Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the August 20, 2026 meeting of the Mountain View Municipal and Regional Planning Commission meeting. Our first item up on our agenda tonight will be to set our agenda. I do have one change and one request. Item 9F, which is review the site plan for Willow Creek Garden and Home, located at 3215 North Mount Juliet Road, will be pulled from the agenda per the applicant's request. And let me find it on here for a number. Just wanted to see because we had seen this one a bunch. Oh, I wanted to see if there would be any objection to taking 9B, review the site plan for MSR Plaza located at 3007 North Mount Dewitt Road, moving that to the consent agenda. It looks like I think we debated over that one three different meetings, and it looks like we kind of wanted it to, in my opinion. Would there be any objection to moving that over to the consent agenda? very well well hopefully that'll help move us forward a little bit we will be moving 9b to the consent agenda any other changes amendments we'll set the agenda as stated next item up will be our staff reports we'll begin with our city planner mr john yes sir um i don't think i have anything today all right nothing nothing interesting Everything is running fast and efficient and as planned. Trying. Absolutely. Shane, anything from Public Works?

Yes. I'll keep it quick. had the pre-construction meeting for our stormwater project that's being funded through the utility um we got to do some utility deconfliction but we're we're getting the wheels of motion to start that project which is a big i think a big milestone in this city considering utilities just a few years old to get two big projects in within the five years so uh that's one item and Uh, this is from director white. Uh, I think I want to tip my hat personally to the, uh, city management and director white on securing. Grant funding for Lebanon road, widening. Um, that's a pretty big deal and the work he's put into it. Um, they, uh. They've got construction funding ready and waiting once they get all their right-of-way acquired. So they're full steam ahead. And just wanted me to share that with you guys. So with that, that concludes my staff report.

That's very good. Todd, you have anything for us? Old Lebanon Dirt Road behind Valley Center, back open. All right.

Nice, nice. Everything went as planned and proposed and doing good? Good. Perfect. Perfect, perfect. All right. Next item up on our agenda will be our citizen comments. At this time, we'll take citizen comments. Public is welcome and encouraged to make a public comment about any item on our agenda. There'll be two opportunities for you to make comments. You may speak now or you may speak when the item is presented to the Planning Commission. We do ask that you limit your comments to three minutes or less. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please come to the microphone and name an address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll move forward with our next item up on the agenda, which falls underneath the minutes approval. It's item 5A, Review and Adopt the Minutes of the July 16, 2026, Maggio Regional Planning Commission Meeting. Any changes, amendments, typos? Seeing none, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. All right. Next item up on our agenda is our consent agenda items. Bear with me, we've got several of them. We'll begin with item 6A, sewer letter of credit number 55110808 for Wintry Pines phase one in the amount of $868,854 can be released. Item 6B, sewer letter of credit number 55110810 for Wintry Pines phase two in the amount of $122,217 can be released. Item 6C, serial letter of credit number 55110833 for Wintry Pines Phase 4A, 5A, 6A, and 7A in the amount of $284,393.50 can be released. Item 6D, review the final plat for Providence Commons, Phase 2, located at 631 through 703 South Mount Juliet Road. Item 6E, review the final plat for Legacy Point, Lot 11, located at 100 Legacy Point Boulevard. Item 6F, review the final plat for 2819 Old Lebanon Dirt Road. And item 9B, which would be to review the site plan for MSR Plaza, located at 3007 North Mount Juliet Road. Begin with our city planner, Mr. John.

Staff just recommends approval with the conditions in the report for all of these.

Thank you.

Shane, anything from public works? Ditto. Very good. Questions or comments from the commission? Seeing none at this time, I do need to close our Planning Commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. Public hearing is in regards to item 6D, 6E, and 6F. 6D is review the final plat for Providence Commons, Phase 2, located at 631 through 703 South Mount Juliet Road. Item 6A, review the final plat for Legacy Point, Lot 11, located at 100 Legacy Point Boulevard. Item 6F, review the final plat for 2819 Old Lebanon Dirt Road. Anyone wishing to make comment during the public hearing in regards to any one of those three items, welcome. I encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone.

State your name and address for the record.

Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll reopen our planning commission meeting, at which time I am looking for a motion in regards to the items on our planning commission agenda, our consent agenda. It's motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Raise your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions?

So approved.

Yeah. Would there be any objection to us hearing item 7A and 7B together?

Any objection for the planning commission to hear these two items together?

Seeing no objection, we'll hear item 7A and 7B together. Item 7A is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners, is review the annexation request for 6484 Beckwith Road. Item 7B is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners, review the plan of services for 6484 Beckwith Road. Mr. John?

Sure thing. They're requesting annexation here. It's on the west side of Beckwith Road. There's an existing single-family house. They're seeking annexation due to they want to connect to City Sewer, and I believe it's possible. So staff recommends approval.

Move over. Shane, any comments in regards to this item on the agenda? No, sir. Well, questions or comments from the commission? Seeing none at this time, I'd like to call for citizen comments. Anyone wish to make comments in regards to these items on the agenda? We're welcome and encouraged to do so.

Please find the microphone and name and address for the record.

Seeing no citizen comments at this time, do we need to close our Planning Commission meeting in order to open a public hearing? Public hearing is in regards to item 7B. It's a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners to review the plan of services for 6484 Beckwith Road. When wishing to make public comment in regards to this item during the public hearing, welcome and encouraged to do so. And from the microphone, name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll close our public hearing, reopen the Planning Commission meeting, and at which time I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to these items on our agenda. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? There's a positive recommendation. Will there be any objection from the commission to hearing item 7C and 7D together? Seeing no objection, we will hear item 7C and 7D together. Item 7C is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. This is a review of the annexation request for 1865 Nonneville Road. Item 7D is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners to review the plan of services for 1865 Nonneville Road. Mr. John.

Sure thing. Yes, two and a half acres. So this is annexation. They did not ask for, like the last one as well, they did not ask for a rezone. So it'll default to RS-40, low density residential. There is not a specific reason they annex that I'm aware of, or they're asking for annexation. But should it get approved, they go to the RS-40, which matches the land you plan out there.

And that's all. Recommend approval.

Very well.

Shane, anything from public works on this one?

No, sir.

Very well. Questions or comments from the commission? Seeing none at this time, I'd like to call for citizen comments in regards to these two items on our agenda. And when we should make comments, we'll encourage you to do so. Microphone, name and address for the record. seeing no citizen comments at this time i do need to close the planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing public hearing is in regards to item 7d which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners would be the plan of services for 1865 nonneville road anyone wishing to make a comment during the public hearings welcome encouraged to do so please come to the microphone state your name and address for the record Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll close our public hearing, reopen our planning commission meeting, and at which time I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to these items in origin. So motion for a positive recommendation? And a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? It is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is item 8A. This is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners to review the land use amendment plan from low density residential to thoroughfare commercial for the Williams property located at 98 Tanglewood Drive.

John. Sure thing. I'm sure you remember this from last month. I, uh, I'm sure there'll be some discussion on this and I just did not change thoroughfare commercial or CRC zoning in the staff report. Well, I think I left a blank in the staff report. My opinion is that I stand with the last month's recommendation on this one. But, of course, I think there's some discussion to be had here with this one. And we'll let that. But recommending approval. We can work something out.

Please. Shane, do you have any comments this time? No, sir. Very well. Questions, comments? Mr. Jones, please.

I saw I wasn't here last month, and then I had a chance to relook at this. And I know that the body gave them a negative recommendation, but I really think that this should go through. And here's the reason for it. We're supposed to have a visual up here. Okay, John, you want to explain this?

Well, this is just a screenshot of the land use plan for Compton. Right. Are you all aware of what this property is? It's kind of in the center of the picture. I think it's going to bring home 10 to work.

anyway does everybody know where this is on here mm-hmm okay so here's the thing here's the thing that if you look at this and I think some of the comments from the last meeting was that we've not had one like this but here's the thing about it if that zone which the the frontage on that on the Lebanon Road is is CG correct and I think this is coming in as CRC but the thing about it is what I'm I'm hoping will happen is is that someone will either buy both of these or this front lot will buy that because they don't have any room for anything anyway and with one lot there i mean we don't have a whole lot if y'all think about it on lebanon road at this this area which serves all of north green hill road if you think about it so if that was redeveloped that whole corner right there i think it would add not only tax dollars to our city but convenience to the citizens that live down through there So the closest thing is the DG up here on the hill from it. So I am for this. And so.

I'm going to represent the neighborhood.

here and most of us who live on that street in Tanglewood right behind that, the folks that I've talked to have a negative concern about this, concerned about the situation because the property right next to it, and we discussed this at the last meeting as well, has had some issues keeping it clean. And it's right next to the neighbors.

Are you saying this lot has had issues keeping it clean?

No, the one on the other side of the street there that has those three buildings, businesses right off of Lebanon Road. And they're stacked right behind the other. I know. And I don't think a lot has changed. There has been plenty of opportunity for those other folks to develop, and much of that has not developed there yet on the other side of Glenwood. That's still, as far as I know, most of that is vacant. And so they have a place to build at this point is my perspective. But I know that we had the neighbor who spoke last month, as well and was concerned about it also and then i think luke mentioned the concern about the drive in and out if something were to be placed in there did you want are you still thinking that or what no that's what uh that's what i was going to share and and actually commissioner jobs i'm last month i couldn't couldn't be more agreeable and supportive of that as well

But my comment back towards that was that I felt like that they needed to come in together. So nothing should stop one from the other of acquiring the other should they want to do something like that. They come in and be replatted and done. My fear on this was if it is to develop independently with everything that they're requesting, I think it sets a very bad precedence. Because I can look at this map here in front of us right now just because they're parallel to Thoroughfare Commercial. that should we set this precedence, I can count four properties to six properties that would have the same bearing to come in and make the same request because they're adjacent on two sides, three sides, four sides that you can count on this one small map. Not to mention if we expanded this out, that I too would agree that this corner would be great for redevelopment. This is my main travel area that I personally go in and out. I mean, I'm praying it out at four to six times on a daily basis at this corner right here. I would love to see it redevelop as well, but to me, it needs to come in together because should we grant this and we give this and somebody is to come in and develop just this parcel, We have to give them the access points. And so we would be struggling to have an access point on the Green Hill, possibly over to Tanglewood, that to me creates a monster issue at that, particularly the South Green Hill intersection. And there's really nothing we can do. And then it just, I just believe that it sets a precedent. So if they want to come in together, they should buy each other and reply.

