Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, welcome. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Um, as our first item of order, we have an adoption of the agenda. We all have a copy of the agenda. Someone's phone. We all have a copy of the agenda at our desk in the pile of stuff. Um, do I have a motion to approve? All right. Motion second. Any other discussion? All in favor? I

I Okay, the adoption the agenda is adopted. Um the next item is the approval of the April 29th uh 2026 meeting minutes that were emailed to us um late last week. Has everyone had a chance to review? And do I have a motion to approve? Moved and second. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Okay, motion carries. Uh the next item is our public comment period. This is our new our new um item, but I do not believe we have anybody signed up to speak today. So um we will go past item D. Uh I guess for the public's knowledge, this is the public comment period for any items in which we have a closed public hearing. Um but it gives people an opportunity to speak. Um, were you here for an item that has a clo closed public hearing? No, not closed.

Okay. Well, then that will come next. All right. Um, yes. Again, that was only for anything that shows closed public hearing on the agenda. Um, next item is Oh, there is one unique item on this agenda that's a street renaming that does not have a public hearing. So, if anyone is here to speak on that, then they should speak during this time. We didn't have anyone sign up and our team was asking to make sure, but I did just want to mention that as well. Okay. Item 18. Item 18 is a street renaming. So, if there's anyone here to speak on that, they should speak now.

Anyone speaking on item 18? Okay. Thank you. Um, next item is recognition of council members and um, council member Hatch Cash. Sorry.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um, any other council members? I don't think so. All right, moving right along. We are um on to items for deferral and withdrawal. All right, I will read the items for deferral and withdrawal. Starting on page four, item 2025 CP-6-1. Staff recommends defer to the May 14th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item number six, 2026S-037-1. Um staff refer staff recommends defer to the May 14th 2026 planning commission meeting. And on page five number 10 2026 NHC-1-1 staff recommends withdrawal. And on page six, item number 13, 2026 SP-1-1, staff recommends defer to the May 14th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item number 15, 2026 SP-19-00001. Staff recommends to defer to the May 14th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Savannah. Um, would you mind just checking item number six and seven?

Sorry, I didn't have seven on. Sorry. Item seven um is to be uh 2025 SP-46-1. Is it to defer? Staff to uh recommends defer to the May 14th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Okay. And six. And then item number six. Read that one. Okay. And item six. Yes. Okay. Sorry.

All right. So, let me get this straight one more time to make sure I have them all right. The items for deferral and withdrawal tonight are items number two, item six, 7, 10, 13, and 15. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Uh commissioners, that is our list of items for deferral withdrawal tonight. Do I have a motion to approve? Okay, motion moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Okay, the uh items for deferral and withdrawal are adopted. Um and that takes us on to item G, which is the consent agenda. So I will read through the items on the tenative consent agenda and ask if anyone is here in opposition. If so, please raise your hand and the item will be presented in the order they appear on the agenda. If no one was in opposition of the item, it will be on the consent agenda. Please note that items on the consent agenda will be will be voted on at a single time. Um on page three, item one will be presented. On page four, item 3, 2026 Z-006TX-001, daycare uses. Is anyone here in opposition? Item will stay on consent. Item number four, 2026 Z-00X-001 SP conditions. Is anyone here in opposition? Item will stay on the consent agenda. Number five, 2026 Z9TX-001, home occupations revisions. Is anyone here in opposition? Item will stay on the consent agenda. On page five, number seven, 2025 S. Okay, sorry, my notes over here. Sorry, not number seven. Number eight, 2025 SP-048-1 New Hope Gardens SP. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will be heard. Item 9A 2026 SP- 0004-001 Innovation Neighborhood SP. Is anyone here in opposition?

This item will be heard. 9B 205 P 0 035-1 J. Alexander's PUD consulation. Is anyone here in opposition? Okay. This item will be heard on page six, item 11, 2026 Z-4TX-1 DTC rail cord corridor entitlements. Is anyone here in opposition? All right. Item 12, 2023 SP- 009-2 Ultra California SP amendment. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will be heard. Item 14, 2026 SP-017-1, Hamilton Hall. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will be on consent. On page seven, item 16, 2026s-60-1 3701 Homeland Drive. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 17192-69P- 0006, Hickory Plaza PUD revision. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 18, 2026M-1 SR-1 alley number 581 renaming. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 19, 2026 Z-7PR-1. Is anyone here in opposition?

This item will stay on consent. Item 20, 2026 Z-25 PR-1. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 21, 2026 Z-06 PR-1. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will see on consent. All right. As information for our audience, if you are not satisfied with a decision made the plan by the planning commission today, you may appeal the decision by petitioning for a right of cert with the division Davidson County Chancery or the circuit court. Your appeal must be filed within 60 days of the date of the entry of the planning commission's decision. To ensure that your appeal is filed in a timely manner and that all procedural requirements have been met, please be advised that you should contact the independent legal counsel. Now I'll run through the items on the consent agenda. All right. On page four, item 3, 2026 Z-006 TX-001, a request. This is a request to amend chapter 17.04. 04, 17.08, 17.16, and 17.20 of the Met Metropolitan Code of Laws to modify the regulations pertaining to daycare uses. Item four is 2026 Z-00X-001 SP conditions. This is a request to amend chapter 17.40 40 of the Metropolitan Code to require district

council member notice of unforeseeable conditions associated with the approved SP. Item 5, 2026 Z-9x-001, home occupations revisions, a request to amend title 17 of the Metro Code of Laws to amend the regulations of the home occupations. Okay. for the items that have been read, those are recommended for approval as noted on this on the staff report and the agenda. So, as we go forward, we'll read the recommendation as well. On page six, item 11, 2026 Z-004TX-001, DTC Rail corridor entitlements, a request to amend title 17 of the Metro Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. And staff recommends to approve item 14, 2026, SP-17-001, Hamilton Hall. This is a request to reszone from RS15 to SP zoning for property located at 3722 West Hamilton Road. Staff recommends to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. On page 7, item 16, 2026-060-1, 3701 Homeland Drive, a request for final plat approval to create two lots on property located at 3701 Homeland Drive. Staff recommends approve with conditions including an exception to section 3-5.2D.2 for lot area. Item 17 192-69P- 006 Hickory Plaza PUD revision. This is a request to revise a preliminary plan

for a portion of the planned unit development overlay district for property located at 5753 Nolanville Pike. Staff recommends to approve with conditions including the conditions in the memo. Item 18, 2026M-00001 SR-001, alley number 581, renaming. This is a request to rename alley 581 from 27th Avenue east to the dead end of to be renamed the bird song alley. Staff recommends approve and recommend that the code section applicable to be to the renaming of the streets be evaluated and amended. Item 19, 2026 Z-17 PR-001. This is a request to reszone from RS7.5 to RAA. Staff recommends to approve item 20 at 2026Z-025PR-1. A request to reszone from R S5 to R6A zoning for property located at 1704 10th Avenue North. Staff recommends to approve. Item 21, 2026 Z-026 PR-1. This request is to reszone from RS5 to RM20 ANS property located at 2839 Georgia Avenue and staff recommends to approve. And under item I, other business, is to accept the director's report and approve administrative items.

Thank you very much. Okay, so I'm going to read back the list of items that are on the consent agenda to make sure we're on the same page and then commissioners will vote. Um, so on the consent agenda tonight, we have items 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 25. Is that correct? That's correct. Great. Thank you. Um, commissioners, that is our consent agenda for this afternoon. Do I have a motion to approve?

Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, um do we have a vote of uh all in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. So, that gets us to our agenda for this evening. And the items that we will be hearing are items 1, 8, 9, and 9B as well as item 12. and give everyone a moment to resettle.

Good afternoon, uh, commissioners. Greg Claxton. I'll be presenting item one, uh, recommendation of the capital improvements budget. Uh we'll also be presenting uh a little bit of background and context on some uh capacity assessments we're doing around uh some of the capital programs that are included in the CIB. Uh as a reminder, the capital improvements budget is adopted annually by the metro council. Any capital improvement the metro makes must be included in the CIB. However, inclusion in the CIB does not guarantee funding. So the CIB only lays out what Metro could spend money on. uh you need a separate action to actually allocate funding. The CIB includes six years of of projects but is only binding on the first year because it is readopted every year. And a capital improvement includes any building structure, work or improvement with an average life of 10 years and a cost greater than $50,000. Uh the primary sources of funding for capital improvements are general obligation bonds which are approved by council through a capital spending plan. Most projects in the CIB request geo bond funding. Uh another large section of projects are funded through revenue bonds primarily through water services. Uh and then there are some smaller funding sources 4% funds for sort of fixtures and equipment, enterprise funds or department operating budgets, federal or state funding. Uh and then this year we're adding a new uh source of funding, special revenue funds. These are uh funds that are collected from a particular revenue source uh to be used for a particular set of projects. Uh in this case uh projects funded through choose how you move are identified as special revenue funds. Uh the CIB for FY202627 to FY203132 includes 21.9 billion in requests across uh nearly 1500 projects. Uh you can see as we lay those requests out across years, most funding is requested for the current year.

Uh in its review, planning staff prepares uh recommendations uh within the CIB based on alignment with Nashville next. Uh we primarily look at the general plans guiding principles as well as the growth and preservation concept map. And then we've included criteria for assessing projects based on those uh guiding principles that get into a little bit more detail. So, for example, for the guiding principle, expand accessibility, we'll be looking at whether projects uh provide sidewalks, transit, bikeways, or improvements to the major or local road network. For foster strong communities, we'll be looking at things that provide direct services, uh some health benefit or improve community aesthetics in some way. Um, all of this feeds into a planning commission recommendation uh that we report for each project. Um this is one of three ways that project uh priorities are identified in the CIB. One is the planning commission recommendation. A second is uh department's own priorities which use a coding scheme to identify kind of uh how high their priority listed is. And then council also goes through a process from October to about February each year uh to establish their priorities. So all of that is kind of included in one compact place within the CIB. Uh the planning commission recommendations are given a a letter code. Uh some projects are are marked as a recommended as planned. Uh for the last couple of years because of time constraints, these are primarily projects that already have funding. So for example, the choose how you move program is funded. Metro waters revenue bonds are approved. Uh 1% for art is sort of previously funded. So those are recommended as planned. Then the second category which covers most of the CIB is recommend as planned if funding is available. That is there's not an issue that we've been able to identify that would recommend against pursuing it. Just recognizing that there is a very large amount of funding that's requested in here. Uh some projects are recommended for further work. Uh this is

usually where there is some gap in understanding primarily on council requests but where there's some some gap in understanding about the project between the council member and departments. So we recommend that they continue to discuss. Uh some projects are identified as outside the scope of the general plan and are not assessed. These are primarily IT projects, general hospital projects, a few other things that are just kind of outside of the scope of what the planning commission addresses. And then last, uh we occasionally mark projects as not conforming to the general plan in some specific way and recommend against funding until the project and the plan are brought into alignment. Uh this has not been used for several years, but it is something we've used in the past. Um as we've worked on the CIB over the last few years, one of the things we've tried to do is make it more comprehensible and more usable, more understandable, mapping where the projects are, trying to show kind of these these different ways of prioritizing. One of the things we've done as well is work to organize uh a lot of scattered disparate projects into these overarching programs. And so you'll see MNPS for example has school renovations, school expansions, and district-wide projects. These are taking a lot of individual uh projects and grouping them together into an overarching program. You can see water services, department of transportation, parks, libraries, and so on. Uh these programs account for about twothirds of the overall request in the CIB and are also the primary source of funding requests across multiple years. So they're small in number, but they represent an enormous amount of work uh and recommended needs uh throughout Metro. And so it's here I want to pause and talk a little bit about uh some of the capital planning context that departments uh that goes into departments requests. Um and so some of the context here is that there are several infrastructure systems that are addressed by dedicated funding sources, those revenue bonds, those uh special revenue sources separate from uh the general obligation bonds. These

infrastructure systems rely on a mix of capital spending, regulatory requirements, and casebyase mitigation of development projects to manage the impacts of new growth. Um, Nashville does have some limitations in bridging the gap between these case-byase mitigations and the reasoning process, the things that you often see in your staff reports, and the systems level capital investments that the CIB identifies. uh development adds to infrastructure demand but also adds to the tax base which expands metro's ability to make infrastructure investments. Um last most of these are rooted in department master plans that have been scaled uh in some ver uh form uh with some planning horizon uh to to Nashville's overall level of growth and these plans are typically updated over time although you'll see you know it varies a little bit and how that how that happens. Um, I'm not going to go through every program or every program that that we've looked at in detail, but I I do want to highlight three. Um, I want to start with Metro Water. Uh, Metro Water Services has has an extensive set of projects uh requested in the CIP. This is one example 21WS0021 water distribution projects. Uh, this is one of the programs that implements water's master plan. The CIB includes a number of other projects and programs that address water capacity and sewer capacity. I'm mostly going to talk in terms of water capacity uh right now. Sewer is similar just kind of in reverse. Uh Metro Water operates as an enterprise with a rate base. So customer and water uh water and sewer charges fund operations, maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation of the system. In addition, Metro Water charges a capacity fee for new development that connects to the system. It's this capacity fee that funds uh that adds uh capacity to the system as a whole. The capacity fee is structured to implement the water and sewer master plans which uh water and sewer puts together with a 20 to 30-year uh planning horizon. That means that projects that support water and sewer

systems aren't funded out of the general tax base through operating funds or through general obligation bonds. Uh, one of the themes that I I'm going to mention a couple times is that we can think of capacity at different levels. So, Metro Water's system level capacity is primarily governed by its uh uh ability to prepare water for use and distribution through its water treatment plants. Metro Water has two treatment plants whose capacity is measured in millions of gallons per day. Their master plan, Whoops. Oh, no. their master plan proposes and their uh capacity fee funds adding capacity to these plants in in advance of growth. Then the next level is their primary distribution system or their transmission veins supported by things like pumping stations that distribute the water from the treatment plants throughout the county. These are very large pipes uh that distribute to an extensive set of smaller local pipes that deliver water to individual properties. uh the funding picture for these individual pipes changes and becomes more complex at the level of these local service lines. These come in a variety of sizes uh some of which are smaller than what would typically be built for the same kind of development today. Here capacity is primarily measured as flow rate like how much water is passing through the pipe uh at any one time. Uh, one of the big differences in water demand is driven by fire service needs, particularly sprinkler service, which has a much higher need of flow rate uh, to operate than what's needed for domestic services like dishes, laundry, or lawn care. Water's master plan includes long-term capacity improvements to these pipes funded by the capacity fee. But in addition, water sometimes adds capacity to these pipes through their uh, rate base in the process of maintaining and rehabbing these pipes. So, these projects aren't necessarily done to add capacity, but as a side effect of upgrading an older, undersized

