Municipal Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

start our meeting like everyone with the invocation and a pledge of allegiance. I'll ask CJ to bless our meeting and Mr. Thompson if you would do the pledge. Uh dear Lord, thank you for this evening. Lord, thank you for allowing us to gather as a group and make important decisions for our community. Lord, please be with those that have uh loved ones that are dealing with health issues. Lord, please allow us to make it home safely tonight. In your son's name, amen. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Maryanne, would you please call the role? Yes, sir. Chair Harris, here. Vice Chair Morell, here. Mr. Pere, here. Mayor Brown, present. Councilman Fan, here. Mr. Straler, Mr. Thompson here. You all qu. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Uh, Mr. Secretary, do we have minutes to present? Uh, yes. We have minutes uh dated November 3rd, 2025 planning commission work session meeting and November 17th uh regular agenda meeting minutes. And I move that we approve them without any changes. Second.

All right. Got a motion and a second to approve the minutes without changes. Does anyone have any changes or corrections they wish? I see none. I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of approval of the minutes say I. I. Any oppose say no.

All right. Minutes are approved. All right. That brings us to public comment on agenda related items. If you're in the audience this evening and you have wished to comment on something on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity to do so. I ask you to come forward, state your name for the record, and keep comments to five minutes. Public comment is open. Evening Pascal Joven 1335 Longola Park. I'm coming from uh Kensington phase five. I spoke at the last meeting and all I got uh response was is it okay? It's okay. Uh I want to make sure everything is on a record again because um it's not okay. Okay. When there are rules, we're supposed to follow the rules. And there are rules for different reason. For safety or the well-being of the neighbors and for the general public safety. When we have a rule, we said that an access road need to be a certain length. There need to be a certain length for fire issues. All right. D 103 of the fire code say access road with a hydrant need to be a minimum of 26 ft. We have hydrant all over that that phase and the roads are 25 ft. It's only one foot. But again there is a rule. If somebody get hurt uh or we have a fire apparatus who can go there we're going to pay for it. All right. Um, that road is 25 ft. That mean we just passed a new rule that for 25 ft we

can't have parking in the street on both side of the road. All right. Where are people going to park? Guess what? They're going to park where on the 90° was supposed to be a turn for fire pilot. People have family coming. That's where they're going to park. or they're going to park in the street and that defeat the purpose. Uh last time I came I said ask you for a piece of paper and I knew you know I couldn't wait. So I made a record request to find that piece of paper. That piece of paper is part again of the regulations. It's part of the subdivision regulation of the city of Garatan and that's part of obtaining variances and it's one 112.2 who said a petition for any such variance shall be submitted in writing by the subdivider along with the initial filing of the plot. The meeting in writing the petition shall state fully the grounds for the application and all the fact upon which the petitioner is re relying to get is variance. All right let me rephrase a petition need to be in writing with the reason why accept the variance or request a variance. All right, that later doesn't exist. What I got is a response from engineering who's telling me that if it's on the plat, it's good. That's not what the rules say. That's not what the regulation say. The

regulation doesn't say if there is a 10-ft PUD on a plot, it meets a requirement. No, they say that need to be requested with the reasons. I don't see that on the plot. So for me that doesn't make the requirement and PUD explanation on that later is that they need to be free so we can as a city access if needed. All right. when you have a free foot burn trees and that's got a PUD, I need to understand how that's going to be free of access. I don't think so. So again, um I want to make sure it's on a record and you realize that if you accept something who doesn't meet the requirement, uh and you vote on it and something happened, uh the city and probably you will be held responsible personally. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jvants. Anyone else wishing to speak under public comment on agenda related items? All right, seeing no one indicating they wish to speak, we'll close public comment on agenda related items and we'll move on to the consent agenda. Does any member of staff or member of the commission wish to remove any items from the consent agenda? All right, see none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Uh, I'll recuse myself from item number two on the consent agenda. All right, it's no noted. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Second by CJ. Any discussion? All those in favor of approval say I. I. Any oppose say no. This pass unanimously. All right. That will move us on to item three on the regular agenda. Resolution number 2025-142 for Cana Center. And this item does have an individual public comment as well.

Good evening, commissioners. Brad Hickman, staff planner. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of a preliminary master development plan for Okana Center on 4.91 acres zone PGC plan general commercial district located south of Long Hollow Pike and east of Lower Station Camp Creek Road. There we go. Uh staff had several comments on this as reflected in the 19 conditions of approval. Um, as you can see, it's it's in a flood plane. So, a flood plane permit will be required prior to development. Um, we would like to see the stream buffer floodway plane on the plan as well. Uh, they have two drives that will need to be permitted by the city and one on Long Hollow that will need to be permitted by T DOT. Uh engineering has requested a stubout to the east of the property. So when this property to the east of it develops, we'll have some connectivity. The applicant didn't provide any grading. So this is the grading that exists currently on the property. Uh it's it's quite a high point here and it slopes down considerably here. So you come back to the development, it's going to be difficult to see how the retail center here and the storage units will lay on that property. Uh PGC is the zoning. It requires extra landscaping which is not reflected on this plan. Uh we would like to see a 20ft buffer yard and as discussed in work session mostly evergreen trees a dense evergreen tree buffer yard to shield it from the uh walkway across the creek.

There's no connectivity between the drive around this retail center and the driveway in the storage area. Uh we would like to see that connectivity or failing that we would like to see an area reserved for a buffer yard uh that would be 20 ft between these two facilities in the event that this is subdivided and sold off separately in the future or switches ownership. Uh there's the retail center uh brick and stone and the storage units which do not meet the 70% brick and stone. We ask that uh elevations be resubmitted reflecting that uh planning department recommends approval of the resolution number 2025-142 with the following 19 conditions. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. U at this time I'll open a public comment for resolution 2025-142. Um so public comment is open. If you want to speak on this item, this is your chance. All right. All right, I see no one indicating they wish to speak. Uh, close the public comment and ask for a representative for the applicant.

Allison Turner with Green Lid Design backup Andy Leaf. Um we agree with the comments um with a clarification I guess on the stub out which I guess can be dealt with at final but on the stub out to the joining adjacent property um there's a retaining wall there now I assume when that property redevelops that retaining wall would likely go away and so for us to stub it all the way to the property line is they may need to ramp up or I don't know what their configuration will be just because that's flood plane as well. So we we agree with leaving the easement there. We just want to leave some flexibility for that connection to be made in the future if that's something.

