Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

some money. Yeah. Anything on our salamander stuff? Nothing different than what I told you. So, the mayor supposedly told them to make the contact. So, I don't know if that's happened yet or not. I'll have to follow up. I didn't know mayor talked to him. He did as far as I know. So, I'll take that,

which is why he's probably good at his job. Hi there. He has more clothing. Yeah, that's not going to be something to say. You retired do. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. You don't need to cook if you got somebody to cook for you. put your foot down and stuff. Yeah, I might have some I might have some in the in the workings on

Mr. Well, how are you, Mr. You right. A meeting three could be meeting three could be. Okay, it's 11 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Are there any public comments at this point?

Any changes to If there are no public comments, any changes to the agenda? No changes. All right, we'll move into new business. This item number one is a request by DRPTN1 LLC for final plat approval for Waverly phase 11B, a 59 lot conservation subdivision on about 13.16 acres at unressed property on Pleasant Ridge Run. It's zoned RS9 in Ward 4. Staff has no open comments. Consent. Okay.

All right. Consent. This item number two is a request by DRPTN1 LLC for final plat approval for Waverly phase 14, a 52 lot conservation subdivision on about 11.08 acres at unadressed property on Martha Leville Road zone RS9 in Ward 4. Staff has no open comments to three. New business item number three is a request by StorePlace self- storage for site plan approval for storeplace highway 109 a non-residential development on about 6.06 acres at unressed property on highway 109 north at zone planned business industrial park in ward 6. There is some minor corrections that are needed

but they're considered minor. So therefore still eligible for consent. For consent. Yes.

Consent. Good. All right. Item number four. This item number four is a request by exit 109 Lebanon LLC for site plan approval for Cedar Tree, a non-residential development on about 326.4 acres at unadressed property on Lebanon Road, zone plane business industrial park and interchange commercial in W 6. Minor corrections and no corrections are needed. The development agreement for the trail to Cariban Park agreed to during the annexation zoning process will need to be approved before final approval of this site plan. The city's local department has received and reviewed the draft of this agreement. This property had a preliminary plat to divide the property into six lots and provide a public road connection across the site approved in 2022 with five variances for block length. The site plan was approved with six variances in July 2025. A total of 11 variances have been granted for this project. Nothing has changed on the site plan since July 2025 approval. They're back here today with a request for foundation plantings. This was denied at the July 2025 meeting. This is for the east side of building D. The applicant believes the planning commission didn't understand the request to move the foundation plantings along the screening fence instead of eliminating them completely, which is the same as was presented in July 2025. The choice to face the dock doors towards the road creates the conflict with the code. This is the choice by the applicant. Staff opposes this request because it is a self-imposed hardship and the code can be met without a variance as demonstrated by other buildings in this development. The city has since adopted regulations that expressly prohibit dock doors facing public streets. Building needs to be redesigned to not face the dock doors towards the road and meet the code as required with the plans approved in July 2025.

Good morning. Joshua Denton here on behalf of the applicant. We've got engineer and representatives as well. I know this one's been back before you all a bunch. The the issue here is that the doc the plantings along those dock doors would not be seen from the road because the the fence screening. And so I know that they've included in in the drawings or the the illustrations for your consideration where the plantings will all be maintained as required by the code. They're just moving them up to the road in front of the fencing which which should help screen it. So that's that's the request.

But I think what Josh told us is this exact request was made in the past and we denied it. I think the requests in the past from my recollection the the engineer can confirm if I've got this wrong or not is that we were asking for those to be removed. So I think there was some discussion about those being but but the actual variance request was to remove the foundation plings if I've got that right. Yeah. So here we're not asking to take them away anymore. We're just asking to relocate them.

All right. Any questions or thoughts on the agenda? Number five item number five is request by CRG for site plan approval for cubes at Sparta Pike Denzo, a non-residential development on about 43.62 62 acres at 1532 Sparta Pike zone plane Business Industrial Park in Ward 2. There are a few minor corrections and no corrections that are needed. One of the nine variance requests they've applied for has not been paid for. However, one of the variances they applied for is not needed. So, they have paid for the eight variances that have are actually needed. We'll go through those variances now. The applicant is requesting tiltup concrete paneling on the building's exterior facades. This is the variance that they applied for but is not needed. Upon review, this complies with our building material standards. So, variance number one is not needed. Variance number two is for building articulation that is needed at least every 50 ft facing the road and open spaces. There is no building articulation being provided. So, this would be a 100% change from our code and staff opposes this variance request. Variance number three is a minimum of 20% transparency is needed facing the roads and open spaces. The facade facing Kainesville Road has a transparency of 3.89% where the facade facing Russell Barnes Way has a transparency of 1.25%. Staff opposes this request as it is not unique to the property. Other industrial properties have been granted transparency variances, but those have exceeded at least 10% on the facade. So, we think at least getting to 10% would be the minimum we'd want to see there. Variance number four is foundation plantings. This is for the north side of the building. Foundation plantings are

