Municipal Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, I guess Albert, would do you mind giving the invocation? And then Mike, do you mind doing the pledge after that? Thank you. Let us bow. Father, we bow before you. Thank you for this day, this gathering, for watching over our community. Now, m, we ask you to bless us this meeting that we do the things you find pleasing in your sight for the better of the community. Thank you for where you brought us from and where you lead us to. We ask your son in Christ's name. Amen. Amen.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Hey, Maryanne, we have roll call. Yes, sir. Vice Chair Morell, here. Mr. Pere, here. Mayor Brown, present. Councilman Fan, Mr. Strower present. Mr. Thompson here. Mr. Hamilton here. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Uh, Secretary have uh prior minutes for approval. I do, Mr. Chairman. We have the minutes uh from the December 1st, 2025 planning commission work session meeting and the December 15th um meeting and the January 5th, 2026 planning commission work session meeting. And I make a motion that we approve without any changes. Second. Okay, we have a motion to approve and a second by Mr. Strawler. Any discussion on these minutes? Obviously, Maryann uh Tanner was not present for any of those meetings. So, it may be worth noting that. Okay. All right. All those in favor of approval say I. I. All those opposed.

Okay. So, it passes unanimously. Uh next, we will move into the election of officers. Um, Mr. Chair, do you also want to introduce Tanner Hamilton? Yes, I can. Uh, so tonight we have a new member of our planning commission with us. Uh, Tanner Hamilton, correct? Yes. So, Tanner, uh, Tanner, not sure if you want to, uh, say a few words, but we're are happy to have you. Uh, and look forward to, uh, your expertise being on the commission. Awesome. Uh, hey everyone. I'm Tanner Hamilton. I'm a real estate attorney and am excited to be involved in the city of Gallatin. Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh, is there any discussion before we make a motion for officers?

May I add to your resume with what it is you teach? Do you care? Absolutely. He also teaches land use at the University of Tennessee School of Law. So, I think um that was one of the things that I found compelling that I thought would make him a great asset to this body and appreciate his service. Absolutely. As other people fall away. So, yes. Uh that will definitely come in handy for sure. Um Mr. Chairman, if I may make a motion. Um I make a motion that CJ Moral serve as chairman of this body. Second. Okay. Do uh Marian remind me historically have we done these separately or all at once?

You can or you can do everything at once. Okay. Can I add to that motion? And I'll I will make a motion that uh Mr. John Purer be vice chair and Tanner Hamilton be secretary. Are you seconding and amending that? Yes. I'll second. I'll second your amendment. Oh, you sec Mike seconded your amendment. Okay. So, we are voting for myself to be chair, John Purrier to be vice chair, and Tam Tanner Hamilton to be secretary. Um, any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Okay. Do we need to move seats or are we good?

Do we We don't need to move seats, do we? Okay. All right. Cool. Okay. Next, uh we will move into uh our next item on the agenda is public comment on agenda related items. Um for those of y'all in attendance that are here to speak on a particular item, uh those items in the agenda that are that are listed and show a public hearing item under the agenda item. Uh you will have an opportunity to speak at that time. Uh but for any other agenda related item at this time, uh if you so wish, you can come forward and speak.

Yes, ma'am. Please state your name and address. Um hi, my name is Allison Turner. My address is 1289 Lock 4 Road, uh, Gallatin, Tennessee. And I'm here to speak in general about sidewalks because it's it addresses a couple of issues on the planning commission coming forward. And I wanted to do it personally, not as the engineer representing said items because this is more of a general comment. Um, I live on Lock Four Road. We have the town home development adjacent to the marina which has been put in and there's been sidewalks added. most recently to and as an engineer I know we have to place sidewalks and roadways to the property line. There is a situation there where the sidewalk is placed to the property line and it goes to the property line I think about 3, four, 5t off of the edge of pavement and then drops off about 2 feet to the ground. So I know we want to get sidewalks places but let we need to use some common sense about where those sidewalks occur. that sidewalk is sitting adjacent to the marina. So, that one actually makes some sense. It could connect on down to the marina at some point. Um, other places they're not going to make so much sense because the properties adjacent to them are already developed. They're not going to change hands for years to come. It would make sense to me that we utilize those dollars to better spend. You know, I know we've gone away from in lie of, but I think it makes so much more sense than having these peacemeal little sidewalks all over town that don't connect to anything and won't connect for years and by the time they do connect, they'll be so deteriorated that they'll have to be replaced anyway or that we will upgrade those roadways to connect to those sidewalks. Additionally, we're asking property owners to dedicate right of way to put those sidewalks in easements.

We're not dedicating right away, but we're having to dedicate easements for them, which is the same thing. It's still a taking. Um, and it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem like a wise use of dollars that we could get more bang out of our buck putting somewhere where they're actually useful. And the city could do a much better, more efficient job of putting in wider areas of sidewalks as opposed to individual little strips here and there. That's my comments. Um, I see it happen a lot and just hoping that we can find some common ground to make this work out a little better for our city and for our residents because I'm all about loving sidewalks because I live on lock four. We don't walk on it anymore. We don't ride our bikes on it anymore like we did John when we were kids. So, it would just be nice to make some more sense out of this. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak uh on agenda related items? All right, seeing none, I'll close the public comment on agenda related items and we will move into our consent agenda. Um, staff, can you remind me? I believe there was uh an item on the consent agenda that needed to be uh removed. Yes, we would like to uh remove item number four and move it to after item number 20. Okay. So we'll we'll um we will discuss that. Uh is there any member from the commission wishing to remove anything else on the consent agenda or have comments on the consent agenda?

Okay. I'll make a motion that we approve consent agenda items with the exception of item number four. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. And that would just for clarification, John, that would move agenda item number four to after item 20. Yes. Okay. Uh, so we have a motion and a second. Uh, any discussion on consent agenda items. Okay. Seeing none, I will call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed.

Okay. So items one, two, three, and five pass unanimously. And item four goes to after item number 20. Next we will move into our regular agenda. Uh, and this will be item number six. Uh, Charlie. Good evening, commissioners. Charlie Pier, staff planner. The owner applicant requests approval of a site plan for a 720 foot accessory structure with alternative architecture on a 1.05 acre lot. This is part of the Jacob Heights subdivision, lot number three. This property is zoned as R20 Lensy Residential located at 623 Jefferson Avenue. The applicant proposes to build an a detached garage accessory structure with some uh metal architecture. Um the metal is not an approved um material in our zoning ordinance, which is why it is before this body. Um staff recommends denial of this because it doesn't meet the architecture requirement. However, should this body vote to approve this proposal, staff does have one condition.

Okay. Thank you. Is there a representative from the applicant present? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Anthony Bruno. I live at 623 Jefferson Avenue and I propose to build a metal building. Could paint it the same color as my house. The the the neighborhood is 70 years old. They don't make the brick.

Yeah. that my house was built. So, and this this structure sits behind the house. You cannot see it from the street. You can't see it from pretty much anywhere except for my yard. Okay. And then, uh, Charlie, you mentioned, are there other similar structures like this in the neighborhood? Um, there are. We had some pictures that were shown at the work session. Okay. Awesome. Uh before we move into additional questions for him, engineering is there this doesn't trigger any storm water or anything like that, does it?

No, I believe the the size of this is 720 ft and part of it is on an existing imperous okay area, so it doesn't meet the trigger. Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments? No, we went through this in planning session. I think it's pretty straightforward. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Uh move to approve with the one condition. Okay, I'll second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Uh, and this is to approve uh the architecture as submitted. Any discussion? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. All those in favor, please say I. I. All those opposed. Okay. Passes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Yes, sir. Um, next we will move to item number seven, uh, 161 Rockwood Terrace Polebark. Charlie, is this you again?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Um, this owner and applicant requests approval of a site plan to construct a 28x 56 foot uh pole barn with alternative architecture. This is on 2.32 acres in the Rockwood Terrace subdivision, lot number 13. This property is zoned as R15 lowdensity residential located at 161 Rockwood Terrace. Again, same um scenario here. The applicant is proposing to add another uh detached garage with alternative architecture. Um they are adding some additional um imperous area to the site as well. So there will be some storm water measures that will need to be um taken care of. We have the uh proposed architecture and materials for this thing as a whole. again metal staff recommends denial of this um resolution as well because it doesn't meet the zoning ordinance requirement. Um however, if this body does move to approve this proposal um there are two conditions.

Okay. And I believe this was another one that they there was similar structures. Correct Charlie? Correct. And and then engineering do you have anything to add? They are adding more than 800 square feet. So they would be required to meet the water quality requirements. Um they could do a rain garden or enhanced landscaping. Okay. Uh is there a representative from the applicant present? Yes, sir. Hi there. Brian Westerman, 161 Rockwood Terrace. Okay. And you're uh you understand the comments that engineering is placed regarding the storm water. Yep. Do absolutely. Uh installing gutters and very concerned about that as well for that side. Right now it's a perfectly flat spot. So we'll just continue that back. Okay. Awesome.

Only had only had one question on this. I think it's fine. But um this this is a larger structure than what we just looked at a minute ago. This is like 1,600 square feet. Is that about right? Yep. Just sir. What is the size of the main structure, the main house? 1,600 f feet. And so we knocked it. We made sure we were below the square footage of the house. It's as far as I could go up to it, but it's below. Okay. I seem I had recalled that it can't exceed the main structure. Good question. Any other questions or comments? Move for approval with the conditions. We have a motion for approval with conditions from Albert. Second. We have a second from John. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please say I.

I. All those opposed.

Passes. Thank you. Next, we'll move to item number eight, Gregory Roundtree Reszoning. Good evening. Kimberly Atley, staff planner. The owner applicant request approval for a zone of 325 plus minus acres to IR industrial restrictive district. Property is located south of Highway 31 east and north of Gatewood Drive. The property is currently unzoneed and vacant. City Council approved the comprehensive plan amendment this month uh to establish the character area as a general urban and ex expand the number four Gallatin Gateway Industrial Center sub areament. Um no plans have been submitted at this time. The zone request will go forward to the city council for final approval. There were no conditions and the planning staff recommends approval of the resolution 26 2026002.

Okay. Uh is there anything engineering would like to add? Nothing further to add. Okay. Thank you. Is there a representative from the applicant present?

Allison Turner with Green Lid Design. Um happy to answer any questions. It's pretty straightforward. just trying to get the zoning in place um and working with staff on doing that. Okay, before we go to additional I forgot to do something. Um we are supposed to have a public hearing on this item. Uh so at this time I'll open up a public hearing on item number eight.

Yes ma'am. Rosemary Base Economic Development Agency right across the hall in city hall. Um I don't know if y'all are completely aware of the conversations that have been had about this property at the city council level. The city council a majority approved the annexation with the promise that the property would be reszoned to industrial restricted. So that is what the council is hoping you will do. That is certainly what I am hoping you will do. And we already have a plan to address the resident concerns on Roundtree and uh the last time they spoke and there may be people here tonight, I don't know. Uh their big concerns were buffering and traffic. So again, we have plans to address those. I can give you more details if you like, but I do hope that you will vote in favor of this because that is what the property owner and the council are anticipating and hoping you will do. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and then I will call for the representative of the applicant back up.

Yes, sir. Are there any I This is very much in line with everything we've seen up to this point. Um I don't necessarily have any other questions or comments. Uh is there any else from the commission? Uh seeing none, go ahead. Motion to approve. A motion to approve by the mayor. I will second that. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please say I. I. All those opposed. All right. Passes unanimously. Uh, okay. Next, we'll move to item number nine, uh, Savannah Marketplace resoning with amended preliminary master development plan. All right, Jim.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim Carpenter, staff planner. Uh the owner applicant request the planning commission recommend approval uh to the Austin city council of a resolution to read zone 13.85 plus or minus acres from the PGC plan general commercial zone district to the MU uh mixed use zone district with an amended PMDP for Savannah marketplace phases four and five. So, um, this is the, uh, previously approved PMDP. Um, if you remember, this had, uh, Connect 55 by Calamore, uh, the over 55 assisted living facility here. Um, and then really no plans since I've been with the city um, have come in for this property. Um, currently they have a temporary parking um, situation for the phase 4 restaurants. um there currently. Um so they're asking to reszone this from PGC, plan general commercial to MU uh with a plan for 96 single family homes and 60 residential units and 20,000 square ft of commercial space in the two uh mixeduse buildings here. Uh it's a plan uh northeast. Um the full breakdown of uses and units and users uh will be submitted with the FMDP for this. Uh uh they are asking for a few exceptions um including lot size, lot width, uh sideyard setback, sideyard PUD will be a thing with this with the plats and buffer yard widths as well. Um the applicant also requests let's see so here's the architecture uh for the single family uh detached homes and then

the architecture for the mixeduse buildings. The uh the mixed use will require a height exception. Um however there is language in the Savannah marketplace uh mass development plan to allow for a height exception based on feet set back from streets. Um so uh due to the reasonzoning for this um obviously this will go to city council. This is a major amendment to the Savannah marketplace uh master development plan. staff still has concerns um based on that final use breakdown, unit type, those sort of things uh in regards to the parking and private streets for this development. Um however, uh staff is recommending approval with 15 conditions.

Thanks, Jim. Anything from engineering? One of the conditions that we had was just that properties that are developed within Savannah Marketplace would be um subject to a program contribution to the Gordon crossing signal. Okay. Thank you, Aaron. Uh at this point, obviously with this being a reason, this comes with a public hearing. At this point, um I will open up a public hearing for anyone wishing to speak on agenda item number nine.

Yes, sir. Please come forward and state your name and address. Hello, my name is David Harden. I live at 2183 Gordon Crossen in Gallatin, Tennessee. I've been uh there five years now and pulling out on the Gallatin Road at that out of Gordon Crossen is uh extremely dangerous and I know we're getting a light at some point. I see the Starbucks and the M ML Rose entrances to those parking lot to those parking lots uh are 90 degree turns right now just I mean and you're in a 50 mph zone so we're making a hard right a hard 90 into each one of those driveways it's extremely dangerous pulling in and out so when I see this number of homes and this many cars pulling out pos potentially using the Starbucks entrance and the other restaurant entrance I see a very high risk uh especially with the speed limit being 50. I would ask I don't know if it's possible to get that speed limit lowered down to 35 30. This is to in my mind is too many residential houses pulling out into a 50 mph street. I think it's extremely dangerous and and if if they want to come out to the end of Gordon Crossings and use that new traffic light that we're getting, that might make sense. Um but I don't know how the citizens in my neighborhood are going to feel about that much traffic being fed into that. This is prime real estate for this area. The very prime real estate and this seems like a shortcut easy fix to you know not really pushing for what the original intent was. Um so I in in my mind it's not suitable property for that many homes. So that's that's my theory. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. and call off our representative from the applicant.

Hi. Hi. Good evening. My name is Greg Gamble. I'm representing the applicant. Uh and I'm here tonight with Randy Hoffman. If you'all have any questions for us, we have reviewed staff comments and conditions of approval and we are in agreement. Okay. Any questions or comments? I'd like to What is the signal projection on that, Erin? Do you know? So, based on um T Dot's last count, they they said it was not not warranted, but they did take those counts, I believe, before the ML rose and it was getting close with that. So, we we are saying that the signal is is warranted.

I thought they were getting another one. I thought we would have that by now. Is there a right turn lane into that development or into um where like the ML Rose is? There's not a dedicated right turn lane at this time. That's something that you think is needed or

So I believe on here we did ask for an update to the traffic impact study prior to the FMDP and that was one of the things that we had asked if they could take a look at for the need for a right turn lane into those driveways. And then I do I mean just for the success of those retail on the front side was probably my biggest concern with switching this to this kind of development is that you're losing parking and you're going to have a street behind that development that's lined with cars when they're heavily busy. And I don't know about the width of that street and how that accommodates that because I mean I've been over there plenty of times where there's nowhere to park and everybody's parking back behind there.

I'll just address that. Our parking count is higher than what would be required if this were just standalone residential

for for this development potentially. But when I'm concerned, I mean, I know, you know, you when you did the front development, you didn't, I think, anticipate the the popularity of the establishments that are there. And I know that um I think every time I've been there, those parking lots have been full and there's been probably employees parking in the back. And I just don't know what that's going to do to those businesses. That's why with the mixeduse building that we're proposing with the parking that's in front and then the parking that's also dedicated to it in the back has additional parking that will help to we're putting it strategically in the right location in the plan where that overflow parking needs to take place.

I know that the idea is to provide affordable housing, but I wish in the area that it would did look better. And you y'all agree with the condition to update the traffic impact study? Yes. Do you know when we would have that? But obviously before the FMDP gets submitted, that would be submitted to engineering. Well, be a few months from now as we continue through this process. Okay. Would that create the warrant that would then compel that to happen, that signal to happen? And

if we TIS wouldn't necessarily see. Yeah, this is just specific. Sorry. And then the as far as the contribution to the traffic light, we're in agreement with that as well. Absolutely. Yes. Okay. Aware of it.

Any other questions or comments? I the only comment that I'll make is I I appreciate the um the attempt to include some commercial space in this. Uh I know that this one this particular area, especially in the back of everything with the with the vertical um elevation off the road, uh is a little bit difficult from a commercial development standpoint. Um, but I I do appreciate you including that in the overall plan. John, you have anything?

No, I was just trying to remember if Could we look at the plan? Could we go back to the page that shows the plan? My memory is not that good. Did we Did we ask for additional parking? Wasn't there one particular area? Oh, you have what have you this? Yeah. So, the from what what it sounds like what we had discussed in the in the work session is we we were asking for um as much additional parking as they could provide it. Greg, correct me if I'm wrong, but the parking lot out in front of the mixeduse buildings in the top right have additional parking.

Yes, it's bigger than the gravel area that's there today. Uh, plus there's additional parking behind and then we have alongside the park um an additional parking lot there. Is that the I'm trying to remember what's different between this image and the one we saw previously. Go back to the screen. Is that a new row of parking spaces? Um, center of the plan uh at the bottom of what I'm going to call vertical buildings on the on the page, the road. We were able to add a few parking spaces there. Yes. Okay. Um, and our

Yeah, that's a better way to ask the question. What's different between this plan and the one we saw before? Um, that's probably the biggest difference, those parking spaces. Okay. No, I have no other questions. Okay. How many parking spaces were added between the two plants?

I don't know off the top of my head. I'm sorry. Give me a second. I can probably look and figure that out. Also, part of the design of the building for those mixeduse buildings includes parking under the underneath, I believe, under the back side. On the back side, you can access some garage doors, I believe. Um, per the at least the design that I remember seeing.

Oh, and it does show a note on that plan. You can see it on the screen. If you look close, it says garages and has a couple arrows to it.

So, for the single family detached homes, we're providing a total of uh 224 parking spaces for 96. And for the mixeduse building, we have a total of 127 parking spaces. And as mentioned, um depending upon the specific use, it may require more or less parking. If it is a coffee shop, it's going to require more parking than if it's a a health facility or a retail store. So, we will know and be governed by our parking spaces as we move forward to final plans for the architecture, the site plan, uh the the FMDP. And so that's why it was mentioned earlier, not exactly sure that they're 100% dialed in as far as parking spaces with the the preliminary, but we know that we have limitations going forward to the final that we can't we just can't simply exceed more parking spaces. I more square footage or uses that would demand more parking.

Thank you. Sorry. And those numbers do not include the parking lot next to the lake and the park area that is shown on the master plan as well. That is e that's additional extra parking. And that that's roughly what 30 spaces 36 spaces about 30 parking spaces. Okay.

Brian, do we need to vote on a major amendment first or is that already been decided?

Because it's a resoning. It's inherently a re a major amendment. So it'll it'll automatically go to city council. Got it. Okay. Can you pull the conditions up again? I think they were split. and you you agree with condition six with the 70% bricker stone?

Yes. Or Okay. because I know historically we've done I guess alternative architecture as well but the Okay, so we're in agreement with that. If you're looking for a motion, I'll make a motion to approve the staff 15 conditions. Okay, we have a motion. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion in a second? I don't mind supporting moving it forward to council, but I don't really love the change because I also get the purpose. Yeah. Mayor, can you speak up a little on that? I we I don't know that that Mike caught you on what you Maryanne did.

She's right next to you. She She's the most I said I don't mind supporting moving it forward to council. I don't love it. I'd like to see some better development there, but I also understand what they're trying to do with the affordable housing. And I can't I can't say that's terrible, but I have some assurance with um you know looking figuring out what that warrant study is from T dot and then their impact study and I am concerned about that road width and parking on that road moving forward. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no more discussion, uh we have a motion on the floor with a second. Uh we'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed passes. Next we will go to item number 10. This will be Wellspring Commons resoning with preliminary master development plan.

Yes. The owner and applicant request the planning commission to recommend to city council to reszone 11.12 acres from the R15 medium density residential district and 3.48 core 8 acres from the MRO multiple residential and office district to the PGC district plan general commercial with a preliminary master development plan for Well Springs Commons commercial development on a 14.6 acres. This is located east of Highway 109 and south of Highway 25. The development includes five lots with visibility from Highway 109 and roadway access via a backage road. Proposed uses include a convenience store with gas pumps, quick service restaurant, coffee shop, retail center, and pharmacy with associated parking and storm water management areas. The owner and applicant also request approval of a conceptual alternative architectural plan. Um, they did provide exhibits in a pattern book for you. uh the quicks service restaurant and coffee shop. Architecture proposes an exterior with a mix of materials with 50% of the facade constructed of masonry and the remaining 50% utilizing an alternative material for architectural variety. The convenience store, retail center, and pharmacy are committed to meeting the 70% brick stone requirement. All of the proposed construction will focus on a neutral color palette and harmonious aesthetic uh to adjacent areas. Parking layouts are provided and an alternative landscaping plan for the buffer yards uh will also be further evaluated with each final master development plan that comes in for this development uh and when this is considered for city council. This resoning with a preliminary master development plan will require a foral public comment and will go to city council uh with planning commission's recommendation. Uh and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Julian. Uh, any feedback or

com extra comments from engineering? Sure. So, with this just being a PMDP, they were not required to do a traffic impact study, but given the size of this this development and the trips it was going to generate, there is a requirement for the traffic impact study to be approved prior to the voting FMDP meeting. Um, and so we have our typical condition of approval on there of off-site improvements that are um required based on the approved traffic impact study. will need to be reflected on this and then they are showing a ride in right out connection to um Red River Road and that will be subject to T dot approval.

Okay. All right. Uh thank you Aaron. Uh at this time uh we will open up a public hearing for anyone wishing to speak on agenda item number 10. And I will add, I should have mentioned this earlier. If you would please uh uh keep your comments to 3 minutes or less, it'd be appreciated.

Uh Kyle Ring 153 Summerland. So, uh not shown on here, but if you're looking at it coming off of Wedgewood, there's also three other parcels. I believe they're going to go town home, if I remember correctly. may not be decided, but the issue we've had there is just with traffic flow. But then again, you're also going to put a gas station, which is historically going to lower property values anywhere from 5 to 15%. You're also going to add insurance hikes for anything within 300 ft of the gas station from anywhere from 10 to 15%. So, my concern isn't with necessarily what we're doing. I would prefer residential obviously, but if we need commercial, I get it. I just feel like the gas station's illplaced more than anything. I feel like it would make a lot more sense off a Red River, especially with traffic concerns. I'm not sure how many of you have tried to get off of 109 onto Wedgewood. Even if you're not going 55 miles an hour, it's not exactly the safest. I do it daily. Doesn't bother me, but my son refuses to, and he's 16 years old. He goes up to Red River and turns down because he feels like he's going to get rear ended. So, the point I'm making is you have an on-ramp that's just down the street coming up coming up to then an off-ramp right to a gas station where you've already have traffic concerns in a residential area. You're then going to inflame it by adding higher density turning off then turned back up into the gas station. So, I just feel like the the whole plan needs to be reworked if you're going to have the gas station there. I also think it's a little weird pulling it away from Nexus if you're going to have your main commercial hub be across Red River and then moving a gas station away from it. That doesn't really entice revenue building for a gas station a gas station. So I I just think I don't mind the plan. I think it's okay. I don't like the gas station. I think the gas station's completely

illplaced for the traffic flow that you're trying to assume. also impacting the citizens that live there and it's currently residential and s and bringing in uh potential crime that gas stations kind of you know bring around but also the insurance increases that we will be absorbing. Thank you.