Yeah. And I think you know in that case especially needs there needs to be a future connection. I think that the issue we run into is right who who and how does it get built that there's an easement later to construct it. So yeah, again it's just the the conditions as they exist, right, would require tearing down that retaining wall and be more impactful on the neighbor property. And so just trying to figure how to I mean that may be two years, three years down the road. So it may come back up at final, but I just wanted to make a point about that. Yeah. Um we're willing to take it as far as our grading plan will allow us. We just I want this body to know it's probably not going to be the property line,

right? So, as long as we know we're going to get as close as we can physically get, may still be further away than bird's eye view you were thinking. Erin, question on that. You I thought about this after we talked about a similar thing on another one. Is there any path to do some type of shity or guarantee to finish a connection like that in an easement in the future so you don't run into a situation where one property owner doesn't want it or I don't I don't know like we had last month probably with with this one. This is there's some feedback. Um, I mean, we're not opposed just logistics.

I I Yeah, I understand the logistics on that's why I'm kind of asking the question that way. I'm just with it not being a public goodness gracious. Sure. I'll talk on Jillian's for the for the time being. Um, so with it being a a private site on there, I don't know if something like a site shy could be handled. It wouldn't be a subdivision shy that that we would hold on there. And I think um a way that could be handled on on here, I think we might have um added some some language on another project is add um to the maximum extent practical in in there and then you know provide the the easement or the ability to to do that in the future. Have you started coordination with T DOT?

Yes. Have y'all had y'all's initial meeting? Have they? Yes. Are they allowing a full access? So full access um upon receipt of a traffic impact study um are open to a potential ride in ride out. Um but a full access Stanley wanted to to see a traffic impact study that goes that you may I mean obviously want the connection for future development coming down the way so you can actually have a full access at some point on Longhaul Pike. My uh second question is, are y'all able to meet uh fire access on the back side of the building?

Well, I know the fire department's in the meeting right now. We feel like that they can get within every corner they need to without necessarily pulling all the way to the end. Um the nature of having mini storage is not to have connectivity. So, in the one comment about connecting to the mini storage from retail, we're going to opt to add that landscape buffer. I don't know which comment that was. Yeah, I don't I don't think it makes sense to connect to the mini storage from the retail either. The buffer does make sense.

The buffer makes sense for sure. Um, but I just know from experience that when you have a a stub that's 150 ft or greater, they want a turnaround. So, I don't may not we'll make that. So other thing too just to get on the record. We originally thought we were going to the BCA when we made this submittal to get a conditional use. So that was mentioned last time prepared with this preliminary plan but we feel like with the final we'll get all these comments addressed and also realize an issue. So okay this property is not without other things have to be addressed. Okay.

Important thing we're trying to get right now is the use secured. Yeah. Okay, that that makes more sense.

Um I think on the plan it shows a 25 ft type buffer and condition 11 says place a 20ft buffer along lower station Camp Creek Road fully comprised of evergreens. Staff, will you remind me what is what's the quantity of trees on the spacing in a 20ft buffer? How many trees is that per 60 ft? I don't know how to compare that to the buffer that's shown on the plan. The way we wrote it was that be on a triangular pattern, not dissimilar to the one on 386. Um, I don't know how many trees that would end up being. I don't remember what the spacing of that is.

386 is the one on 386 is a type 40 foot buffer in a 20 foot spacing without the fence, without the opaque buffer. So that's um 15t on center triangular spacing or one tree every 7 and 1/2 ft lineal feet. Is that what we're talking about here? Uh it has to be 20 ft wide because of the zoning across the street. And so we wanted to do evergreens for screening businesses. However, that fits in there. And I think that is an option for anything that's type 15 or above is a triangular evergreen pattern. Does it does the applicant understand that's one evergreen every seven and a half lineal feet?

We do understand that. We're going to have to look at that with the final master plan because you have a White House utility district sewer easement that runs along through there which is one reason that shouldn't be any problem though, right? Tell that to Danny. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Um, so Mr. Perier to what you're saying, we're showing a single line of trees for that reason because that that sewer easement runs parallel with the property line. It's going to be hard to get the triangular pattern and stay out of the easement.

I think too some of the conversation about that was the they were not wanting to put brick on the building. With this, we've got them going to the 70% brick requirement. So, the aesthetic on the building is now going to be less of the issue. Okay. We want to get as much landscaping in as we can and stay out because personally, and I've told you guys before, I like the landscaping better than I like the fencing.

I think the one along 386 is served its purpose and actually looks nice. So, I'd much rather see nice landscaping than a wooden fence that's going to deteriorate in six months. I just I just want Well, I agree with you on that. Um, but I just wanted to clarify that the current layout, if y'all were trying to just replace an equal number of trees, the current layout is one tree for every 20 ft, but the one on um 386 is one tree for every seven and a half lineal feet. So we're talking about three times the number of trees that shows on this buffer. And

I think our intent is to try to get as many as much landscaping as we can get and stay out of the easement. So with the final master plan, we can work with staff and planning commission to make sure that you guys are happy with the landscape that we can get in there. I think our intent is that it's evergreens. Yeah. And this that did not lay out evergreens in a way that made it clear to us. So that's the important part of the condition to us. Okay. Got it. So I guess just just for clarity on the public record though, it's It's not going to come back with, hey, you already approved this, so now you I think you're making it We're making it plain tonight. Okay. That's that's also want to make clear for clarity. So yeah. All right. Any other questions?

I have 20, but if we come back, you guys have to prove an alternate if we ask for an alternate with the final master anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Well, then nobody else. I'll make a motion to approve with staff's 19 conditions but modifying condition eight to add to the maximum instant possible at the end of that sentence. I'll second person second. So just for everybody who's not reading it that'll be provide stub out to adjacent eastern property to allow for future connectivity to the maximum extent possible. Okay. Any questions? All right. All those in favor say I.

