Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Be fair about it. Hey, we've got Herb Rook's house for sale. You need to get with it. Herb Rook's house. 3.9. Anybody that will sign it.

I'm not on that list. It's unbelievable. you doing that you all right today yeah i'm doing well that's good how about you doing fine and european and he's got the basement decorated like a european village oh yeah not all of them just some of them in the house.

I had to figure out somebody like, I don't know who the real killer is. I see. And I have seen some things on there. I've seen it.

In the neighborhood. Granddaddy's house. I've seen some KLA. Four times that? Nobody ever wants to know.

Anyhow, but whatever.

So money's not an issue. They came to him and said, we're going to buy this place.

Did you relate to Jill Crowell? Yeah, when was it?

Not that I know of. Was his son had a birthday party? It's good for you.

I think it was Sunday. You take one for the town. That's right.

No, I just hadn't got anything.

There'd be some left between the meeting and the training.

We'd like a minute. Just checking.

Call the meeting to order. Are there any public comments at this time? If there are none, any changes to the agenda?

No changes.

All right. New business item number one.

New business item number one is a request by Four Star Group for final plot approval for Chandler Grove, an 11-lot subdivision on about 33.88 acres at unadjusted property on Franklin Road, its own commercial office, medical, and RS6 in the South Hartman overlay in Ward 3. Just some minor corrections are needed.

Consent? Consent, everybody? Okay, consent. Yes, item number two.

This item number two is a request by SB Barton Village TN sub LLC for final plot approval for Barton Village Phase 6A, 113 lot conservation subdivision on about 27.28 acres at unaddressed property on Yellowstone Road, 689 and unaddressed Penhook Road. Zone RS6 in Ward 3, staff has no open comments.

That's it. Okay. Consent. Number four, number three.

New business line number three is a request by Lebanon Property Partners LLC for preliminary site plan approval for Kia of Lebanon, a non-residential development on about 8.46 acres at 200 South Hartman Drive, zoned interchange commercial in the South Hartman overlay in Ward 5. Only minor corrections are needed.

Good. Consent item number four.

Number four is a request by Prologis for site plan approval for Mountain View Buildings 2, 3, and 4 and non-residential development about 133.6 acres at 710, 715, and 720 Bridgestone Parkway. So in Prologis, Haskell Evans specific plan in Ward 4. Staff has no open comments.

Question? Can I ask a question? Josh, is this the one that basically expired or is this a different one?

no no this is the one that has not expired that was the sp to the north that has expired this is just the remaining three buildings for the one to the south that made the connection to wildcat way they did building one i think it's here last year in front of you and then they're doing buildings two three and four their preliminary plane for that now thank you that's it everybody okay consent item number five New business item number five is a request by Restaurant Retail Properties LLC for rezoning approval for about 4.01 acres at 1729, 1731, and 1733 West Main Street from Interchange Commercial to West Main Tech Specific Plan in Ward 5. The properties to the north are zoned commercial mixed use to the east and west as Interchange Commercial and to the south as RS-20 and Rural Preservation Open Space. properties to the north are indicated as mixed housing and residential eight units per acre east as public institutional residential to the south as residential two units per acre and west as commercial mixed use on the future land use plan this property is indicated as commercial mixed use on the future land use plane which would support this rezoning request The permitted uses have been changed in this SP to include self-storage and drive-through restaurants, neither of which are permitted in the CXU district. The following uses have been excluded from the permitted uses typically found in the CXU district, those being automotive parking, cultural and recreational services, all residential uses, major and minor entertainment services. The following uses have also expressly been prohibited, those being check cash servicing, gas-pumped gas stations, car washes, kennels, and especially smoke and vape shops. A phasing plan has been included to require grading of commercial loss to begin prior to the building of the self-storage building, and an ancillary benefit of a $25,000 contribution to the Maple Hill Road intersection improvements has been proposed. The following tables in your packet summarize the notable design standards that have been changed from the CXU district. First, we'll go over those increasing standards. The first being some additional plantings have been required along the rear lot lines, shared access drive and front property line. Additional plantings are beneficial to help this commercial development better blend into the more rural surroundings west of Maple Hill Road. Foundation plantings have been added to the front commercial lots. This addition compensates for the change in sidewalk and street tree planting treatments, which we'll discuss further below. This helps better blend in the CXU district into the existing surroundings. Self-storage has been required a 250 foot front setback. This protects the most visible and most valuable commercial land on the site to be protected from this lower value use. And onto the decreasing standards, the sidewalk and planting have been reduced in size from eight feet to six feet and six feet to four to four and a half feet respectively, along with the treatment change from trees and wells to a grass strip. There is no concern in changing the treatment type in this location, but the decrease in sidewalk width and planting strip needs to be mitigated. Ideally, the measurements would remain given the constraints of the T dot right away and the utility lines. These changes are acceptable since a six foot foundation planting previously mentioned typical of other commercial districts with smaller sidewalks and planting strips has been required. Street trees are decreased from one for every 40 feet of road finish to one for every 40 feet where existing utilities allow existing utilities in the area, but the standard should be written still required one for every 40 feet, which may be planted in the grass strip or behind the sidewalk if utilities are necessary. Further staff comments, the phasing plan that they've included should be amended to read that a CO for the self-storage, that's a certificate of occupancy, for a self-storage building should not be issued until a CO for one of the following uses is first issued for convenience commercial, general retail trade, or food and beverage services on one of the frontage lots. Their benefits section should be amended to read that a westbound right turn lane to access the development should be required to be installed prior to any COs being issued for the development. Staff opposes this request as written as around half of the site is being planned to use for self storage, which is not compatible with this district and significantly less beneficial than other commercial uses. However, staff supports amending the SB text to require a certificate of occupancy for convenience commercial, general retail trade, or food and beverage service to be issued before a CO for the self-storage and a westbound right turn lane into the site to be completed before any CO is issued as a benefit. If these amendments are included, staff would support the request due to the benefits of commercial development and the SB being closer to the future land use plan than the existing zoning, which is also beneficial to the city. This is a recommendation to City Council. The expected City Council readings for this and all subsequent ordinances on the agenda are as follows. First reading in public hearing, October 6th, and second reading, October 20th.