You hi my name is Dave Bahik. I live at 321 Winston Way. Um I also would be looking at this development. uh don't understand uh several things about it. For my neighbor here who comes in and out of Wedgewood every day, it's getting almost impossible to get in and out of that subdivision at certain times in the day. Um the eress onto uh 109 from 3 to 86 in the afternoon, especially on Fridays, the traffic will back up from 25 all the way to our subdivision. And they've even put flashing signs warning people of the stop on 25, which is over a quarter mile away. And they still have backups and accidents. The other thing that I really want to ask this board is why are we doing this within five minutes of this area? We have four gas stations. We have multiple coffee shops. We have pharmacies. We have retail withies. All the things that they're putting in here as great parts of this development are unnecessary in this part of our community. Nexus is just down the road and they're talking about Target in Publix and all these other things. Why not just move this down there and leave this residential? It would make much more sense from a traffic flow standpoint, from a safety standpoint, and just from the neighborhood. One of the reasons why most of these people moved there was because it's 68 houses. And even if there were another 68 across the street, it would still be a lot smaller than the three, four, 5,000s that they're putting in other parts of the area. So, as far as we're concerned, my question is, are we failing to plan or planning to fail when it comes to looking at usage like this? Thank you. You

Hi, my name is Ashley Sevir. I live at 249 Summerland Drive. My house is right behind the gas station and um I bought we moved there in 2024, the end of it. We moved from Lebanon. We're from Carthage originally. Gallatin was like the perfect mix of a small town and a city and it was it it's nice. It's beautiful here. Everybody's been welcoming and but we were told this was zoned residential when we moved here or we wouldn't have agreed to move here. Um, besides the things everybody's already mentioned, like trying to turn into our neighborhood, if you've gone through there, you know that the the ramp coming onto uh 109 from Kroger immediately backs up to the ramp or the exit, the turning lane to go into our neighborhood there. And adding more traffic to that is only going to make it worse for all of us. And we don't have a traffic light there. But besides the traffic and there's the increase in crime, there is an average of 5.7 crimes increased with a gas station being put in a neighborhood like this. And those crimes increase at at night as well. And I mean, there's kids, we have lots of kids in our neighborhood and other neighbors right up next to it that have small children that don't want this crime in their backyard. But also besides the crime and besides the traffic, there's the environmental risk that this proposes. They um if there is there is an average of 4,000 150 to 5,000 gas station fires annually in the US causing roughly 30 million direct property damage. Um, there's also the risk of the underground leakage and what it could do to the homes in the area. And personally, I don't want that in my backyard. And it's also going to,

as others have stated, uh, increase our homeowners insurance, especially mine. I am right behind that. That that road, the the Wedgewood Drive, I'm right behind that. I don't want this in my backyard. And it needs to stay residential. As also another point I almost forgot, there are 28 gas stations within 10 minutes of this location. Half of those are within 5 minutes of this location. Two of those are within two minutes of this location. I don't see how we can get any more convenient than that. This is unnecessary. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Ellie Roberts. I live at 253 Summerland Drive. Um, I moved up here in October of 2024 with my husband and we have slowly started building our life together in our new home. Can you I'm I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can you be closer to the mic cuz I can't We are good. Can Did you hear any of that? Yeah. No. Yes, you did. Keep going.

Okay. Um, we are now pregnant with my first child due any day now. And it is very unpleasant to know that there's going to be a gas station behind my backyard. Literally right there. I back Wedgewood. Um, sorry, I'm out of breath, guys. Sorry. Um, I agree with a lot of my neighbors that coming out of Wedgewood Drive is extremely dangerous. I mean, I could be sitting there waiting forever to even cross the 109. And not to mention, once you get across halfway, the backup from 386 at all times of day is extremely dangerous. I mean, it makes my work commute like I could be there. It could take me 30 and 40 minutes to get to my work just when it should really realistically take me about 10 minutes. But my biggest concern is the gas station and the crime it'll bring and the traffic. And I just when we moved in, we didn't envision um having loads of cars driving behind our backyard, which was supposed to just be a neighborhood, a small neighborhood that we envisioned. Um besides that, like there is plenty of gas stations in this area. And like the first gentleman who spoke, even if you placed it on the other side, I feel like that would be better suited for it. um it's closer to Nexus and I feel like the purpose is is purpose of this is towards Nexus. So it'd be more beneficial to that. But um yeah, I agree with a lot of what my neighbors are saying. So thanks guys.

Thank you.

Hi. Um I'm Kristen Walker. I'm at 257 Summerland and just like my neighbor uh before me, I am backing right to Wedgewood. So again, the gas station is going to be in my backyard. I liked seeing the corn. I like the quiet. I liked, you know, being able to uh, you know, say hi to my neighbors. And it's going to be noisier. It's going to have 247 lights. It's going to shine in my bedroom. My master bedroom is right on the back. I have, you know, dogs. We have guests over. And we're not going to get any kind of peace with that constant traffic, the constant lights, the constant, you know, um, movement in this area. And just to reiterate what everyone has said, it is would be way beneficial if it was residential. But if you are dead set on approving it, absolutely move that gas station to the other side where there is a light that is safer. I can't even imagine having all of that traffic coming from that 55 mph zone in a small little exit ramp to get off onto Wedgewood trying to get out crossing the two lanes of again 55 mph traffic to go to, you know, in either direction. It's it's a miracle to me that an accident hasn't happened already. So, um that's my two cents. Thank you very much. Yeah. Good evening. My name is Erikica Vahholic and I live at 325 Winston Way. You are correct. That was my father that was up here earlier. So, I moved here in Gallatin in 2022 because I thought it balanced small town charm with responsible growth. I believed it and I loved it so much I convinced my parents to retire here right next door. And so, currently, what I love about my neighborhood is I can see the stars at night. I can walk alone as a single woman with my dog and feel safe. With a gas station in a drive-through cluster

is approved. That changes overnight. Instead of quiet evenings, we get more cut through traffic, delivery trucks, idling engines, slamming car doors, bright commercial lighting flooding our homes. Instead of clean air, we get fuel vapors and exhaust in a neighborhood that has so many growing children. The EPA classifies as benzene as a chemical released from gasoline and is known to cause in in children leukemia. Really, why do we need another gas station? Why do we need all of these businesses that we have 5 minutes down the road? Make it a greenway, tie it into the greenway that we already have. Make it a park. Or if we have to find other things that we can go ahead and put in this area that would actually make an impact on our community and make it better to live. But we don't need another chicken joint. We don't need another gas station and we don't need another pharmacy when we have one five minutes down the road. If this was your backyard, your investment, your parents' retirement, I ask you in your family's health, do you want to live next door to a 24-hour gas station? Listen to your constituents. Please vote no. And if you don't, please limit them and put stipulations on this to protect the people that already live here. Thank you. Hi, my name is Lauren Irving. I live at 353 Winston Way. Um, my issue mainly is with the gas station.

Obviously, it's going to cause some health hazards and a air pollution.

Health hazards and air pollution. Um, which we we don't want to have in our neighborhood. um all the environmental concerns including contamination of our soil. Um a lot of our neighbors love to to plant things in their yard and just knowing that that's going to be taken away from them by risk of contamination into their the ground. Um I don't think is the right move. Um then you have to think about the increased noise that we're going to have 24/7 from um cars and loud music and station equipment. Um, and then it's going to create congestion and safety issues for our pedestrians. Like my neighbor before me was saying, it's not going to be safe for us to as a single woman, single mother to be walking at all times of day like we can do right now. Um, just leisurely. So, we'll have to think about the safety of of our families now that we don't that we won't have when you put a gas station here. And then I'm going to assume that that gas station is also going to be serving liquor. is going to be serving cigarettes. So, you're going to be bringing that kind of consumer to my front yard. Um, and then I just want to talk about the the light pollution that's going to happen. Um, I don't think that anybody wants to wake up in the morning and look at a gas station out of their front window. I don't think people want to sit on their porch and look out their look at a gas station. We've been looking at a corn field. And then the impact on our property value is going to be take a significant hit. Um, which is something that none of us had signed up for. And the last thing I want to say is we already have a lot of safety problems that we have tried to talk to the city about with tra cut through traffic from Wedgewood to Winston Place to Summerland. A lot of people don't want to wait at the light at Red River. So they come straight through our neighborhood and all that's going to do is increase that and it's going to increase the issues with safety

for our families and our children. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Kirsten Fernandez. I live at 1095 Grey Bill Drive. Um that's in the neighborhood that uh Wedgewood enters into Eagle Creek. Um, I just want to point out, uh, like so many of my neighbors have said, uh, I think it's a big issue having a cutth through area. People are going to be there more if all of this goes through. There's going to be a lot more traffic, and the neighborhood is already a cutthrough neighborhood. There's a section that goes straight through. Um, I have two girls, ages four and one, and one of our favorite things to do is go out for walks in our neighborhood. It is so peaceful and quiet. It's one thing that drew us to the neighborhood to begin with. We've been there for about two and a half years. Um, and if the traffic in that whole area increases and the cut through traffic will increase as well, we're going to lose something that really drew us to the neighborhood, we're also going to lose the peace and quiet that drew us to the neighborhood. So, just like so many of my other neighbors have said, we really are opposed to this and we think that the quality of life would be um kept better kept if we didn't have um all of these things coming in. So, thank you. you

quick because I think they pretty much said everything I was going to say, but my name is Christine Dy and I live at 317 Winston Way. I will be three houses from the gas station. So, I now moved here, never had a front porch in my life. I actually have a front porch with little chairs out there. I am a senior, so my kids are grown. Um, this is my retired just retired a year ago. Um, bought this house. Um, and when I'm sitting on my front porch now, if I look to the right, I will 100% see a gas station three houses down. Um, to my left, I can still see houses. So, that will be nice. My main objection is the gas station. I am for a building. I don't even mind restaurants and commercial things, but to me, they should be within a commercial area, not three doors down in a neighborhood in a small neighborhood as well. So my I'm just asking mainly um think about the gas station and um possibly zoning uh changing the zoning so that it can be uh residential for residential places and I really know nothing about it but there you go.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Stephanie Capablanca. I live at 328 Winston Way. Um my neighbors have pretty much said everything. The only thing I want to add like they have said before that about the insurance raises, you know, it will raise the our insurance, our homeowners insurance and I moved here. I'm from Miami. Um, everything is way too expensive down there. So, I moved over here for a lifestyle that I can give my kids, my family, something that I could afford. If you know, if they get added, I can't afford much more. So, I really would like if you guys would not put a gas station there. Um, keep it residential, please. Thank you.

Rosemary Bates, Gallatton Economic Dundee. Not uh the best location on this property at all. Y'all are already aware of what's happening on Hartsville Pike at that intersection. There's no way for um these people to even this property, I think. Does it have a has a right in only, I think, or does it even have a ride in? I can't remember. I couldn't tell from looking at from the back of the room, but um I think low impact commercial if you require the developer to put limited uses on it that are low impact, which I don't know that you can demand it on their site plan, their preliminary master development plan, but you can certainly encourage them to do so. Um, this is kind of an awkward situation for me. So maybe I I'm gonna step back from that and now I'm coming back as Rosemary the resident who lives at 395 Devon Chase Hill. We have a veterinarian in the entrance to our neighborhood. Very low impact, no problems whatsoever. U so there are are things that can go in that are low impact and you don't even know that they're there. Um, I do drive this road and the residents are right. The traffic from 25 backs up outside the dedicated turn lane as you're going left on Hartsville Pike. You're driving north and you go left. It backs up in the drive lane for a very long time. Um, and I do agree that driving through that area with a convenience store and it's going to be also unless something changes is connecting to other residential. And my concern is for the safety of the people at that intersection. 109 is not supposed to be a road that has a traffic

signal every time there's a a cross connection or a side connection. So, I would hope that you would consider the impact on Highway 1092, which is supposed to be a road that gets people through fast, not stopping every time there's a business or a store. So, all right, that's all. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Rosemary. Anyone else wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and call for their representative to come forward. David Lucky, South Eastern Clint Eastley, Southeastern Building.

Anything to add? Any comments or questions for staff? Uh we well just I guess I'd say does the staff or the planning commission have any questions for us? Uh we're we're doing a traffic study. We're certainly going to comply with uh what engineering and public works says they would like us to do with the uh traffic study. We have a right in ride out on the north side of the property. Uh we feel like that this is a low impact use for the property. Uh you know we've we multiple uses so that there's multiple different types of tenants. U obviously the uh convenience markets a a concern for the community. We felt like and um the different uh comm community uh different um um gas station operators, convenience market operators like that corner that's been um you know the corner that that we've had a number of discussions with. U so that that's the reason we designed the site that way.

Okay. my uh I guess question for staff. Can you uh refresh everyone's memory on what the existing zoning is for the site?

Yes. So, the northern portion of the property is R15, which is a lower density residential. This uh corner in particular is currently zoned MRO. It was zoned that way when uh a church was looking to go in this area and didn't happen. So Winston Place got built soon after that in like 2022 or so. Um so this is currently zoned MRO which allows uh residential plus some limited commercial already and then R15 is only residential. Okay.

Uh when you when you say limited commercial, what do you off the top of your head, what uses is that normally? uh food service, office space, um convenient sales and service is a conditional use in MRO. So gas station would be allowed conditionally on that corner right now. Yes. Do you guys know when that zoning occurred? Did it occur with the property concurrent to it? I mean, is that the right word? Next to it, the MRO. Yes. No, no, no. The R15 sounds like the MRO came after.

Yes. So, I think the R15's been there since that area was zoned or or uh was annexed into the city and the MRO came in I think when a church came and reszoned all of this a number of years ago. I think it was even before 2020. So, were was that parcel and the parcel adjacent where they originally zoned and annexed together? Does anybody know that? I think it'd been in the city for a while, but they were zoned together. That MRO zoning all came in at the same time. But what about the R15? R15 I think was pre prem. Um and then the whole access is Wedgewood signalized at on 109.

Okay. So do you think T dot would give a driveway permit there? I would not think. So Wedgewood's already connecting there with the Wedgewood town home development. It is going to extend Wedgewood to Red River Road and that lines up with Nexus Boulevard and per the Nexus traffic impact study that will be signalized at some future date along with intersection improvements to 109 and 25.

Now, in our meeting, Erin, you're probably aware that Mr. Mr. Tuttle and I spent fun times with T Dot last week and we know that we are quite a ways from getting the improvements. They're going to reduce the queueing on 109 and you know that I mean the signal would alleviate that but in the meanwhile I'm not real sure about what that looks like and what if one develops and the other doesn't and one happens and the other doesn't. Just Aaron, just to confirm, the signal you're referring to is on 25.

That is correct. Wedgewood and and 25 and Nexus Boulevard. That's the one that um was warranted with the Nexus development. And that will go in and like I said with the Wedgewood town home development that has FMDP approval or or at least PMDP approval. It will extend Wedgewood to Red River Road or or 25 which is a collector. It's a collector street. That's that's the way that when Wedgewood Town Homes came through that we wanted it to be to function like a collector.

Okay. I appreciated what the lady said about she'd entertain some less impact commercial, which just for the benefit of the people here, I'd like to acknowledge that this body nor the council can make determinations based on what particular um commercial businesses choose to go there. It's basically what is allowed within the correct zoning, i.e. car uh i.e. um restaurant, um car dealership, um convenience store, those kinds of things have different uses, use allowances, but as far as whether they serve chicken or Chinese, we don't get to make decisions based on that. Just kind of FYI, but I did appreciate what the lady said about being open to a less um a less uh maybe impactful adjacent commercial development. Um, I mean, I also understand like I don't know that I'd want a house like right there next to 109, but then you look at what's on the other side and that's exactly what they have. And so, it does buffer the residences from that. But I I guess my biggest concern is the fact that there was property bought there within expectation and then now it's wait okay. So, those houses on um the residents that were talking about being on Wedgewood, they're in the MRO zoning.

Uh they will be right here. It was re we have an update. No, no, I'm talking about the speakers this evening that we're talking about where they're single family homes are. Yeah, these are single family homes right here. So, I'd say obviously that could be a consistent use for it to be MRO, but maybe not the But it sounds like the um one second John. It sounds like the parcel in question which has the fuel station on it was zoned MRO with the rest of the parcel. It was but with in MRO you have there's a conditional use for convenience.

Yes, sir. No, that's what I was going to say. I sympathize with the the residents and their concerns about the gas station, but I'm looking at this map and I remember that um this entire parcel, everything in orange, both to the left of Wedgewood and to the right of it was reszoned as MRO when Long Hollow Baptist Church considered putting a a site right there. And um so when Winston Place was built and when the people bought there, they may not have noticed that, but that parcel was already zoned MRO. Um and for commercial use

for commercial use, which can receive a gas station with conditional uses. I I'll only ask this one question of the applicant. Um, I heard one comment from a uh one of the folks in public comment and it did make sense. Would you have equal demand for a gas station on the corner of Red River Road and 109? Would it make market sense to flip-flop the gas station with the pharmacy? Because I can't really see where anybody in that residential area would object to a pharmacy on that corner. Um, but I would see that a gas station would be really popular on Red River Road in 109. But then again, I don't do market research, so I don't know what you know what works. Tell me.

Well, excuse me. The answer to that is is the the groups that we've been working with who've identified the the current where where we designed the U convenience market on the south side. We'd be happy to look at the at moving it to the north side. However, we we only have a right in right out on the north side at Red River Road. So, I think that probably precludes Oh. from locating there. You get left to get to the signal at that point. Oh.

When when the town home development gets done, we've made provisions for two or three connections uh two connections to to a a feeder road that would would go out to Red River Road at the signalized intersection. So that's that's what's supposed to happen. Would it be would it be a different situation if you had more than a right in right out up there on that corner? It would be uh it's my understanding that with the with the indications that we've had from T dot with the stacking and uh the divided inter I think they've got it in Isn't it divided right there with what's planned? Uh

yeah, with there's a there's a concrete strip or something through there that prevents it from turning turning left back onto Red River Road.

Well, if that's a T dot uh concern, that's above us. Um so, no, it was just a thought to see about flip-flopping, but as I see right now, as sympathetic as I am to the residents there, that is already and and was zoned MRO when uh Winston Place was built. So the expectation when they built there should have been that it could possibly become um commercial convenient sales and service conditionally. But and as far as the rest of it being commercial, it's always been my understanding that as Wedgwood town homes came in, we were ramping up from single family houses to uh more more density. It was my expectation was always that this would be commercial along the strip. I didn't really realize about the corner of Wedgewood and 109, but it's clear to me by this zoning that it's already it's already there.

What's the What's the comp plan comp plan designate this area as General Urban? Did you buffer the station with the town homes so that they're not just right there in their view? Say again. Put that Wait. What what is the what's that middle part? Is that still commercial there? You said something about town homes. Um and and and sea store is allow as a conditional use within MRO. MRO. Yes. I'll read off the list of uses if that helps.

It would.

Um so all your residential uses are allowed. Um, and then you've got community facility activities. That's um listed as administrative, community assembly, community education, essential service, nursing home uh included including assisted living, non-assembly cultural, and place of worship. And then you have a short list of commercial activities. And again, the name MRO stands for multiple residential and office. So it's it's a very short list of commercial activities because it it is intended to be mostly residential and office type uses, but it's listed as business and communication service, financial consulting and administrative, food service, general personal service, medical service, animal care limited. Uh and then you've got your conditional uses which for commercial activity under that list you've got your utility and vehicular uh convenience sales and services which is what we're talking about tonight undertaking services group assembly extensive group assembly limited limited retail sales trans and transit habitation. Um, so I mean all in all it's it's a very short list of the types of things that could be allowed in this district, but a um a convenience sales and service is part of the list there. Um, now with a conditional use permit, you do have to meet criteria from the zoning ordinance in order to be able to be granted that. So this uh an approval of the zoning um doesn't necessarily grant them a

conditional use permit. I I don't believe. Um so they would have to still come in and prove that they meet those criteria for the for the convenience sales and service in order to be able to do that. And sorry, we're we're reszoning to uh it's planned general commercial district. So, is that still true? Is that the same?

Actually, it's it's uh more commercial uses are allowed in PGC. Convenient sales and service is a permitted use in PGC, but those same conditions for convenient sales and service for MRO apply to convenient sales and service in PGC. It's one of the few uses that falls under that. So that's the look of the architecture is supposed to be more residential in nature, uh more muted colors. Um keeping that's kind of the the gist of those conditions is it's in a neighbor, it's near a neighborhood. That was the point. And to keep it not quite so commercial. Okay. So it it would not be a conditional use permit use. Not with this proposed zoning. Okay.

Just be outright permitted. And one more quick question for for you planning. Um do you view this resoning as consistent with the surrounding zoning of the area?

So it's there's a number of commercial mixeduse zonings in the area. This is one of the more higher impact ones with asking for PGC. Um your MU is your mixed use. So there's a lot of commercial and residential allowed in both of those. Uh which is to the north. That's what Nexus is. Um and I think that's one of the ones that we discussed with the applicant. uh and then you have MRO which is very similar to MU. So this is more intense. Uh there is not other PGC right in this area. So with that that's very helpful. Um then it helps it make sense to me that moving the residential to MRO can be acceptable and keeping the existing MRO and if they wanted to pursue the conditional use. Okay. But um I just I I I do not like shifting the expectation. Um you know, I'll use the one on the other side of 109. I can't is it Clear Lake Meadows where everybody was so upset about the Dose Bros and the McDonald's, but that was zoned commercial before those homes were built. And so I felt like that expectation whether it was there or wasn't, it should have been because it was clearly on the documents is that zoning. But in this case, you know, with the MRO, like I I really think we could all make a case for the MRO continuing up to the intersection. But the commercial makes me uncomfortable right there with the

I know I asked what area this was in the comp plan, but is there a um there's not a uh character area designated for this intersection, is there? Not a special sub area or anything that I'm aware of.

Yeah. So, it's difficult when you're talking commercial uses um in the zoning districts. And then your comp plan, which is very very generalized. You got your general urban and you got your suburban two characters character areas and um you know not a whole lot of I guess not not something that you can really say one way or the other different like levels of commercial are you know more supported or less supported on in the comp plan. Um, and so, you know, our recommendation in the report was that yes, it's it meets the comp plan, but um, maybe that's not a strong argument. Not sure.

So, did you understand that T dot gave you a writing write out on 25 in those areas? That's our initial uh, feedback. We're we're doing the uh, traffic study now. And yes, I mean that's that's what they've indicated. Have we heard anything from Ted in regards to widening 25 with the growth that's in that area?

So this the intersection of 109 and 25. There are some proposed widenings that would happen with the Nexus development. their ride in ride out lines up really closely if not exactly with a ride in right out that Nexus would be installing as well as um a median on Red River in that area. Um which is why I think that T dot has been been open to a ride in right out at this location. But the the widening is really just at this at this intersection. Then just point of clarification, so we believe a stoplight may be put in when the town's home are built, but we don't know when that development is going to be started or completed.

So the the signal would be warranted. It was going to be warranted with the Nexus development. Nexus. Okay. Um and I I don't know off the top of my head when that would be warranted. Um business park or the residential. This would be at at Nexus Boulevard. This would be um on the south side of of this of this page,

which would be once that ties in and comes online. So once the connections made at 25, the light would go in, there probably would need to be um one or two of the businesses along Nexus Boulevard um to be constructed before it would meet would trigger warrants. But when Nexus Boulevard connects um Red River Road to West Albert Gallatin, there is a a signal will be warranted at 25 and Wedgewood and Nexus Boulevard. Any other questions or comments? I have one more question. I'm sensitive to what the neighbors said about light pollution. Could you talk us through quickly the landscape buffer that I see on your plan?

Yes. Um we've actually en enhanced the landscaping and the the buffering along that area and along um 109 per the request of the staff. Uh we've also done some uh enhanced buffering along the what would be the south side of this drawing but would be the east side of the actual project um along our access road that runs behind uh all the uses there. So we've we've added that to to the plan. the light pollution they spoke of every you know all the commercial uses today are designed so you're supposed to have you know very very minimal light pollution outside of your existing area and you do a phototric plan uh to to ensure that and they the the lights are designed today to come down not out

thank you is it possible to rotate the sea store to where instead of facing diagonal towards the intersection, it's more parallel with 109.

We we can rotate the sea store. We actually felt like that it was it was better like this because of the side of the building. Uh the building would be somewhat further back uh from the but you know, we're open to rotating it if it's if it's better, you know, for the site. My I guess my my thought there is you've got any light that would be in front of the store would be potentially blocked by the store uh coming back away from it and then any light that's projected from the canopy itself goes towards 109 and not towards the intersection.

We can we can uh do that if that's what the planning commission would like us to do. Any other questions? Entertain a motion. Excuse me. Ma'am, ma'am, wait. Ma'am, you had we had a public hearing. That's We can't do that unless a commit ma'am. We can't do that unless a commissioner wants to suspend the rules. But we would have to vote on that. Put the rest there.

Ma'am, I'm going to ask you politely. I'm going to ask you politely to stop. Please. There's there are certain procedures that we have to follow. Robert's rules of order. We've followed those. Please. Yes, sir.

No, I don't I don't have anything. entertain a motion. Can I ask a question of staff? Yes, sir.

I'm engineer. You may not be able to have an answer for this. Uh it's a maybe it's a T dot question. Why are they only allowing a right in right out that far back from the 25109 ex uh intersection? That's a long way back access. It's what? The limited access, right? The limited access. You say there's a median down the middle of I don't remember there being a median down the middle of 25. Well, that's part of the Nexus improvements. They will be widening that and I believe there is a a median to to help with with the ride in ride out that Nexus would be installing.

Well, they also have to deal with spacing requirements between where Wedgwood comes out and ties to Highway 25 and the intersection of 109. I just I know but that looks like such a great distance from what I'm How far does the access fence cut around that corner? I don't know the answer off the top of my head. And that ride in right out is similar to the design of the ride in ride out that's near the Publix up off of um is it big station camp? Oh, off Long Hollow.

Long hollow. Yeah. So, um, they're trying to implement that more, um, because it's going to control the access a little bit better than this typical pork chop that you might put in, which a lot of people cheat on and they pull out, you know, the wrong way. Um, so this one sort of helps to prevent people doing that. Okay. Any other questions? John,

just I come back to the question of if if this entire um proposal was withdrawn, am I correct in understanding that someone could come back in on that MRO um parcel where the gas station is on this plan and bring us an application for convenient sales and service and we would for the most part have to grant it with some conditions. It'd be conditionally it's it's not have to go to it would have to go to the BZA for conditional use. It it would come in front of this body part of a master plan. Yeah. Um in this case, it would have a PMDP. It'd come before this body for conditional approval. That doesn't mean it's permitted. But a conditional use doesn't mean that we can say no, we just

don't like it, so we're not going to approve it. You have to approve it with reasonable conditions. You have to have cause like well I mean Tanner you might be able to speak to meet those conditions. Yeah that is a great question for you Tanner. A conditional use permit is does that mean it's entirely I thought she answered it great but oh come on. Is a conditional use entirely subjective on the part of the planning commission or is it um uh is it more or less permitted as long as you put reasonable conditions on it? You have to put reasonable conditions on it and it's not totally subjective to denying. You can't deny just because you don't like that they're putting Chinese food instead of burgers or something like that.