I. Any oppose say no. It's approved. Thank you. Okay. Item four, resolution 2025-143, Riverbend subdivision lower station camp. And this item also includes an individual public comment. Owner and applicant request approval of an amended PP for Riverbend on 16.57 acres containing 146 attached town homes located east of Lower Station Camp Creek Road and north of Bison Trail. Uh multif family units such as town homes are permitted in the R six zoning district, which is already established zoning on the property. This preliminary master development plan was originally part of phase two of Welch College of the Welch College master plan which was within the Hidden Creek master plan. Staff recommends that this plan be considered a major amendment to that original Welch College plan since the use for phase 2 is changing from education to a multif family residential plan. Gallatin designates this area as part of the general urban character area which has a recommended density of 5 to 15 units per acre. The proposed development although it is using established zoning uh does uh propose a overall density of 10.15 units per acre and that is taking out the 50% of flood plan that they are required to remove from that density count. The town homes are grouped together in sets of four or six unit buildings in a typical grid pattern uh with private roads providing connections to future Jenkins Lane in a stub out to the vacant property to the east. The development includes both front-loaded and rear loaded town home models with some setback exceptions for fronts and rears and f it follows the town home residential allowances for the RSI zoning district. Additionally, Gallatin's transportation

uh plan calls for the extension of Jenkins Lane along the southern portion of this development between lower station Camp Creek Road and Big Station Camp Boulevard as a collector street. The amended PMPP shows the extension of Jenkins Lane along the southern boundary uh with various degrees of a completion. Jenkins Lane is an anticipated collector roadway here and it has been part of it has been part of an evolving condition of the Hidden Creek master plan for many years at this point. A condition from the Welch College FMPP reads as follows. Per the requirements of the city of Gallatin Planning Commission, the following note is added to the plans. Prior to issuance of building permits in phases two and three, the Jenkins Lane extension from lower station camp to Big Station Camp Boulevard shall be completed. So, the two and three that they're talking about, you can see two is up here, which is the area that we're talking about tonight. Um, the PMDP currently proposes Jenkins Lane as a 50-ft rideway to include 24 foot wide roadway and an 8- foot wide shared use path on the north side along the frontage of the W Riverbend project. No sidewalk is shown on the south side, although that is a condition of approval for at least the portion along this this development. The PMDP also proposes that a portion of Jenkins Lane to the east of this project only includes the 24 foot wide roadway and no sidewalks and additional improvements until the adjacent areas are developed. The connection of this roadway to Big Station Camp Boulevard is imperative for fire safety given that lower station camp road connection is within the flood plane and at this time is the only access in and out of the project without that additional connection. The planning commission and city council uh shall determine if this condition is met or should be amended to match uh the intent of this amended PMDP. The town homes will be two stories with

either a rear-loaded or front-loaded one or twocar garage and pitch roofs of varying degrees. The PMDP proposes that all homes in the perimeter of the site facing a public roadway shall be constructed using 50% brick stone on front sides and rears. Internal unit shall have brick stone to the bottom of bottom of of the sill of the first floor. The remainder of the facads will be faced with Hardy board siding. The proposed architecture does not meet the 70% brickstone requirement of the R six zoning district and will require an exception. Staff recommends that the Brickstone requirement should be met with this development, that more variety in town homes should be provided, and that certain areas such as open space A, which is the large open space in the middle, have an alleyfed product rather than a front-loaded product. Cons conditions concerning the architecture have been added to the resolution. Additional parking was provided with this plan as requested. Uh knowing that we have parking issues with town home developments, the planning department recommends approval of this resolution with 20 conditions. The applicant has expressed some concerns to staff about some of the conditions for the town home layout and for Jenkins Lane. Uh so staff would encourage further discussion on these items at the applicant's request following the applicant's presentation in a public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Uh, with that I will now open a public comment for resolution 2025-143. So, anyone wishing to speak on this item, this is your opportunity. See no member of the public, you're the applicant. Okay. See no member no member of the public wanting to speak a closed public comment. We'll hear from the applicant. Uh, chairman, just a reminder, I'll have to recuse myself from this item.

That is noted. Thank you, CJ. Good evening. I'm uh Christopher Wood with Kaiser Vog and Design here representing the uh developer for this project. Um we have we've re reviewed the 20 conditions of approval and we do not take any exceptions through items 4 through 16 and 20. Would like to take this opportunity to discuss conditions 1 through three and 17 through 19. Um items one and two uh relate to the front loading and the rear loading. So the design team and the developer have intentionally organized this layout to be cognizant of how the project looks from the public rightway. But also in addition, how is the project viewed once you enter into the the project site? So it doesn't turn into a situation where we have a lot of alley load where we have utilities uh AC HVAC units trash cans kind of cluttering up. So we're trying to make sure that we've got a good visual product from public right away but also once you enter into the site as well. So the item two is and so I guess I around open space one we we've got those front load pointed to the street and the rears to the open space. So, so the street, if we were to flip those, the street would then now become the rear yard. In that, in that consideration on the eastern side, which is item number two,

we have the the front pointing to the the side property line. That was intentional. So when you start to view those uh elevations, you know, from Big Station Camp or as you come down Jenkins Lane that you're not looking into the rear yards, you're looking at really at a front elevation. Uh we worked with staff to also put a landscape buffer along that property line. as well. As staff mentioned, you know, item number three was that we are asking for an exception or variance uh related to the 70% uh masonry material. Uh requesting a 50 50% uh you know ratio on that mix of brick culture stone hardy products. Other item, item number 17 was the sidewalk on the south side of Jenkins Lanes. We feel like that this particular sidewalk at does not really connect anything and at at this point does not really add any value to Jenkins Lane and it feel like it would be better served if that development of that and installation of that sidewalk would be in con when when Welch College property is developed given in light that with this development Jenin the 1300 learning feet of Jenkins Lane is being proposed to be built Item number 18, uh, Jenkins Lane section, uh, to be 26 ft wide. We're just requesting that that be just standard 24T wide asphalt section instead of the 26. And then item number 19, show the Welsh

College tie into Jenkins Lane. We would request that in lie of putting that connection in that we be allowed to add a note to the plans which states approximately that any connection to Jenkins Lane from Welch College be addressed during the revision of the Welch College master plan. All the other conditions of approval we do not take any exception to. Um question for engineering. Um Eric, what's driving the the ask to go from the center 24 foot wide road width to the 26 on on the rest on that

in that that guess I'm going to have to use this mic for for the night. Um so the 26 ft in width is just for the section that doesn't have curbon gutter. Okay. And constructibility of curbon gutter on that in the future is kind of what's driving that. So, I mean, I they could still stripe the edge white line at 24 feet, but essentially have a paved shoulder there. That way, when curbon gutter is is is added in the future, there's that extra overlay there of the compacted subgrade to put the curb gutter on top of that. Okay, that's that's just constructibility.

