Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And we'll go ahead and call the Metropolitan Planning Commission May 28th meeting, 2026 meeting to order. Appreciate all the commissioners coming down and we'll get right to the agenda. And so the first is the commissioners is the adoption of the agenda. Item B is there, which was sent out earlier to everyone. Is there a motion to adopt? There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And the agenda is adopted. Next is item C, which is the approval of the May 14th, 2026 minutes. And that was also sent out to y'all prior. And so is there a motion to approve the minutes? There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it, and the minutes are adopted. Next is the item D, which is a relatively new rule for us, but we'll have Lisa, this is the public comment period before the meeting, and Lisa, do we have, I wanna make sure that, if you'll go over this one more time.

Sure. So you all updated your rules and procedures to coincide with a change to the state law that indicates that for any hearing of a public body or a legislative body, there has to be time for people to be able to speak to items that are on the agenda. Generally most items that are on the planning commission have their own public hearing that's specific to that item. And so this time that's at the beginning is really for a couple of subset of items, which is items where the public hearing has been closed or where there is not a council required public hearing. I do want to note that recent change to state law also allows for persons to speak on any item. It does not have to be on an agenda. related to any item related to the jurisdiction of the body that they are speaking before. And so it does not have to be limited. So you will likely see in the coming months, another update to the rules to reflect that update in the state law.

Thank you, Lisa. And I do believe we do not have any folks that want to comment at this particular time. All right. With that said, we are on item seeing no one wishing to speak. We're on item E, recognition of the council members. Councilman Cooper, you want to start us off?

There we go. Good to be with you all this afternoon. Thank you all, as always, for the hard work you put into keeping our city moving. Councilman Jacob Coop in District 19 here to speak about the East Bank DRC. The East Bank DRC came out as part of discussions during the East Bend sub-district creation. It is conceptually something that I was very supportive of then and continue to be very supportive of. I know that the sponsor has taken it one direction, creating a standalone DRC for the East Bank. Again, I think that fundamentally it's a good concept. I know that we have a really strong roster on our current DRC and just from a project scope and scope of work and not to duplicate efforts, I'd prefer to see it stay as one DRC. Looking at it, there's a couple of seats on there that may be specific to downtown that don't apply to the East Bank. For example, there's an urban residents association that currently is just focused on downtown, not on the East Bank. So there may be an opportunity to say if the East Bank is involved, there's a couple seats that swap out or a couple of additional people. And I know y'all are going to discuss a little bit and then defer to next meeting. So just wanted to kind of get that out on the record, get those thoughts out there. and then make sure that the representatives on there, I prefer to have them living or working on the East Bank. I checked today that River North, there's almost a thousand people already living over there. So there are some residents starting to take root in that area. And so I think that those voices are gonna be really important as these developments come forward. So again, supportive of the concept, I think we definitely need to make sure that East Bank representation is on the design review committee, but I would hate to, put staff and put, you know, community volunteers through having two completely independent entities. So we'd love to see that come together. Thanks.

Thank you, council. I appreciate you coming down. Good to see you. Anyone else?

I don't see any other council members.

So seeing no other council members, we are on item F items for deferral withdrawal. And Lazlo, are you going to take care of it? Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, so starting on page three, item number one, 2025 CP-006-001, the Bellevue Community Plan. Staff's recommendation is to defer to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. And on page four, item number two, 2026 SP-011001, Pleasant Green, staff's recommendation is to defer to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Item number three, 2026 SP 022001, Hobson Heights SP, staff's recommendation is to defer to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Item number four, 2025S-203001, Harpeth Overlook Phase Two. Staff's recommendation is to defer to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Moving on to page five, item number nine, 2026SP025001, 12802 Old Hickory Boulevard. Staff's recommendation is to defer to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. On page six, 2026S076001 Mulberry Downs North, staff's recommendation is to defer to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Item 14, 2026S081001 Adam Sawyer Subdivision, staff's recommendation is to defer to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. And on page seven, item number 17, 2026Z037PR001, staff's recommendation is to withdraw.

Thank you, Laszlo. And then on the agenda, commissioners, there's item six. Is item six on there, Laszlo, or is that...

So item six is... we're holding the public hearing today and it will have to be deferred per the rules.

Perfect.

All right, commissioners and Laszlo, make sure that we get these straight. The items for deferral withdrawal are the following. Items number one, two, three, four, nine, 13, 14, and 17. Is that correct? Yes. All right, commissioners, you've heard the items for deferral withdrawal. Is there a motion? There's a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Seeing none. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And those items are deferred or withdrawn. And so now we're on item G, which is the consent agenda. And these will all be passed at the same time. Go ahead, Leslie.

So for items... Read aloud on the tentative consent agenda will ask if anyone in the crowd is in opposition to the item. If there is opposition, please raise your hand and that item will be heard by the planning commission in the order in which they are listed on the agenda. If no opposition is present, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. Please note that items on the consent agenda will be voted on at a single time and no individual public hearing will be held nor will the commission debate these items unless a member of the audience or the commission requests that the item be removed from the consent agenda. And we'll start on page four, item number five, 2026 CP 013001 Antioch-Priest Lake Community Plan Amendment. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will be on the consent agenda. Moving along to page five, item number eight, 2026 SP 024001, 1205 Second Avenue North. Is anyone here in opposition of this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 10, 2026 SP 026001, Moda Vista Two. Is anyone here in opposition of this item? This item will be on the agenda to be heard. Item number 11, 2026 HL003001, Historic Overlay First Lutheran Church. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 12, 2018 S188008, Parks at Cane Ridge Phase 2B. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 15, 2009 P004003, Riptide Car Wash Revision and Final. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 16, 2026Z035PR001. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? And on page seven, item 18, 2026Z038PR001. Is anyone in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Um... As information for our audience, if you're not satisfied with the decision made by the Planning Commission today, you may appeal the decision by petitioning for a writ of cert with the Davidson County Transferee Circuit Court. Your appeal must be filed within 60 days of the date of the entry of the Planning Commission's decision. To ensure your appeal is filed in a timely manner and that all procedural requirements have been met, please be advised that you should contact independent legal counsel. Now I'll run through the items on the consent agenda with their partial captions and the recommendations by staff. So starting on page four, item number five, 2026 CP 013001, Antioch-Priest Lake Community Plan Amendment. This is a request to amend the Antioch-Priest Lake Community Plan by changing the community character policy from suburban neighborhood maintenance policy to suburban mixed use quarter policy with conservation policy to remain for property located at 12802 Old Hickory Boulevard. Staff's recommendation is to approve. On page number five, item number eight, 2026SP024001, 1205 2nd Avenue North, the request to rezone from IR to SP zoning for property located at 1205 2nd Avenue North to permit a mixed use development. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. Item number 11, 2026 HL003001, Historic Overlay First Lutheran Church. A request to apply a historic landmark overlay district to property located at 113 8th Avenue South. Staff's recommendation is to approve. Item number, on page six, item number 12, 2018 S-188008, Parks at Cane Ridge Phase 2B, a request for final plat approval to create 85 residential cluster lots on properties located at Cane Ridge Road. Staff's recommendation is to approve with conditions. Item number 15, 2009P004003, Riptide Car Wash Revision and Final. A request to revise the preliminary plan and for final site plan approval for a portion of a planned unit development overlay district for property located at 2935 Murfreesboro Pike. Staff's recommendation is to approve with conditions. Item number 16, 2026Z035PR001, a request to rezone from R6A to RM20A and S zoning for properties located at 69A, B and C Donaldson Street. Staff's recommendation is to approve. And item 18, 2026Z038PR001, a request to rezone from RS5 to RL2 for properties located at 142 and 144 Elmhurst Avenue. Staff's recommendation is to approve. And under item I, other business, item number 20, constant plan extension for Winston Heights subdivision and accept the director's report and approve administrative items. and item 21, the downtown code design review committee nominations.