But what if they're putting a sea store instead of a allowed use? But no, but what I think what Julian has already stated is that regardless of whether or not it's MRO or PGC, the conditions that are the conditions are the same for a sea store in MRO. So if someone wanted to come with a site plan on this particular parcel and put a sea store as long as they adhered to those conditions within the zoning code, we would have no other we'd have we couldn't have an exception. Well, then why is it an allowed use then? Why isn't it?

Yeah, technically an allowed use with conditions. That's right. If they meet those extra conditions, then the BCA would have to grant it. They could add additional reasonable conditions with that, but they would have to grant it initially. Why don't we keep it MRO and let them Well, I think in this case, if we if we kept it MRO, it it would be no different than them wanting to reszone it to PGC. It has the the exact same conditions except in that and at in PGC it's I hate to even say it's by right because it it's already allowed but the conditions still stand.

They they do it's a very odd case where MRO it's a conditional use which has conditions and this one with PGC it's a permitted use but it just also happens to have those conditions tied to that zoning district but they just happen to be the same. Could could I Yes, sir. say something. Um,

we we explored leaving an MRO and doing something different with the with the rest of the project, but we felt like upon discussion with with with our consultants and with staff that it was better to go ahead and redo the whole site. So, it had consist it was consistent. And so, we we had a master development plan for the whole site so that we could address everything all at once. I'm just kind of mad because I've thought for a long time that was different than what you two just explained. I saw you like frustrated right there. It's okay.

Okay. Um I'm sorry. Can Can you say that again one more time? Why you didn't just leave an MRO? We wanted the project to be consistent. We wanted to to have the whole thing so that we could have a plan for the whole project so that it all went together. It wasn't peacemeal. Wasn't something here and then something here with different condition. Why wouldn't you take it to MRO versus PGC then on the residential portion? I think just during the process the uses that we wanted fit fit better into the PGC than did the MRO.

Yeah. I guess a question for planning, what would fit an MRO? Yeah, the retail use um is not part of the MRO. It is an MU. Yeah, but I mean but I mean the PGC zoning completely eliminates the residential allowment that MU would bring on.

Yes, that's another part of it. PGC doesn't have a residential element. MU and MRO do higher density than would be allowed in R15. So, how did the conditions happen for a conditional use with the concern about the traffic and how it would impact versus uh an allowed use?

Well, they would still have to go through the formal process of of getting a traffic study done at this rate. Now, they have a traffic study for all parcels in the entire development, which is a more holistic view of what's happening, not just a sea store. They would have to they would have to go through with the traffic stud either way unless engineering deemed it not necessary with a single parcel. But the fact they have two parcels and multiple uses, it automatically triggers the traffic study. It would have to be there.

So there's a small chance that if they brought this through with just a sea store, a traffic study would not be required unless engineering just flat out said it was. But it's all dependent on use and trip generation. Thousand trips triggers a traffic impact study. So if they brought it through as a single use and there was 980 trips per day for the for the sea store, then a traffic study would not be required per our ordinance for just that MRO parcel where the convenience store is in question.

Correct. I want to be clear. The rest of the plan to me, I have a problem with the gas station. I understand the resident's concern with the gas station. Uh the rest of the plan to me is the natural progression of ramping up the density to the commercial along the pike. And that's what I thought we were doing all along. um have a little heartburn over the gas station, but as I'm seeing it now is that if the plan locked off that MRO portion and came through as a PGC plan for the rest of the property and then somebody came through separately with a gas station on the uh MRO portion, we would have to grant that with reasonable conditions.

So either way, it's going to happen and at least this it's part of an overall plan general commercial development that requires a traffic study. so that we can look at what what improvements are necessary due to the traffic. What size landscape buffer are they showing along Wedgewood? Probably 12 or 15 feet. Yeah, the plan says 12T 12T for a local street. That's what's required in the zoning ordinance or that's what they're showing? If that's what's required,

it's 25 ft. I believe we we beefed up the landscaping per last latest comments on the the last I thought we did. Is there a way to zoom in on that? I I'm seeing 12 I think on what I'm looking at. Yeah, I see a 12oot sideyard and 12T landscape

that or no 12 ft. I'm sorry. We It's 25 on the back.

Okay. 12. I mean, considering the fact that we're now discussing this being a an allowed use with conditions, I would I would likely want a larger landscape buffer. Y'all open to that?

Yes. John, do you have any suggestions or feedback on buffer size? Right now it's a 12T which is linear but if we went to a 20 or 25 foot buffer that added some additional plantings what's going uh what's being developed in the parcel between Wedgewood Town Homes and this

so that was recently annexed as a Frank annexation. We do not have plans yet for that property, but this this site provides stubs and I believe the Wedgewood Town Home site provided stubs at the location that these stubs are at. Yes, I know we talked about that during the work session. Yes, we could we could take that 25 foot buffer along the the east side of the property and just all the way down Wedgewood. Just pull it all the way down. Wedgewood. Okay. Um I'm gonna take a stab at a Can you uh Julian, do you mind pulling up the conditions again, please? Just real quick.

Oh, yes, sir. May I? Okay. Wait a minute. You mentioned something about rotating the building so that the front of the building faces 109. Yes. I'm not sure, but I think if you do that, that backage drive is going to be able to come forward a few feet because right now you have a 40 foot rear setback and the road encroaches into that setback and that's why you have only a 25 ft buffer back there. But if the building's rotated, you're good at visual perceptions. Uh, is that going to bump the backage road forward a little bit? It's No, the baggage road will have to tie to where it's tying right now because it's across the street from another tie-in location. But no, see where that backage row encroaches real close to the rear property line.

Yes. Oh yeah, you can pull it. If you pull that forward, you could have a type 40 buffer yard, which a type 40 buffer yard is all evergreens. That's the a type 40 buffer yard is much more opaque. Right now, they can't get a 40 in there because they only have 20 25 ft to work with. Yeah. And if you pull that type 40 around the corner where that detention pond is, I don't know if that's going to cut into your storm water retention. Um but it would give some relief to the neighbors. Okay. What about between the backage road and 109? Right now they're calling out a 12T buffer. Show me between here and there. Yeah.

What I was talking about was was instead of a 12oot landscape buffer going to a 25 foot buffer from 109 all the way to the property corner at Wedgewood Town Homes. Yeah. And and if you rotate the store to make that more possible to do that, won't it? Well, and I think rotating the store would would avoid excess light. I mean, I I know I fully aware of the phototric requirements that the lights have these days, but it would go a pretty long way um shielding some of that light with the store itself.

Another thing you could do is ask for additional shielding on the side where the residences are. um that might come down like if you have a pole light shield, a pole light and then a shield to block the visibility because you can you can look up and still see that light. Um yeah, you know, it's shining down but you're still seeing the actual bulb. Um but if you put the shields on then um that would solve some of that problem, too. I They already they already make the lights with shields to meet the phototric requirements. So I mean I think That would also be going against our zoning code. Have you already placed a motion on the floor?

No, I'm about to.

So, well, I'm going to ask if um I think the applicant sincerely wants to try to work with u the surrounding area. Uh once he pointed out that that's a right in right out over there on Red River Road, I understand the problems he's up against. the the residents concern about it being gas station. They brought up crime. They brought up light pollution and they brought up noise. I think we can help address the concern of light pollution and uh and and getting visual buffering to it. can't do much about the others because this thing was already determined that it could be a gas station the moment it was zoned MRO a long time ago which preceded Winston Hills and I'm sure that most people that bought in there didn't realize that but that's unfortunately where it is. So, I'm going to make a motion that we defer this for one month and allow the applicant to uh look at a an alternate plan that will allow them to have their convenience sales and service in that location that's more amendable to the uh to the surrounding area.

I'll second that motion. Okay, discussion. Ben, can you please refresh everyone's memory on what that means and timelines associated with that request? Uh Ben Allen, uh assistant city attorney. So the issue with a deferral is you have to act on their application in a timely manner. It's when something comes forward, it's uh it 60 days you have to act on an or Oh, this was last month's item. we really need to uh because of the snow.

If applicants want to voluntarily defer it, they may do that without it automatically being approved, but you can't after um So, what you're saying is because our last meeting got snowed out. This was We're already at 60 days. Well, then I withdraw on this meeting. Did anybody second my motion for deferral? I did and I withdraw. Yeah, you withdraw. I've got to withdraw my motion for deferral then. We can't defer. legally. Okay, I'm out of ideas. I don't David, do you have anything to add?

If it would help, we'll take a voluntary 30-day deferral and work on our site plan and try to address the concerns of the neighborhood. That would be ideal if you don't mind. I obviously you've got the feedback I think you need and if y'all can work on cleaning up the site plan and I guess to the greatest extent possible minimizing the impact to adjacent property owners uh that'd be appreciated. Okay. So we've since they're volunteering volunteering a deferral we still have to vote on that deferral. Yes. I'll make a motion to accept the applicant's uh request for voluntary with deferral.

Okay, I will second that. Any discussion on the deferral? Okay. All those in favor of deferral, please say I. All those opposed. Okay. Deferred till next month. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh okay, we are going to go to item number 11. This is the bank's amended preliminary master development plan. Jim,

thank you. The owner and applicant request approval of an amended uh PMDP for the banks, formerly known as the banks at lock 4 on 295 plus or minus acres zoned R8 PRD uh medium density residential planned residential development district located east of Lock 4 north of Peach Valley. Um this is a pretty minor change. Um they're moving a couple of lots around. They are adjusting the street layout internally. Um none of this um none of the proposed changes reflect any changes to architecture or number of units plus or minus or um the exterior off-site improvements that have already been promised. Um there's just a small um change in the 41 and 50 foot alley loaded products to and uh a change from those to 50 foot front loaded. Basically they're reducing like three of the alley loaded to front loaded and um slightly changing the interior street layout. So, what we're getting is kind of this uh open space lined boulevard, for lack of a better word. Um here in the middle, it goes through phases 3A, 3B, 7, and 8. Um in the previously approved plan somewhere, it's a little bit further north. Um and it has uh homes lining it, so it's a little bit of additional open space. Um but outside of that very minor changes um staff is recommending that this be considered a minor amendment to

the approved PMDP and we recommend approval of resolution number 2026 with 2026-006 with two conditions uh and then there will be a public comment on this item. Thank you. Does engineering have anything to add to what Jim stated? No sir.

Okay. Thank you. Uh this item does have a public hearing. At this time, we will open that public hearing for anyone wishing to speak on agenda item number 11. Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close the public hearing. I'll call for a member from the applicant to come forward. Uh, good evening. Brad Snyder with CSG. Uh I've got no further comments and we will uh address the two conditions. Okay. So this is an add of open space and we did not increase tens. Correct. This is clearly a minor amendment. I make a motion that it's a minor amendment.

I'll second. Okay. We got a motion uh by John, second by Mike. Any discussion on the major or minor amendment? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. So it's a minor amendment. Uh any other comments, questions related to this change? I'll put forth the motion that it be approved with staff's two conditions. I will second that. Any discussion? Yes. Very straightforward. Uh okay. Seeing no discussion, uh I will call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I.

I. All those opposed passes. Thank you. We'll go to item number 12. This is Gonzalez Peton Street, lot one final master development plan. Charlie,

the owner and applicant request approval of a final master development plan for Gonzalez Peton residential. This is on a almost of a quarter acre lot. Zone is R sixensity residential located west of Union Park and south of Peton Street. The applicant is proposing three residential units, a duplex consisting of two and a single family residential unit. Um, both of these units will front onto Petton Street. Um, this project already meets the required density. Um, the density calculation is 3.58 total. They are right in at three. Um the architecture is comprised of the um I think it's uh brick water table and hardy board siding. U this does not meet the 70% brickstone requirement that's outlined in the zoning ordinance. So the applicant will be requesting a exception to that requirement with this master development plan. Um this architecture type is consistent with those in the surrounding character of the neighborhood. It'll fit right in. U with that staff recommends approval of resolution 2026-008 with 11 conditions.

Thank you, Charlie. Aaron, does engineering wish to add anything to that? There are several storm water comments to to work through. Um there is the requirement for a minimum 5ft sidewalk and 5ft grass strip along frontage per the zoning ordinance. Um they will be required to get a rideway excavation permit. There are some utilities that they are um stubbing across the street. I don't have a timeline of it, but this is on our repave list. If they can get in with the street cuts before it gets repaved, then they just need to repair them until that's that's done. But if they cut the street after it's been repaved, we would have a requirement that they mill and overlay their entire frontage.

Okay. Thank you. Uh this does not need a public hearing, so we'll call for the applicant. Ferguson, Greenwood Design. Uh we agreed to all staff comments. Uh wanted to talk to you guys about uh item number five and number eight. Um with the burm on the side. Uh we put it there to divert the off-site water from having to treat it. And with us having to rework it as a ditch, we'd have to then treat all the off-site water. Uh, and then the five foot sidewalk we spoke about at the work session.

Uh, go back go back to the condition five. Where is that BM being asked to be placed? It's all we we're showing one on the eastern side of the property.

Yep. Right there. Okay. So, basically that BM would divert water to the sideyard, I guess, the property line swale.

Yeah. It's diverting it around the property line and then it's going to run down the property line away from the swell or the water quality portion. Jo, go back to the condition. I guess Aaron, can I ask why we were asking to direct off-site drainage to an on-site swell that would have to be treated? My team can correct me if I'm wrong, but that was to get water into the water quality swell directed towards it.

Yes. So the main intention of our comment there was to make sure that they weren't going to be damning water up onto the neighboring property. So they could try and rework in a way that doesn't go through their water quality treatment itself. But we just don't want them to be damning water up onto the neighboring property. So if they can rework into a ditch that still bypasses their water quality, that would be satisfactory. Do you have positive drainage down the property line?

Yeah. on both sides south and on the eastern property line. I mean to me it'd be one thing if we were if we were allowing them to bring the the water onto their property and not requiring them to treat it, but once they bring it onto their property they're going to be required to treat it. So I don't I mean is that correct Ryan? If it's bypass water, they do not have to treat the bypass wire. They just cannot allow it to dam up onto the neighboring property, create a problem. Okay? So, they would not have to increase the size of their water quality measure

unless they're directing bypass water onto their property into the water quality unit or the water quality design is. They would have to bypass the water completely from the water quality system, which is theoretically what they're doing with the burn because they're directing it concern with the burn was just how it could dam up onto the neighboring properties. Okay. So, that was what we were asking them to take a look at. Okay. Um I understand. What was your question on item number eight?

Uh the sidewalks, there's a roadside ditch already in place. So, if we did a five foot grass strip and a five foot sidewalk, we'd have sidewalk on the property. Um, we did the project across the unimproved rideway a couple years ago and we didn't have to do the sidewalk. Uh, so we're just trying to keep it in line with what's next door. Where's the nearest sidewalk to this location?

I think it's up on I don't even know if it's on the corner right there of Union Park. I I don't I remember looking through Google Earth and there's not a sidewalk in sight anywhere close to that property. Engineering, do you know where the nearest sidewalk is? Trying to look that up on aerial right now. That's your only other question. Is there any questions or comments while he's looking that up? Is there any questions or comments from the commission?

Um, I'll just make a comment on the sidewalks. I know it's hard to stomach sometimes when you have to put a sidewalk in and there's not another one in sight. But it's the only way to begin to improve uh a section of of rightway uh is for each person when it gets redeveloped to put in sidewalks. I wish there was a way you could pay into a fund so that at one fell swoop the city could go in and put the whole sidewalk in. That's one continuous structure, but apparently that's not a legal um avenue. Avenue. Thanks. So, I'm for the sidewalk going in. Which condition was that?

That was eight. Tanner, I'm Tanner, I'm curious uh with your background in um land use. Do you have experience with sidewalks? I have experience with takings, but not sidewalks specifically.

Any other comments? Aaron, did you find it? There's not really any in the close vicinity. There's some on Chamber Street. You said there's some on Chambers.

Chambers. Oh, Chambers. You said Chambers, right? Chamber Street. Yes. And is that I guess near the park, correct? Uh this one's very tough for me uh because from a sidewalk standpoint because I mean I the way I look at this is it it very much is a case by case basis. Uh but there's also some on Small Street.

Yeah. And is that from um that connects from BL runs down Small Street um for a short section on both sides and then it's on the north side and that runs down to Union Park on the north side of Small Street. That's how I see it now. And then I guess there is a portion that goes all the way to the shalom zone to the to the department. Basically the whole north side of small street has sidewalk. Correct.

Okay. you know, these communities, you often see a lack of sidewalks in um depressed areas. And those to me are the areas that probably need sidewalks just about more than anywhere. Yeah. For walkability. For walkability.

Yeah. Well, and I think if we're going to keep if we're going to continue seeing projects like this, then I think it um it'll happen over time, but eventually I think folks that are living in the area would appreciate the walkability outside of the street that people are driving on. Um this is tough because I I can't remember when we approved the the site on the other side of the rideway. Uh we obviously had our reasons um or at least the commission did at the time but I can't remember if that was before or after all the payment in lie of it was it was payment we did payment in lie of for that site.

Okay. So y'all paid into a fund which now we know is not no longer an avenue. That's helpful. Thank you. Um okay. I'm going to make a stab at a motion unless there's any other feedback. Okay. Um c can you please go back to condition five? Okay. I will make a motion to approve but revising condition five uh to rework the eastern burm to ensure positive drainage to the southern property line. and ensure that no water is damned up by the burm.

Wow. And could you repeat that last part? No water and no water is damned up by the burm. And is that your motion in its entirety or are you going to revise another condition? That's my motion in its entirety. Then I second it. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can you explain that change real quick? So basically what would happen if we go back to the site plan please.

Thanks Charlie. So the eastern side of the property there they're installing a burm. So right now what's happening is water is coming onto onto the site from the east. They're installing a burm to bypass the water around the property. If they did not install that berm, they would have to collect all that drainage area into the water quality treatment area on their site, which would expand the size of the water quality treatment area, costing more money. Um, when in reality, you you are per the stormwater ordinance, you are allowed to bypass off-site water around your site with the utilization of swailes and other means. Um, this is one of those measures that you're allowed to use to bypass the water around the site. They just what what engineering is trying to do and what planning is trying to do is make sure that they're not daming up water on the adjacent property by putting the swale in. So me revi I basically revised the the condition to state that positive drainage would be provided and to ensure that no daming of water is occurring.

So I seconded your motion. Can I ask for clarification of exactly what what that meant now that I've seconded it? Yes. Um if they're if it if they find that because of the topography um the burm is going there's no way to build a burm without damning up water on the neighbor's property then by default they have to clean the water that comes through. They have to allow it into their storm water detention. I would think so. Yes. Okay. Then that's that's the way I understood it. I just want to make sure I knew what I was seconding. So, you understand that if you can't make it work, you got to pay to make it work. Make it work. Yeah, I figure. Yeah. Okay.

Any other questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, uh, call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed? Passes. Mr. Chairman, we're coming up on two hours. Could I request a 10-minute recess? So, we have a motion and a second. Uh, any discussion? All those in favor of a 10-minute uh recess, say I. I. All those opposed. All right, we'll have 10 minute recess.

Okay, awesome. Folks, we're going to call this meeting to order again. Uh, it was a little bit longer than 10 minutes. Thank y'all for your patience. Um, Jim, we good? Okay. Uh believe we are still waiting on Tanner, but we have a quorum, so we're going to move forward. Didn't know there was food. He's getting food. Okay. Um All right. So, we just finished with item number 12. We are going to move to item number 13. This Habitat for Humanity Packard Place revised final match development plan. Jim,

thank you. Uh the honorary applicant request approval of a revised final mass development plan for Habitat for Humanity Pford Place on 2.66 66 acres plus or minus um zoned R six highdensity residential uh located south of West Eastland and east of Hafford Place. Uh so it may be a little bit easier to see on uh the zoning map here, but um Hford Place was this subdivision or is this subdivision currently under construction almost done? Um and the applicant uh reszoned this uh parcel uh to the north um at the corner of East One and Pafford to bring into this development. Uh and so they are keeping the or the plans indicate that they're keeping the existing home and then adding a second uh unit to the south. Um they are also requesting exceptions uh for the front yard setback minimum watt size and side and rear yard uh PD consistent with the previously approved FMDP for Patrick Place. Uh architecture is the same. Um just looking to add the one kind of additional unit. Um staff recommends approval of resolution number 226-009 with seven conditions.

Okay, thank you. Um engineer, do you have anything to add? Uh yes, we are requiring that lot 571, which is the one that that fronts West Eastland, that they remove their driveway on West Eastland and access Padford Place um due to the driveway spacing. And is that a condition? It is. Okay, awesome. Do we have a representative from the applicant present?

Allison Turner with Green Lid Design. We're in agreement with comments, staff comments. Um, the only reason we're asking for a variance is the right of way kind of joged along that pro that ride ofway along the roadway due to the existing lots that we didn't own at the time. And so the right of way I mean the setback variance that we're requesting will just keep everything in line with what's existing. But it matches those two. Yeah. Matches the other setbacks on the other properties, right? Instead of changing the right-of-way line, which would be a little more complicated than just asking for the variance. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve with all staff comments. I'll second. Okay, that was three seconds. I'm going to go with John.

Uh so motion second. Um yeah. Uh any discussion? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. All those opposed? Passes. Thank you. Uh we are going to move to item number 14. This is Woods Crossing phase two final master development plan. Brad.

Good evening, commissioners. Brad Hickman, staff planner. Uh, the owner and applicant request approval of a final master development plan for Woods Crossing phase 2 containing 22 single family residential lots on a 7.95 acre parcel zoned R8 PRD, medium-density residential planned residential development district, located west of Woods Fairy Road and south of Nichols Lane. The applicant addressed many of our comments between work session and this meeting uh such as including a culde-sac gravel culde-sac here in the event that the adjoining property does not have the road developed by the time this is done. Um engineering had some uh comments around labeling and identifying some carst features. That's uh one of the requirements currently. Uh the elevations are identical to the ones that are currently building in phase one around 50% brick on the front of the homes, hardy board on the other sides. and we have twotory and ranch models. The planning department recommends approval of resolution number 2026-10 with the following eight conditions. Thank you.

Thank you, engineering. We've got some grading issues that'll be addressed with the engineering construction plan review since this does include public roadway infrastructure. So, we'll work through those more on the construction plan review. Okay. Do you have conditions that I guess address those concerns? Correct. Okay. Uh does not need a public hearing. Is there a representative from the applicant present?

Michael Dwey with Dwey Engineering. We agree with all uh conditions of approval and just ask for approval. Thank you. A quick question for engineering. I I know Brad brought up the culde-sac. If the culde-sac is constructed, is it the requirement of the adjacent developer to remove the culde-sac and tie and I guess line everything up? That is just more of a curiosity thing. Sure. I think the property line stops short of the actual tiein.

Okay. So they would be uh responsible to to construct theirs up to the property line and then whoever comes in after the fact would u make the connection. Okay. So I had a question which I've been looking through the conditions. Which condition references the culde-sac requirement? I believe that was a comment that we had on the work session that they addressed. So it did not need to be a condition of approval. There's not a culdeac. I think that's part of the subdivision regulations. Oh, because for fire marshall codes for turn around, but the culde-sac's not on there right now. Well, they they have they have a a a dash line. If you look close, you'll see it's hiding. Yeah, it's there.

Okay. So, I was so focused on my question, I didn't hear your answer to his question. Who removes the big culde-sac soon as it's no longer necessary? And I hope it's no longer necessary because the push through of the drop to clear Lake Meadows is imperative. Yeah, we've we've had some discussions um with the Woods Crossing developer and they I know that they're going to be working with Kirk Patrick to really align that to where the the culde-sac the temporary culde-sac may not even be something that's that's necessary. Um Okay. Okay. All right. Uh I will make a motion to approve all staff conditions. Second.

Second by Albert. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please say I. I. All those opposed. Passes. Thank you. Next, we will go to item 15, 140 Northwater Avenue, suspended balcony site plan. Yes, ma'am.

Yes. The owner applicant is requesting a site plan to construct a suspended balcony. It's located at 140 Northwaters Avenue. It's at the corner of Northwater Avenue and West Franklin Street. Um it's zone CC. The request is for a 5-ft suspended um balcony uh by 20 and then a 12T by in height. Uh the request uh will move forward to the city council and then the planning commission um does recommend a resolution.

Thank you. Uh is there a member present from the applicant? already took 100 bluegrass comments for the applicant. We agree with the conditions and I've worked with the legal department to get the indemnity agreement and the certificate of insurance in place. So, we're okay for approval. Actually, I I anticipated this being on the consent agenda. So, I'll make a motion to approve. A second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please say I. I. All those opposed. Passes. Thank you. Item number 16, City Light Church parking lot site plan. Charlie,

the owner and applicant requests approval of a site plan for Citylight Baptist Church to add 36 parking spaces to the existing parking lot on a 1.15 acre lot that is zoned R15 medium density residential. This is located west of Lockour Road and east of Lake Point Drive. The applicant is proposing 36 um parking spaces parallel to lock 4 on the eastern side of the property and then adding additional parking spaces to the rear of the site as well. U the additional parking will fall within the um minimum maximum parking requirement for a place of worship. So, no additional um parking exceptions or storm water um regulations will need to be put in place there. The applicant is also proposing um some landscaping to go along Lockford Road as well with the sidewalk and then some additional landscaping with these um parking spaces over here to shield any headlights and things from emitting into the neighboring properties. U the planning department recommends approval of resolution 2026-016 with 21 conditions.

Charlie, uh any input from engineering? Yes. So with with this being a site plan, um and not going to a construction plan review. Um this is where we'll have all the the detailed um grading and and storm water plans. And so we've got several conditions that are reflected on there to to meet to meet this not having a construction plan review. Okay. Thank you. Uh is there a member or president from the applicant?