Well, that that would in future require cut saw cutting 2600 linear feet of asphalt. And there there will always already be a compacted subgrade, you know, for that 24 feet uh for the for the base extending out. Uh even at the 26 ft, I don't think we'd have the full compacted gravel width to support the curb and gutter. So, we're just trying to look toward the future here and minimize that extra work. How's that? Do you have the section for for the piece of the road that shows where the where the compacted subbase goes? how far it extends out.

I remember seeing it, so I know it's in there somewhere. I don't know that it was to scale either. Oh, there it is. That's not attachment 4.2. Uh, no. It's actually C. Yeah, it's C 2.8. It's in here. We just I don't have it on the Oh, you can't pull it up. It's in your packets. Okay. It's page 66 in your packets.

Got it. Hold on. You have to forgive me. Even with my old man glasses, I have to zoom in on this. Okay. So, typically the practice upgrade goes six inches past the edge of the curb and gutter. What's the width of curb and gutter typically? So it would be 30 in in total. You've got a six six inch wide curb and then uh 24 in for the gutter pan. Okay. So 36 in of compacted gravel is required to properly place it on top of

Okay. I mean, I can see the desire not to saw cut all that asphalt back out, but can we just put 30, you know, have change it, and make them put 36 inches of compacted gravel out and verified so that it's already there and compacted for that future installation?

I don't know how soon the the curb and gutter would be installed. I don't know how soon the adjacent property is going to be over there. And then having that asphalt over top of it would help to protect it in case we're years out. And so that's that's where we're coming from on the comment by So I'm just thinking about how I would build this if I was building it.

Anybody else? I suppose there's the option of just going ahead and doing the curb and gutter now. I have a feeling that's not the one they want. But but I understand what you're talking about is we you know over over time as that asphalt's there if it doesn't go past it somewhat, you're going to wind up having to cut into the roaded and repour something if you can't get a good straight line to pour up against. So I I see I see what they're asking for and it does make some sense. So, I I think once they do the curb and gutter, you you're going to have to mill a little bit to, you know, kind of patch everything back up. Methods of tie tying everything back together in the future.

Anybody else have any thoughts about that one? Okay. All right. Let's talk about the other ones. We'll maybe circle back to that one, but I I don't as I said personally I don't have a problem with the the layout that you guys proposed. So I'm I'm personally not I'm I'm okay removing one and two and even three because I like what you've got in there. So I don't I don't have a problem with that. Does anybody else have an opinion on those? Okay.

Okay. Um, as Aron that the sidewalk on the south side of Jenkins, um, I can see the logic of when that gets developed, whoever develops that side of it puts that sidewalk in. I mean, they're they're building the whole road already. So I don't you know I don't know that since we don't know where what how it's going to develop what it's going to look out where where cuts are going to go. So

and that comment comes from this is a public road that's being platted with this and public road requires sidewalk on both sides. Well, I I thought at one time we had a sidewalk fund where they can pay into that to the city at this time and then the city can take the responsibility doing that in the future. We do not thought we did in the past. I must be maybe it was talk about doing that. the pay in lie of isal

has been talked about in the past but is not an option that's um because as I understand it if if somebody pays in lie of it it has to be used for that specific stretch and so if it's going to you know a a fund that you know could be used for for different places

oh yeah no I'm not talking about a fungeible fund where it can be used for any new project we conceive around town but there's so many of these situations where uh the the previous one with the mini stories paving up to the closest extent. If they could just pay the cost of the sidewalk, then when the next property gets done, um the the money would be there for that specific thing. Can that doesn't seem that complicated, but that's not that's not for this issue. That's for other business discussion. So, I'll drop it because obviously the concern is that it doesn't it's just never gets built if it doesn't get developed, right? Correct. Um,

that was also something I I'm pretty sure Latisha typically stood up and, you know, was harping on not doing the sidewalk fund thing uh for probably some legal reason as well. And I don't know if Ben has any thoughts on that, but um, yuck, bombings,

Aaron covered the main reason. It's because when you have a public improvement like a sidewalk, you have to show that it's needed because of the project. So once you have a fund, it becomes more difficult to keep track of, okay, this amount of money was for this project. It has to be used in this area. You know, it can't be used across town. And it makes it more complicated and easier to cross blur the lines of is it based for this exact project than they're building right next to the project at the time. There's also a bit of concern of you know we take the money now and it doesn't need built for 10 more years and now we have about onethird of the money that it actually cost to do it but would have been able to do it at the time. So those are a few of the concerns, but the main one being the the main legal reason,

but an applicant can put in the cost of the sidewalk and give the the the city a check in that amount. Um there are ways to do it. You just have to be very careful and as to someone would have a large part of their job would be keeping track of what funds were paid into and what projects and making sure that no funds paid for you know project A get used somewhere else in town that we can't legally use those funds for. question of this. Since Welsh Welch is selling the property, can they can they put up shity to ensure it does get built in the future? If you can't, that's essentially it. It's the same thing. Sure.

I think you also have to be careful that it doesn't turn into um a de facto impact fee kind of thing, too, because we're not allowed to collect impact fees. So, we just have to make sure. Yeah,

I think there are some questions that need to be answered before we go down creating conditions that require or allow or even allow that. Well, if that doesn't if there's no way to work around it, then the sidewalk has to be built on both sides of the street, which granted is wasteful because it'll probably get torn out on the other side. But that's the the road had to be finished as part of the this has been talked about for years. Which condition was that?

17. is a on the sidewalk going to six foot instead of 5 foot. Is that a standard thing now or is that what's what's driving going to six feet? So, it's it's six feet because it's non-residential side. Correct.

Okay. And they they are proposing to do um they're showing an 8 foot uh shared use path on the north side. Um and there is a condition to make that uh 10 ft in lie of doing bike lanes on on Jenkins say 17 condition 17 provide 5 foot grass strip at 65 on the south side of Jenkins Lane. Okay.

It's on page 51. Yeah, I was on the wrong page. You go, John. Yeah, I got it now. Thanks.

