at to the south, you see the building, you see all those lines. Those are contour lines. And so there's a minimum of 20 ft of grade change between the Denzo site and Black Branch Creek which uh is around the perimeter of the property. So while Black Branch Creek might not meet one of those stream classification, it's still a natural resource. It's still flood plane, it's still floodway, and there's trees that are there that would be disturbed. We would contend that access to the south, which was a lot of discussion, um it was mentioned 40 acres, I think it's 123 acres of development there that front Sparta Pike Highway. So, it has two ways of access

through Black Branch Drive or out to Sparta Pike. Uh the other component is the vehicular safety. So, as you look at the Denzo plan and you look at the southside, you see the loading docks, you see the trailer parking. So, that's an industrial use where vehicles are going to be making three-point turns. you wouldn't want other vehicles coming into that crossing the creek or trying to challenge the topography. So, we believe that vehicular safety, we believe there are natural resources and we believe that topography and we do believe there's suitable access for this property. So, for that reason, we would ask your consideration to consider that variance. Thank you. Else there's no other input, then we'll bring it to the planning commission.

Mr. Chairman, can we uh vote on the uh variances one at a time? The question, do we what do we need? Do we need a motion to do that? Chair, you can just take a vote on each one. Okay. Absolutely. So, we call that dividing the question, I believe. All right. Not really, but go ahead. All right. All right. So, um just general discussion before we start down the list of variances.

Mr. chairman. Um I just wanted to um say a few things about this project. Um I really appreciate everyone coming today and speaking um speaking out in an effort to explain each of the variances. Um it's we never want to lose um a project from the the county or the state. So, I also appreciate you looking at the city of Lebanon and I think it's a great project and we value these types of projects, but at the same time, um, I have concerns about the variances, you know, meeting with staff and understanding them and I think it I think it's smart to take them one at a time. I appreciate that comment, but with our zoning code and the structure of it, variances are important, right? We know not every project can fit into our zoning code and and the idea of the variance is to be able to make a project work and and move things around when we need to. But at the same time, when you when you inquire when you having a list of variances, it makes it more difficult, right? Because we don't want to force a project to get out of the code to make it work. And there are certain things that through collaboration we've been able to make work which we've seen time over time and I appreciate um their effort from preliminary even with the transparency in making those changes. I I I think that's great. I I noted here that um it went to about 10%. So I I applaud that effort and and I appreciate it. So, with that being said, I just want I want to make sure that everyone understands that I appreciate the project and especially coming to W 2 and and getting that momentum at the at the cubes. I think

it's great um for Clayco as well, but um I just I want to make it clear that the variances are not necessarily there to make a project fit outside of the code. Um, and when we can make them work, we really want to try. So, um, as the economic development director, I just wanted to make sure that I let you guys know that it's important for the staff to go over those one at a time. And and thank you, Josh, for doing that. and that we understand as a body that we don't have to approve all of these when we know that there is a standard we want for our city and a look for our city that we've been working really hard to establish. Thank you.

General comments. So just one procedural question Andy and that is we will vote on each variance up or down. If assuming that variance is passed, then when we vote on the site plan, we will be voting the site plan to include those variances that passed. Yes. This is a new thing for us. So, I want to make sure everybody understands what we're doing. You're [clears throat] good with that. Okay, good. All right. So, let's take variance number one, the articulation. Motion to deny. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to deny. Discussion on that. Um, I have a question for the architect on this one

because there was no effort for for articulation on this and I'm not saying that it has to meet perfect with the code but to just say just flat wall. Is is there a specific reason for that? And if you if you say modern design, I've seen a lot of modern design with a little articulation inside of there.

Sure. Okay. So, um [clears throat] initially we were exploring design solutions that involved various uh patterns and compositions of reveals. Um and uh client was very firm about having a very streamlined uh simple design that didn't have steps in the top wall for instance. Uh the other part of articulation as it's described in the code is not just facade articulation but variations in plane like massing changes which are very difficult to do in a warehouse and preserve the functionality especially along the dock wall facing Russell Burns. So th you know that is sort of a part of efficiency in the warehouse design. uh portion of the uh west facade that has office. Uh you know, potentially there could be some articulation there. Um and it's just a question of initially trying to see what this deliberative body, how you would respond to what the client's desire for the architecture to be is. And then you know if we can't carry that variance we'll have to propose some things that would maybe be successful.

If I could make a suggestion I would suggest at least on that office wall to see some some way to to get towards that. That would other questions. All right. Further discussion on this item there? None. Then all in favor of the motion to deny this variance say I. I. All opposed. Okay. The motion that variance is denied. Okay. We'll move to variance number two transparency. Motion to approve this variance. Second. Has been made and seconded to approve this variance. Is there discussion?

So Mr. Chairman, so the the what was the percentage when it came to the preliminary? Was it 8% or 9% or 1% or that'd be exact, but I'm just wondering how much of an effort was made? So, at the preliminary meeting, the facade facing Kainesville Road was at 3.89%. It's been increased to 10.45. The facade facing Russell Burns Way stood at 1.25 and has increased to 5.6. Yeah. And so and this is and I think this goes to you as the architect. So this is you feel like this is the maximum you could do or

within the composition of other elements. Um we were trying to pair the upper clear story windows with the dock doors so that we would have you know like a consistent element of design. Um but uh there are obviously other panels that are either have uh personnel and access firefighting access doors or um future knockouts that may or may not ever become a dock door. Uh we could probably increase the number of clear story openings on the Russell Burns Way facade.