Thank you, Laszlo. And so commissioners, these will be the following items that are on the consent agenda to be passed and make sure we get these correct, Laszlo. So the items are as follows. Items number five, eight, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21. Is that correct? And 25, the executive director's report. Is that correct? That's right. All right. Commissioners, you heard the items. And is there a motion to adopt in the consent agenda? Is there a motion? Second? Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And those items are adopted. Which means, commissioners, we have three items for public hearing, which are items 6, 7, and 10. And items 6 and 7 are text changes. So this will be the first time we hear them tonight. And then we'll have a motion to defer those. But we can still discuss.

Commissioner Hanley. Thank you for recognizing me chair. Just want to note that I'll be recused on item number seven.

Item number seven. Excellent. We'll make note of that when we get to the item. Thank you, commissioner. All right, we'll go ahead and get started with the presentation on item six.

Dustin Shane, staff planner. This is a text amendment related to underground utilities. So this text change would amend the code to require underground utilities for all development that proposes new streets. So it would do this by removing the word residential so that the requirement applies to any development type. So currently in the zoning codes, new residential developments with new public or private streets must install utilities underground. Non-residential projects that are proposing new streets are not currently required to underground the utilities. Many non-residential projects, including retail and office-type developments, do still create new streets. So the gap currently leaves room for above-ground utilities in certain developments. Um, so much of Nashville's older electrical and stormwater infrastructure remains above ground. Um, these above ground utilities can create aesthetic impacts on our built environment and also safety risk, um, especially during tornadoes and winter storms, just like the recent winter storm fern. So closing the loophole, uh, would enhance walkability, um, create more obstruction free pedestrian areas and increased neighborhood resilience and public safety. Just to note, we are proposing a substitute for review that will add some clarification edits to the bill to help its implementation. So in coordination with other agencies, we're proposing that there be a clear distinction defined between parking area features and private streets. So that things like parking lot drive aisles are not categorized as private streets. And then also a clarification again, that Metro agencies wouldn't be required for these developer costs. And then finally in an effective date, which is still being finalized. So this item in accordance with the rules and procedures needs to be deferred tonight to June 25th, following this public hearing. And then it's council public hearing is currently scheduled for July 7th. Thank you.

Thank you. And so commissioners, we'll go ahead and open this item for public hearing. Uh, So it's, Councilor Stiles is really the applicant, but we'll treat it, there's really not a private applicant. So is there anyone wishing to speak on this particular item? All right. Seeing none, the council member is not here. So seeing no one else wishing to speak, I declare the public hearing closed. And how about Commissioner Leslie, do you want to start? You're first. Yes, ma'am.

I would be for some reason. I just have a question. I appreciate the amendment. I just want some clarification. So when you speak of streets and things like that, what if those developments have alleys that kind of, act as a street is, would that be considered a street or, you know, access to the, have an access to the development?

The code currently talks about alleys and actually allows, um, some above ground utilities when we're dealing with alleys, depending on the condition of the alley now. Um, so we wouldn't be proposing any changes to those regulations.

So right now it's, uh, underground above ground, most alleys. would this be an exception or something like that? Well, I couldn't, excuse me. I'm sorry. You, when you say, you know, most, um, that does that mean that, um, the alleys now that will be constructed or use will be allowed to be above ground except some different, uh, exceptions.

I'm going to have to get back to you on that as far as how we're classifying alleys within dot, just to make sure. But yeah, there's, I'll get back to you on that. Thank you for your work too. So,

And to make sure for clarity's sake, this would be where new streets are being constructed. So for instance, if you have an existing street and a new business is being built on that street, an existing street, then this doesn't apply. This is where new streets are being constructed. So think about sort of new areas being developed. Does that make sense? Yes, it does.

But there's a clarification of what consists of determines what is a street and what is an alley.

Yes, and we can make sure that that is clear, but that is generally distinguished in the zoning code, but we would make sure that that's clear. Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Councilman. Thank you, Chair. I have a question for staff. Overall, I think this is a good bill. I think as you highlight, it's not just about aesthetic preferences. This has safety benefits as well, as we all saw during the recent winter storm. I have a question, however, because I think this will ultimately impose greater costs on non-residential development costs, which would subsequently be passed on to the tenants of those buildings or customers at a time when a lot of businesses are already struggling with high costs. Do we have a sense on how much of a cost increase this is going to be for these non-residential developments compared to above ground utilities?

We don't have a cost breakdown at this time. I mean, we talked with some, some contacts in the development community. A lot of this has already been done in most developments where you're going to see new private streets in a, in a commercial or office environment. But that's something we could look into and generate some numbers. Okay. That'd be great.

And council member, I would add that generally when you're constructing sort of new infrastructure and you're able to install things in a way that, um, it's much different when you're talking about retrofitting where you're talking about above grade existing streets and trying to underground those. That's very different from a cost perspective. But when you already have things dug out and you're putting in stormwater, you're putting in water and sewer, then there's not a ton of cost inferential to underground the lines.

Yeah, that makes, that makes a lot of sense. If we're doing it, a new street makes sure it makes sense to do it right the first time. And, um, as well as there's obviously safety benefits as well. Thank you. Commissioner Dunn.

And then back to that commission.

Um, I would just add, I think it's hard, you know, it's easy to probably quantify the costs of having to go underground versus going above ground, even for a brand new development, but it's harder to quantify the costs of what happens over a period of time. If there's an extreme weather event and people are out of, their power is wiped out, they have to move to a hotel, they have to go to neighbors, drive further, things, you know, the disruption to human life and livelihood that happens when you have power lines and extreme storms, as we saw during the most recent storm. So I think, you know, and I don't know if there's been studies about that in Nashville in particular, but I think I'm generally in favor of going underground when we can. And this seems like you're really just bringing in the commercial business side to an existing ordinance that applies to residential development. So anyway, I'm in favor of this.

Commissioner Leslie.

And then one more question. So the, the, the development that does not create new streets or can they still go underground?

They can, but they would not be required to.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other discussion? This was really great discussion. And I think our rule is really helping because now the staff can come back and answer the commissioner's questions, which I think was really good. So this is good stuff. Commissioner Dang, Commissioner Dang, go ahead.

Sure, just one really quick question. And I bet the answer is really clear, but I want to ask it anyway. If a street, for example, has to be completely redone for whatever reason on a current development, are there any requirements or would there be any other requirements to go underground in that case?

