Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I know what you mean.

I know what you mean.

I don't know anybody. So we'll see. So we'll see.

change their request for zoning.

I can just attach this one, plug it in.

It doesn't matter. We can share.

They get it here, but not.

It's always too slow.

I'll leave the meeting to order. Chris Crowell will do our invocation.

Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for our community and for the opportunity to make decisions tonight that impact what we do here. We pray that you'll help us to make the right decisions for the betterment of our community and forgive us of our sins. In Christ's name, amen. Amen.

Please join me in a 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,

Are there any public comments at this time? Any staff reports?

Two announcements tonight. One, first we wanted to announce Debbie Lowe has resigned her seat on the Planning Commission. So we just wanted to thank her for her service. But also at the same time, we'd like to welcome Bill Potter to the Planning Commission. Thank you for agreeing to serve with us, and hopefully this isn't too scary for you, the first one. So that's all staff has today.

Thank you. Any committee reports? I guess not. OK. Changes to the agenda. You didn't get a lot of exercise.

there is one change new business items number one and two are going to be off the agenda they have withdrawn the rezoning request and they've deferred the flu amendment they planned on asking for an annexation okay we have the two public hearings

Okay. Public hearing item number one is on the proposed amendment to the future land use plan of about 2.11 acres at 1835 Canesville road from residential two units per acre to suburban commercial and the urban growth boundary.

I'd like to speak to this item. If not, we'll move to the next public hearing.

Hearing item number two is on the proposed amendment to the future land use plan for about 7.02 acres at 65 and 85 Rutledge Lane from rural preservation open space to interchange commercial in the urban growth boundary.

I'd like to speak to this.

Good evening. My name is Tanner Puckett. I live at 720 Rocky Valley Road, Lebanon, Tennessee. My wife Abby and I are the applicants filing on behalf of Mr. James Westmoreland to amend the city's future land use plan in support of county rezoning from A1 to C2 for the property at 65 and 85 Rutledge Lane. This is so that our business Puckett Supply Co. can have a permanent location. Before the public hearing, I wanted to state on record that we're not a developer or real estate investors looking for our next big property flip. We're just a young couple trying to provide a place that Lebanon families can enjoy. We opened our business in 2023, and over the last few years, the community has gotten to know us by our pumpkin patch, live Christmas trees, local events, and landscape supplies. They've been our biggest supporters throughout the many trials of starting a new business. I believe there are a few members of the community and neighboring property owners here to speak on our behalf. So I just ask that you take into consideration what their thoughts are, because we would love to go into the city council readings and back to the county commission with your support. During our preliminary meeting last week, the biggest concern that we discussed was whether our proposed use could operate on an approved septic system. So we worked diligently to address that concern. I want to say a special thank you to Miss Santana, who I don't believe is here tonight, and Miss Beth Bowman for taking the time out of their busy schedule to meet with us. we showed that the t-deck documentation has an approved six-bedroom septic site as well as backup soils areas on this property miss santana then changed her comment to reflect that information confirming an approved septic system would be applicable for our intended use But she still addressed some concerns regarding future uses. We certainly understand her concerns, but to my knowledge, any future business or improvements made to the property would require their own separate permitting and approvals, especially if a building or use was to exceed the existing septics capacity. She has also stated on record that the city is not obligated to bring sewer if a positive recommendation is given, which should give peace of mind in knowing that you will still have control of what businesses can utilize this property. The specific property sits on a critical highway less than half a mile away from South Hartman, where large industrial, commercial, and suburban commercial zonings already exist, as well as bordering two commercial use properties, being the Covenant Celebration Church in Weema, which operates off of Approved Septic and is staffed 24-7. We aren't necessarily asking to create something completely new for this area, but instead for the future land use plan to be updated to what this corridor already has in place. I just ask that if you foresee this corner being commercial in the future, that you would consider allowing us to add a little Lebanon local to all the new things coming into our city by giving a positive recommendation to amend the future land use plan to suburban commercial. Thank you for your time.