I mean I'd like to see that. I you know I don't get into too much of an editorial here but I mean we if you hadn't driven around in this area we've got a lot of warehouses and uh you know I guess we're used to them but uh I' I'd like to see I think our our community has kind of said you we'd like to raise the bar a little bit um on what we look at on a daily basis and certainly you know if if more of an effort can be made here I think there should be um you know whether this variance passes or not in my opinion I mean it just it's a stroke of goodwill if nothing else that like you know we think enough of your community to come in here and give us your best shot rather than see what I can get away with. So

okay further discussion on this variance just on a warehouse we have routinely given the the transparency variance and it getting halfway there. I'm I'm good with that on a on a warehouse. uh you know if it was you know different type of building then I would be on the other side of the fence discussion if not all in favor of the motion to approve uh this variance say I opposed no that motion uh carries the variance is approved we'll move to variance number three

discussion on foundation plantings. I make a motion to approve. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to approve variance number three. Discussion. [snorts] There's none. All in favor of the motion to approve variance number three say I. I. All opposed. No. Motion passes. Move to variance number four. Make a motion to deny. Second. Motion has hang on. Let me catch up with my notes. Motion has been made and seconded to deny uh variance number four. Is there discussion? Not. All in favor of the motion to deny say I.

I. All opposed. That motion is denied. Okay. Uh variance number five. Motion to approve. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to approve. Variance number five. Discussion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. No. That motion is approved. Variance number six. The required parapit. Motion to deny. Second. Motion made and seconded to deny. Discussion.

Um again just another question for the architect on this. Why why why are you asking for this variance on this? like I I used to understand just need a little education.

Well, um you know we we approached the design of the rain drainage of the roof from systemic perspective and you know open gutters and downspouts is very safe and very customary for warehouses. Uh to comply we would have two different systems of rain drainage. On the north facade, we would have penetrated scuppers through the parapit wall um with a down spout and a conductor head which which would look different. And then on the rear of the building, we would presumably stay with the gutters and downspouts with the lower parapit at the gutter line. So rather than have an initial design that had two different solutions and two different methods of rain drainage, we wanted to propose it, you know, with the same system of rain drainage on both sides and see if we could get you to see the logic of that.

Okay. In other case, the same thing they can get away with questions or discussion. And so it's there's an aesthetic element to this as I'm discerning here. Correct. Yeah. Got it. No further discussion. All in favor of the motion to deny variance number six say I. I. All opposed. That motion is denied. Variance number seven. Motion to deny. Second. Second. Motion has been made and seconded to deny uh variance number seven. Discussion. If not, all in favor of the motion to deny say I. Opposed.

Nay. That motion is uh [snorts] to deny is carried. Okay. Then instruct variance number eight. All right. So now the issue that we're talking about is whether or not to approve the site plan to include variance number two, three, five. Variances two, three, and five. Motion made. Second. I I would also like to add that if you could get a little bit more transparency, we we would be very appreciative of that.

Okay. So, the motion has been made and seconded to approve this site plan with those three variances. Discussion. All in favor say I. I opposed. All right. That motion carries. So, we will now move to Mr. Chairman for all the motions. for all the motions to deny on the variances. Can we just state for the record the reason? And if it's based on staff comments, you can just say based on staff comments. It's based on staff comments.

Okay. My question is procedurally then uh we would have to go through another step to to cure the design so to speak uh and show a design that was in compliance with the four things that were not approved um and then present that to staff. Is that how it works? Yes, that is correct.

Okay, so now we're moving to item number three. New visit number three is a request by Len Moore for site plan approval for Moors Landing and non-residential development on about 1.09 acres at 1790 West Old Murphy'sboro Road and zone interchange commercial in the South Hartman overlay in Ward 3. There are some minor corrections that are needed. There's also a list of variances to go through on this one. Apparent number one has to do with frontage type. The limited parking frontage type is not allowed along West Old Murphy'sboro Road. There's no ballot hardship that has been identified. This project is proposing the activity on the site to be a general business which is a permitted use category in the interchange commercial district. However, this property is in the mixed housing subdist of the South Hartman overlay. So, any commercial use needs to be designed to fit in a residential area designed for uh two family town homes, multif family buildings, those kinds of things. Parking lots have not been permitted in front of town homes and multifamily buildings for almost 5 years now. The only new development in this area so far has been under the South Arman overlay has been two duplexes built by Habitat a few years ago which adhered to the porch frontage type. The redevelopment of the outlet mall site across the street is also proposing to follow the code with the stoop frontage type. Granting a variance to allow the limited parking frontage in this location would be detrimental to the entire subdist of the South Hartman overlay. Staff strongly opposes this request. A request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and instead need a study of the city's goals for this corridor to determine if changing the design standards is