The ordinance as it is now talks about streets that are shown that are on the maps of, of the County or a subdivision would not be required.

So though very helpful in the future for, you know, protecting against another storms are, you know, the current above ground infrastructure will remain as expected. Yeah.

Any other questions?

I just, I thought, Commissioner Deng's point is a really good one. Is that something the staff has considered? Like if there is a storm that wipes out completely a road and all of the infrastructure and it needs to be redone. I mean, I think in one case you've got, if the power lines are already there and the road gets wiped out, it has to be redone. That's sort of a different situation than what this ordinance is talking about, which is there's nothing there and you're starting afresh. But I don't know if the staff has considered those types of situations?

Uh, we haven't. And I will say that that is a much more complex, um, situation than where a private development is coming in and is building on land that is privately owned. Whereas if you have a subdivision, for instance, and there's damage during a storm, um, that is more, any costs to rebuild are likely born either by, the utility, the municipality. So it's a much different sort of scenario and equation. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Leslie. One more question. Let's go back and forth. Yes.

Well, I'm thinking about this logistically, that if a new development comes in next to an old something, the new development would be required to go underground, right? It's creating a new street. but the old development, which is adjacent would, I guess, still remain. That's kind of interesting how that would work, but I know that's not in your purview, but we, we do have those situations all across the city right now.

Yeah. Okay. Um, I mean, even in downtown, you have areas that have a lot of underground utilities and then on the same block you may have above ground. And so we do have that situation, um, In a lot of places across the county. Okay.

Thank you. This was a really good discussion. So I think it's helpful for us. You know, you ask a question and it leads to another question. So good stuff. Any other questions? We'll make sure we get to everybody. All right. Seeing none, we will need a motion, Commissioner Leslie, to defer to June 25th.

I'll make a motion and share to defer to the June 25th.

June 25th.

2026.

Yes, ma'am.

Planning commission meeting.

That's proper motion. We hope. Is there a second? A second. Any other discussion? Seeing none. All in favor of the deferral, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it.

And it's deferred to the 25th.

All right. So that leads us to our second item, which is item number seven. Go ahead.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Eric Hammer. This is item seven, a request to amend chapter 1737 of the Metropolitan Code to establish an East Bank Design Review Committee within the Downtown Code. Staff recommendation is to hold the public hearing and defer to the June 25th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. To provide some background, the Downtown Code or DTC was adopted by Metro Council in 2010 to regulate bulk standards and design requirements. The Downtown Code creates a design review committee consisting of eight members, six of whom must be design professionals. Currently all projects within the downtown code received design review by either the downtown code design review committee or MDHA design review committee if the project is already within an MDHA redevelopment district. The primary focus of this review is on the technical architectural design of buildings and overall site design as well as items like access locations. Standards like intensity, overall height, and other key characteristics are already regulated by the Downtown Code zoning regulations and are not generally the subject of DRC scrutiny. This proposed text amendment shifts how design review is handled for properties across the river. First, it removes the authority of the existing DTC DRC over the East Bank and West Seattle Bend sub-districts. Second, it creates a new East Bank Design Review Committee or EBDRC with authority over these sub-districts to be administered by the Metro Planning Department. Finally, it establishes the membership of the East Bank DRC. On this slide, we have the membership of both DRCs for the sake of comparison. When comparing the existing Downtown Code DRC to the proposed East Bank DRC, they do share several appointing entities, such as the mayor, the Metro Planning Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Civic Design Center. However, the proposed East Bank DRC includes other different representation from the Urban Land Institute, the Casey Place Resident Association, and a future yet to be established East Bank Neighborhood Association that would presumably be made up of future residents of the East Bank. The East bank DRC would also include one fewer representative with a design professional background compared to the existing downtown code design review committee. This proposal raises several important policy questions that should inform the commission's discussion tonight. Elevating design standards throughout the city remains a core objective of the planning department, which is currently managed through the existing downtown code regulations and DRC oversight. We also recognize that effective design evaluation relies on deep local context, and it is reasonable to consider ways to enhance membership to ensure that community knowledge is integrated into the committee's work. There is also merit to asking what extent do we value the parody of design thought between districts and what value do we place in the simplicity of governance as proposed? There is overlap between the membership entities, of the existing downtown code DRC and proposed east bank DRC four of eight entities, namely the mayor planning commission chamber of commerce and civic design center would have members on both DRCs. Members appointed or nominated by both DRCs by these entities would have two different terms and expiration dates. Members appointed or nominated by the Downtown Code DRC, but not the East Bank DRC or vice versa, would have a counterpart representing the same entity, but also exercising independent judgment and applications, leading to potentially less consistency in decision making. Staff notes that there are several amendments that could be made to the bill, such as clarifying in Section 2 that appeals of the East Bank DRC decisions should be heard by the Planning Commission, as well as clarifying that the committee reviews DTC concept plans, rather than simply stating that final East Bank DRC approval acts as the DRC concept plan. Furthermore, because there are no residents within the East Bank or West Seattle Bend sub-districts, the East Bank Neighborhood Association may remain unfilled for several years, which could result in quorum difficulties. Staff would also suggest that six members be design professionals, as currently is true of the Downtown Code DRC. Consistent with the text amendment review process, staff recommends holding the public hearing tonight and deferring this item to the June 25th, 2026 planning commission meeting. This proposed text amendment passed on first reading at the April 21st Metro council meeting and the council public hearing is scheduled for July 7th. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, and so commissioners, we'll open this item for public hearing, and it's the council member is not here that is the applicant, and so is anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none and not seeing the council member and seeing no one else wishing to speak, I declare the public hearing closed. And so how about Commissioner Marshall, you want to go first? Well, second, but first on the second item.

Yeah, sure. Thank you. Just want to make sure that I'm following it. And it's basically... proposing the new committee, which is kind of the same, but adding a few other, uh, uh, like the urban land Institute, the Casey place residential association and the East bank. So that would be the new one. They wouldn't be working together anymore. It would just be that separate one would be the new one. Is that correct?

Yes, Mr. Commissioner, this would be a completely separate entity. It would just have overlapping representatives. So there's four that would overlap, but these are completely discrete separate entities.

Eric, it might be helpful if you go to the comparison chart that shows both set up. So, Commissioner, one thing to note is both the existing DRC has a mayoral appointment. The proposed DRC also has a mayoral appointment. There is currently that I see no prohibition on that being the same person. Although as Eric noted, they would likely have to be appointed to both and then would have different terms because of the way that it's set up as a fully, as the way that it's proposed as a fully new body. Does that make sense? So there's, I don't see a prohibition on it being the same person, although there would be separate terms. Eric, is that correct?

That's accurate. There would be separate terms. So situations may arise where one term comes and that member rolls off, another member rolls on. It may be the same at some points. It may be different. It allows all those sort of possibilities. There is no prohibition against that.

So I see we're taking Metro historic off of it. Basically. Is that mainly because they're operating internally here with the planning commission now, or what's the logic behind taking them off?