pipe, they may open up a little bit of capacity as well. Um, in some places there may be limitations on adding a large number of homes or especially if those homes are multif family buildings that require sprinkler service. So, when a developer seeks or prepares to seek a building permit, they may check with water to see if capacity exists for their proposal. Um, and that's something that water reviews uh during the permit process as well. If the capacity doesn't exist, in order to proceed, the developer must pay to upgrade the line to meet their demand. Metro Water can't require them to oversize the pipe to meet the demand from other properties, but once a project is uh getting underway to do that, Metro Water can contribute to oversize the line to serve additional future growth. Doing this increases the efficiency of water's use of their funds and helps to reduce service disruptions as well as how many times we're cutting into the pavement, which has an effect on kind of our capital spending on the pavement side. Uh, in summary, Metro Water's current plans and funds maintain the water and sewer system and increase capacity through infrastructure like treatment plants, pumping stations, and water lines. I'm going to shift now to the second uh system that we we're we're looking at in detail tonight. These are for schools for new school capacity. Uh project 18BE0017 collects all of the projects that MNPS identifies for new capacity such as school additions or new schools. Every year MNPS prepares a capital budget which is adopted by the school board and incorporated into the CIP. The capital budget includes an annual update of capacity and utilization as well as regularly updated condition ratings of their their buildings. As part of their uh capital budget, MNPS also includes requests for whole school renovations and district-wide programs that upgrade different parts of individual schools like playgrounds or HVAC. By and large, MNPS projects are funded through general obligation bonds, which

is to say Metro's general tax revenue. Those staff reports list potential impacts that resonings may have on school capacities, development generally only contributes to schools by increasing the tax base. While surrounding counties have have the ability to use school impact fees, Davidson County does not meet the state's requirements to institute them. Uh I mentioned a moment ago that zoning staff reports include a section on the potential impact to schools. That is based on data we get from schools each year reflecting student generation rates for different attendance zones as well as the current enrollment level of each zone school. These represent averages that reflect how many students could be added to MNPS student enrollment. Recognizing that differences in building types and locations can affect those rates. Um the core metric for looking at school capacity is utilization. That's the number of students enrolled divided by the capacity of a given school, an entire cluster or the district as a whole. MNS measures capacity based on the permanent structures at at a school. So over capacity schools are typically using portables to provide additional school rooms. In addition to monitoring current enrollment, MNS also monitors building trends, birth rates, and cohort projections to forecast five-year enrollment levels. Um, in addition to concerns about schools being over capacity, schools that are under capacity can also make it difficult to appropriately support students. Generally, MNPS uh reports schools operating below 85% utilization as under capacity and schools operating uh above 100% as over capacity. Finally, a further complication is that while MNPS assigns students to schools based on attendance zones, students can also request enrollment in any school with excess capacity. When more students request to attend a school than can attend, MNS selects students through a lottery system. That means that while there's a link between the number of students in a school's attendance zone and the number of and that school's

enrollment, there's some amount of selection and choice involved, especially when taking into account magnet schools, as well as charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling. And so what I'm showing here reflects uh MNPS's capital budget and the data that planning uses for the zoning staff reports. Similar to water, you can think of capacity as operating at different levels across the entire school district. For zone schools, MNP MNPS is operating right within appropriate capacity levels at 85%. Um, and then MNPS organizes schools into clusters to create a pathway from elementary schools to high schools. Here we start seeing differences in utilization rates with one cluster over capacity and the rest split between uh within and under capacity. And those and then these patterns strengthen even more when we look at individual schools and across grade levels. Elementary schools have the highest utilization rates with 56% of them being over capacity and with middle and high school uh schools being substantially lower. This reflects three broad uh two broad trends and one uh recent change at MNPS. uh when uh Davidson County parents opt for MNPS schools, uneven rates of growth in student population with higher student generation rates in the Antioch and Can Ridge clusters as as well as some uh individual uh elementary school zones. And then especially the move within the last couple of years of fifth grade from middle schools to elementary schools that added a lot uh a much larger student body uh just within the last couple of years to those schools. Elementary schools now typically serve prek to fifth grade. Um and then finally, this map shows additions to school capacity over the last several years. Uh a lot of these are uh additions, but there are also several new schools as well as a few uh whole school replacements uh that have added capacity. Um and then once a school new school has been funded, it can sometimes

take several years before it is ready to enroll students, particularly when land is needed. And then this is just the map of MNPS's uh additional school uh capacity needs responding to those capacity levels that we I showed a moment ago. Um and then finally, and this one is uh shorter, uh we uh are also looking at libraries and community centers, which we're treating kind of together as indoor public space. Uh these do not have any dedicated source of funding. New expanded and renovated libraries and community centers are funded through geo bonds and again development uh contributes primarily through increases in the tax base. Uh the facilities master plan for libraries is based on their master plan from uh 2021. Uh 19 PR006 for uh new and expanded community centers is based on the parks master plan uh plan to play from 2016. Uh these were both done with about a 25-y year horizon and plan to play is currently being updated. They both include at a broad system level uh a measure of uh capacity uh that's sort of square feet per capita or square feet per person. Uh this is a countywide average. So libraries had about 0.9 square feet per person when they did their master plan. Community centers was about 1.23 square feet per person. That is a countywide figure. So, one of the things we've done to supplement that is add in this effective level of service measure where we take into account how many people are close to a library, how large the library is, how far apart they are, as well as the fact that uh people in any one neighborhood may have multiple choices between a library here, a community center there, and then a little bit further away is the main library. And so based on this, we see this pattern where we have a very high level of service in the urban core that uh lowers out as you get to the the edge of the county where you get to, you know, sort of Jolton or further reaches of Belleview that are very low density.

Um but you've got pockets of higher level of access close to some of the the um branches out there. And then again, uh these are kind of the proposed within the CIB proposed uh additions to libraries and community centers. uh these were identified in their master plans to address current gaps in service as well as to respond to future growth. Um that was this is kind of a a highle kind of review of how we think about capacity in some of these different systems just to highlight some of the nuances and complexities uh as we go through this analysis. Um back to the the primary CIB itself, we do have a couple of amendments. I'm showing them on screen. One is adding a a a project uh for improvements to Wasiota Park. The other are just amending uh project costs for projects that are included in the CIB. And then our recommendation is to submit the FY202627 capital improvements budget as amended for consideration by the mayor. Happy to take questions.

Thank you very much. Um this is a normal public hearing though, right? So we have time for the audience, right? and then commissioners can ask questions of you. Okay. Um Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing on this item. Um is there anyone who would like to speak? We have amended our procedures so that uh anyone can come forward to speak whether you're for or against it um or if you have questions. Okay. Well, seeing none, we will declare the public hearing portion closed and we will turn it over to the commissioners um for discussion. Um Commissioner Marshall, do you have any interest in getting us started?

Thank Thank you. Well, first of all, I would like to commend the staff for putting together such a comprehensive report. um looking through it, I think you all have done a great job of assessing the needs for the city and based on um what I see here today, I have no particular questions about it, but I would support the recommendation. Anyone? Yeah, Commissioner Lesley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask a question about the utilization rate on the schools and you said is that 85% and that formula is determined by so that is uh within zone schools adding up all of the school capacity that MNPS monitors through their capital budget and adding up all of the student enrollment as of October uh of each school year. I was just curious, do you know how many schools are presently underutilized? Um I don't have the number. I only have the the uh percentages that are shown on screen, but I'd be happy to provide that afterwards. No problem. Thank you. Great job. Thanks.

Any other questions? Commissioner Henley. Thank you, Chair. And again, great great presentation. One question, and you may not know the answer to this one, I noticed the and you highlighted this, the inclusion now of special revenue bonds as a category. Is it is it um exclusive to the choose how you move at this time? Obviously, if we have future, you know, funding sources, it may go there, but right now it's it's currently just limited to that one funding source.

That's correct. I I believe my understanding uh from finance is that is a an established category of revenue that is sort of recognized throughout the country. Um we are incorporating here. choose how you move is the one that's using it. But it it's not to say like the the category would only ever be that.

Any further questions? Um well, thank you, Greg. I know this is always a huge undertaking and um when we first started doing this, we all had like hours and hours of questions for you and uh just because we don't have hours of questions doesn't mean we don't appreciate all of the work that you put into this. So, thank you. Um, okay. Well, with that, we need a motion to proceed. Yes. I would like to make a motion to submit the FY2026207 capital improvement budget as amended for consideration by the mayor. Thank you. Do we have a second? And Lisa,

sure. Just before you all um vote, I just I did want to say a few things. Um, first of all, I want to thank Greg and his team for all of the incredibly hard work that goes into putting together this document every year. This is a huge undertaking and we so appreciate all of the work that he and his team do. Um, this is a good way for us to think about and talk about and platform infrastructure improvements. The CIB is the main way that we get um system level infrastructure improvements across the city. there's really a lot of work that we have to do to understand um what development drives as a as a need from infrastructure versus sort of an overall systems need. And sometimes a system can be like schools generally operating pretty well and have capacity, but there might be specific areas within the system that need um improvement. And so thinking about it from a localized versus a system level is something that we are are working to understand and this is really important for us and this is a good way for us to begin to platform those things. Um you know another thing when we think about um infrastructure generally and development as a part of that solution is that the development space and uh our land use space generally has become much more latigious over the past few years as seen with some rulings around our um sidewalk um ordinance that we had. And so that does make policym more challenging. And so anything that we can do to unpack those challenges, understand capacity um from a systems level versus localized level um we are working to do that. So this is a really good way to platform it. Um and so Greg, thank you. We appreciate it.

Thank you. That's really helpful context. Um okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries and thank you again. All right. Um we are on to item number eight.

Uh chair, I I believe the people that were here on item eight may have left after talking with the applicant. So we before we hold the public hearing on this item, we can check and see if anybody's still here. Okay. Is there anyone who is still here um to speak on item number eight? It had previously been on the consent agenda. Seeing none, um we can entertain a motion from the commissioners to put item eight back on the consent agenda. So moved. All right. Any discussion? All in favor? I.

All right. Okay, we will put item eight back onto the consent agenda tonight and we will move on to item 9A and 9B. And a question for you, are these getting heard as two together or are they separate in one public hearing? Okay, thank you. heard together,

right? All righty. Yeah. So, as a reminder, um we'll have 9A and 9B. Um I'll present them both and then um you'll have to vote on them separately. Um this is item 9A, the innovation neighborhood SP. The request is for preliminary SP to permit a mixeduse development and staff recommends approval with conditions and disapproval with all without all conditions including the updated condition as provided in the memo before you. The site is comprised of an approximately 43 acre assemblage of properties bounded by West End Avenue, Nachis Trace, and 31st Avenue South. The site is currently zoned MUGA, MU, MULA, Oria, and SP, and contains a mix of institutional, commercial, and residential structures along with several surface parking areas and vacant parcels. One property within the SP boundary is within a planned unit development which permits the sale of beer for on premises consumption for an existing restaurant use. Across Weston Avenue to the north is Centennial Park. To the east across Naches Tracer University buildings, including the campus football stadium and other recreational institutional uses along 29th Avenue South and 30th Avenue South are multif family residential buildings and parking lots. Surrounding zoning districts um include Ori, MUG, and MUIA to the east and west. And south of the site is an established residential area consisting primarily of

single family homes zoned RS7.5 and R8. And within walking distance are bus stops on we routes 3 and 77. And I'll note that West End Avenue and 31st Avenue are classified as arterial boulevards. And Natches Trace is identified as a collector avenue by the major and collector street plan. The site is located within the T5 Center mixeduse neighborhood and district major institutional policy areas. T5 center mixeduse neighborhood is intended to maintain, enhance, and create highintensity urban mixeduse neighborhoods with a development pattern that contains a diverse mix of residential and non-residential land uses. And district major institutional is intended to maintain, enhance, and create districts where major institutional uses are predominant and where their development and redevelopment occurs in a manner that complements the character of surrounding neighborhoods. The site is also located within two special policy areas per the Midtown study, character areas one and four, which provide additional guidance on heights, use, character, um, uh, and frontage design. The proposed SP is shown on the screen. The plan is was originally submitted for the January commission meeting. However, staff and the applicant have reviewed the proposal and held two community meetings before arriving at the version before you. The SP provides a regulatory framework for a mixeduse district that includes standards for uses, building heights, tower massing, articulation, open space, and street typologies. The SP divides the site into five subdists between 31st Avenue South, Nachas Trace, and West End Avenue. The proposed The SP proposes uses of the MUI zoning district with a few exceptions as well as additional uses as detailed in the SP document. On the screen now is the plan's open space network. The plan establishes a minimum of three acres of publicly accessible open space which includes areas for the square envisioned as the

site's central gathering place. The meander a winding pedestrian walkway linking Vanderbilt Place West End and the site's internal blocks as well as as well as other publicly accessible open spaces along the meander. The plan also proposes new street connections. It breaks up the site with a new block pattern and encourages midblock crossings which allow for increased pedestrian permeability of the site. The plan provides height maximums for each individual subdist which are shown on the screen. The tallest height um is proposed on in subdist E along the northern portion of the site near the intersection of West End Avenue and Nachas Trace. Heights decrease as the plan transitions south toward 31st Avenue South and Blakemore Avenue. adjacent to existing residential areas. And a series of stepback requirements are also uh applied within the plan in key locations which include along the central walkway um known as the meander and along 31st Avenue within subdist A. There are other building scale controls which include maximum podium lengths, maximum tower lengths, and required tower separation distances. And to assist in delivering a pedestrian oriented environment, the SP includes supplemental design standards such as active ground floor uses, um, articulation and glazing requirements, and high quality building materials within subdist A. The SP includes prohibitions on land uses and limitations on ground floor commercial tenant foot footprints. As proposed in the plan, the height in subdist A is 10 stories within 100 feet of 31st Avenue with an increased permitted height to 12 stories beyond 100 feet. Staff will provide further commentary on the proposed height in this specific subdist in our policy analysis. Additionally, in staff's memo, we've included a condition for the planning commission to direct staff to study the

application of a supplemental policy on the south side of 31st Avenue, which would limit further expansion of institutional uses associated with the university as well as other commercial and office uses. And if the commission agrees with this condition, the community plans division would review an applicable scope. A multimodal transportation analysis was completed with the plan um and reviewed by NDOT. The study evaluated traffic patterns and multimmoal facilities at a macro level and made suggestions on infrastructure improvements with subsequent final SPS. Updates to the MMTA may be required for ENDOT's conditions. The plan proposes no parking maximums and parking is permitted to be shared across the site within subdist C. Parking is required to be below grade. In other subdists when parking is not below grade, any garage exposure to a public rideway, access street, open space must be lined with active uses or habitable space and on all other frontages um such as alleys. Structured parking will be required to be screened with architectural cladding and no unscreened structured parking shall be visible from the public realm. Moving on to our policy analysis. In reviewing the proposed SP against the T5 center policy, staff finds that several goals are met. As a reminder, subdists E, D, and portions of C, and B are within the T5 center mixeduse policy. The policy supports a broad mix of uses at higher intensities with buildings pulled close to the street, pedestrian friendly design, and multimodal transportation options, which the plan implements. The SP also implements uh the principles through um strategically locating the tallest proposed building heights within this policy area by requiring active frontages, providing standards for an urban form, and laying out an anticipated street network that delivers a block structure expected in T5 center areas.