desired. Staff would alternately be open to considering a variance to allow for a shopfront variance since that's permitted across the street and is far less dramatic of a change to the character of the subdist. Variance number two, parking needs to be at least 50 feet from West Old Murphy'sboro Road. All the comments that we went through on variance one would also apply in this case. This is a walkable urban subdist in the Hartman overlay which which is designed to prioritize pedestrian friendly environments. Placing the parking in front of the building and within the parking setback is in direct conflict with the intent of the subdist of the South Harman overlay by prioritizing cars and not pedestrians who are forced to then walk through the parking lot to reach the building. The South Harman overlay does not restrict land uses in the underlying zoning district, but does require them to operate within the confines of the harmonious built environment prescribed for each subdist that is written specifically to achieve the city's adopted goals for the area. If a certain use can't design a site layout to work within the design requirements for the subd district, then the location is not suitable for that proposed activity. Staff strongly opposes this request because granting such a variance is under direct conflict with the subdist of the South Hartman overlay and will negatively impact the future development of the surrounding area. A request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and would instead need a study of the city's goals for this corridor to determine if changing the design st standards is desired. Variance number three is for cross access being needed to be placed at the rear of the property. All of the comments we've made for variances one and two would also apply to this variance. In addition, since this is a walkable urban subdist where the design prioritizes the pedestrian friendly environment, vehicular access is to be to the rear of the property to avoid conflicts with pedestrians. This matches the required placement for town homes and multif family that this site needs to fit in to to be allowed in this location regardless of the use of the building. Staff strongly opposes this request because granting such a variance is in direct conflict with this subdist of the South Hartman overlay and will

negatively impact the future development of the surrounding area. Request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and would instead need a study of the city's goals for the corridor to determine if changing the design is desired. Variance number four, this is the build two zones. Buildings need to be placed within 10 to 20 feet of the property line along West Murphy'sboro Road. All the comments that we've given for variances one through three would also apply in this case. This is as we've said in the walkable urban subdist where the design prioritized pedestrian friendly environments. This district places the building close to the sidewalk to create a strong relationship between the building and the pedestrian increasing the comfort decreasing the distance people have to walk and providing appropriate scale in the streetscape between the vertical plane of the building and horizontal plane of the road to create a sense of space for for people to actually want to walk in. Staff strongly opposes this request because granting such a variance is in direct conflict with the subdist of the south arman overlay and will negatively impact the future development of the surrounding area. Request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and instead need a study of the city's goals for this corridor to determine if changing the design is desired. Variance number five foundation needs to be raised at least a foot and a half from the curb or crown of the front fronting road. Raising the height of the foundation a minimum of one and a half feet creates a visual transition from the public to private space. This is key for the porch, stoop, and fourcourt frontage types permitted in this district as they act as both an outdoor private space and entryway into the private residential spaces intended in this area. However, this transition can be helpful for some commercial uses, but is not critical for the proposed use. So, staff supports this request with the proposed building design. Variance number six, buildings excluding town homes of multif family are limited to 25 feet tall to the parapit in this subdist. The residential buildings may extend up to 35 ft tall in this district and the requested height remains less than that. The additional height aids in providing architectural articulation which helps better

integrate the commercial building into the residential subdist. Staff supports this request with the proposed building design. Variance number seven, buildings in the subdist need to be one of the listed building types. That would be flats, mansion flats, town houses, townhouse courts, two family houses, cottage courts, ADUs, or civic buildings. This is none of those. The proposed building does not conform to any of those permitted types. However, a good effort has been made by the applicant to design a building in a manner that will not detract from the residential nature of the subdist and be complimentary to the mixeduse development that's being developed across the street. So, staff supports this request with the proposed building design. Staff recommends denial of variances one through four because granting such a variance is in direct conflict with this subdistrict of the South Artman overlay and will negatively impact the future development of the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of variances 5 through 7 for the building design and deferral of the site plan until the applicant can meet with staff to work on the layout that is suitable for this subdist. Can go through some of that in a little bit more detail. I know that was a lot. So, as we said, these variances really kind of fall into two categories. Variances one through four all about the layout of the site. Uh really the the the frontage there, the parking being in front of the building, the access being in front of the building, uh the building's relationship to the road. All of these are foundational elements of this subdist and the South Hartman overlay. This is one of the walkable urban districts. So, you're really prioritizing the pedestrians access to the building, not the vehicle access to the building. So that's why all that needs to be behind the building. Uh the parking can be placed to the side if they're still outside that 50 foot setback, but it wouldn't just have to be behind the front side of the building and more than 50 ft from the road. So they do have some some wiggle room there if they want to put the parking on the side of the building. But those four together really all all one kind of one design element that really changes the entire feel of

this this area. We have a comparison for you. Uh if you look at their site across on the right hand side here across the street with the parking in front the master plan for the outlet mall redevelopment is is shown here where all the parking is placed behind the buildings directly across the street. They're planning on putting some multif family buildings with no parking in front and north of there their commercial buildings will also be with no parking in front. So they're they're meeting the requirements across the street and it would seem odd to not require that across the street. As mentioned previously, the only development that has been completed under the Hartman overlay in this subdist are these two duplexes just down the way there. Those used the porch frontage type. So, they also followed the code. The other variances on here for 5 through 7 are about the building design. like it's noted, those they're not meeting the the letter of the code in those three ways. But we do think they've made a really good effort to fit this in with the the multif family product that will be across the street. And we are uh supporting those three variances because we do think the efforts been made and and it will not be a detriment to the area uh to allow those slight variations. So this this seems probably seems a little complicated for you, but uh I wanted to give you a little bit of history on the South Hartman overlay and kind of why why this is really a special spot for the city. So the South Arman overlay was uh started with a study in 2016 that completed in 2018. So two years of really studying that and took another two years before the the overlay document itself was adopted in 2020. Uh really what this whole area was intended for is is really spurring development that we weren't seeing along the South Art Corridor and redeveloping some of these areas that that had some older development like that outlet mall. But this specific area I wanted to take a deeper dive on because it has changed a lot from the 2018 study to now and I