So that is how it has been proposed by the sponsor. And so we're certainly wanting to get your input and have questions asked. And so that is, is as proposed, um, I think that there could be an argument, and we talked about this a little bit in the staff report, The existing developed area of DTC has a lot, has local districts that have been established, Broadway, Second Avenue, preservation districts. And so there are historic resources sort of on the ground. The East Bank is a little bit different in that it doesn't necessarily have historic buildings, although the Imagine East Bank plan does talk a lot about historical resources in regards to early settlements or archaeology, those sorts of things. And so it's a different type of historical resources, not necessarily always above grade. but the importance of the area as an early settlement. And so we talked about that a little bit, but that was a proposal. So if that's something that you want to give feedback on, then certainly we would suggest, you know, just we want you all to sort of take in what's been proposed and ask questions and give us feedback.

And with Casey being put on it is because of their location being so strategic to downtown. Is that the logic behind it?

That's my understanding. Yes.

I MEAN, I'M CERTAINLY FILLED THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PROPOSAL, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THE OTHER COMMISSIONER'S VIEWPOINT ON IT. BUT ON THE SURFACE, I SEE IT BEING SOMETHING OKAY.

COMMISSIONER SMITH.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I KIND OF WANT TO BE A LITTLE both for and against because I want to say, I think it's a good goal and is directionally correct. I think when the DTC DRC was created, there's obviously a intent to have community input or community representation on that design committee. And I think that is proper and good. And I think now that, the scope geographically has been expanded. It makes sense to make sure that those in the jurisdiction are properly represented and have a voice on that commission, committee, commission, one of those. However, I have a little bit of reservation on just the method in which that's undertaken in the bill. from kind of two different angles. One is the East Bank is gonna be separate and probably distinct from downtown just because it'd be impossible not to. It's all gonna be brand new and downtown is not, and it's actually historic in many places. But I don't think our goal is to have two different design standards and two different looks depending on which side of the river you're on. And I don't, I think that would, at least this would have the possibility of that as seeing those part ways. And the second just being logistically, there's a lot of overlap. I think it would make sense to have where the overlap occurs to have that same person that's asking another day or two a month from the volunteers. It's also more work for staff. It's another night for Metro Legal here. I mean, it's just a lot of duplication of efforts that I'M NOT SURE ARE COMPLETELY NECESSARY. AND IF THEY ARE NECESSARY AND EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT, THEN I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO LEADING TO KIND OF BALCONIZING THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE DESIGN OF THE NEW DISTRICT WITH THE OLD. SO I'M FOR THE IDEA OF And I think it's a good oversight to note that this new jurisdiction doesn't have the same input. And I would love if staff could brainstorm. I mean, I heard what Councilman Coopan said earlier, maybe switching some members out depending on where it's located or an expansion. I'm not sure the exact method, but if there was a way to reconfigure or... redesign the existing DRC without just establishing a completely separate one. I think that would be a smoother, uh, method of going about achieving the same goal. Um, and it looks like some of that may have already been, um, necessary in the report. It looks like one of the, uh, the urban residents association seems to be almost defunct as an organization. So that, that probably needs to be replaced anyway. Uh, and the downtown partnership right now doesn't really have apparently any membership in the East bank. So the, there's definitely some, some work that, that needs to be done. Um, but I'm not, I'm not entirely sold on just creating a new committee, uh, especially since it's not exactly new. And I feel like it just would lead to unnecessary duplication. Um, so I, I, we've got a little bit of time and, and, uh, I, I would love it if staff could come up with some ideas, uh, or, Thrust in a direction of achieving that goal without necessarily creating an entire entirely different entity Thanks Mr.

Discussion Commissioner day I think it fairly echoing it in line with with Commissioner Smith is particularly I The points about you know it is across the river, but I'm assuming we'd still like some level of consistency in our downtown View between the two and I feel like separating these two might create some some inconsistency. I was also a little I won't say concern as it seems very strong, but the Around the East Bank neighborhood and whether or not someone we have an association there to speak to this and it's my question is really around I timing of a whole, of a new, of the proposed EBDRC. As this development moves forward, I can see more in the future and the use of a separate board, but as it's still being built out to some extent mere match or coincide with the current DRC in downtown across the river, I'm not sure I fully understand the, or see the complete value in a completely separate entity.

Thank you, Commissioner Deng. Discussion?

Councilman. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the way that the staff's framed this issue. I think it raises an interesting question as our downtown code expands, how do we handle things like this? And I think as our form-based code, the downtown code expands here to East Bank and potentially in the future to other areas, I think... changing the composition of the design review committee to reflect that expanded geographic scope is I think a helpful way to make communities feel like this is not happening to them, but they're a part of it and have input and buy-in on it. And personally, I wouldn't mind if different parts of the downtown code look differently, but also agree that this has to work. And so having simplicity of governance makes a lot of sense. And so yeah, I think finding some way to harmonize those two goals would be useful if staff has an idea on a potential compromise. I think I have a question. I don't know if it's best directed to staff or legal about what the scope of our recommendation here can be. Is our recommendation limited to this proposed separate one, or can we just, would it be possible to recommend changes to the existing DRC? in a way that perhaps I think maybe ULI is a better, more beneficial member than the Metro Historic for this. Do we have the ability to recommend changes to the existing DRC or can we only opine on whether we want a separate one?

Well, let me help a little bit. And I think, Councilman, that generally we look at the case in front of us. Through discussion, we have wandered off to really good ideas because of the discussion. I don't want to say wandered off, but the discussion has created other... Questions and other policy questions and I think for instance a council member can always bring another text amendment here I think we should try to stick as closely as we can to opine on this particular issue now if the staff wants to bring Something regarding this particular proposal, we can go as far as, as we, we can, but I think we just need to be careful going too far off of the current, the credit.

That makes sense. Thank you.

And here's our council.

So, so one thing to note is that, um, the, the legislation, the caption does refer to the East bank design review committee. So whatever the recommendation is, it would need to be a separate East Bank Design Review Committee. But in speaking with Lisa, that might work in many different ways. So if, for example, the proposal is that The East bank design review committee consists of, uh, you know, six members of the existing DTC DRC plus additional members. Um, there, there are configurations that would work under this existing, um, bill. Uh, but, but this does require a separate East bank design review committee.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

I think I'm aligned with, um, commissioner dang and commissioner Smith on this one. I know that we don't have sort of the rationale of why or the background as to what motivated this text amendment, but it does seem like we are creating a new bureaucracy for, and I'm not clear as to whether it will result in better design. I think that's what I'm struggling with. If there was something in the record that... that I felt like it was going to result in better design or more cohesive design. I mean, I think that I'm concerned about too, between the two sides, I do feel like we are, it's a small river down there. It's not like the Mississippi is five miles apart to the East bank. So I guess those are my, if to the extent the staff can, for the next meeting, when we defer this, is there anything that would inform whether, this is going to result in better design and more cohesiveness between the two sides and whether that's worth the sort of extra bureaucracy that Commissioner Smith spoke to. Those are the things, the questions that will be on my mind. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Leslie.