Well, when they do that, they take a chance and have the contingent upon this body approving it.

They do.

But if you'll look over to the east, that's Thoroughfare Commercial right there. You'll see the color, which is actually deeper than this whole lot. And this whole lot acreage is what, John?

An acre and a half, an acre and a quarter.

Yeah. 2.1 or something.

It's not very wide in the center. Yeah.

But it can develop independently. And I agree. But if we have to look at a site plan for thoroughfare commercial zoning on just this parcel, not because it's adjacent to the other, I think it creates a – and if they can meet our subdivision regulations, we have to approve.

And if they don't ever combine together, that – it just – it scares the bejeebies out of me.

and together i love them together i think this this corner right here is a super valuable corner and i would love to see it redevelop um it looks better since we got rid of the railroad tie uh wall out there my father had a his personal business in that building at one point in time um and it's thriving right now with some retail uh in it um and doing well um But the commercial hat, that right there would be nice to have a restaurant right there that would help my family or something more convenient there that would be beneficial to my family and whatnot and community as a whole. But I just think that with the depth of this one and if it should develop independently, I just think the can of worms that can come out of that are scary. And it can't.

Well, it can, but they would have a class D buffer, as we all know. So that would shield some of your, obviously, that would help in your residence.

There's a buffer on the other side, too, and it's scary.

And I don't mind the buffer. It's the ingress-egress.

Could they even build a building?

You're putting access in the middle of a turning line.

know he's saying could they even build a building with the buffer because these days creativity of setbacks as you can come to this meeting or yeah no no bounds well there would be there would be a class debuffer and you've got a good point there wouldn't be a lot of room and i think that's why it would be more Obviously attractive for someone to try to buy both of them or the owner of this to buy that because then you're just talking about the one class.

So if we open the same argument up for this property, just look right there to your right on Glenwood, you got one deep right there and they're surrounded on three sides, just like this property. I don't think that I would desire to have that house turn commercial right there. And it's kind of the same argument there on, now Glenwood's not as traveled, but I would say that those people on Glenwood, that one house right there on Glenwood would have the same basis of argument to request the same thing and should this go through. They could, as well as some other things. I know.

But there again, that one's not on Greenville, so they do not have the ingress and ingress on Greenville. Yeah. And you make a good point about it, Luke. There again, I mean, y'all gave it a negative recommendation. I would have voted positive. I'm going to vote positive tonight. Sure. So.

Sure. Yeah, and I agree with you a thousand percent that it's got good merit. I'd love to see the corner redevelop, but I'd like to see them replant and come in here for something appropriate and combine together. I think it's got a lot of merit to it, but just independently out there and the things that run through my mind of how and what could be put on there with this zoning and this land use plan, I don't know that I would be necessarily excited about it.

And the church next to it, I think, is also a daycare center that has quite a bit of traffic coming in and out of that area off of South Green Hill as well.

Yeah, and that's down here on the south side of that, isn't it, where they come in now?

The church and the daycare.

Yeah. Further questions, thoughts?

John, you got anything else to say?

Let's go ahead and call for citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Anyone wishing to make comment in regards to this item on the agenda, it's welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and name and address for the record.

Dwayne Lanham with Benchmark Realty representing Mr. Danny Williams. I saw y'all last month. We'd sure appreciate the consideration. One of the comments made last meeting was that the property that's right there at the corner of Tanglewood and Lebanon Road was thought to be residential, but it's commercial. So I didn't know if there was any confusion about that property or maybe something else that was mentioned. So that whole stretch from the Greenhill side back to Tanglewood is all CG. And then the property that's a little bit in people's mind about being sort of in a disarray right there across the street on the Tanglewood side, that stretches all the way down past mr williams property here on that left border so you've got it all the way down to here and then he's got an entryway that comes in as soon as you come off the street maybe about 75 feet you take that left turn and then the neighbor mr goda that comes back on the green hillside he has a little bit of an entry which most of his customers that come out of there have to make that right turn with the busyness of the road that's already in play uh they have contacted mr williams about the lane expansion uh he has approved that and taken their consideration of the money that they've offered so that helps out with the traffic flow and then so you know would even be i'm sure that the buyers of the property would even be open just for a right turn only when it comes off of uh green hill then it's just a small uh distance a short distance back to an entry point there at tanglewood which i don't believe that i mean looking at it you guys know better than i do but if you even had an office and professional services that were there you really wouldn't have that much traffic coming back into the neighborhood to cause a detriment that way Sometimes they may come down Tanglewood, take that right turn to get back over to South Green Hill, but a lot of people are already doing that anyway, really just to kind of cut off having to go to that light. So those are just some of the points I just wanted to bring up. I guess I have to take a vote on it, and we would sure appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Any additional citizen comments at this time? I see no additional citizen comments. I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda. We'll second that. That's a motion for a negative recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? There's a negative recommendation. Sam, would we continue on to hear the next two or three items on our agenda at this point in time?

You could, but you might want to ask the applicant if they want to.

Mr. Lanham, what would be your will for us to hear the annexation plan of services and the rezoning request, items 8B, 8C, and 8D? Would you like for this body to continue to hear those items, or would you like to defer those items?

If we could defer, we'd like to. reconsider maybe even changing the zoning from the CRC to the OPS if that would help in making the overall decision to go that way I don't know from the decision that was just made if that's a possibility but we can defer for the other two we can get it sorted out yeah yeah yeah that that

Kind of my thing on that, I would rather see the corner redevelop, and OPS is not conducive to the redevelopment, the discussion that we just had, the commercial. I mean, what you're asking for would be desirable. Yes, sir. But it needs to come together. I know that that's hard to make sense, but if everything comes together as it is with the request – as i just said my fear is the access points on this and the precedence it's set uh with a one deep property with no direct access to a major thoroughfare such as lebanon road and then the potential access point this body would have to grant someone there at green hill road i think it's challenging and i think it's dangerous to be quite frank but if the whole corner could be redeveloped and parceled together replatted I can't speak for anybody else here. I can speak for myself, like I said, I've probably passed through this intersection at least six times a day. I think that that is a great corner and I would like to see something that would be a little bit more, there's some great things, there are great businesses that are thriving in there right now. So not to discount their businesses that are very successful there and doing well, I hope. but something such as restaurants or convenience retail or office or whatever it may be, whatever somebody's vision is for the corner right there. But kind of with this 1D property, it kind of needs to be combined together with that property should it be the desire out there. So it's not necessarily against that, but the access points that would have to be granted are just not right. with the uh thought that it would be better to come in off lebanon road or that'd be fabulous yeah that that would immediately be the thought you would improve that that lebanon road access out there yeah um potentially even you know that access could even be moved in looking at it whether or not all it looks like it's total three parcels right there the front lebanon road of course looks like you front the entire back side of them um whether or not they all three came together just the two with the strip center and this together um it gives you direct access to lebanon road and and certainly a traffic improvement and uh and a good way in you know you mentioned access there i could see maybe a right in right off off of green hill road to access this property and then a then an out back up on lebanon road you know somebody with some good vision and good engineer good architects and I imagine something really nice could be done with this corner but if it just stays independent just the fear of a commercial overlay on this one parcel and being a property deep with no frontage it's not only the ingress egress from my standpoint but it's the precedence it's set like I said on this map I can count at least four to six that if this is granted, that we would have to do the same. And I'm sure that you would argue to say that I wouldn't want that if that one were to request it.

We were hoping with the busyness of the Green Hill side that it would be more of a blend into a commercial situation.

It's the access point on Green Hill that is one of the scariest points.

Right. It's a little different than the Greenwood.

Because it's right into, you know, you can imagine if someone is coming, wants to go southbound on Green Hill, but then they want to turn into this lot, that they're going to push traffic back onto Lebanon Road because traffic's already queued up trying to get through the intersection going north on South Green Hill. and you've caused a malfunction junction right there probably one of our busiest roads in in mount julia south green hill right so it's just good design and some good thought too there's merit

um and so i hope that something has worked out and and i hope we get to see it again yes sir come sure john please yeah but if there was a ride up in north green hill road then that would take traffic off from green hill road if they were going into this site and as far as counting the the lots this is the only one that goes to two that could have two ingresses and ingresses on two different roads unless these people down here combine lots together You see what I'm saying?

My actual hope would be that if it were to redevelop, that the only access point would be Leavenham Road.

Yeah, I mean, that would be the best. But you probably want secondary somewhere just for safety reasons. I mean, we're talking about the one on Mount Dewitt Road for the circular. I mean, you would want that if that redeveloped.

You could actually shoot them out to Tanglewood over there to the back of that strip center.

Yeah.

So, yeah.

Tom, please. I do want to clarify. If that corner were to redevelop, short of getting an access easement to that adjacent parcel, the best point of access would be up South Green Hill Road. Otherwise, they're really in the signal box because of how offset that signal is. So they're kind of in a rock and a hard place getting access to that lot in general.

Yeah. Yeah, so basically if they want to combine together, come let us take a look at it.

Right. Yeah. Yes, sir.

Wonderful.

Thank you. That is a deferral by the applicant. Item, let me read these three real quick. Item 8B, which is recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners, review the annexation request for the Williams property located 98 Tanglewood Drive. It's been deferred per request of the applicant. Item 8C, which is recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners, review the plan of services for the Williams property located 98 Tanglewood Drive. It's been deferred. per the applicant item 8d which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners which is the review the rezone request from wilson county r1 to crc for the williams property located 98 tanglewood drive has been deferred per request of the applicant Next item up on our agenda would be item 9A. It's review the final master development plan site plan for Acorn Property, Spectrum Sound, located at 7110 Central Pike. That is from Mr. John.

