Hendersonville Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Now that all the commissioners here, we're going to call the co this uh meeting to order, please. All right. First thing tonight is the opening prayer. Wendy, do you mind saying that for us, please? Would you bow your heads with me, please? Our heavenly father, we come to you tonight, first of all, always so very thankful for the very many blessings you bestow upon each of us and upon our community and our great state of Tennessee and upon our country. We ask that you would be with us tonight. Lead us with guidance as we have conversations, discussions, and when necessary, disagreements, remind us all that we are neighbors and we have one goal in mind, a healthy, beautiful community and the ability to serve you as it can. We ask a special blessing tonight and we ask that you keep Beth Longmire um close as she deals with some health issues. Let her know that she is missed and loved. We ask a special blessing on our first responders. As we've learned this week, they walk boldly into danger, sometimes completely unknown. So, we thank you for their service and we ask your continued blessing over them. Lead us tonight and find all that we do pleasing in your sight. For this we ask in your holy name. Amen. Aliser here. Evans here. Hardwick here. Hasty here. Kerr here. Longm here. Silkwood. Slatterie here. Seven present, two absent. Thank you, Zach. All right. Tonight we have several public hearings. So, the first one we have is a request by Lincoln Property Company to amend the general framework map of the Hendersonville West Lake land use and transportation plan to change

the character area designation of the property from destination recreational opportunity site to industrial flex. This property is located at parcel 1606.01 01 on the southwestern side of West Main Street and Lock Rockland Road intersection and the west side of Rockland Road as identified on Sar County map 1606.01 and I don't see that. Let me make sure that well is this the same one? Yeah, general framework. Okay. Yeah, we can do both. Yeah, do both of them. Both of them together. Okay, that's fine. All right, so we have one person, Mr. Rittenback up there. I see you. Will you come up and speak? Tell us your name, your address, and so on. Thank you, Chair Alheiser. Um, planning commissioners, my name is Jay Ritterbeck. I'm the economic development and community planner for the city. Um, I reside outside of the city limits. Um, but I'm hoping to be able to speak as the economic development coordinator. Um, I've been working for um, months before this application was even submitted with the Lincoln property team. Um, not just on this project, but with the Molly Walton project um, where they took the Music City Studio site and used uh, what was already approved um, did some revisions to that and that project is underway. you could go up and and visit that site, drive by it, and see the amount of work that's being done, the uh immense investment that they're uh pouring into the community. They've um they're we'll speak a little bit to that uh a little bit later, but interesting to note with a $50 million over $50 million investment um their building permits alone um which were

paid uh were well over $400,000 to the city um in in addition to a tree bank fund that they contributed to. So, the amount of investment um and really rigorous um review that they they're going through on that project as well as this one. What we've been doing is is working collaboratively before that application is even submitted to really get an idea of what the city needs in certain areas. uh what we're expect what we're expecting to occur, what types of buildings, um what types of uses. Uh and then we flesh out what that permit path and what that strategy would be going forward. So that when they do apply for a permit and it goes before the planning commission or even before that as it goes to staff that that review is as seamless as um wide open uh as far as what expectations are and that the data are available and have been thought through and presented in a uh a systematic way that really they don't have to go back to the drawing board multiple times. So really going into a project knowing what to expect and uh Hendersonville is is a difficult place for developers that don't know what they're doing uh to to really get anything approved and and built. So really getting developers that want to do the right thing and letting them know what all those right things are uh right as soon as possible really gets a good project forward. So this site was identified on the west side of town where reinvestment in the West Lake Plan area uh is envisioned. Um, this was a site that was uh part of that festival center site that uh right after that festival center overlay uh was adopted and and approved, the city of Goodletsville purchased a large portion of an adjacent piece of property and u is looking at doing a waste wastewater facility there. So that whole festival center site or overlay was really not

going to be um realized um after that that purchase had occurred. So, as we're seeing interest grow in that area, really finding something that works um with the adjacent land uses and realizing that that that plan um was going to always need to be modified um to to get little pieces of it or a bigger piece in this instance um and get something that's good for the city and not just um you know total peace meal small small development. So the team as we're looking through using that Molly Walton as an uh as a an example of how things were done correctly um through the process um you know we mapped out a a strategy to go forward and and really they then submitted the application have been working with staff and um it's been a pleasure working with them. Uh I I hope you give it um some some good scrutiny um and that uh this the end of project uh is something that's a huge asset for the city. So um I'll stick around if there's any questions later in the hearing. Um but I'm very pleased to be working with that team and to have helped at least get this project uh before you guys. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rittenbeck. All right, we have a second public hearing on the same property. So, it's request by Lincoln Property Company to amend the comprehensive development plan from mixed commercial planned development to industrial plan development. This property is located at parcel 1606.01 on the southwestern side of West Main Street and Rockland Road intersection and the west side of Rockland Road as in as identified on Sar County tax map 1606.01. 1. We have nobody signed up to speak on the behalf of that one. So, we'll consider that hearing closed. There you go.

And then the next one that we have is a request by Real Estate Solutions Group to amend the final development plan to remove the blanket rental restriction from Near Water Place final plan development. The property is located at 220 near Water Place to the west of Rockland Road and on the north side of West Main Street as identified by Sonar County Tax Map 16050.01. We have no one signed up for that public hearing to speak on behalf of it. So consider that one closed. Y All right. Then finally, request by MRJ Properties LLC to amend the Manser Creek Final Development Plan. The property is located at 1220 Centerpoint Road on the north side of West Main Street and on the west side of Centerpoint Road as identified by Sumar County Tax Map 16146. 0. And again, we have no one signed up to speak on that one, so we'll consider that one closed. All right. Thank you. The next thing on our agenda is the public comment agenda items only. We have no one signed up to speak for that. Did anyone come in expecting to speak for any of these? All right. Then we'll consider that closed and we'll move on. Next, we have the acceptance of the agenda. Do I have a motion to accept the agenda as is? Anybody want to move anything? I got a I got a motion. Do I have a second? I'm sorry. I heard. All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Uh, roll call vote. Or can I do it by voice? Voice.

All right. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? It passes. Thank you. All right. Next is the minutes from June 3rd, 2025. I suspect everyone's had time to read through those. All right. Do I have a motion for acceptance? So moved. I hear. All right. A second. Uh again, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Passes. Thank you very much. All right. Next, we have the consent agenda. Is there anything? We only have one item on there. It is Alexander Commercial Phase 2 Buena Beef Site Plan. Owner is Bua Venture 2 LLC. Location 261 East Main Street, parcel 159 JA 017.0. Lead planning staff's Timothy Whitten, Caitlyn Shin, which one's taking it? Timothy. Timothy. All right, Timothy. Uh this is the uh third and final lot to develop over in the Alexander commercial development uh across the street here from city hall. Um fastpac urgent care uh I think just opened last week to the to the west and then to the to the east of this lot um Starbucks is about to open. Um Bona Beef is a quick service restaurant. Um they have worked with staff to amend their their get bring their site and building into compliance with our requirements. Um they have a few things left to kind of polish up, but they've agreed to uh work with staff to get all that cleared up and have agreed to all staff comments. My only question, if the applicant is here, and I assume you are, is when do

you plan, assuming this gets approved tonight, when do you plan to start construction and what is your timeline to being open for business? Eric Peterson, 7075 Veterans uh Boulevard, Bur Ridge, Illinois. Um I'm with Keystone. We're the architect. Uh as soon as we get through the entitlement process that hopefully that occurs tonight, then the next step would be the permitting. 7:14 is our target date to get submitted. And then as soon as we can get all permits in hand, we'd be looking to break ground and it would probably be a six to seven month construction schedule from there. So early next year we'd be looking to open. Perfect. Well, thank you so much for bringing your business to Hendersonville and we look forward to having another eating establishment. We uh appreciate it. We look forward to uh join your community. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners have anything to say? All right, they've agreed to everything, so I'll entertain a motion. Oh, we have a motion by Commissioner Martin. Do we have a second? With staff comments. Thank you. Second. We have a second from Commissioner Wendy. All right, roll call. Motion to approve pass with seven yeses. Thank you very much. All right. Next on our agenda is a future land use uh amendment and a resoning. This one is by Lincoln