think it's really important to to look at how that's changed. So if you look at the screen, the property for this project, the subject property is that one filled in in blue and the area that is outlined in uh that blue dashed line. That was the original area that was intended for this walkable area. It was just the mix housing, which is that orange color you see there. So in the study in 2018 when that was completed, that was the area that was intended really just to be the walkable area. It wasn't really intended to extend across uh old Murphy'sboro Road at that time. So that's what was originally intended with that study, but really four four big changes happened in the uh years since that have kind of changed the uh the outcome of that. They're highlighted there on the screen for you. First, right after just three months after the uh study was completed, Dayton Freight submitted their site plan that had been zoned since 2014. of the industrial zoning was already there, but they had actually submitted their site plan a little later in 2018 and have moved forward with that. They were remain kept in the the walkable urban area in case they didn't ever develop. Of course, they did as we all know. So, that was a big first change there that happened as we said in 2020. The actual overlay was adopted. In 2021, the National Indoor RV SP was approved. They have also constructed their building just north of Dayton. So really within your first couple years there of this whole process, half if not more than half of this entire walkable area has gone a different direction and then that was you know they went through the process of city council and that that was the decision that was made to take those out of this walkable area. So really this this walkway was kind of on life support at that point. But in 2022, the outlet mall came through for the project that's now known as one Lebanon place to reszone the outlet mall property to actually be the town center mixeduse, which is the most walkable subdist of the overlay. They chose to be in in that, which actually really gave

this mixed housing area a boost and gave it kind of a companion that it lost on the east side or on the west side and just kind of moved it to the east side across West Murreey'sboro Road, kind of making that the center of of this whole walkable area. The last thing that happened in that was the NRV2 SP was approved in 2023. Just an extension of the existing business that's there that has not yet developed. Uh that SP was actually will actually expire later this year if no ZIP plan is brought forward which it has not done so far. So that could end up being reinccorporated into this this plan later on. What that really does I just wanted to highlight if you see in the out the blue outline now that's really the walkable area that we're working in. We're trying to design for based on those changes. The property we're looking at today highlighted and filled in blue area is really at the heart of that. So at in 2018 when this was originally kind of envisioned, it was on the edge. It was really the edge of of the walkable area. Now it's right in the middle. So the importance of of maintaining those design standards has actually increased, not decreased over time with what's happened around it. You can compare them side by side. You can really just see it's shifted from from the west to east as to what um what this walkable area is meant to be. I know there's been mention of, you know, some of the other commercial properties on on this road further south. I do want to point those out on the map just give you reference. Um, you look on the picture on the right there. These properties just south of the Outland Mall property. So, they're not actually in the walkable urban area. They do have parking out front, but there it's really a completely different question because that's in a walk in a auto centered uh area, not a walkable urban area. So, the priority even though they needed variance was on the cars, not the pedestrians. So they're not really comparable comparable sites for that reason. As I want I just want to emphasize one more time variances one through four are really not starters non-starters for us um just given the severity of that and impact they'd have on the properties around it. So I'd highly suggest not

doing those. Our staff recommendation as I said was denial the first four approval of the last three 537 but deferring the site plan. We think we can work this out with the applicant. We think we have a few options to present to them. We'd like to have that chance so we can uh hopefully bring bring something forward with less variances at a future meeting. Okay. You want to speak?

106 Chapman. So I've sit here today and heard somewhere near a total of 575 acres of industrial park. And then I just listened to Josh and if Josh would publish a book on what he just said, I would buy it and I would read it. But I'd rather take the SAT and ACT test both than be tested on what he just said. I would like to interject an overlay of common sense with regard to this that gets away from anything that's being discussed. Back a hundred years ago, up until recent times, common sense prevailed whereby people created buffer space between structures and the road. Right now between I40 on Murphusboro Road here and South Hartman Drive, a lane could put it be put in, maybe two, and be extended whereby already over 500 residential units are at the being put in at the outlet mall there right across the street from where this is could be. So I want to say that again. Right now, the road could be expanded because there's buffer space all the way down through there. And then Jos is talking about this structure being 10 ft away uh from the road where it nullifies any possibility of the road being expanded there in the future. That's poor planning going forward considering that more and more structures and res residential units are going to be uh along this stretch of road and more traffic is going to be generated and more lanes are going to be necessary and uh as I understand it Mr. more asked that his project be off the road um I forget how far but much further than 20

feet and the parking be done out front. One of the things that Josh left out when he talked about this being right across an outlet mall if you go beyond that there's commercial structure after commercial structure where they've got large parking lots and what Mr. Moore is asking for it sounds like to me about the same thing where his uh development will be compatible with those that are to the south of it where Josh is saying well we're trying to just play like all that's not there and just make this um uh sync with what's right across the street which is the outlet mall. Uh if I were you guys I would defer this. I would ride out there and look at this and I would think about everything that I just said and u I'm going to go take that SACE test now rather than rather than u try to be tested on what Josh just said. Good luck with that.