Spectrum Sound in area G of the Providence Central PUD. This is on the west side, south side of Central Pike. little bit of compacts over there that's that part of the puds cmu uh behind it to the southwest would be rs20 which is also part of that pud spectrum sound this is a commercial audio video system integration and installation high-end live sound gear rentals and tour support and professional audio technology sales and major venues so that's the use um on the fmdp around the preliminary mass development plan here uh this area was earmarked for big box kind of development parking you know big commercial box somewhere in the middle um it's essentially what we got going on here um The thing I'd like to talk about here is the facade materials. Now, this PUD has a unique kind of amendment history. And they were given waivers on certain parts of the PUD regarding the facade materials. Area G was not one of those areas. they're asking and with this approval the planning commission has that authority to do so for the facade waiver as written in your staff report Now, I've changed my mind on my recommendation, because when I wrote this, I was under the impression since it's a PUD, they might have to do a PUD amendment. But since this does not violate any condition of the original PUD, since there were no waivers put on this particular area of the PUD in regards to the facade materials, they can ask for it now via the board. Planning Commission, rather. And what they're asking for is 77.5% approximately of tilt-up concrete panels. They do have 11.5% of brick. And the bulk of the rest is glazing. You can look at the building. They did go a little above extra to make it look palatable. But they are asking for that waiver. And you all have the authority to Speak on it. Weigh in on it. I think that's the bulk of it. That's the big thing with this. The rest of it looked pretty good. So staff does recommend approval. And I can support the waiver now for this type of building. Thank you. Thank you. Jen, Public Works.

Staff recommends approval with our conditions, but I would like to strike condition number six since West Wilson Utility is not the water service provider in this area.

Very well. Tom, you got anything on this one?

YEAH, SO FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION, THE ACCESS INTO THIS LOT ITSELF IS FINE. THE BOOT CODE IS GREAT. HOWEVER, THIS WILL BE SETTING THE PRECEDENT FOR THE LOT ACROSS THE EXTENSION OF PROVINCE PARKWAY. THE ORIGINAL PUD APPROVED ON SHEET CO02 ACTUALLY DOESN'T SHOW ANY ACCESS ON THAT STREET, SO WE'RE REALLY JUST GOING TO BE HOLDING THEM TO THAT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. BUT, AGAIN, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITE. THAT'S JUST FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS.

Thank you. Questions, comments, discussion from the Commission? Mr. Bohm?

One of the things that I'd like to see updated is the landscape requirements. I'm trying to figure out why the trees don't continue along the back of the lot where it backs up to residential properties.

I ask for representation to this project. Name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. Joe Haddix, Heritage Civil. I noticed that walking in here earlier today. Sorry, taking care of That full buffer will be planted across the rear lot line. Oh, geez. Yeah. Good catch. Thank you.

Further... And just so I can confirm, is this going to be... I'm looking at the approved PMDP. Is this building going to be just south of the A1 CMU? Is that where I'm looking at it correctly?

That is correct. Okay.

I just wanted to make sure I knew physically where it was at. Yeah.

So this building almost sits identically where that building is shown. Okay. From a drawing that's six years old. Yeah. So we're trying to adhere to the approved preliminary plan as best we can. Sure. Todd did mention the site you're seeing in the PUD in that drawing is bigger than this site. Yeah. Therefore, there was an access to a future road. that at the time that's where TDOT was saying Hager was going to go and hold another discussion that Todd and I and Matt and Shane have been having. At this time, we would request approval of the access points. We're committed to the public works condition that driveways will align as the south side of the parkway extension develops. We're already accounting for that. We respectfully request your consideration and approval of the material waiver. I think it's a good looking building. Architects have gone kind of above and beyond to add even more features than what you've heard me say. Some of these other big box guys are adding to their buildings. Really cool looking building. Really excited to get something going on the west side of Central Pike there. Public Works has recently approved the roadway extension plan and the masquerading plan that y'all saw a couple months ago. So contractor is nearing getting ready to start erosion control and pre-cons with Public Works. So can answer any other questions y'all may have. Thank you for your time.

Let me make sure I'm right on this too, Joe. You guys will... you're basically going to complete the entire road section extension of providence parkway all the way leading to this site so that road will be completed in its entirety correct the development of this site that is correct yeah so unlike what we did on the other side of providence parkway where it was three lanes for a time and then it ultimately got widened to five right this gets the ultimate five-line section at the central pike

intersection comes back a certain distance uh that we worked out with public works at that full five lane and then transitions down to three lanes so you get the ultimate road section day one would this start prior to and maybe it's a todd question uh or

start prior to the central pike interchange therefore allowing john hager whether or not it comes like this i'm sure that's a discussion between you guys and tdot uh out there but this would potentially give an access point a good access point so that the people on john hager continue to come in and out is that Yeah, it's kind of what I'm asking.

I can't speak to when they're going to start their construction, but the interchange project is slated to start in 2029. Okay. That being said, there have been some changes to the plans. Technically, the final right away plans aren't available yet, but they're coming imminently. But the last I saw that John Hager was going to continue to Central Pike, become a write-in write-out when the interchange comes in, and it will be this development's responsibility to essentially install that realigned John Hager that TDOT was previously going to do. Okay. So that connection is coming with this, but they're going to track independently, really, of... of when the change comes in.

It at least gives an option or an access point right there with the folks that depend on John Hager while Central Pike is kind of messed up up there for a little bit or pretty busy with a lot of activity on

Well, that would actually be the full build out of the PUD, because they're not building that connection yet. That would come with some of the other, if you look at that approved PUD sheet, it's going to come with some of those other sites that A2, trying to find it. Yeah, A2, the northern half of A1, if you're looking at sheet CO.02. Because there's no flood critters on when that road gets realigned. Quite frankly, they weren't supposed to have to build that road.

But we're going to have a five-lane road sitting there as a potential option at least. Joe, would you guys be ahead of that 29 date then? Yeah, we're going to start construction this fall.

It should be complete next spring, early summer.

All right. What kind of semi-traffic are we looking at overall? It makes me a little nervous.

Very minimal. This is not a daily distribution hub. This is have the equipment ready to go for a artists leaving on tour, coming in, they're loading it up, they're coming in, they're testing.

Heavy vehicles would not be required to go through any residential areas prior to getting to the interchange. Honestly, even before that comes in, they can stick to major collectors and materials.

Further questions, comments from the commission? Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no further questions or comments at this time, I'd like to call for citizen comments in regards to this item on our agenda. Anyone wishing to make a comment is welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion of approval. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Please.

Sorry, just to confirm, that included the material waiver? Yes. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Perfect. next item up on our agenda is item 9c which is to review the site plan for mainstead at golden bear located 4515 beckwith road mr joe okay a couple months ago we saw i think it was may

You saw the final map that was on the plan for this. I also distributed the maps so you can kind of see the layout of this as it's gone through. Starting with that PMDP, that was from, I believe, 2024. was the second pmdp there was a initial one then they had an amendment where they got rid of the age restricted in the northeast corner that we talked about last month and then the one you have before you is the pmdp the most recent pmdp and then i also printed out the fmdp that was approved back in may um there are a couple inconsistencies in here and i have them in the site plan um And most notably, I think the FMDP showed 298 units in this plan before you got 301. So that would have to be brought back down. Or rather, it's got 301. The FMDP had 292. Commercial square foot versus the FMDP that you saw in May went up a couple hundred square feet. 700-plus. We got restaurant. We got retail in there. Overall density of this putt is capped at 7.4 units. This particular phase, you got 15.2, same as it always was, more or less minus that discrepancy I just explained. Beyond that, I don't think I have a lot else to say on here.

Yep, staff recommends approval.

This is site plan.

Shane, Public Works?

We recommend approval with our conditions, but I will get with planning because these conditions are from another project.

Very well. Todd, do you have anything on this one? Very well. Questions or comments from the Commission?

in an area? I didn't notice one.

It is in building 100. I can help you with that one.

It's in the building?

It is in the building. I think that Mr. John made a note saying that we need postmaster approval in order to locate it there. Let's go ahead and ask for representation because I've got a lot of questions.

Drew Hardison, 615 3rd Avenue South.

Do you want to, I guess, speak to Commissioner Armstead's question on the mail kiosk?

Yeah, it'll be located inside of the building. That's correct.

For all the units?

Yes. So that's going to lead me to one of my questions I have. Where do they park? In the lot there. So no dedicated parking for the mail kiosk? It's not dedicated now.

Shouldn't it be signed that says so many minutes to park close to a kiosk? I mean, like you have that when you go into retail places. I mean, restaurants, you normally park there a certain few minutes while you go pick up something. Would that not be consistent in this many units and have your mail in one place? don't think that we have an issue having that yeah we come with how many spaces I mean I don't know this Todd knows I mean I don't I don't know how many I mean spaces would is the norm for this I mean oh oh I see Melvin

one or two maximum.

Well, how many times does somebody go to the post office like I go every day and there's more than two cars there? I go almost every day.

I was in a Bixley Apartments the other day and I was with a lady and she was picking up her mail. And then it was probably in the afternoon, people are getting up from work and they're coming in and wanting to get their mail in. Several people were parking and there were, oh, five or six or at least five or six parking spaces for that. That's a big complex.

I think people will walk throughout and connect through the amenity center and that's pretty common in a multifamily development.

So let's just carry on with concerns I have overall on this one as it sits. I asked staff to give us a copy of the PUD itself, which everybody here tonight received a copy of it. And one of the main reasons I wanted to see this particularly is because I wanted to see how the original PUD proposed the parking and and how each building was going to be serviced by that. A couple of the big differences. We had buildings or one building at the back on this position to the floodplain there, I guess, to the east of this site. I think it was set up at one point for some of the green space on the, what I would call, the southwest corner of it. I think I had heard commercial at that time when this initially came here before us. So as I was looking at the site, my concerns are, one, I think that we've got to have dedicated parking for a mail kiosk right there. If nothing else, you've got to have dedicated parking for the mail carrier themselves. So they've got to have a place to put their car that they're not going to get towed out there. The PUD is capped at 7.4 UPA. Then how is a UPA, and this is a staff question, and how is 15.2 UPA in substantial compliance?