Anybody else like to speak to this item? If not, we'll close the public hearing and move to approval of the minutes first for the meeting of April the 28th. approved second this has been made and did you get those kathleen has to get she can't see from down there so who was the second uh chris okay most has been made and uh and seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of uh april the 28th is there any discussion if not i'll dare say aye aye all opposed the minutes are approved we'll move to the meeting of may 19th motion to approve You got them? Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 19th. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Those minutes are approved. We'll move to the consent agenda.

There's three items on the consent agenda. Item number one is a request by Four Star for preliminary plat approval for Chandler Grove 1A, 1B, and 2A, an 11 lot subdivision on about 33.7 acres at 1850 Franklin Road and 1255 Barton's Creek Road. It's zoned multifamily residential in office and medical in the South Hartman overlay in Ward 3. Consent agenda item number two is request by Jack Bell Builders for preliminary plat approval for Hamilton Springs, a 161 lot subdivision on about 111.06 acres at 3075 Lebanon Road, zone Hamilton Springs specific plan and RS 20 with Hamilton Springs PUD overlay in wards five and six. And consent agenda item number three is a request by Fairview Baptist Church for final plan approval for resubdivision of a portion of the Fairview Baptist Church property. It's a three lot subdivision on about 0.86 acres at 610 and 614 West Hill Drive extension, zone RS 20 in the South Hartman overlay in ward four.

Anybody object to these items remaining on the consent agenda? And the objections will bring the consent agenda to the Planning Commission.

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion has been made and seconded to approve the consent agenda discussion. If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The consent agenda is approved. Move to new business item number three and four.

New business items number three and four are requests by James Westmoreland for future land use plan amendment approval from RPO to CI and rezoning approval from A1 to C2 for about 7.02 acres at 65 and 85 Rutledge Lane. That's in the urban growth boundary. The properties to the north are zoned A1 in the county and RS-20 in the city and to the east, south and west are zoned as A1 in the county. properties to the north and east are indicated as rural preservation open space to the west as residential two units per acre and rural preservation open space and to the south as rural preservation open space and mixed housing on the future land use plan this property is indicated as rural preservation open space on the future land use plan which would not support this rezoning request the requested future land use designation of interchange commercial would support this request proposed use of this site as a garden center so regina santana sent in a written document stating what she discussed with the applicant for this proposal so i'll just read what she had to say She said, while the currently proposed uses are described as primarily outdoor seasonal and low intensity commercial activities, the proposed operations may potentially be accommodated through an approved subsurface sewage disposal service system, subject to approval by the applicable regulatory authority. However, the property remains with the City of Lebanon's growth boundary, and long-term utility planning anticipates eventual connection to public sewer infrastructure through annexation into the city. Any future intensification of the site, expansion of commercial activities, increase in wastewater generation or change in use may necessitate connection to the public sewer infrastructure, which would require sewer main extension and annexation into the City of Lebanon. Future utility requirements would need to be evaluated based on the specific use proposed at that time. Approval of the requested future land use designation shall not be construed as a commitment or obligation by the City of Lebanon to extend sanitary sewer services to the property. Any future extension of public sewer infrastructure necessary to serve the property would be the responsibility of the property owner and or developer subject to city approval and applicable to utility policies, ordinances and capacity availability. Additionally, pump and haul wastewater arrangements should not be permitted as a means of providing sanitary sewer service for this development. Staff recommends denial of the future land use amendment since the proposed use fits in the rural preservation open space that's already in place. And the requested amendment is unnecessary. Staff recommends denial of this county rezoning to C2. Staff would support a request as remaining as A1 but with an added PUD overlay to limit the agricultural related commercial uses on the property to those that don't require an increase in waste disposal needs. If future uses require public sewer and annexation would be required. The rezoning is a recommendation to county commission and the future land use plan amendment is a recommendation to city council. The expected city council readings for this ordinance are as follows. First reading and public hearing are July 7th and second reading is July 21st.

Okay, anybody like to speak to this item? If not, we'll bring it to the planning commission.

I've got a question. So for their and y'all's and the staff report is saying that it's what they're asking for is not even needed to continue their business.