We are intending to meet that condition for the 10 foot, you know, shared path. Um and we can do um you know I don't know if we do additional sidewalk on our our side the sidewalk in lie of doing it south south because you I think as Mr. Perier pointed out a lot of that sidewalk is going to be in jeopardy with any development in the future. Don't know how much but there there's going to be a point. So we we could add a more sidewalk, you know, maybe 26, 30 feet on going on the east side. I mean, I see the challenge with this one. It's kind of a cart before the horse thing because I I I can, you know, because if this when this goes in, it's going to drive the development of the rest of it, you know, and it's going to get the big piece of the road put in, but there's also only so much money you can afford to spend to get the cart built. So, um, anybody else have any thoughts or input? Not that I haven't already said. Yes. All right. I'll make a stab at a motion. So, I'll make a motion to approve with condition 20 conditions of approval. However, striking conditions 1, two, and three. Striking conditions 17 on the sidewalk,

leaving 18 to make sure the curbon gutter gets put in correctly in the future. and motion fails for lack of a second. All right. Well, let's keep talking. Yeah, I was hoping this second so we can get some discussion on it. All right. Well, I'll second so we get more discussion. Okay. I'll remake my motion. Mr. Thompson second it so we can continue the discussion on it.

Okay. So the discussion helped me to understand when this drives development and then something gets developed on the south side um where that sidewalk's supposed to be. Can we uh make sure that the southside property has to construct the sidewalk or is that

Yeah, I think that'd be a easily clear requirement with who whoever developed the south side of it when that when that happens. So, and that's why that's why I'm personally just less I'm less concerned about the sidewalk in that instance because I do think when that develops, you're going to get the sidewalk. It's not going to get torn up when all the utilities go in and the road cuts happen. But, I do agree with engineering on the making the road width work so that you can saw cut and get a clean saw cut. put the curbs in for the rest. So, I agree with that statement.

So, but but I also want to see the project happen so that the rest of this gets developed out because I think this project again is going to do is going to make the south and east side of this property attractive so we ultimately get it all finished. You know, and we've seen that in other projects where you know you know the down on you know projects where you know we got the first phase in and then you watch the rest of the properties get developed and roads get built. So that's that's where I'm at on open for any more discussion. Yeah. Yeah. I'm good with dropping 17. And you dropped one, two, and three.

Yeah. Essentially, it's just allowing it to get built as the applicant has shown it as far as the architecture, the the Brickstone and the the alley load part, but keeping the uh subbase out to cover where the um curbing gutter will be and making the road width 20 uh 26 ft, which which makes sense because then they'll be able to it's going to be a pain because you have to curb cut it, but that cost is going to wind bind up on whoever is developing the rest of it. That way you have a clean cut. You can pour your curbs up against it and you're not having to repave sections of the road when it happens. So yeah, I think the asphalt needs to cover the gravel there. Otherwise, you're going to have um loose exposed rock.

You have dirt on top of it, but And dirt on top of it. Yes. Okay, that's all discussion I need on on your motion. Anybody else have any comments? That I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of approval say I. I. I. Any oppose say no. All right. Thank you. Okay. Takes us to item five, resolution 2025-148, Preston Park Commercial. And this item also has a public comment and requires a major or minor amendment. Y.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Carpenter, staff planner. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of an amended PMDP for Preston Park Commercial on 5.96 acres zone PGC plan general commercial district located north of Nashville Pike and east of Warwick Road. Um so the plans indicate two buildings uh of are adding an additional 18,695 ft of medical office and general office to the site and reducing the uh limited warehouse uh automotive parking use from 72 units to 34 units. Um, a small change from what was at work session is there's a little additional office space here. Um, additional I want to say it's 2500 ft. Um, the applicant staff had mostly minor uh conditions on this. the two kind of main ones. Um the applicant will have to provide architecture for the rear of the new house building um shown it'll be the south east building um that are that's code compliant and then uh engineering has a condition to provide pedestrian connectivity here to uh the adjacent uh development. that that fronts Belvadier. Um which are Yeah. So condition seven and condition uh two. Um outside of that, staff recommends that this be the architecture for the car condos remains the same as what was previously approved. Um staff recommends

this be considered a minor amendment and recommends approval of resolution number 2025-148 with eight conditions. Right. Thank you sir. Uh this item has a public comment. So at this time I will open public comment on resolution 2025-148. Anyone wishing to speak? This is your time. See no one leaping out of their chairs. We'll close the public comment and ask for representative of the applicant. This is uh Zach Elliot with Green Lid Design. We got Eric Powers, me as well, architect. Um so uh first of all, I wanted to discuss this uh item number seven on uh extending pedestrian connectivity. Um so we are providing um uh pedestrian connectivity um at the sort of eastern plan eastern portion of the site. Thank you. Um to let's see we've got sidewalk right here that is already providing connectivity to that neighboring parcel. um uh to our adjoining lot. Um and we have a couple challenges in the zone. I believe you all are trying to would like us to um look at this pedestrian additional pedestrian connectivity. Um uh there is a burm of about 5t a tree line. Um it's kind of it's it's situated in in a spot that is is is really where we need to have the dumpsters to begin with. Um and then also that neighboring the the long lot line

there there is a load this this whole street here that they would cross is a loading zone essentially. It's a series of loading zones for the um businesses, retail and others that are along this northern part. Um so it's a hightra, you know, a lot of trucks and other things. It's not high traffic, but the traffic that does come through there is trucks and just other folks, you know, parking behind the businesses. Um, so it's not really, we don't really see much value, frankly, in in in pedestrian connectivity at that spot just because of what it would connect through to. Um, there is a pavilion, I believe, if I'm pointing. Wait, there we go. There's a pavilion on that neighboring shopping center right about there. Um, but it is actually c it's it's gated off at the back currently. Um, so it's just in light of the fact that we do already have this sidewalk around here and just sort of logistical and terrain challenges here. We would we would like to see if if the city would reconsider that particular request um on number seven. Okay. Thanks. Um first I'll just we'll just address the major versus minor. I'll make a motion that it be a minor amendment to the plan.

Second. Second. All those in favor being a minor amendment say I. I. Any oppose say no. It'll be a minor address with that. And um let uh and I'd like to address a couple items. Is that could when you're ready? Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah.