Uh Allison Turner with Green L Design. Um we're in agreement with most of the comments. The minimum driveway radius of 25 feet is a bit of a challenge to obtain. Um I'd like to try and have the option to work through something with engineering on that because that will cause us to have to push the driveway even further over. Um and it's already just a little challenging because we were trying trying to utilize the existing driveway, but we're having to shift things in order to make that work. Um, we could possibly look at a flared section since we're putting a driveway in. I mean a sidewalk in or which driveway? The south

the southern driveway. The one adjacent to the property line on the south.

Yes, sir. So, isn't the 25 foot radius, doesn't that have to do with the fire trucks turning radius? I think it's a safety issue.

We would have it on the north side. So, that would really only help the firetruck if they're continuing on down Lockour Road out of that parking lot on that south side. But would I mean I guess what now that he's bringing this up, would they not need the I realize this is a one way in and a one way out, but would they not need the widened? You're already I'm more concerned about the southern radius, not so much the northern radius of that particular intersection just because in order to maintain it on our property line extended to the road, we will have to push it further to the north. Could someone use a highlighter to identify which entrance you're talking about?

That's what I thought. It's just I, you know, since it's a condition of approval, I'm having to talk to you about it as opposed to talk to about it. So, because it wasn't, I don't believe it was on our initial comments. Which is the side like if you're coming in off of lot four, is it the left side of the entrance? Is that where you're getting the having difficulty getting the 25 foot? Oh, it's that one up there. No, no, she's talking about the southern one, and she's talking about the the very most southern radius of the driveway. So, why can't you just um make the throat of the drive wider and get a much more gradual radius?

We'll still have to push it north even if you make the the throat of the drive really wide. I guess if we push it off to the north. I mean I think I mean that's the whole point. We'd have to push it to the north. But I think what what's occurring right now is you've got oh the so the adjacent property on the uh south has their driveway at the northern end as well. Yeah. They parallel each other. That's why you're having to skew the driveway. Well, no. Just good practice not trying to carry a radius from my property onto someone else's frontage. We try never to do that if we can avoid it. So

even if that frontage is in the rightway. Even if that frontage is in the rightway because then that restricts the neighbor from utilizing their property fully. Yeah. But not having the not having the radius. Also,

if it's a one-way drive, wouldn't the fire truck need to use both of those driveways? Um, so going in reverse up the driveway, you mean like going against the flow of traffic? Yeah. I'm not sure. I'm still saying the fire truck is going to come from the north. They're not going to come from the southern end because the fire department's on Nichols Lane coming southbound. So they would be traveling southbound probably come in through there. I mean they might rate turn in which would still give them the 25 ft but it's highly unlikely they're going to come out of that church and go southbound on Lock four road but that's just engineering. Is the Is the driveway wide enough?

Probably not. The driveway around the back of the church is 10 feet maybe 12. I I know I know we have oneway directional of 20 ft. We have full width but u but I mean like the actual physical drive from log four. We have we have one that's 14 ft and we have one that's 12. I just want to be able to work with engineering on that to try and address it.

Well, if your request is uh to modify it to whatever satisfies engineering, I'd be okay with that because I'm not an engineer. I don't know. I know it's something you guys shouldn't have to be, but it's conditional approval. Which which condition? So change the condition from eight the width to work with engineering to satisfy the fire marshal thing. We can work with engineering and the fire marshall on it. So yeah, I I'm okay with I'm perfectly okay with relying on staff

or so to mod. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve with all 21 conditions and modifying uh condition number eight. to put in parentheses after eight or whatever makes engineering happy. No, I like that. Perfect. Oh, no. No, doctor. Perfect. Second.

Okay. Uh 25 to Okay, I'll get a little bit more technical. uh instead of instead of whatever makes engineering happy is um or a radius up to that which is acceptable to engineering. Are you comfortable with that language? Yes, sir. We have a motion. Second.

Second by Albert. Any further discussion or questions or comments? Seeing none, call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Passes. Thank you. Okay. Next we have item number 17. Hung Auto dealership reszoning with amended preliminary master development plan. Okay.

The owner and applicant requests the planning commission recommend approval to the Gallatin City Council to reszone 6.77 acres from the MU mixeduse district to the PGC Plan general commercial district with an amended preliminary master development plan for the Hunt Club auto dealership located west of Hunt Club Boulevard and south of Nashville Pike. Uh some of the comments we've asked the applicant to address is providing a shrub screen along Nashville and U Hunt Club Boulevard in next to the parking lot. There was some discussion in the work session about indicating an access to this parcel to the south either if not a curb cut at least on the plan that they will grant access there. um a note explicitly specifying no vehicles will be parked anywhere except in designated spots. The current note says they will not be parked in buffer yards. Um we would like to see the elevations reworked to be 70% brick and stone to be more in line with the rest of Hunt Club as a whole. Um, I'd like to see the phototric plan extend the measurements further to the west. They fall short of the border. Um, so we can see make sure the candle feet are appropriate. Uh, this is what is currently approved for the property. Um, two multi-tenant retail buildings. Uh prior to this, the PMDP indicated this would be office and retail. The uh applicant has asked us to include some pictures of the Subaru dealership

which they also constructed. Um so we have done so at their request. They may have further comment on those and a list of um community involvement they have with Gallatin. Uh we've received several letters and emails uh about this project. You will see them at the end of your packet. There's one on your desk uh that arrived in the meantime between the construction of the packet and this meeting. Um this will be a major amendment uh since it's a resoning. So it will go to city council and um there is public comment for this.

Okay. Engineering. Uh do you have anything to add? Yes, sir. So, there is a condition requiring this development to make a contribution totaling $70,583.88 towards the traffic signal inst installation at Hunt Club in Nashville Pike. Um, and there is a condition that that states that and how that was calculated. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Maryanne, I will have to recuse myself from this item as I have a development adjacent to this. Uh, so John, you're going to have to take this over.

Okay. Um before we hear from the applicant, we'll open a public comment. So if there's anyone that would like to come forward and speak, please line up along the wall there. And when you do come up to the microphone, please state your name and your address for the record. We're recording these minutes, so we want to get that into the recorded record as well. Uh since there's a lot of folks here who would like to speak, um I do ask that you keep your comments to three minutes. Um and uh and if someone else has made your same point, perhaps for everyone's benefit, say I second what this individual said, but we want to give everyone a chance to speak. So if you'll go ahead, please. And

hello, my name is Savannah Collins. I'm representing a business that's in the front of the Hunt Club development area. Um I work for a dental office there. I'm the practice manager. We've been there since February of 2022. We chose this location because it ideally sits on the line of Gallatin and Hendersonville. There's lots of development over there and it seems spacious enough to be inviting and warming for a medical practice. Um, I feel like this area has developed into professional medical area as well as the residential in the back. The existing buildings are thoughtfully designed. They're residential style architecture landscaped and scaled appropriately to the area. The environment feels intentional, calm, and professional. That character is not accidental. Businesses here have invested significantly in creating a setting that supports healthcare and long-term professional services in the area. An auto dealership represents a fundamentally different intensity of use. Dealerships require expansive paved display areas, tall illuminated signage, highintensity lighting, and frequent vehicle movement throughout the day. as well as if a service department is included. This introduces engine noises, delivery trucks, that much more transportation and haulers, and constant vehicle turnovers. That scale of activity shifts the corridor corridor from a professional campus field to a hightraic retail strip. This has real implications for property and business value. Professional and medical offices rely on stability, aesthetics, and accessibility. When this transitions to a higher intensity commercial use, it can discourage future medical or professional investments and reduce the long-term value of surrounding properties. Businesses like mine depend on maintaining a consistent professional environment for patient trust and retention. Traffic and safety are also a serious concern for this area. Our patients include elderly individuals,

parents with children, and people already anxious about dental care. Increased congestion, test drives, and repeatedly entering and exiting the area. Car car haulers unloading vehicles and service traffic add complexity to an already busy intersection. Additionally, car dealerships attract customers from outside of the immediate area. Many of these drivers are unfamiliar with the Hunt Club Boulevard and surrounding traffic patterns. um people doing U-turns in the front of the business as well as just not knowing where to turn with all the traffic already turning off of um Nashville Pike and not being a lot of you know traffic lights. It's just a lot of congestion. You have people who are going 50 miles an hour and then need to come to a stop to make a 90 degree turn almost need to go down to like 10 15 miles an hour which causes a lot of traffic and potential for accidents. Um, in healthcare, access and safety are not secondary concerns. They're essential to our practice. I'm not opposed to growth. Growth is important and necessary, but growth should align with the long-term vision for this area and be compatible with the businesses that have already invested here, as well as residents. I'm respectfully asking the commission to consider whether this resoning preserves the professional character, property stability, traffic safety, and long-term value of Hunt Club Boulevard businesses and residents. Thank you.

Sorry, I couldn't get the clock to turn off.

Hello, I'm Rachel Collins, 1575 Hunt Club Boulevard, Gallatin, which is actually in Hendersonville. A couple of you at least probably recognize that I am also an alderman in Hendersonville. So, I'm coming here tonight not just representing myself or my family, but also my neighbors and my constituents. Um, I with as much decorum as possible, I would like to ask that people who are here on behalf of opposing this resoning to please just raise your hand. It's been pretty unanimous. Um, we haven't really had uh I haven't spoken with anybody who supports this resoning. Um, Hunt Club is a unique neighborhood because we're in two cities. The business owners part of our neighborhood. They do have their own business owners association separate from the residential part, but we are good neighbors to them and they're good neighbors to us. Um, all of the residential section is in Hendersonville and the business owner section is mostly Gallatin, but some of it is in Hendersonville. Um, I just wanted to make sure everybody had that knowledge. There are a couple things that I've learned um through my experiences being an alderman. One is that the work you do is very valuable and I am certain that your city council views you as subject matter experts and will be watching this video and looking for your comments and your discussion to help them make their final decisions and we appreciate that you're basically volunteers doing this and that it's not

easy. Another thing I've come to realize pretty quickly is that my ward five is very diverse and I rely on people that live in different neighborhoods than I do to give me the perspective because I don't live there so I can't understand their perspective as fully as they do. So I want to share with you a couple of things that you may not realize about our neighborhood. Our neighborhood has intense walkability. You can come, if I come home at 10:00 at night, I will see somebody walking. At least one person. All weather, all hours of the day, we are walking. And we are walking clear to Johnny Cash Parkway. All hours of the day. and that is a significant part of the character of our neighborhood which I am concerned that this resoning may have a negative impact on. Another thing that's really important to the character of our neighborhood is the rock wall. It is historic.

Miss Collins, I'll be happy to extend it. How much longer would you I'm going to be fast. I think another minute maybe. Yeah. Okay, that'd be fine. you've been in our position to

we're going to have um we have tried to limit our speakers because we know that your agenda is a herculean effort. Tonight we are uh we are going to hear people speak of the rock wall, the specific traffic patterns that come with a auto dealership that are distinctly different than those for the current zoning with retail and mixeduse development and how we feel that distinction causes an acute problem for our neighborhood. We're going to um address light pollution and noise pollution specifically with the service bay area which I um if it stood alone without car sales that might even be considered light industrial and that would certainly not be something that you would put in the middle of our or at the front of our neighborhood. The character of our neighborhood is what we invested in whether it's as a homeowner or as a business owner. We are asking that you maintain the zoning that you chose in order to maintain the character of our neighborhood and respect that that's the conditions we made the investments in our homes under. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Collins. Good evening and thank you to the members of the Gallatin Municipal Planning Commission for your time and your service to the community. Could you I'm sorry, sir. Could you state your name and address?

My name is Brentton Harris and I live at 109 Tippton Court that is in within the Hunt Club community and directly behind the parcel of land being considered for reszoning. I'm a husband of 13 years to my wife Ashley and father of three children, Paisley, Levi, and McKenna. I spent 20 years in operations and logistics management with the last 13 being specifically in the automotive industry. I'm not here to represent my employer nor speak their opinion of the matter. I'm here simply as a father, a neighbor, and a resident who understands the real world implications of automotive logistics. My experience gives me unique insight into why resoning would be fundamentally and permanently change the character and safety of our community. My family moved to Middle Tennessee three years ago, and like many families, we searched everywhere for a place that felt safe, welcoming, and right for our children. When I drove into Hunt Club for the first time, I saw kids bikes scattered in the driveways, chalk art covering the sidewalks, and playsets in nearly every backyard. It was the kind of neighborhood that I had hoped to work hard enough to give my children. I knew growth and development was inevitable. The downtown skyline full of cranes made that very clear, and I knew the 7acre parcel behind our neighborhood would be one that would be developed. I didn't take my realtor's word for it when he said it was zoned for mixed use. I did my own due diligence to determine that was so. And I was relieved because I saw the opportunities for small businesses, a restaurant I could become a regular at, a veterinarian's office, retail amenities that could assist me, or maybe be one day my children's first place of employment. I never what I never expected was a complete shift, one that feels frankly like a bait and switch to allow an automotive dealership and a repair center. As was mentioned, I'm not a Gallatin resident. And I'm a little confused about my Hendersonville residency. My address says Gallatin. My property taxes go to Hendersonville. I shop in Gallatin. My children play sports and go to school in

Hendersonville. My 37066 zip code is designated Gallatin.

I attend church in Gallatin. My trash is hauled away from Henderson. My electricity says Nashville. And my w and my water says White House. I live on the property line between two neighbors, Gallatin and Hendersonville. And while Gallatin may see benefits of reszoning this parcel, I would ask that they consider the impacts to their neighbors. I'm here tonight to respectfully express my opposition to changing the zoning, my concerns are not theoretical or emotional guesses that are grounded in real world operational experiences, established planning principles, and an understanding of traffic safety risks uh heavy commercial vehicle operations create. Unlike mixeduse businesses, small businesses, medical office, an automotive dealership rely on multi-car haulers. Large commercial trucks trucks often stretching 65 to 80 ft long. For 13 years, part of my job has been overseeing the movement of those exact vehicles. I know the risk they pose. Car haulers have limited visibility, large blind spots, limited maneuverability, and endangered pedestrian, cyclists, and passenger vehicles. They require large turning radi and often require multiple lanes or encroach on opposing uh lanes to turn. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, crash severity increases with substantially with larger commercial vehicles due to their size, weight, and longer stopping distances. And there is frequent ingress and egress associated with car haulers. Dealership operations require regular loading and unloading, increased traffic conflicts at driveways and intersections. And these frequent loading and unloading cycles often takes one and a half to two hours per truck. The plans submitted for this parcel include no designated loading or unloading area. The ride in and ride out driveway onto Main Street will be difficult for these trucks to use and maneuver. And quite frankly, from knowing many of the truckers that do this type of work, they wouldn't use it anyways. They'll stop wherever they can. Medians, roadway shoulders, or neighborhood entrances. If the committee doubts this, I invite them to drive my daily commute from Hendersonville to

Madison. They will see the car haulers parked in the medians or blocking lanes that are new near the new dealership west of Centerpoint Road. This is not a one-off occurrence. It's an industry norm. These truck drivers are almost always third party uh contractors. They typically are not employees of the dealership. They do not know our neighborhood. They have no investment in protecting our streets. They'll use Hunt Club Boulevard as a convenient place to stage trucks, blocking traffic and potentially delaying emergency services. Mr. Harris, if if I could uh you've you've obviously got some industry expertise on this. Could you conclude with some bullet points of some items because I have given you extra time and I want to be fair to everyone who wants to speak.

No, I I appreciate the time. Uh my main bullet points are this. Uh an automotive industry uh creates an unsafe environment for the children that I am raising. I know that I cannot protect my children 100% of the time in this world. The events of my daughter's school last week proved just that. But I can stand out as a father and speak to the city and part of that I'm a neighbor to and urge them not to create additional risk for my family. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Jeff Coker. Live at 101 Holand Street and that's in the Hut Club. So, what's your last name?

Coker. C E R. Live at 101 Holand Street and that's in the Hunt Club. So, division. Obviously, we're within the city limits of Hendersonville. But despite our Gallatin dress, I do want to mention, however, I grew up in Gallatin, graduated from Gallatin High School. I'm not just saying that for street cred with y'all either on that. There's a reason for that. Um, when I was a kid, when we lived in the Browns or we lived in the Wood Haven subdivision off Browns Lane behind Lowe's there, we could hear from our house. We could hear the intercom systems at Ron Hibbert Toyota and North Lake Auto Mall from our house. That was in those dealerships were much further from my home as a kid than where these this dealership would be from our homes now. So when when people bring up concerns about excessive noise, I want you to let you know that those are real. So please don't dismiss them. Um before continuing, I do want to say thank you to all for the work that you do. I served four years on the planning commission there in Hendersonville, so I know the weight that goes into decisions like these. When considering resoning request, I always had two questions. One, is this good for the city as a whole? And two, is it the highest and best use for the property? A Mazda dealership would be welcome in Gallatin, but not at 1516 Hunt Club Boulevard. When evaluating commercial resonings tied to a specific user like this one would be, another important question I would always ask is what happens if that business leaves? You're making 50-year decisions here on this. Car dealerships are notoriously difficult to repurpose. Most former new car dealerships simply become used car lots. That long-term reality matters. There's a reason this property is currently zoned mixeduse. It aligns with the character surrounding the area and serves as a gateway into Gallatin. It's the city's front door. A car dealership dominated by surface parking lots does not reflect the visual appeal appropriate for such a prominent location. But beyond aesthetics, car dealerships are notoriously inefficient tax generators compared to other

commercial uses as well. The nearby Honda dealership sits on just over 9 and a/4 acres with a 37,000 square foot building and it generates 20,313 worth of municipal property tax for the city of Gallatin. Compare that to the two buildings that house Edley's and ML Rose. Together they total just 24,000 square ft on only 4 acres. So less than half the land. Yet they generate $16,417 in city property taxes. roughly 80% of the Honda site's property tax on less than half the footprint. When sales tax gets considered, the numbers get even worse. I have a friend in the auto industry that owns a dealership in Middle Tennessee. It's not in Gallatin, but he's very familiar with this. It's actually has partnership in with auto dealers across the country. Um, he told me, I asked him leading up to this, how many cars could a Maza dealership expect to sell in G? He said 50 new cars each month and 50 used cars each month. Could you extend me the charges fee about one more minute? Um,

yes, sir. We'll give you another minute.

Because local sales tax only applies to the first $1600 of a vehicle purchase, the city receives a maximum of $36 per vehicle sold, regardless of the price. So, at 100 vehicles per month, that equals $43,200 in annual sales tax revenue. Now, compare that to a quick service restaurant. The average McDonald's generates over $4 million annually in revenue. all subject to sales local sales tax resulting in over $100,000 per year for the city. A Chick-fil-A does more than nine million per location equating to roughly two $225,000 of annual sales tax revenue. So I ask you the question, why approve a reszoning neighbors oppose when it also fa fails to maximize the benefits to Gallatin. Lastly, as I finish up here, it's like I believe in property rights and understand the owner wants to sell. However, if a buyer is unwilling to conform to the existing zoning, the proposal brought forward should improve the property, not negatively impact neighbors, generate lower returns for the city, or introduce safety concerns. The proposed rightin, right out access onto Nashville Pike should be a non-starter. The nearby Honda dealership does not enjoy similar access. You go over to Maryland Farms. Neither the Andrews Cadillac nor the Land Rover dealership has direct access onto Old Hickory Boulevard there. Here, the proposed entrance would sit dangerously close to Stone Rich Farms apartments and exit would align with Hunt Club Boulevard turnoff. T DOT may say it's okay, but having vehicles slowing to enter the enter Hunt Club at the same point others are accelerating uphill to merge into traffic on Nashville Pike is going to create accidents. We see them every day through that corridor. For these reasons, impact to nearby businesses and residents, long-term land use concerns, tax underperformance, aesthetics, and safety. I respectfully ask for your vote against the proposed reasonzoning to deny the master plan. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Gina Vandervelt. Um I'm both a resident in Gallatin, but um tonight I'm speaking about my business. I am a nurse practitioner um and I'm the owner of Vita Aesthetics at 1501 Hunt Club Boulevard. So directly adjacent to where this proposed dealership would be. Um I am definitely not here opposing growth, but I am here as someone who made a significant investment based on the existing mixeduse zoning uh of this property and my business will be directly and materially harmed if that zoning is changed. Uh when we chose this location, we did so intentionally. The mixeduse designation created a predictable environment, professional offices serving as a transition between Gallatin Pike and the Hunt Club neighborhood. That balance is what made the site viable for a medical aesthetics practice um like mine. We first started this process in 2018, early 2019. So, while my building didn't go up, um I didn't move in until 2022, I have been a resident inside of the Hunt Club since January 1 of 2020. Um and it's always been the plan that everything would be mixed use. So, we thought we would fit in, you know, appropriately. Um, we are currently planning to and have been approved to construct a second building next to Vita. Uh, that expansion represents substantial capital investment and long-term commitment to this community. Our ability to lease that building to medical and professional tenants, depends entirely on maintaining a compatible environment that is quiet, accessible, and appropriately scaled. Uh reszoning the adjacent parcel to commercial particularly for autoor oriented use fundamentally alters that environment. Uh noise as others have said is not a minor inconvenience for us. It directly affects our core service model. We perform medical and aesthetic procedures that require privacy, calm, quiet environments and patient comfort. service based delivery trucks, vehicle movement, alarms um that that are in very close proximity would uh very much affect that and landscaping buffers would not eliminate that um the noise at close range. Additionally, mixeduse

designation supports a balanced environment of small professional offices and neighborhood scale businesses that grow organically together. That type of ecosystem strengthens local enterprises by creating synergy, shared customer bases and compatible operating patterns. Um, converting this parcel to higher intensity commercial shifts the corridor away from our small business model and towards a highway oriented commercial pattern that really is does not support the kind of professional clustering we all invested in. Um, the bottom line is this. Reszoning materially reduces our leasing prospects for the second building, weakens our long-term property value, and increases operational risk for an established local business that relied um on the current uh zoning when investing here. Once commercial zoning is granted, the intensity is permanent. Um, and the character of this gateway changes permanently. So, I respectfully ask the commission to consider whether this change protects existing small business investment and maintains appropriate land use compatibility at this entrance uh or whether it prioritizes a single commercial expansion at the expense of established property owners. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Vanderbilt.

Hey y'all. U Matt Morgado. um 1567 Hunt Club uh Boulevard, which as you all know now is is Gallatin address and Hendersonville um actually designation. I've heard tons of things that I agree with and so I won't I I'll try to be brief and not uh re recycle what I've already heard. A couple quick things. One, so the the average dealership is going to create about 69 jobs. Um a retail full service restaurant is going to create about 30 jobs. So, if you've got three or four restaurants, you're actually eliminating jobs by putting something like this in something that's already designated for um retail, restaurant, and office. Um, and I also want to speak a little bit about uh I'm a commercial lender. I'm a senior vice president of a of a um community bank. And look, when when you start mixing um actual commercial with office and in our case predominantly medical office, um you create a lot of reasons for people to exit this office space. So while you might entertain one new development, you could very well seriously damage the development that's already there and then we've got a whole bunch of office coming in behind us. Um that could be damaged as well. So, we might be creating a huge problem with high-paying jobs that are already here um in favor of something else that's going to give lesser jobs. And we've already heard the impact long term. Um so, last thing is you guys did it right. This is properly zoned. Everything plays well. It's a great entrance into into the community. My family shops. We do all of our all of our grocery shopping, all of our medical in Gallatin. You guys have done it right. Don't break what you did right. That's what I ask.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening. I'm Brenda Payne. I live at 1595 Hunt Club Boulevard. Um, I agree with everything that has been said by my neighbors and I appreciate their um, very professional way of expressing that. I really have a couple of things. Um, my husband and I moved into the Hunt Club probably longer ago than most of the folks who have talked here tonight. We've been there for 10 and a half years. We moved there intentionally uh as a downsize and for our forever home. The recognition that there was already commercial in front. We understood I am not against development. For those of you who don't know, I've been in the chamber business for a long time since about 1999. I have been a member of 11 chambers and in fact my last uh position was running the Hendersonville chamber. I am not against development at all. But what I am against is development that does not fit the character of the area that it is being pushed to be built in. So I I don't need to tell you a lot of things that other people have said tonight. I do recognize that there can be unintended consequences that I think all of you need to understand. The reason I'm here primarily is because not only am I a resident, but because I really am concerned and support the business community that exists in our neighborhood. It's been said much more eloquently than I can say it tonight, but the reality is if I were sitting in VITA and trying to have an uh aesthetic procedure done and heard the loudspeakers and the cars being unloaded with the crashes and that

sort of thing, it just doesn't make any sense to continue a business there with that sort of of process. So, I agree with what Matt said at the very last and that is um the Gallatin Planning Commission did a great job almost 20 years ago developing the right kind of zoning for that area. It's consistent with who we are and I would ask that you do no harm to the residents and the businesses there. One last thing that I want to talk about is the rock wall. And I I want to make sure that people understand, although I know that you may not even realize that there's a rock wall there, there's also a big rock tower there. The property that is we're located on has been um a horse farm. It's been a fox hunting place. It's been significantly uh a historical place within that area of Gallatin for over 200 years. President Andrew Jackson rode horses there and fox hunted there. And so I would respectfully ask that whatever happens, however this gets reszoned, that you require in writing that that rock wall not be destroyed because it was a big part of why we moved there. It's iconic in the area along with that tower. Uh it's uh a significant landmark for those of us who moved and many of our residents. So I respect the uh job that you have to do tonight and understand that it's it's a difficult one, but I am in opposition to uh this particular resoning and uh uh ask respectfully that that you also vote it down. Thank you.

Thank you, Brenda.