They're like 15.9 UPA.

around 15.9 very well and then in in looking at the overall design we're like well let's do apartments and then hey we should get some room left let's throw three town homes in there um the logic to that one something that i've never seen in 22 years sitting here that you throw three town homes uh in the middle of all apartments um don't like that they could easily be converted back to commercial and commercial um percentage to come up because that was what was desired by this commission at the time that this pub was approved number two is you've got the commercial and then the commercial doesn't have any direct or immediate access to even trash receptacles that they have to cross all the way across the site to get to trash so to me that's prohibitive for any potential restaurants to come in there that they're either going to have to throw it in a car or throw it in a truck and know or or we've not accommodated uh trash so that that to me says that none of my uses are going to be any kind of restaurants or anything convenient over there to them three is i have one two three four five six seven eight nine ten 10 sections that we've designed the parking to back into the drive lanes throughout this site on blind corners, blind intersections that don't see that the travel around this site and the way it's designed and the way that the parking the building elevations I think everything look great but the parking configuration on this and how you're gonna drive and maneuver this site I think it's really poorly designed I mean we have traffic backing out I'm happy to show you my plan and show you my concerns on it but you know in the initial plan too with where your northern parking is you have parking place aligned to parking place so we originally proposed we had green space separating that parking uh up uh up there on the north side of this development and i mean you have cars backing into intersections And I just don't understand how that is a good plan or a good design that this body should approve and say, well, it works, it meets. I don't know how it works and meets where you put people parking, backing into intersections.

Are you referring to the north side?

I would love to show it to you. Okay. and those are just it it gives me the feel your project as a whole i like and your elevations are like and everything that i like but i feel like we struggled to get this many units in compliance with our parking requirements and so we've put parking places in places that in areas that i don't feel are well designed or safe And that's my only struggle with this project is we have before us right here, really. and and that's just where my my comments are with it i'd like to see it develop it does appear to be now that i got to see this tonight as i came up in here it's very similar to the design i know i've i've been kind of outspoken on some of them coming forward to us that really haven't been very similar and it's in their initial design on them and in compliance with our pud uh improvement here but the overall design and seeing what was submitted for the pud does look pretty close uh in this case here so i agree with staff's assessment on it um and i'd like to see it go but it just it just doesn't this one just doesn't feel that it drives right and it's safe for the people that we're going to put in there and I'd like to see the retail and potential restaurant component with it. And again, you know, where your retail is and your closest dumpster pad, I mean, you know, you gotta, good haul over there and so how are we going to get i'd like to see these attract the commercial and the retail attract people that don't necessarily live in the apartments as well to want to come here and it just doesn't lay out like it's going to be an easy way in or out and you know when once people figure out they can't get in and out easy then they have more of a tendency not to go and i'd like to see the long-term success of this project be successful

And I was concerned about those three townhomes as well. It just looks so just pushing people together in such a small space here. But the pocket park is where that is behind the townhome units. Is that a potential playground? What is that meant to be? I didn't see it. I see the pool, the pavilion, and a fitness center. And I know that the designs of the The apartments seem to be one and two bedrooms. Do you have three bedrooms there as well?

I believe it's just one and two.

So it's probably designed for beginning homes and younger people, but they still have children sometimes. And I just was thinking that there's nothing much that benefits them in terms of a play area. I see that it could be there by the pool pavilion beyond that, a designated area. And that's a lot of people.

Sam, I have a question for you. Is this, at this point of this project, is this one to where this body has the ability to put a trigger on the commercial versus CO?

I don't think that the Planning Commission usually does that, no. And I don't know, I don't have the ordinance in front of me to know if that would be for it.

I just want to make sure that the commercial component is done I'd like to see to see it move forward but I think his parking configuration is laid out right now I've got concerns in regards to this and let me ask you one more question real quick the the north side parking as you come in off of Old Beckwith Road. It looks like that entire north section of parking is off property.

Yes, it would be shared with that next development that's coming in, the age-restricted piece.

Okay. You guys got easements and everything in place allowing that to happen? Okay. Was that necessary to get in compliance with our parking places? Yes.

We're a little over-parked at the moment because we dropped the number of units from 301 to 292 from FMDP to site plan to be consistent with the PMDP. So we've got a few spots we could lose, but not that many.

So you saw my concerns with some of the parking there. Couldn't lose enough parking to address all of those concerns that I shared with you? To me, it would cause you to lose that one right there, 3, 4, maybe 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. We would definitely be under-parked. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Roughly around 20 parking places is what it would lose. Do you have any suggestions for that reconfiguration?

Yeah, we'd really have to study that to give an honest answer on that. We've worked this pretty good to try and meet the parking requirements for 292 units and feel that this would be acceptable. I understand your concerns, and I see them. But this is a parking lot. This is not a local road. So there is a little bit of a difference there. But I see what you're saying.

Yeah. Todd, you're a traffic engineer. I know it's not a public road.

you had to review this right here i mean is this a is it safe to put people back into intersections it's not uncommon in parking lots um now typically we do see your more stereotypical straight lines with a more central drive aisle that you would turn off into your parking drive aisle um However, we've got T intersections with perpendicular parking throughout town. It's not a major safety concern just because of the speeds we're talking about in parking lots and the pedestrian routing. generally avoids having people walk in the drive aisle now there are several places across the site that that could be improved but we're talking about low speed collisions here but you you are on it there there is more risk for a collision in general when you have parking mirror intersections and you have another conflict point to deal with

No, you're my engineer. I'm not. Make a couple of notes here real quick to make sure it's included in here. This is just some additional crosswalk striping. I'd like to see crosswalk striping at the sidewalk section. As you come in the north entrance, first parking lot to your right, you've got sidewalk to sidewalk, no crosswalk, and that's adjacent to one of your main entrances. So just crosswalk striping there as seen in other places on the... On the development, same thing in regards, come through the roundabout on the east side there adjacent to the clubhouse building, building 100, apartment slash clubhouse. Come through the roundabout to the south side of it. You have sidewalk crossing there. I'd see striping for a crosswalk right there. It's not necessarily leading to another sidewalk, but you're coming out of that. You're making all your commercial customers cross this entry exit point and having no dedicated crosswalk or anything right there for your commercial people to access the commercial buildings there for their parking.

I think that is all that I got.

further questions comments Commissioner Frank yeah I'm only go back to a comment I think Commissioner Armistead made about the mail room I mean yeah that's gonna be building 100 is going to be hard to live in next to that thing I mean you think about it I mean I want I get my mail every day from a mailbox but everyone gets their mail 300 people are going to be visiting building one a day and it's in the same building of 47 units and so somebody's going to be living next door to this and it's never going to be quiet and there's always going to i mean honestly the mail room should be somehow put on the outside of one of these units at least it's far away or even separated because if you're just going to have one place it seems like you're going to make it almost the last place anyone wants to rent i mean how would you like to live in building 100 real close to that i mean it's just always going to be door slamming people going i'm talking i mean it's but rest of the residents as well picking up their mail i mean yeah people do it on their way in that's not convenient doesn't look convenient in and out i mean you're going on your way out to get the mail on the way to the store or coming home from work or whatever they're going to have to drive down in here and cross and I mean, it's buried, really. Keep away. So almost, I don't know.

That to me is... Did you consider anything else prior to putting it in the building?

Yeah, I'll have to discuss with the architect as to other options. But where it's at is with proximity right to the... You've got the pool and right across from the amenity area, so... I think without stealing more from the clubhouse, it's probably where it had to go.

Yeah, I'm not thinking about the clubhouse. I'm just seeing some other areas that are possibilities.

You're talking about like another structure? Yes, yes. Or freestanding. Or freestanding. Yeah, another structure.

And you were talking about coming in to the north off of Old Beckwith, and there's plenty of what looks like a grain space there where a

a kiosk that is a tva easement oh no structure can be even though there's green there yeah you can't you can't put a roof in there ripped off there no structures eliminates that is the pool design locked down or is there

I'm seeing a very unique design with kind of that center island there, and I would strongly recommend making that a more traditional size. It would be far more functional if maybe a swim club developed here or classes or whatever the case may be, right? Trying to swim in a very uniquely shaped pool like that could bring up a lot of different issues, so something more standardized.

I'm just very wary of the no situation.

I agree with you 100%. I would like to see a playground in that just north of the pool there. It's a perfect spot for it.

Sam, I'm going to come back to you real quick. Does this body at this point in time on this submittal, this being a site plan request, do we have the ability to request and make changes to this? Or do we have the ability to turn it down?

Yes, as long as you're not complying with the final master development plan. So if they had approved that way, you would have not switched it.

So disapprove it for other reasons?

You could disapprove it for it not complying with the final master development plan, if you say the reason.

Fair enough. think that we have any issues with any of the crosswalk things that you've mentioned and making those connections and I'm happy to bring things up as far as the concerns of the mailroom we can have those discussions and I like the swimming pool idea so that you could have a team there perhaps that sounds really good for young folks plus maintenance

Right, Art?

Well, the only thing I have about the pool is this neighborhood probably is not going to have a lot of children. It's going to be one and two bedrooms. So you don't have a lot of younger people that go out there and want to maybe see this kind of thing. Like when we go to Florida, a place, you know, they've got islands in the pool. Of course, it doesn't do anything for me. But, you know, kids and younger people, it does. So I don't know. I don't have a problem with the pool. But I think they could do something with that building to make that kiosk separate or something. Because it's just like you're talking about the people going in. I mean, I go in late to get my mail sometimes. Or if you're out of town and people come, everybody's not going to go to bed at 8 o'clock in the air. So, I mean, you have people that travel and come back home, they're going to get their mail. So that could be 2 o'clock in the morning, 3 o'clock in the morning, whatever. Everybody doesn't go to bed at 9 o'clock, I guarantee you.