Rockland. Uh it's a future land use uh amendment. Owner is Frank Richard Messenger Living Trust. Location parcel 160 point Z or 16066.01. Lead planning staff is Timothy Whitten. Timothy, would you like to speak on this one? Sure. And I'll my report's going to cover both the the future land use plan change and the and the Thank you. CDP. So we're combining eight and nine. Okay. Uh so um this is a 26 acre tract. Um it's located south of TNT Wports in Campbell Car Wash. Um it's north of the railroad track and the water uh uh White House utility treatment plant. Um just off Rockland Road. Um this is part of the old uh festival center plan development u which is an MXCPD. Um the future land use plan um calls for this area which is the area shown in green um to be destination recreational opportunity site. Um the uh the festival center that's the old 1986 era master plan that showed um uh showed larger kind of big box mall shopping center type development. Of course, that that never developed um until like 2018, 2020 when the plan was slightly modified to allow for the K car wash and the the um racetrack fuel station on on Gallton Road. Um so the proposal is this is the same group as as Jay mentioned, the same group that's doing the industrial development on the east end of Molly Walton. um they are proposing a a similar type

development. So this is this will be uh principally ware warehousing and light manufacturing kind of um facilities. Uh they are requesting um an amendment to the future land use plan to go from destination recreational opportunity site to industrial flex and to change the zoning from MXCPD to industrial plan development. Um the um the new master plan will replace a portion of the old festival center master plan. So, if if this passes, um there will still need to be a there will still be a a remaining portion of that old festival center uh site that will um whenever that develops that match that portion of that old master plan will have to there will have to at least be an amendment to to bring that into to sync that with this current plan. This current plan is quite a bit different obviously in uses and in layout. So the two do not do not mesh or synchronize. So whenever that remaining portion develops, they'll there'll be a master plan amendment to you bring that road into alignment and make sure everything lines up. Um and uh Zach, if you can you go to the uh yeah the plan right there. So that shows the surrounding zoning. Um all that orange that's that's the festival center. Um, of course with the with the Lincoln property highlighted there to the west, uh, to the west or sorry, to the east you've got heavy commercial towards the bottom, general commercial across Rockland Road. Um and then to the to the west is the remainder of that uh festival center property and then industrial beyond beyond that to the

west and that that yellow to the south that SR1 that's the um the uh core of engineers uh Rockland Park property. Um the city's transportation plan uh calls for the extension of Rockland Road through the Festival Center property over to South Center Point Road. Uh the developer is proposing to build um they're the portion of the road that runs through their 26 acres um which is about a third of the overall length of the road. Uh they're proposing to build two industrial buildings that total about 255,000 square feet. Uh proposed uses have been paired down from the larger list of uses that's allowed in the base industrial uh zoning district. And you can see which uses are um which uses are allowed there on the right and the ones that they have eliminated on the left. Um and do we have the uh future land uh future land use plan in the deck? Yeah, right there. Uh so um this is the future land use plan. You can see um the uh character area that they are requesting industrial flex is uh is to the to the uh to the east of them and also beyond the festival center property over to the to the west that's also industrial flex. They're requesting you have that same industrial flex carriage area kind of tagged on there. Um so at at the end of the staff report uh you'll find a list of items that the planning commission should consider when evaluating a plan development. Um not not that you're limited to those.

Um and then in planning planning comment staff planning planning comment number one are the um the findings of fact that should be included in in any uh motion. That concludes my report. Thank you, Timothy. I appreciate that. All right, planning commissioners, do any of you all have questions? Anyone want to say anything? Well, before they come up, I did have a question for staff. Did you say that we're going to go ahead and excuse me, reszone all of that area or we're reszoning just the piece they're looking for? just just the piece that they're they're 26 acres. So not the entire festival center is just that so that portion of that. So my followup question to that is does it make sense to go ahead and reszone all that because it needs to be industrial. It's not going to be recreational use. I think it was said that the city of Goodletsville has purchased a piece of this and that it's headed all in that direction and this would help possibly speed up the development of that whole area. So, I I leave that up to the staff, but from my opinion, it seems like it would be a good thing to just let's go ahead and put it on the books. This is where we want to see this area develop. And I'll leave it. Yeah. And uh I think that's something we can uh we can look at. Uh, one thing that kind of comes into play, uh, is with the city of Goodletsville. Uh, we worked out an arrangement on a on a on a deal a couple of years ago, uh, where the, uh, city of Hendersonville has a right of first refusal. Uh, so, uh, if it did come up, uh, then we would get an opportunity to purchase the property, uh, at that at that time. Uh, but, uh, that could be something that

this is su successful and done. That may be an endeavor. We may want to we may want to resend the balance of uh of what's left of the festival center uh and dissolve it and then just reszone that resone that property. So that is a possibility that we could could do that. So I think what I'm hearing you say is let's don't do it now. Let's look at it down the road. Yeah. Uh it's it's one thing where that if if uh if the city of Hendersonville uh eventually is able to control the property, then we'll make sure all those things are done. Uh for right now, maybe the best place for it to park uh is remaining in the festival center. uh because then at that at that point just like the developers are coming this evening any other future owner of the property whether it's city goodsville or uh if it's they sell it to somebody and it's not us uh then they would have to come back and go through this process as well. Okay. And and also the remainder of that property has not been properly noticed and yeah notices sent out. So okay Commissioner Evans I see you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh in in looking at this and and thinking back to our our Westlake program and and what we talked about on the transportation plan, we've got Rockland Road on the transportation plan. We are now going to extend it down to Center Point Road. We talked a while back uh about a waste facility that uh had maybe some traffic problems down through there if if that facility had gone in, which it didn't, but we we talked extensively about traffic in that area. The transportation plan on one end of Rockland Road calls for a roundabout that is desperately needed down there to disperse traffic in all directions. One

way would be Imperial Drive. We're in serious need of some uh traffic thorough affairs parallel to Highway 31 Main Street to get to get the traffic dispersed in other directions and and in and putting all these pieces together that we've been talking about for a while. If you go on Rockland Road from the roundabout in front of the post office, if it ever got built, down the newly developed Rockland Road onto Center Point Road, uh we we have we have a parallel street as as far as we can get it all the way down to Imperial Drive and and Drakes Creek at that point. So, in in looking at, okay, what are we going to do with that traffic? Uh we do have Center Point Road. We've got a an entrance ramp and an exit ramp all all directions except north. We can't go north on 386 off of Center Point Road. So, if you back up to what I understand is the old uh exit three that was intended to go across the bridge that was supposed to go across the the lake, uh it would seem to me that that we should somehow make provisions for that uh loop that we get back on Main Street to go straight ahead and dead head into into uh Rockland Road with a traffic light or whatever. That gives us north,southeast, and west on the bypass as as well as a a direct exit on and off of Rockland Road to what I think is going to be a really nice development down in there for something other than residential. Uh something that that might need access to to more transportation. So what I'm saying is I I would hope that we would pay attention to that as we develop that area and and look for that parallel thoroughare all the way from Manser Creek down to down to Drakes Creek paralleling Highway 31 and getting some of that traffic off of 31. We do have by the bypass is is slated for improvement. So it only makes

sense to try to get the traffic in that direction if we can. Can can you pull a do we have the image that's the image that's the orange that shows the road going all the way through? Uh it's a different one or maybe we don't have that one up there. Okay. Yeah, we we Yeah, there's a there's a different one. Uh and it shows it uh just as you were saying, commissioner, that that goes all the way over to South Center. So, in addition in addition to the Goodletzville property, uh that we have the right of first refusal, we also got uh yeah, this shows it real well. Uh we also have um 64 foot of rightway along the Goodlessville property uh that they've agreed to to give to us as well as once we get past that where um Century Steel is located over off South Central or South Center Point. Uh they also have an easement uh with a note to dedicate that as future rightway with a construction easement as well so that we could get that across there. So this development here I think develops 34% yeah 34% of that total east west collector and then that that roadway down through there uh it's a um uh uh it's a two-lane uh with uh with a bike with a I think a 10-ft bike path on one side as well as it has a center turn lane uh with a couple of areas we're going to have some medians in just a few. Uh so this is going to be a pretty substantial ride ofway where that if something happened and we could ever come off of there uh we wanted to make sure to have ample uh roadway width and right of way for exactly what you're what you're talking about. So, this kind

of tees that up where uh that that could be could be a possibility. And uh for other developments that we've looked at over here, uh we've we've thought about that uh working with Jay Ritterbeck, our economic development community planner, we've been looking at that as, you know, what we could potentially do coming off that spur and doing something a little bit different, sort of like what you're talking about. Thank you, Commissioner Slatter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Along the lines of traffic management and future plans, I'm my eyes are drawn to one of the proposed allowable uses, two actually, under industrial uses, trucking company terminal and warehouse distribution. Right now, getting trucks in and out of that area. I I'm taking my life into my own hands if I turn on the Imperial at the post office only to look forward to what could be an even greater nightmare down at the end of rock at where Rockland Road terminates today at 31 if there is any kind of heavy truck traffic not even heavy if there's moderate truck traffic at that area. So, I'm concerned that those are two industrial uses that are still allowable without the road improvements that we are looking forward to in the future. Thank you, Commissioner Kerr. I saw your you were lit up. My question's been answered. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Time for the applicant. Yeah. Let me Okay, hold on one second. He's got something. I will just share something. as we move forward later and get to a point uh to to do the vote. This will be one of those uh that's going to have two votes. There'll be the vote on the future um uh future land use plan and that starts and stops with the planning commission, but then separately there'll be a vote uh for the uh combined development plan resoning as a recommendation that goes to Bulma. So there'll be this will consist of two