Does anybody want to speak to this item?

Jessica Gore, Para Design, representing the owners and the developer. As you are aware, this is a living document. We've been to special plan committee twice now. We have had a neighborhood meeting. We've made significant changes to the proposal since that time. While the developer is not opposed to phasing the We do ask that a consideration be given to not tie the phasing directly to the CO. staff indicates that we were asking for grading permits but we were actually proposing that one of the front lots go through site planning up to land disturbance and be allowed to disturb the land prior to disturbance of the rear parcel so that you are aware what is being proposed not just a grading plan so those properties would develop at the same time however financing can be difficult when you tie COs to separate parcels. I would also ask that you consider the turn lane. We did investigate the turn lane. Middle Tennessee Electric at this time is saying that's going to be not favorable not i'm not sure it's going to be possible because of the polls and the unwillingness of middle tennessee electorate to relocate those so the initial comment to us from staff was that we consider contribution to maple hill intersection and then at this last round staff sent us back well we will waive the traffic study if you'll consider putting the turn lane into your site which is a little unusual for a turn lane into a four acre site not into you know a major development or a side street however we did consider that it's not that they're unwilling to do that but I do think that Middle Tennessee Electric is going to be in opposition of that

Power poles get moved all the time.

For a site that has hundreds of lots, that's oftentimes.

Well, I can bring the other engineer up that spoke to Middle Tennessee, if you'd like to speak to that.

Yeah, David Abbey with Development Management Group. So we have ongoing conversations with MTE right now. And the issue is those poles are evenly spaced the way they need to be. They have told us that they have maybe a five foot, 10 foot max that they can go parallel to the roadway. They cannot go backwards in any stretch. And to relocate that, they were basically saying that it would probably take maybe half a dozen poles all the way up and down through there. And their willingness to do that on that roadway was pretty much, from the way they told us, not going to happen. Of course, that's the main power line along that entire stretch. There's nothing across the road. That's where all of it is.

All right. Anybody else want to speak? OK. Discussion. This is complicated. I'm hearing, number one, about the turn lane. You need to explain why that turn lane is so important. Number two, we're talking about COs. And if COs, two COs, and if they're approved, then that changes the scenario. Frankly, I'm confused.

Sure. So I can address the CO aspect. I'll ask Maddie to jump in on the turn lane part of that. But the CO, so how their phasing plan is written right now, like Jessica said, you do have to get a site plan approved, which is how you obtain a grading permit, but there's nothing requiring them to actually build those buildings. So they could get that, get a grading permit, grade the site, and then not build those commercial buildings with how it's written now, and then proceed with the self-storage building, which is what we're trying to prevent. If we do it based on the COs, that way we know the front commercial building will have to be completed before they can start using the self-storage building. They can be developed simultaneously, but the commercial frontage building would have to be completed first, which is how we would want that phasing plan to be written. And then Maddie, do you want to address the turn lane?

yeah so there's been um and we can verify with middle tennessee electric the issue with the polls but there's been 16 crashes there in the past three years so that's the reason for the turn lane um with that hill um the church being right there sports village both high traffic so that's the reason for the turn lane being needed okay so i'm sorry your turn's over uh so

You had mentioned amendments. And just for me, hypothetically, I generally support what the city is recommending. But I need to know what those amendments look like. We know it's very important for the wording to be done correctly in order to achieve the intended purpose.