Where do people in those two northern buildings take their garbage?

The far north and the far northeast. Yeah, they would come down to the south, but there's also access inside of those buildings as well. Wait, say again, there's also what? I believe that there is a compactor. You're talking about buildings 200 and 300, right? Correct.

I mean, I can see the south portion of 300 has access to that one at the south compactor enclosure.

Yeah.

But that's quite a haul for 200, unless that building 700 maintenance is going to also have garbage.

That one is not.

Yeah, I didn't think it was. So I'm seeing a total of two dumpsters for this whole, or am I missing one? That's correct. Do we have standards for that? Those are going to have to be gigantic dumpsters for 300 units.

Yeah. Okay.

We're seeing a quality of life for these folks.

I've got to be honest with you. yeah without the dumpsters without the mail kiosk the three townhomes give me a ton of heartburn our traffic engineer is good with the uh with the parking but i mean it just you could have that mail kiosk on there with those three townhomes i know that's not going to be equitable i personally think that that should review the staff comments and adjust accordingly.

Pardon?

I just wanted to point out that the final master development plan does have the three townhomes, so the planning commissioner should not have

there's been very little site plan changes since FMDB no that doesn't change a poor design it's a poor design it's poorly thought out poorly laid out it might be in compliance but there's just zero consideration to people they're gonna live here I mean I just don't see how you can stand there and say that there's not I mean there's just it's in compliance we can say that uh outside of that it's no vision i mean i could keep on with adjectives but and if i may mention please what happens when you don't have

Quality is that in the future then the rent will drop And you're going to have some situations and I never voted for apartments in my previous time of commission never and I do now because there's some places and I've had a total change but there again the final design the design should be for quality to not just quantity because you know time goes by and So what's going to happen 20 years from now? If people are not satisfied and they have to walk all the way across for this, or they have to take the trash all the way across this whole development, and and all of this who's going to live there they only just live there a year and then you move somewhere else and if people don't want to live there guess what the rent goes down so more people comes in there and you know you know where i'm going with this so that's that's the only thing so you got a good point luke

please if anybody else has any additional discussion feel free and have it i'm reading some stuff personally over here i do have one more question please what if the postmaster doesn't approve this mail kiosk being located internally in building 100 i wouldn't i mean the postmaster

And

and here's my concern and this is based upon staff's comment as well if we were to say hey you can get with staff to resolve some of these issues and move forward the fact that staff has already indicated that they've requested several things of you in their meetings and you have had zero willingness to work with staff in order to hear their concerns in regards to the site but yet continue to press the site forward is of concern in itself so how can i put that back upon staff to say hey we this body feels like we need more than two dumpsters this body feels like the mail kiosk is here when staff is sitting here saying that they've made these suggestions to you and they've made these comments to you and yet here we are at this meeting tonight and you've ignored staff so how can this body forward something to staff with a recommendation or some type of approval to say, hey, work with staff on this when staff's comments have fallen upon deaf ears.

Respectfully, and maybe I've missed something here, but the things that were brought up with the dumpster and the mail kiosk, that's the first time that I've heard that from staff. Perhaps that's been mentioned to somebody else and not myself. If it was written somewhere, Maybe I've missed that, and apologies for that. But as far as me personally, that's the first that I've heard of that. That's great. So when I hear some feedback from staff, we take that very seriously and seek to implement that into the plans. We take pride in the work that we do. We want to produce a quality product. It's not just on to the next. I take just as much pride as you guys do in making this city great.

John, do you believe that issues that you've heard from us here tonight if we were to make those conditions of approval that this would be able to be worked through uh by yourself and additional staff at the city and dumpsters i think that's about it Okay. Sam, we're able to add conditions? Very well.

Very well. Perfect.

I'd like to see the playground, regardless of the age.

All right. Further discussion, questions, comments?

Well, just to say that, I mean, don't get me wrong in my comments about the the mail room and all but we want you to be successful if you're successful you're going to have a good business apartments apartments are a business and if they don't make a profit they go down in value and they're not a they're certainly not any pride to have in your city and so i respect all of the comments we're all trying to make this a success so yeah thank you for saying that

All right, thank you. Let's go ahead and open the floor for citizen comments. Any citizens that wish to make a comment, I welcome the courage to do so. And please come to the microphone and name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments, I am going to open the floor for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda.

Dr. Bristow should have it done.

individual dumpster for the restaurant most restaurants do have a dumpster and they fill them up so i know i had a concern in regards to some crosswalks we have additional dumpsters male kiosks Access and parking to the kiosk.

Somehow, yeah. Yeah.

Anybody like to dare to craft a motion in regards to this item? I'll make a motion to approve subject to the additional following conditions one is the addition of a crosswalk and I will provide my drawing to staff that I have here indicating these points an addition of the crosswalk at the north northwest uh sidewalk connection as you come in off the north side uh crosswalk again um from the commercial uh to the uh to the parking lot um i'm going to include in that crosswalk section the extension of the sidewalk up to old beckwith road a additional make sure that is it an additional dumpster trash system to be located on the north section of this property to service particularly building 200, potentially building 300, requirement that the commercial facilities have dedicated trash receptacles just for them that include access points and or crosswalks to safely get to them, that the mail kiosks be removed from the clubhouse, and potentially uh two male kiosks be added at the eastern side of the development as well as the western side of the development shall be covered and with a minimum of two parking places accessible to that male kiosk and subject to all staff comments That is my motion. Second. There is a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? Silver.

Next item up on the agenda.

is uh review the site plan for in light beckwith uh located at 12009 volunteer boulevard mr john all right volunteer boulevard

Speaking of this, 112,320 square foot warehouse. It's a 16-acre site, zoned IR already. Typical of these, we've got a waiver request for precast concrete. I think the press is in the area. It fits with its surroundings. I think that's it. This is pretty straightforward. No pot involved here. It is 75 foot tall. Nope, that's all. The conditions, approval with conditions listed. It's pretty minor.

Very well. Shane, anything from Public Works? Staff recommends approval with our comments. Thank you.

Questions, comments from the Commission?

There's a pretty significant stream location on the site. The way it was explained to us was that it would be very difficult to connect the road completely and stay out of the buffer for the relocated stream. So they did coordinate with the fire marshal several times, actually. to ensure that what they're showing would be acceptable for our fire department. I believe every point in the building is within 200 feet of an accessible spot for a fire truck, which is what our code requires. So that's how they came to the gap there that they came to. Okay. Thank you.

further questions comments let's go ahead and uh ask for representation name and address for record please connor gilbert kimley horn uh civil side engineer uh to add to the split connection there's also some cross drainage that comes off from off-site this is a pretty heavily uh cross-drained servicing multiple properties uh that's on the south side of that building We're essentially maintaining that path of flow, and it sort of restricts that full circulation. It's also cross-parked for, not cross-parked, it's split-parked for a two-tenant build-out. So you kind of have those dedicated access points and parking for the tenants that would be a part of that build-out.

So there was no way to kind of connect these two either down there?

We looked into it, but that cross-drainage kind of created some conflicts where ultimately it would result in some substantial changes of how drainage patterns are existing. Okay. Chief Fulks was good with it.

Got a quick question for you. Are you tilt up on this? Yes, sir. So I got your color palette and everything back here, and then you're doing texture on top of it. is the are you using the smooth form tilt up then is the plan that is my understanding i mean from an architectural standpoint there may be some stamping for texture uh but i do believe it's smooth form okay so the text the texture would be applied during the application of the paint is it just paint or is it some kind of a stucco or drive it or i guess you know you can put the color out there But what is being applied? We just had a few of these commercial buildings over there in the area that I like the tilt-up construction, so I'm a fan of that, especially when you get these tall walls like this. I think they're safer and a better way to construct these in the long run. But I also want to make sure that the facade and the application of the materials applied to them are also going to hold up and look better than a few of them that – said that manufacturer, man, it's 100 years. We're never going to touch it. Well, we're seven years in. It looks like you need to touch it.

Yes, sir. I understand. I believe that we need to get back to the architectural team to confirm that. I don't want to speak out of turn there, but I'm sure that we're willing to comply with any kind of material standards on that front.

Right.

Okay. Yeah, and just curiosity out of myself, how is it? We're just going to be a guy with a spray gun and spraying just direct Sherwin-Williams or Sherwin-Williams paint colors. So Sherwin-Williams paint colors to it. Or is he actually going to have a, you know, you actually got textured guns or materials or just adding that color to something out there. and a different type of spray on material that would give it that kind of finish like the old school stucco, you know, that's sprayed on as well, but then you put whatever color that you want to it, red, green, or purple, or whatever, and just gives it a texture, gives it a little bit of a feeling of depth and dimension, and sometimes, too, can help that longevity of the paint to hold up.

Are there questions, comments from the commission?

Thank you so much. Seeing none at this time, I'd like to ask for assistance and comments. Any assistance we should make in regards to this item on our agenda, welcome. We encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no assistance and comments at this time, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion. And a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 9E, to review the site plan for Hickory Station West, located at 261 West Main Street. Mr. John. Yes.

a condition in there that they add some windows to the

North North facade. Yes, North facade. It's a little blank. It's going to be facing North. Let me make sure I don't have anything else in here.

No.

That's all recommending approval with the conditions and there's only 13 of them and I'm pretty minor.

Well, thank you. Shane, anything from Public Works?

No, sir. We recommend approval with our conditions as listed. Thank you.

Thank you. Todd, anything?

Yeah, I just want them to move the bike rack.

Do what?

I want them to move the bike rack.

Ah, where would you like them to move the bike rack?