You know, and looking at the existing, first of all, I like acronyms and looking at the existing uh, plan and the proposal, just like Mr. Uh, commissioner Marshall said, there's not much difference, but I'm going to say something probably where the other commissioners want to say, but they don't want to say it out loud. I don't know where all this is. I don't know what consists with where the East bank begins and stops. I don't know where river North begins and stops. I don't know where the downtown corridor begins and stops. And, um, then you have other areas that are surrounding that. So, um, My question is, I know there might be a, not, why don't we just do it all at one time? I don't like inconsistency and incongruency. You know, you have the downtown looking this way, East bank looking this way. You have the, I mean, why is it that we just, I mean, I don't know why the bifurcation is needed because looking at that is not much difference. It's just one change. So is there a reason why we need to have two, a different, designation for the East Bank as opposed to the downtown corridor?

As Ms. Milligan previously said, this is just sort of what was submitted by the sponsors of the bill. I can't speak to the motivations or why a separate DRC is superior to a DRC that some have discussed of members switching in and out as MDHA does. So I'm sorry, but I can't really offer, I think, much more on that.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

And Lisa, just remind us the council members who brought the proposal.

Sure. There are currently four council sponsors. Council Member Benedict, Cap, Coopin, and Evan Siegel. Thank you. That was as a publication. I don't know if there have been more sign-ons, but that's current sponsorship.

Councilman. I just like to speak very briefly on behalf of the primary sponsor. I know she really wanted to be here today to explain her rationale and motive behind this. She's not here because it's not important. She's here because there's a very important budget hearing being held simultaneously. And so she's unfortunately not able to be here, but I know it is very important to her. Thank you, councilman.

Thank you for that. And I appreciate that. Any other discussion? We'll need a motion. Seeing none, we'll need a motion to defer. Council, I mean, Commissioner Marshall, would you like to make a motion?

Sure. Make a motion that this is deferred to the June 25th meeting, Planning Commission meeting.

That's a proper motion. Is there a second? Second. Second. Any other discussions? Seeing none, all in favor of the deferral, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And commissioners, another great discussion. I think our rules, as we have written them, are working correctly. So perfect. All right. So that leads us to our last item on public hearing, which is item 10.

All right, good evening commissioners. I'm Oslo Martone and this is item number 10. And the request is for a preliminary SP to permit a multifamily residential development. Staff's recommendation is to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. The subject site consists of four parcels totaling 6.32 acres located north of Curtis Street and west of Lloyd Avenue. The properties have been zoned R10 since 1974 and currently contain two single family homes. Surrounding properties are zoned R10 and SP. There are two SPs that border the site to the west. The SP known as 3320 Curtis Street was approved in 2023 and permits a maximum of 28 multifamily residential units. And the larger adjacent SP known as Curtis Street Property SP was originally approved in 2021 and amended in 2025. And that SP permits a maximum of 331 multifamily residential units. The site is within the T3 suburban neighborhood evolving and conservation policy areas. The T3 any policy is intended to create an enhanced suburban residential neighborhoods with more housing choices, improved pedestrian bicycle and vehicular connectivity and a moderate density development pattern. And I'll just note the conservation policy on the side is associated with the small area and mild moderate slopes in the center of the site. The SP proposes a total of 62 multifamily residential units in the form of 55 attached townhomes and seven detached units. While some of the townhome units front Lloyd Avenue and Easy Street, others front Common Open Space. All units have vehicular access via Easy Street and there's no vehicular access along Lloyd Avenue. The proposed maximum building height is three stories and 45 feet. The plan includes a total of 2.34 acres of open space and along the Northern and a portion of the Southern property boundaries. So retaining walls that are shown alongside areas for a 10 foot B landscape buffer that's adjacent to existing residences. Overall staff finds the proposed plan is consistent with the general goals of the T3NE and CO policies in this location. The proposed SP would permit 62 multifamily residential units at a density of approximately 9.81 units an acre, which is within the density supported by the policy. The plan provides two unit types in the form of attached townhomes and detached units, which will add to the diversity of housing choice in the area. The plan meets the T3NE goals for building form and site design by providing a moderate density residential development with moderate setbacks, appropriate orientation and building heights of three stories. And while the plan proposes several retaining wall features across the site, grading in the Northeast corner is shown to tie into existing grades. And the plan also provides several open space areas that are located internally and adjacent to neighboring residences. With the final site plan, staff is also recommending that the design of the retaining wall feature fronting Lloyd Avenue be modified to accommodate direct pedestrian connections from the units to the public sidewalk, if determined to be feasible. And staff's recommendation is to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions.

Thank you, Laszlo. And so commissioners will open this item for public hearing. Is the applicant in the room? Welcome. And you have eight minutes and you can save two of the eight minutes for rebuttal and state your name and address. Thank you. Hold on one second. Is the mic on? Here, tap it. No. Got it. There he goes. Sorry about that. We'll start over.

All right. All right, Jeff Hines with Catalyst Design Group. We are the consultants that developed the plan, civil engineers and landscape architects. This plan is really a continuation of the other SPs that were previously approved. There are no new street or curb cuts onto any public streets. Everything is internal through the other SPs that were set up. The open space I think is notable in terms of the two plus acres out of a 6.6 acre site, which is being preserved with the basis of this plan. You can see down at the corner of Lloyd Avenue and Curtis Street, we have preserved that as a large open space dog park. There are TVA lines there, but certainly we're preserving vegetation, and I think that is a nice feature that we heard from the neighbors at the community meeting back in February that was appreciated. So the plan really is focused upon tying into the street network of the other SPs, and that, of course, controls some of the grades as well as... how we can transition this site because there is quite a bit of grade across the property. I would also say that the previous SPs that were taken through provided about eight acres of natural preserved area along the White's Creek Greenway and provided a trail connection there. So this being a continuation, we have provided walkability throughout that development. to enable the entirety of the neighborhood to have access to the other green space amenities. This is not something in and of itself. It's the same development team developing the other adjoining SPs. So from that standpoint, we have with the other work built out Lawrence Avenue with a roundabout there are widening Curtis Street, and there are some off-site improvements required for this neighborhood. So I guess my counsel to you would be that this is really a continuation of the design framework that was set up with the other plans that were already adopted, and we believe that it continues to further improve that character, good design architecture, good planning in extending into this site. The scale of the homes are in keeping with the other residences along Lloyd Avenue. They are individual HPR, three story homes, residences. So we were certain to break up the frontage there in the town homes into a three unit and a four unit building. scale wise that's in keeping with kind of the dual homes that are on the adjoining property. So with that having been said, I'll listen to any concerns that are expressed and then come back to you. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And are you part of the applicant, sir?

I'm one of the residents.

Okay, hold on. We'll get there in one second. So we're going to save two minutes for your rebuttal. And every applicant, every citizen gets two minutes. So if anyone wishing to speak, come up to the microphone. Sorry about that. Come on up. Didn't mean to interrupt you.