votes but we do the future land use plan first and then do uh the other one after that. Now does anyone from the applicant or anyone from the applicant in the audience will you please come to the podium state your name your address please? Thank you. Um, want to thank you all for your time first of all for letting us present to you today. Um, a year ago tomorrow we were here standing at the same podium talking about the Molly Walton Industrial Project and thanks to the support of the staff, the planning commission and others. It's been a a large team effort. We're underway. We'll deliver the first building in December with the subsequent buildings delivering by call it June of next year. And candidly, our experience through this process has led us to just want to do more in Hendersonville. Um the the feedback we've received, the process throughout how diligent you all are makes the project a lot more successful and the execution uh speaks for itself. Um so with that, you know, came AC across this site through conversations with Jay Ritterbeck about how can we do more here? Where is there underutilized land that may not be currently zoned for the highest and best use and how can we find something that creates more jobs for the community that creates more growth in Hendersonville and is something that the community can get on board with. Um so with that just wanted to say one thank you for your time. um obviously understand questions on traffic and I think you know through our experience on Molly Walton we were able to learn some of the kind of lowhanging fruit if you will of lessons learned that stuff we should be doing better um such as extending the roadway you know we we're doing that on Molly Walton for future connectivity to forest retreat road and the interchange as part of the T dot project um by dedicating the 64 ft rightway and building 34% of the road uh extension for Rockland with the hopes that longterm the traffic that that currently is plaguing you on Rockland road is actually going over towards

South Center Point Road and then trucks or cars can get on to uh Main Street by taking a right and getting onto the loop rather than uh you know taking that lefthand turn. Um so we can address uh questions on traffic. We've got Kimley Horn here as well who's our civil engineer, also our civil engineer on uh the Molly Walton project. So they're very familiar. Um but more than anything, we want to incorporate your feedback. This the planning staff has been phenomenal to work with and uh we really appreciate your time. Any commissioners have questions? Any comments that you want? Questions from the applicants? All right. I don't see anything. So with that, we have two votes per what Keith has described. So the first vote would be the future land use. Okay. Go right ahead. Right here. Okay. First vote is on the future land use plan and the traffic uh amendment. So he's scratching off mine right now the reasonzoning part of that since it's not that we're just dealing with the f future land use uh and traffic plan. Uh so with that being said um do I have a motion one way or the other? I would like to make a motion to change the future land use map for that area for that particular piece of property since that's what we're limiting it to to be the industrial flex. Is that correct? What else do I need to add? That's all you need. And do I have a second? Okay, we have a I hear a second from you, Mr. Evans. All right. Thank you. Now, roll call. Motion to approve. Pass with seven yeses. Thank you, Zachary. Okay. Now, we have a second vote that has to be on the Lincoln Rockland uh combined development

plan. So, this one is a little more complicated in your motion. It has to include everything on is it page 56? Is that correct? It's page six, right? No, page five. It might be in the staff com staff comment number one. Yeah. Number one in the staff comments. That's it. So it's on page seven. Sorry y'all. Yeah. So when we're when we're doing uh a combined development plan or a preliminary development plan or just even a straight resoning. So a part of that is to have findings of fact. So it's always whenever we're making the recommendation that's going to Bulma, we want to list some findings of fact that kind of, you know, at least one of those that address what Timothy has listed in his staff comments under item number one. All right. So I'll entertain a motion and this is on our item number nine and this is the combined development plan. Okay. Go ahead. Yes. So uh can someone speak to the the brewery tap room exactly what we're talking about there? if that is a potential use. What what we're talking about there, that is not a use we we honestly foresee on the site. If that was taken out of the permitted uses, that would not be an issue with us. Yeah, I would like to make that amendment. So, we have an amendment to remove the brewery tap room, right? Correct. So, if we get a motion, then you'll need

to make sure you include that in in the motion. All right. Do we have a motion? No motion. So, Oh, so move. Yep, we have a motion. All right. Do I have a second? Okay, hold on one second. Keith is going to offer some just a so what this would be a proper motion on this uh would be the re u recommend uh approval of the development plan uh for Lincolnland uh for CDP for Lincoln Rocklin uh with removing the use of brewery tap room and additionally not uh listing uh the um findings of fact uh that the area uh is um that is in compliance with the future land use plan uh and that this zoning is an appropriate zoning for that area. So that would be an example of of what a motion could be. Do you want to give it another try, Mr. K? I'll do it. Okay, go right ahead. I'll make that motion. Okay. What he said. So there you go. Did you get that? We got it, I think. Yeah, we got it, Zach. Okay. All right. Do we have a second for that motion? Yes, second. Okay, we have a second from Commissioner Hardwick. All right, we'll do a roll call now. Motion to approve. Pass with seven yeses. Thank you, Zach. All right, we move to the next item. Sure I'm on the right thing.

Okay, next item is Manser Creek Future Development Plan Amendment Major. Owner is MJ Properties LLC. Location parcel 161 046.0 00 lead planning staff is Keith on this one. So, you want to explain this, Keith? Yeah, I sure would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this is Manser, Manser Creek. Uh, this is the area as you're coming in from uh the west uh city limits u from Madison from Davidson County right on the left where you uh see the area that's a kind of a field area has been a fill area for for quite some time. Uh this property actually has uh for quite some time had a planned development on it. Uh just nothing was actually ever ever constructed. So it's had planned developments had uh amended plan developments. It's had final development plans and some of those final development plans were amended. And what this is is the uh the current owners of the property are trying to prepare it for development. Uh and in order to do that, uh the current uh the current layout of of the uh approved uh final development plan for this area had more of like a 90s retail center where everything's at the back and uh uh we really don't actually have a lot of that type of thing here here in our community. Uh but it's stuff that you'd see that was built in the 90s. It was that kind of retail retail center. And so what they want to do is something that's a little bit different uh that breaks the buildings up uh you know lays it out differently, brings more of the buildings uh to the front. Uh and in order to do that, that was a substantial change uh from the latest um final development plan that was approved uh several years ago. And so with this particular uh development plan, uh it encompasses it's the area uh tract A is

if everybody knows where tractor supply is over off of Center Point uh road that's within this uh this particular uh plan development that's already developed. Uh and this the remaining portions here are what we refer to as uh tracks B, C, and D. And uh the proposal here uh with the concept and this is really an early concept. Um the uh owners or developers could maybe address kind of an overview here in a minute. You know what what they're wanting to do at this point. They don't necessarily uh unless something's changed, they don't have a particular um u commercial development that's going to happen on uh on the on the site. They're just trying to prepare it. Uh and uh conceptually they're looking at on those tracks B, C, and D. Uh they're look, this is some of the older stuff that was like one of the original things that was approved that's up on the screen right now. Uh but they're proposing 109,731 square feet. Uh the 2006 final development plan, which is the latest thing we have that was approved, uh that actually had 168,200. So, this is um this is substantially lower square footage uh than what was originally approved. What you see up on the screen now uh is uh is the uh the proposal uh uh that you that you have before you this this evening. I would just uh I would just mention this property just just for the record. This property used to be called Manser Creek Village and then the name was changed years ago to Centerpoint Joint Venture and then eventually to Manser Creek, which is what we're continuing to call it. I just wanted to to note that uh note that for the record. Uh in looking at the uses, uh the uses that

you can see on the right of the screen, uh the uh this development being back in 2006, it has what our old zoning ordinance had for uses. Uh and so what we did as a staff is we looked at those old uses and then trans transferred those to what current uses are. And all those uses lined up actually pretty good. uh normally they may not, but these particular uses lined up with uses that we have identified uh you know currently in our ordinance. And so this kind of cleans all that up and makes it uh clear uh what the uh what the uses are. U a couple of things just to note that are things that when this property develops. Um there is uh right ofway and possible construction of a portion of the green belt uh along Manser Creek that would eventually connect over to JP2 uh go up to the north up within that area. Additionally uh the uh the owner developers uh have agreed uh to mirror what we had the Jeep dealership do across the street with the stone columns and the fencing. So they will mirror mirror that. Uh there'll be quite a bit of um of uh landscaping there because we tried to look and be very sensitive to this is a gateway to our community. So we want to make sure it's as attractive as possible. Uh additionally, there would be it either there'd either be uh new decorative street lights, but those lines over there are a little bit low. So, it might be street lights or it might be replacing some of those street light arms with decorative arms that are on those poles. Uh, that could be a possibility. Uh, and um see if there was anything else that I had left out. Also, those two entrances uh uh they've added the entrance over