Anywhere that's not immediately on a concrete wall. It looks like there's a spot to the south side of the building there. Your bikes would be blocking your sidewalk there. do you want it tell me where uh if if it just goes immediately south of the building as opposed to up against the wall of the dumpster enclosure there's room for it we can work with the the applicant okay perfect small details man small details make a difference i like it questions comments from the commission

Seeing none at this time, let's call for citizen comments. Anyone wish to make comments, welcome, encourage to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. make a motion to approve subject to staff comments and the uh movement of the bike rack to a site as determined by our traffic engineer it's motion in a second all those in favor signify by saying aye raise your hand aye against abstentions so approved next item up on our agenda is a discussion item it is item 10a it is the land use plan and zoning ordinance amendment is this mr john i'll give you an update here so um i think there's a lot this just snowballs into a huge huge item

correctly um and i think the way i had thinking about it over the last couple weeks i think the way to proceed the most functional way most likely way to get what we want is to amend the code i think i think we can achieve what we need to do by tweaking our Let's do every backup. We've got two items. Let's talk about the land. Let's talk about the zoning ordinance in a minute, the substantial compliance, tightening those up, those two criteria. I've looked at PMDP checklist, what we require. I would probably, at this point, I'm going to leave that alone. We require quite a bit on the PMDP. There is language with finesse you know in a way because as we talked about last month they're allowed to decrease things that we don't want them to decrease usually i mean it kind of runs counter to what we yeah that's a pretty easy code amendment um the checklist item pretty pretty pretty straightforward code amendment i think we can kind of assuage some of these fears that we get on these fmdps by making us tweaks to those items in the hug process okay um and for the land now back up to the land use map amendment i haven't landed fully on that where i would like to think there's a couple I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THE LAND USE, AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN, WE GOT TO DO THE WHOLE THING. AND IT'S DUE FOR IT ANYWAY. SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES DOWN IN THAT AREA, I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, THEY'VE GOT THIS PRACTICALITY, I THINK, ABOUT IT TOO. HOW DO WE EVEN CHANGE THE LAND USE? PLAN FOR SOME OF THESE. A LAND USE PLAN HAS TO COME FROM THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. AND A REZONE HAS TO COME FROM THE... SO I DON'T... WE'D HAVE TO REALLY DIVE OFF DEEP, I THINK, AND LOOK AT THE WHOLE LAND USE PLAN. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS THUS FAR. THIS IS A... I HOPE WE GET FEEDBACK HERE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO PROCEED. The FMDP, PMDP issues that we're having, that can be fixed with an ordinance amendment, I think, pretty easily. But with the land use plan changes, I don't know. I'd rather just see us do the whole plan, do it comprehensively. That's what I, I don't know, I don't know what else. What else do you want to add to that? But that's kind of where I'm at at this point.

You have some comments as well?

Yeah. I'm going to speak, John, a little bit for you. We've been talking about this for about a month since the last issues that Mr. Franklin brought up in the last meeting me and you met and have spoke about some of this. And what we would like to see first is without going into a complete overhaul for the land use right out of the gate, we would like to see if we can tighten up the distance between PMDP and FMDP just by adding some some verbiage and tightening up the six criteria that equals substantial compliance. I think, you know, some of the concerns that not only the planning commission has discussed that we've also heard from the B the VOC as well is making sure that substantial compliance is a little more substantial is what we're looking for and hoping that we can accomplish that by instead of using the term the mayor used, because I didn't know what it meant for a minute, is we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So if we can do that by tightening up those six criteria, that would probably be our first step and our preferred step. And then if it doesn't get to where we need to be, then we can look at other options. That's what we would prefer as staff. And I think that is, based on the BOC members that I've spoken with, is the preferred first step.

about adding some of the things that always come up, right? We're always talking about crosswalk striping that was missed, or we're always talking about mail kiosks, or we're always talking about garbage receptacle locations. There's got to be a way.

That's a different way.

What's that?

That's a different way. We're talking preliminary plan. Yeah. but it's not that's like commercial standards yes okay I'm like a couple months ago we did do one for the milk yeah yeah how do we how do we even there's only so much we have we can is there well we could we could I mean we can make those changes I mean yeah but I

i don't think they're they're not really related to what we're talking about okay okay understood see one of the things that that i've had and and in my particular issues i mean you can see it it's not as evident as as i thought it was going to be but it is um the pmdp I mean, maybe it's as easy as saying your FMDP building locations have to be the same at FMDP.

Well, right now it says approximate locations.

But exact.

Yeah, because...

It's funny how we don't see any of this PMDP to FMDP when it comes to a laid out subdivision. um we'll see a few but it's nothing really major out there you know your road is your road your your house is split off or your house is split off um i can't speak to one that is just a residential neighborhood that i've i said man this doesn't look anything like what we approved um and yet here we are in a 12-month time period that i can maybe three or four that that just don't know they come in selling a vision and and somewhere between pmdp and fmdp the vision is lost totally modified just doesn't i know it's in compliance uh but it doesn't match what we were you know came to dinner and ain't what we ordered uh kind of a feeling is is is the thing here and so maybe it's the maybe it's the teeth that that You know, do your homework, do your research, and put your buildings where they're supposed to be and leave them there. And then maybe it's something as well that we put, hey, you can't build your residential until you build your commercial.

So we have discussed putting some triggers in place where a certain percentage of commercial, if it is a mixed use, that a certain number of commercials are built before you can get a number of COs residentially. But I think one of the things that me and John have spent quite a bit of time on, as well as the city attorney, is that when we're coming in as a preliminary plan, it is very much conceptual. It is very much preliminary. So getting married too much to what it is in a preliminary plan, they may have different vendors that may come in that they, I mean, when they come in for those preliminary plans, they don't know who their tenants are gonna be. they don't know who, what, I mean, they, if they know that they want to have mixed use or they may know that there could be a commercial aspect to it, but they don't necessarily know what that vendor's going to want their building shaped like, or the number of units that, you know, they may have the number of units that they want, but it may not know exactly the way of that building is going to lay out. So while I understand what the planning commission is talking about and wanting to get away from debate and switches, We do have to understand I mean Bobby you've done this before you understand what when they're coming in at a preliminary stage that is a very broad conceptual plan that they're coming in.

level that preliminary then a next step and then the final we've already got three we've already have a concept plan too you could submit a concept preliminary final site plan you know we're a little off the topic of land use anyway and i mean yeah there's probably trouble between holding them accountable but

you know we we get land use plan amendment requests almost every meeting i've had four or five in a meeting so the development community they're not afraid to change our land use plan we shouldn't be afraid to change our land use plan the problem i mean this is a question that i don't have a vote arts got a vote on it ultimately the the city commission gets to choose to amend the land use plan since they adopted it. So they have the final say, but the question is you got two quarters that are about to bloom. One is already blooming, obviously. And what do you want it to look like? I mean, do you want it? you want it to be all apartments because right now the environment in the development community is that's the easiest way to make a big sale you can get the most for your property if you can flip an apartment complex on it through whatever standards we come up with so the real question as i see it is do you want central pike to be all apartments i mean we just see what the preliminary master development plan is and we approved upset and and there's more coming in just that one but Central Pike is a a pretty long road and there's a lot of there's a lot of land use that can come in and so as long as we've got mixed use down there originally mixed use in Mount Juliet was in on one lot Remember, it was a town center concept here where we brought mixed use in. We just started talking about mixed use in one building. That's where it started. And now we're mixing uses in a PUD in different lots. And we're mixing so many uses up that you're having to put landscaping between them. That's not really mixed use when you have to buffer it internally. I mean, that's how ridiculous it's kind of got. But I think we're getting duped into thinking that that no one wants to come to mount julia unless they give us a set of apartments first and that's not true it's not true people are wanting to locate businesses in mount julia without having apartments there are other developers that will come so the land use question i don't think we've even talked about yet do we really want that many more apartments up and down golden bear gateway my answer would be no i mean i don't have a vote on the city commission but that would be my i think you got plenty I don't think Mount Juliet has to take that to get something added. It'll come.

Sure. Commissioner, I think we're talking about two different areas of the city when we're talking about Central Pike and when we're talking about Golden Bear. What you're correct is we don't want necessarily to see apartment complexes going up and down Golden Bear. There is a different conversation to whether apartment complexes near an interstate route. It's a different conversation. But up and down Golden Bear, it's basically a large portion from Division to, say, Curd Road. A lot of that is currently sold, and I'm sure you're aware of that. Yeah. And currently, as we're sitting here today, all of that is zoned industrial. And we definitely don't want to see warehouses all up and down Golden Bear, even more so. Kenny Martin calls it golden for a reason, right?

That ship's kind of sailed, right?