Yeah, so what we had written in your report under the staff comments, we have what the amendments should read and we'll reiterate those in our comments next week, our recommendations next week. You do have the ability as planning commission to amend an SP's text. So if you want to include those, you have that choice before sending it on to city council. You'll just have to make clear that you are including those amendments either by a separate vote to amend and then include those or recommending it with the amendments proposed by staff.

Okay, those are my questions. Who else has questions?

Anybody? I mean, I would agree with the chairman. These are, you know, it's kind of a complicated deal. The objections, and I may call somebody else up if that's... I understand the request for flexibility in terms of COs, that sort of thing, but I hope you also understand the city's desire to make sure that, because what's in it for the city is what's out front. I mean, we've got self-storage, and it's critical that that piece of it be done. So if you're not willing to agree to this, what are you willing to agree to?

So the phasing does present itself as problematic in the fact that, you know, the shared access drive being constructed is part of a bigger cost, and it also prevents three parcels from having separate driveways on West Main. possible possible i'll mention it um and i think that their idea is we'll get that shared access in then we don't have construction traffic that's blocking those front parcels as well during their operation we all know those front parcels are going to be the most valuable the most visible

To all concerned here.

Absolutely. So there's no intent to develop the rear and those front parcels to sit from a financial standpoint of the developer and owner. They didn't want to hurry it and get a... C tenant, rather than getting you the A tenant that you deserve on Main Street. However, they are willing to go forward at the same time. Even if we tied it to the building permits, like let's say not land disturbance permit, but let's say a building permit, that would be more palatable than the CO, just because you've got different contractors possibly even on those lots pushing at different timelines. From a financial standpoint, it's just a lot to hang your hat on when you don't have guarantees. But from your perspective, what the owner just said was, what if they put up a bond? What if they put up a monetary bond to give you an assurance that they are moving forward to tie their money up so that you know that they're intent on constructing on those front parcels. Again, in the conversations leading up to today, there was not a no, we're against phasing altogether, but the CO is a problem. Like if we could tie it to something else, if we could tie it to, and I understand as written, just grading, that doesn't guarantee you anything, but their intent is to build those buildings. So even a permit, a building permit would be, a better security from from finances standpoint than the ceos and not being able to open with the co is your your point i guess not being able to open you're saying that the real person without certificate i can see you can't open anything correct and it would be a shame to have somebody invest several million and be sitting there because somebody else is six months behind which is possible

Sure, yeah. No, I mean, I think it's, you know, the question in my mind is trying to find the middle ground. Sure. Because, you know, as I think I said in the last meeting, we're dealing with a quality developer here. We're dealing with people who know what they're doing and who can find good tenants or who can find good tenants. know folks to to bring in quality opportunities for the folks who live around there in terms of retail which is what you know what we're looking for and what i think frankly they're looking for in both the owner and the developer and it's trying trying to find that that blend of something that holds everybody's feet to the fire here you know we you're trying to make sure that you know that you can develop it in the timely manner and you're not the clock's not ticking on part of the development and not the other part, and you're able to develop the infrastructure in sequence, and I understand all of those things. So I think it's one of those questions of trying to figure out what that perfect middle ground is there.

And if I might add, I mean, there have already been some gives here that everybody here might not know. I mean, there was a national brand tenant on the you know that had a contract on one of those front parcels um but when it became apparent that the council and the mayor did not want more automotive repair it was christian brothers i don't mind to tell you who it was um but their equality tenant but if they were on the hook they were ready to go forward um but they let that go because they realized that that was you know not a want so um they they have restricted that um the restaurant use that is being written in is actually allowed under the current zoning It's not allowed under CXU, so that's why they're writing it back in. So, you know, there's been a lot of back and forth. There have been, you know, several steps made. We do understand it is a living document. There could still be changes made between now and even the council vote. So we just ask that you help us give us feedback and help us keep moving. That's the ask.

Any questions?