Yeah, no problem. Hey, I'd like to say I live at the back of Lloyd Avenue. The neighborhood greatly opposes the first part of the development. And the second, I'm not sure about community meeting that went on. This is an established neighborhood where people have been there for over 60 years. Some of my lovely neighbors that I consider family right back there. They've been there for that long. Everybody has long driveways. This is not a development neighborhood like this. That green space he's talking about is somebody's yard. They've got dogs there. The first portion of this development that was approved was a mistake. They balled it off the hill. I've had probably 30 people trespass come on my land. I back up to it. They fenced off the wrong portion. Unfortunately, a couple of the workers came over in my barn, killed two of my animals. Moda compensated me. They offered me like 500 bucks three months later, just so you guys know. That's happening right now. They've been blasting and tearing down. They've not kept any hardwoods. Everything's bald. They did keep eight acres, which is not accessible. There's no walking path except for down by the creek, White's Creek, where there is a park way on the other side. But the second part of this development would be a huge mistake. Everyone in the neighborhood opposes it, like I said, and it really does not fit the style of the neighborhood. I don't know if you guys have been there. It's a very country neighborhood, very far back. I emailed Ms. Toombs a couple times about my pets being killed, about opposing the first part of the development. There's a graveyard on the other side of this development, and they pretty much torn up The front corner, all along the side and back have not been dainty at all, have not done this well. The streets have been covered in mud and rock from all the things coming through. Is that the two minutes? Yes, sir. There you go. Thank you. I hope I can bring that home for you guys.

Appreciate it. Welcome. Please state your name.

My name is Shamika Small, and I live in that house that he says that they're going to make a greenway area with, and I'm trying to figure out how does that happen when I'm not selling. First of all, I want to know what are we doing about the wildlife in our neighborhood? Now I have coyotes, foxes, of course the deer I've always had. And Sunday I had this nice snake. So I'm getting scared to go in my backyard because of all this demolition that's happening later in the evenings, early in the mornings. We don't know what's going on, coming and going. We're trying to figure out what are they doing in my neighborhood? As far as the retaining walls, I would love a retaining wall. So when it rains, I live on 2300 Lloyd Avenue, which is five houses down from what they said they're building on. But heck, when it rains, I can have a party. And this is like in the street. So what are they talking about the retaining areas? I WANT TO KNOW, I AM A TAXPAYER CITIZEN. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW MY TAXES ARE GOING UP BUT THEY'RE PULLING ALL THESE AIRBNB'S AND PEOPLE ARE HAVING PARTIES RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM WHERE MY NEIGHBORS LIVE AT. I HAVE LIVED THERE 32 YEARS NOW. SO I THINK I'M ESTABLISHED IN THIS AREA AND TO SEE ALL OF THIS NEW, I WELCOME THESE FAMILIES COMING IN IF I CAN FIND THE FAMILIES. Where are they? I want to know that I want to have a safe neighborhood to pass down to my child. Y'all, it is so quiet over there, but not lately since all the deconstruction. Oh, not to mention my flat tires. I've had nails all in my tires. Due to the construction, everybody's on the street. The street, let's see, we have one lane going up and down and you have to move which way as what sidewalk? Again, I'm a taxpayer citizen, but we don't have a lot of those luxuries. What's going on? But then you're going to tell me, oh, we're going to be a 62 duplexes or family homes. I mean, 62 families. So where are these people going? Thank you.

Thank you. Come on up. Welcome.

So my name is Ariana Graves. I have lived on the property my entire life. My family has lived there. They have owned property for the last 50, almost 60 years. The construction for the prior projects has done irreparable damage to our home foundation level and everything else. All of the wildlife, all of the deer, multitude of snakes, not to even mention the construction noise and now more road noise for having all of the trees destroyed. It worries me for, again, what other neighbors and other people in the area have said of not having anywhere else to go with any of this stuff. It doesn't make sense to do this construction. All of my family, I have family who used to love walking, going down towards the creek to do the walking trails that can't now because of the construction. Also, again, I've had to replace multiple tires and damage to my car because of stuff. People have parked in my driveway that were doing construction. It's just unreasonable and unfair. So please consider not allowing this to happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up. Welcome.

Hi, my name is Tamisa Murphy. I have lived on Lloyd Avenue for 46 years. Um, grew up there. It's part of my family's history, my children's history, my grandchildren's history. As they've said, the roads with the construction now, it's dangerous. It's ridiculous. Car damage, tire damage, wildlife all over the place, wildlife killing our pets, coyotes, snakes, you name it. This is not just another piece of land to us. This is part of our lives. This is our livelihoods. IT'S DAMAGING EVERYTHING, ESSENTIALLY DESTROYING OUR ECOSYSTEM. I'VE WATCHED FAMILIES BUILD HOMES HERE, RAISE CHILDREN HERE, CREATE A QUIET COMMUNITY THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE. AND IT'S JUST GOING TO GET WORSE. NOW AFTER THE CLEARING IN, DESTRUCTION HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNRECOGNIZABLE. NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO GIVE THEM MORE. to let them come in and add congestion and more blasting, more traffic, more strain on our infrastructure that's already not supporting what's going on now. Our neighborhood is not designed for this. It's dangerous. It's going to affect all of our families that have been there for the past 50, 60 years. And it's unfair. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none, two minute rebuttal.

I jotted down some of those comments and let me give you a little bit of informed. The client developing the residential town homes and cottage residences has not begun any grading or blasting work. I think what is perceived is that Elmington has built or is in process of building an apartment complex that that was in the previous SP, it's Workforce Housing. They're the only ones doing grading work at this time. There is no access from this development on Deloitte Avenue, so we should have no folks traversing that as far as the construction side. Everything is internal back to Easy Street, which ties onto Curtis and can connect to Lawrence Avenue, which was built with the previous development directly out to Clarksville Highway. New signalized intersection was put in there. So that is convenient for, uh, for people going in that direction, the graveyard comment, we are working with the church and, uh, they are, have asked us to do some work to make their property better where they can use it for additional grave area. The only thing once again has been clearing to date, uh, the end of Lloyd Avenue, which is a dead end street has a quasi, uh, commercial use that's been there for years. It's a non-compliant use. You know, I respect the residents' comments, and I think as far as maintenance of streets, I can certainly commit to us doing something about that. But I think some of the work that's being referenced in those comments has to do with the development that's already occurring by the Elmington Group building the workforce housing. The tree clearing has occurred with permit in hand for that work. And as far as taking the site down, this site had about 70 to 100 vertical feet from the public street that had to be addressed. Thank you.

Appreciate it. And the council member is not here. So seeing no one else switch and speak, I declare the public hearing closed. Commissioner Henley, you want to start us off?

Thank you, Chair. I've got a couple questions. I think obviously what we heard from those who were here to speak is concerning. I think it's unfortunate to have your neighborhood impacted in a way while, again, one of the things that our city needs the most is new housing. And so while housing is underway, the ripple effects being felt negatively is something that I think the entire board takes as a serious concern. I'm curious, one of the first individuals that came up to speak said that they were not aware of a community meeting. And I know we don't have the council member here. The only thing that we had in our public comment were opposition related comments and petitions. I mean, do we have anything from the council member that's given us any insights to where she may stand on this case?