Well, not necessarily. Even though that has sold recently, we are actively in negotiations with the people that are going to develop that site from Division Street to Curd Road or to Woodland Place for that much. And although you will be coming very soon to a theater near you, There is going to be a phase one of that that is going to be industrial, but phase one is going to be tucked near the railroad tracks, and they do have some plans for some industrial coming on from that. However, everything past that, based on the conversation we've had, is not going to be industrial. They're going to come back and ask for land use changes. where it is going to be a lot of OPS. It's going to be a lot of single-family residential. There's going to be two schools that I'm sure most of you, especially you, Mr. Franklin, are aware that's going to be going in there where this developer is actively working with the school board to not only grant them access easement to the schools, which is a problem currently, but they're also working to provide sewer directly to those schools. So Golden Bear, we definitely don't want to see industrial all the way down. We don't want to see apartment complexes all the way down. There is a good plan that we are currently working on as a staff with the developer for that property that will provide the golden ticket that the city is looking for as far as central pike goes i understand that's a lot of your your other job say uh responsibilities and you may not want to see uh apartments in that area and maybe the residents over there don't want either But there is a different conversation to be had regarding the proximity to an interstate interchange. And if we are going to have apartment complexes or multifamily, I prefer to use the word multifamily in that area. There is an argument, depending on who you are, that's the place that you want to see that at.

i think the bigger concern with central pike is where do all those kids go to school right i don't know that wilson county has any land over over that way like they do off golden bear you know that is a perfect question for a county commissioner to answer and that's kind of that's right the central pike interchange you know i can see the the density staying north and or staying south of 40 and whatnot uh but then it's central pike moves up through there um and we get into some of our traditional properties some of our older age properties and and larger lots um i mean you know i wouldn't have imagined that you're going to go down 40 out of nashville and say mount julep makes three exits never in my lifetime i would have ever imagined that one And I sure don't want somebody's impression as they make their first trip to Mount Juliet coming out of Nashville International Airport and see Mount Juliet next three exits. And their first impression of Mount Juliet is apartment central because that elevation, particularly on the north side, will look up and over the interstate. And when that says longevity and somewhere I understand we need the density and we need those things out there, um that's one of the things about you know you never get a second chance to make a first impression and in the first impression for everybody new coming into mount juliet and exploring they flew where they fly here from timbuktu or wherever and they fly into nashville their first impression would be exactly that um is that the first impression um that we want to to give to them out there becomes a magic question and maybe it is i mean that is a boc ultimate answer and it's it's not this body's answer to it um this body chose to do that Because there's an identified problem out there. And there's not a clear vision. We're letting others create the vision for us instead of ourselves. And we've been in a defensive position through a lot of growth. We've learned a lot as Providence came here. We learned a ton as we develop paddocks. And then who would have thought that we could build our own road and create Golden Bear for what it is and Beckwith Road for what it is. something other than known for uh tracy lawrence getting in trouble over there uh many years ago or aaron tippin living over in belinda city uh kind of a deal um And I'd just like to see it be your gateway as to Wilson County and to Mount Juliet. We're going to set the standard for everybody coming out of Nashville. And as you look at the land use plan currently, I don't know that that's the vision that we need to create. And so maybe that is the solution. There's not necessarily a committee then making that recommendation. But to open it up, I don't know how you guys are financially to be able to support the financial commitment that comes with opening up the land use plan. I think last time many years ago my understanding is we spent around 100 grand to uh to discover the land use plan because it was professionally done if we open it up those are professionally done and we hire outside engineers we are what is the mtasc task that comes in here there's a large financial commitment from the city that's going to come along with that and if that's where the city county 238.

yeah if that's where the city wants to go and do that expenditure i mean that's the recommendation back for us do we have the money to uh to do that well that's apparently a 238 000 question yeah but i think you referenced a hundred thousand dollars inflation is going to change that number it may not be 238 but it there's going to be an inflationary number associated with that and those of you that paid attention to our most recent budget understand that there's some shortfalls in different places that we're trying to overcome and then there's several things that you know you may see on the referendum coming up here in november 3rd that we would support your vote on but uh we would also like to see happen but i can't speak to our budgetary issue those are boc issues but i will say that no different than golden bear uh and the things that how we started this conversation talking about tightening the six regulations up to to meet substantial compliance and the the staff work that is being done behind the scenes to negotiate with golden bear versus that could have very easily by right came in and just through warehouse after warehouse after warehouse, I see the Central Pike Interchange as being no different than that. This board and the regulations that John is talking about and the staff trying to negotiate the best product going forward. Is it likely or realistic to think we're not going to have any apartment complexes or any multifamily in that interchange area? It's probably not realistic to think that there's not going to be any. Matter of fact, there's already some, I believe, in Providence Central that are already zoned and approved for that, right? So that's going to happen. But what we can do is try to continue, as this board does, and talk to the developers that come to your podium to negotiate the best product forward, that your staff can negotiate the best product forward. We can put teeth into things to narrow the gap between what you were given and what ultimately ended up being the product. I think that is probably our best path forward without going $238,000 at a product that we don't have. And quite honestly, may end up with the same result at the end of it.

Well, don't rub it in.

Well, I'm just saying. Because it is finally the BOC's decision of what happens, right?

One of the things that I think we run the risk at Central Pike right now, everybody wants to be honest, if apartments, the whole idea of Central Pike was to flush out the traffic from the south side of the city to where it doesn't have to come and cross you know retail shopping center traffic we just mix it all together there to get on the interstate so the idea is it's just going to be like a great big vacuum take all that away take half the traffic off of mount julia road let's hope especially in the morning and evening well if you go and clog that up with apartments no one's going to take it they're going to still go up to mount julia road and get on if it's easier to get on there i mean that's just the reality of driving a car right and i can give you plenty of examples in metro nashville that's happened Even right on down Central Pike, trying to get right before you get to the hospital down there where they put apartments just swallowed up Central Pike. Try to go through there at eight o'clock in the morning. If we do that to Central Pike. it's not going to help us defer any traffic from the interchange, which was the whole idea of having the interchange. And so I guess my real concern here is that it's easy to happen and it clogs up quickly. I mean, you have two, three, four, five, six, seven, you can get 1200 units of apartments real easy, real fast down there. And they're all going to get on the interstate at the same time. And know pretty soon people say well i'll just go back to mount julia road there's and then pretty soon we've just got a we've got two interchanges that are our problem and and i guess that's my biggest fear and you know i was hoping that maybe a land use plan uh amendment or something might uh steer us away from that please commissioner jobs well we we obviously

and I can only speak for me, but I think the rest of the Commission would probably say let staff work on this on what you were I think it's exciting what's going to happen on a Golden Bear, and I think that's going to add a lot of some things that we wanted in the city, and we're going to see that develop there. As far as apartments are concerned, I also understand where when you have so many apartments together, it can cause those types of troubles. But we, you know, there's some other places that we don't have apartments that would probably be good places to have an apartment. so i meet with the development um next week actually two but one of them uh probably will have a multi-family uh element in this development and uh it's definitely not going to be on central pie but it's also going to create an area where that we don't have very much multi-family and people could um and ingress and egresses is is good in this area i think and it will improve it so you know there's some places and and pockets and just think about where we're sitting right now think about what all this is going to be so that's what this is gonna be coming soon I think you know it's coming soon but but with that the city and the vision was to have a walkable downtown a thriving downtown you can't have a thriving downtown unless you have multifamily to support it I said on that board and I voted against those right down here if I had my time to do over I would have voted for that You know, I tell you when I feel like I've done wrong. And I mean, not made the best decision, you know. And where else are you going to put it than down here? If you want to thrive in downtown, that's going to come with the decreased speed limit out here. It's going to come with crosswalks. It's going to come with lines. So, you know, there's areas. And, you know, I've talked about this. There's areas. And it comes with that infrastructure improvement. So I think what the staff's trying to do is just say, give them a chance to do this right now. Keep this on the back burner as far as the land use plan, and let's see how this goes, and then we can look at it. And hopefully with everything going on, there's a lot going on right now in the city for us as the board of commissioners. We've got this that you alluded to that's coming up as a referendum. We've got this back here and the CBD going on this, and there's a lot. So...

Yeah, one of the things that's coming to mind that kind of we don't think that things will happen out there. One of them, and you look at it today, you're like, man, why didn't we make this thing happen? The connection right there at now Volunteer Bank used to be F&M Bank. Everybody's like, oh, West Willis Utility ain't going to buy that property. It ain't going to be a boneyard or a scrapyard. an awesome opportunity to put our apartments right there at that location. And it is a bone in a scrap yard. We had a good traffic design, we had a good road design to come through there. We lost an opportunity. We had a, Commissioner Franklin and I, we agree on this tonight, we disagreed on a property at Beckwith Road in Belinda City. uh commissioner franklin said there is no way they're going to build any buildings or warehouses on on that right there in that road coming over there um uh from beckwith he's like give it a try but we had a great apartment uh deal and townhome uh kind of a mixed use plan that we looked at on that we turned it down and we got warehouses sitting over there right now on major road frontage for us because we didn't think it would happen we turned down another multi-family development at the back of Belinda City at Deer Park again that touched Beckwith Road and back over there to Rutland Road and we turned that down but yet we're going to open up This to Central Pike, when this Commissioner Franklin said that the whole purpose of Central Pike Interchange is to help us to relieve some traffic at these hot points. And then that's where we're not going to make any offensive moves to change that. just doesn't make any sense it just doesn't make any sense i just don't know how that one does to be honest with you um because if you if as as any roadway goes if you clog it at its entry point it's ingress and egress everything else backs up accordingly and and if we leave it the way it is Things will be driven and dictated the same way they were for us. We will not get into control of it. It's going to be controlled by the people that come in here. And I think that we have a unique opportunity to make a statement, put our foot down for one time. I understand money's tight. I mean, money's tight for everybody. but if you do it right everything else good follows and if you do it wrong it's a mark on the city and everything else that follows will not be what we want and i think it's a big line in the sand i think that the longer you wait the more the power acquires the properties out there and i think that that if it's a year from now because it's budget season is what june may june So you're a year from now, if we get into that land use plan and we hadn't done anything, that thing has got to be on people's radar up there and acquiring and gathering properties right now in order to do that. And if they hear that we have any desire to make any changes up there, they're going to come quick and they're going to make it happen. And we're going to sit here and with no, as we already know right now, we have no grounds if they meet our regulations to turn any of them down. And we're going to be, you know, another good dad saying, if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got. And that's kind of what we're going to posture ourselves for. Instead of taking an offensive position, say, let's wait. Let's see what happens. Let's give it a year. 53 years old. Years seem like days right now, unfortunately. But, yeah. out of respect for the position and everything you know we'll move to the side if that's the will of the city for us not to form a subcommittee and look at those areas um i think it's disrespectful to do anything other than that that's the will of the board of commissioners and the city uh as well for us not to take that on and do it i think that we would be foolish to ignore that um but i'll go on record to say i think that it's uh it's a mistake not to take an offensive position towards it because i think we're going to run out of time we're going to find ourselves in an awkward position because too many times i've seen ain't never going to happen and it's happened i think this will happen too unfortunately please if i might comment dealing with the land use cement a land use plan you made the the the comment about all the land use how many of those did we pass

How many times do people come in here, and we give a positive recommendation, and how many times is it negative? So out of tonight, how many were negative? I know of one that I wanted to be positive. So how many of the others were positive? So where does it stop? We talk about that change, but we have the power to say, no, it's negative. A negative recommendation. So we have to look at ourselves, too. I agree. So...