needed facing all public roads. This similar to the last item, the choice has been made to face dock doors towards the road which is conflicting with the code and and conflicting with the foundation plantings that are required. But this is just a choice by the applicant and not a hardship. Staff opposes this request because it is self-imposed. The building just needs to be res redesigned to not face dock doors towards the road. Variance number five is for loading areas being visible from the public rideway. They need to be screened if they are. The applicant is proposing a chain link fence to screen this. Chain link fence is not opaque or not screen the loading areas from the road. Required loading screening is needed here. The choice to face the dock doors towards the road has created the conflict with the code. This is a choice by the applicant. Staff opposes this request because it is self-proposed. Again, they just need to redesign the building to not face the dock doors towards the road. Variance number six is for street trees. The street trees are being placed behind the sidewalk and not between the sidewalk and the road. In this location, there's existing utilities that have been placed in the planting strip, making it impossible to plant the trees in between the plant the sidewalk and the road. So staff is not opposed to this variance. We'd support it and also in our new zoning code update that this plan was submitted before has updated. So they would not need a variance request in this case. This is just something staff would work through with them. uh but we do support the request uh because of that variance number seven flat roof shall have a parapit wall on facades facing the ride ofways this is a staff this is a selfimposed hardship there's no reason they can't put a parapit wall and I I was thinking back I can't recall anyone requesting not to have a parapit wall on a flat roof building um that has come before us before so we don't see any reason to grant a variance in that case variance number eight Cross access between same uses on adjacent properties is required. There's a additional

industrial land to the south of this and a cross access drive needs to be provided between the properties. They're saying the creek is the hardship here. The creek is not substantial stream here. So it would not be considered a hardship to not crossing it. The grading has also been mentioned as a hardship. That's created by the applicant as they designed their site with that grading. So that is not a hardship to grant the variance. Cross access through the site would serve the industrial property of the south. And if Black Branch Road, which that's stub to the northeast, if that gets cut off once it's complete, this would provide that relief valve to get um to and from the property to the south. The property may secure their property with gates and fences how they see fit, but they cannot require. the gates would not block the area that crossaxis would happen. So we don't see any real hardship there as the gating securing of the property would still be possible with this design and the cross access stuff is opposed to this variance because it is a man-made hardship variance number nine screening of the trash compactor. They've placed a trash compactor on the north facade next to the docks that we do allow trash compactors to be placed next to docks but they have to be screened from the road here. Again, they're just proposing a chain link fence which would not screen it. The required screening is needed if it's going to face the road. Again, facing the docks and here the trash compactor towards the road is what's creating the conflict with the code. The building just needs to be redesigned to relocate both um so they're not visible from the road.

Want to speak? Good morning all. Uh Kevin Scott uh with CRG uh we're here uh on behalf of Denzo. Um just before uh Mike, our uh lead architect. I'll get up and speak to the individual variances. Um this is a build to suit uh for Denzo International. Uh they are a large manufacturer in the state of Tennessee. Um we've been working with them for and their corporate for about a year uh on this project, this design. I think it's important to note and for context um that this is uh we are selling land to Denzo. Denzo is directly entering into a construction contract and they will own operate uh and hire uh uh you know employees for this facility um targeting second quarter of next year. Um and they will be long-term uh owners uh you know and this is a a substantial investment for them. So, they have a very long time horizon. This is not a speculative build on behalf of the developer. We're just here to kind of shepherd uh the process. Denzo representatives are not here today. Um but uh they will be here uh on on next Tuesday uh for for the 5:00 pm hearing. Um so if you have direct questions for them, you can ask them at that time to the extent you have questions about the operation or Denzo today, I'm happy to share uh what I know. Um so I just wanted to give that important context uh ahead of of talking about the variances.