As mentioned previously, the southeastern portion of the site plan lies within the district major institutional policy. Subdists within this policy include portions of subdists C and B in all of subd district A. This policy anticipates campusoriented environments, structured open space, and pedestrian and bicycle friendly circulation while permitting residential and commercial uses when ancillary to an institutional use. When considered as part of part of the much larger Vanderbilt campus, this development is subordinate to and ancillary to the institution. The plan meets the general character goals through its standards and furthers the main intent of the policy, which is to to support institutional uses while allowing for a broad mix of uses that can form an integral link between the surrounding community and campus. As mentioned previously, subdist A, which is located along 31st Avenue South, within this policy area, includes additional standards to provide a thoughtful transition along the policy edge. Overall, the proposal steps down height and intensity across the site as proximity to the surrounding residential neighborhood increases. The SP aligns with the general guidance of character area one of the Midtown study by locating taller building heights in subdist CD and E along and close to West End Avenue. Character area for the Midtown study generally supports mixed use development with heights of around 12 stories and staff finds that the requirements for tower separation as well as footprint limits helps to limit the effects of the 20 to 25 story heights that are possible in this area. and the provision of open space in the form of the meander and the square located within this character area also act as anchors and enhancements to the public realm as a portion of the site along 31st Avenue bust the lower intensity t um urban neighborhood maintenance policy area to the south staff has reviewed the proposed building heights of 10 to 12 stories in subdist A to determine if a

sufficient trans to determine if a sufficient transition between the two policies is met. There are many ways to consider what could be appropriate heights in this location, including street widths, pedestrian improvements, and the existing development pattern. 31st Avenue is a relatively relatively wide street, and added pedestrian facilities associated with the SP will add a larger buffer between new buildings and the existing neighborhood. However, the structures along along and south of 31st Avenue currently range in height from 1 to three stories. Staff has considered that eight stories may be more appropriate within the 100 foot area along 31st Avenue with a maximum height of 10 stories beyond. And staff would welcome guidance from the commission related to the building height given the surrounding context proposed pedestrian improvements and policy. Overall, the SP implements the height, massing, and transition expectations of the relevant community character policies. It provides street connections and multimmodal improvements consistent with the MCSP and Midtown study. It delivers an accessible and functional open space network anchored by the square and the meander. And it establishes a flexible but detailed framework for a mixeduse environment. And staff finds the proposed SP is consistent with Nashville next and supportive of a highdensity pedestrianoriented district integrated with Vanderbilt University and the surrounding urban neighborhoods. We recommend approval with conditions and disapproval without all conditions. And I'm going to move on to item 9B. That was a lot. So, I am going to skip through this. All right. This is item 9B, the J. Alexander's pod cancellation. The request is to cancel a plan unit

development uh overlay district for property located at 2609 West End Avenue. Staff's recommendation is to approve if the associated SP is approved and disapprove if the associated SP is not approved. The subject property is located along West End Avenue just west of the intersection with Nachis Trace. The property is within a planned unit development and has been zoned MUGA since 2012. Surrounding zoning districts include MUGA, MULA, and RM20. In 2006, a plan unit development was approved by Metro Council to permit an existing restaurant um an an exception from the minimum distance requirement included in the beer provisions of the Metro Code. Previously, restaurants and bars that had obtained a license um from the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption could become exempt from the minimum distance requirements for the issuance of a beer permit if a pud was established on the property. Since that time, the beer permit board has instituted a new process, exemption by resolution after public hearing, which allows a metro council to grant exceptions to distance requirements without the adoption of a PUD. If the PUD overlay is removed, the existing restaurant would continue to operate as usual. However, if there was a new business, they would likely have to go through the new process. Um, as we just presented, there is a specific plan resoning case that has been filed which includes the subject property and much of the surrounding property by Vanderbilt University which lays out a preliminary master plan for the area. Because the putt is no longer necessary for exemption for the beer permit distance requirement and a more suitable zoning proposal in line with policy has been introduced. Staff supports cancelling the PUD.

And our recommendation is to um approve if the associated SP is approved and disapprove if the associated SP is not approved.

Thank you. That was that was a lot. Um, okay. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Um, just for some ground rules, reminders. Um, everyone will have two minutes to speak. Um, once we open it up to the audience, um, and as I mentioned earlier, we don't divide support and oppose for the project. Everyone will just be able to come forward at that time. Um, when you do, we just need your name and your location. We no longer need your actual address. Um but for the applicant you will have eight minutes for your presentation um including the entire applicant team and you will be welcome to hold two minutes for rebuttal. So I welcome the applicant team to come forward.

Uh thank you commissioners. Uh my name is Evan Kathy. I'm with Vanderbilt University's government community relations division and I am uh my team um was the team that uh has conducted the public engagement process uh for this proposal. So what we have before you today is a proposal for an innovation neighborhood otherwise known as an innovation district. Uh if you're familiar uh another a good comparison would be King's Cross in London or Kendall Square in Boston. But what we're envisioning here is an anchor for innovation in Nashville. Um, you know, the vision is our researchers, world-class researchers at Vanderbilt University are in close proximity to those in this area, uh, who are working in startups, the entrepreneurial community, the private sector, and there's a free flow of information and ideas between these two. The proximity is key. That's what makes it special. uh what makes it work, what we've seen make it work elsewhere is when it's a highly dynamic, vibrant environment that is walkable, pedestrian ccentric u and has a mix of uses. Um I would say that you know we've worked with state leaders on this project. We've talked with local leaders. We think what we have before you is a truly transformational opportunity for the city uh that will have in an incredible economic development strengthening aspect to it uh if we're able to move forward. So uh we see this as something not just for Vanderbilt University but something for the city and for the region. Um additionally something a unique way we approached this project is we we had this idea we had this mission that we know we wanted to carry out. Um, but before jumping in, we decided that we were going to approach our neighbors and open an SP process up with the idea if we involve the people around us, we can gather a lot of great ideas, a lot of great input, and we can infuse the DNA of the neighborhoods surrounding us into this project. And I think that we've been able to accomplish that. In the fall of 2024, we held uh a series of what we called kitchen table meetings where we went to the neighborhoods and

said, "Hey, this area here, it's not going to remain parking lots forever. We have a vision. We're going to develop it, but we want to hear from you. What are your values? What are your principles? What would you like to see here? Um, you know, we spoke with o over 80 community members and gathered a lot of information pedestrian centric. You know, where are you going to put parking? Will transit be part of this? We want green space. We want open space, park space. A lot of those values aligned with who we were. And we were able to put those into this project. And and we have a better project because I think of those conversations that we had early on. That was worth doing. It was the right thing to do. and we think we've got something that is better because of it. Um, we spent 2025 really putting that project together and in November of 2025 we presented the final SP for the first time. Uh, we presented it before we submitted it to planning. Since then, uh, we've had ongoing conversations about it. Uh, we've had a lot of folks come out in support, a lot of neighbors nearby. We've had a lot of concerns and questions as well. A few of those that have come up have been around parking. uh they've been around traffic and they've been around heights on 31st Avenue. And just like we listened the first time before we got started, uh we thought, you know, what can we do here? How can we accommodate our neighbors? U so we've made some significant uh accommodations and put some conditions on our project uh in the last several weeks that we think addresses some of those issues. Um the area is already um it already has a lot of entitlements. We could have done this without having to go through this process, but we knew it would be better if we did and it was worth it. And I think what we've got before you will demonstrate that. Uh what I would ask today is we've been at this for a while. Um what I would ask is that you move us forward. You let our councilman Tom Cash take it from here. He's done a tremendous job engaging the community. Um and we're ready to go on to this next part of the process. We know the work's not done and those conversations will continue and we are 100% willing to do that. Community engagement and an open line of

communication was core to how we approached this and we will continue that as we move on.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Anna Yodar with Hastings, part of the design team for this project alongside an internationally recognized team. Over the past several years, we've also worked closely with our metro agencies, holding more than 30 meetings that help shape this plan. And I want to sincerely thank them for all their time and expertise. This specific plan brings a clear, coordinated vision to over 40 acres that might otherwise develop piece by piece without the same alignment to the city's policy. Today, heights along this site range from 65 to over 475 ft with the lowest heights counterintuitively along West End and more than 5.3 million square feet already permitted on the property. This plan instead organizes growth where policy calls for it. Shifting height towards West End to support a transit corridor and stepping down towards lowercale edges. Overall, we anticipate around a 12% increase in density placed where it makes most sense. This modest increase comes with a major investment in the public realm, more than tripling what exists today. Central to the plan is a forward-looking comprehensive multimmoal network that prioritizes people and safety um over cars. This includes um planned transit investments exist new ex improvements to existing streets, new streets, pedestrian and bike focus connections, finer grain midblock crossings, protected bike lanes, transit stop improvements, and more frequent crossings. All supporting a more walkable connected community. This network is complemented by meaningful investments in open space, including the square and the meander. Together, the network and open space make up well over a quarter of the site. This plan also includes clear quality standards, which you heard about earlier. It also introduces new protections to properties identified as

worthy of conservation that don't exist today. Altogether, this is an opportunity to deliver a lasting highquality neighborhood for Nashville grounded in best practices and we respectfully request your support. Thank you. Thank you. Hold our time. Yeah. Did you get the time for Yeah. Okay. All right. Um well, we will open this up for comment. Um is there anyone wishing to speak in support or not in support? You can come forward. everyone who wants to speak can if everyone comes forward at once. We don't. Yeah.

Okay. Uh good afternoon commissioners. Uh my name is Phil Ryan. I'm the co-chair of the Hillsboro West Neighbors U Association which has been in going concern for more than 50 years. Um I've lived in the neighborhood more than 50 years myself as a renter and an owner. Um, so we've attempted to organize our comments uh of the initial speakers to avoid repetitiveness and to uh respect your time. Um, so first uh Eban's comment about the kitchen table meetings uh had no numbers. You know, we didn't we didn't really The biggest objection I have to to the whole planning process was we didn't know about the 6.1 million square feet of development or the buildings of 20, 25, 30, and 35 stories. Uh we didn't know about that until uh this year, this first quarter of this year. And 35 stories is taller than the AT&T building downtown. And then as you as you heard from the presentation, all of this is going to be next to a single family uh district with bungalows that are more than 125 years old. So we would like to work with we don't think it's ready for council yet. We would like to work with the staff and pursue uh more deeply uh how the the enormity of this 6.1 million square feet can live uh with a neighborhood of our type. We want to talk about that uh more deeply. Um, finally, uh, I would say staff comments

were put out last Friday as as was a letter from, uh, VU, uh, three working days ago. Not not nearly enough time to, uh, absorb that information. So, we love Vanderbilt. We'd like to go to council with Vanderbilt. We're not there yet. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. She'll start the clock as soon as you start. Yeah, there you go.

Hello. Uh my name is Lee Vincent and I've lived in the Hillsboro Weston neighborhood uh since I arrived in Nashville 11 years ago. In the past nine years, we've made our home on Westwood Avenue and presently I serve as co-chair of the Hillsboro Weston Neighborhood Association. I love vibrant urban neighborhoods like the one Vanderbilt is trying to develop. I also love old historic neighborhoods like the one in which I'm currently privileged to live and I believe that there's a way for these two things to coexist harmoniously based on the current SP and the timeline of this process. However, I do not believe we have yet arrived at an ideal synthesis of Vanderbilt's wants and our neighborhood's needs. While I greatly appreciate the recommendation of an expanded traffic study, which will encompass more of our neighborhood streets, details yet not yet codified include specific points at which increased traffic volumes and speeds in relation to pedestrian safety issues trigger installation of added traffic calming measures and additional infrastructure for cyclists and walkers. The goal here is to extend Vanderbilt's walkable, bikable, transit oriented vision deeper into the surrounding community. My other primary concern is building heights along 31st Avenue in subdist A. Eight and 10tory buildings directly facing one to threetory residential homes is still difficult to pallet, especially considering the history of how Vanderbilt came to acquire this property. In terms of scale, a reasonable precedent already exists along Blakemore Avenue and the way that Vanderbilt's southern border buffers its tallest buildings from Fanny May Park and Hillsboro Village. The goal here is to continue focusing on a more nuanced transition between Hillsboro West and neighborhood and Vanderbilt's innovation district. I am thankful to planning INDOT council member Cash and Vanderbilt for all of their work to this point, but this collaborative process must continue and this work takes time. As such, I respectfully request a two meeting deferral to allow this process to continue before it moves to the city council. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello.