Hi, excuse me. Yes, the council member did send a note in apologizing for not being able to attend. Council member tombs is the chair of the budget Committee of the Metro Council and they are in the midst of budget works sessions. And so she is At that committee meeting today she did send a note and indicated that this was presented at a monthly community meeting that she holds and that she is supportive, however, does want some additional work. But she has asked that the commission move it on beyond your approval and that she will continue to work on it at the council level. She has indicated some desires around looking at the heights along Lloyd Avenue based on existing heights of structures. And so those were generally her comments.

Thank you, Lisa. I mean, I think it's good to hear that she's got, you know, her arms around it and intending to have further conversation. I mean, the things that stood out to me, I think, You know, it's kind of clear, at least from what's been presented to us, that it's meant to be a continuation of some of the SP work that's already happened. Whether or not that was a mistake or not, I think is something that was brought up. But I do feel some things that are being presented seem to be mindful of Lloyd Avenue, but I think there's probably some additional work there. I mean, when I look at what's presented before us, My knee jerk is that, you know, it's an opportunity potentially for Lloyd Avenue to not be impacted by significant housing development or potentially some greater setbacks that may be aligned with what's on that side of the street. And it seems to be there's some typology of housing that actually might allow that for a greater setback and then having some tuck under parking, which is what it looks like a lot of the other site is proposing there. We did... we did hear it addressed that there was not any access from Lloyd Avenue. And that is, you know, what's presented here. I would be curious to note, it seems as though from the petitions that we had, that there was some kind of language in there about 64 units. I think now, what we're seeing says 62 units. And I think again, the council member is saying that there'll be some more work. So I think some consistency in messaging would probably help as the engagement process continues with the council member and hopefully with the community, I think the addressing open space and I'm always, um, now as parks board representative, but even before then acutely focused on, you know, open space and green space and how is it accessible and then how is it maintained? I think it's shown here that that, you know, a large portion of that area is open space, probably wouldn't be able to be much else, but there does seem to be some additional open space integrated into it with some access, but it's labeled stormwater. And so I'm not sure exactly how that feature comes into play and how that actually interacts with the community. But those are some of my knee jerk thoughts. I think, again, if we're looking at this in larger context, there's some existing SP work that has identified this area. I think we, we talk about alignment with policy. It seems to align with policy. I'm curious to hear from my fellow commissioners, but you know, that, that interaction with Lloyd Avenue and particularly from the corner all the way up to, um, the boundary right next to the, right next to the home. Um, considering that there seems to be some more significant natural buffers, um, between neighbors kind of abutting the SP property, that 10 foot buffer may be something that could have a little bit more robustness to it, seeing that it's a significant dividing line between some increased density as opposed to the duplex properties that it's adjacent to.

Thank you, Commissioner. Discussion? Any other discussion?

Councilman? Thank you. I know that this is something Councilmember Toombs has worked on before and happy to see that she's indicating she'll continue to work on it. Obviously, we have a housing shortage in the city, so welcoming 62 additional homes is great. I was troubled by some of the remarks delivered during public comment, especially... INDICATIONS THAT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AT THE STATE KILLED A COMMUNITY MEMBER'S PETS. WE HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE IN THE CITY. WE NEED TO BUILD 90,000 UNITS. WHEN DEVELOPERS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES DON'T HOLD THEMSELVES TO VERY HIGH STANDARDS, IT MAKES IT HARDER TO GET THAT HOUSING, AND IT'S NO WONDER THAT MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE CONCERNS WHEN THAT HAPPENS. I KNOW THE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF OUR AUTHORITY HERE TODAY IN THIS ROOM, BUT WOULD URGE THE DEVELOPER TO HOLD THEIR, IF THIS PROJECT MOVED FORWARD, moves forward to ask them to hold their employees to very high standards to make sure things like that don't happen. Excellent point. Other discussion?

Commissioner Smith.

Mine's more an echo of previous comments, which is, I think, from a planning standpoint, from a policy, land policy standpoint, it does seem to fit the bill, so to speak. And When I first looked at it, it seemed a little dense. It does, when I was reading through the report, it does seem like there are about 30 there, 30 possible homes just by right today. So it is definitely an increase, but it's not like we're going from four homes to 60. And I'd encourage everyone, neighbors too, take advantage of the codes and the Nashville hub. I can just tell you from experience, stuff like mud on streets and nails is taken seriously and will be communicated with threats to the developer unless they change it. I don't know anything about pets. That's probably not codes and that sounds horrific. but I just, there are some methods in place to try to hold developers to account to some of the city rules. And those are taken seriously by codes when you're, when you report them. However, I think I would be in favor of this, especially with the understanding that the councilwoman plans on doing some more work on it. But I think from a planning standpoint, it, it, it meets the cut. Thank you.

And Lacey of update for us to another comment.

Sure. I just wanted to express to the commission and the people in the audience as well, that I will personally be reaching out to the development team that is currently on site doing work there and, and having the, and making note of all of the comments that we've heard. I'm going to ask them to watch this hearing as well. So that if there are any issues with compliance of current regulations, that we will get those handled.

Thank you. No, sir. We're still after the meeting. You can talk to us, the staff, but we'd already gone through the public hearing. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll need a motion. Commissioner Smith, you want to make a motion?

In regards to item number 10, I move to approve with conditions, disapprove without all conditions.

That's a proper motion. Is there a second? Second. Hold on, Lisa, would you like to?

Sure. I wonder if you would like to include a condition consistent with Commissioner Henley's recommendations around the units on Lloyd Avenue, potentially something for staff to look at with the developer in regards to the setback of those units and the potential inclusion of tuck under garages. Do you want to restate that?

Yeah. Commissioner Smith, will you restate your motion to add that condition? Yes.

Let me restate and maybe get some help too. In regards to item 10, I move to approve the condition to disprove that all conditions with the additional condition that planning staff and the developer work together to examine the especially the homes along Lloyd Avenue in regards to setbacks, buffers, and any other construction methods that might improve the transition and streetscape along Lloyd Avenue.

and including the, is that, and Commissioner Hanley, does this get your intent across?

It does. I would just also like to add the specific treatment of the green space as well along Wood Avenue, but yes.

That's a proper motion. Is there a second? Second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no, ayes have it. And thank you everyone for coming down and we appreciate your comments. Now we are on to... That finishes our portion of the public hearing. And so we are on item 19, which is our annual election of the officers. And so... All right. And so during the election of officers, we generally open it up to the commissioners to nominate the leadership. And so I'll open up the nominations and we'll start with the chair. Chair, I may be recognized. Commissioner, you're recognized.

Commissioner Hanley. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to kick us off. I don't think that there's probably anyone here on this board that could serve in the chair role quite like you do. And I think you've done so masterfully. I've enjoyed being on the board under your chairship. So I'd like to kick us off with a nomination for our current chair, Greg Atkins, to serve as our future chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Henley. That's a proper rush. Is there a second? It's so weird doing it for yourself. Thank you, Commissioner Henley. That's proper motion, second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. So it leads us to vice chair. And we'll open the vice chair nominations. Yeah.