Just one question that whether you answered today or tomorrow or next week or both times uh to state the obvious, we have a few warehouses around here. This seems to be a pretty logical place for various reasons. So therefore, why would we want to reduce our standards to compromise our standards for a warehouse that it seems to be coming to a place that is quite familiar with warehouses? Yeah, I one one unique thing is Denzo's ability nine of them. Yeah,

ability to purchase and we'll talk about Mike will talk about their specific needs, but they have very specific highle investment within the box, you know, within the facility that they just can't get uh by taking an existing facility and retrofitting it. So, um you know, everything that was it that's gone into the design get into all this next week. Hey, Kevin, I I I have a question. And it seems like a lot of this uh seems to center around the fact that the building just needs to be rotated. Correct, Josh? And that would take care of several of the the variances. It could, but there's two road frontages here, so rotating it, you'd still have docks facing one of the roads. So the problem the cross docks don't really work with corner corner lots is the issue.

Yeah. Okay. Um so so to the to that extent given the geometry of the site you know warehouse buildings um industrial manufacturing tend to be rectangular in shape you know 2 to1 ratio yeah that's fine that's fine so so basically we are going to have to have one dock if you have cross docks one dock is going to face the road regardless correct have cross docks yeah just we don't think that's the right buildings at the location we face the dock interior to the to the business part. Y All right. You want to speak? Sure.

So, um addressing the planning which was

Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Mike Moran. I'm an architect with LJC and we are part of the Cleo Enterprise with uh Cleo Realy Group uh on behalf of Denzo this morning. So um the building is organized to locate the office and the parking environment towards the existing uh street on the west side. the the park road is we felt was more appropriate to orient the docks to. Um and the denso operation requires a very commonly used separation of shipping and receiving docks in a cross dock we show here. So you have receiving on the south dock, product is moved through the warehouse and then shipping operations are out of the north dock. So um you know basically right now the architecture of the building is form follows function. We're trying to plan the building to fit into the site which is rectangular to the the new park road that we're building. Um, so you know, we don't see that there's a way to organize their program without having a dock facing one of these two roads either on the north or the west boundary and felt that the north boundary was the more appropriate road being that it's all about transportation into and out of the business park which is an industrial park. the um couple of statements were made about the screening that we're proposing uh to Russell Burns way. So we're proposing a sight proof chain link fence which would be a a chainlink product

that has slats inserted into the chain link to block visibility through the fence. Um, we feel that's a better fence design, more durable and long lasting, more in keeping with the modern character of the building compared to wood, and certainly more flexible in the long run than some kind of a masonry wall. Um, and what we proposed to do is to basically build up our landscape screening and foundation type planting along that fence line out at the roadway. which is similar to what's being done on building B around the bend from this site on the other side of site C. Um so we're still proposing a sight proof environment 6 ft tall as required in the ordinance to block views into the operations area of the north. Um, regarding uh the articulation, um, Denzo is a modern uh, manufacturing company and their aesthetic and architecture and all their facilities is oriented to simple modern uh, architecture with a emphasis on clean lines. the white uh use of the standard white that they use in all their uh buildings or their metal or concrete um and trying to have the most crisp simple form. It's a minimalist type of approach. Um many of their buildings are manufacturing oriented. This one happens to be a distribution center. Um so right now again the composition of openings follows the function inside the building. So

we've organized windows where we have office spaces and employees and not windows where we have basically product and operations areas inside the warehouse. Um, regarding the parapit walls on the north and south, um, you know, uh, the open drainage and gutters and downspouts that were being proposed are something standard in all the buildings in their system. But we also feel that it's the safest type of roof drainage and also uh an economical solution uh uh to for an industrial building of this sort. So, regarding cross access directly from Denzo's property uh to the property on the east, um we're really trying to implement access to that parcel by the development of the spur road at the norththeast corner of our site. Um we feel that the that the stream that is bounding our site along the south or the most of the southerntherly portion in the easterly portion of the site is in fact a significant natural barrier and the kind of uh feature that the zoning ordinance recognizes as a natural barrier to providing such an access. The clients of course are not interested in supporting uh an access directly to their property. Um they feel that the access road that the park is providing provides sufficient access to the neighbors parcels.

Thank you. All right. Thoughts? Anybody else? I did have a question. Is are you saying Denzo only the building y'all y'all got here? That's the only building they can work out of. That's the only thing that will work for them.

This is the this building follows the pattern of all the distribution centers that they have. This happens to be a new prototype design for Denzo where they're optimizing how they do materials handling within the warehouse. So they're very invested in the planning of the building from the inside out uh because it supports a model that they want to implement as they consolidate distribution around the US into these kinds of facilities.