Good afternoon, Madame Chairman, members of the planning commission and their staff and Vanderbilt University and neighbors. I'm Ginger Hower and I live on Nacho's Trace right there above you and and a member of the Hillsboro West End board. I thank you for allowing me to speak to you today on items 9A and 9B. I've had the pleasure with working with this commission, maybe not these commissioners, but this commission on many resonings over the years, including neighborhood overlays, multif family developments, Belmont University's growth plan, Vanderbilt's Children's Hospital, and I was delighted to serve in that role all those years in part because of the active members that you see behind me who are engaged and negotiate and really thoughtful, honest ways to create projects that are mutually beneficial. And we've done that through a pretty structured process over the years. several public meetings, a designated workg group, an active council member, working with planning on zonings to understand how a project influences the overall planning policy, and then incorporating the negotiated items and the documents before this commission and before the council. We've done that and we've ended up with success, things that are not only beautiful but commercially viable. So today, like the others, I ask you for just a two meeting deferral so that we can allow that very specific process to occur. As some others have stated, we received the planning commission report, Vanderbilt's letter, the answers that we had submitted to INDOT and planning last Friday. That's a whole lot to absorb in just a few days. Councilman Cash has created the workg group. We've begun our meetings. We now have a negotiation list. We just need the time to do that

work and we think two meetings will be able to let us do that. I understand the concept of an innovation district and I think we can get there with a little bit of time and not have to make you make a difficult decision. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Thanks to all of you for the chance that I have to speak with you today. My name is Martha Stinson. I live in Hillsboro West End and have been a more a board member of Hillsboro West End Neighborhood Association for more than 15 years. Our neighborhood has enjoyed a nice partnership with Vanderbilt for which we are really truly grateful. And it's not that I come to you being against the innovation district concept. Not at all. It's a remarkable investment opportunity bringing density for housing and transit. It's just that I have so many questions. For months, we sat around kitchen tables dreaming up ideas with Vandy folks for this project. But it wasn't until January at the first communitywide meeting that a few numbers started to come out and the full magnitude began to reveal itself. We then tried to grasp the enormity of 6 million square feet at our doorstep. That's twice the size of the Oracle project. Yet it will occur on half the amount of land. We have tried to absorb the idea of 650 foot towers nearby. That's the Batman building downtown, the tallest building in the entire state. I must ask you, is this really necessary to achieve the stated goals in this context, in this place on the farthest edge of Midtown next to bungalows? Are we meaning to start a new downtown?

Four, can a highly dynamic environment be accomplished with more appropriate building heights? Can a desirable increase in density still occur? Let's find out. There's no emergency demanding action tonight. Okay. I just request a two meeting deferral.

Thank you. Uh, thank you. My name is Jim Dannis. I'm a 1978 graduate of Vanderbilt Law School and I bought my first house on Ashwood Avenue in Hillsboro West End in 1982 where I've lived since then. Um, I join my colleagues in asking for a deferral. I think it's reasonable. Uh, Mr. Cash, Councilman Cash, and the neighborhood have acted responsibly in the past in working with Vanderbilt and they've worked issues out before. There's no reason to think that that couldn't happen here. My own particular issue is that as I look through these plans that we just got a few days ago, it doesn't seem to address a major impact that this development will have on the neighborhood. And that's the parking issue in a specific way. I know you will look through this and you will see the word parking, but you will nowhere see where they say, "Okay, how many people are going to be coming to this development and how many parking spaces are we going to have?" And that's particularly important here because this is neighborhood land that was appropriated in the late 60s and early 70s. We were told then that it was going to be dormatory and student space. Instead, because Vanderbilt had a parking problem, it was turned into a vast parking lot which serves the hospital, serves the baseball stadium, it serves the football stadium, it serves the employees. And yet, I wrote an email months ago asking these very issues. Specifically, how much parking are you going to have here? And specifically, uh, how is this going to affect the neighborhood? And yet there's it's a major omission, a glaring omission in my opinion because with all these planners involved, you would think

Vanderbilt would know this. So the concern I have is, are we offloading a Vanderbilt parking issue onto the neighborhood? Maybe not, but I do think it's appropriate for our people to ask these questions, and that's all we're asking, the opportunity to ask these questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Max Byum. I'm actually a Vanderbilt alumni, uh, and a current Vanderbilt graduate student. Uh, I'm appearing today, uh, to read for Alan Nason, my father-in-law. There was a family emergency. He could not make it today. Um, and really what this statement is about is referring to Alan Nason's April 16th formal statement and April 22nd legal addendum. Um, this contains the complete factual and legal record uh between the Bristol West End and Vanderbilt. Uh, I actually live in the Bristol West End, which is in that donut hole on that plan. Um, and really this SP fails uh on several conditions. Um it was filed in final operative uh 6 days before this hearing. Uh Allen's formal submission was already complete uh in violation of Tennessee code section 13-7-203 minimum no notice requirement uh held that 11 days is insufficient and 6 days is less than 11. Um you know this SP is suggesting a framework peacemeal framework at that which will deny this community any procedural right to contest each future final SP and it does this while mentioning the Bristol West End the most impacted community uh zero times in eight pages. Um, the full legal basis for each of these deficiencies, this is just one example, is documented in Allen's April 16th and April 22nd submissions and that we ask for a deferral. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Megan CBI and I am an owner and my daughter is a resident of Bristol West End which is a 161 unit four-story condominium community that is completely surrounded by Vanderbilt specific plan application. I'm speaking on behalf of BWE Homeowners Association. We respectfully oppose this SP as submitted and request that the commission require meaningful modifications to this plan before granting any approval. We request a 120day deferral for continued collaboration between Vanderbilt and ourselves. We have sought engagement, collaboration, and compromise with Vanderbilt, attended community meetings, and asked Vanderbilt and Commissioner Cash if we could be included within the SP so that we are not an isolated donut hole. On April 17th, Vanderbilt sent our board its first formal written communication specifically addressed to us, which included its six plan revision. We have not had time to analyze the latest revision with our own experts or prepare a substantive response. This left us with no path forward except to formally object. We are not asking for the plan to be denied outright. Rather, we are asking for a meaningful deferral so that we can continue to engage in conversation regarding reasonable targeted modifications such as a reduced maximum building height in the subd districts surrounding our property, mandatory stepbacks on all four sides of Bristol West End, a clear prohibition on simultaneous construction on multiple sides of our building, a requirement that any new roadway will not impair resident access and finally either inclusion of our property within the SP or support of a reszoning for our

own property so that we are not left isolated and unprotected. These requests are the minimum Thank you. Good evening.

Hi, my name is Kat Howell. Um I live right in the heart of the uh Huen neighborhood. It's a historical district. I've lived there 35 years with my husband and we love Vanderbilt. It's a win, but we love our neighborhood, too. And we want to see uh we want to see it grow and be the historical place that it is. One of our I know I'm hearing from a lot of people, and I've only been to one meeting because I had just found out about this. We are not ready to step forward yet with a confirmed plan. And I think that's because there's so many of us that haven't heard anything yet. Talked to my friends are like, "Wait, what's going on?" And it's like, "I know. This is a big deal. They're going to put a building as tall as AT&T on the edge of our neighborhood. That's a big deal. You wouldn't want that in your neighborhood, I'm sure." Um the uh one of the the big issues is traffic, I think, for everybody. And um when people get off of 440, they're going to flow right into our neighborhood. And we would like very much to protect that because it's already a hightraic area now. It's used for cut through. We're putting up the little humps to slow people down now. And it's still it just get worse and worse. Um I think something like 5,000 more people will potentially be dumped into the neighborhood. And I'm not sure if it's eight or 15 buildings according to our newsletter that would eventually be built up, but um I personally would love to see the uh Natchas Trace Blakemore 31st intersection turned from a four-way into a three-way where Vanderbilt people can't even cross over. So, they won't have a need to even drive into our neighborhood. But I haven't been to a meeting where I can discuss that. So, I think there's a whole lot more really good ideas from a lot of people that if

they had half a chance, they would love to participate. Thank you for deferring this if you would. Hi, good evening. Good evening. How are you? We're good.

Okay. And I'm going. Good afternoon. My name is Jessica McDuffy Massie and I live on West London Avenue. I have lived in Hillsboro Weston neighborhood for 21 years. Have previously served as the wind board chair. And to repeat a lot of people, I love our urban city a lot. The restaurants, y'all, for real. So, what I want to talk about for a moment is how I want to see this project succeed because I really do. I think that it is a wonderful chance to develop our urban core and it can serve everyone with innovation and thought for urban design and something Vanderbilt and many people have already named which is a multimodal comprehensive transportation strategy. So while I appreciate the vision, at this moment, the current proposal is insufficient for a project of this magnitude. To return to traffic, we have seen neighbors, children, and even Vanderbilt employees get hit by cars. seriously on Blakemore by Harris Hillman School and Aken where my children attended. We need a neighborhoodwide traffic study, regular reassessments and binding investments to mitigate pedestrian and parking dangers and creatively envision strategic, holistic and forward-looking modes of transportation. Beyond traffic, we need to look at the math. I am really grateful Vanderbilt is reducing imperous surface parking, but the promised 300% increase in green space is merely from 1 to 3 acres. That is only 7% of the site. Urban planning best practices typically recommend 15 to 30%. With 6 million square feet of density and buildings potentially reaching 35

stories, this currently fall short. again. Please grant our two meeting deferral so we may continue our conversations with Vanderbilt. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners. I'm Miriam Mims. I live on Blair Boulevard in Hillsboro West End as a 20 plus year resident of the neighborhood. I've served on its board since 2006 as past co-chair, block captain for historic conservation overlay, and as commissioner of beautifification and environment for 15 years. I care deeply for my neighborhood and have devoted countless hours to its preservation and protection. My overriding concern is to preserve and protect our unique, intact, historic neighborhood, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And you can see a little bit of the history about the place we love. HW is an asset to Nashville and this project and deserves to be preserved. Taking all this into consideration, I support in principle the SP proposal. Why? Because basically two options lay before us. Number one, oppose the proposal and allow the applicant to build by right on 43 acres under current zoning 40story skyscrapers literally adjacent to our neighborhood. That dog won't hunt. Mm-m. Number two, we can support the proposal in principle and continue to collaborate with the applicant. I believe a rising tide floats all boats. This is a great project, an exciting project. I want to be there to see it to fruition. If we continue to collaborate, we will see the best case scenario for all parties concerned, including lower 8-foot heights and increased setbacks adjacent to us, appropriate massing, realtime construction, communications, off-site parking, etc. Therefore, I am heartened by the collaboration and I look to you

to codify good faith concessions, accommodations, and community benefits offered by the applicant in passage of this proposal. And I thank you. Thank you. I'll get those later. They're beautiful.

I'm Don Kirk. I live on Westwood. I came to Nashville in 1977 and graduated from Belmont in 1981. That was a long time ago. I have lived in Hune on Westwood since then. I love my neighborhood. I've always said I loved being around a university because of the diversity. The track used to be open and we could go walk there at night. This is when Chancellor Gee was uh the chancellor and meet all kinds of people from different countries. So, I've always valued being next to Vanderbilt. This is a little different. I do agree with what my neighbors have said, but I also value bird song. Robins wake me up every morning. And I don't know if you're familiar with this, but bird strikes against glass is one of the number one um killers of song birds, especially during migration. So I guess what I want to speak for, and I'm not even sure if this is the proper forum, but if there's anything that can be done, well, I know there are things that can be done. Glass is now created that's nonreflective for buildings to diminish bird strikes. Lights can be dimmed during migration time, which is what we're in now. So, if there's any way this can be incorporated into your plan, especially I I can't fathom a 30story building on West End. I went and sat across from the Vanderbilt bookstore this week and counted it's 14 or 15 stories. The Marriott is about the same. We're talking double that. So, I would just ask for whoever's in charge of all the building going on in Nashville, let's also do something to help the wildlife.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening, council lady.

Good afternoon or evening. What time is it now? Thank you commissioners for your work. I have sat in these uh esteemed chairs and I know how hard you work and we appreciate what you do. And I also want to thank Vanderbilt for the extended um engagement that we've had on this. They were kind enough to include me in some of those early kitchen table meetings. Uh I'm Berkeley Allen. I'm a council member at large. I'm also a 25 plus year member of the Hillsboro West End neighborhood board, an almost 40-year resident of this Hillsboro West End neighborhood. And like everyone before me, I love our historic neighborhood. It is great to be next to a university. They have been good partners in so many ways, and we appreciate the work that they've done in preparing this SP. But I will just say, here's my prop. When I get to a notebook on a project instead of a folder, you know, it's a very complicated project. Um, a lot of this information came through Friday when the when the staff report came out. I'm still digesting it. Many of of my constituents here are still digesting it. Um, and so I I support the request for a deferral and hope that y'all will take that into consideration. Some of the issues that that I've continued to talk about is the height on 31st Avenue. I would note that the ORI that's currently there, if I'm understanding this right, allows 65 feet at the setback and then there's a 1.5 to one sky plane control whatever slope. Um, so yes, it could be taller. Um, I fully support moving the height to West End, but I would I would ask planning staff to reconsider the recommendation of eight stories when what could be there now is much closer to four. And even if with the sky plane set back, it wouldn't go any higher than six stories in that 100 ft there. So that's one of the things. There's some other things that have come up like the skyline signs. I hope to goodness those would all be oriented away from residential. We don't need to be looking those. Some things have come up about open space. We are grateful that they are including this open space. Um I haven't been able

to find anything inside the SP that specifically talks about trees. There will be trees, which is great. there in placing the tree canopy. That's in a it's in a letter. I don't I haven't seen it inside the SP. Maybe it's there. Maybe I just haven't dug deep enough. Um but I've read through the whole thing. So, there are I believe there are still a lot of issues that we've talked about. Um we appreciate the changes that have been made. Um and we think that there may be a few more that we can engage in the good conversations that we've had. So, I think the the requested deferral could give us time to do that. And I would also ask in some of the course of the discussion if planning staff can remind us of how much changes can be made by the council member or what types of changes can be made before an SP would have to come back to the planning commission. More restrictive, less restrictive, how much? That would be helpful uh to have that be part of the conversation in terms of deciding whether we can just move forward and let the council member make the changes or not. So, thank you so much for your time and for the good work that's gone on. We think we just need a little bit more. Thank you.