Yes. Uh Eric Powers with Integress Architecture. Uh we're uh couple of comments as it related to the architecture. I wanted to provide some clarity. Uh there was a question about mechanical units on the ground or on the roof. We are putting them on the roof. We are using parapits to screen uh those on the front and two sides. Uh we don't have a parapit on the rear of the building, but since that building backs up to the back of the adjacent property buildings, uh we would ask for consideration of not having to screen that one side, but screen all other three sides of the mechanical units with the parapits. Uh and see if that's satisfactory. Uh so um that particular item on the mechanical units uh on the um the brick uh that we have on the building we do have brick and and ephus on the building. It's predominantly brick on the front and two sides of the building. We have brick that's 90% of the coverage and and ephus which is a parapit ephus. It's uh represents 10% of that coverage of the walls. So we know that the requirement is a 70% coverage of of those materials. uh if you added the windows back in, we still are in compliance with the 70% rule that the city has. So, we still meet that that compliance. The only exception is the rear elevation of the building. We do have that currently a CMU. We understand that's not an acceptable masonry material for material coverage. But again, being on the rear of the building, backing up to the rear of the other buildings, the question is, would y'all allow an exception to UCMU only on the rear of the building if we're meeting the percentage of coverages on all the other sides of the building? So, thank you.

I guess one, you know, sir, I I apologize. I didn't write your name down as you were talking. Eric Powers. Powers. So, uh, I'll talk first about the screening of the HVAC units on the on the roof. Um, I don't personally have an issue with, you know, the entire back of the roof. My question would be on that south east corner where you come out of that other commercial through there that it's that's where I think staff's going to be concerned about it being visible as people approach it from the rear there. Yeah, I think where is our pointer at? Yeah, thank you. Yeah. So, are you speaking? Sorry, I get here in a second. Are you speaking right here? Right. Is this where you're talking about?

Yeah. As you as you come through there through the bank and that other that that back corner would be the only place it'd be visible. Yeah. I I would I think we need if we can screen that piece. I don't think I you I think I can work with you on the whole rear of the building if you can sure they're not visible when you drive down that road. We we on the mechanical. Yeah, we have we have full parapit screening all the way from here all the way around the building all the way back up this side. Right. If you'd like us to return this back a certain distance or something like that, that would be one way we could handle that.

And I and I think you know, you know, I I think for me the goal would be, you know, whatever distance is necessary to the units aren't visible and just provide that, you know, provide whatever visual that is to staff so they can agree that it's done right. And we can work with staff because we we could have the option to either return the parapit back or we could also use a a pre-fabricated mechanical screening uh system that attaches the unit. I'm sure those there's options like that and we can work with staff to accommodate. That's fine. As long as as long as the intent is that they're not visible as people are approaching from that corner is what I'm looking for. Yeah, exactly. And

just a comment on that. Um, we would want to make sure because sometimes when you do a 2D elevation plan and you can see, hey, the parapit wall goes up a certain height and it's going to cover it. Um, you may not actually get the same coverage if you're looking at it from a certain angle. So, we would want to just make sure that you if if someone's standing out at a sidewalk, you know, at in the driveway, for example, um can they see those units? That's Yeah, absolutely. We have had that issue on the way this property lies. I don't think you're going to have a problem with that.

The grades are fairly level through there. Uh and we we I think where we've got it right now, we've we've got a minimum of 48 in parapit coverage back there. So, I think we've got really good coverage. So, uh, but we understand certainly the intent of of what that that rule is there for. Yeah. I guess Brian, what I'm, you know, I'm worried about more the pedestrians and the car traffic coming through the back of that other building up there. If somebody's in a loading zone and can see it, who who cares? Yeah, that's that's kind of the way we see it, too. But obviously, it's it's ultimately y'all's call, but

Okay. So yeah, as long as y'all can work with staff and just ensuring that the, you know, pedestrian, you know, from the sidewalk and the cars approaching it, that's not an issue. But sounds like there's a solution for that. That's pretty easy. Okay. CMU on the back. You had a comment about that?

Yeah. Um, I I'll give my comment. I I am for leaving the condition that the back need to be 70% brick or stone. I mean I we've had so many other projects where we've required them to do that same thing and I don't think it would be right for us to deviate from that. Okay, that's fair. All right, question for you guys. Have you all I don't know if the new zoning ordinance, but there's some products like uh you know one that comes to mind is called Quick Brick. It's a it's a CMU masonry product. Has a brick type appearance. particular I think the Sam's Club in Hendersonville is built out of it.

Um yeah, we don't have any issue if it has the appearance of brick. Um if it's not a an official brick material. Um that that's I don't know if you're familiar with that type of a product. Yeah, there there's there's a variety of different products out there. the the um you know if if we were to do the CMU, we would paint it to match the color of the brick. But I know that may not still not be what acceptable to you guys is what I'm hearing. But uh the other question I would have is if we if we went if we upgraded it and went to a split face block that's still a color match with the brick. Is that an exception that would be allowed or no?

Nope. you need a brick facade on it and it even if it's a 1 in brick look that's pasted onto the the CMU block wall. Um that would be what's requested. But I think what what I'm hearing you say too, Brian, is like the quick product is a CMU block that has a texture on it that simulates brick. That would also be okay. And that would be, you know, uh it depends. Uh, some of those are kind of like a skinnier block, but still the width of a CMU. We're looking for the size of normal bricks instead of like the larger. Okay.

So, that's just So, brick veneer or simulated looking brick veneer is what your guys are saying. Y'all would be willing to accept. Yes. Yeah. Yes. I think that could be worked out on the the final plan and all that stuff.

The only other comment I'll say is I I agree. I mean that condition seven about pedestrian access to the adjacent property to the to the I guess plan north. I mean, they they technically are providing pedestrian connectivity to the property to the north. If that breezeway is fully gated and people can't get in anyways, I don't I don't necessarily know if that makes sense.

I guess I I split. I like the idea of the connectivity. I do worry about pedestrians walking through the loading zone just, you know, that'd be my only concern with it. And did anybody go out and work session we talked about somebody going out and seeing what that if that breezeway was even if it had been gated off or if it was still even in use like that. Did anybody look at it? Yes, we we went out out there and I know on on this property site where we were thinking that it would align would be on the um the dentist office which is to plan left of the garbage. Um there is a wash out that's that's there right now. I know there would be some fill to to put in the the dentist office, but um the podiatary, which is the one to the right of the uh dumpster enclosure, there's not as much fill there, at least from what we could tell, that would make more sense. Now, I do believe that the breezeway is gated. I don't know if it was intended to be gated or if that was done kind of after the fact as outdoor patios were um done. I'm not

I I I think it was honestly thinking back to some of that because my you know full disclosure my old office used to be right around the corner so we used to walk that area all the time. I think they gated it from a safety issue of people getting back into that loading zone. So I think I actually if I remember like that's why it got gated because it was just they didn't want pedestrians getting back there with all the delivery trucks and the garbage trucks. So, um, I like the idea of connecting it, but I I do have a safety concern if we're encouraging people to go through the loading zone. Well, we're we're essentially encouraging people to walk to the back of the building as opposed to the front entry.