Like to speak. [clears throat]

Good evening. Charlie Dean with Dean Design Group here representing the project 1633 West Main Street. Uh what this really comes down to is the character of the area and staff's I guess u desire to change the character of the area to a to a residential um walkable residential um subdist. Um Mr. Moore is here. He can speak to the architectural variances that staff is supporting if you would like him to. Um I'd just like to quickly address one through four. Um you heard the whole background. you heard the whole uh desire to to create an area and then the fact that this body and the and the council body uh chipped away at that with you know like he said over half of the area taken away um I have to believe that that was done because it wasn't deemed appropriate and the fact that we've got a uh an entity on a major major property a huge property across the street that has proposed uh to put in town homes over there. Obviously, I think they've just sued the city about a um a turn lane, so who knows where the the future of that project is going to be. Right now, we have a corridor. Everybody knows this corridor. There's no need to wait, defer this, and go out there and drive it. Um this has been a commercial area for almost 30 years. Uh the developments that are along this corridor, um I've done both site plans at the front of Hartman Commerce. Both of them have commercial um or have have parking in front of those units. Uh Cooks Pest Control has parking in front of their unit. Um and we just want to develop this property that has been commercial for over 20 years um commercially. Uh the application of a mixed housing subdist if you look in their code or if you look in the overlay

would only allow an RM6 zoning. So essentially the mixed housing subdist and all the surrounding layout, parking, um architectural, all that stuff that that's that's uh that comes along with that mixed housing subdist comes down to they want, you know, residential units. They have allowed in the code that we can still because our zoning is interchange commercial, we can uh still have our use. But then you know he says specifically if a certain use can't design the site layout to work within the design requirements for the subd district then the location is not suitable for the for the for the activity. So, you're taking an interchange commercial um project that proposes a building that staff is happy with. Uh that is a commercial building. And essentially they're trying to say because we've, you know, 10 15 years after this was reszoned or after this property was zoned commercial, we've decided to put an overlay on it that would essentially make it where it's not able to be uh utilized as a commercial property. So, um, work with staff a lot, like staff. I think they do a fabulous fabulous job. Um, in this, we just have a disagreement of of, uh, the direction for this area on this on this issue. Um, if this did not have a mixed housing subdist overlay to it, all the variances that you've been presented with tonight would comply with the interchange commercial zone. So, I can answer any other questions that you have. to direct to directly ask answer the question that you're getting ready to ask. This hardship was put on us when a mixed housing subdist was applied to a commercial property. That's it.

Want to speak? [snorts]

Thank y'all for seeing me second time. Uh, I've had the land for You need your name and address?

Oh, Lat Moore. Uh, 3395 Lebanon Road. And first off, Josh has been excellent to help us in every aspect of this. I've had the land probably 30 30 plus 35 years, probably 25 years ago, I got it reszoned. Uh, I thought at some point in time I might build a big building on the 12 acres. It would be to the north of me. I ended up leasing that to NRV. They built a beautiful facility and they do a great job. They've got plans, if all works well, to build a 60,000 square foot building. If they do, they're going to build it very similar to what they've got. They'll probably be parking out front and they're going to actually against the interstate, they'll park some of those big units. I know the big thing that you guys have got is is the pro the closeness to the uh to the old Merboro Road. I don't know of any commercial. It's 10,000 11,000 square foot building. I don't know any building that would be drawn all the way up 10 feet to the road and then I'd have to get you guys as customers if you were going to go and participate with this building park around back and then I have service people coming in to unload products and stuff and then I hope to get somebody like a air conditioning or plumbing or electrical some kind of a service industry. You guys get hit all the time with people that want to build apartments or they want to build massive subdivisions out there and and and just massive amount of things or across the street. They took the whole outlet mall and all you're going to do is end up with threetory boxes, a lot of them. I thought there'd be some commercial out there. It's nice. I'm not knocking it, but I'm trying to build a 10,000 square foot building. Y'all don't get a lot of those. And what we've done to make sure that you guys are happy with it. [clears throat] We put extraordinary exteriors to it. I put a a lot of glass on it. And I put a lot of extra framework in the metal so that it would actually look like something. It wouldn't like I've got some pictures. Some of them are plain jane. Some of them were simple. They're all nice.

Everybody that paid for them, they thought they were amazing and they all rented them. I I just think that me and and I'm willing to give up half of the outfront parking. We probably didn't need it. Whenever we designed it, we put parking against 23 uh against Old Mer Road and then parking against the building. I'm going to give up half of that. Uh I'm willing to leave the building. I I I can pull it further. You know, the the distance of the of the front parking 25 ft or whatever, but he brought up a good comment. Actually, if we ever did increase the width of the road, it's not going to be a good thing if you need that distance. And so maybe us being further off is even better in that aspect. And I I just I just want you to know that I'm trying to do everything I can to work with you. I'd appreciate any help that you could give us. Uh I've got some pictures, but I think it all stands for itself. If you could do anything to accommodate us, we'd be grateful. You have any questions? I'll answer them. If not, I'm going to sit down.