So how this all comes about is the county considers this a commercial business under our regulations. They'd be able to do this business under our rural preservation open space district, which is what the future land use already supports. So because of that, this use would not require a future land use amendment. The county will need to go through the rezoning process, but instead of opening it up to all of the uses that are allowed in the county C2 zoning, we think doing a PUD overlay specifically to agricultural commercial related uses like theirs, that's something we could support. We don't have a problem with what they're proposing there. We just don't want to open it up to all these other opportunities there by going to the C2 zoning. Did y'all discuss that with the applicant? Did you last week?

It was just after.

they had discussed it with regina yeah so this was in results of what the applicant talked with regina about the septic and regina i think is saying that her decision is based on the need to make it part of the sewer system

so what she says is it's fine she she would approve their use to continue on a septic that's already there any intensification in the future for commercial development would require being annexed and tying onto the sewer and we're not even talking about annexing that has not been requested so at this point we're just recommending a different way to make legal what they want to do there without opening the door to a lot of other possibilities so is it possible that they that you y'all would want to staff would want to talk with the applicant

before there's a vote right now to see if there's a change in what they're wanting to do?

You could. The zoning request would be a conversation with the county. So there probably would need to be some intergovernmental coordination with the applicant to get that application straightened out.

So would deferment be a better strategy?

applicant wants it to be voted on, they can make that known and you can vote on it up or down and send that to council and county commission can do what they want. But if you want to pursue what we're talking about and they're okay deferring it, then you can do that as well.

just feel like there needs to be some clarification can you come up and um just because i want everyone to understand that they're not recommending no to this business on this property it's just the technicality of it so i think we need to figure out the next steps to move them forward with the county commission that doesn't open the doors to a large commercial project in the future i think that's what would be great for the

deferment to where they could talk with the proper people and get channeled to the right person. Yeah, correct.

Go ahead. I'm sorry. So the way before you speak though, this is not the place to work out all the technicalities that needs to be done offline with all the people that are involved. So you understand.

Or Walton basically knows if you're wanting to do a deferment, so you would potentially get a negative recommendation.

If we receive a negative recommendation tonight, do we still go to city council for the readings?

Gosh, would that be automatic or would that be by request?

This is a straight zoning request in the county and a future land use, so both would go automatically to city council and the county commission.

I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding because we filed the future land use amendment to amend rural preservation open space because by definition it's for undevelopable land and so for that A1 with the PUD overlay to kind of fall under that and we talked to the county before and the A1 with the PUD overlay may suffice but it is very restrictive in nature which we're okay with because we're we want the community to have what they want there and everybody to be on the same page. Um, but C2 seems to be the easiest option and the way we've structured our offer with the real estate and purchasing the property, the deferment would, um, end up being harder for us to be able to afford. So, um,

basically your choices are to defer or we will act on the request according to the staff according to the staff recommendation yes do i have to answer that right right this second

time to talk to members of the council like Chris and Chris could meet with staff to understand because you don't need a positive recommendation from this body to move forward you're just going to need to make sure that everyone's on the same page as to why it went the direction it went and I'll say I mean this wouldn't be coming in my ward I represent an area that's kind of the southwest portion of the city so I think this would probably be in Joey's ward at one day when it comes in the city but

From my standpoint, if it were coming in the city, I would be supporting a PUD overlay because I'm not generally in support of just giving a broad zoning and then this turns from, you know, buckets to something else that we didn't anticipate. So if we're going to let things in the city, we want to know what it is and we want it to be what the applicant says it is and not turn into something else.

liaison or someone to help you, I will help you and Josh will help you. I know that you will help explain it to city council. So we can do that together and be an advocate for you.

have to act on the property as such not the owner because you could sell it tomorrow and then we're dealing with a completely different person who may have completely different ideas so zoning is zoning and all the uses and the restrictions go with that zoning that's why we're very protective

makes sense. And in my head, for some reason, like if I was to sell the property, I feel like that new owner would have to come back through these same processes in order to get approved for certain structures and things. But I don't know.

If you had the putt overlay in place, it would because it would be designed of what you're doing. But if it's a general designation, it could allow anything that that designation allows. It could be a list of things as opposed to something specific.

So we're not trying to put you on the spot, but we want to.

What are the defer, like if we defer, what are the new dates? So it'll just.