Hi, I'm Chrissy Coleman. I'm a resident of the Hump Hunt Club. Um I think my neighbors and the business owners at the Hump Club uh very well uh put the points of concern u with the residents and business owners. Um you've been kind enough to give them extra time to explain our positions. I thank you for that. Um, I'm just going to be brief that um we did we did buy my family and I uh our house over a decade ago. We agree with our current zoning as it is and urge you to not change it. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Good evening again folks. Marty Cook 100 Bluegrass Commons. In this matter, I've been retained by the business owners of Hunt Club, the homeowners of Hunt Club, and members of the community of Stone Ridge um to address you with regard to this zoning change. As you have heard, the the general theme here seems to be the character of that community that is there and not wanting to disturb that character. And you all are well aware of the factors and the findings that you all are required to follow under both state and local guidelines. One of them is is this proposed resoning in agreement and consistent with the land use recommendations of plan Gallatin including general urban character area. As Mr. Rose said earlier with regard to another project that was before you all tonight that general urban character versus general residential character is is very broad. It really doesn't provide a whole lot of guidance. But I would ask you while a commercial use such as a general such as a car dealership can be allowed in a general urban character area and can be appropriate in such an area. In this particular instance, on this particular lot, is it is it the best use when you consider the immediate surroundings and the history of this master development plan and this community? A second factor you're to look at is will the resoning adversely affect adjoining property owners? You've heard tonight from the adjoining business owners, several of them. You've heard from several of the adjoining homeowners and it is their opinion um that this would in fact in impact their property values perhaps their ability to

lease office space that they may own or uh look to develop. And so we believe that factor would weigh in favor of a negative recommendation. Thirdly, and most importantly, one of the factors you are supposed to consider is you must find that the amended plan and resoning will be compatible with the surrounding environment and and will protect the public health, safety, and welfare and will not be injurious to other property or improvements in the area which the property is located. So, why is this resoning? Why is this use not compatible with the surrounding area? You may ask yourself, well, there's a Gallatin, a Honda dealership just up the road. I would submit that the history of these two developments and of these two development plans is marketkedly different and and and this supports our position that for this particular area, the the the retail car dealership just doesn't fit. When you look at the comp commercial commercial components of these two plans and these two these two areas, they've intentionally developed very differently. When you look at Savannah marketplace, it started with the Kroger and then the retail developed around that in a complimentary way to the Kroger. And I think a lot of us agree, as Mayor Brown said, um we all enjoy the the the restaurants and other retail facilities that have now come in the Savannah Marketplace area, and that's what that plan was designed to support. And kudos to Mr. Hoffman for bringing um those uses there that we all enjoy. If you look at the history of the Hunt Club, it's marketkedly different. From the start, that plan called for office

use in the commercial components of that of that development. That's what Let me ask if I may, Mr. Cook. No, I I I recognize that you've been retained by a lot of these folks to speak and so I should give you longer to speak. How much more time would you need? And I I'll be happy to. Not even one m one.

Oh, well that's fine. Go ahead. So if I it if if you look at that I I think it is different. It is what these business owners and what these property owners expected. Of course they knew that that strip along Gallatin Road had been zoned commercial forever. But what type of commercial? It was been zoned mixeduse. That's how it developed. That's how the uses that are there now have existed and how they have they have been used over the years. And that's what everyone has come to expect. Last year, this body and the council did approve a revised plan that allowed for some retail on this exact lot. And there was not significant opposition to that because even though that was retail use and not office use, it was smaller boutique type offerings that could have been small shops, could have been other types of offices, could have been small coffee shops, restaurants, but that would have been in keeping with the expectation of the types of uses that these business owners and these homeowners expected when they made investments in these properties. So because of that we would submit that it is different from Savannah. It is unique and that this particular use is not a good fit and not a good compliment. And for that reason we would respectfully request that this go forward with a negative recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Coup.

Rosemary Bates again with the Economic Development Agency. Um, I have a couple of comments to make and a question that I realize you cannot answer in a public comment situation, but I'm hoping you will ask staff to address this when it is there when you come out of this public comment area. in looking through the zoning ordinance for this MU, which is what it is currently zoned. Um, again, it allows for all the residential uses, including apartments, which has gotten a negative connotation in Gallatton lately. Not that I think it should be negative, but it has. But it also allows for shortterm rental units meeting the requirements of section 12.02, which is Airbnbs. and they they don't have the best reputation because they tend to be party houses. Um, community facilities, it does allow for utility and vehicular. When you go to the definitions of utility and vehicular, there is no utility definition. There's a utility use definition, but there is no utility definition. There are two vehicular definitions. one of them including what this uh applicant would like to do. Um somehow the planning staff has made an editorial decision that one of the uses fits but the other doesn't and the one they don't say fits is this particular development but that's a given use that's not a conditional use under the current zoning. Um, also it allows for food service which they have indicated that the neighbors have indicated they would like to see and I can understand that. Um, it also allows for, excuse me, let me get to the right page. It also allows for general retail sales

and service. You have already made the decision. And it doesn't have to be offices because you uh approved a commercial development uh limited retail, medical office, research service, transient habitation including short-term rental units. So it can be a version of a hotel and by right with no going to the city council. Um, and I understand that then if I were concerned about impact on my neighborhood, I would be more concerned about a hotel or transient habitation where people are living as their home or they're staying in it because they're working here for a month or something like that. And there are only so many requirements you can make in MU about what a building can look like. this particular change allows you to demand more from the developer than straight zoning. And I'm looking at Mr. Hamilton and I'm like, I am not an attorney. I used to be on the planning commission. So, I'm hoping that you'll help explain some of this. So, there already are very impactful uses that are 247 365 uses like a hotel uh or the Airbnb rentals. Um, this is not a 247 365 use. Um, I understand their concerns. Uh, uh, at the same time, while the, um, good lady from Hendersonville asked them to raise their hand about who lives in the Hunt Club or who's opposed to it. I'm not going to ask anybody to raise their hand, but they live in the city of Hendersville. They do not pay property taxes in the city of Gallatton unless they own property in the city of Gallatton. And yes, they are spending their sales tax dollars here, but they're not paying for the fire service, the roads, and all the

utility infrastructure just with their contributions to the sales tax. one fireh hall. The revenue from one fireh hall can pay, excuse me, the revenue from one um automobile dealership like this can uh pay for the salaries of one fireh hall for a year and as we're growing we're adding fireh halls and we'll be have to add more. Uh so you need to consider what the impact is on our infrastructure that way. Also, one of the concerns I read in some of the letters is that their property value will go down. When the Subaru moved into the area that it is in front of the condos that come off of South Browns Lane in early 2020, um those condos were going for about $215,000. Today, they sell for $330. So that argument is not valid because the value of those condos. Excuse me. That was very respectful of you and I didn't make comments about what you were saying.

I'll take care of it, Rosemary. I do ask that everybody give her the same courtesy that you would want to be extended. And I do ask Rosemary, I want to uh you you've brought up great points, but I wanted to give Mr. Marty Cook additional time um as a representative of those. and I can have some additional time too if I run since I'm paid for the by the city and he's paid for. That's what I'm asking is if if but if I can commenure with what I did there.

Okay. So, I have looked at the I've looked these up. I'm not like making numbers up here. So, the argument about property value I don't think is valid. Uh I do understand the concerns of the businesses next door. Um, I don't know why they think a car dealership would be any more impactful than a 247 365 McDonald's on the quarter, which has more traffic and more loudspeakers and more business outside the time that this business will be open. Um, I live in a condo development that has commercial at the front of it. Uh, it could be more intensive than it currently is. Um, and I knew that when I moved in. I understand they thought it was going to be offices, but you've already made the decision. It does not have to be offices. You have a site plan right now that could be built. If a hotel came in, you would have to decide up or down on a hotel not going to city council. So, um, and the Airbnb or trans other transate habit habitation. So, I'm just pointing those things out. I think there's been a lot said primarily because they don't understand or haven't seen the presentation. This developer and owner has been a model business in the city of Gallatton. Has contributed thousands and thousands of dollars to our local nonprofits and has when they were coming into the facility that the Subaru is in. They bent over backwards to meet with the residents and hear their concerns and address them. And they did. There has not been one complaint from that condo community since they opened. And that condo community is right at the back of the property and they can actually see down on that Subaru. These folks, I

don't think, will be able to see the dealership from the topography that they're on. And I would like for you to consider the merits and not that you have a room full of people who just don't like the idea and feel like their life will be ruined because of it. Thank you. Thank you, Rosemary. Uh well, let's if do we have anyone else who would like to speak in the public hearing? One more.

Too much. If I could remind you, state your name and address for the record, please.

Yes, sir. My name is Richard San Miguel. My wife and I live at 107 Howland Street, Gallatin 37066. I just I don't know what I just heard, but um I we oppose this this whatever you want to call this a uh this dealership rather. Uh when we we've been in the Hunt Club for 11 years. When we came here, I went over to find the history of the Hunt Club. And just like they have been saying about the rock wall, about the tower, about the history of the area where we live, that to me is very important because I I mean, if you can go out and just close your eyes and kind of vision what this was like and now you want to put a car dealership in front. I oppose that. And I I'm also going to oppose where I have to wait for a traffic light to be put in there because you want to put a car dealership there. I have raised the question when we have our HOAs about it um a traffic light because it's horrendous. It's supposed to be 45, it's 50. And the traffic up and down that corridor is horrible. I I just I don't I just like to keep it safe because like I said, we've been here 11 years. We've seen a lot of these little kids grown up to young adults. That's one of the reasons why we lived in a place like this because it it helps when you're older like we are. It does something to your life because you've watched all these kids. You've all these neighbors have come to express this. I mean, that just blows my mind and I'm

glad they did because this is an important topic to us. It hits home. I, you know, um, we love, we love Tennessee. We've been like I said we would we would come out twice a year and we would under try to see what it was like you know um Gallatin the square that sold me because it was rule it was the way it was supposed to be now 11 years later I understand growth but it's just place upon place upon place I do cycling every day 20 to 30 miles a and I see the changes when I go into Gallatin and I go into Hendersonville. But I'm here to tell you that we oppose this because the Hunt Club to us is home history. The block wall, the rock wall, the tower across the way there. I mean, it's incredible. I've always wanted to do have a place like this, and now I do. I don't know what this lady was talking about before me. I don't I don't get it. I don't know where she gets her information, but uh bottom line is I don't want the car dealership there. I don't want to have to wait for a stoplight. I want it now.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Good evening. Name Troy Gulo. live at 106 Stoddard Street in Gallatin 37066. Um I have to start by saying that there's been great points u made tonight. Um even prior to starting uh our case tonight, um very impressed with everything. Um the way that you guys have gone through every case, listen to everything, listen to all points, um make very good adjustments along the way. Um, but I want to get a little past um some of what's being said here with even just the history of the hunt club. Um, again, every every community, every location has history. Um, and yeah, it should be it should be retained. Uh, there is and there was just obviously a write up on the hunt club. Um, which of course was distributed throughout all of Gallatin. um it being the the the lead into Gallatin. It's a great location. Um fell into it six years ago when I moved down here. Um but being in construction and also being part of real estate for for six years up north. Um I think there's an impact more than just the whole community thing and what it used to be. It's it's people who move into an area and they They obviously it when it comes to housing, we're all expecting to it's an investment and we're expecting that that is something that's going to increase in value, not go down in value. And so when someone purchases into something and they expect that that's their nest egg and that's something that they're going to have and they're going to sell down the road and they're going to make something on it. And you know, it's it at this point it kind of feels like playing cards with a sibling and the the rules change and all of a sudden the zoning is going to change and you know

it's like oh wait we're we're not playing on an equal field here. Um so it just would be nice that you know we we could kind of look at things the way they were expected. um as as we could have something come in there and if if it means that we take a chance and something comes in that is a a small hotel which I highly doubt it's going to be someplace that someone wants to put a a hotel then I guess that's a chance that would be taken on our part. Uh I just don't see that happening. Um again it's it's the entry point to Gallatin. I I do feel that it's zoned properly. um what's what should go there is is something that's going to again assist those places that are already there. Um so again I as someone said I I think it's it was done right uh in the first place and I'm hoping that you guys can um really kind of consider that. The big thing too is the safety. We have shoot lane. We have big station camp. We have congestion with schools, you know, and and safety is a huge thing. And when in real estate and someone wanted money back on a purchase because they just had their inspection done and and and and they're like, I I don't want to purchase this house because or I wait a minute, I want money here, I want money there. The the one thing that you're going to go back at that seller for are the safety items. You can't you can't expect something out of carpet that needs stretching or you you got to go after the things that make sense. And right now the thing that doesn't make sense is is the safety factors around this location for a car dealership. You have people pulling in and out of there to test drive cars all the time. That's not the place to have that. You and again those car haulers, as it was said, they're not going to they're not going to pull in there. They're gonna they're going to park in the wrong location. And when are those hollers going to show up? When someone's trying to get to school, someone's trying to pull into in and out of locations that that they can't again change that time that they can do that.

So again, I just please ask that you think through this. So appreciate, sir. Could you repeat your name, please? Could you repeat your name? Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Josh Mitchell. I live at 137 Compton Street. I'm just going to go based off safety here. I have experience in automotive business with car dealerships. I also formally owned a transportation company that I sold about four years ago. I involved CDL and nonCDL drivers. I will tell you exactly how they will be. They will come down Nashville Pike. They will either park in the turn lane or emergency lane to unload. They will park in the median. If they do not go there, they will come down Hunt Club Boulevard and park there hopefully, but you know they'll do it. They won't pull down the road behind the dealership and be nosed in to where they have to back out to try. They can't make a turn on Hunt Club Boulevard to turn around. I would invite you to come to our roundabout, which coincidentally in the past three or four days, someone with a tandem axle trailer tried to do it. They have driven through our roundabout. They destroyed a road sign and left. I don't know if we have camera footage of it or not. I also want to mention this because up until last year, I was driving a school bus for Sar County Schools and I personally have driven the route through Hunt Club and the route through the apartments next door. The route took me in the apartments and out the back entrance of behind the dealership. If there's a car hauler there, that will block that route. If there's a car hauler parked on Hunt Club, that will block that route. If there's a car hauler parked there, that will block the vision of the driver pulling out of Hunt Club Boulevard. You can make the determination of what all of those can do.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Annie Nesbbit. I live in 106 Tipperton Court and my family and I moved to the Hunt Club short two and a half years ago and I can tell you that if there was a car dealership there, that would have not been a neighborhood that we would have considered. Um, we were looking for a safe neighborhood and the hunt had not only that but also the personality that we were looking for our family and just uh the answer to the lady that came up here. I know that she wants to I I don't know who she is to be honest with you. Uh, but I'm sure that there's that side of, you know, that wants to build that dealership and there's an investment that they're looking uh into putting there, but that will bring down my prop property uh value. We have worked really hard and invested a lot of our savings in that home that we want to be our forever home. And now it's um looking like it could change. And I ask you to respectfully consider that and um and to keep the hunt the place that it that it was that it is and that will provide for our children hopefully the rest of their uh I'm sorry, English is not a first language. Um that it will provide them the time that they will go to school before to go to college and just uh be be home with us in that beautiful setting that we have. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. If there is no one else, I will close the public hearing. And I would like to say that the reason I gave Mr. Marty Cook additional time to speak is that he was represented by a number of homeowners and I felt like he uh he needed to speak on behalf of several people. So, we gave him extra time. The

reason I gave Miss Rosemary Bates extra time to speak is she is with the Gallatin Economic Development Agency. So, she was speaking on behalf of the interest of Gallatin. Uh, at this time, we'll hear from um a representative for the applicant. Uh, good evening. How many how many minutes do I have? Well, the applicant has more than three minutes, so please give a presentation and I hope that you can address some of the concerns that you've heard here tonight in the public comment.

My name is Randy Perry. Work for Goodwin Mills Cavewood, 3310 Weston Avenue. I am a resident of Gallatin and uh I live up behind Lowe's if everybody knows where that is. You guys have a difficult decision to make tonight. Uh it's we can stipulate a couple of things. The majority of those who oppose uh are in this crowd tonight and they make good points. The majority of the those who oppose this also live in the city of Hendersonville. And this is a development for the city of Gallatin. The property is unique and it's difficult because as we all know there's a commercial corridor of Gallatin that extends west into Hendersonville. Or you can look at it the other way. Hendersonville surrounds a piece of Gallatin. Regardless, there is a city limit that separates these two.

I didn't start that. Sorry.

So the the what we are wanting to do is develop this corner. Make no mistake, uh this ownership group with Mazda is the same ownership group, the same design team who developed the Subaru. And we did hear some figures a gentleman calculated earlier. Gain Robinson is with the ownership group. But at some point tonight, I wanted him to read the actual numbers, which are vastly greater than what we heard earlier. Uh there was reference to uh the amount of benefit that the city of Gall could see. Part of what we've done to address some of the comments safety has been brought up many times. I'll just explain the way the site works. It is it it could be confusing for some, but the ride in ride out on Nashville Pike includes a del turn lane that actually gets the cars off of National Pike so that they can make a safe movement. That's a benefit to safety. The turn lane into Hunt Club that exists now is lengthened with this plan. So that actually gets longer and adds more storage as you're turning right. And it is, like I said, I live in Galin. It is 50,000 cars a day running through there. Another point that was brought up is the amount of new trips that are added to an automobile dealership. We have a traffic engineer that provided a traffic count letter to staff. And the traffic counts, the trips in a car dealership are much less than a retail development. So, uh, and I have the report with me. It's uh 44 trips in the AM peak, 54 trips in the PM peak. That is a very low number. In fact, it wasn't even high enough to reach the threshold that would kick it into requiring a traffic study. So, I

just wanted to those are some of the facts from an engineering design perspective. Uh and yes, it's dangerous everywhere. One other part of uh safety is if we develop this corner then you're getting a portion of those funds $70,000 I think is the contribution towards the signal. I agree a signal would be great at that. It used to be there and if that signal was there now your movement on to Nashville Pike from Hunt Club would be safer. That again is a benefit to the safety or the the the problem with safety with the new development. The notion that it won't be developed uh is a false notion with the growth in Gallatin. This commercial corridor is going to be developed. So what could that be? Uh it may be medical office. It could be retail. It could also be a many a number of other things. And part of a reasonzoning is a bird-in-the- approach. This is what we're bringing to the city. It's a clean, safe development. It's much smaller than the Honda. It has much smaller footprint than the Honda. And I disagree with Marty. I think it's very similar to the Honda. In fact, it's a reszone of an automo dealership that's close to a residential subdivision that's in a different city. And to me, that's more similar than not. I think it does fit with the character. We we the comments came up earlier about uh architectural standards and we had asked for a waiver originally and I was talking to gain and he's like we don't want to do that. We will comply with the architectural standards as written in the city code. The um yeah there it is. Uh just the first one I think second one.

The rest of the comments are standard comments that we don't have a problem with complying with. Another benefit with Mazda is the community uh involvement that this ownership group has. That list that was shown earlier isn't just Gallatin. It's it's there's Beach High School on there. There's other Sony County uh entities that benefit from this ownership group. So, this is our bird-in-the- approach. We are bringing you what we believe is a good clean development on a corner that could be by rights what I would consider a lesser use. So, let me read some of those. Uh, I live in Gallatton. I'll say that again. Apartments is a hot button. You may be aware of that. Apartments are allowed by rights. There wouldn't be a reasonzoning. There wouldn't be a neighborhood meeting if we wanted to develop apartments. What is baked into a resoning is the restriction against uses. If this gets reszoned with this site plan, this PNDP that runs along with it until such time as if the developer a meteor hits and the and and the deal falls apart, then you would have to reszone it with another PMDP. So that's that PMDP runs with the zoning. It wouldn't then be knocked down and turned into apartments or what else could be there? duplex, short-term rentals, transient housing, a nursing home, food service, utility and vehicular. There are some conditional uses, a convenience sales, a sea store, or a drive-through restaurant. Those are all the things that would not be there if we reszone it to the PGC with the Mazda dealership. What's lighting? We have um a half a foot candle max at the property line. In fact, staff wanted us to actually extend those foot candles even further west because we have a bit of a dark zone on

the west side near the Stone Ridge Apartments. The um the Subaru dealer itself is uh it's considered a boutique dealership. It's not a Ford. It's not a Chevrolet. That's why the footprint the building and everything else is reduced and shrunk. Noise levels. There are no PAs. Uh that's not what occurs at this dealership. The service is all internal and every service bay uh and not all of them are exposed. There's a a an an overhead door that you go into the service bays. They're high-speed doors and they remain closed at all times. If you hear people talking in the parking lot, then that is something we could not control as far as visibility. Each property line on this development has a buffer. In fact, with the PGC, which the PUD gives you more control, which means more from the developer. Uh the buffers along this property are even more substantial than what a straight zone would be because it is a PUD. It is a PGC reszone. the distance from someone said that the their property is back up to this. Well, that's also not true. There there's a the building, the property behind us, the office condos, and then the city limits. And as a crow flies, you can you can measure from where the building would be, the closest house is about 700 feet away. So, one right there on the end of that culde-sac from where the Mazda building would be, it's about 700 ft. So the notion that we're right on top of them just isn't isn't true. It just isn't true. They are the neighbors are in a situation where there is a commercial corridor and I get it. Uh the

the goal would be not to develop it ever. Uh but that's just not reality. Part of what else we would do is is repair the horseboard fence. The rock wall doesn't get touched. It's specifically excluded on the PNDP that doesn't get touched. And respectfully, we would like for this body to consider the benefit to the city of Gallatin and its economic input plus the burden approach of bringing a clean, safe development with those safety improvements that run along with it and the use restrictions against what can't be built there with this resoning request. I would like uh gain to read off some of the actual dollars that get sent into the coffers uh from he pulled them up earlier even before we heard the calculations and it's a it's a big number he's with the ownership group for MA.

Good evening. Um as Randy said I'm Gain Robinson. I represent the developer and um the owners of this future Mazda dealership. Um as he mentioned uh some of the tax numbers that have been given to me uh by our um by our sister dealership down the road in at Subaru is and this is very similar in uh scale and scope to that you know with revenue to the to the state of Tennessee it's 3.8 8 million. City and county is around 1.5 million. And then city and county business taxes around 100,000. And then the property taxes on this on our on this property after we develop it will be very similar to that of Subaru and around 40,000. So I just wanted to clarify what we recognize that we pay in in taxes into the city of Gallatin and into Summer County as well. I think um something it's important to note um I was up here about six seven years ago and prior to that time uh we were given the opportunity to be what they call an open point uh for Subaru and the Subaru executives in their wisdom wanted to be back closer to Nashville um further down the road and I took a tour up here around that time and really saw what Gallatin was doing really saw the growth of Gallatin And I uh went back to the ownership and I said we need to be in Gallatin. Gallatin is the place that I think has the future for the growth that we want to expect for this brand opportunity to have and develop. And that is that got to the point where we had to bring in the executives from Subaru. They flew in. They saw Gallatin. They said, "Yes, you're right. We agree with you. we need to be in Gallatin. And

so fast forward to 2020, the day the pandemic started, we opened Subaru of Gallatin and it's been a great success. And I think we've been a great, you know, civic partner uh not only with how we chose to do our development, involve the neighbors in developing that that facility. We put in a dog park. We met with the HOA, we give them opportunities to use our facility for their community meetings. uh we support over 15 different uh philanthropic organizations in around Gallatin and so we understand it's important to be a part of the community and I think we've really put our best foot forward in that regard and you will not see us uh a step down from that on a future development like this. This is important to us. We want to be in the city of Gallatin because we want to replicate the success we had just down the road. And you know, with Honda being 700 yards to our east, you know, we think we're in the corridor of where dealerships are. And we believe that we're on a safe corner now that this traffic signal that was approved prior to our interest to this site um came about. I think it'll be an even safer site when we go there. I think that the restrictions that they talk about with regard to, you know, safety and and visibility and light, we can solve all of those andor if they're not already solved. So, I just respectfully ask that y'all consider all the points that Randy made and I just appreciate your time this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Gang. Um, so at this point I'll open it up for questions uh from the members of the committee. One of the concerns that was brought up was the delivery of the vehicles. Do you have a plan in place to address that?

We do and it can be improved. Uh the gentleman that drove the bus and owned the the trucking company, he does make a good point. the the service road is the one that's perpendicular to that back entrance drive. The back entrance drive is on our property. It is uh covered with a 57 foot access easement is a recorded easement. So there is a continuous easement along that that driveway, but that road is part of the property. The road that's perpendicular to that is only 30 feet wide and we would widen that for that the point that the gentleman made. It's a good point. And our radi need to be wider and that is where we would widen for the deliveries. So I want to be sure I'm clear on that. That road, the backage road that runs in front of the dental office and other offices that are back there, the one that runs from east to west, that is part of your property.

Correct. I didn't realize that. Um, yeah, the the rectangle that you can see right there in the southeast corner is not a part, but the road is and the culde-sac. In fact, that's something that, you know, is really is a moot point, but we maintain the Oh, well, if we were to own the property, the maintenance of that road falls to Mazda. So, I have a question for staff. If that's that's not a dedicated public street, that's theirs. Um, how are those medical practices in the buildings back there, how are they accessing a an easement? It has an easement over it. What does that mean?

It has a um it's a private it's a private street. It's not a public street, but it does have a believe on the plans it's saying a 57 foot ingress, egress, and public utility and drainage easement across it. Okay. From from Hunt Club Boulevard all the way to the culde-sac, that entire road is in a public access easement that the land owner maintains and that land owner being you. Well, hopefully. Okay. The land owner being this property in question that we're talking about

and that serves as an ingress, a secondary ingress egress for the apartments. Does that connect all the way over to them? That's correct. Okay. Did you say it's a public easement, so anybody can use it? It it is a ingress and ingress and it's a public utility and drainage easement. So, yes. So, you talked about the right in right out off Nashville Pike. Um, is that the planned entrance for the uh transport carriers? Does it have the radius required for um the transport trucks?

It does to get them out. I don't like the layout especially where the the bop pond is. The bop pond is about twice the size it needs to be. And I was talking to Gain earlier. Yes, it would that is how they had entered the site. But then they we would drop that bow pond and move that double stack to open up that back drive. So the truck would come in off Nashville Pike and then roll behind the building back into the orhead into the loading service drive at the back. I don't like that layout. I did it, but I don't like it.