there uh that's right by uh Centerpoint Barbecue. Uh that's the original design kind of having that median kind of fancy uh entry. Uh the other entry that they have on the other side uh they also added to make that a more attractive uh entryway as well. Uh there's some different things that aren't really directly associated with our consideration tonight uh that are being uh worked out with public works and with TEC in regards to some of the feel on the edges of the area and that's being worked on and it's just going to take a little bit of time to resolve. Uh but that really doesn't have any impact on uh on what we're uh what we're doing doing tonight in revising uh revising this plan. And so Mr. Mr. Chairman, that's just a just kind of an overview of of this. Uh it's kind of exciting though to be able to kind of clean up and we really appreciate the owners working with us to clean this development plan up uh to prepare it uh uh for moving toward the future. One thing uh one thing I didn't have them do is because they don't really have a particular business that they're looking necessarily to put here. So, I really didn't want to give a bunch of images because they really didn't have any designs. But what they did agree to and agreed to all the staff comments and they put it on their plan. They've agreed uh to exceed the design standards. So once we're doing the individual site plans for each each part of the development that occurs uh then uh then the expectation is they'll they should even exceed our design standards uh basing those design standards. Uh so that was uh that was pretty good. And then what this allows too is approve if if if the revi this amended final development plan

is approved. What it allows is then if as this develops and it needs the buildings need to move a little bit this way or that uh with the current layout that can be done you know without coming back and having to do you know a major revision to the uh to the development plan. So, um, happy to answer any question and there's I believe there the owner or the, uh, owners. Yeah, the owner is is here as well that can discuss it. All right, Commissioner Slatter, you have a question. A curiosity, why the the size of the parcel is dropping by an additional almost um 50, 60,000 square feet. Oh, what that what that is, it's kind of split between the pages. Uh what that is is that's the building square footage. Oh, thank you. Yeah. So the the overall land size is staying the same. Uh but the um building square footage originally back in 1987 uh when the original plan development was approved. Uh it had a total of 243,000 uh square foot and then now we're looking atund we're looking at with tractor supply it'll be 132,000 square foot. Commissioner Hardwick, you have questions. So, does the owner not want to speak to us tonight? Oh, yeah. I think they're ready. They're 110. Yes. Okay. Do you have any Anybody else? I'll save my questions for That's good. Any other questions for Keith? Well, before we go out there. All right. Uh will the owner get up and speak, please? Thank you. Will you tell your name and where you're from? Yeah, good evening. Um I'm actually uh representing the owner. I'm the civil engineer with uh Barge Civil Associates. My name is Ryan Woodson. um our offices in Nashville, West Nashville. Um so we got approached by the owner um MJ Properties to help them sort out I think it was alluded to some some fill along the uh floodway and in

the flood plane and we started meeting with u public works and the storm water department to discuss how we're going to um to do kind of a mass grading on the site, what steps need to be taken with that to get a land disturbance permit. We started talks with Tekk and the core of engineers as well and during that process they said well we think you should also meet with planning and discuss the uh FDP and any amendment that would be required there. So as is mentioned uh the property owner themselves have no intention to develop the site. They would uh assuming this gets approved eventually there would be a plat and each parcel would be sold off individually to be developed. Uh obviously following the guidelines of this um of this amendment but that's the plan so far. So you made the comment that they do not plan to develop the site. It's been for sale for quite a while. You You said they're probably going to sell it off in different parcels. So, why are we seeing buildings here that may or may not be what's going to be developed, buildings up front, building in the back, some's a big building, some's a little building. Wouldn't it be better to just show the different parcels and how they're going to be split off and sold? That's probably related to to staff. What it is is with that current uh plan development, having all those buildings up there, it it sort of Yeah, this is it right here. That sort of set this is the overall quality and the layout of the plan. And uh they know they they know they're not going to do that. And so then that puts it in a position where they can't just come in with a site plan to do what we're looking at this evening. They have to have something they have to have something that's similar to the approved final development plan because this is

actually what was you know what was approved. It doesn't have to be exact. Uh but this is this is a lot different than understand. Yeah. But but I know they're not going to build what they're showing us tonight. Right. That's that's not what's going to get built here. Yeah. I I am 100% agreeable that it needs to be leveled, it needs to be graded, you need to all the things that need to be done. I'm just confused why these boxes and wouldn't it be better to just show it's back to raw land and we give them the grading permit and where are the parcels? I mean, are we talking about three parcels that are going to get sold or how are the parcels going to be divided? And I'm just confused about this. The way it's presented and what we're trying to do here because I know what's being shown is not what's going to be developed. If you if you took it to where nothing was on there, nothing was on there, then you're really talking about taking it back to straight zoning, which is something that the applicant was very interested in doing. uh to take it back to just straight commercial zoning. But with that, we don't want to do that with that, you'd have more than those permitted uses. Uh and we wouldn't have all the different extra things uh that come along with a with a plan development. So, in order to do a plan development, even if you don't know exactly what it is, but they definitely know it's not going to develop like a strip center. Correct. So, they know that's not going to happen. So, however it develops, this is probably closer to it. Although, that may end up being just three buildings or it could be one building, you know, and it could it could be something where it's one track or it could be two tracks or or three. So, really it's going to come back the plan's going to get changed again. Oh, yeah. Yes. I would say so the but to the

degree that it changes if this gets approved will determine whether it comes back here or whether we just do it at staff. But staff was not comfortable from if you can go back to that old one. Staff was not comfortable that and it was a long time ago that Bulma approved it but staff wasn't comfortable that if Bulma approved that then we're moving forward with a site plan that is radically different than that you know which probably even though it's radically different would probably be much superior to what to what this would be. But that's a very good that's a very good question and and on this typically what we have seen here with a lot of the plan developments that the planning commission has reviewed and and and dug into those really have been things uh where they really did already have a vision of what they wanted to do. So we got a 50% or 80% concept of probably what they were going to do. In this instance, they actually don't know exactly what they what they want to do, but I but I can allow them to move forward with site plans with what they already have approved. And I can't allow it to be divided up, you know, in a manner that doesn't really doesn't really jive with what we have approved. And that that's kind of where it that's kind of where it where it is. I'm still confused, but I think I think I know where Okay, sorry if I can add one note on the layout of the buildings. Uh that the previously approved plan, the majority of the building was in the flood plane. So, we're attempting to kind of move I think this was mentioned in the staff report, but we're attempting to move the buildings closer to uh to Main Street to get them out of the flood plane. Commissioner Slatter, you have a question. Thank you. Actually, a question for Keith. Thank you for being here tonight. I I'm confused as well. So, if they're not going to develop the

property and they're going to sell it off in individual parcels, who has agreed to exceeding our design requirements? What that would be is just like any of our other plan developments, whatever those agreements are, uh they're not limited to just whoever that original developer is. It goes with the land. And so when these uh when these develop um with each site plan then everything with the site plan transfers transfers over. Okay. Sometimes that would be could be um oh you've got to do this amenity when you develop your part of it. You got to do your portion of the amenity. Uh very similar thing is actually um uh Indian Lake. So, the Indian Lake commercial area, Saundersville Road, um um Indian Lake Boulevard, all of that. So, all of that had a uh development plan, you know, just like what we're looking at this one tonight. And sometimes it lined up pretty close, but a lot of times things really got moved around and then what actually ended up getting built was still really close to the spirit of it, but it wasn't exactly. It's the same thing uh that that you were talking about, Commissioner Hardwick, is you know what the plan is. That that wasn't exactly what ended up getting built, but it was pretty pretty close, you know, to it, but not not exact. And um um so that's kind of what the plan does. is it kind of tees up and helps us when the site plans come forward and that comes before the planning commission to then hold them to whatever the standard of the uh of the plan development is going to be. Um and so that's kind of the way that is. But this is different because this is something where they don't really have exactly nailed down exactly or clo real close to what they're wanting to do. But they do

know it can't be what it is now because all of that is back in the flood plane and they can't they can't have those buildings, you know, back in there. Commissioner Barton, um I just wanted to circle back to this uh property being right at the entrance. Um the welcoming of of Hendersonville as vehicles come through moving the buildings. I get why we're doing it, but um they're very close to the road and it looks like they would be actually be the back of a house for the buildings with utilities and meters and electrical stuff. Do you have something in there that that would prevent prevent that being done like unsightly facing Main Street? Yeah, and and that would be and it wouldn't it wouldn't be just limited to this. It could be uh anything that we were doing that we're doing a site plan. Uh in this particular one, all four corners of the build, all four sides of the building are going to have to be uh uh very attractive facing. So, you know, whatever the different utilities or where that's going to go, all that would have to be done in a manner uh uh where uh it's concealed and and all that. And we would look at that specifically at the uh at the site plan. Is that correct, Timothy? Timothy may Yeah, that's correct. And our our just our basic building design standards have hardwired into them that the front of the building facing the street, whether it's the operational front or not, has to look like the front of the building. It has to have all the all the bells and whistles that you would expect. So, if this does develop this way, if their actual front is facing 386 and that's going to have to look good, just look just as good as the side that's facing Main Street. I mean, it's have it's going to be foursided architecture and um yeah, figuring out