I look at the city of Lebanon as a cautionary tale. We've got what's maybe 7,000 units approved over the last few years that are in process. And within the city of Mount Juliet limits, Lebanon's got 14,000, give or take, with no sewer capability. Roads are clogged already. So we've done a good job thus far of having our zoning and codes being tighter and has led to what I would consider somewhat more responsible growth. But if we don't continue to maintain and maybe even increase the strength of our zoning and codes, we could run into some serious problems. And that's exactly what they're saying that they want to do.

Fix that.

Yeah, I mean, I'll Commissioner, at the end of the day, Commissioner Giles is exactly right. It boils down to staff can bring whatever you want. We can't keep somebody from coming to that podium every meeting we have requesting multifamily. But it boils down to this body and the body above us to whether they allow those things, whether you allow the land use changes or do you allow those things to occur. we can do our due diligence and you can do your due diligence, but we're not going to stop them from coming into that podium. And it's just a matter of what we do when that, when that happens.

Yeah, I agree. I get a lot of feedback from people, you know, we just do this where you just prove that this is, you know, you got property owners have rights and, um, um, we try to make a consideration towards that. What would be, um, so her two things let's cover first one first so what john said there so staff is looking at a um a potential regulation change uh right now and the regulation change would be kind of focused towards the multi-use category and particularly, or is it towards the multi-use category or is this towards gonna cover everything, really transition from PMDP, FMDP, everything because it's kind of, you know, I've been here 22 years now somehow, and it doesn't feel like that other than this last 12 months that I've ever encountered this scenario where things don't look like what we approved.

It would apply to everything, any PUD.

Okay.

I think it should. And multifamily has to be a PUD, so it's always a PUD.

Yeah.

And put better teeth into what transition from PMDP to FMDP. Would it include language kind of particularly towards this multi-use and i.e. the commercial? Because as we've stated here, we feel like the commercial is the worm on the back of a big hook. and that the commercial may or may not, as I feel like did that plan tonight. Unfortunately, I was in a position where I had to recommend it for approval, but their commercial looked like they just threw it up there and really, who cares?

If there's a way to do that, you know, above board legally, I think if there's an amendment that can be done, that holds water. I think you can investigate that.

Can we require, Sam, the commercial to be phase one of all of every one of them?

So I have talked about that with staff. And generally, we just see that come through the PUD process. So it ends up being a condition in the PUD based on what that PUD has and what the needs of it are since they're all different. You could add it to the code, but it seems to work just having it as part of the PUD.

But they do have to submit a phasing plan. And if it's more screwed to your phasing plan, make sure the commercial's in the phasing plan phase one.

But they could, correct me if I'm wrong, like the one that we approved tonight, they could come in and just do the residential. Could they not? There is no requirement for them to do that commercial portion.

I don't think there was triggers on that one, but sent. since that time it has, I feel like we've done quite a few triggers recently.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, personally, if I'm developing, I wouldn't do it. I mean, finding good tenants right now are, are pretty challenging thing in that world. Um, but finding people to buy apartment complexes are pretty easy in this world right now. Um, And so can we put, you know, just a requirement. Commercial must be completed in phase one of these multi. And I think that that potentially solves a lot of problems. And you don't even have to put triggers on COs. You just say, hey, commercial has to be done in your first phase.

Not be thinking about. And that is when they come in and build the residential side and then sell it. And then you've got somebody else in here stuck with a PUD that they didn't get approved, but they own it now. And they're committed to build something they never even really wanted to build. Happens all the time. And that's probably your biggest headache.

Or just say it. Just say, I just want to build apartments only. Hell, I'd rather you do that. You know, then come in with one thing. Yeah, I mean, you know, I mean, I would have rather given that complex tonight a variance on parking because I think that the parking and the roadways just lacked thought and creativity and proper design. I don't even do it for a living.

It was the worst. Yeah. That was awful.

Go ahead, please. Okay, so don't we normally put the traders on the preliminary master development plan?

We have recently.

And that's a PUD, and it's a BOC.

Yes.

Right? So that's where we do that most of the time.

Let's go ahead and put it in order.

And as far as the commercial, a lot of your apartments are coming in where that commercial is underneath it, like down here at... And I wasn't here when it was approved. Vintage stations.

That's a great example.

Farland is what I'm thinking about. So, you know, in that situation, of course, the apartments obviously support whatever that commercial is down there. But there could be.

that could be brought up to do and that's that's something but i think it's at the preliminary master and also mcfarland is one i know they'll build their commercial their commercial will thrive on theirs um my issue with that one was yeah the apartments just didn't look complimentary well they're you know It's going to be awesome.

It is going to be. They're going to have the outside arena thing down there, whatever you call it.

But then you take this one that we had to prove tonight. I mean, you've got some guts if you develop that commercial portion. And quite frankly, I mean, so we really don't have anything that would require them to build the commercial portion of that. When was that approved originally? Six years ago.

OVER THE YEARS.

DURING BOTH OUR TIMES.

YEAH.

BUT IT WAS CHANGED. IT WAS CHANGED.

THE ITERATION YOU HAVE NOW STARTED IN 2024.

to put on them right when it was coming when it came in and that's what i'm saying that i don't want it to be something that we have to bring in memory to say hey let's make sure we put it on let's just put it in the regs and throw it out there and say that you have to do the commercial but we could have that on preliminary to have say it could be for example triggers it could be and then it would be addressed every time it would you see

It'll solve another problem, too. It'll solve another problem. With the commercial being first, it won't be an afterthought. It won't be just something thrown together to be in compliance. They have to build it first. They'll be more likely to make it successful.

i think sam addressed that absolutely yep absolutely each development is going to have a different component to it commissioner giles talked specifically about the uh some of the plans going in mcfarland where it's commercial on the the first level and then there's multi-family or or additional above it so it would be hard to say that all the commercials got to be built first because Floors two, three, and four are going to be multifamily or residential of some type.

staying at the right way with each development versus having a blanket for everything might be a bit tricky but that's why we need the triggers on there and then we would address it it's uh give us the ability to grant variants so what commissioner franklin is saying though if you think about this they would make sure they had some tenants which would also take the off of our staff at the city to go out to try to find something coming in that would be part of it and it would you know and that and that they may alleviate some coming in it would reduce some coming in but we would have this and so that's why I'm saying I think that if we just let them work on this and bring it back

was just going to say commissioner giles your idea was good about having it as part of the staff report so it's always in there so you don't forget about it so it gets addressed every time so that is what would become so that's item one that's something that staff is going to work on and bring back forward to us and that would end up being a recommendation item back to the boc for zoning regulation amendment yes okay so is it the desire of the city for us not to form a subcommittee and not look at the land use plan?

I would say I can't speak for the BOC, but based on the conversations I've had with a few of them, not all of them, but a few of them, I think not saying not to do it, but let's do this first and then go from there.

Fair enough. So we brought that before the planning, and we voted on that from the planning standpoint as a discussion item to this body. So I'll turn it back over and say what would the will of this body be to defer that for 60 days? Is that acceptable? 90 days? A little bit more than that. 90 days? Just looking at, yeah, that'll give you a time to allow you guys to come to us.

I can have the amendment in and on the floor by next meeting. We're going to proceed that way. So, yeah.

Do you want to defer the committee 60 days and just decide then based on their feedback? You may want to just dissolve it. I mean, it could be. I mean, I don't know. But, I mean. If we wanted just to defer it 60 days and wait for staff.

That would be the will of the body? No objection to that? I'm necessarily not here to stir any pots.

Chairman, did you already set a meeting or something? What are we deferring?

We have not. We agreed at the last meeting to form a subcommittee to explore the land use plan.

And you already formed it, right?

just needs two more members appointed to her.

I don't know that you have to defer anything.

We're just saying that we're not going to take any meetings or further action. It's kind of been held up. I had some personal family issues come up over the last three weeks very unexpectedly and running point on that family had to take priority in this circumstance and situation.

Very, very, very unfortunate. And if I may say, didn't didn't use Sprouse as an example. I mean, you know, didn't, didn't.

They have two apartment buildings up there.

Yeah, they did the commercial first.

They're working on the commercial.

Did the commercial first. Look at all of it that's come out.

Yeah.

So, I mean, um,

there are good examples and yes yeah and i think that i mean you know we mentioned that on land use plan i'm not against departments either because we do need the density and we need the the housing options and provided here and i agree with commissioner giles that we there's you know i wasn't necessarily in favor of the one up on donovan road when it came in but appears to work it's we're getting the traffic out of there we put some road improvements on donovan but there's times where it's a question but You know, it's not what I assumed or thought it was going to be. I really wish we would have done the one on Westwood and Wilson Utilities property up there. But, you know, and as you guys said, we got the grant now for Lebanon Road. And so expectation for Lebanon Road, I think that once that is there and finished, that Lebanon Road could change through there. So if it's the will of this body, then we'll postpone conducting any meetings or carrying forward with anything further with that. For 60 days, we'll revisit it again at September, October, at our October meeting and take off from there. Looking forward to it. Good discussion. I mean, on the individual comment right there, you don't gather this many people and you don't gather this many people. And ultimately, a lot of times agree to disagree sometimes, but ultimately have one goal in sight. And that's the goal for the betterment of the community, which we all live. think it's impressive I don't know if you guys see that or recognize that all this time but it is very impressive to see the way that that particularly this body works together our staff made my hats off to all you y'all you got your hands full so and bless y'all for being the elected officials over here to my left uh no desire to ever get in y'all's roles so um great grateful to be a be a part of of something like this man regardless of what you see sometimes out there and news or times as they are it's it's good for them to be a part of something positive so i just want to throw that in y'all do a heck of a job and gratitude is and respect is there from multiple levels multiple ways so thank you all that being said i need a motion to adjourn yeah i got 10 motions whoever said second said second all those in favor say aye against some sanctions