One of the complications for me is this is not intended as a negotiating meeting. The negotiations need to be with the city and then a presentation is made to us. It sounds to me like there are many things up in the air to be determined. That puts us in a difficult position because again, we're not the negotiators. We generally take what is presented here, and we vote it up or down. And I think that's where we will be unless strange things happen between now and next Tuesday. So any other thoughts, questions from anybody? OK, you're on the agenda.

New business items number six and seven are a request by Desillo Group LLC for future land use plan amendment approval for about two acres at 152, 202, and 204 South College Street from downtown mixed use to office medical and rezoning approval from commercial mixed use and light industrial to the College Street Treatment Center tech-specific plan in Ward 3. Properties to the north and south are zoned commercial mixed use and light industrial, to the east as commercial mixed use and suburban commercial, and to the west as light industrial. All adjacent properties are indicated as downtown mixed use on the future land use plan. This property is indicated as downtown mixed use on the future land use plan, which would not support this rezoning request. However, a future land use plan amendment to office medical CMO has been requested. This is a request to rezone the Cedarcroft properties from commercial mixed use and light industrial to this SP proposing a 115 bed drug and alcohol and mental health detox and recovery center. The SP request has a base zoning of office and medical and requires the concurrent future land use plan amendment request to office medical designation. The proposed use and COM standards are not compatible with this location. The intent of the existing future land use of downtown mixed use describes a walkable mixed use area intended to serve people living in adjacent residential neighborhoods. So I'm gonna go through the tech specific plan first, and then we'll do our staff recommendation. So this is going to the COM zoning district for the base zoning. And they have indicated that they wanted these permitted uses, healthcare facilities, medical and professional services, and secure and personal group care, including only the following specific uses of overnight institutional treatment for addiction and overnight institutional detox. They have listed several prohibited uses and they include personal and group care facilities, permanent residential uses, semi-permanent residential uses, and any use not specifically allowed. They are following the COM standards for all of the bulk zoning district standards, unless otherwise noted in their tech specific plan. and they have included some additional information. So for this additional information, the key points of this project are that no building additions, expansions, or new impervious surfaces will be constructed. No changes to the historic footprint. All operations occur within the existing structure. The property remains visually unchanged. The use is medically oriented, licensed, and professionally staffed. They are again asking for 115 total beds for this facility. and they are proposing ground improvement of a fence to be constructed around the perimeter of the property. This will encompass the whole facility and the fences to be constructed as a six foot tall concrete pillar fence. The pillars will be 10 feet apart with a decorative fence wall and large sliding privacy gate in the front for intakes and discharges. The existing facility has 49 parking spaces and the new owners are intending for that number to remain. So in the COM zoning district standards, typically a secure and personal group care facility is a conditional use subject to specific separations and setback requirements. So in the conditions for that, it says no facility shall be located within 500 feet of a residence, public school, or a daycare when measured from front door to front door in a straight line. They did these measurements from the public school, and that was 1,637 feet, and the nearest daycare is 1,690 feet. The nearest resident is 195 feet, so they wanted to reduce that distance from 500 to 195 feet. They did accept some of the public benefits for this. So the city has adopted the Safe Streets for All Roadways Safety Action Plan, and it identifies South College Street as a priority corridor for pedestrian safety, intersection improvements and roadway upgrades. Staff suggested incorporating this roadway improvement as a requirement in the SP. The action plan specifically recommends intersection improvements, including enhanced crosswalks, pedestrian signage, and lighting improvements along South College Street. The developer voluntarily proposes to fund and construct certain public benefits improvements in the public right of way directly in front of the developer's buildings along South College Street only, in front of the subject property. As more particularly described herein, as the public benefit in connection with the specific plan process. So staff recommended that the complete safe streets for all roadway improvement project be included in this package. It's unclear what the developer plans to do with that. they're not doing the complete package, it doesn't sound like. So we would want to get some more feedback on that. Staff recommends that the entire project be included. so then we go to our scoring sheet um with not knowing what the benefits of this uh spr with the complete safe streets for all roadways that number has not changed so the total score for this is 68 And staff analysis is that the proposed use in COM standards are not compatible with this location. Within the proposed COM zoning district standards, secure personal and group care is listed under conditional uses. Ancillary benefits are proposed, but it's unclear if they encompass the full scope of the recommended improvements. Staff opposes the request for the SP as it does not follow the future land use plan. The complete safe streets for all roadways improvement projects should be included in this SP package as a proposed ancillary benefits. And this is all a recommendation of city council.

Anybody want to speak?

Thank you very much for your time today. I'm Michael Martin from the DeSillo Group. I was given an option of A for the streets or B. I chose B. We're not opposed to the complete safe streets package for the proposal. I was under the impression I had an option of A or B. I just chose B. And I thought it was in front of our building. So if it's the intersection, we would definitely construct that. It's not a problem.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much for your time.