Well, and and and the other side when even when they get there, if they can't go through the breezeway, there's no sidewalk to walk on. So, and we actually would be encouraging people to if it's not there, we're encouraging people to use an actual sidewalk to get to the business because and to the front door. Yeah. Yeah. CJ's got it pulled up on Google Google Earth. That's we're just looking at the Yeah, I like the sidewalk that they added um behind the Kiki's Yeah. um parking area, but you know, unfortunately where that ties off to, they would actually have to walk around the side of the building to get to the to the front of the sidewalk as well, cuz there's no sidewalk there. It's a um I think there's a like their sidewalk would be here. Piece of concrete there with with a planter.

Oh, yeah. Go to the front. It'd be here. Yeah. And then they'd walk and then they'd go to the front of the building. Are you all looking at Earth view? Yeah. Google Maps. It looks like to me there's a sidewalk adjacent side. Yes. Yes. Along this side. Yeah. Yeah, there is. This Yeah, there's there's a sidewalk that goes But does it go all the way back? Oh, it does

actually. Aaron, there is a sidewalk. It's just hidden. It's behind the plant. So, I think this view, I guess, didn't show that. I was going to say I thought I thought it was, but I think with that, let's I I I think it's going to be from a safety standpoint, let's let's encourage people to use the sidewalk network because when they do theirs, they're going to connect up to it and it's going to be easy. There's sidewalk connectivity so people aren't having to walk through parking lots and zones. So, I Yeah. Does that make sense, Aaron? Okay.

Okay. I'll I'll take a stab. Uh I'll make a motion for approval except uh motion for approval with all staff conditions except striking condition seven. Okay, I'll second that. We're already showing the sidewalk connection along the I guess plan E side. So which will be the south side and they've they've indicated they're going to meet the 70% brick on the Yes. So that's okay. Any further discussion debate? No sir. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose say no. I thank you gentlemen.

Okay. Item six, resolution 2025-147, the crossings at Hidden Creek phase 5. Good evening.

Kimberly Atley, staff planner. Uh, the owner applicant request approval for an amended PMDP FMDP for the crossing at Hidden Creek phase 5. It's located east of Big Station Camp Boulevard north of State Route 386. It's zone MRO. It's on 17.57 acres. It's consisting of 156 town homes. Uh this was previously approved for 162 town homes. They increased the lot sizes on the corners which overall count by six. Um there are no other changes proposed. Um there were minor corrections. Um but it's overall it's consistent with the PMDP. Now, staff does recommend this to be a minor amendment and um recommends the resolutions 251 147 with the 14 conditions of approval.

Thank you, ma'am. Uh this also has a public comment. So, at this point, I will open a public comment on resolution 2025-147. All right. See no one indicating they wish to speak, close the public comment, and we'll hear from the applicant. and Allison with Kimley Horn. Um, we have no issues with the conditions. Seem pretty minor. We'll get it cleaned up. Okay.

Um, I'll make a motion to be a minor amendment. Second. All right. A second. Any other questions about major versus minor? All those in favor of being a minor say I. I. Any oppose say no. be a minor amendment. I I don't have any questions on this. Anybody have anything? I'll make a motion to approve with all staff conditions. Second motion to approve by CJ. And I heard Mike second over there. Oh, it's fine. Uh it's all it's all good. All those in favor of approval say I. I. Any oppose say no. All right. It's approved. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Item seven is resolution 2025-149 station camp senior housing amended preliminary master development plan. Owner applicant request approval for an amended PMDP for the station camp senior housing is located west of big station camp boulevard and north of south state route 386. It's zone MU mixed use and it's on 5.36 acres. Uh the proposed amendment formally clarifies the intent of the senior living component of the station camp uh master plan. The amendment revises the PMDP to change um of 130 to 178 units. Now this is um 89 independent senior living and then 89 assisted living uh slashmemory care which is considered commercial. Uh the assisted living memory care is community use rather than a residential use in the uh Gallatin zoning ordinance which means that it doesn't adhere to the same calculation density calculations as a typical. Uh the request includes additional height exception and far exception. The height was previously uh approved for 50 feet. They are requesting a 60 foot and the FAR uh from 0.5 to 1.2. The 1.2 too far is within reason because there are adjacent medical center that is the elevations or architects uh presently do not um meet the 70% brick stone component area but the intent is for the developer to do it for that that was their intent so they will come back

at the FMDP and iron that out so the planning dep uh department uh recommends the request for a minor amendment and recommends approval for the resolution 2025-149 with conditions. Thank you. Um this item also has a public comment. So public comment for resolution 2025-149 is now open and now closed. I don't think there's any public left here. So,

um, hi ladies and gentlemen, Kelly Hyatt 1222 Deumbreum from um, Maris just here representing the project. I think we have Kimberly summarized it well. Um, I think the only thing I do want to just make sure we're clear on is while the elevations do not currently meet the 70%, um, they are still working on them. So, we just left the same note on there that's on the current plans. We're not changing that. So, I don't know what their long-term plan is, but we do have the same note of the meet the 70% or submit for alternative that was in the original PMDP.

Anybody have any questions? was uh the only question I have is was the in the original PMDP can you was this intended to be four stories? No, it was only approve so I believe it was pretty conceptual at that stage. Yeah. And it was approved for up to 50 ft at that time um with no a lot not a very conceptual. They weren't even sure if it was going to be assisted living, independent living. Um I would mention this is very close to PGC. Yeah. Already has an exception for 55 ft. Okay. Um, so it's it's not kind of outside the realm of what's going to happen in this development. This part of the property sits lower than Big Station Camp. Correct. Okay. It falls down towards height.

Plus, they're getting the parking underneath the building, right? That's the key right there. The parking going underneath is reason enough to grant the height exception in my opinion. It reduces the impervious area. Yeah. It's great. It's It's I I see only good things. Okay. So, those are my questions. I'll make a motion that it's a minor amendment. Second. All right. Got a motion to second it be a minor amendment. Thanks, John. I forgot about that. Um, all those in favor of being a minor say I. I. All those opposed say no. All right. It's a unanimous to be a minor amendment and I'll make a motion to approve with st 10 conditions of approval. Second. All right. Second by CJ. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of approval say I. I. Any oppose say no.