Other questions, thoughts? Okay. On the agenda number six item number six is request by Len Moore for site plan approval for Moors Landing, a non-residential development about 1.09 09 acres at 1790 West Old Murphy'sboro Road zone interchange commercial in the South Hartman overlay in Ward 3. There are somections that are needed and there's a list of outstanding issues and variances to go through. First one being the limited parking frontage type is not allowed along West Murphy'sboro Road. In the South Hartman overlay, you're required to pick one of a selection of frontage types. So, this is how the building relates to the road. or the sidewalk. In this location, they're not allowed to put parking in front of the building. That's only allowed along major roads within the Hartman overlay. So, South Hartman, Franklin Road, 231, those sorts of roads are the only ones that can have parking between the building and the road due to their high volume and speeds. West Murphy'sboro Road does not classify with those roads. Here, they would be allowed to choose from a fourcourt, a stoop, or a porch. They are in the walkable urban mixed housing district. So everything about their design regardless of the use whether it's residential or commercial has to fit into a residential neighborhood setting. So uh everything would have to be compliant with say a town home or multif family building it would have to fit into that. That's so how they design their building and their layout their site would have to fit into that uh type of neighborhood. For this one specifically, there is no valid hardship that's been identified. This project is proposing the activity on the site to be a general business which is a permitted category in the interchange commercial zoning district.

However, since this property is in the mixed housing subdist overlay uh where any commercial uses needs to be designed to fit into a residential area that would be designed for say a two family townhouse or multif family buildings. Uh parking lots have not been permitted in the front of town homes or multif family buildings for almost 5 years now. Uh so that would not be fitting to add it in this location. The only new development that's been completed so far in the Hartman overlay in this same subdist area, it's two duplexes down the road, as you can see on the left of your screen there. Habitat built those. I think it's two years ago now. Uh when they used the porch frontage type, so we'd be looking for things that would fit in character with that as how it relates to the road. Across the street, as you can see on the right, the outlopment project, one Lebanon place is underway. I've provided an illustration there comparing uh their proposed site on the left right hand side of the road to the proposed development here's Landing on the left hand side of the road. Their plan is to put all the parking behind the buildings. They have a row of multif family buildings that will directly face this and to the north they'll have commercial buildings that uh face the road with a shop frontage on on both sides of the building with the parking to the side and rear of those buildings. Granting a variance to allow the limited parking funage in this location would be detrimental to the entire subdist of the South Hartman overlay. Staff strongly opposes this request. A request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and would instead need a study of the city's goals for this corridor to determine if changing the design standards is desired. Staff would alternately be open to considering a variance to allow for a shop frontage type since that is permitted across the street and would be a far less dramatic change to the character of this subdist. Variance number two, parking needs to be at least 50 feet from West Murphy'sboro Road. This is typically not an issue because the parking is supposed to be behind the building. All the comments we went

through on the first variance would apply to this one as well. Additionally, since this is a walkable urban subdist where the design prioritizes pedestrian friendly environment, placing the parking in front of the building and within the parking setback is in direct conflict with the intent of this subdist, the South Hartman overlay, by pri prioritizing cars and not pedestrians are forced to walk through the parking lot to reach the building. The South Hartman overlay does not restrict the uses allowed in the underlying zoning district, but does require them to operate within the confines of a harmonious built environment prescribed for each subdist that is written specifically to achieve the city's adopted goals for that area. If a certain use can't design a site to work within the design requirements for the subdist, then that location is not suitable for that proposed activity. Staff strongly opposes this request because granting such a variance is in direct conflict with the subd district of the south Hartman overlay and will negatively impact the future development of the surrounding area. A request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and would need a study of the city's goals for this corridor to determine if changing the design is desired. Variance number three this is for cross access. The cross access needs they have provided it between the parcel to the north and the south but again in front of the building. This needs to be to the rear of the building. All the comments from variances one and two also apply here. Again, this is a walkable subdist. So, placing the vehicular access to the front of the building um would go against the intent of the subdist. This would need to match where it's placed for town homes and multif family, which is to the rear of the building. Uh so, the building needs to be shifted to the front of the site and the access to the rear. staff strongly opposes this request because granting such a variance is in direct conflict with this subdist of the south arman overlay and will negatively impact the future development of the surrounding area. A request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and instead needs a study of the city's goals for this corridor to determine if changing the design is desired. Variance number four, this is the build