Thank you. Anybody else? All right. We'll bring it to plan commission. Any general discussion? And then if we're going to deal with the variances, then we'll follow the same process that we did on the on the last item. So any general questions or comments before we do that question. Um, is it the staff recommendation of a deferral? Josh, is that what the staff is recommending in this case?

Okay. And I think we all know Lat Moore is a fantastic guy. You know, we want to do everything we can to help him. He builds a fantastic product, excellent quality. and nobody has any issue. I will say it took me a back lenot when I look down at the recommendations that says staff strongly opposes. I've been on the planning commission probably not as long as some other folks, but I don't know that I've ever seen that. So, um that when I when I know LOD and his character and I see something like that, it looks like to me we're we've got some room to try to get together. And so I would be leaning toward a deferral for an opportunity for you all to it may not be what you want to hear Lot but or Charlie he said you're ready right now and got your shovel ready but um in my opinion that's direction I'd like to go

a motion that's a motion second motion made and seconded to defer discussion all in favor say I

opposed the motion the item is deferred Okay. Item number four. [clears throat] New business item number four is request by Raphael Nanga for site plan extension approval for the Hudson Apartments, a 166 unit residential development on about 9.61 61 acres at 108 and 110 Maple Hill Road, its own commercial mixeduse in Ward 5. The site plan was approved by planning commission in March 2021. A grading permit was pulled and work completed to extend this plan's approval until March 2026. The applicant is requesting an additional three months to June 23rd, 2026. The site plan does not meet the current requirements of multif family development and staff opposes this extension because it no longer is in compliance with the current regulations for a new plan. um under the current regulations would need to be submitted if this plan expires. Staff recommends denial of the extension because the plans are no longer in compliance with multif family development standards in this district including the number of units per building, building frontage, connectivity, open space and tree canopy requirements.

Want to speak?

Good evening again. Byron Gil Rochelle McConnell Avenue. I represent the applicant in this. It's different than what you've heard tonight. It's just a simple request to extend approvals on this project. I think it's very important to understand some of the background of this. I've spoken to some of you, but I wanted to express that uh Dr. Wonguma is an individual who took this project from someone that got entitled. He's worked very diligently in getting all the approvals, all the engineering. He's uh had everything approved. He's even had a pre-construction meeting with the city. So, he's [clears throat] ready to break ground. The issue is his construction financing is not going to be finalized for the next few months. And that's why the the request for this brief extension, it's not a a lengthy year extension request. It's simply a request to be able to uh bring this project to fruition. he's got, you know, a million plus dollars in engineering and other cost in this project. If he loses the opportunity to do this, it's going to be a very sub substantial financial hit to the him personally. He and his wife are here today. I think it's also important to discuss the fact that this is a project that's going to be owned and retained by them. This is kind of their retirement plan. So, this is not a a national company or or a publicly traded company. This is some individuals that are trying to do right by the city. Uh it's a very well-designed project. It was approved and again ready to break ground. We just need a little time to get that financing because in addition to the cost of the construction, the cost in the permitting and impact fees is about a million half dollars. So there's a substantial sum that's coming to the city as soon as

they get this financing done. The other thing that I wanted to mention is there are requirements in this approval to do some substantial upgrades to Maple Hill Road. So we all recognize the traffic that's occurring in that area. So they would be a contributor to not only turn lane but signaling improvements there at Maple Hill Road. So there's going to be benefits the city. some sidewalks are going to be extended down towards the church. So, when we look at it from a benefit to the city part, there is going to be substantial improvements to city infrastructure. So, it's a simple, you know, 90-day extension. Uh, and we would request that you um give him some grace at this point and and he's here if you'd like to speak to or have any particular questions about the process that he's gone through to get here.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Oh, please. I'm sorry.

As Baron uh introduced us, um I just want you to know we love Lebanon. Uh we've been in Bowling Green since 2013. Even before we saw this project, we always come to Lebanon at least a couple times a month. We like it in the square area. Uh we go there, we go into the coffee shops, we eat there. So, we really like Lebanon and when this came up, uh, we kind of jumped at the opportunity. The the group that I got it, you know, I purchased it from didn't do a lot of things. So, kind of left me to do a lot of the other things, which is why uh we kind of run out of time and it will really uh be uh gracious of you to give us the time that we need. And we don't need a lot of time. And the project itself is going to be about 35 million which is a lot of money that we can also you know put in in into Lebanon and the builder uh system is right there and all the contractors will be from here in Lebanon. So uh you know we want you to look at it favorably and grant us the time that we need.

I I just have one question. It's a fiveyear site plan. How long ago did y'all take take over on this? Maybe about two years. Maybe about two years ago. Okay. Good deal. Do you need his address? Give our your address, please. My home address and address. Okay. 908 3wood Circle, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42103. Thank you. We just have to get that for the record. All right. Anybody else want to speak? Not bring it flat. Oh, one more. Okay. Sorry. Make it quick.