Thank you. Um I think we will let you go after they've had their moment to um do the rebuttal. Councilman Cash. Oh, okay. I always get confused, too. Ask if anyone else. Yes. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak either for in in support or in opposition to this project? If not, the applicant, uh you have two minutes for rebuttal.

All right. Thank you. and thank you for those thoughtful comments. I mean, I I would say first, um, we hear you. I think we've been trying to demonstrate we've been hearing from the neighborhood for for many months. Um, regardless of whe whether we move on tonight or not, that the work doesn't stop there. Uh, and we would be committed to meeting with you immediately to go through some of these things that you've asked just now. We get that the staff report came out not too long ago. Um, we feel like a lot of things in are things that we've discussed, but if we need to do that more, we are happy to do it. And I I hope you understand that we've always been happy to sit down with you. Um you know I would say just a couple of things. You know we we shared the massing of this project in June 25. You know we shared the building heights blockbyb block and the road network in November of 2025. So we've been talking about it for quite some time and after that we had six public meetings. Um you know if I think if community members feel there's more to discuss again we're just so happy to do that. Um, and we will we will agree to any type of series of meetings that you need to get there. We are asking for 12% a 12% increase in density. So, it's fairly modest and we think that the open space, the green space, the other amenities that we have here, they came from neighborhood impact and they'll be there because that slight increase in density is how we're going to be able to get it there. So, um, yeah, we feel like the plan will greatly improve our shared neighborhood and beyond. And again, you know, traffic calming has been something else we've discussed. We are fully ready to have a conversation as this moves to council about what those traffic calming measures, the studies and those resources look like 100%. We'd be willing to sit down and talk about that tomorrow if that's what the community wants to do. So, uh, thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, now it's your turn, Councilman Cash. Thank you. And uh I appreciate all my neighbors coming out. Uh and I really appreciate all that they said. Um we have been working on this for a while. Um but we're just just recently kind of getting into the really nitty-g gritties and specifics. Um I also want to add like I live I think closer than almost anybody who spoke except for the two folks at the Bristol. I live closer to this this site than them and have lived there for 50 years. Um I know this neighborhood. It's it is a I think somebody's talked about DNA. It is a part of my DNA. um and am happy to keep keep working. Um the the pro we have had a lot of meetings different as I'm sure you know different at different stages different people kind of become um aware and engaged and I think we've in the last couple months we've hit a a pretty good uh sizable number of people who are aware and and chiming in. Um uh Friday was a a big day in terms of like the the information that we got, you know, we kind of we got the the plan the staff report. We got the um you know, all the conditions to go through uh which and some of them are awesome. Um and we also got a a document from Vanderbilt that said here are the different things that we're going to uh do and and agree to. Um and there's, you know, kind of confusion about what the overlap is between those two things and how much of it is, you know, kind of ingrained in the um ingrained in the conditions and how much of it is is coming forward. Um, I know I I agree with Council Member Allen that like I

want to know um I want I don't want to have to come back and I want to know uh what what kinds of things um I mean I I kind of know what kind of things will keep us from coming back, but you know the basically I want to make sure that the the land use, the zoning stuff we really have uh under our belt and we're ready to um move forward on those things. I I do know that at council there's there will still be work to do and I'm ready to do that. Um see if I got a couple of other things. Uh it is this is a regulatory SP for 43 acres and that is so it's not a site plan and that kind of creates some um uncertainty about things because we don't know what exactly it's going to look like. You know, we've got some I know there's some great design standards in here and I I feel good. I mean, I think nobody said, "Oh, we think Vanderbilt's going to build something look that looks awful." Nobody has said that. But, however, it's still hard to visualize without some kind of a site plan. Um, and so just kind of the the more we can clear up uncertainties, uh, the better. Um, I think one of the you were asked in the presentation, uh, commissioners, you were asked to to provide some guidance. they kind of I think staff was looking to you on a couple of things especially the the issues about 31st and and what that looks like and what's appropriate. Um and I'd like for you to have time to think about that. Um there I think was something in the uh when letter that came to you that uh asked about policy. Um and I have been working with the Bristol. the Bristol, if it wasn't clear, is it like a fourstory apartment building that is in the middle of this 43 acres. Uh, and they have some concerns that are different from the

folks that are in the um neighborhood in the Hillsboro West End neighborhood. Uh, so I uh am gonna keep working either way, but I I I think pretty much everybody has asked for a deferral um except Vanderbilt, but uh but they sound open to working e with us either way. So I would also ask that you give it to meeting deferral. I will I promise that I will use it well and um get a lot of things answered and worked out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, with that we will I guess we have already closed the public hearing. Um open it up for commissioner discussion and um Commissioner Henley, can I call on you to get us started?

Sure, Chair. H happy to. Um I there was for those great presentation. It was a lot of ground to cover. Um and I could obviously as as the council member said understand that the community feels it's a lot of information to digest. So, I I want to just acknowledge those comments. Um, at the beginning of mine, um, I think I think a couple things that stood out to me. I think, you know, we heard a lot about parking and traffic, which we hear a lot about on any large development. And then we also heard a few things that were very specific to heights. Um, and then I I think there were some other com comments in there. I actually appreciate the comments that were made kind of more from the environment ecosystem perspective uh particularly to um birds and obviously there's a lot of conversation I've I've heard in the community about um shadows being cast and and things like that. I I will just say this and being candid with everyone here. I mean, you know, Vanderbilt has publicly rolled out information about the heights, you know, several months ago. I know I followed things in land use and development a lot closer than others, but I remember seeing articles um in the you know back end of last year. So, you know, while I respect the the community coming and saying these are this new information, I think the heights have been out there. I think there's been more details obviously as things have evolved. Um and I will say I think there's probably a bit of an explanation to be given about exactly what happens between a preliminary SP and then the multiple stages of of a final SP. um and and the likelihood of many many many um revisions to come. Um but that being said, I did want to note I think a lot of the the comments that we heard about traffic and parking and and specifically those that were um submitted in in letter form, I think INDOT's um pretty extensive um recommendations and conditions um are probably the best path to addressing

those. I mean, there's a lot of points where there will be requirements to evaluate, re-evaluate, um, and document moving forward, which I think is a lot of what we heard from the community is, you know, we, as this evolves, it's our neighbor, and I think Vanderbilt wants to be a good neighbor. I think there's some, um, some action items in there. I feel there's some good checks and balances that go along with that. I I would just say this. I think it's it's it's a large project away from our downtown and in kind of Nashville sense. And so I understand the the conration that's coming with it. I think hearing both community members and the applicant saying they want to keep working as well as being stewarded by the council member makes me feel really good about it. Um I do think that there's probably just some exposure and education about the the multitude of conditions that came. I think that's a it's a it's a pretty healthy amount of condition specifically from from INDOT. So, I'll pause there. I want to hear from my fellow commissioners. But those are some of my initial comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Henley. Um before I open it up to others, I'm sorry, Hannah. I meant to call on you to start um in response to the letter that was received from the resident at the Bristol West End and any potential legal concerns with that. Sure. There was a letter that was there were two letters that were sent outlining some procedural and legal concerns. I've reviewed both letters. I do not find any procedural or legal issues. This is uh this can proceed tonight if you want. Okay. Thank Thank you. Um Okay. We just wanted to make sure we get that cleared up before we move forward. Other commissioners, Commissioner Lesley.

Well, you had me with at the birds. Uh, you know, I'm live downtown and I'm a native Nashvilleian and I too think when I hear birds, I just get excited. But what I hear is that there's not much opposition. I hear the applicants saying, "We want to hear from you." And I hear the the um constituents say, "We want to talk." So, I would support a deferral, but I think we have to say why we need a deferral. So, I wanted to ask a question about the uh height uh the the specifically uh on 31st and I think you're suggesting that it could be eight stories.

Yeah. So, I'm going to go back to um I mean that I'll go back to a slide where we're showing all the maximum heights in the subdists just so we can see them all. So, um, kind of like we've been discussing, um, they sort of shifted a lot of the intensity in in the height maximums towards West End, which is different than how the height maximums would apply on the current zoning today. um and along 31st specifically in subd district A right now um the way the standard's written in the SP is within the first 100 ft along 31st Avenue of the site's frontage um it's it's sort of hatched in a light line it would be a maximum of 10 stories and then beyond that within subdist A they could go up to to 12. Um we we talked a lot about height as staff and with the applicant and um you know we heard from the community um through letters and through community meetings that that height was um a big jump from we we did analysis of the neighborhood to the south and the tallest residential building there is three stories. Um so sta or staff posed it I guess kind of to the commission to consider you know what about an additional reduction in in height um going instead of from 10 to 12 to uh 8 to 10 in that specific subdist

but can it stay at 3 to what is it that what is it now?

Um right now the that particular parcel is zoned oi. So um the way the height standard works for that is it it utilizes a a height control plane um which it has a maximum height uh at the frontage or at the street setback and then um a slope from that frontage um so as it's a very deep parcel. So as you go deeper in that parcel you can um build a taller building. Um, so it in theory can get um pretty uh tall. Um, I think it's 65 um feet at the street setback and then it can go further. Um,

well, I guess the question I'm asking is that can it go lower than 8 or 10?

I mean, the plan that's in front of us is is proposing 10 to 12. the commission can evaluate that and sta staff has evaluated that and we believe that eight stories could be more appropriate. We were looking for feedback from the commission on that. I mean the commission can look at the the plan and determine a different height that might be appropriate but at this point we're recommending that you consider eight stories or what the plan has in it today which is 10 to 12 uh 10 to 12 stories I believe. And and commissioner, one thing, um there are a lot of different sort of components to think about when you're thinking about height. Um uh there are improvements that are proposed along West End in that will sort of push buildings back a little bit further, including some generous sidewalk widths, multi-use path, landscaping. And so when we're talking about 10, we're not talking about sort of right up against the street. There is the street section includes some generous landscaping and and pedestrian paths that sort of will um reduce the impact of the height along 31st and then 31st is a relatively wide street as well. So those were some of the things that we took into consideration. We we do as staff feel like that 10 to 12 could be appropriate, 8 to 10 could be appropriate, but we do think that the width of that height and the other improvements could support some height. And what about somebody uh addressed parking? That can that be addressed more or can we look at that a little bit more bit a little bit more detailed or um so right now um because they the use the uses the way they define them is very broad. We don't have specific square footages we're looking at. Um the plan does specifically say there will be no parking maximums and that parking can

be shared across the site. Um and and through our conversations um and through the community discussions, we've heard a lot about parking and replacing the parking that is existing there. Um so the plan does have standards that that do speak to that specifically um and parking will be able to be shared um in the future. Tell me about the green space. Uh somebody suggested that it's 7%. Is it I mean she said it should be at least 35%. Is that correct or is that we're at that?

So I I don't think that there's any necessary I don't I don't know of a necessary standard like a minimum that's required for development. I mean some of the things that we would take into consideration is that this site is relatively close to a very large public park with Centennial. And so when we're thinking about adding sort of publicly accessible open spaces, some of the things that we might think about are access to parks. And so they're showing this meander that goes through the site, which would be a green sort of pathway through the middle of the site. And then certain areas of um publicly accessible open space. But in addition, there will be landscaping requirements. They will have to meet tree density requirements. So trees will be planted throughout the site. um outside of even those sort of designated publicly accessible open spaces.

So if we ask for a deferral, am I correct that we have to ask a reason for the deferral? They're just saying they need more time to talk. My advice would be to I I'd like to hear from the commission either way so that I can at this point you're looking at planning feedback and you're sort of giving us and and the council um sort of your planning views and so I think I would continue to elevate that and then it may be that an issue emerges where it becomes plain that that makes sense and then that would be direction to us or you may come up with something different as you talk together. Well, I'll be quiet. I'll defer.

You you started raising some some points for discussion, so we can we can build on that. Other commissioner, I'll mix it up. I'll come back to you, Councilman Horton.

Uh, thank you. Uh, I had heard some concerns in the public about um whether we're really incentivizing multimodal um development here and potentially outsized reliance on on cars to the detriment of the urban environment. My understanding is that this parcel located in the UIO would normally be subject to um parking maximums where it's not under this SP. We're removing that maximum. I have a question if we have a sense of what that excess parking capacity is that we're allowing it would be built under this and and if there's something unique about this project that would justify that departure from the rules that would otherwise apply.

So we you're correct. So right now um within the urban zoning overlay there are parking maximums which mean that there's certain ratios and you can only build up to a certain amount. Um and we had a lot of discussions um internally and with the applicant team in regards to those maximums and whether or not that would be applicable. Um, one of the things that can be a little bit challenging when you're thinking about sort of a district-wide approach like this is if one building comes in and um they're wanting to build parking to share with another site, but that other site isn't coming in yet, you could run into some issues with parking maximums. And so not having a parking maximum may allow for a little bit more flexibility sort of across the site and allowing for shared parking as it's coming in. We did, you know, we did look at and think about um wanting it to be really strongly multimodal. Um look at thinking about um access controls, limiting potential conflict areas, um having a good bit of the parking be underground, but all of the loading and their standards for loading and and access so that we can limit those potential conflicts and still encourage a really multimodal strong neighborhood.

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. Um, one other thought I I think you know there's a clear need for for more time um on this project and and the need for a deferral. I just question for consideration by the body is is is what purpose are we seeking um a deferral for and based on that what is the appropriate body to defer it? I think if there's open questions for us to pose to to planning staff I think a deferral can be useful for that so we can um to give them time to find additional answers. um if the deferral is for purposes of additional community engagement, I think that the Metro Council is probably the more appropriate one than that rather than um directing that to our planning staff. So, um just my initial thoughts on deferral um and would be interested to hear what my colleagues think.

Commissioner Deng,

thank you. U I'm not sure if I have more uh a point specifically about deferral. Um and some of my questions have previously been addressed. I'd like I'd start by saying I really love this idea of a a special project for an innovation district to bring in businesses and entrepreneurs that's that's cohesive with um pedestrian space and and shared space. Um I I do share my commissioner's concern about the maximum height along 31st Avenue towards the one-story houses. I I um appreciate staff's you know consideration recommendation of a of a eightstory height and 10tory setback. Um though understanding that it's already zoned for um essentially an allowable height that could much further surpass that. I I don't know if um I myself would want to limit their byright land use um as it is currently zoned. Um, but I I do think I would support a staff's recommendation for looking at eight story max height on the bottom.