I would like to nominate our current vice chair, Jessica Farr, to continue as our vice chair. And I would echo the comments that Commissioner Henley made about her.

about you. Well, thank you, commissioner. And I will second the motion for the vice chair. And I know she couldn't be here tonight, but I will tell you that the many years, if not, maybe even a decade that serving with, with the vice chair, the one thing that really sticks out for me is not only is she just a kind and passionate person, but her passion for affordable housing in the city is, is, has been a leading voice on this commission for a long time. And I think that she's an expert in that field. And I think that she's a leader for us in the commission. So I appreciate the nomination for the vice chair. A proper motion, second, any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And so that leads us to historic. We'll open the nominations for our historic representative. Commissioner Dundon.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to nominate Commissioner Matt Smith to continue in his role as the Historic Zoning Commission representative in recognition of his fabulous work and experience in his own profession with this field and willingness to also vote his conscience and speak his conscience, which informs all of us in our deliberations very effectively, and I appreciate that.

Thank you, Commissioner. And I'll second it. I also echo that. Commissioner Smith is, it takes a lot more time, a lot more meetings, and we appreciate his passion. And I do think that doing the additional hours and also being a family person, that that's, we really appreciate your time. I know time is important. And so I'll second any other discussion. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye's have it. And congratulations, Commissioner Smith. And then now open the nomination for the parks representative.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Ed Henley again for the parks board representative for our next term. I think he's done a great job in the past and his passion for parks and how we bring us the updates to us have always been wonderful.

And again, if it's okay, I'll second that because I do believe again, that we have a wonderful parks board representative. It takes a lot of time and commissioner Henley outstanding work on the parks board. And, you know, I served on the parks board and it can get a little controversial. You know, I thought it was all fun and games until you get down there. There's a lot that people don't know about our parks and we have a wonderful park system. And I think that Commissioner Henley is definitely a great addition to that particular board. And I know that he serves also with passion and so I appreciate it. And it's one of those things that really in the city, that can affect a lot of people's lives, especially kids. And so I think it's an important role and we appreciate you being on that. So it's a proper motion, second, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no, ayes have it. And congratulations for more time being spent at the parks board. Now open the nomination for executive committee representative.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's my pleasure to nominate and recommend a fellow commissioner, a fellow lawyer, Leah Dundon, who serves with excellence. I personally appreciate your position on the board and your comments. It's very enlightening. And so it's my pleasure to recommend and nominate you for that position. And thank you for being here.

And I agree, I'll second that motion. I appreciate y'all letting me second everything. I probably shouldn't do that. Should open it up to y'all. Also really appreciate it. Always, always thoughtful. Always add a lot of great discussion and personality to this commission. And I really appreciate how smart you are and what you add to the commission. So we'll have to keep working on great things for the commission. So there's a motion, second, any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And congratulations, Commissioner Dundon. So that leads us to, we don't have anything for executive committee report, except I will remind everybody that summer is here. Summer hours are here. And I will, oh. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Well, let's get back to that. I've skipped a few. Lisa's keeping me straight. All right. Item 22. So now we're on item 22. Historic, update from historic, Commissioner Smith.

No huge update. It was passed in tentative, or not tentative anymore, it was passed in consent agenda. But we did approve a landmark in one of the city's historic churches, which is pretty neat. I think we've got another one probably coming maybe next meeting that has also a pretty neat story behind it. So I'm glad we could be part of that.

Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Hanley, Parks.

Thank you chair. Well, first I'd like to thank the board for their continued confidence in me serving in the role and avoiding an awkward moment because I am currently the vice chair of the parks board. So I do, I do appreciate, I do appreciate that. You know, I would say just again, as, as you all are very aware, especially with the heat that we, that we've in the humidity that we felt today, this summer, our parks get a lot of love and a lot of attention. I always like to highlight the, the great work of our park staff in the summer, because as we know, as school lets out, the parks become an important third place for so many families. And especially as the chair highlighted, the youth. I would also like to say that it's been a great pleasure to know that the culmination of the plan to play update is almost here. I think there's a plan to release the draft in probably June or July. I'm really excited about that because it is a large and very important effort that's been undertaken by a multitude of staff members and stakeholders, but it will also be a guiding document for the future of our park system. And so really excited to have that to guide our work going forward. I know that can be appreciated greatly here at the planning department with all the great studies and great work that we do here as well. but just wanted to highlight that and hopefully we'll have a little bit more to report about that in the coming meetings ahead.

Thank you, commissioner. Next is the executive committee report. So I just, I want to say this, um, We're entering summer hours. And so I know several families have vacations coming up. So we're going into just make sure you look at the agenda. But I believe July and August, we only have one meeting. And so just I try to make as many as I can. And I appreciate the commissioners for taking the time. I try to plan my vacation around that. the commission so and and i also i i do want to say um thank you um for re-nominating me it's not i've not set out to be uh the chair i i appreciate um you all believing in me i I really do believe in Nashville, I believe this commission, including the team, which is really important to me, and making sure that the department runs smooth and we have the right leadership. And I will honestly say that I think not only do we have probably the deepest bench from a leadership standpoint, but for Nashville, but I would say that it probably rivals any of the large cities in the country as far as one of the better departments. And so I want to say thank you to Lucy and the director and the team. You guys do great work. You know, we are all volunteers here. I say that a lot, and I know that it takes time, but this is a really important uh, commission, um, that the Metro charter set out to have very specific goals. And I think that, um, the passion and the love that you all have for this city is critical and it's important. And so I appreciate everybody believing in me, but also believing in the commission and believing in Nashville. So that said, um, Lucy needs to give an update. Maybe she can go to the front. Here we go.

This is all right. Chair, I apologize for being late. I was serving on a continuing education panel with the APA with my peers from Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Dallas. And we were speaking about the relationship between the local planning office and state government around housing. and transportation and talking about preemption, but more importantly, policy alignment between the local and state officials around key issues. And at some point, I would love to brief you on some of those findings because It's so fascinating to hear how California and Minneapolis, for example, or Minnesota use their comprehensive plan, which is a very specific tool around housing. And it's really different from Tennessee and Texas, for example. And there are probably 10 of those areas that are really unusual that we were sort of talking about how we engage certain issues. It's in a way a little more creative. And I think because we have some leeway that some of those states don't have. So it was a fascinating conversation, but I apologize for missing this discussion. I will watch it online, and I know you were in very, very good hands with Lisa. And let me just say also, for those of you who are doing double duty, including council member, thank you so much for your willingness to participate on the planning commission. That in of itself is a gift of public service, but also doing the other boards, it's a way of extending and expressing, I think, planning goals for the city. and that we can engage historic and that we can engage parks, for example, through you and through your work as well as council is a really huge benefit and potentially a silo buster. And so I'm really grateful, but I know it's time. It's time consuming. So with that, thank you, chair. Apologies again for being late.

Oh, thank you, director. All right. Last on our agenda is legislative update. Councilman.

No updates from the council.

No updates from council. So is there a motion to adjourn? Seeing no objection, we adjourn.

This has been a service of the Metro Nashville Network. If you would like to see this presentation again or for more information on this and other programs, visit nashville.gov