That's okay. I catch you guys in the way. Um, my name is Dustin Dixon, 2338 North Berry's Chapel. Um, I'm representing Fortis Builders tonight. Our principal is unfortunately stuck out of the country due to some recent events south of the border. Um, like Dr. Ralph said, I think we've been involved for just shy of a year, something like that. Um, pursuit costs and other things that we've pursued and done, excuse me, [clears throat] taken care of on our end have also impacted this. So, um, from the builder's perspective, it's a ready to put a shovel in the ground. Just waiting for Dr. Ralph and his pursuits to finish and so we can get started. That's all. Good. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Not we'll bring it to planning commission. Motion to deny. Second. Motion's been made. Comments made and seconded to deny based on the staff comments. Discussion. I guess only I would say in discussion is I mean there's nothing from stopping you from coming back. Um according to the staff comments here, it does not meet the current requirements of a multif family, you know, development standard. So um and it lists them here in our summary. So um can always come back further discussion not all in third of the motion to deny say I I oppose motion [clears throat] is denied we'll go to items five and six

business items number five and six are request by John Dandria for future land use plan amendment approval from mixed housing to rural preservation open space and reasonzoning approval from RD9 and mixed housing to rural preservation open space for about 11.46 acres at 519 Maple Hill Road in Ward 1. The properties to the north and west are zoned R1 in the county, to the east as RD9 and R1 in the county, and to the south as RD9 and RS20. The properties to the north are indicated as residential three units per acre, to the east as mixed housing, residential three units per acre and residential 2 units per acre. To the west as residential three units per acre and residential two units per acre and to the south as mixed housing and residential two units per acre on the future land use plan. This property is indicated as mixed housing on the future land use plan which would not support this resoning request. The requested future land use designation of rural preservation open space would support this request. This is a request uh as a result of the board of zoning appeals ruling. This property owner requested to place a new barn on the property and the board of zoning appeals placed a condition on the property to reszone to a zoning that allows agricultural uses. Staff recommends approval as this request allows the owner continue use of the property as agricultural. This is a recommendation to city council. The expected city council readings for this ordinance are as follows. First reading and public hearing are April 7th and second reading are a is April 21st.

Anybody want to speak? It's not for bring it to planning commission. Motion for positive recommendation. Second. Motion made and seconded for positive recommendation. Discussion. If not, all in favor say I. Opposed. Motion passes. We now go back to what was item number one. Again, I'd like to renew my motion to approve with the variance. Given that we gave this same variance on agenda number two, variance three. motion has been made and seconded for a approval with the variance discussion.

Yeah. And I would just restate as well that you know there have been a lot of variances entertained already on this property. So u you know it's not like staff and the city haven't worked with the applicant. Further discussion want to speak from the audience? I would like to address uh Councilman Cra. You talked about the variance request. I I don't have a detailed history of this project because I haven't been involved from the start,

but there are uh representatives of the developer here that can speak to some of that stuff. It's been a very long process and he can talk some of the variances that have been granted and the reason for those. A lot of it has to do with the connectivity that the city's required. the road that goes to 70 now didn't exist in the original concept. So that's a lot of the the various requests that are there. But I'd like Dan Kamoodi to come up here and speak to y'all if you could.

Good evening everyone. Uh Dan Kimoody. I'm uh representative for the developer addresses 412 Nebraska Avenue. I live here in Davidson County with my wife and three children. So this project is definitely my baby and it has been for many years. So thanks to those of you who I've spoken with and have support us through this. So again, just as Byron mentioned, you know, to address the comments directly about the variances that have been requested in the past, um I would say that over 50% of those have really been due to block length. Um and that's, you know, our recognition of trying to be cognizant of public safety, especially the intermingling of residential traffic, particularly with the Hoffman family property neighboring ours. um and wanting to make sure that you know we're building this primary thoroughare which we're calling Cedar Tree Farms Lane that you see you know that's kind of our main access point off of Highway 109 and our primary you know residential traffic is traveling through there and then not doing so much as you know intermingling with trucks and the backside of of some of these truck courts as well. Um, I'd also just like to comment, I mean, there are many steps that we've taken, you know, with lock in lock step with staff to, you know, try to show good faith here and and partner with, you know, staff in the city. A couple of those being, if you pull up, Josh, if you wouldn't mind just pulling up the rendering, um, that we had provided in the submitt, you know, you can see the front of our building. We received a comment from staff. This is some of the best, if not the best transparency we've seen on a warehouse that's come in front of us. Um, this being, you know, our our primary facade along Cedar Tree Farms Lane, our goal is to, you know, again, in good faith, show more than 20% transparency. We are really trying to, you know, enhance the building facade. We're complying with the foundation plannings here. Uh, we're complying with the articulation um, and things like that. I'd also mention we're building a 15 foot wide multi-use walking path for connectivity along that Highway 70 connector road that's now running north

and south. That's, you know, subject to the conversation today. And again the goal is let's let's partner with the city. Let's provide connectivity. If you know we can bring in great um u you know great great tenants uh great business to to this environment to you know to the municipality then we can provide connectivity for foot traffic and bike traffic for some of these employees. Um I'd add to that we're donating another $600,000 as a part of that agreement to extend that walking path um you know further beyond our site. So again, I I just do want to call out these things. And generally, I try to sit in the back of the room and and u you know, kind of keep my mouth shut, but um I did feel like it was important for me to step up here kind of as the face of this project and tell you, you know, this is who I am. This is, you know, I'm the one responsible for this here and I'm I'm here to answer your questions. And again, the goal is not to to hide the ball here. We're legitimately trying to tell you that we do feel like it's a hardship where we are at this moment. In order to build a cross stock facility, there's two types of warehouses. Generally in this world, it's a single load facility which you see in the C buildings on the right side of the plan and then you have your cross stock buildings. Many many times we see in particular one I'm talking to right now for bu this building D subject. They need this cross stock facility. It's a it's a um advanced manufacturing user. They bring in raw goods on one side of the building. They have manufacturing lines across the the width of the building and then they deliver the finished goods out the other side. And I I I just don't want again I I want to point that out to say like I'm trying my goal is to provide diversity in this business plan and also to attract the best you know possible users that I can uh to this community. And by doing that, I'm also trying to comply with a lot of these, you know, um, transparency, again, the code that's there that we should follow. Um, and I also just have