Commissioner Smith, thank you. Um, could someone from planning help me out a little bit and just kind of walk me through? So, this is regulatory SP. We're changing the zoning. Um, and then what there's a a final site plan that will come before this body as well as Metro Council. Is that could you help me with that? Uh, not timeline but process.

Yes. the the preliminary SP goes through council. That's what's considered the reszoning. And then the next step would be for the the property owner to or the developer to come in and submit a final site plan which typically are reviewed by planning commission staff. Um those don't typically go to the planning commission if they meet all of the requirements in the SP. So th those would be reviewed by NDOT, Metro Storm Water, Metro Water Planning. All the reviewing agencies would review the final site plan and they're basically a set of construction plans that would ensure compliance with the preliminary SP requirements and um once that plan is is approved by the planning commission staff, then they would go on to Metro codes for building permits. And then planning also has a role in making sure that the building permit plans are consistent with the final site plans.

Thank you. Um and there was a question, what kind of changes, how drastic do the changes have to be uh for it to get referred back to us if they change it to council.

Okay. So there's kind of two standards. There is a council rule specific to SPS um and hang on, I had it up just a second ago. Um that says that um that the planning commission recommendation can be relied on if the S if the SP or amendment is equally restrictive to or more restrictive than the original zoning request. There's also um case law in Tennessee that just very generally um would put I guess additional limitations. So, um, one, if if the change would have a detrimental impact on those who would appro oppose the proposal or if the, um, commission's recommendation, the planning commission's recommendation would have been altered by the revision, it would have to be re-referred to the planning commission.

Thank you. That makes sense. So, that'd have to go maybe even higher for that to to come back here. Um, thank you. That's helpful. Uh, often do try to go back at the very beginning. So, um I think I could be in favor of staff's recommendation and I guess just to the audience a little bit. Uh kind of our role here is to look at the planning principles and try to see if these proposals and these resonings meet the city's goals and stated policies which were were are not arbitrary encompass tens of thousands of manh hours and decades of of work and planning. Um, this area not only has full land use policies and its associated zonings, but also some more specific uh Midtown uh overlays or supplemental policies, which you know makes me think that this has been very thought out. Um, and this project meets those policies. And I think the SP allows it to be more comprehensive, be more wholly legible, allowing the height to start off smaller, maybe not small, and work towards West End, uh, getting taller, which with the kind of Frankenstein zoning right now is probably not the case. if they just went forward with with kind of the hodge podge as it is. Um I know it's a big change from what is there which is zero tall. Um however, you know, from a planning point of view,

getting rid of surface parking in T5 urban core is a good thing. Um and that's that's kind of what I think we're here to decide on. Um, I'm I'm not hotly against uh a deferral. Um, but I I think I'm going to second uh Councilman's uh idea, which is that from a planning perspective, I don't know what changes we would ask for. Uh if if we do, we we we ought to we ought to ask for them. Um but they this meets uh you know almost all the stated policies uh that we have here in the land use uh designations that's that are there. Uh I I'd be open to to slightly lowering 31st, but I I I'm not even sure I see that as a huge necessity. And I think that the changes that the the neighborhood and that Vanderbilt might enter into an agreement are are more of a place for the council. I mean, are more political decisions. Uh, and I I think that it's kind of tough a little bit and having a historic, beautiful uh neighborhood right in the urban core and that at some point it's going to be up against the urban core. Um and and that is that is tough for the historic uh neighborhood as well as the urban core. And I think trying to find a good transition policy and uh different ways of of transitioning, sorry for repetition, uh is important. Um so I think I could get behind staff's recommendation just because it it seems like it meets our

our policies. I know it's it's pretty large and it's a pretty large change. Um, but I think the the idea of an innovation center and village is a good one. Um, I would uh really encourage uh the applicant to meet with uh the Bristol community as they are totally boxed in and uh uh just to maybe allay some concerns or or hear their specific ones. I know there was one on a road making sure they still have good access and and that I'm I'm sure that's been thought of, but uh some some more touch there would probably be good. Um and I think that's where I am, but I want to I want to listen more.

I had a couple questions just um based on some of the things that that we heard from the um commenters. So, something um that council lady Allen brought up about um signage, when does that kind of something like that get figured out and addressed because I think that's a important thing to think about as you abut a residential area. Does that come in the final site plan?

Yeah. So, the final signage um will review against the standards in the preliminary SP once the time of the final SP comes for an individual building. Um, I think the council member did mention about something about signage, skyline signage facing um, the neighborhood and the SP does have a specific standard that says no skyline signs allowed on frontage along 31st Avenue. So, we we had thought about that particular um, facade and how that would um, face the neighborhood and we were intentional about including that.

Great. Um and one other question on um 31st, you know, maximum height or 10 to 12 stories. Um are there things that would come in when the final site uh SP comes in that could kind of break up the massing of that or those conditions in the SP? Because I think, you know, if that's a wall, a 10-ft wall there, that's going to feel really imposing. But if it's got some green space between the buildings.

Yeah. So, right now that parcel is um it's kind of a triangle that includes all of portion A and B. It's all one big property right now and it's serves as a parking lot.

Um the proposed street network um you know kind of creates a block structure that isn't there right now. Um we also have a standard in the SP for maximum um podium lengths. So that will um make sure that we don't have these super super long um facades. Um we also have standards in there for active ground floor uses so that um there's like habitable space. You're not going to be there won't be like a large blank wall that's not activated along the street level. Um there's articulation requirements, glazing requirements. Um and um yeah, those were those are things that you know was really intentional about 31st and how that um frontage really like faces the existing neighborhood because we we understood that it was uh surface parking right now. So, I know I'm not technically supposed I'm supposed to go with the rule, but I would just put out there for con for thought from the commission that that while um you know, it does sound like from a planning perspective, this has done a really good job of trying to, you know, meet the policy needs. Um, but I think what what folks were saying is they've only had three or four days to digest all of the conditions and, you know, giving them some time to at least go through that and see, you know, are there other specific things that need to be addressed or their questions answered by having a chance to look through the conditions and better um, understand that. Personally, I would feel better having that happen and having this come back to us before we hand it off to council for a um Okay. And then director, I was going to have her address the um additional condition that we got at our desk today um about the um supplemental policy

discussion on 31st. So, I want to um acknowledge the leadership of um Councilman Cash um who has invited planning to come to one of his meetings and INDOT and has facilitated a number of meetings and has tried to throughout this process highlight for our team areas of concern. And one of the things um that I think I don't want to speak for him, but I think that I heard and our team heard at a community meeting was a fear that institutional uses would um slowly creep outside of this area. And so you've got the application in front of you, but what happens if you know um Vanderbilt or perhaps another institution wanted to do more expansion? And so we've put together language for you to consider to direct staff under number two, which would um require us to do some community planning work. I don't think it requires deep inquiry. This is a pretty straightforward matter where we can provide a supplemental policy not on this um application, but on an adjacent neighborhood to basically say our intention is for this to remain residential. this adjacent area and we're intending on not supporting institutional expansion understanding that um you know there are institutional uses in in our neighborhoods and so those happen but I hope that this is a way to reassure the community that we're listening and there are a lot of different ways to ensure that our current neighborhoods remain residential and so we're committed to this process we can do it but if the commission can give us that that guidance since we can do it, you know, outside of of your review of this SP and hopefully address something that I understood was a real issue. So, I'd ask for your support in that. Um, it

doesn't need to be directed to the applicant, but it can be done, Lisa, in a separate motion to us. Okay. Thank you. Can that be part of the deferral to directing the Is that something? I don't think it We're going to work with you. You know, you're you're going to tell me. I think Well, no, seriously. I think let me let me clarify. I wouldn't recommend it be part of the deferral. I think you we're going to do the work. We it's not a hard it doesn't require a lot of deep inquiry to we've done this in areas near Belmont. And so we we we can include language that is protective of this neighborhood and that's not that doesn't need to be part or contingent on anything we're looking at here.

But it is the condition of this, right? It would be a separate condition direction to us outside of your review of the I wouldn't want to hold Vanderbilt to doing work addressing the community when we've got the tools to do it. So, well, I just think I just reiterated if we're going to request a deferral that we must uh direct the staff to do something in in regard to that deferral. I I don't think we could just say and I concur with him. I just can't say and I agree that you should guys should talk more but I don't think we just could say let's do a deferral. Uh I think we I think we talked about it before. We have to direct the staff to do something more and other than just deferral.

I need a little more than that. I mean I we if you want to I mean I think

what do you want me to say? Well, I I'm gonna we're going to do this for work for the community either way and we're going to update the community plan and we're going to restrict institutional uses outside of this SP. So, that's going to happen either way. Um, I think if you want to defer, we would hope to get some guidance as to planning issues related to this SP and I've heard a couple um that you would want us to evaluate. Well, for me, my my my issue is the uh step the 31st the uh stories. I don't know how to direct or request or anything about that, but I would like to know more about that uh in regard to the studies, the stories. But let me say this uh it meets the policy, right? And so I mean other than if I can give you and I'm sorry if I'm just babbling, but I'm just I'm just trying to articulate to the staff uh direction as to what we want them to do other than to recommend approval uh just for a deferral. That's my position. Did that make sense? Did I articulate that? Okay. Well, that's how I feel. So, I don't know

any other thoughts on this. Yes, Mr. Henley.

Thank you, Chair. As I as I said earlier, I didn't want to just run on with my comments, but I'm glad that I I I paused because a few things that came to mind as I was listening to my fellow commissioners. I think one I I did not want to steal Commissioner Smith thunder, but again, I think conditions are are there for continued collaboration with Metro Historic. And as I mentioned, there were things outside of traffic and height and you know, the things that we may typically hear. Um, and so I was pleased to see that there. I think we we heard several members um they came to speak today as well as in their letters address that and so I'm glad to see that that's there. I think the continued collaboration between planning and Metro Historic is is is significant. And then obviously when the council member brought this forward and and I think that the answer that that Lisa gave was was spot on. You know, when I think about the parking component, having worked on both large projects here in the city, but also in other markets, most times we have the community come out and and actually demand that there's more parking because they don't want the spillover into their community um to be impacted. And I think, you know, Vanderbilt with the innovation district, there will be, you know, many years of of rotations and phasing to try to to try to, you know, get that balance correct. But I'd be remiss without saying, I mean, Vanderbilt's a destination already. And you know this there's there's hundreds of millions of dollars going into their athletic program. The athletic program has performed very very well. U we want you to continue to do that which means there'll be a lot of people that will eventually you know take multimodal forms of transit but will also be coming in cars and so not wanting to overly restrict uh the performance of of those venues in in that manner. And they'll also be playing host to our new um women's athletic uh club for women's basketball. So I think you know there's a lot of things that Vanderbilt are doing in many ways that I want to make sure we commend them on and I think you know sometimes our policy has to look a little bit beyond that context but I think that that was a great point to make by the council member. The last

thing I'll say is you know we're we're having these conversations more regularly and so I wanted to commend the planning staff and Lucy for for this updated condition because I think it's really important. We had a meeting, a last meeting um where we had several representatives from the Renwall community and they highlighted, you know, very similar type of context, parking lots, educational campus, abuing a neighborhood that is one and two stories. A lot of the concerns about how how this development will relate to their community were were brought forward. And so I think part of our efforts and I think continuing to to serve the community is to think through the lens of of what we just brought forward of yes we know the boundaries and the dash lines that are before us but we clearly understand what the community cares about. It's that spillover and that and that um intercon interconnectedness there. So I I think we're on the right path here. I just I just wanted to say that and I think you know Vanderbilt this is again meant to be a compliment. you know, we've we've started to hold a lot of our development community to a much higher standard. Vanderbilt, you are the standard in Nashville. So, we're going to hold you to a completely different stratosphere of that again, and I think the community also expects that. So, I I'm pleased to see the way that things are advancing. I I think the council member was was spot on. You know, this is one of those stewardships that has to keep going and keep going, and it seems like you've already addressed that. So, again, I'm in I'm inclined to support it. I think there's been a lot of thoughtfulness that's gone into the considerations and conditions. I I think no one sees this as, you know, a a motion or a step today that is any way, form or fashion um skipping or advancing this process any faster. It's going to take a lot of time. I think everyone involved knows that. So, I'm I'm inclined to support it as it is. I think, you know, this it's a large site. It's a large campus. There's a lot of considerations. Um and there's a lot of community members. I know that the um

the Bristol community had some very specific concerns. I acknowledge those. I think they also mentioned potentially some of the the the owners there about advancing their own version or being um maybe advised on on an SPO or some type of reasonzoning as well. I think that's when we talk about part of this study, I think that may be another group that is significantly impacted by this. So maybe there's a little bit more of a or maybe a separate memo or something that we can look at because I think they are as I said right in that donnut hole of of the SP.

You were looking at me so I don't know if you want me to say uh we would be pleased to entertain a separate SP for Bristol. Um I think um I heard that in um the present or the commenters options and I think that that's very reasonable. their rules about that in terms of getting signatures. Um, and so once they've done that internal work, if that's something they would want us to entertain, we would absolutely look at all the same contexts that we would consider for any any zoning application. So, we're happy to meet with them about proposing a new zoning for Thank you, director. I I appreciate it. And chair, I'll conclude my comments there. Councilman Horton ready to make a motion unless anybody else has anything further.

No, I was going to see if there's any further discussion. Okay. Uh well, I'd like to move to approve or adopt staff recommendation to approve with conditions including additional planning condition two and disapprove without all conditions. That's a proper motion. Second. Any further discussion? No. Commissioner D. Just one quick question about the the height requirement along 31st. Are we sticking with the the original 12 to 10 or

the motion is to go with staff's recommendation which is at 8 to 10 now or excuse me, forgive me 10 to 12 now. Um so if you want to recommend something um a little lower then you would we would need to um go ahead. I'm sorry. Councilman, a question for staff. Approving with conditions uh would not preclude the um council member from reducing it to eight. Is that correct? Correct. The council member can constrain the height. He's still free to take into community input and restrain it. Yes. And it would not be re-referred to the planning commission.