All right. It's pass unanimously. Thank you, ma'am. M I need to recuse myself on item eight.

Thank you, sir. Item eight, resolution 2025-144, 794 Anthony Street and 503 Hatton Track Road. A reszoning. Uh the owner and applicant request approval to reszone six lots 35 through 40 of the Clear View Heights subdivision number five totaling 0.57 acres from R10 medium residential district to R6 highdensity resident residential district located south of Hatton Track Road and west of Anthony Street. Uh you can see the properties in question here and along with the survey they intend to subdivide off the back portion of the properties creating another lot and they provided some elevations um or actually I'm sorry a plot diagram of where they intend to put the home. and then some mockup elevations of what they foresee it to look like. Planning department recommends approval of res resolution 2025-144 without any um requirements

might be a first. Okay, this item also has a public comment. So unless my wife wants to speak about it, I don't think there's any public left. So okay, but it's still open public comment. Anybody wishing to speak, this is your chance. Public comment is closed. All right. Now we hear from the applicant.

I'm not trying to make this longer. This is new since the work session. It is. You're right. Yeah. Um kicking down obstacles in the world of corporate sales, which is my jobs. That's the story I'm going to give. Uh Kyle Fan, 2170 Scotty Parker Road, Gson. I'm assuming you have no questions about the lack of comments. All right. Motion to approve. Second. All right. Motion and a second. He recused himself. Yeah. All right. All those in favor of approval say I. Any oppose say no.

All right. It is approved. All right. Item nine, resolution number 2025-145, First Baptist Church, a reszoning.

Evening, commissioners, tribe here, staff planner. The owner and applicant is requesting approval of a reszone of a 1.93 acre parcel from commercial services to the core commercial district located at 225 East Main Street. This is the uh campus of the First Baptist Church in Gallton just up the road here. Uh what they're looking to do is to clean up the zoning for their overall site to make it all one be that core commercial zoning. Um a place of worship is permitted by right in the CC zoning district. Um any uh future expansions, remodels or whatnot would come back to this body for approval. Um, as you can see here, this is the um overall zoning map. We've got the core commercial neighboring right next to the subject lot that wants to be reszoned. Um, plan Gallatton designates this um overall parcel as part of the downtown core um character area. It's characterized by a mid-rise office u retail, residential, and civic uses. Uh building should be two to five stories in height and placed as close to the street as possible. Um this reszone is consistent with the downtown core character area since the core commercial zoning meets the purpose and intent of that character designation. Um staff recommends approval of resolution 2025-145 with zero conditions.

Hi. Uh, this item, believe it or not, also has a public comment. So, public comment on resolution 2025-145 is now open and closed. Okay, we'll hear from the applicant.

Alison Turner with Green Lid Design. U, we're in agreement with all staff comments. Why is that in the works? This one, this one's easy. It makes perfect sense. A motion to approve. Second. All right. Mo motion by mean Mr. Thompson seconded. All those in favor of approval say I. I. Any oppose say no. I. It is approved. Thank you ma'am. Item 10. It's resolution 2025-146 Triple Creek Park expansion annexation.

The owner and applicant which is the city of Gallatin request to annex uh this property for the future Triple Creek Park expansion. This is a little over three and a half acres that was recently p purchased by the city earlier this year. Um but not being within city limits, we'd like to have jurisdiction over it. Um and so this has started the annexation process. It had its petition through city council last month. Um and so now it will go on to city council with your recommendation. Uh and this does require a public comment. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And public comment on resolution 2025-146 is now open and closed. All right. We'll hear from this. Well, it's the city, right?

The city would like to annex this property. City owns. I would like to respectfully pressure you to respectfully pressured will work. Motion to approve. Second. We did get official approval from the city council to apply for this annexation. We did. Well, I'm glad you're going through your own painful process. Um, okay. With that, all those in favor of approval say I. I. Any oppose say no. That is it. And that takes us to other business and think staff wants to talk about the 2026 planning commission schedule.

We do have a schedule for you. It was in your packets. It is on the website. And so, if you have any questions about it or need a copy of it, let us know. But it is available and being posted. works. Um, and then as I mentioned a couple of months ago, tonight's my last meeting on the planning commission. It's been an honor to serve and I've learned a lot and have enjoyed watching the city grow and so I just want to tell everybody thank you, especially the staff. Brian, you got a great department, some really great people. So, wish you guys the best. You're very welcome. May I say something?

You may. as the mayor. No. Um, just so much appreciate you. You say you've learned a lot. I've actually learned a lot from you and I think we all have in a lot of ways and I didn't know you when someone brought me your name to be on the planning commission and we met and I thought, well, we'll give it a roll. And he jumped in with both feet and really worked to make um our planning processes um as good as they can be. And I know he has great respect for the staff. He has great respect for um all the people that you get to work with. I just I love the way that you handle meetings and your general accountants and and your intelligence and all the things that are wonderful about you and you're going to be missed. But I'm very very grateful for your service. It was um particularly during this period of time of the last several years, it was such um a benefit for the city of Gallatton. So, thank you.

Thank you. I second all that.

All right. And I'll take a second just to say thank you. You know, you were a great help to me uh coming here and, you know, starting this job a couple years ago. I can't believe it's already been almost two years, but um having you as the chairman has really really made our our meetings run so smoothly and um I we I couldn't have asked for somebody better to to be in that role. Um, and it's a difficult job sometimes. You know, you have people coming at you from different directions and I'm sure you had lots of people approaching you behind the scenes. I don't know. But um one thing that we notice is that you know the meetings weren't extra long because we were able to you know just get through these discussions in a in a cordial and a um business-like manner. And um you know you have an error about you that tells people hey you know this is how we run things in in Gallatin and um but also flexible enough to kind of help people through a process where they may be having some issues. And you know, from on behalf of me and my staff, we're just really grateful to have you um having served as many years as you did. And we look forward to whoever may be able to fill those shoes, but you know, we'll know that nobody can really fill your shoes, right? So, um, yeah, thank you and we we appreciate it and we'll look forward to, you know, seeing you in the future on different projects and things,

but yeah, we're really grateful. It means a lot to me. So, all right, I want to make one last motion as a planning commission. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All right.