Next month, correct? Yeah, so you can defer to next month if you want. We'll probably have to work with the county just to update your application if you go that route for the PUD overlay amendment. I'm not sure if that impacts their schedule at all. I'd have to check with them, but we can talk through that.

It's up to you. So we did talk to the county about the PUD overlay, and it's a lot more stringent. They have to have site plans approved by an engineer. Everything has to be laid out. It's going to take more time and more money.

We don't get involved with county decisions. You understand that.

You can always just, if you don't want to defer and you just want to see what happens, you can go through. If it gets denied, then you can try that route. If it gets approved, then you can go on your way with what it is, but you're just taking that risk, and then it will take more time if it gets denied, and then you come back with the PUD route.

And if it gets denied this evening, we will still have the meetings in July? Correct.

Correct.

That's such a hard decision. Is there a way for me to go back and discuss with my wife and then come?

No, we don't need to get him to get that kind of negotiation. I mean, we're not trying to put you on the spot, but we've got to move on. So in the absence of you telling us what direction you want us to take, then we need to move on with our agenda.

No, I mean, his wife's right there. If you want to ask her a quick question. That's his wife. It's kind of like a team effort. We don't.

Does this open the door if it doesn't come through with him?

If this zoning comes through, I'm the neighbor right next door. You have to come to the podium and give us an address and all that. So if this... Name and address.

Quinn Franklin, I'm at 183 Rutledge Lane.

I'm the adjoining neighbor. If what we're about to vote on with Tanner, I'm all in approval for him Coming there, Tanner's a good friend of mine, excellent human being. But I do not support something like a gas station, multifamily use, a large developer. I strongly support Tanner and his family and what they're doing with the property. Living right next door, I think this directly affects me mostly. So with what my question is, is what you're about to vote on. Does this allow the property to be

commercial to anybody if he were to sell or is this just direct use for what he's wanting to do we don't have an amendment we don't have a a motion yet so we're not uh we're still discussing so what what josh is proposing is a overlay which is specific to what he wants to do okay and that's what's protecting you as a property owner and the city to ensure that you don't have anything that the city doesn't want there or you as a neighbor doesn't want there That's what Chris is talking about, trying to protect all entities based on his specific use.

Understandable.

The deferral would help him get all those ducks in a row in a much nicer, cleaner way.

He can make a decision over a period of time instead of two minutes or whatever this is. Okay.

Okay. Anybody else want to speak? If not, we're going to bring it to the Planning Commission.

Did he want to?

Did you?

Have you decided what you wanted to do?

I would say let's send it to a vote right now.

OK. Thank you. OK. So we'll bring it to the planning commission.

Make a motion for a negative recommendation to city council under for staff recommendations.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion has been made and seconded for a negative recommendation of city council discussion. Question.

So, Josh, you made a, was it a recommendation or suggestion relative to the PUD? Help me understand how that would go opposite of what's on the table right now.

Yeah, so that was our recommendation that they would go that route. So again, we recommended denial. So that was our recommendation. But we wanted to also... Based on his current... Based on the current request. We think doing the putt overlay is a better option. We wanted that on the record. And if you see fit, which it seems like you have to include that with your... your recommendation to City Council, they'll know why the negative recommendation was given to City Council. That way they're not just thinking it's just negative recommendation. There's no other options that would just be tied into your recommendation. So they'll know what's going on.

you want that to be part of your motion yeah that's part of the okay part of the report okay that's good okay yeah further discussion discussion yeah so i just want to say typically i would probably abstain uh from this vote because i'm going to be seeing it again when it comes to the city council that's where the you know the ultimate decision will be made but i i support restrictions, as your neighbor has pointed out there. Because generally, we don't like to see just a surprise down the road for anybody, including the neighbors or the city. So that's the reason I have voted this way. But negotiations may continue as this goes forward with you all.

TODD BANDUCCI- Further discussion, questions? If not, all those in favor of the motion of a negative recommendation to include the staff recommendation say aye. Aye. TODD BANDUCCI- Opposed? The negative recommendation passes. Are there any staff comments? In case we are adjourned.

All right. I'm out of here. See you.

See you, Chuck. Take care. Now y'all do it.