to zone. All buildings need to be placed within 10 to 20 feet of the front property line. In this case along West Murphy'sboro Road. All the comments from variances one, two, and three also apply to this one. This is the walkable subdist. So the relationship between the sidewalk and the building is what's important here. Staff strongly opposes this request because granting such a variance is in direct conflict with the subdist of the South Hartman overland and will negatively impact the future development of the surrounding area. Request of this magnitude is not appropriate to grant a variance for and would indeed instead need a study of the city's goals for this corridor to determine if changing the design is needed. Variance number five. This is for a raised foundation. There is a one and a half foot minimum raised foundation requirement here. Raising the height of the foundation a minimum of a foot and a half creates a visual transition from the public to the private spaces. This is key for a porch, stoop or fourcourt frontage required in this district as those act as both outdoor private spaces as well as entryways into private residential spaces. This transition can be helpful for some commercial uses, but is not critical for the proposed use. Staff supports this request with the proposed building design. Variance number six, building height. The maximum building height for um non-residential buildings here is 25 ft tall. Residential buildings may extend up to 35 ft tall in this district and the requested height remains less than that. The additional height aids in providing architectural articulation which helps better integrate the commercial building into the residential subdist. Staff supports this request with the proposed building design. Variance number seven, buildings in the subdist need to be one of the listed building types. Those being flats, major flats, town houses, townhouse courts, houses, cottage courts, ADUs, or civic buildings. This is not any of those. The proposed building does not conform to any of the permitted types. However, a good effort has been made to design the building in a manner that will not detract from the residential nature of the subdist and would be complimentary

to the mixeduse development across the street. Staff supports this request with the proposed building design. All right, just to summarize those, they kind of fall into two groups as you may have picked up on variances one through four. Those are all about the layout of the site. Those are quite substantial changes. The all those requirements are really foundational to the entire subdist. So they'd have wide reaching impacts if they were approved. If you want to do something like that, that's more appropriate to a South Hartman overlay amendment. Something that would go through, you know, more research, talk with this group, and ultimately city council will make that decision. It's not something that a variance should be granted for. Uh five through seven are all about the building structure itself. Those we all we support. We think they've made a good effort to fit that building uh the look of the building into a multif family mixeduse area. Uh so we do think u with those three variances the building is okay um structurally

and that's all we have

speak not more 3395 Lebanon Road uh Mr. Dean isn't here today and Mr. Manis isn't here today and so they asked Lewis and myself to come. Uh they asked us not to say much. It's hard for me not to say anything because there's more things here than I thought there were. But at any rate, uh to the north of me, I leased 12 acres. I leased it to NIRV. Uh they have approved a 60,000 foot building. I joined them. Uh if you go just down the street, maybe two blocks on the left, there's a subdivision there. It's a commercial subdivision. I actually have pictures. If you guys want to see these, I'll show them to you. If you don't, I'll just hold them. But uh all the buildings that are down through there are probably similar in size, but we went to a great extent to put more character in the building. And I put a lot more glass. I think glass is pretty. I think it's very becoming. Instead of having lot panels, I put it in 2 by two panels to make it where it was more attractive. Uh it the the setback thing to me and we're agreeable to this. I was going to have double parking in the front. And so Charlie Dean he said why don't you just cut it in half and I said well I'm agreeable to that but if we had my hopes would be if we are capable to lease it to a air conditioning place a plumbing place electrical place somebody that would be a service industry or whatever. That's kind of my goal. don't have anything to do with any food or anything

like that. Uh the the look of the outside of the building, they wanted it to look kind of like town houses. I don't know if you guys have seen, but uh they they want what they really want in this overlay, I guess, is like maybe a couple of levels of housing above and below to have like maybe a retailer space. I don't think I can I I don't think I can incorporate that into a building that looks like a commercial building. So, uh the only thing I'd ask is that you guys would consider maybe they're better at talking about this than I am and we'll be glad to give you guys some pictures or anything.

Obviously, there's a bigger opportunity next week to talk about it. This is just to get questions answered and let people have an idea of what's coming so they can think about it through the week. So, any questions, thoughts? Uh Josh, it seems like a lot of it has to center around where the parking is at the front. How could they structure the building to be within code while still trying to achieve the aesthetic that you would like not? Well, they wanted me to bring the building within 10 ft of the road and have zero parking out front. So, if you have a a commercial operation

where you have trucks coming and going and unloading and all that and loading up, it's almost impossible for me to have parking around back for customers. And I'm not we're not going to have a lot of customers if you had three or four, but they usually park up front and then all the service related items are around back. And I'm agreeable to cut that in half. I'm I'm agreeable to get rid of that first row down through there and we would bring the building closer to the street as as he asked for. Let me interrupt. Purpose here is just to understand what they're asking for. It's not to negotiate a change. Yeah. But but at the same time, and the whole point behind the preliminary planning to get it right before it gets to the final planning, it is to simply negot to understand what they have requested.