I think I will leave the decision up to the council member. Okay. Any further discussion? I think you got a motion. Yeah, we have a motion on the table. Yeah. If not, yes. If not, all in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Um Oh, I'm sorry. We need to take a step back. Council uh Commissioner Horton, we need to do separate votes on on item 9A and 9B. So, can we take a step back?

Yes. I would also like to make a motion to for motion for item 9B to adopt staff recommendation to approve. Um I guess we just approve on this one because the other one was already been approved. Um so moved. Any further discussion? Not all in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Lisa, do we need do you recommend a motion? So the there's a clear path on the um the additional community plans work. I'd like there to be reassurance on the record that we're going to do that. Council member um Horton did note that in

Forgive me as as number two. So I think we're covered. Yeah. Right. Forgive me. Thank you. Thank you. Um Oh, sorry. I went

there. Commissioners, why don't we take a short break um just because we have been here for two and a half hours and uh we'll reconvene for the last item.

It's an adaptive and an adaptive reuse component utilizing the existing industrial buildings for commercial uses. The site consists of one parcel in the nation's neighborhood totaling approximately 8 acres and is bounded by California on the northeast and 60th Avenue North on the northwest. Uh the multif family developments to the northeast east and south are zoned SP as part of the 2025 nations resoning and urban design overlay. The site across California Avenue was reszoned to MULA which you can kind of see at the top of the screen there. and then oh and has been developed with non-residential uses and the pro uh properties across 60th Avenue North were reszoned to RM40 ANS as part of the UDO adoption reszoning. Um the UDO was not applied to any property that was zoned SP. There are a couple policies on the site. um T4 urban neighborhood maintenance which is intended to maintain the general character of existing urban residential neighborhoods and a small portion of conservation policy which is intended to preserve environmentally sensitive features um through protection and remediation. This is the previously approved SP shown here um permitted or it permitted a mixeduse development with 300 multif family units and the adaptive reuse component utilizing the existing industrial buildings which are kind of to the to the bottom part of the screen. um for commercial uses. The maximum height across the site was four stories. The SP amendment proposes 296 multif family residential units at a density of approximately 36 and a half units an acre and a commercial building at the northeast corner with a maximum of 6,000 square ft. There are a total of six residential buildings with the max height across the site being four stories and 60 ft. Buildings one to four are uh one to four and six are four stories and building five at the southern property line is three stories.

The site is served by private drives and surface parking. As a note, a previous version of this plan included a food truck court component at the northeast corner and this has been modified to show a commercial building. The commercial building is limited to 6,000 ft and elevations depict a one-story building with a patio. Landscape buffers are present on the southern and eastern property boundaries and MCSP requirements are shown on California Avenue and 60th Avenue North. The property is within the T4 urban neighborhood maintenance policy area. Typically, this policy only supports non-residential land uses in limited instances, including with the adaptive reuse of existing structures like the previously approved plan. The existing context of the site and neighborhood is mixed used in character with medium density and multifamily uses in SP zone parcels nearby and limited smaller scale commercial uses like those north of California Avenue and nearby at the intersection of Marorrow Road and 60th Avenue North. While the industrial buildings currently on site are proposed to be demolished with this plan, there is a broader pattern in the neighborhood of small-scale commercial. And since the previously approved plan included a commercial component and the surrounding uses include limited commercial, the proposed plan maintains the commercial component. When compared to the broader area, the commercial component is aligned with surrounding existing development and appropriate in scale and massing given the location of the site in the neighborhood. Infill areas such as this are identified in the T4 neighborhood maintenance policy as being suitable for a more diverse mix of housing uh than similar locations that are interior to a neighborhood. The proposed stack flats introduce a moderately high level of density on the large site while adding to the diversity of unit types found in urban neighborhoods. The buildings proposed line the street frontages which is appropriate in an urban neighborhood context where shallow setbacks and screen parking internal to the site are encouraged. Local road requirements are proposed to be met

along both street frontages. Internal sidewalks connect to the ones proposed on those frontages as well um and contribute to the overall connectivity of the sidewalk network in the area by filling in existing gaps and pedestrian connections. Finally, the landscape buffers provided on the southern and eastern property boundaries align with policy guidance as they act as a formal buffering and screening between existing development and the proposed new development. As such, staff recommends approval with conditions and disapproval without all conditions. Thank you very much. Um, is the applicant in the room? You're welcome to come forward.

Thank you. Uh, Doug Sloan, I represent the applicant. Um, this is a change obviously from the previous SP that was approved. and a couple of the highlights that uh I'd like to point out. Vote before I get to that, want to thank the staff's been very helpful uh with us as we work through this and the and councilman and and the community. We've had several meetings with the the community on these changes. Um the first ones I want to point out are along 60th. The these are all walk up units that face the the street there. Uh each one of those walk up units have sort of a a courtyard that's fenced off in front of uh each one of the well right at the street as it meets the sidewalk. Uh and that's for each one of these units or uh buildings as they uh go along 60th. Also, one of the the large changes that occurred was in uh I think that's building G. Um that's on the far eastern edge. In the previous design that was shown earlier, uh you may have noted that the massing was right against the property line, the shared property line with the units to the east. And uh what we've done is articulate that building uh away from uh that property line so that it doesn't have that same impact that it had before on those those units to the east. As you can see there uh some uh condominium units uh to the east there and the previous design had the massing right along that shared property line. Um through conversations with the community it's been expressed that they did want some commercial uh activity to remain on the site. Um and so uh we've discussed several different iterations and ended up with the commercial space there with is California is there on the on the north end. Um we're, you know, we're happy to be able to go ahead and put all the infrastructure in. We'll have the water, the sewer, storm water,

and uh everything necessary to complete that uh and immediately begin looking for uh a tenant. Um where we can build that to suit hopefully. Uh obviously, if it's a bakery, then that's going to look one way. If it's uh barber shop or something else, it it would look another way. But as soon as we have a tenant, uh, you know, we're happy to to be able to build that. But in the interim, we'll make sure that the infrastructure is there to to be able to complete it. Um, I don't I mean, there are a bunch of other things that I think are improvements. Uh, both designs were going to complete out the sidewalk network over here, which is over a thousand linear feet of sidewalk. Um, as well as a we go bus stop. uh and bicycle parking as you know is all required uh today for any kind of parking that we have in Nashville. And then um we're going to have about 285 new trees that'll be planted. Uh the tree density units are higher in this uh design than they were in the previous one. Uh I'd like to go ahead and just reserve the two minutes for rebuttal and and answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Um, so now we have time for comment and anyone who is here to speak in support or in opposition to this project, if you could line up. Um, you'll each have two minutes and we just need for you to state your name and location. And again, everyone opposition and support together.

Hey, so I'm actually one of the property owners uh at 5901 California. My name is Will White. appreciate y'all's time. Um, just kind of wanted to be here to to support Wood Partners. We've uh been through a lot with this property. I think uh there's been a lot of feedback from the neighborhood that's been incorporated into the plan and I think what we've proposed um that they've proposed is is really something that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Um currently right now, we had a tenant in there for the past 12 years uh great industrial user. They left after um a failed plan that we had that had a whole lot more commercial in in the plan and uh that ultimately failed. Our uh tenant moved out and so over the last eight months that the tenant has not been there. We've been dealing with constant breakins. There's homeless peoples in there when I've tried to show the building to either do inspections or attract a local tenant. Um there have been people in there have had to call the cops to come and clear the building. um also have other ownership in the property in the nations and really you know at the end goal is finding something that's best for this neighborhood something that fits into the neighborhood that supports local businesses and I really think what partners has done working with the neighborhood that this new iteration of the plan um is something that would be really beneficial not only to this specific site but to the entire neighborhood. So, um, would like to express my support for Wood Partners Plans.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello.

Good afternoon. I'm Chris Rimkkey and um, most of you know me and Doug, you did a great job, but I'm going to kind of come at it from a different direction. I I think that that we're really missing a super opportunity to understand this site. This site and what this neighborhood has really been asking for is for it to be a mixeduse site, for it to contribute to a walkable community, to it to have the things that the 2015 next plan envisioned. This is an apartment complex project. You know, I don't know what's right. There's a 3,800 square foot plan running around. And there's a max out at 6,000. But but if you really look at the definitions in the general plan, this does not comply. So I don't think it's it's general plan compliant. I think it's an alleart use of part of the the UDO that's not applied to this site. So I'm going to close by just really quickly reading the technical issues and the concerns. And that is today this potential for a great community hub has another big wall of buildings on it just like they do on the other side of Centennial. It doesn't belong in this interior site. This is an interior site. This is not a site that really is a community center. Um that said, it's a gigantic leap to then apply take up to 60s and 60 feet and a bonus when everything around it is at most 35 or 40 ft. Most of them are two stories. That said, we've got, you know, compromised walkability. We've got token commercial. We've got what's pro what's definitely a violation that even the housing and infrastructure study says these 60-foot buildings in the matrix says is likely not applicable to

interior urban neighborhoods. That's in your own new study. Next door you've got this looming pilot study that tells you it's going to take 40 million to fix it. I don't know when that's going to become the next NES project, but you know it's coming. So our challenge is for you guys to reject this and elevate this place to to be a project in in Thank Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello. Good evening.

Hi, my name is Lauren Maggley. Um, and I just want to apologize in advance if I get emotional because I am emotional about this parcel. I live on California Avenue right beside this parcel. I have lived there for 10 years. I've lived in two different houses on this street. I walk to this building every single day. I drive past it every single day. Um I have never seen any unhoused individuals hanging out around there. Of course, I haven't been inside the building. Um, this piece of land is so special. There is nothing else like it in the nations. It provides the perfect opportunity for us to implement Mr. Horton's plan of a diversity of housing types. Two things that we know for sure, I think everyone in this room can agree on. Two things we know the nations has is tall skinnies and large scale apartment complexes. What we are missing is the middle and this being in the middle of the neighborhood presents the best opportunity and instead we are selling it out to the highest bidder. We're just the little people here. You know, we are not a billiondoll developer. Wood Partners, the largest developer in Nashville, the third largest developer in the country. Um, we don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire this the strategy group to get influence. Um, you know, Mr. Horton's own article, he referenced on his west, he asked the developer representative, that is Zach Hunt from the strategy group. I think we've got all members of the strategy group here tonight. Um even when it comes down to the letters of the support um if you

look at the document properties the author it's Sarah Kirkham she's in the room today she works also for the lobbyists that would partners hired this is pay to play we're just the people this is our community we live here please I mean do the people opinion matter at all to anyone thank you very Good evening.

Hi, I'm Rachel Gladstone and I'm really unhappy to be here tonight. I appreciate what you all say you're trying to do about our city, but The Nation's is the most dense neighborhood in the city. The closest um bus stop from here is a mile away. There are 150 parking spots not accounted for in an area that's already jammed with cars where tractor trailers come and go full of gas. We're across from the biggest uh pipeline in the southeast and a gas field and you just keep wanting to build and build. We voted as a neighborhood per Rollin bringing the developer three times we voted to oppose. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. I'm an individual. I'm not in the government. I don't have big connections. I have lived in this neighborhood 25 years. I've watched the trees be cut down. I've watched every square inch built. And now you want to put apartments where our council member promised no largescale apartments in the interior. He promised mixed use. He promised walkability. That was what got the RM40, which you all approved. And now we have this this this developer first promised us a gravel parking lot where we could put trucks. We didn't want them food trucks. Now they're saying they're going to build something out. They're not going to pay for that. That's what they just said. It's for the person that they possibly lease to that maybe they'll build a building. Talk about vandalism. Is there going to be an empty shell there that's going to be vandalized? What is going on? I don't understand it. We don't want 60 foot towers in the

middle of our residential neighborhood. They don't belong. And I want you to please not approve this. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Uh good evening. U David Beard. Um I have a business and own property in the nations for uh the past 11 years. I'm also um one of the co-chairs of the planning and zoning uh committee of the neighborhood association, the nation's neighborhood association. Uh we've had uh three meetings over the past couple of months uh where the um developer presented and described the project here and how it was different from the original. Uh, one of the uh, one of one of the things that's drastically different about this one than the original, the original had about 100,000 square ft of um, well 50,000 ft of adaptive reuse commercial and that was completely uh, gone from the original uh, plan and uh, the neighbors kept asking for that. And right now uh what's what's been proposed is a 6,000 ft² area uh for commercial. And uh we we re uh the neighborhood association received a more detailed site plan and an elevation of a building that got emailed out to the uh members and uh and were asked to look at it. and if they had if they uh changed their mind for supporting or not supporting the the plan, please email um you folks. So, the uh the nation's neighborhood had a vote. There were 36 people um uh no, excuse me, 28 people opposed and 15 people for the development. And then uh as of this afternoon in the public comments, there were 36 um letters opposed and 264. So that equals about 64 against and 41 opposed. It's the same percentage the 60% of people um are opposed to the to

the project. And uh I know we've we've asked for deferment before. Uh we're going to ask for deferment again. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this project? Thank you very much. If not, you will have two minutes for your rebuttal.