where those utility hookups go. Um that that's all something that will get fleshed out at the site plan level like like we usually do. Love it. A somewhat good example of that would be um the what's the Mexican restaurant that's being built on on Bravo? Rio Bravo. Rio Bravo is a pretty good example. You know, it's got four sides that they had to make, you know, pretty attractive and they've got a lot of different things going on. And as you see that develop, uh you know, all four sides are going to be pretty pretty attractive, uh with that. So, especially facing there, uh, there'll be extra scrutiny with that. And that's part of the reason I wanted to get that language in there that they're agreeing to exceed our design review. So, there's no question, you know, when whenever the these properties do develop that it's it's got to be exceptional. It just can't be mediocre. And then we can hold them to that whoever it is uh we can hold them to that at the site plan phase because that's in the plan. So basically what happens is and this relates to other things we'll be discussing. We have the zoning ordinance and that's where the authority comes from. the plan development, plan developments like this, they get their authority from the zoning ordinance and then the deals or the negotiated things that happen like you're going to exceed the um design review, that's all a part of that negotiated part of the plan development. Uh and so that's kind of how all of that all of that functions. So it's all it's all very tied together. Good. Very good question. Any other commissioners have questions? No questions, then I'll entertain a motion.

Have a motion from Commissioner Martin. Do I have a second? Have a comm Have a second from Commissioner Kerr. And all staff comments are included. All right. Thank you very much. So, we'll do a roll call. Motion to approve pass with seven yeses. Thank you, Zach. Okay. Next on the agenda is Nearwater Place Final Development Plan Amendment. Owner is Real Estate Solutions Group. Location 220 near waterplace parcel 16050.01. Lead planning staff is Zack Coleman. Zack, thank you. Take it away. Um, so Near Water Place Final Development Plan was recommended for approval by HBC on June 7th, 2022. Um, and then it was approved by Bulma um on June 28th, 2022 with resolution 2022-18. Um it shows 49 town home units on a little over six acres um on the property located next to 1090 West Main Street, which is the Waffle House. Um and the on-ramp to 386 right there. Um it's a little wedged uh shaped property. Um the applicant real estate solution group is requesting an amendment to the final development plan um to remove the blanket rental restriction from the Near Water Place final development plan. Um and with that, um real estate solution group provided a letter through council to supplement the request. So staff had no comments on this.

Thank you very much. Thanks for telling. Again, I'll repeat myself. Any commissioners have questions? All right. So, will the I have a comment, I guess. Okay. Go right ahead, Charles. Um, when uh this project was discussed here at the planning commission just about two years ago, a little over, I know there was a lot of discussions about, you know, is it going to be rentals or are there going to be condos for sale, you know, and I know then I think Mr. Elely indicated that his his goal is to build units for sale and I believed him and I think that was put in there based on the comments that that's my goal and we approve that. uh realizing that things have changed in two years, economic conditions, good, bad, or otherwise. And just generally things have changed. Maybe the project just didn't go as was originally visualized. And I can understand the developer wanting to make this request and I I believe if he had come in and said, "Hey, this is what's going on." But I kind of take exception to the fact that we are now accused of regulatory taking, denying somebody of due process and you know just unconstitutional

conditions doctrine. I believe all that is unnecessary based on what was transpired and what could happen to come in with a letter accusing I don't know about Bulma but planning commissioners of treating this guy like dirt. I don't think we did that. And that was what he agreed to at the time. And I understand changes and if he'd come back and politely ask, I'd probably vote for it. But I didn't appreciate the comments from the attorney. That's all I got to say. Thank you, Commissioner Hasty. Uh I see Commissioner Curry, you're lit up, so go ahead and speak. Yeah. Yeah. Quick question. and the 49 units. Uh, anybody here representing any of those units ownership wise? How many how many of those units stand empty today? Do we know? Okay, we I don't think that's a question we can answer. So now, if the applicant or the lawyer would like to come up and speak, feel free. State your name, please. Thank you'all. Uh Marty Cook, 100 Blue Bgrass Commons, Hendersonville. I represent the applicant. Um to answer that question to start off, none of them have been sold. Um so they are all vacant at this time. And you know, um I certainly um am sorry that uh you all saw the letter as a threat. I mean, we were we were asserting what we believe to be our legal position and our opinion here. And we do believe this is a unique situation um for a couple reasons. We we believe

the property is uniquely situated um and we believe the the way that this blanket rental restriction was put into place when it came through the process was also a little unusual. Um I as you all know I've been involved in many developments throughout the city and and a lot of times when there is a hope um for the legislative bodies to place certain restrictions on these developments, we will negotiate that. We'll maybe work into the uh restrictions and covenants of of that of that subdivision, certain rental restrictions, certain percentages, and that's often negotiated along the way. Um, and then ultimately those conditions are placed on it and everybody agrees to it. What was a little unusual here is it was Mr. Elely's goal for all of these units to be owner occupied as Mr. Hasty said. No question about that. However, throughout the process, there really wasn't any negotiation. It just at the end of the Bulma vote, there was a motion made that there would just be no rentals. Um the vote went down. The goal was that there weren't going to be rentals anyway. And so that's the way it happened. And as Mr. Hasty said in the last two years, interest rates, economics, things have changed. I think you all would agree it's a very attractive um product. It's an attractive development, but there has not been interest in purchasing these units. And it's not that they're overpriced. They're actually priced under cost. um and they're still not selling. However, there has been interest from folks who would like to rent them. Um I think the uniqueness of the property location is that it's not

in the middle of other owner occupied properties. It's in a very unique place next to Waffle House. And the closest residential properties are apartments just up the way, which are all rental units. And so those are the factors that led to our conversations and ultimately asserting what we believe to be our legal opinion as to why there might be some issues with the way that blanket rental restriction was placed into this ordinance and why we're requesting respectfully that that be lifted. And it, you know, again, there are negotiations that could be had. We would be willing to consider certain reasonable restrictions, something short of none of these units can ever be rented. Um, so that's the request. Again, my apologies if my letter came across as threatening or simply pointing out that those types of restrictions in certain instances can have legal issues. Um, and because of that, we wanted to start the discussion um and to respectfully request this amendment. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Martin, I see you're lit up, so go ahead and speak. Yes, thank you for bringing this exciting project to us. Um, I took the same offense to that to the letter that that you submitted um as as Mr. AC described. Um, there were some confusing parts of it, more confusing than that newsletter that went out yesterday. So I wanted to ask you um in your lawsuit threat you reference regulatory taking item two total

regulatory takings where governmental action deprivives a property owner all economically beneficial use of her property but Mr. really is currently allowed to sell his units which is a significant e economic use of the property right that is one economic use of the property but it's not all economic uses of the property okay and then additionally there could be no taking because Mr. Elely was under no obligation to build the forale units after he got his requested plan development approved, but bu proceeded to build on his own. I'm sorry, what portion of the letter are you referencing? The same number one, the one I just described. I don't understand. Where you said there's a governmental action deprivives a property owner all economically beneficial use of her property. You said there's a governmental taking. Yes. He's been deprived of the opportunity to fully achieve the economic benefit of the property. Um, in your lawsuit threat, you cite the pen. And sir, can I correct you? Yeah, I'm sorry. Nowhere in that letter do I threaten the lawsuit. Uh, it's actually in the first paragraph. Please be advised, yada yada yada. Anyway, in your lawsuit, can you show me the word lawsuit, Mr. Martin? I don't see it. In your in your u lawsuit, you cite the 10 central factors and say, "Regarding the first factor, their prohibition on rentals has a had a profound economic impact given that Elely has been unable to sell fe simple interest." Um, and Mr. Elely agreed on selling his units. Um, and that's what got the required votes uh to approve his controversial plan development. Is that a question?