I'm Ken Howell with Shenandoah Mills. We're behind the property and we're not opposed to the rezoning as such, but our question would be more about the addition, I think you said last night, of 40 bathrooms?

Yes.

And the sewage runs across our property down below us there. That sewage line, as you may or may not be aware, has a lot of issues already. And they try to keep blaming Shenandoah Mills, but they x-ray it and they clear it every time all the way down to the square. And we get some squares where it backs up. It's because of all the restaurants dumping in the sewer down that line. So my concern, not zoning, zoning I'm not opposed to at all, rezoning. My concern is the disruption of our business if that sewer line has to be addressed. And we're not clear about the right-of-way. Michael and I talked about that at this point. I'm not clear about the exact right-of-way when that was done and if there's a right-of-way there. So I don't know who I need to talk to next. I know this is not the committee for that. The question would be on the specific drawing to what's going to happen to the sewer line. And our patient needs to go the other way instead of coming across our property.

So I put a request in to the municipality, to the utility, for a will serve letter. And I think Christy followed up on that for me. And for 40 additional bathrooms there so I could serve our population that's coming in. and um they said that they would they had the capacity to handle to handle the 40 additional additional bathrooms and this sounds like our lateral lines that go across his property that's called a prescriptive easement i think that that's and that's that's the that's the utility not us and i think that just interrupted yes sir in the utilities

Yes, I understand, sir. Up and down from the city utilities people. You're very clear. I'm good. Yeah.

Yes. I'm just saying it's been addressed, and we're going to work it out, and we'll make sure that Mr. Howell is properly notified, and we'll work directly with him for sure. I understand.

Thank you.

Much.

Anybody else? Okay. Questions, thoughts? Oh, you've got one. Okay. I'm sorry.

Okay.

I'm John Bryan. My mother and father owns the property, most of it. My brothers and I own the other property. I'm chairman of the board of Cedarcroft. Our entire sewer line was reworked by the city right through our parking lot. How long ago? Two years. Two years ago. So we're good on our side. So that's all I wanted to say. In our capacity, we serve 138 now. It's going down to 110. So a lot less flushes than it would be currently. OK.

Anybody else before we bring it to Planning Commission? OK. Questions, thoughts? Anybody?

I'll do that one. Hey, Josh. do agree to the safe streets for all i mean does that change the city's anything on the city side that they agree to the whole package

Certainly that we want to see that. And if they don't, which they have agreed to it. So we want to see that included. If not, I would recommend that as an amendment. But the issue here is not really that that issue is that the land use that they're proposing is not compatible with the area. This is the downtown mixed use area of the future land use plan. It's surrounded by other walkable mixed use districts as well. What they're proposing does not fit in there. They're proposing something that does not serve the residents of that area that cannot walk there. There's no reason they would need to walk to this business. They're proposing to fence off the whole area, which is counterintuitive to having a walkable area. So if we're going to rezone this property, which the future land use plan does say to do to downtown mixed use, we'd want to see it either to the DXU district or to an SP that accomplishes the goals of that district of walkable commercial mixed use area, not one that's just going to exist but not interact with the surroundings.

It seems to me that this modification from 500 feet to 195 feet to a residence is a precedent-setting experience. Then all of a sudden it's not 500 feet because you've already approved it. Where does the city stand on that?

Yeah, so that's a condition for that use that the Board of Zoning Appeals would typically place on secure personal group care. It is put in there to protect the existing residents that are there. They have decreased that distance for this location. They do claim that the know people and the employees are not really going to be coming and going it's going to be a contained facility again that's counterintuitive to this whole district's area so that's not really what we're looking for anyway um you know as a way to protect the residents but it's not something we typically see and using the sp to change standards that are put there to protect residents is not typically something they'd like to do any other questions thoughts okay it's on the agenda number eight New business item number eight is a request by staff for zoning code amendment to Title 14, Chapter 6 signs to clarify balloon and flag sign regulations and amend freeway and sign maintenance regulations. We've run across a few issues with the sign code. BZA has heard a few cases, so they recommended a few changes to make it more clear. And also we have some sign maintenance things that are in conflict with the state code. So we're going to make that so they match with the state and we're no longer conflicting with them. And this is a recommendation to city council.

Questions, thoughts? Okay, it's on the agenda. Any staff comments?

Stick around for training.

Good. Training.

You want us down? Take 10 minutes and we'll all sit down there.

Terrific.

I think they're moving some boys in.