Are you saying that you would you would change the shift the bow pond to the right and move your rear service uh access entrance over to the left corner to be in line with your right in right out path.

That is No, but I like that. That's what I I think that's actually better. What I was going to do is squeeze the detention pond and widen the back road behind the building. So, what we do to let you know how we design those things, there are some uh rules of thumb on turning radius and depends on the size of the vehicle. Would be 67. That's a fullsize tractor trailer with a 53 ft trailer. And then they're smaller. And any development that goes in there, whether it's retail or an auto dealer or a medical office building, there'll be some type of delivery truck that comes in and out. Uh the entrance is designed that way. There's also a a an automotive modeling software that we use called Autoturn that animates any type of vehicle really that you want to input it from ladder trucks to dual tandem trailers, anything. And it will then create an envelope that shows where the the trailer and the wheels overhang. And with that software, you then fine tune this design. This is a preliminary master development plan. And that's an important piece is this is not a final master development plan. This is a concept plan. and it has not been detailed design applied to it. The feedback that we've got tonight will then go into the FMDP as part of the next phase that comes before you. Again, you could see this again in its fully completed designed forum.

Will your will your trucks offload on the back road or will they unload on the property? Sorry, sir. in that it's a culdeac. Where's your truck going to offload? They going to park on your drive in the back or they going to go on the property and offload? They would they would park in the the little drive that goes north and south that runs between the detention pond and the rectangular piece. Yeah. Up and down. That's where they would stage. So it wouldn't block the access to the other persons in the No, sir. Complex. No, that's part of the reason we did it that way is to get those trucks. So, is there enough radius for them to turn around or would they have to back out?

There's not enough radius now. In fact, that's what we would add into the FMDP as a part of what I was just mentioning to John on using the design software, but the concept would be what you see. It wouldn't be very much different. In fact, from the building all the way to Hunt Club and all the way to Nashville Pike wouldn't change. It would just really be the drive from the right and right out and back out for

reason I asked that uh there's a school bus that comes that offloads at the apartment club complex adjacent to it. Right. You probably don't know, but the school bus comes out of the complex on that access road over to Hunt Club Boulevard. And I'm trying to see if you've got a truck parked there if it struck the but not school bus at the other person's our trucks would be completely on the property off of that back road. We wouldn't be on the back road. And how often do we get deliveries? One a week max.

A maximum of one delivery a week. And the notion that it's a constant delivery. Cars are running around. There's test drives, engines are revving. That's also not true with this with this Mazda development. Everything on the Mazda is similar to the operational um elements if you want of Subaru. It operates in a generally the same way. The number of cars that get sold, the number of deliveries. Question for staff. So confirmation. Tonight we're voting on reszoning, not this plan as it's seen today. Both, right?

Both. So this is So it's amending the Hunt Club plan also reszoning this parcel. So both actions are a part of this. And currently under MU, this type of business is approved. Under MU, you're not allowed to do car sales. Okay. Thank you. That was the purpose for the reasonzoning. Well, I was uh I was confused by one comment. Um, someone said that it was subjective as to whether I think Rosemary said it was subjective as to whether it was allowed or not. What utility vehicular is things that are more city or community uses like police departments or fire stations, substations. That's what utility and vehicular is.

Okay. Car sales is not allowed in MU. And they're separate uses listed in the in the zoning ordinance. So one of them clearly depicts the word sales in the description and the other does not. So that and then there's actually a specific definition in the zoning ordinance that gives clarity to the utility and vehicular uses versus the craft sales type thing.

I have a question. And we asked staff this because we felt that it was either general retail sales and service, which is an allowed use in MU, uh, or vehicular use, which is an allowed use at MU. Staff said that's not the case. And I'm curious, what is a vehicular use?

And utility and vehicular is things like fire stations, police stations, substations. That's the use classification. the use that you guys fall under because you are in car in car sales. Let me bring up the specific name. I've got the vehicular use is areas of a developed site other than property used and zone for agriculture uses improved provide for the operation of motor vehicles including driveways, drive a vis, loading and unloading and parking areas. That sounds like a an auto dealer to me. Vehicular, craft, and related equipment sales is the use that vehicle sales fall under.

Can you read your definition again while we got to this point? We've been there. This is where we were told you have to reszone. Yes. Vehicular use areas of a developed site other than property used and zoned for agriculture. be improved to provide for the operation of motor vehicles, including driveways, drive aisles, loading and unloading areas, and parking areas. That's in the zoning code. That's the definition. If it were car sales, it would say car sales like it says elsewhere, right? Well, the difference have you have the word sales and that's the the main right

part of this business sales of vehicles and so we're we're distinguishing it because it says vehicular and craft sales as a separate use other than this well that wouldn't be articulated if the other fulfilled is my point I mean you wouldn't have the delineation right um may I ask a question of planning staff. When the Hunt Club got its original zoning back in what was 01 or something, was it what's there now? The MU. Yes. Okay. So, the MU. So, we didn't have to reszone it for the retail, but they had to amend their master development plan.

No, the one from a couple months or a couple years ago, MU MU allows retail and food service, but they just had to amend their de master development plan at that point. Yes.

Which was, you know, and and I heard the argument. And I had had I was listening to the meeting even though I was out of the room and I heard the argument that um with this resoning it would protect but anything is going to require the master development plan to be updated that's not consistent. And um the one thing that is said in y'all's report that you know it kind of goes back to my argument earlier which I lost because you were talking about the conditional allowances still makes me mad. Um was um that the zoning and master development plan meet the intent and adhere to the development strategies of the general urban character area. However, they are not in keeping with the original hunt club master plan. That is the part that challenges me. And then oh my other question was does anybody know when I mean it feels like the office condos were constructed before the homes but I don't recall

I've been here longer than everybody so I guess if I don't know I don't know that that matters, but I mean there's a resident in the audience that confirmed that heard,

but um but I mean I'm just trying to again it goes back to what I was trying to argue earlier that I want the expectations of the people whose homes were chose based on the allowed zoning. And that that is that is the key element to me is the allowed zoning. And this is different because the allowance is different. It's not a conditional use within MU versus what was being debated before. And while I mean I love Subaru and I think you guys do a wonderful job and I think you worked tremendously with the residents over there to create a workable plan. But as I recall that was zoned commercially from the beginning so that residents couldn't argue the same thing that they could reg argue in this circumstance. Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody because I am often wrong, but um that's this is just what I struggle with and I would love to have the monster dealership up here. Absolutely. But I want to be consistent with what the expectations were for that development and I felt like by allowing the reszoning because I feel like it was just like last year when we updated the master plan for the retail. So

it's a good point. And the expectation, we hear that, we've heard that word a lot. What is the expectation? What is the expectation? Is it transient housing because that's an allowed use? Yeah, but would that would that have to be an updated master plan? That would come before you guys and city council. Yeah. So and I have there are others convenient sales and services. Is that again? Same. Is that the expectation? It it'd have to be an updated master development plan. What our request does, it eliminates all those nebulous expectations of what it could be. In which case, restricts those

in which case I would argue that your best path forward then becomes um working with like you did before work with the um neighbors to understand the impact of one versus a potentially unknown. But right now we've got the retail. I'm not trying to sway everybody. I'm just clarifying my own thoughts out loud after a long day. Right, Mr. Rose? And uh so I'll hush now.

So how far do we go? Let's say in Subaru is a little different because the residents behind the Subaru are Gallatin residents. How far do we go in letting Hendersonville decide what Gallatin needs? I don't think you're gonna win friends that way. Mhm. I'm just presenting we're talking about I mean I I get what you're saying, but I also think that we all need to be good neighbors to one another. Okay, that's my question. Yeah,

that's what I want. How far would you go? I think also the the point about um reszoning and the statutes that go along with that and um the the use of the terms adjoining property owners and the adverse effects that could happen to them doesn't matter who's in what city. You still have to consider adjoining property owners. Yeah, I'd be fighting for Gallatton residents if this if the situation were reversed and welling property owners think somehow Rogers group in the quarry comes to mind first of all nothing we can do none of the residents are adjoining property owners you're right but

well if we're going to we're going to dissect it that far then let's get it out there that adjoining property owners are commercially zoned property

what I am articulating is my concern about what is what feels right to me. And I and I mean I I get that you're a very very that you're offering a very wonderful opportunity for our city and I want it here but it feels diff and and also in my head I'm seeing that as oh that's your entrance to Gallatin because that's really the first thing that you see that's part of Gallatin past those apartments. Well, I guess crisis pregnancy, you see that and in time you could see what sets shoots lane. But

I I do think just as a general comment to the other the rest of the staff and commission, it does feel different to me than the gas station that we talked about because in that situation, if they had applied with a conditional use permit, there's not much we could do. Um to me, this one is completely at our discretion and we have much more input. I mean, we can choose to to not reszone this um and the development would not be able to continue in the same way. So, I don't think it's a matter of like the gas station, if we had said no, they could have resubmitted and done it anyway. That is not the case here. That's not to say that, you know, they come back and try and update the master development plan with a seesaw or a hotel or whatever it is that would be equally as distressing. But we can't we

but the master plan wouldn't be required in those cases. Those are allowed uses. That's a straight zoned. Still have to update the master development plan though. We have discretion there. the FMDP, but you you wouldn't be able to disallow an allowed use. It would just meet the conditions of the FMDP. You you couldn't say the FMDP has MU zoning, but we don't want the hotel. We've had we've had lots of arguments about that. And that's I mean, what's the point of a master development plan if it doesn't have some authority?

Planning experts answer that for me, not me, you know. I don't think that the city can choose to eliminate allowed uses. I'm not an attorney. I'm already I'll ask our city planner to weigh in on that.

Our uh the way our process goes, if the use changes, you still amend the PMDP. It's a It's typically done together as a PMDP amendment along with an FMDP if you're ready to go kind of thing, but um you still would go through a process to amend that PMDP. Uh if that amendment is determined a major amendment, then it would go back to city council, similar to a reszone uh process like this one that we're in right now. Uh if it were determined a minor amendment then the planning commission would be the determiner on that decision

and the changes which would trigger it being considered a major amendment be changes to use circulation and density roughly among others. Yeah. Then send it to council. Well, there's been a lot of discussion. I did hear I was trying to write down residents concerns. Um or people No, John, I was just talking again.

U Mayor Brown suggested meeting with the neighbors like we did on Subaru. We'd be willing to do that with a deferral. I don't know. I don't know if anybody would say, "Yeah, we'll accept a car dealer if XYZ occurs." Well, the wall was, you know, that was one thing they were concerned about. I looked at the walls.

I know. And I heard you say that and that's great. The loudspeakers, which I knew when the speakers were acknowledging the loudspeakers, um, you know, I even when I had a couple people call me about it. I said, "You might ought to go see the" And at the time, nobody knew that the other dealership was one of y'all. So, I couldn't I said, "Well, when they bring this, you might wish to see the other thing that they have built because doesn't look like you think it might look." And um but you know, the loudspeakers, the what do you call it? The

intercom intercom system or whatever. I knew that wouldn't be a thing because I remember that discussion from back when the Subaru was approved. But my point is is that there is an expectation when those homes are purchased that it's going to be this does feel like you said you know and and and there are I mean I know from my own experience there are a lot of um medical type practices over in there now on the one hand car dealership may actually expose new people to those medical offices but on the other hand again it's just not the consistency with the expectations that I think is fair.

Okay. Still a no vote. We still go to council, right? Even with a with a no vote. Yes. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes. Yeah. Um I did hear that um the rock wall stays I think it's almost right on the rideway line. It's within a you know foot onto the property and the horse fence stays as as I understood and said you're repairing it or something right stays and it gets repaired which is appreciative I mean appreciated

and they do have a good track record with the Subaru dealership and I do know that it is true that they I've served on one of those nonprofit boards and I know how generous that this organization has been to um nonprofits and civic organizations in in Gallatin. They have a dog park which was like one of the big things that was very exciting to those residents. The other one

I do think one one thing Randy said is very true. If if the expectation that is not going to develop that's that's not true and I haven't heard anybody in the public comment say we don't want this developed period. We want it to stay a pasture. Nobody's expecting that. But there could be a lot of things that go in there. Uh, and this organization does have a good track record of doing a good development with Subaru and working with the neighbors. Well, at that point, I'll entertain a motion. I've always taken the stance as chairman or acting chairman. Chairman doesn't make a motion to himself. Chairman entertains a motion. So, I won't make a motion. I will second a motion, but I won't make a motion. So, I'll leave it to

Do we have to approve or deny today? Yeah. Yeah. We would have to give us a recommendation of um approval or denial to to the council. Yeah. So, I'll wait to hear a motion. I'll entertain a motion as well put it. Then, uh nothing against what seems like a great organization, but I will make a motion to recommend denying. Okay. We have a re recommendation to um to deny approval. Second.

Have a second on the table. Uh who seconded that? I'm sorry. Mike. Um so any discussion on that? Just to be clear for everyone. If you want to take the vote, if you vote yes, you are voting yes to deny it. And if you vote no, you're voting against denial. That's that's the odd thing about making a motion in the negative. But nonetheless, it's it's still allowed.

Also, I'll just reiterate for folks, it's really good to provide reasons why you recommended denial. Um that way, if we have to go to court on a decision, those decision, those comments as to why we recommended denial are part of the record in the minutes. And so zoning decisions by this board could be appealed and gone to court. I think I've said seven now. So

I do have one question maybe for the city attorney. I've always asked this question. If a motion is made in the negative and that uh we take a vote and that fails is does that go to council a recommendation for approval? I mean essentially because if the opposite was made, it was made in the positive. Yeah. You know, the the Naz on the other way, it would have gone with the negative recommendation. I guess you could have a second vote in the positive, but I think we just Oh, I'm not trying to split hairs. I just want to know how saying yes or no. Yeah, you're saying yes or no either way.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. uh a motion to deny um not to not recommend to send the recommendation not recommending approval of this to council. Um again, if you vote yes, you're voting no. If you vote no, you're voting yes. Um all in favor of that motion say I. I. All opposed? No. You bet. All right. For only a few seconds.

Okay. So, I was going to leave a few minutes. Maryann, can you uh Oh, I would respond with the vote. Can you respond with the final vote for the previous item? Okay. John, were you No, I said no. John John was a no vote. Yeah, I was the one to send. Positive. Yeah. Yeah. Double negative. So, it goes to council with a negative recommendation. It does. Yeah. Um 4 to one. Is that right? Um I would, Mr. Chairman, I would ask we're coming up against our four. Can we take another break?

Uh yes. Uh we can uh I'll make a motion for a fivem minute recess this time. Yeah. It's supposed to second. Okay. I was going to

testing. Okay. Uh all right, folks. We are going to get started again. Uh we've got the mayor and I think John out in the hallway. Marian, can we start? We can start. Technically, we have four. Okay, we're going to go ahead and get started. Um, unless there's Are y'all okay with that? Yep. Okay. Um, that was item 17. We're actually I need John in here. Yeah.

Sorry. Can we Okay, John. Yeah, he's coming.

Thank you, sir. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and get started. Um, and I I'll at least uh turn it over to planning uh to get started. We're going to go to item number 18. This is um this is the crossings of Hidden Creek amendment three reszoning with amend amended preliminary master development plan. Uh we're going to kick this. Who's the planner on this? Jillian. Okay. And then before Jillian gets started, uh Maryann, I will have to recuse myself from this item. Uh because I am the engineer of record on this project. Oh, that's why you needed me. Yes, sir.

Oh, sorry. Okay. The owner and applicant request to reszone uh 7.43 acres from the PGC zoning district to the MU zoning district with an amended PMDP for the crossings at Critting Hidden Creek uh on a total acreage of 127 acres. Um this development in particular contains 348 senior living uh plus 55 multif family units. This is located north of Highway 386 and east of Big Station Camp Creek Boulevard. Uh the development that we are specifically talking about tonight is in the red area. Uh the crossings encompasses this whole area right here. Um, so they are including one of the out parcels that was originally approved as PGC for the crossings as well as a area of commercial out parcels that are currently zoned MU that were also within the overall Hidden Creek plan but are part of the River Apartments master plan from a number of years back. Uh so they wish to reszone this parcel right here to be MU and incorporate this MU zoned property into the crossings master plan for this residential development. Um this uh the plan Gallatin in particular uh is one of the concerns staff has about this plan. Plane Gallatin designates this part of of uh the city as general urban character area and it's also within the big station camp boulevard mixeduse commercial district. The plan describes uh for general urban that building heights would range from two to four stories and position closer to the street with a focus on the pedestrian environment to allow for easier access to transit with a recommended density of 5 to 15 units per acre.

Um, so for density calculations, let's see if I can bring up the whole overall here's the over plan for the crossings. Um, the MU area in particular, which is the area in red, uh, within this specific amendment proposes a density of over 23 units per acre. Uh, so this is when you just take the 348 units that they are proposing new in this area, uh, incorporated within the 14.88 88 units per acre. However, the residential portion of the overall crossing, so all of this blue, this yellow into the town home development with the red um is a much larger area uh closer to over a 100 acres. And so if you incorporate this density into the overall plan, it increases the crossing density from 6.93 units per acre to 8.85 units per acre. Um it is not unusual to plans for plans to have areas that have higher density and then have lower density and it be an average across across the plan but that is why it's incorporated into the crossings. Um so in that way with it incorporated into the crossings it is consistent with general urban uh and the MU zoning district which both max out at 14 to 15 units per acre. So the request in the request is supportive of some aspects of plan Gallatin including a diversity of housing types and the promotion of walkable communities and lifestyles uh given the layout and the proposed use. However, the Big Station Camp Boulevard mixeduse commercial district uh which is a sub area included on our comprehensive plan for this this specific corridor calls for predominantly retail, restaurant, and other businesses along Big Big Station Camp serving the surrounding residential subdivisions and clarifies that the corridor should transition from commercial along Big Station Camp to various levels of residential behind the commercial development. Um this property

in particular is at what will be a major corner of the extension of Bison Trail and our um existing major corridor big station camp. So it was intended for commercial. Uh it has been planned for commercial since since both these plans came in came through. Yes, there is MU zoning here. Yes, they have incorporated some uh removed some and changed some zoning down here to incorporate more commercial. Um but that is why we would consider this a major amendment. Uh because we are doing a significant use change and there is a reasonzoning attached to this. Um and we believe that it conflicts with the comp plan because it is removing the commercial along corridor. It is having the residential encroach into that corridor which we believe is against the comp plan. The architectural elevations for the senior living apartments do not meet the brickstone requirements for the MU zoning district. The applicant proposes that the multif family complex will consist of a total of 100% masonry with cement fiber boards contributing towards that um as an allowed material and but has committed to a 50/50 split of brickstone and cementitious siding. Uh this request is similar to other approvals of previous phases within McCain stations and the crossings where cement fiber siding was incorporated into the overall requirement as a permitted use. The amended PMTP also proposes a height exception to allow for a 50- foot tall maximum or four stories which exceeds the 35- foot tall maximum height allowances in the MU zoning district. With the resoning included in this request, this amendment is considered a major amendment. Planning staff recommends denial of the request due to conflicts with the comprehensive plan. This resoning with amended PMDP will require a formal public comment and will go to city council following planning commission's recommendation. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. At this time, we'll open up a public comment. If there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, I'll close the public comment and we'll ask to hear from a representative for the applicant. Hi, my name is Greg Gamble, a landscape architect representing the applicant tonight. Um, here tonight with um Rick Porter with uh Gross Residential. Uh Gross is proposing the first independent living facility in uh Gallatin. The next closest is about 14 miles away in Hendersonville. Uh this is an opportunity to offer something to seniors that you don't have today. Um, Gross knows that active seniors are looking for a maintenance-free lifestyle with active and social amenities without high-cost service packages. They um understand the amenities and the lifestyles of independent living facilities. on the the map here. Um I'm showing the area of MU that is um directly adjacent to the river that is currently zoned MU. So there's a portion of MU uh already on the street. We're asking for the 7.45 acres to the north of that to be reszoned to MU. You see a purple area just to the south of Ravier that's about 61 acres in size. Uh that used to be MU. A few months ago we came in and asked for that area to be reszoned to um PGC which was uh approved and adopted. So in a

sense we're basically just asking to swap an MU area with a PGC uh area along the boulevard. Uh we believe that this is supported by the comprehensive plan by expanding housing diversity for all stages of life, allowing active seniors to remain in the Gallatin community and delivering a campus plan that promotes health, wellness, and social connection. And also this developer understands that they will be contributing a proraic share to the big station camp improvement district. Independent living facilities pay a commercial tax rate tax base. Uh this independent living facility will have a restaurant, uh cafeteria food, they can feed guests that come to visit their parents. Uh all of that is in incorporated into the overall campus plan. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have about the master plan. Uh I would like to talk about condition number 12. Condition number 12 requires um a connection from this commercial property to the south where that red arrow is to the parking lot of the independent living facility. There is a protected stream uh an impaired stream and buffers located along the southern boundary of this property uh which is also home to an endangered salamander. I know that it seems like a very short distance, but to add another bridge, another crossing, another impact to this stream is meaningful. Uh we would like to request that the uh safety of the seniors within the parking lot and just simply going using the the pedestrian corridors within the campus um be considered and that uh this cross connection not be required. Uh we

believe that with the um Springdale Lane and Bison Trail, the redundant connectivity throughout this neighborhood is provided in what you're seeing here in green. And then the light blue dash that you're seeing is pedestrian sidewalk uh connectivity that's happening there along the roadway. Um so we'd love for you to discuss that and we'd love your consideration to not include that for those reasons. but happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Okay, we'll open it up to questions.

Well, I'll start by saying that at the work session, I know I mentioned the the condition number 12. I mentioned a cross connection or connectivity kind of a backage road, but it's not really a backage road. It's just connecting this property to the one to the south of it. But I didn't know about a stream at the time. I don't still don't know about salamanders, but um this is an assisted living. It is not assisted living. It's independent living. And I just told you something completely wrong. They do not have food service here. The um residents provide their own food. So is dependent independent living like one step before assisted living.

That's right. Yeah. They're active adults. It's apartments versus the 55 and over community. So it's rentals for independent living. Yeah. maintenancefree. They described it as like maybe a final downsize before. Final downsize. Okay. Assisted living or whatever. It's going to have one of the lowest traffic impacts of anything you could do other than assisted living. Is that right?

Yeah. They say 55 and older. The average age really is over 78. um still drives, still getting around, like the socialization with their peers and the activities there on the campus. um are typically in the car driving sometime between 2 or 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Well, I know I've consistently asked for backage cross connectivity. Uh but in this case, I don't think it's needed because of the stream and because quite frankly, I don't think that you want um to encourage people to be driving through what looks like a parking courtyard behind these buildings which are pushed up to the street. So, in this case, I would be for removing number 12.

I'd agree with you, John. Other discussion? I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion to accept with exception of item number 12. Okay, we have a motion. We have a motion to approve with all conditions excluding condition striking number 12. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Second by Mike. Um, any other discussion? Seeing none, then I'll call for the vote. All those in favor indicate by saying I. I. Opposed. Okay. Motion approved.

Thank you, John. Okay. Uh now believe that was item 18. We will go to item 19. This is going to be The Meadows resoning with amended preliminary master development plan. Jim. All right. Thank you, CJ. The owner and applicant request approval to reszone three parcels comprising 384.6 6 acres from the MRO multiple residential and office district. The R20 PRD low density residential planned development district and the R8 PRD medium density residential development to the R8 PRD uh medium density planned residential development district with an amended PMDP for the Meadows located west of Dobins Pike and north of Gibbs Lane. So this is the current zoning on the property. um kind of split between uh big uh batches of R8 and um R20 to the north and west or to the north and east of the development with a band of MRO for commercial office uh apartment uses um in the current plan or in the previously approved plan. So, um, just as a reminder of what that looks like. So, this was, um, the original approval, uh, with kind of the larger lots to the north and east, uh, that MRO bank and then the kind of the core R8

residential north and south. Um it's also had the access at computer lane. the uh proposed changes um to the master plan um have it basically reducing down to just the R8 PRD um reducing the unit count from uh 115 single family detached units or single family attached detached multif family units with 142,000 ft of commercial to 811 single family detached and 67 seven single family attached units for a total of 87 8 units. Um the proposal does not uh include any commercial within the meadow site. Um but does include three amenity centers for the subdivision. Um the applicants also requesting a variety of exceptions uh for the development including lot width, side rear yard puds, uh maximum block lengths and open space. Um staff has addressed some of these including uh maximum block block lengths, recreation area and sideyard puds as conditions of approval. Um the applicant also requests approval of uh alternate alternative architecture plan uh for facades consisting of 50% brick stone and 50% other sighting not vinyl. Uh staff has also included a condition of approval that um whatever siding be cement uh cementitious

um for that portion um just to kind of put that in stone. Um the applicant also is requesting a relocation of So here is computer lane um and relocating that railroad uh CSX crossing with the bridge um to the north through um the Rineer property uh which would directly connect to 109. Um obviously this is dependent on T dot approval and um with that it's also uh contingent on most likely some county approvals as well. Um so um staff kind of broadly speaking had a bunch of comments on this. Um and this is it represents a significant decrease in density. Um the current shown density is uh 2.27 27 units per acre uh including the full site. Um however that does not include the um 50% reduction for flood plane area. Um so I think I want to say it's 107 or 108 acres that are open space. about I I think 25 to 30 of those acres maybe um would be considered flood plane. So that number will go up a little bit. Um but still broadly speaking much below

the six uh units an acre. Um that would be max and zoning. Um this area is suburban and the uh comp plan uh and that recommends uh maximum density of 2 to 5 units an acre. Um see I think the biggest um sort of bulk of comments um out of our conditions of approval um are regarding uh improvements uh which are known uh to Cobbs and Gibbs um and a little bit on Dobbins as well, but that's mainly just sidewalks for that portion. Um, and a lot of it is also very dependent on um kind of what goes on outside of of this. Um, obviously uh a new or revised interlocal agreement will be required for this. um both for this development uh by itself and then including uh the property to the west of the railroad rightway um for the road connection uh to 109. Um so let's see where do we want to start? Um probably the easiest place. Um so we are recom so uh staff is recommending approval with 40 conditions. Um, and probably our our kind of our our big,

so obviously the the 109 connections depend on T dot approval. Um, and then where's the shy one? Okay. So, um there are two um boulevard shies uh or shy um conditions. Uh the first one is any development beyond phase one shall be required to post shity uh for the connection and then that connection would need to be done and complete um prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 31st house within within phase three as designed. Um so that would be um about 47 the road connection would have to be complete with that condition uh approximately 470 lots in

like the halfway point

about um so shy for the completion of the road uh after 88 88 homes are currently shown in phase one and then completion around 470. Um the other um sort of big conditions um so widening uh COBS and Gibbs um to a minimum of 20 ft um for those phases uh Gibbs for phase one, COBS for phase two. Um and then uh we've also included a condition that uh no more than 40% of the lot shall be less than 60% wide. At least 20% of the lot shall be 80% wide or not 80% 80t wide. 60 feet wide 80t wide. Um what they're showing um is mostly uh they're asking for a minimum lot size or minimum lot width of 50 ft. Um with the idea of an average lot being 50 or 60. Um and we want a little bit more assurance that there will be some larger lots in this development. um go through some of the other conditions. Um I guess from a multimodal standpoint, some uh some extensions of multi-use trails along, you know, Cobbs and Gibbs and kind of through to the southern part of the the property is also part of this. Um

I think um yeah, obviously the um the big parts of this are with the connection points. Um and another kind of sensitive issue um that is not necessarily in our wheelhouse, but um GDE has requested an area uh plan northwest uh adjacent to the railroad rightway um as a reservation for a substation. Um, I believe the applicant is currently in conversations um with them about some details and what those easements look like for that. But that is also part of this plan that wasn't shown seven years ago when it was kind of before before us. Um, with that, um, staff is recommending approval with, like I said, the 40 conditions. Um, would be more than happy to address those or go in depth if we need to. And there will be a public hearing on this and obviously because of the reasoning, it's a major amendment. It's going to city council.