No, it's a statement. All right. In your lawsuit threat, you cite the pin central factor and say, "As for the second factor, presumably when Elely or any other real estate investor or developer purchases property and begin the development approval process, they assume that they will be able to use their property in the most econom economically beneficial way. The problem with the Quacer sighting is that that's on that involves lost coal mining rights. Uh, we're talking about selling versus leasing units property rights. All right. In your lawsuit threat, you claim an equal protection and substantive due process violation and that under the rational basis review, a court determines whether government action is a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate governmental interest. You then make an accus accusation that our city's goal was to keep out renters because they're viewed as undesirable. What was your goal, Commissioner Martin? First, no one has made such a statement and the accusation is not appreciated. Fair enough. Secondly, you actually admit elsewhere in your letter that Tennessee and other courts have held the right to alienate, eg rent, property is not a fundamental right for equal protection and substantive due process. Is that a question? I'm just pointing it out. In your lawsuit threat, you referenced the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The issue here seems to be the right to alienate lease, which you've already admitted. Tennessee and other courts have held the right to alienate rent. Property is not a fundamental right. Your lawsuit threat does not reference the property in question that it did not

have adequate legal access because T do DOT would not allow access that close to their entrance ramp. Mr. Elely proceeded with construction without giving notice to D to T do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do DOT as required that way T do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do DOT could not stop the project. My question is does the property now have legal access? Yes. Could you articulate why? The last letter I read, T Dot said, you don't have access into that property. So, if you have unclean hands, how can you assert rights? I have no idea what you're referencing. Sure. Come on. I think you should in light of this. Uh my name is Lynn Eleely. I'm here on behalf of Real Estate Solutions Group. Um and I'm happy to address that question or any others that come up um as we continue conversation. Uh I think the question was do we have right to our access? And the answer is yes. Um Commissioner Martin, I heard you say you the last letter you had didn't say that. I'm happy to give you another one or or what if you need a a current file. I'm happy to share if that's what you're asking for. I I would love the latest letter. Um the one that I had said that they were going to require you to build a second entrance. Is that still in That's Yes, that is part of one of the future conditions of the development of the neighboring property. There's an expectation, to put it candly, there's an expectation of the city to require access to this additional access to this property

through development of neighboring property similar to like the um Rockland Road project you talked about earlier, how you're planning on extending a road through another people, another person's property. It's the same situation. Oh, you said the city's requiring it. Is that is T dot refer? It's ex I think my understanding is T DOT's expecting the city to require that in the future. Okay. But I I I don't have a letter in front of me. I can get it for you. We had to go just to give you the history of that. The gentleman that I was working with at T DOT gave me permission to do exactly what's developed today. Very loosely though. I didn't get anything like I should have in anything better in writing. I had an email that was pretty sloppy at best when he said, "You're fine or we don't have jurisdiction of this. The access is already there. Don't alter it." Things of that nature. I went on about my business through city due process and that person retired. A new person came in. They were informed um about the project. They wanted to look into it further. They had me go through a pretty rigorous exercise of getting um uh some sort of exception permit or something which I followed through with that. So all that's all that's up to snuff and I've got that. I made sure I followed through with that there. I think you said I I don't have clean hands over it or something. I I made sure we were covered before. I would obviously wouldn't have made a $9 million investment um in the vertical construction of the property after I developed it if I thought maybe somehow T dot was going to come in and squash my plan. So um thanks to you, Mr. Martin, I I followed through to make sure that was uh my hands were clean in that regard. Um all right, I'll let someone else talk a little bit. Any

other commissioners have questions of the applicant? Commissioner Slatterie, go ahead. You're recognized. I think what you built is beautiful. I think they're they're quite beautiful. I wasn't sure about it right there when you started, but they are beautiful properties. I'm not an attorney, so Mr. Cook, if you'll bear with me, is there any way we can undo? Can we bring the language down maybe in something that's filed? I agree with Commissioner Hasty. I think that this may have been third or fourth attempt at getting your request approved rather than your first shot at us. I appreciate your apology because it it was rather strongly worded. So, without a law degree, I'm asking, can we do something to take this down a notch? Can we supplement this letter with with a new letter, with a new date on it, with a new attempt? because there's there is obviously some pretty intense feeling um around the letter and I think it was a rather simple request. So, if there is something we can do and I'll I'll ask you Keith, I'll ask uh Lance, I see you in the room. I'll um can we erase this? Can we restart our game and all come at this with a a little more as I prayed when we started a collective approach to do what's best for our city? Can I speak to a little bit of history of the letter too because he didn't act alone on that just to be just to be frank. The the letter did evolve um as we work with staff. We had various conversations with staff and commissioners and and various offices in the city about the hardship that I'm having, you know, not being able to sell for for such a long period of time after so much effort. Um, we attempted to first go the route of a

BCA um application. Um, because of the the stipulation being tied to a zoning, we were told we couldn't do that. through speaking with my attorney, we started looking at the circumstances of how the the restriction was put on the property. And to remind everybody that through many meetings in this room with planning commission and Bulma, it was repeatedly said, "I have full I I said I have full intentions to sell these units," which I have done. I've made attempt to anyway. Um, but I would like the ability to have the option to rent if so needed. Um, and at the time I was suggesting that we we often will put rental restrictions, we'll self-impose rental restrictions, like we'll make sure that the CCRs say things like no one owner can own more than three units, no short-term rentals, things of that nature. Mhm. Um, and I was hoping to have that sort of thing take place on this property. Um, it it literally came down to all the discussion being had at the last Bulma meeting and an amendment being made that I make an amendment to revise the ordinance to say owner occupancy only. There was a motion, it was approved. Then the the original item was then presented and there was a motion and it was approved. So all the offering of trying to figure out how to have some flexibility in a in a in a case scenario that it wasn't working out as for sale product got taken off the table and replaced with a blanket just don't don't rent anything ever. And that's that's how it played out. And um I appreciate that. Um in hindsight I probably should have waved my hands. Absolutely. all of our retirement accounts would look much differently if we could go back and make

some decisions differently. Right? But that's where we are today with it. And um I don't want to be here any more than than anybody else asking for a a request like this. Uh but I can just tell you candidly our plan is not to go take these to say a rental company or because I'll be honest with you, I've sold properties to people like that. Um, so I know how to do that, but that is not that is not what we're going to do here. Our plan is to make these more marketable. Simply put, we want to we've had people come in saying, "Oh, I think I could I'd love to make one of these as an investment property for myself. I'd love to rent it to, you know, my niece for two years or whatever it may be." Um, but that's just all off the table. So, we're we're struggling when it comes to um people we we've even had people be denied of a loan, a mortgage because of the stipulation because they just there was some and I'll be honest, it was some screwy mortgage anyway. Sure. Um and they were they were on thin ice with their credit and all that. But still to hear things like that, it's kind of pushed us in this manner to say, "What can we do to get some life back into this thing?" um and and not see it not see it go then then at the risk of sounding school marmish what you're saying right now is a beautiful way to come to the planning commission from my perspective only from my perspective only that is a beautiful way to come at this and to answer your question which is certainly well taken get near the microphone for the the broadcast please to answer your initial question commissioner Slatterie which is certainly well taken I think that perhaps Mr. and I could talk with with with um Mr. Ray about what some of those reasonable restrictions could look like and and you understand the the issue here is the total restriction. Sure.

Okay. So if that is something you all would desire um for us to perhaps I'd love to defer this have some conversations what would something you know more reasonable more legally pal palatable look like um then we're certainly happy to have those conversations. I certainly can't speak on behalf of the entire commission but that sounds reasonable to me. Sure. Okay. Hold on one second. So, so if so, if you're if you're requesting deferral to further work with city council and then maybe come back uh with with some different things, would you additionally resend this particular letter that the commissioner was talking about just at this time? Yeah. Then how about we just withdraw and we'll work with Lance and we'll submit in a different fashion. We can still go through this. It can if the if the planning commission determines a deferral. You could still defer then come back at the next meeting uh to um uh to present any changes uh to your request. You could do that. And what I was saying is just the letter that the commissioner was talking about and that Mr. Hasty was talking about on just rescending that at this point in time. That's I guess what I was suggesting the um Can you step up a little bit, Mr. Elen? Thank you. I was suggesting the withdrawal in a hopes that a new application would no longer include this letter nor be a part of anything considered for the the new request. So, I don't know if that's that's for these guys to the same way to just defer it.

Okay. Is it the same thing either way? Okay. So, you're good with deferring then? Yes, sir. We're happy. We're still questions. We have questions of other Okay. While you're here, but we're going to accept your deferral. All right. Thank you. If if if the vote goes Okay. Uh, Commissioner Hardwick, I saw you were next. And then Commissioner Kerr, you'll be after that. Go ahead. So, I kind of had two ways to go at this. One is obviously the yes or no. Are we going to even have a discussion about changing some of the restrictions, but then also I'd like to get into some of the same questions we had when this came up two years ago to talk about that. Have you been able to sell any of the units? And what is your plan? If if some of this were changed, how what would it look like? And I think that's what you guys are going to have with discussion. So I I'm more than happy to make that motion once everyone else has a chance to u okay talk about this. Commissioner Kerr, I saw you were up next. Yeah. Couple questions. Uh, one, um, I think you do need to unring the bell on this letter. No question. Um, and I don't think it's as simple as just doing an amendment or resubmit. I think that we have to carefully memorialize how we move from this point to recision of your letter because your letter is fairly um threatening from just a city governance perspective. And um I'm relatively new to to this commission, but I can tell you when I first read this, I'm like, "Wow, something's gone wrong here for us to be trying to make a

motion to to approve this." So, I'm with you to unring it, but I think and we may need to get Lance involved here from just a careful memorialization of what where we are, how we get to the next level, and make sure we memorialize that appropriately and you to pull your letter back and explain why you're pulling it back, not just you're pulling it back. This is record. It's there. You can't unring this document. That's what I'm concerned about. Um, so that that would be a request of mine. Of course, work with Lance in terms of how to do that. But there's better ways to do this than to be here talking about the tone of this letter. And I'm with you 100%. I I want you to be successful. So, don't get me wrong, but the way that this letter reads and what you're trying to accomplish, I think was not very wise. Just my opinion. Uh, I think there's a way that you could do it better that would give us a cleaner start on this thing. So, that that's my request is that we tie it down not only that we're going to do it, but how we got there and memorialize that. So, that that's my request. Fair enough. Thank you, Commissioner G. Okay. Can I let Charles speak? He was up. Charles, you're next in the queue. You go. I agree with Commissioner Slater. The uh the project looks good. I mean, I think you've done a good job, but now any discussions that we're going to have, I'm not in favor of changing anything as far as the development and how it's development, you know, and how we're going to proceed. And we want that same product whether it's for sale or for rental. And I think uh I'd love to see with some with some proper conditionings on rentals, some of which you mentioned.