Sorry, but I'm just going to have to disagree with you on this one. That's fine. disagreed with but that's but that's why that's why we have this meeting so that way we get it closer to being correct beforehand. So go ahead. But but I was just wondering from the codes perspective if they were to change that uh what it would entail to do to to to meet both goals inside of there. though.

Yeah. So, I mean there's no we don't see any hardship as to why the building can't be placed closer to the road and meet the the code in that intent. Uh the big thing is in this area, you're really looking at two different things. This kind of goes back to our our training we had last month on land use. The interchange commercial, the underlying zoning here that really is regulating the activity and the function, the first two dimensions of land use. Hartman overlay doesn't really care about that. It just says whatever is allowed there, you can do it. But what it's looking at is that third dimension, which is which is the structure. So how the building looks, they've done, like we said, they've done a good job. They need a few little variances on that and we're okay with those and also the structures relationship to the road and the rest of the built environment. In this case, there's not that much around them, but we're really setting up for the future in this district's subdist overlays written to

have a really harmonious look between all the buildings and sites. So that's what the Hartman overlay is worried about. So really for us placing the parking here in front of the building, we understand, you know, that's pretty typical for a commercial operation. But to have a commercial operation in this subdist, you have to fit into a residential area. And we don't do that for multif family. We don't do that for town homes. That's just not something that the city wants anymore. We think it's a higher look. We think for a pedestrian area, we want to separate the vehicle access to the pedestrians, avoid those conflicts. Uh but that would apply to a commercial operation here as well.

Okay. There's a good amount of space behind the building as as you can see for trucks uh to operate in, but we think you know if you just rotate if you flip the building and the parking you'd be able to fit parking and the uh truck operations into that space. All right, that's all I needed. Thanks. Other questions, thoughts? Okay, on the agenda.

Thank you. Number seven. New business item number seven is request by Raphael Nangma for site plan extension approval for the Hudson Apartments 166 unit residential development about 9.61 acres at 108 and 110 Maple Hill Road zone commercial mixeduse in Ward 5. The site plan was approved by planning commission in March 2021. A grading permit was pulled and work completed to extend the plan's approvals until March 2026. The applicant is requesting an additional three months to June 23rd, 2026. The site plan does not meet the current requirements of a multif family development. Staff opposes this extension because it no longer is in compliance with the current regulations and a new plan in compliance with current regulations will be needed if it expires. Anybody want to speak? Not uh brains plan commission understand this is all about an extension whether or not it meets the new code as opposed to the old code. All right for no questions then we're on the agenda number eight and nine. New business items number eight and nine are a request by John Deandria for future land use plan amendment approval from mixed housing to rural preservation open space and resoning approval from RD9 and uh mixed housing to rural preservation open space for about 11.46 acres at 519 Maple Hill Road in Ward 1. Properties to the north and west are zoned R1 in the county and to the east as RD9 and R1 in the county and to the south as RD9 in RS20. The properties to the north are indicated as residential three units per

acre, to the east as mixed housing, residential three units per acre and residential 2 units per acre. to the west as residential three units per acre and residential two units per acre and to the south as mixed housing and residential two units per acre on the future land use plan. This property is indicated as mixed housing on the future land use plan which would not support this resoning request. The re the requested future land use designation of rural preservation open space would support this request. This request is a result of the board of zoning appeals ruling. The property owner requested to place a new barn on the property and the board of zoning appeals placed a condition on the property to reszone to a zoning that allows agricultural uses. This is a recommendation of the city council. The expected city council readings for this ordinance are as follows. First reading and public hearing are April 7th and the second reading is April 21st. Anybody want to speak? Not you understand what's being proposed. Any questions, thoughts? Okay. On the agenda and I guess that concludes this part. Try to take a short break and then we will resume with training.

You came up here about the sound of your case. That's what I call a sound. Yeah, he said that he's been told to go ahead and see what they say. Still hot hot mics all around. I'm saying is on this right here. Clearly. Yes, if you can.