Yes. Thank you. Um, and that the comments about an empty shell are part of our concern, too. Is one of the reasons that we want to do that is a build uh or build to suit whoever it is that we're able to get in there. Right now, within a mile distance of this uh property, there are over a 100,000 square feet of empty retail and commercial space. Uh the I think the community's done an excellent job of creating a mixeduse uh community. Uh if you haven't visited over there, I encourage you to. There are a lot of great restaurants uh and retail places to visit uh that are walking distance from from this area. But uh they desperately need rooftops. They need uh they need residents here. And so that's one of the reasons that that it's difficult to be able to do the conversion that was originally hoped for. Um it has historically been an industrial use here. It was uh basically a industrial warehouse use uh where uh delivery trucks you both dropping off materials and then doing uh the deliveries around town came from. This is this design uh actually will produce 30% fewer uh uh trips per day uh than the previous design that's it's actually approved today. and we'll remove the the truck the truck traffic uh that currently exists in in the middle of this community. Um a couple other things that I wanted to address that that were brought up. Um is that we've stated that this this design here has 530,000 gross square feet for this plan. Uh so it's not moving. That's that's exactly what it is. Um, and the 60 uh foot maximum height is actually uh part of what the UDO is that that surrounds this property and that was what was approved as part of that UDO. Um, so, uh, if you have any questions, uh, we've got the the obviously the group not only that's

going to build it, but the ownership as well. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll declare the public hearing closed. And, um, Councilman, given this is your dual role now, Thank you, uh, chair or vice chair. Um, uh, this is one that we've had, um, as you heard a couple meetings about already, uh, um, as a neighborhood. I think three so far. Um, as you heard the applicant state, uh, the original proposer here, which we were all very excited for. I live right by this, um, as well on New York Avenue. Uh, included 50,000 square feet of commercial space. Uh, we were all super excited about that. Would love to have the bars and restaurants um, right at this location. So obviously disappointed that that's no longer um part of the proposal. Um I think we all of us want more commercial space in the neighborhood. Disappointed that the original developer um didn't deliver on that. We've entertained a couple other um developers who were thinking about coming into it. None of them were able to make the original 50,000 square ft work from a financial perspective. Um after this development originally came in did not include any commercial space. the neighborhood um did not want that. The second proposal um was a like picnic area which it could accommodate food trucks. Um the neighborhood also formerly took a vote against that. Um since then the developer has come back now with this um brickandmortar place which we've not had the opportunity to have a um community meeting about um yet since they've proposed it. Um I think this is a you know a tough one. I think none of us want this to revert or stay industrial um or stay vacant as it is now. It's become a safety risk in the neighborhood. There's unhoused individuals there. There's been several police calls to the location. Um so we everyone wants the truck traffic gone. Everyone wants the unhoused um issue or crime issues that are uh a part of this gone. Um and we all want commercial. We want to get the maximum amount of commercial that we can actually get at this spot. Um so it's um it's a challenge we face. I think um I think if

we if we do approve this, I think it's important that include um a requirement for a brick and mortar spot, not the one not the version of this that the neighborhood um formerly rejected. Um so those are my thoughts on it now to make sure that we're we're implementing the neighborhood's goals on this while also um adhering to um what's good policy for this. So would welcome the other commissioners thoughts as well. Thank you. Others with comments, Commissioner Smith. Yeah,

it's interesting. Um, it it does seem like the loss of commercials seems seems like a particular uh bugaboo. Uh, just kind of on my dual role as a historic commissioner, was any thought given to trying to keep some of the adaptive reuse? Uh, I know it's not a protected building. Um, but as far as the commercial areas, was that at all possible or evaluated, please? Yeah. Yeah.

Um, Andrew Stefins, uh, represent uh, the developer Wood Partners. Um, yeah, certainly, Commissioner Smith, thanks everybody for, uh, your time this late at night, too. But so the original plan which I worked on included the adaptive reuse. Um the reason I mean nothing would make me happier than to have that have been built and developed and full of commercial uses. The problem is it was never going to happen that way. It was never going to fill up. Uh and the the deal was not feasible because of that part of the project. Um the building now is in too poor of shape. Uh all the copper's been stripped out. All the mechanical systems have been destroyed by homeless or or vagrants or thieves. Um so uh it's not viable to do that now. It wasn't viable when the building was in good shape and it's certainly not viable now. Um, and really from a, you know, an investment standpoint, not my investment, but a bank that would fund this or an equity group that wants to come in, all they have to do is say, and this is what they do say is, well, why is there so much vacant commercial in the nations already? Why would we build more? Um, so we we can't do that. that project doesn't get off the ground and this site just goes back to, you know, I guess an industrial use uh because the commercial just doesn't work in this. It's so buried in the middle of the neighborhood that that it doesn't appear feasible to the the financiers.

Thank you. Um, one more and this kind of for staff. Uh, I guess at some point did what is the policy support as far as maybe like amount of commercial would a 50,000 square foot commercial still be I may be throwing one out of left field at you. Um, would that still be a without the adaptive reuse would that be something that was still supported by the land use policy? you said the policy is neighborhood maintenance and so those wouldn't support any non-residential uses. Um when we were looking at this, we kind of looked at the area and also what was previously approved and saw that there was some commercial there. Um and there's also kind of varied uses in the area that having a commercial component as part of this plan kind of made sense in the sense that it's smaller. Um do you want to speak to the size of it at all? I think that's that's probably

No, I mean I think what she said is correct that this had sort of an evolution from the original industrial building to uh when we first saw that the original SP plan, we even though it was neighborhood maintenance policy, we looked at the the existing building and thought it could be a good thing to adaptively reuse that building and to allow some level of commercial if they adaptively reuse that building. And so that's kind of how we recommended the original amount of commercial because it was going from industrial uh that was previously industrial. We felt like that was a it made sense to do that. Now if the building is not going to be there, that was a little bit more of a struggle for us to say commercial is allowed in neighborhood maintenance. But we looked at the surrounding area. There is some commercial directly adjacent to this. The previous plan had commercial and so we felt this small amount of commercial could fit into that that neighborhood even though the policy really doesn't allow any any commercial uses be but because of the history of this property we felt like that made sense.

I hear you. I I thank you. I think that's a good use of discretion since it seems like commercial is something the neighborhood clearly wants. Um I'll I'll finish up. I I think I'm inclined to to support the recommendation. Um I think the other project is a little more ambitious. Uh but it's not something I can impose on anyone. Um I think that's I mean I think it it still meets the policy um even if it's a fair bit different. And I'm I'm I'm bummed about the the wear the the industrial building. Um, but I am glad that we are getting more uh housing stock and out of the industrial in this in this uh maintenance neighborhood maintenance area.

Thank you. We we agree. We we would have preferred the adaptive reuse. Um I mean that's something we are really interested in in pursuing in the city and we're working through a variety of parts of the city that have different fabrics. Some of it's protected and some of it's not. And so, sorry. Go ahead.

Well, I just I thank you. I I hope I hope the word gets out that adaptive reuse and and stuff like that might get you u a little bit of of of favorable viewing at the planning department uh above and beyond what even land use might might be. If that's no longer an option, I think it the scale back makes more sense. Um so, thank you. Other commissioners have thoughts on this one? Commissioner Henley?

Yes, I I'll chime in. It's it's kind of dovetailing the way the conversation was going. I unfortunately I've, you know, been a part of or have had some, you know, purview on projects that had adaptive reuse um ideals. That was the intention. um over time, usually not to any, you know, fraudulent or, you know, neglectful behavior. They they've been impacted significantly, whether that's through, um, you know, force majour, some type of storm or something impacts them beyond, you know, a reasonable level of repair or you have what was described here where, you know, acts of others have have deteriorated that. I don't know if it's if it's um something that impacts our you know purview of a building assessment to see kind of how far gone it may be. Um but that may be something that's that's worth entertaining. I I will say this though I think I have a question for staff and it's related to kind of this version of this the I guess the the image that we have versus the previous SP. On the previous one, I noticed that there were several um biop ponds and a lot of water retention kind of along the um along the property line in the previous version. I don't really see any of those here. I see a few open spaces called out. Um and then there's a maybe I've identified where it may be. There's a kind of a sizable triangular area next to building six that doesn't really have a label. Um, but I'm the reason I'm saying all these things is, you know, when I look at the previous SP, which was approved in effect, it it felt like there was a bit of the community felt like it was pulled into the into the property. So, I don't know if these open spaces are true open spaces and then if there's opportunity maybe for something additional as far as programming on that triangular space if it's not just a large bio swell. So, I was just curious if we had that information.

The plan doesn't have um I have just another like black and white version of the plan. It doesn't have anything that's calling out that triangle down there. Um but in terms of like storm water and and by retention, they're at final site plan. They'll still have to meet all of those regulations by storm water or that storm water has. So, um those would be addressed then with more detailed um drawings and construction drawings. Um does that help at all?

It it does. Yeah, if we're not there yet, I was just curious. I mean, again, you know, a community responds to, you know, commercial spaces, meaning more open to the public, and now with that reduced, I can see the community feeling is that's something that's absent. Um, and open space and dog park. Are those do we know? I didn't see that those are public open spaces in dog park or they they just internal to the site. They are probably a little I would ask the applicant. We don't Yeah, I don't know if we had Yeah, I didn't know if that information was detailed.

I'll I'll mention that the uh we did propose the open space now where the commercial building sits. So, um you know, our plan there was to program a food truck court. So, um an area that's landscaped with uh cafe lights and seating and and for us as the developer to program and and work with food trucks to come in. that was actually shot down by the neighborhood in um trade for the commercial building which we think will you know um it'll given the amount of bacon space in the nations you know it's going to be challenging but we're we're willing to to do that. So the the open space was actually proposed and not accepted by the neighborhood

and then Jay can speak to the storm water. All the amenities shown though are going to be intended to be for the residents. But the original SP we didn't have geotechnical yet. Rock is a little too shallow to incorporate all those biopons. We're we're intending to use pvious pavement, things of that nature to satisfy. So I don't envision bioponds replacing the amenities that are shown. Um but that is the final SP element.

Okay. Thank thank you. I mean though those were some of my comments. I mean, obviously, you know, original SP shows four-story multif family. We're kind of still in fourstory multif family realm here as far as height. Um, but I understand that there's, you know, the configuration is is different and then obviously with with the existing building kind of being being not present in in the new plan, there's some there's some constrnation there. I mean, I, you know, 300 units are a lot of units to have in front of you and to and to and to have, you know, the site kind of trapped in this weird purgatorial state. I think it's we heard about how really neighborhood maintenance would likely view this site if it if there wasn't that building there. Um, and so I I think the from a planning perspective, this level of of density and this type of use make a lot of sense. I think is there opportunities for further engagement to really figure out how to create some entry point or or dynamic relationship to the to the surrounding community? Yes. Um, it seems like those conversations are happening. There's maybe not a resolution just yet. I mean, our council member is here. It seems like there's been some dialogue about it and that this is maybe option number three. You know, maybe third time's not a charm. Maybe there's a fourth or a fifth. So, you know, I would encourage that to to keep happening. But as far as the, you know, the scale and the amount of housing that's here, um, and obviously I know you've got to work through the the site related challenges as far as, you know, how you handle storm water retention, but I I would like to, you know, continue to see open space there. it wasn't abundant on the first SP, but it but it had kind of what seemed like a centralized area where maybe that would have been present. Um, so I would just encourage that to be a

focus as well going forward. Thank you. Other comments? I I had a quick question for staff. So, if this hadn't if we were not looking at the previous SP, if this was just coming in the first time around and this was a neighborhood maintenance policy, would we say that this this development was consistent with neighborhood maintenance?

I think I think the overall plan is consistent with the surrounding multif family that's around there. I think the commercial element is a little bit questionable, but I think because it's such a small amount of commercial, I think that it it that the policy does allow us to consider that. Um, but I think the um I think the plan itself is in its maintenance policy. So, it is not inconsistent with the surrounding multif family to the to the east and the surrounding multif family. So I think we would look at this as the overall goal of the policy is was to sort of move away from industrial and have a residential use here. So I do think it is consistent.

Well there's no further discussion. Um yeah sorry. Were you about to ask for a motion? I was going to, but I'm waiting if you had

I'm willing to make a motion with a with a brief explanation first if that's okay. Okay. Um so brief explanation of what the motion is. I think it's important um that this motion um make clear that the the second version of this plan which was considered and um formally rejected by the neighborhood is is is rejected and will not move forward after this stage. The one that had a food truck idea, that idea will not be um advanced um um while allowing um this is not the final approval. This is a advisory body to the metro council which has multiple readings and public hearings and public comment opportunities. Um and so I think I would like to make a motion to adapt adopt staff recommendation to approve with conditions with the additional condition um that the final site plan include a brickandmortar store and disapprove without all conditions including if a brickandmortar component at that location is not present. Who's paying the bill? We're talking.

Um, that is a proper motion. Do we have a second? Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Um so that brings us to the end of our items for hearing tonight. Um we are on to item I which is other business. Um and we will um start with historic. Uh no huge update yet though I think we are inching closer to taking a look at the guidelines making sure that uh we are still interpreting them correctly and and reasonably.

Can we ask that you take a conversation out into the the hallway? Can we ask that you take the Thank you. Um, but that is in the future and probably inching along. Uh, and then I did have one question for staff. What's the status of the Green Hills East conservation overlay that I was kind of expecting before then saw it today and was withdrawn. Is that still happening or is that still moving forward?

Uh, Council Member Prep T did ask that that be withdrawn. believe he has uh wants to move forward with some additional work with that community in advance of any additional filings. Good. Um I think that's the end of my update. Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Henley, anything for you with parks?

Um no major update. Just um they never know that you know there was very successful Earth Day activities. Um parks plays a huge role in supporting those um throughout the city. most notably at at Centennial Park. Um and then obviously with with yesterday being Earth Day, there were quite a lot of other activities. So since the weather is nice, just encouraging people to get out into our wonderful park system. Thank you very much. Um in terms of the executive committee report, I don't think that we have anything. Um is there something there and andor update from your side?

Sure. Um couple things. want to acknowledge uh Councilman uh Horton's herculean oversight of the review of the PSC metal site up at council. Um it was a very dynamic discussion and um there was a press conference today with Mayor Okonnell announcing that site which I know um has been um a dream for for many Nashvilleians I think to to imagine something different and I think we're on the first step of that. I think there's a long way to go. Um we will be reaching out to schedule um a work session. Um and so we'll be in touch on that on some conservation work as well as the DNDS um which is a um growth oriented um project and or also growth management. Um anyway, with that, thank you so much for your service and see you next next two weeks.

Hold on. We got one more. Oh, we need the legislative update. Anything from you, Councilman? Uh, just that we're very excited to approve the Eastbend uh now Wasiota Bend um resoning and otherwise no uh otherwise no updates from the council.

Great. I'm sorry, I got one more. Do you you will recall that I um mentioned that our nominations for officers is going to be happening over the next uh coun uh commission meeting or so. So, if you have dreams of doing more work than just being a routine commissioner, let us know. Only Councilman Horton has to definitely do both. But, um, we appreciate, uh, folks who, um, serve on m multiple committees and let us know if you're if you're interested. Thank you. Okay. Well, okay. With that, we'll accept your emotion and the meeting is adjourned. This has been a service of the Metro Nashville Network. If you would like to see this presentation again or for more information on this and other programs, visit nashville.gov. Thank you.