I think I could support you, L. Thank you, Commissioner. Uh our city attorney, Lance, will you come up and Yeah, I've been in Mr. Cook's position before where my letter was taken not quite the way that I intended it to take. We attorneys cannot write warm stuff. It's just not anywhere within our abilities. And when when I read the letter, I uh which I do appreciate letters like this to um give me a heads up on what law is at stake and how particular facts might apply to what laws um would apply uh or or would would be relevant. So, um, I I I didn't read the letter as in intimidating, but I understand how someone that doesn't do this like 12 hours or 20 hours a day could. Um, but for example, when we're the the law at issue here is u a regulatory taking uh one of the laws at issue. That's just the way that uh the state and the federal government has um has defined it. So, um, to to point out that the what the law is and how the city could be, uh, violating that, I think from an attorney's point of view is a little bit different than accusing the city of taking property from somebody. U, and I'm not here I've never defended the opposing attorney before, so I'm not here to to do that, believe me. But, um, I do know Mr. Cook because um we've had several cases together before I came a city attorney, since I became a city attorney. Uh we've had a couple of really big situations um with with um that Mr. Cook represented the other side like the Westlake plan. Uh he represented those um property owners

that we turned from commercial to residential. Um Mr. Cook is always a very good person to work with, very amanable, uh very rational and reasonable. um we we have a good working relationship because we know that uh we can trust each other not to pull tricks on each other, not to not no one's trying to intimidate the other. So, I do feel a little bit bad because I didn't read the letter like that, but I can understand how some people could take it like that. But knowing Mr. Cook the way that I do, I I can assure you that that that wasn't the case was to threaten the city. He's worked in this town uh as long as I have 21 years and um he's been before this board in Bulma many times and he's there are attorneys like the ones that you're thinking of. I promise you. But um I would vouch that Mr. Cook is not that way. That's all I'm saying. If you have any other questions for me, I'll be right here. All right. Thank you, Doc Lens. Thank you, Lance. Marty, you need to thank him again. I wanted to get to the microphone. So, it was on the record there. I thanked them smile. I saw it. Yeah. I am happy to speak to uh Chairman Hasty's uh comments about the look and feel of the neighborhood if you want or we can save that for the next time. No, go ahead, Mr. Elely. Speak up. That because it's been a concern of ours too and and it it's actually one of the things that led us to question why we're um so hard and fast about renting these as we are today. Um, you've seen what's been built and you've seen the way it's been maintained. The property is already under um an association, a homeowners association management. We set that up on the front end so that anybody that potentially does buy a unit, they know what they're buying in that regard, too. So, uh, we 95% of the time use Gertner as our management company. Girtner Properties is managing this property.

Um, and they uh they're already funded through the rest of the year for all the maintenance and so forth that you see happening. It's everything's fully irrigated. Uh, everything's mowed by the association. Um, even down to the pressure washing of the houses individually, the exterior of the houses, things of that nature. They're all insured by the association. Um, so when when that um when we re realized I guess what we built and what we've set up, we started asking ourselves, well, if someone were to purchase one of these units, turn around and rent it to someone else, what would us as the general public see different other than if you just would have to not like a renter at that point? you you're not going to get anything at face value or or otherwise that's going to change from the the general public's perspective. In fact, as I understand it, we're going to be making more taxes uh tax dollars when these things do run. I just got a letter from the county um changing some of my my residential properties from 25% tax basis to a 40% tax basis because I am renting the property. Um, so, uh, I guess that's something to look forward to if you're concerned about how the city may benefit. Um, but generally the general public is not going to see any difference whether this is a renter or this is a owner occupant. Um, and they will still be owned in some fashion individually because we'll self-impose that restriction that we can go on to as we work with Lance on language. Okay. Commissioner Martin, I see you're in the queue. Yeah, I just wanted to throw a caveat out. Um owner

U homes where the owners live them live in them versus uh when they're leased um can increase density and parking demand. Um and an influx of longterm tenants into single family zones can lead to overcrowding. So when I guess you guys have your discussion, I guess I'm talking to the planning staff, but when you guys have that discussion, um you know, there was a concern about the ingress egress as it is today. So if there's an additional um if if an additional load is created, you know, we may need to look at that entrance exit, see if there's anything else we can do. Okay. Commissioner Slatter, you're in the queue. Just um to reiterate what Commissioner Hasty said, when we do come back to this, my expectation is that adherence to the design that there's not going to be an attempt to start easing off. I think everyone has lived through neighborhoods that start with one plan and then as you move into phase two and three, you suddenly start making changes and they're almost always downward. So my expectation is that with all of the the restrictions that you will put in place or the the structure around a rental proposal that there will be a strong adherence to the currently approved design plan for the rest of the development of the neighborhood. And if not, I'll get my attorney. I can I can say that you you have a very good staff that ensures that already. Yes, they do. Thank you. Any other commissioners have questions, comments? All right. I'll entertain a motion if anyone would like to make it. I'm assuming I'm making a motion that we defer this. Yes, we're going to defer. And if we defer this motion, you for one meeting, right? We're deferring for one meeting for the applicant to return with

a proposal better defining the rental um covenants or or guidelines that you would put in place. Right. with our city attorney. With our city attorney and also understanding that the public hearing will remain open during this time frame. Okay, that's what I move. Anything else I need to make sure? No, I think that Okay, thank you for that motion. Zach, did you get all that? All right. Do I have a second? Okay, Mr. Hasty's a second. We'll do a roll call vote. Motion to approve deferral pass with seven yeses. Thank you, Zach. Thank you everyone. Thank you for the discussion and again my apologies for the way my letter landed on your desk. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is let's see Lake View Acres lot one setback deviation final plat owner Rhett and Chris Evans location is 176 Cumberland Drive parcel 171D E014.00 and leading planning staff is Caitlyn. Would you like to discuss this one for us please? Thank you. Um so the applicants Red and Christine even Evans um are requesting a setback deviation to reduce the front setback from 75 ft to 65 ft. Uh the reason for this is they are proposing to construct a twocar attached garage in front of their existing garage um to store trailers and other items to keep them out of the plane view. Um, the proposed garage is going to be 35 feet

by 25 feet and will feature a 10- foot tall garage door instead of the typical 7 to 8 foot tall garage or excuse me, 7 to 8 foot door. Um, as you can see on the screen, it'll be to the left of the existing garage. Um, the exterior will match the existing facade of the home and garage. The reason why the applicant is coming before the planning commission is due to um the proposed setbacks meet the current zoning ordinance bulk standards. So which is 30 ft um because they are not going below that 30 ft they cannot go to the board of zoning appeals. So because it does meet those bulk standards they are coming to you to request that variance. um planning commission is the only body that can grant this variance a or the deviation sorry also let's see here there is a final plat the that includes um the existing final plat includes uh other properties within the subdivision that have a mix of 75 ft 65 ft and 50 foot front setbacks let's see and And then in 2018, the plat on the screen was approved that is directly next to them with it was subdivided and both lots have a 30front setback. They are going to be required to do a three-page plat amendment as part of their approval. That's all I have. Thank you very much, Kaitlin. Okay. Are there any questions by anybody on the planning commission of Kaitlin? Go ahead, Commissioner Evans. Yeah, that's kind of close for home to home