to be cognizant of, right, with, you know, spending the public road, um, you know, adding some of these things. It's a fine balance between um being able to bring these tenants in, right? Because it's it's costly to us and in turn it gets passed through the tenants and sometimes it doesn't allow us the opportunity to bring the tenants in that we should be attracting here. So, I'll leave it with that. Um again, I just want to close with like our goal all along has been to partner with you all. We're not trying to remove the foundation plannings here. We are trying to move them to the exterior fence in our development agreement that needs to get approved. We are willing to add language in there that, you know, we handle all all our own in-house property management. [clears throat] We do it in professional manner and we will back that up by adding that language into that development agreement saying we're going to maintain this wooden fence um you know in that development agreement to ensure that that is staying there and what you see in this rendering is what you're going to drive by every day.

Okay. So, thank you. further discussion. So, yeah, [clears throat]

uh Phil Morhead on the council ward six. This is in my ward. Uh I was quiet earlier and I just feel compelled to speak after sitting through this entire meeting tonight. I starting to feel like we we write all these codes. Uh many of you on the planning commission vote on these codes as they as they are passed. Then they come to city council. Those codes are passed and adopted. And this is a 326 acre piece of property. Uh this no magic mystery thing happened since they bought that property to make create all these hardships. We've already granted 10 of 11 variances. This would be the the last apparently. But there is going to be a main thoroughare that goes uh will tie Jasmine through to 109. So this is going to be a welltraveled corridor. And Josh, if you put that same picture back up the gentleman asked you to show. Uh I think the front of that building looks much nicer than the fact that having a lot of people that are going to drive through this area having uh docked doors there. Granted, they're going to put a fence up. There will be some screening there, but I don't know over long term how that's going to play out, but I do know that that building like that looks a lot nicer. And I just feel like we've gotten to the point now where we are trying to make pro projects fit uh what they would like to have as opposed to projects coming to us and saying these are our codes. You need to make it fit our standards and what we would like to have within our city. And I think we have gone more than halfway on this project. And I think this last variance is I'm asking you to deny that as the counselor for this ward. further comments or discussion from the

Yeah, I mean, unless I'm missing something here, this is a spec warehouse. Um, you know, and to have approved 10 out of 11 variances for a spec warehouse and now you're asking for the 11th one. Um, I I I just have a really hard time swallowing that. That's that's I'm sure you don't mean it as disrespect, but you know, I'm I don't like it. Further discussion. All right. Well, vote start still have they're still having to have the planting and this is a thorough affair that they're having to build. Correct. Yeah. But they're still having the trees and all that at the fence. Correct. [clears throat] Okay.

Yeah. But just just to clarify one thing because Byron made that comment about the road network and we've had so many meetings on this project for years, gentlemen. and um and we meet at this table and we come back, we all get together. I just wanted to clarify, Josh, the the road network isn't changing for one and the road network that was approved was the same one that we proposed from the beginning. Correct. Yeah, that the connection's always been required. Anybody else?

Just want to confirm this fence in this planning. This is shielding dock doors, right? And we're still getting the planning. It's just shielding the fence that's also shielding the dock doors. Okay. And again, we approve this same variance on the Denzo building tonight. Any further discussion? Let's start with a roll call. Kathleen, considering the history of this. Motion to approve. I wait just a minute. Are you ready? [laughter]

I'm still writing my last sentence. You catch up. It's important for you to do what? [laughter] Okay. I [clears throat] I I I No. No. No. I No. 64. Passed. Yes. Okay. Motion passed. Okay. Staff comments.

I just want to make one plug. We've been doing a training series after preliminary. It's gone well. We've had had two, the third final one is coming up at after the next preliminary meeting. Uh we have also been asked to talk about kind of our process as staff of what of what happens before it gets to you. Give you a little insight about that uh and the preliminary meeting and how that all relates. But we're be beyond that, we'll be talking about uh the evaluation of annexation and zoning requests. Really applying all the knowledge we've been going over the last two months. So if you can make it out to that, I think it'd be a really important one for you to be at. real quick. This I believe everybody here will find this interesting. Um about You're on public record still. Yeah. Okay.

About an hour ago, Senator Marshia Blackburn tweeted DHS has confirmed the agency will not move forward with the proposed ICE facility in Wilson County. Yes. Um it's being posted on the city's web uh Facebook page tonight and then Mayor Bale is going to release a statement in the morning. You almost had me scream in a microphone in the middle of playing commission. [laughter] Oh, are you going to wrap the thing? Come on, man.

Yeah. Yeah, I think [laughter] we're going to have Thank you. [laughter] [cough and clears throat]

See you guys. Yes. I mean, I love I love the process. I'm just