Okay. Thanks, Jim. Uh, Erin, is there anything from engineering?

Um, sure. We have some some comments on um internal street networks and kind of making some minor adjustments there. Um they've done a good job of of showing existing environmental features and how they're going to treat storm water. Um as they move through the process um and get a full HD and get in design, there may be some changes based off of what they get into there. Um, as far as like access goes, this is, um, I think a much better plan than what we had previously approved. This kind of opens the door for um, you know, future connection from airport and 31 eventually tying into to 109 over here. Um, but, you know, because this is different than the current interlocal agreement, it will require an update on on that. I don't know what number condition it is, but we do have a condition on there stating that it would require revision to the current interlocal agreement. And um we weren't super specific, but we said prior to final approval, a new interlocal agreement will need to be executed. Um based on discussions with planning staff, we feel that prior to final PMDP approval would be appropriate to add in the PMDP in that condition. Can you repeat that last part? Sorry.

Um, can you go to the conditions, please? So, I think it's before then.

Oh, 27. Okay. So this right now it says prior prior to final approval a new interlocal agreement will need to be executed. Um we feel just to be specific to add prior to final PMDP approval. So prior to to essentially prior to submitt of an FMDP. Correct. Okay. Is that it?

Okay. Uh at this time we will open up a public hearing for those wishing to speak on this item. Seeing none, we'll close public hearing uh and call for a member from the applicant uh to come forward. Good evening. Sheree acres with Barge Design Solutions. Um, we generally are in agreement with staff. We've met with them several times and we've made a lot of the changes that they requested. Um, in interest of time, I know you've all been here really late. Um, I think he's did a good job of presenting the project and we also presented to you at the work session. So, don't want to go in over detail for you there. But, we do have a few conditions of approval we want some clarification on and a few that we would like to have some changes to. So, keep them up there. The first one being number 20, which requires a paved connection to Cobbs Lane and the widening of Cobbs Lane um from the connection point out to old high you hear me out to old um highway 109 to a minimum of 20 ft. We don't have any issue with this to minimum of 20 feet, but as you cross over that CXS, it does go down to about 18. So, we just want you to work with us on that. We don't want to alter that at all

on cops. On COBS through the CSX easement. Okay. What about between the CSX easement and uh old 109 20? Okay. Okay.

Um the second one is in regards to number 22 which is the um discussion about the residential lots. As we said, we're proposing 50 feet wide as the minimum, but we do not want to adhere to 80 feet for 20%. We want the market to be to drive this. And if you recall from the previously plan that was approved, the larger lots were along um that northern boundary and we now have quite a bit of an easement there, utility easement that is not going to attract a larger lot and be able to pay premium for those lots. So if you do the 20% that's about 166 lots. Um we feel that's a little a lot for 80 ft wide. We want it to be driven by the market.

Pardon me. Which condition was that? It's number 22. 22 current. Okay. So I guess I'll ask some questions as we go through here. Currently how many 80 foot wide lots are there? I don't think we're necessarily shown anything. On average, we have about 60 foot on average. Okay. We haven't gotten to FMDP. So, yeah. Okay. Continue.

Um Okay. Number 27, which is in regards to the interlocal agreement. We're in agreement with this condition. and we're um fine with that with just a caveat that we have had discussions with the county and there is some discussion over whether or not it's actually going to be required a change. Um so if that were to be the case, we just want to make sure that that's open because some of the language is still be the same what's in the agreement. It doesn't really change. Um really the biggest thing is just computer lane is listed in there and then um it would just be swapping out the exhibit A of a new plan. So some of the lawyers have been talking of whether or not that's is actually going to be required. But we are fine if it is required. The county determines it's required. We will abide by the FMDP and have it approved.

Okay. Um number 30 um per subdivision regulations the block lengths not exceeding 1600 ft. This was actually a waiver request of ours and it's in the waiver chart on the plan. Um so we do not want that to be a condition of approval. We have one area where I believe it's about 1,800 and that's because we're avoiding the wetlands and the streams. And what number was that? Uh that's 30. What phase is that in? And we specifically requested a waiver from that requirement. It's phase four. Yeah. Northwest corner.

The pointer. Okay. Um and then condition number 38 which is the requirement to post for the Meadows Boulevard. We would like to extend this to the 200 CO which gets us into um the middle of phase two and that's because we have the three access points at that time. Um so we would like to post that if possible a little bit later at the 200C. Okay, that is it.

Okay. Um I guess my first question if y'all don't mind me jumping in. Um, first question, the interlocal agreement is the, so I know you said the language isn't necessarily changing, but is the interlocal agreement tied in any sort of way to uh the crossing being done in a number amount of homes? No, it's just it's just hey, y'all can do this. I go ahead. Your local agreement just outlines the jurisdiction of the roads that you guys will take, the city of Gallatin will take once on complete completion of the construction and once you permit uh lots off of that road. Okay.

Can we have your name please? Patel.

So ultimately like you're like you're saying it would be the the replacement of the exhibit A that shows the overall plan for the development as referenced. Okay. Um, uh, you brought up, uh, number 20, which I guess is technically tied to number, uh, 38 as well, but number 20. So, y'all, y'all would widen Cobb's Lane. Let me backtrack a little bit. Question for engineering and planning. The original plan we had showed that the crossing across the CSX railroad was to be made at what? CO.

So, it was prior um to the start of phase two. Okay. And the previous plan uh the previous plan had uh 73 homes in phase one. Okay. So, um it was supposed to be done, my understanding is at 70.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so what we I guess what we have instead is more of a phased approach which ideally provides more access than just hey give me the connection across the CSX railroad. Is that my understanding roughly? And ultimately what we have what we have now is uh improvements and tie-ins to hold on let me get to it. Gibbs Lane prior to the 31st house being the 31st building permit being pulled in phase one. The widening of Gibbs Lane occurs from the tie-in point all the way to Dobins Pike. Okay. And then, so I understand it correctly, once you get into phase two, the um the Cobbs lane is widened from the tie-in point to the project all the way to old highway 109 with obviously we discussed the CSX right away and I completely understand how difficult it is to work with CSX. Um, okay. And then at this point, which I I know is probably written, how many homes are in lot one or in phase one and how many homes are in phase two?

Phase one is 88 and phase two is 219 lots and 67 town homes. Okay. So, 88. Okay. So, you're looking at roughly 115 lots before you've got to make um roughly 115 lots. 118

118 before you get to this the second or technically the third access point onto Cobbs Lane. And then it would be an additional 70 something lots. No, 82 lots before you would y'all are asking for it to cross CSX with the aerial or the over the bridge. Okay. So that's for the shy. That's for the you're asking for and then the actual crossing would occur 31st lot in phase three. 31st for the crossing. It's just the shy bone would be posted at 200th co instead of the first phase. Okay.

Because we would have three different accesses that would service under 200 lots. Yes.

Hands down. Question I have is I'm not sure how we would monitor when they're at their 31st I'm sorry when they're at that 200th permit. Um, wouldn't that be pretty easy? Maybe. If it's not documented, that should be documented.

I don't mean to be facitious, but that should be documented heavily. I I know it would be an easy enough thing to figure out, but when you get a stack of permits in Understood, we don't know unless you're monitoring it very closely.

Is there I mean, is there not a does the CSS portal not keep track of that? Would it not be X project number, X permit number? It's not going to tell you. I'm I don't think it'll tell you that it's the 200th one in in this development. We'd have to count them up. Okay. It's okay. It's not an issue. Okay.

We'll we'll figure it out. Regardless what where I was going with this is in my opinion and I know we haven't finalized discussion yet on the 200C or the 31st lot in phase three um but in my opinion this provides a much better avenue not only for this provides much better avenue for connection for the city itself in my opinion than just holding someone to uh a crossing at 78 lots. I that's that's my opinion. I I think that the fact that this provides access is the is the access to Gibbs full access or is it just emergency full access to Gibbs?

Full access and then it would also be full access to cops. It's obviously I mean it's an atgrade crossing across CSX but that that at grade crossing is um is gated correct like when a train's coming. Are there arms? No.

Are there lights? It's spend a minute something out there. I think there are there's no arms. Okay.

Hands down, this plan is an improvement over the other plant connecting to 109 proper, not old 109, the little narrow road. So, I'm excited to see this. My only concern is that the goalpost is moving. Um, what was the threshold? How far could they get into this development before they had the crossing under the previous plan over CSX? 73. 73 total homes. Yes. And so now what I think I'm hearing is that um they can keep building up to how many homes before they have the crossing? What's the total? But that was because there wasn't any other option. Yeah. They weren't going to do the other two C the other two connections

that these these other connections weren't on the table, right? We're having quite a bit more connections. Okay. There at the entries and then also just the amount of other improvements that we are doing in the boulevard that my fear my fear is that you get into phase two or in into phase three and then the economy turns and the crossing never happens. Just want to make absolutely sure the fly crossing happens. Oh, I think I think what there but the shirt you're wanting to push that to where to phase two 200. That's not that much. 200 73 up to 200.

Yeah. So they could they could after the 31st home in phase 2, which we already said was was roughly 118 homes. 118. Oh, okay. I just heard her say 200. After the after the 31st home in phase two, 118 homes is when the technically development at that point would have three access points to the development. Yeah. Connect out to Dobins Pike down to Gibbs Lane and Cobb's lane. Yes. Can anybody bring up that plan? Do you mind moving to that plan?

Are we new? Yeah. Take a highlighter and just point out these three. I think I know them, but No computer lane and no

connecting here. Cops is connecting. That would be the third. That'd be the fourth. Fourth lane. The main entry off Dobbins Pike. Lane's no longer a connection.

Okay. And the connection now moves to the north to that area where it'll connect into 109 up above. Essentially, I think my what I'm getting at is you've got at 118 homes, you've got three access points to the development and then they can go another 82 homes before they have to post assurity for the crossing which At that point, you have 200 homes. Say, say they stop there and they don't want to post a shy. You've got 200 homes with redundant access throughout the development that has three access points, which from a fire access standpoint is pretty good.

Better off in a lot of places. I think 200's pretty acceptable. And so what's 200 out of a total number? How many total lots? 800. And okay, so it's like 25%. Yes. You can't go further than 25% before you posted a short to make sure that the crossing happens. Correct. But then they're asking for I guess the condition that's that's written in this in the um resolution is that the crossing be made prior to the 31st building permit within phase three, which is a total of four the halfway point of the development. And how far can you get into this development before you know for sure CSX says final answer

the 200? Yes. They wouldn't I don't see them posting the shy before correct CSX says yes. Okay. So worst case scenario is CSX says no. We've got a development with 200 homes and three access points. Yes. Okay. And redundant access through the site which is 25% of the total. Correct. Okay. That puts it into perspective. Now, I think we talked about this during the the work session, but y'all engage CSX. You've had an initial meeting. You'll have someone assigned to the project. Okay. All right. That alone is a feat.

Um, I can't make a motion because I can't I couldn't write fast enough. I think well there was one about the the unit counts. Um percentages. Um I I'll do the easy one. Go ahead.

That just because I I'm the one who sort of orchestrated the how that was written. Um, I I'm just trying to make sure that this development provides enough of a diversity of lot sizes, which in turn then gives you a better chance at diversity of home types. Um, so if you don't somehow require something, um, and if it's just left up to the market, then the market's going to ask for the smallest lot size they can possibly get every time. And, um, I don't think you want to rely on um, outside decisions on that. You want to have your own version of that. um you know, you want to maybe tweak the numbers so that it uh it seems to mesh a little bit better with what they're saying. If if you know, 20% seems too strong, um on the 80 foot wide, you know, drop that down a little bit. But, um I just think you need to have something if you want to massage that. That's that's up to you. I I put it in there as a as a way to kind of start that discussion though.

It's obvious. I Yeah, I understood. I mean, my this is more of a question, right? Y'all said that there was a it a we average 60 foot lots right now. But I almost feel like we've got to have the lot width figured out at the PMDP level in order to understand the density that we're requesting.

I believe that uh there's some variation in lot sizes that we can do to achieve higher lot sizes. Um the challenge that we're facing is on the north side of the property we have the uh electric easement.

Yeah. on the um west side we have the CSX. So it leaves us a very little window to have some of those larger lots because those are your higherend higher price lots. So we could we commit to a like a percentage but I don't know if 20% is achievable. Obviously, we would we would prefer to to get to that number if the market calls for it, but uh um I I would I would like a lower percentage if you're open to that discussion. Is the is the electrical easement on the north side still um a viable thing based on whatever GDE is asking for?

Regardless, there would be TVA easements on the north side. So still there would be an an electrical easement there. So if GDE goes in the boulevard then we have a bigger problem because then more homes are exposed to uh the electrical lines. Is GDE underground? No. They're asking for above ground big towers something. Oh down the court down the boulevard. Down the boulevard. Oh,

I talked to him last week asking about could it be where the dist where the transmission lines go, but then we got off on other stuff. So, they're aware that we don't think that that is a great look. Hold on. So, in and putting that through, don't they require all their stuff to be underground? Not for big transmission lines. They can be underground at a veryensive time price undertaking to put the big ones under underground.

These are the ones that are going to be coming out of that substation. So they're much larger. Um and we prefer to group them with the TVA lines on the north side. So they're kind of all How much how much easement does TVA need and how much easement does GDE need? The TVA I believe is 50 questions. Whether they can coexist like could distribution go lines go under transmission lines is the question or next to them or yeah they would still be separate. I don't think they'd be in the same easement. I'm not sure if they could coexist in that manner but um it it wasn't a concern that they wouldn't coexist. Hm. Am

I understanding correctly that this beautiful winding boulevard is going to have transfer lines overhead? Well, no. That's what they don't want. Oh, I know they don't. I'm just making sure I understand. Pushing for it to go on the north side. Welcome to go back to GDE and share your thoughts.

I mean, I I mentioned this in the in the work session. I mean, outside of lot width, the vast majority of these homes are all backing up to open space. So, from a quality quality of life standpoint, I'd say over 50% of them back up to open space and don't back up to another home because of how they've drawn the plan, which I mean leads me to I guess y'all brought up condition number 30 about the block length and uh Drew, I think you mentioned it was in the northwest corner where it kind of like meanders and then loops back around. I mean, my interpretation of the code on block length is so you don't have rows of homes lining both sides of the streets before you have another connection. Am I misinterpreting that? Because what this is is you've got breaks and you've got you've got an amenity. You've got a break of of a stream crossing. You've got I mean other things that are breaking up the monotony of there just being home after home after home along this path.

That's exactly why we requested the waiver. I think another thing with with that is is to avoid you know long straight stretches where you know could become a speedway. Um, so you know, at the at the FMDP, we I think we have a condition on there of um implementing some traffic calming measures, and I think some I'm fine with that detail to to that um could could work. Okay. Like midblock crossings that are raised. We're available to that.

Okay. There other questions, comments from the commission. You got it. I think that people going to get a lot sharper here. Okay. Okay. I will I'm I'm gonna attempt a motion. uh playing an all night or

Yeah, like John mentioned, I've mentioned, I think that putting these two plans next to each other is just I mean it this one's a far better plan. I think the connectivity is far better planned. I think the route that staff has laid out in their conditions from a standpoint of um uh when these these widening projects come online makes sense. Refresh my memory on number um 38. Y'all are requesting for 38 to go from beyond phase one to the 200 CO. Yes. Correct. Hey,

we still have to vote on it. Yeah, major amendment. Yeah, this is a major amendment. Yeah, I think it's gone. Um, it's a reason, right? Yeah. I mean, we can vote on it. You want us to vote on it? It's already a reason. It shouldn't be an issue. Thank you, Albert, for the reminder. Um, condition number 22. Would you be open to 10%. Yeah.

Yes. Okay. Bear with me. Okay. All right. In the previous approved project, at what point did it trigger the shity put in place for the crossing? Wasn't one. Wasn't one. Oh, that's right. Because it was just this only only second access. I mean, the fact that they have these extra access points, I mean, means the world of difference to me. And you're wanting to move the

shity trigger point to 31st house in phase two. No, they're asking for the 200th lot. 200th lot. You got You've got redundant access. Nobody's tracking. Well, right now you get the second access at what was it? 70 or 30 or something. 70 and then the shy on the other. You've got two got three accesses for 200 homes and then for the 21st I think you have to put the shity down. Yes. So like you said before, so we're talking about 25%. It can't go any further than that without that.

Well, here's here's the thing. This this allows them I mean if if they don't have the the shity if they don't have the coordination with CSX figured out by the 20st lot they they physically can't post a shity. So and if they are posting a shy at that point then that means there's a clear there's a path forward um and they're not going to post a shy unless they feel very comfortable that they're going to get the crossing. them posting a shorty at the 200 lot is assurance enough that the yes it's going to get built. So okay.

All right. Uh I will make a motion to approve with staff's conditions except I would like to let me go to I would like to amend condition 20. Just say it's going to hold on let me read through it. I think it was the 18 foot. Yes. So it's the 20 ft shall be completed prior to issuance of building permit for 31st lot. So keep that sentence next sentence or or comma however um excluding the CSX right away. Excluding the CSX rightway. Yes.

Okay. So that's my fir that's the first condition. Next we'll go to condition number 22. We're going to amend it from uh no residential lot shall be less than 50 foot wide. Um no more than 40% of the lot shall be less than 60 and at least 10% of the lots shall be at least 80 foot wide. A breakdown of the lots and their witch shall be provided on the updated PMDP. Got that Marian? Uh, next we will go to item number 27. Um, layout as shown will require a revision to the current interlocal agreement with Sumary County prior to final PMDP approval. A new interlocal agreement will need to be executed if required.

Yes. FMDP. FMDP. do that. Should we add if required by Sar County? Yeah. If required by Sar County, I'm fine with that. If required by SER County, add FNDP. So,

but but me stating me stating in the so layout as shown will require revision to the current local agreement with summer county prior to final PMDP approval which is you have to submit that before you submit your FMDP anyways a new inter are y'all asking for it to be prior to FMDP I it's kind of six one way half a dozen another I okay um I'm okay with that because it really doesn't it doesn't matter. Prior to prior to FMDP approval, a new interlocal agreement will need to be executed with Sar County if required.

Next, we're going to go to item number 30. Condition 30. We will strike condition 30. It's a standard thing we do. Uh,

okay. Let me go. It's your motion. Let me finish this and then we'll go to discussion. Let me finish this and we'll go to discussion and then um condition number 38. Add a note any development beyond the 200 Theo shall be required to post shity for Meadows Boulevard construction from East Camp Creek stream crossing to highway 109 connection

fire to post shity for Meadows Boulevard construction from East Camp Creek stream crossing to highway 109 connection. Do you want that to be CO or permit? Oh, prior to prior to the 201st building permit. Yes. Prior to the 21st building permit. Thanks, Brian. That's my motion. Well, I'll second the motion so we can have a discussion. Thank you. Um,

yeah, I'll kick off discussion. I agree with everything about your motion and all the points. I don't agree with reducing it to 10 only 10% of them 80 ft wide. I thought Brian put in a good figure, 20% of them 80t wide because he's allowing 40% of them to be less than 60 ft wide. So, he's trying to come up with an average. I'm not about to vote against the whole motion just because I disagree with two minor points there, but I'm just telling you for discussion purposes. I felt like it should have been should have stayed at 20%. And I don't understand why we're striking the 1600 foot block uh length. That's been a standard that we've applied to so many other developments. Is that not part of our sub reg codes?

Okay. So, I mean, question for engineering. I mean the and staff really I mean the way I interpret this this code this subdivision regulation code it it is in reference to monotony along a street you don't in this particular situation you don't have that it's around a curve you're not going straight and it's you're the homes are broken up with open space and amenity sections Yeah, if I could just say we're compliant of this everywhere else in the development except that northwest corner and the reason that we're not is we're avoiding wetlands and streams to come around that.

I mean unless and sorry to catch you off Drew. Unless there's another way to reward this where what they have drawn is allowed. I mean, I I I I think they very much meet the intent. Yes. I think and and the the block is broken up with some open space that comes in. So, your sections of homes aren't that long. Correct.

You know, you do block break it up that way. So, but it's tough because you can't plop in a a street connection easily into that area. Um, you're kind of restricted with the lot size. I think Miss Patel said that she wanted to be able to meet that, just did not know based on the limitations created by the other circumstances. The 20%. Oh, yeah. Yeah. making she didn't know she could get to the 20% and so she asked for a lower number in case which is why my initial motion was for 10%. I wasn't removing it.

Well, like I said, I wouldn't vote against this motion in a second just based on those two. I was just expressing those two things and I would have worded differently. I need further disc I need further discussion on the on the block length. I mean, I'm I'm okay with leaving the condition in there. However, I I need wording that allows them to do what they're doing because I I believe what they're doing meets the intent subdivision an exception for

the literal code. It it doesn't really give you that. That's why we're asking for a waiver. And then if you think about it, 5 10 years down the road, we've all had this conversation what the intent is, but someone else reviewing the plans. If we don't have the actual waiver, it could become an issue later when we get to that phase because it is the final phase. Let me ask let me ask this for staff. Was this a variance request on their cover? Yes. Of their plans. It is on the sheet

list of requests. But what would we normally do if you could instead of um taking out condition number 30? You could replace it with waiver granted for the northwest corner on the subdivision regulations section 4-102.4 block lengths. I like that. Yeah, I'd like that better than just striking it. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay, I will amend my motion to state everything I said before. Like whereas there's if there's breakup due to stream

I think we just say waiver northwest corner. Okay, but leave the other language. Yep. Okay. So, I'm going to amend my motion except amending condition 30 to keep the language and after the first period, but a waiver is granted at the northwest portion of the of the project due to the incorporation of breaks between the homes. And then that revision needs a second and we have to vote on it. Second. I'll second. Okay. So John sec John seconded it. So all those in favor of that amendment say I.

I. All those opposed. Okay. So now we have a motion with that's been amended and seconded by Mike. Any other discussion? Okay, seeing none, I will go I will call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those posted. Cool. Pass. All right. Item number 20. We are going to go. Okay.

Yes. The owner applicant request approval for an FMDP of the station camp master infrastructure plan. It's located north of Highway 386 west of Big Station Camp Boulevard. Um it's 83 acres plus minus and the property is zone R10 PRD MUN PGC. Note this property does contain 76 single family detached lots, 48 town homes, 300 apartments, 178 senior living, some commercial lots. The request for the station camp um infrastructure uh plan is uh will include the public streets, the rideway dedications, and the greenway, which is on the northwest um side of this development uh which is neighboring the Wellington apartments. Okay, get over here. Um, the revised traffic uh study plan was um accepted by engineering plan uh department. Sorry. Up for discussion. Uh is the applicant is requesting removal of the sidewalk requirement on road E which is connecting to the lower station Camp Creek Road which you see below. Um and they are just so the public roads require five foot set uh five foot sidewalks and a five foot grass. So the applicant is requesting to remove that on the very bottom uh souththeast side. Um, and there's also going to be a a minor amendment to the um change for clarification on condition number five regarding the flood plane to read uh no development within the flood plane on this property. Um, other than that, I believe Aaron with engineering will go in further with that.

Okay, Aaron. Um, so just a few minor things. We we do have construction plans on on this. So, a lot of our more detailed comments would be handled under that review. Um, as Kimberly mentioned, if you don't mind going to the conditions page, um, just for for clarification, number five, right now says no development on this property shall occur prior to a flood plane permit. And we are asking that that be amended to no development within the flood plane on this property shall occur prior to the issuance of flood plane development permit, but keep the rest of the language. So, we just wanted to add that that in. Um, traffic impact studies approved. Um, they'll need to reflect a few changes from that approval, but that's all I've got.