for me. That that particular section of Cumberland Drive is already really tight. That particular house already sits in front of a house that was recently remodeled on the left. If I were that neighbor, I would be upset, but I wouldn't tell my neighbor that I was upset because I still had to live by them. uh in this particular case that uh the garage uh is said to have a 10-ft tall door which means that it's going to overshadow the existing house. It'll have to have at least an 11 or 12t ceiling where the house existing has an 8ft ceiling. So it partially covers the front door if you look at it from the front and the right side wall of the house has no windows. Uh so when you stick it out in front of uh everything else except the one was that the the old pro uh property over there to the side that they split into two lots. Uh it it just it's just not consistent with what's what else is there to do that. And it's none of my business what the house looks like, but it appears that uh you need about 7 feet to do what they contemplate doing out of that 10 ft that they're asking for. They're building onto the existing garage. The existing garage unless it's being uh contin unless it continues to be used as a garage. Uh 7 ft of that garage could be used for the new garage. Bottom line is I don't see the hardship in this that that we need to prove to to grant this variance. Thank you, Commissioner Evans. Any other commissioners have comments, questions of Kaitlin? Commissioner Hasty, I see you're lit up. This is a variance request, I know, but uh you know, somebody goes to BCA and

asking for variances or changes or or whatnot. The neighbors get a letter. They sent out notices. Was there any notification of any kind for this request? There was a courtesy notice sent to all the neighbors within 250 ft. There was a courtesy letter sent to all the neighbors within 250 ft. That's not our typical practice because it doesn't require it, but we felt the staff felt the need that that was needed. Um because the as Mr. Evans did speak to, it is a very close area. So, we didn't want to just state, hey, this is being done without letting them know. The neighbors do. Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. Yeah, and we are u u we did that because it felt like the right thing to do. Uh but we're going to codify that uh in our changes that are going to come before you here in the next couple of months uh to where when we're doing a deviation like this that there will be notice uh official notice that'll be given to the uh to the neighbors because we we feel like that's the right thing to do. Looking back probably probably prior to a few years ago uh when we kind of determined what was the right way to do this these things would have went to the BCA and they would have judged it and made a decision but uh actually they did not have the authority necessarily to make that decision. though with with this particular thing it's kind of confusing you know because they're meeting the minimum standard but then you have the recorded uh subdivision plat which has that setbacks and you know it's just something where here they are all they are a little bit all over the place you know but you got to look at the unique uniqueness of this particular lot and the things around it.

Uh but you know it's understandable that you're if you're in a neighborhood and it's platted and it's all platted. I don't know what this one is, but if it was all a 100 foot setback and then you know it wouldn't be right for the staff to just grant that 30 foot was the minimum zoning requirement and then to allow that to reduce down to that. So that's that's why it's coming before you all. And we've done uh one or two others that have done this way. And it's kind of odd because it's called a deviation. It's not really called a variance. Uh but that's basically what that's basically what it is. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Hardwick, you were next in the queue. So Caitlyn, did any of the neighbors raise their hand or call you? They have not. Um the the applicant did state that the neighbor did come to them and ask if they needed to come tonight. I I'm not sure if I can't remember if she said that they said that they weren't able to come. You can come to the if you're the applicant. Well, as the applicant, you can step up to the podium. State your name and your address for the record. 6 Cumberland Drive. Thank you. And in fact, when my neighbors got the letters, they all they called me. Are you the one making the garage? Oh, we'll help you. You know, I mean, there isn't one objection to any of them. We're all really close neighbors and friends. And um I, you know, I asked her, I said, "Well, should they send the email because they're out of town?" you know, the one that'll be looking at it the most. But, um, nobody in the neighborhood's object objected to it at all. In fact, they just said, "How tall is it going to be? Um, what's it going to be made out of?" And I reassured him.

I've lived in that neighborhood 40 years. I lived in the house that Mr. Evans pointed out. I lived in the house that has the house behind it for 30 years. And then I've lived in this one for 19. and we just want to add this garage because he's just retired and needs a workshop. Understood. If you'll stay. Commissioner Hardwick has a question. Go ahead. So, so we we've not heard from the neighbors, so we're assuming they're okay. I have that I'm on my text showing all my all the compliments or comments. I heard what Commissioner Evans said about the house to the left, but the house to the right seems to still be in front of you if I remember correctly when I drove that today. That the house there's I think it was it a white brick house maybe. That was There's nobody behind me. No, that it was in front of where your house is today. Oh, yeah. Saw that wrong. That's the one we used to live in. So, yeah. Yeah. the how you're wanting to keep your existing garage. This is just going to be workshop. Yeah, it just tall it's going to be the roof line. Yes. Um he wants a 10-ft door because we have a boat. Do you want to be able maybe a camper to go in there? Put it put it in there and get it out of sight. So you're looking at the roof line's going to be what 14 foot 15t. I don't I sent I think the top Did they Did he send it to you the garage guy? the picture of the 10 10 foot door and the minimum you would know. What did he tell you? 12 foot ceilings. So it be a raised ceiling or a raised roof line. Well, I was just curious. It's a two foot raised roof line with what he just explained. Okay. And it'll be attached to the existing one. You won't cut the roof line. It'll I mean

I'm going to live there. I want it to look nice and it'll be brick and Understood. Any other questions by the commissioners? Any other comments? Okay. Well, with that being said, I'll entertain a motion. All right. To test the will, I'll make the motion. Okay. Okay. I make a motion to accept with all comments as presented. Do I have a second? Second. All right. I have a second from Charles Hasty. So, roll call vote. Motion to approve. Pass with five yeses and two nos. Thank you, Zach. Appreciate it. All right. Next on the agenda is resolution 2025-02. It's a resolution recommending acknowledgement of the well it's double stated there acknowledge of the acknowledgement okay so I'm going to restate this a little bit you all uh the word dedication has been strict or struck from this comment so it's a resolution recommending the acknowledgement of the completed streets in the Hunt Club phase 11 Hendersonville Sar County Tennessee okay and the reason it's an

acknowledgement This is a private road behind a gate. Okay? So, everybody understand that we're acknowledging the road was built to the city standards. Curbs, the gutters, everything's the way it was supposed to be, but it is behind a gate and it is a private street. So, do I have a Let me just show one thing. I'm sorry. Keith, go right ahead. I I will just note uh because it's a little bit out of order. Uh the uh public works committee typically meets Bulma's public works committee meets and approves this before it comes to us. Um it's okay to do it this way as well, but uh I just wanted to acknowledge that that um it's still going to go to the public works committee before it goes on to Bulma. But it's okay for us to go ahead and act on it now. So in this process and I'll entertain a motion if anyone has one. Oh, wait. I'm sorry, Mr. So Sarah will tell us if it does meet the city stand. That's correct. So we could with what you're saying, we could just also make that contingent upon the Bulma public works committee approval as well. So that just adds a little bit more. So if anyone would like to make a motion along that line. Okay. Mr. Hasty, will you make the motion? Okay. Uh Mr. Hy, did you hear the part of the motion that you're going to make sure it goes through goes through the proper process? It goes through just making sure you got all that really I think more just because it's a guarantee that streets get built. Yes. Do they have to post a bond for that for maintenance like they do any other public street after acceptance? Yes, they do for public streets. So, we're still making sure in that first

year that they're warranty. That is correct. Okay, that's good. Okay. And Mr. Kerr, I heard you second. Is that correct? All right. So, we'll do a roll call vote. Motion to approve. pass with seven yeses. Thank you, Zach. Okay, next is number 11, staff level projects approved. Um, you have the Hendersonville football stadium site plan, the Melhigh Magnet School Tennis Court site plan. One is at 123 Cherokee Road, the other at Township Drive. Uh, any comments on that from you, Keith? No, we appreciate um uh the cooperation working with our friends at the Senar County Board of Education on those projects. All right, thank you. Next is staff level projects pending Ferguson Acres lot two. I'll just hit the highlights on these real quick. Forest Retreat Subdivision lot two and three consolidation friends at Indian Lake Glenn Oak Commons Manser Farms phase 19 section 1B Milstone phase 6 uh MTO proper prop partners property consolidation WA Shival addition consolidation Woodland Park that's all of those that are on the staff level projects pending any comments from anyone on that anything from you, Keith? I do have just one quick thing. I was uh I was on vacation last week and I really appreciate the staff uh taking care of everything. Uh they do they do a phenomenal job. But one thing I I just wanted to mention uh you know when and and a lot of people are going to be on vacation at different times uh in the next couple of months. But I think something worth noting is, you know, when me and my wife are gone for a week and coming back to our home here in

Hendersonville, it's always good to come back home and uh, you know, and get kind of fresh eyesh back on our community. And I'm I'm very proud of our community and uh it's great when you go on vacation and you're able to come back home uh to a place like Hendersonville where it's almost like a vacation. uh you know it's a be this is a beautiful built environment and it's a beautiful um uh physical environment as well and uh so I just really appreciate this community and and me and my family uh really enjoy it here. I just I just wanted to mention that. Thank you. Well, now we're up to planning director comments. You have any comments you would like to make? That was it. That's it. That was it. Home is like vacation. That's right. I agree. All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Mr. Hasty made it. Do I have a second? Second. All oppo. I mean, all agree. Say I. Anybody oppose? Okay, you're on your own. You have to stay. Thanks. Have a good night.