Okay. Uh, there's no public comment on this. Is there a member from the applicant present? Jason Warlock, former Lucas Engineering. Um, just procedurally I wanted to ask the we have been told the variance for the sidewalk would be heard with the plat, which I'm fine to discuss it now. Um, however you guys prefer.

I'm fine to talk about it now. So, is is this is this a condition of the master plan or is this a condition of the plat or both? both. So, okay. Uh, and this is uh refresh my memory, but this is um what is asking what what are you asking to be removed? Is it sidewalks along the entirety of lower station camp or is it just a portion? No, it's the if can we go back to the overall plan? Okay. the far souththeastern corner there's a road connection to lower station Camp Creek Road.

Uh that sidewalk would go down into flood plane to a road with no sidewalk. We have sidewalk continuously to serve the single family portion and we're also extending greenway over to the schools that will go over through the signalized intersection to McCain station. So we feel like we have good pedestrian connectivity and that sidewalk really would not serve a purpose. We understand the subregs require it and that's why we're here asking for that variance. Where does the uh engineering where does the greenway end on lower station? It ends in

Yes. So I believe where it they are tying into Wellington Farms which has kind of a an arm from the from the Greenway Trail. Okay. And then they have a shared use path through their development that goes up to big station camp along road B up to station camp at the high point access and provine. Okay.

Big station. But the the greenway was never supposed to extend further down lower station camp to uh I guess lower station camp would tie into where Rogers group is. That was never the intent, was it? I'd have to look at the active the summer county active transportation plan where that is. Okay. Did you have any other questions or

No, we agree with every other condition. It was really We're good with condition five as it was read as it would be amended. I must be missing it. What condition is the side is related to the sidewalk down to lower station camp?

It is it's not that's why I asked. It's not in this FMDP. It's a flat. Okay. that that's why I asked before I went through it. But it does show on this plan. We got to approve this first. Is that public road E?

What's that? Is that public road E? Of course, there's no sidewalk along Earth station Camp Creek Road. It's all in flood plane and floodway. Um there's just really nothing down there but the road itself. the road at grade. Sorry. Is the is the proposed road at grade?

Uh the greatest possible, but not a whole lot. Uh there's a driveway in the southeast corner and we're coming in at the same point of as where that driveway is now. The road will definitely be over what would be a 88 grade. It probably will be closer to like 8 to 10% grade just to get up out of the flood plane and get up to the grade of the road

for the single family because we have to get all that out of the flood plane. Yeah. And all that's going to be factored into your flood study. Maybe I can help expedite some things. Yes.

So section 4-102.903 of the subreg says that any road sidewalks are required on whether that's residential, mixeduse or commercial subdivision streets, sidewalks have to be on both sides of the street. So with the plat I think what they can do is they can add a note when they revise it. Uh this body will have to vote on it but it will be the same kind of a variance that you would grant for a public utility and drainage easement uh you know a 10-ft PUD on a lot line. Now, just so you know, in that same section 4-10293 section subsection 3E, it says that they can also do an alternative pedestrian plan if this body deems what that is. You have to define that. So, if that helps.

Okay. So, I I have one last question for staff. If if this was a condition on the plat, why was it not a condition on the master plan? I believe this was the first time I saw it come through for my review. So that's why it was added to the preliminary plat. So I guess my next question is is that if we approve the plat with the condition, do we then also have to add the condition to the FMVP? Probably be a good idea. So we're consistent.

I mean for discussion with the with the commission. I my opinion is to leave the condition. Is to leave it off. You're saying no leave it on. Leave it on. So, I did find um I don't know if this was changed with the active Sumar County active transportation plan, but I did find the exhibit from the um current major thfare plan with proposed bike and ped projects. And it does show um a greenway/multi-use path all the way down lower station.

Okay, that solidifies my decision. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Um, last question on the master plan. Erin, have we received I know in work session we were discussing the the traffic plan, the traffic study. We received that final copy. Have they got our recommendations? Have they agreed to the recommendations?

Yes. So the the most recent one that that we received the the last thing that we had some concerns about was the queuing coming out of the development at Provine. Okay. Um and they have added lanage in there. Basically instead of a separate left through and right, it's a left through and right and right. Okay. And they showed that that satisfied the the Q problem that we have. Okay. And you're you're good with the traffic study at that point. Okay. All right. I'm going to make a motion to approve with all of staff's conditions,

but adding a condition that states show sidewalks for public road E and amend and amend condition five to state no development within the flood plane within the flood plane shall occur prior to issuance of a flood plane development permit and keep the rest. I'll second. Okay. Discussion. All right. Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed.

Passes. Item number 21. Believe the same. Item number four. Sorry. Thank you. I just But you know what it is. I'm scared Mr. Hamilton's not going to come back. Fine. We got this. Was a doozy of a first one. That's for sure. It always is. You didn't tell me to bring my sleeping bag when I came.

So, the infrastructure of the plat is a continuation of the FMDP. Um, staff um recommends approval with the conditions. Okay. Uh member from the applicant. We're good with everything. Okay. Thank you. Uh entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. We have a motion to approve. Seconded by Albert. Uh any discussion? I'm sorry. I just my my computer got so tired it just crashed. It said sorry. An error has occurred and you're done for the night. Sweet. I'm I'm not kidding. It crashed. Okay. Uh seeing no discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I.

I. All those opposed. Passes. Thank you. Uh we will go to item I didn't touch it. Number 22, right? Two one. Oh, okay. theirs too. Station camp apartments amended preliminary master development plan and final master development plan.

Okay. Yeah. The owner applicant is requesting an amendment to the preliminary master plan development and the final development plan for station camp planned for the apartments. It's located at Highway 386 west of Big Station Camp Boulevard. It's on 14 acres and it's zone MU mixed use. The complex is seven separate apartment buildings with a total of 300 units. The amenity building with a pool and a maintenance building, a pickle ball court, and a dog park. I'll get over there for that. All right. The amendment uh includes a minor layout for the change of the buildings um and the tra with the PLA traffic flow within the complex. it does not increase or the density of the uh the original request was 300. So it does not in um increase that. Additionally, the applicant is seeks approval for an alternative architectural plans. The proposed um architectural features mixed facade of brick, stone and fiber cement siding. The masonary percentage of the building ranges from 40 to 60%. So there are two requests for that. So, the planning department recommends this as a minor amendment because they're not really changing the density and recommends the approval resolution 2026-05. This is a public comment.

Thank you. Uh Erin, is there any um additional feedback from engineering? We'll see a construction plan review on this due to the size. So, a lot of our technical review will be handled under that cover. Um as we addressed earlier, the traffic impact studies approved. Okay. So, TIS is approved. Okay. Um, is that it? Yes. Okay. Uh, at this time we'll open up a public uh public hearing for anyone wishing to speak on this item. Seeing none, we'll close public hearing and hear from the applicant. With everything on this one, too. Awesome. Motion that this be a minor amendment. I'll second that.

Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. So, it's a minor amendment. Uh any discussion or questions, comments um to the developer engineer on the plan? Did the applicant say they're in they're in agreement with all conditions? Yes. The only comment I'll make I I think it's it's great looking product.

Is it um it is a good looking product. Does it meet the 70%? No. But I think they've done a fantastic job at blending mixed materials. It is. How far off is it? Do we know? It's in the 50s. Okay. Yeah, I think it looks good. Entertain a motion. Motion to approve by Albert. Second. Second by Tanner. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Passes unanimously.

We will go to item. Believe it's 22. Yep. Go to item number 22. This is station comments master development plan renewal.

I'll be very brief so we can keep moving along here. Um this is a master development plan renewal that for a plan that expired back in 2022 for station commons. Um staff had minor comments on this. Um everything is pretty much the same as it was back when the plan was approved back then. Sample architecture. Each individual lot will have to have its own master development plan and PMDP amendment. When it comes back, this will go to city council as outlined in the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval with 14 conditions.

Thank you. Engineering. We had had several comments on on this. Um we'll be looking to get a traffic impact study for for this. It's not required at the PMDP, but we would require it to be approved before the FMDP comes to you or at least for the voting meeting. Um and this is part of the big station camp T will be responsible for that. Okay. Thank you. Uh this time we'll open up public comment. uh for those wishing to speak on this item. Seeing none, I will close the public comment and ask the applicant to come forward.

Uh good evening. Brad Snder with CSG. We've reviewed all the conditions. Uh we've got no further comments. Just out of curiosity, was there ever a traffic study submitted? There was not. Okay. Um, okay, cool. I don't have any other questions. This is very straightforward and nothing changed from the previous plan that we approved several years ago. They're just asking for renewal. Make a motion. Motion to approve. Approve with 13 conditions. Yeah. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Mike seconded. Any discussion? John, you have any questions? Nope.

Okay. Seeing no further discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I I All those opposed passes. Thanks, Brad. Next, we have item number 23. Free Indeed Fellowship Church sign alternative cycling or sign plan. Brad,

the Free Indeed Fellowship is seeking an alternative sign plan. Um, you can see their new sign here. Um they did make an effort from work session to make the digital just 50% of the sign. Unfortunately the address bar does not count towards sign face. It's just a building marker. So the digital portion is 61% instead of 50. Um here's the sign it would be replacing. Uh we have some distances here from the sign to nearby residences. Uh code says a digital sign needs to be 250 ft away. You see around 150 here, 170, 150 here. So, they're seeking an exception to the sign digital sign face percentage and the distance to nearby residences. Thank you.

You uh is there a member present from the applicant? I do not see my applicant here. Um there were so many people here before. I don't know if they were ever here. Okay. They might have gave up. Quick question. What's the zoning across the street? Uh the zoning across the street I believe is R8. Okay. But it's residential. Yes, sir. Okay. Um Okay. My opinion is this a is this is a beautifification project for the corridor. Therefore, I will recommend I will make a motion to approve. Second. Second. Any discussion? John,

I know we're getting tired and we're rushing through. At work study, we talked about the percentage that it was digital. Has it come into compliance or is it still the same as it was at at work study? It is uh more compliant, but it is not completely compliant because of they calculated the address bar in and that would have made it 49% of the sign, but addresses do not count toward a sign face. Ah um what's the threshold supposed to be for the digital part? 50%. It's at 61 right now. No, I don't have any questions. It's it's it's it's an improvement.

Okay. Any other comments? Uh so we have a motion in a second. Um I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed passes. We will go to item number 24. Lillian's Brightar Academy site plan. Brad,

uh, the owner and applicant request approval of a site plan for Lillian's Brightar Academy consisting of a 1500 foot building on 1.5 acres, a zone CS, commercial services district located at 225 Nichols Lane. Um, they will be seeking alternative buffer yards on the front where they do have some vegetation there. um down the sides where they have some sparse vegetation, but a chain link fence. Um we do need an ADA parking sign added to the site and a sidewalk is required here as well. Uh the plane department recommends approval with the following six conditions.

Okay. And the applicant is here. Okay. Engineer, nothing further to add other than the sidewalk. Okay. Uh, is there a member from the applicant present?

Alson Turner with Greenwood Design. I'm here with the applicant. Um, our only concern would be the sidewalk. It's a significant expense for this site. Um, it's a going to be at least a minimum of $10,000. And for Miss High, that's a significant expense. She's trying to start a child care facility which will target lower income kids. This isn't um, you know, this isn't some of the fancier child care that we've had. This fits a need that we have in the city desperately. And this extra $10,000 on this site is significant. uh mitigating factors on that we would like to propose is that it will not connect to the sidewalk at the racetrack and um Gallatin department of electricity has uh they did a renovation on their site just up the road and they did not add sidewalks to it on Nichols Lane. Um we'd asked for a little grace on this one. It's just it's just that much added extra um that for this site is problematic for the use that we're doing here. She's I mean they're making improvements to the building in order to do child care, but not necessarily. I mean, this is an existing site. It's been here for years and I know that that's what we're trying to do is bring these sidewalks into compliance, but this has some mitigating circumstances that I'd like you to consider. And Miss High is here to ask answer any questions if you have any.

Okay. Comments, questions from the commission. Um question when you said it wouldn't connect to racetrack. Why is that? Did Racetrack not take theirs to the property line? There's a property in between there which is so there there will not be a connection there until something occurs on that property racetrack on that too. No. Oh maybe they do. I think it's a little confusing in there. No, I I remember that. That's the property that we had a lot of contention over. um

over the trailers. Yeah. And it's actually owned by the same property owner as the one owns this property. This Yeah, it shows up. They split the property. Well, I just the property split. Sorry. When was the property split? Uh that goes back to racetrack and there's some It's a little messy. Uh we believe the property owner went through the county and split it by deed instead of going through us and subdividing. It's an ongoing issue.

These are less than five acres. Yes. How did that happen? do it by deed with the county and it doesn't we we didn't catch wind of it. So, wasn't it not in the city or something at before? No, it's been in the city quite some time. Did they just record it to you or did the county approve it? Did you got to have more than five acres to do that? This is part of the mystery. We're not sure exactly what's happened here.

Okay. regardless they don't have a sidewalk. We have no way to force them to have a sidewalk that but we will enforce that CS property that's sitting in between. We will enforce them to have a sidewalk when they come and do something with this property. And as I think that's the issue is it's not it's like a gully or something. It's not developable or No, it I'm pretty sure they can do something with that piece. It's just what they were wanting to do with it prior that they were asking for approval for. They they couldn't do it because they needed access to 109 and they couldn't get joint access from racetrack or the liquor store. I mean I I this and we warned them about that when they split the property. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean this is but that's a that's a separate property from what we're talking about. Yeah. the property she has before us. I feel for him that's a school. It's a great cause. But this is a situation where there's a sidewalk across the street. There's a sidewalk over here at racetrack. There will be we will make them put a sidewalk on that CS property that's uh intervening between the two. But and and then you the school doesn't own the prop doesn't own the property. No, they do not.

So I mean this is this is another because we've we've dealt with this before. This is another issue where the proposed tenant in the space is asking for something that technically is should be a a joint effort between the tenant and the property owner. I mean the property owner wants the wants the tenant but they have to go through the formal process of updating their site plan. I mean the thing is is that with the updated site plan, should there not have been additional measures asked for through landscape buffers through I mean

as I mentioned they're asking for alternative landscape buffers around the front and the sides. There is a, as you can see, a substantial natural. Yeah, of course. Rare,

of course. But I mean, my my thing is is that that if we're we're now we're now sitting here asking and look, I get these site plans can be case by case, but at the end of the day, we're we're potentially granting variances that wave all requirements of the site plan process. We're we should also be granting a a waiver. I know they're asking for an alternative for landscaping, but where where's the landscaping on the plan?

This is also where I get so conflicted because we don't we know this likely is the long long term use. Are those new trees? No, those are existing. They just highlighted them to indicate that there are trees there. But that's what I'm saying. I mean, you've got all like what I'm saying is the the actual landscape buffer that's required with site planals is more extensive than that. And in my in my opinion,

I agree. They're asking for an alternative and it's up to this body if they want to grant that or But I guess I guess what I'm saying is if we're going to grant waivers, I I don't think it's it's prudent for us to grant all the waivers because again, this is this goes back to okay, this should be a a discussion between the tenant and the property owner, not us to wave sidewalk that should theoretically be there. Obviously, we've made errors in the past, but us granting the waiver on the landscape, we we just saved the property owner and the the tenant thou more thousands of dollars than just the sidewalk. I the landscape the landscape buffer alone would cost way more than the sidewalk. All right.

What was the use of this before this applicant? uh construction sales and service. It was a roofing company and prior to that they sold little utility trailers. It's how big a building also I think. So is it the change of use that's triggering?

Correct. I mean the the thing is is that if if it changes in the future then they would have to come back through with another change of use site plan and we would have to deal with it then. I think at some point you are going to see a change of use because that's a big piece of property with a small building. And I mean, I totally get what we're doing, but it also feels contrary to the needs of the moment, especially when it's relevant to income adjusted child care. Tanner, if if we waved it and the site next door came online and we required them to tie to the sidewalk at racetrack,

they'd be pissed. Well, there's a better way to say that but would that be would that be allowed? Could you make the sidewalk have to happen when the one next door does? Is there some way to Because it sound like only by putting money into a sidewalk fund. May I speak for just a minute? Yes, ma'am.

The property on both sides is vacant. It's the same owner's property, and I guarantee you she is not going to develop anything in the future, dist far future, probably distant future. Uh, so by the time somebody actually develops those two properties on on the both sides, that sidewalk will weather and erode and it would be gone anyway, just like the speaker said at the beginning of the meeting. That's the lady behind you. Oh. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So, it would be just useless, I think, to put it there. Could you state your name, please? Lillian H.

Miss, you've already put some money into this building, too, right? It is likely that those lots would all be developed together for something. Agreed. Sand is there not a avenue where the property owner should be placing a shity for the sidewalk that's not going to be improved at this point. Yeah. What if we have him do that? I I mean I don't think we can pick between the tenant and the land owner on who pays for that. I think that's got to be between them. Yeah.

And what I'm saying is can we just ask for assurityity for that and let that be? I mean we don't say that. I mean that's a great question because that's one of the questions that I I had meant to ask ask earlier when we were going through the residential project is we don't have a payment in lie of but we've got a shity a site plan shity that's posted and if they decide if they no just in in the general process we have for development is you are you are required to post a site shity that covers the public infrastructure you're putting into the plan and if you don't decide to put it in then your shy is held. Now, it it still ties up money. Like that charity is not just like free cash. It's a letter of credit. It's a cash bond. It's a

It is. Couldn't it turn around if she then sold that property to develop all three together? Couldn't that be a What I heard Tanner say though is that it's not the property owner that's that we we can't make the property owner put up the shy. We're making a daycare. Is that right? uh put up a shity that they need for construction paper, not construction materials. But I mean, in a sense, we're we're requiring the property owner to do it. Yeah. I mean, do we delineate the project that we have do it. We don't care who it comes from. We don't care who does it as long as it gets done or the shy gets there. We don't know. And

I mean, maybe the property owner doesn't want to do it. I mean I there's that too, but I mean theoretically the the application was on the property owner's behalf. In theory, if something like this got approved and a different party came in to do the same use, they would then be responsible for building the sidewalk. We don't care who builds it, right? part of the plan and the plan goes with the land. And we don't care who gives us the shity. Nope. Huh? We don't care if it's the applicant or the owner who gives us the shity either as long as we receive it.

So, could we ask for a shy on it and not do the sidewalk and then it's transferable? Yes. Um, it's still a discussion they're going to have to have. At some point the city would have to decide if we want to call the shity. If it if if the planning commission doesn't extend that shity, then we would have to then decide to call it and build it ourselves. So either way, it's a requirement. It would feel really silly for us to build a sidewalk and and likely likely the applicant or whoever they may hire would probably be doing the work cheaper than the city could do it for. Yes.

So, it's probably more cost efficient for the applicant to do it themselves. We have done something where we have had the sidewalk not have to appear until the adjoining. I I don't know the terms, but the sidewalk didn't have to happen until the adjoining pieces happened. We've done that somewhere. The only way they would have been able to do that was through a bond or a shity that the city has to has to hold, has to manage and has to manage. Did I understand the applicant say that uh the same property owner that owns this building owns the pieces of property both to the right and the left of it?

Yes. uh we all know what's going to happen is is wait until the right time to sell and then this building's going to go away and all three properties are going to get developed and at that time it would at that time they'd have to put in sidewalks. But I still feel like we're we're giving a preferential treatment that somebody else can if we don't make them do the sidewalk on this somebody's going to say, "Well, why did you pick winners and losers? Why did you?" And ultimately at that point the only person put the sidewalk in is the city. Unless someone else agree unless a master plan agrees to putting it in. Well, that's what's I understand this is only I understand we're talking about 100 foot of sidewalk. I I get it. And we're But

there's another option though where that this property doesn't get sold along with those other two and then you have a gap in this in the sidewalk if you're only dealing with those two being developed and this one we didn't require it, which is the the dilemma we're in.

Very unlikely. very but I'll entertain emotion. We've got six conditions. They got to change the name. They got to install ADA parking sign. Condition three is the sidewalk. I'm sorry, ma'am. Um, I make a motion that we approve with all six conditions.

I will second for discussion if there is any more. Does that eliminate the possibility of her getting a Cherokee instead? Like we're actually making her build the sidewalk. No, I mean there um she So here's what's going to happen. Tanner, see condition five. A site shity in the form of cash certified check or a letter of credit shall be submitted to the planning department prior to issuance of a building permit. That site shity would include the cost of putting the sidewalk in.

Okay. And if they if they didn't want to put the sidewalk in, then what happens at the tail end of the project is when they go to I guess request a reduction in their shity for the stuff that has been installed, what would remain is the cost to put the sidewalk in. Got it. And probably some additional funds. Okay. So she doesn't have to build the sidewalk now even though the condition says a sixoot sidewalk. Yeah. Because what allows her to get her building permit into open business is the shy being in place. Now that shy has to be renewed as items get executed, but it wouldn't hold up her co. No, because the shy would be in place. Okay.

But again, this is a discussion that they're going to have to have with the property owner because it's either going to be them putting the letter of credit up or slash a joint effort. Someone has to put shy up. I'm good with that. Any other discussion? I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed.

Okay. Thank you. Item 25. The Hudson Habitat for Humanity Examiner Court final master development plan. Who's the planner on this one? I'm sorry, J. We're coming up on hour six. I've got to take a break. Okay. Uh Jim, one second. Um do we still have a quum? We're going to keep going. Move forward.

Appreciate it. Uh definitely past my bedtime. Um this uh the honor applicant requests approval of a final master development plan for the Hudson uh formerly known as Habitat for Humanity Examiner Court on 66 acres zone MRO multiple residential office zone district located south to a popular drive and west of Sumar Hall. Um the FMDP is substantially uh consistent with the PMDP for this project. Um um very similar architecture um very similar plans. Um the main thing that staff wants to uh remind the applicant of is that since this will be at HPR, uh we'll need that documentation uh when the plaque comes in for this. Um and staff recommends approval of resolution number 2026-028 with 26 conditions.

Okay. Uh is there uh engineering anything? So we won't have an ECP on this. So a lot of our comments are storm water related to drainage and uh grading and things of of that nature. That's why there's more comments on this because we won't have an ECP. Okay, that makes sense. Uh, is there a member from the applicant present?

I think she's out there talking to the previous applicant. We agree with all staff comments. We're here to answer any questions. Okay. I mean, this seems very straightforward. I think we discussed everything at work session, so I don't I don't necessarily have anything anything else a motion. You've waited a long time. I I respect it. Staff just shoved me up here. So, I'll make a motion to approve with all 26 conditions. We went through this at the planning session. Yeah. Motion to approve. Who's seconded by Albert? Uh, any other discussion? Yes, ma'am. Um, we may have an alternative on our fire access, just to let you know. Okay.

I don't know if that changes anything with you, but we may flip the parking to the other side and have a fire aisle on against the buildings. I don't know if we would have to come back for that, but that would be working through fire marshall to determine where we need to go with that. So, we're just trying to satisfy them. We're working with them to make sure that happens. Is that just because of uh uh not having uh obstructions between the fire access and the actual building itself? Yes. Okay. I mean, it really doesn't change the intent of the project at all. Okay, cool.

This is to avoid trying to do sprinkler systems in these Yeah. individual Yeah. Well,

Jim, what was that? Nothing. Okay. You agree to all have comments? Okay. All right. We have a motion of approval and a second. Um, seeing no further discussion, I will call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Passes. All right. Last item.

Yay. I'll make it quick. Okay. The owner applicant request approval for FMDP for the Twin Eagles phase 15B section 4 and five. It's located north of Highway 25 east of Douglas Lane. 39 single family residential lots. It's on 13 acres. It's zone MU mixeduse development. There are minor corrections to the uh plot uh or excuse me the FMDP but uh it is consistent with the FMDP. So planning commission um re or excuse me planning department recommends approval of resolution 2026-029 with 22 conditions. Okay. uh engineering

we will have an ECP on on this some of the technical details will be in that and then we are having the same condition of approval regarding the dotty drive shy that we've been on the other phases we've repeated over and over okay um okay is there a member present from the applicant Alison Turner with Greenwood Design starting to get horse. We agree with staff conditions and happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay, any questions, comments. Entertain a motion. Motion by Albert conditions with all conditions. Second. Second. Only discussion I'll add is uh we've discussed this countless times about the shity. So I think we've got it figured out and all that's going to be spending on plat uh approval and recording. So um for that I I don't have any other comments or questions. Any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I.

All those opposed? Passes. Thank you. Okay. Um um other business or announcements. I have an announcement. U Mayor, do you remember 1974 when it snowed in Sar County and we were out of school for like 31 days straight and then we had to go in summer to make up for it? I really hope it never snows out another planning commission ever. This is worse than on the Saturday. Yeah. Yeah. Motion to wait. This this is the meeting where we say goodbye to Mike, right?

Yeah. So, just want to give a huge thank you to Mike for uh the time that he's given us for the past couple years on the planning commission. Tonight's his last night. Definitely went out with a doozy. Oh yeah. Um, same time Tanner came in with uh, also appreciate Tanner being here and sticking through the last 6 hours and 14 minutes. Oh my gosh. Yeah. Who's counting? Who's counting? Right. We have in in in my year. Have you ever had one this long, Mr. Per? The first one was like six hours. Very first meeting 2004. Okay. Okay. Anyway, um

it's rare.

Very very much appreciate everybody and u their patience tonight. I know we're all tired. Um just want to also remind everybody and we have maybe just a couple days left to be able to do this, but if you're interested and want to attend the TAPA conference, it's March 5th and 6th. Um you can email me or Suzanne. Um Tanner, that goes for you too. Uh Tapa is in Paris Landing this year. It's uh half day on Thursday and then a full day on Friday pretty much. Um you can do one or both days. So um just please email me. Um like I said, we only have a couple short days left before we before the registration ends. So um with that, that's all the business we have. And

thank you staff. You guys juggled a whole lot over the last couple weeks. So, thank you so much.