Municipal Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

um is Monday, March 2nd, 2025, Gall Municipal Planning Commission uh work session meeting. Uh we're going to jump right in uh to item number one, public comment on agenda related items. Uh if you are a member of of the public and wish to speak on any of the agenda related items, you may come forward at this time to the podium uh right there in the middle. Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close uh item number one and we'll move to item number two. It's the paddic at Kennesal Farms 1 C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 6A, 12 A, 12B, 12 C, and 12D. Preliminary plat.

Yes, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat uh for the next phases of the paddock. Uh this area was approved last year with a revised final master development plan for 144 residential lots. Um this includes both an attached product and a single family product. Uh the preliminary plat is consistent with the FMDP. Okay. Uh is that it? Yes. Awesome. Anything uh needed to be added uh from engineering? Is that a no, Mitchell? That's a no.

Okay. Uh okay, awesome. Uh we will hear from the applicant. Uh you can come forward to the podium here close to us. Supposed to use that podium. Awesome. No, Clint Easley, uh Southeastern Building Corporation. Uh we got the um comments back and we agree with all staff comments. Nothing's really changed on this. We changed a little bit at the very bottom. I think in section 3C, just kind of straighten out a roadway, but that it's all in line with FMDP. Okay. So, in line with the FDP, nothing's changing. I mean, I think this one's pretty straightforward. I don't know if anyone else has any comments. Is this a consent item? It will be. Yes. Okay. Great. See you back in a few weeks.

Here in about 10 minutes. Yeah, 10 minutes. Um, okay. We're going to move to item number three. Twin Eagles 15B section 4 preliminary plat. Yes. This is a preliminary plat for um the next phase of Twin Eagles. Uh you saw the FMDP for this area last month. Uh so the preliminary plat will proceed a final plat on this. Um as you know this also uh all of this final plats for these areas section four and five will have to wait for access out to Douglas Lane. Um but they are just preparing uh getting things paperwork in order uh to prepare for those final plats. Okay. Awesome. Anything from engineering? No, sir.

Okay. Uh, is there a member from the applicant present?

Dakota Beasley, Greenley Design. Uh, we're in agreement with all staff comments. Happy to answer any questions. Okay. I mean, from my review, this looks very similar to the FMDP that was already submitted. Um, I don't have any major concerns. I know there's Yes, sir. No, you finish.

I I know there's some some uh some maturity timelines associated with this particular project, which I think has to be worked out before they uh submit a final plat. So, I know we're still tracking that, but for FMDP and preliminary plat, I don't think those get affected by that timeline. Now, I just want to make sure I understand uh because we've had so much discussion about the the road out to Douglas Lane that construction of these lots won't begin until the road is in place. That's my understanding. Okay. Just Thank you. Any other questions? All right. See none, we'll see you back in a few weeks. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I guess you can Was that just item three or

Yeah, that was just item three. Um but item four will be quick. Item four, Twin Eagles 15B, section 5, preliminary plan. Uh yes. So this is section five. This is the last section of uh phase 15B for Twin Eagles for 15 residential lots. Um same stipulations as section 4. Okay. Go to Beasley. Uh Greenley Design. We're same. We're still good with the comments. Okay. Uh any questions or comments from commission? All right. See you back in a few weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Uh item number five, this is Bledo Springs Town Homes final plat. Jim,

thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Carpenter, uh staff planner. Uh the honor applicant are requesting approval of a final plat for Bleto Springs Town Homes consisting of 48 units on a HPR on 5.17 acres. Um not a lot to this for us. The big thing that we want to confirm is width of sidewalks along this private drive and then making sure that they connect here. Um there's an existing uh like ramp for a pad. Um just want to make sure that the sidewalks connect in to Pike. Um outside of that, we had very minor comments on this item.

Okay. Engineering, do you have anything to add on this one? Yeah, to follow up with what Jim was describing, they're showing a three-foot sidewalk along Easy Street down to Hartsville Pike, and we're suggesting that they increase that to 5 foot, but it is on a private street. Okay, that's uh along from I guess the town own into the development. That's right. Okay. What did the uh I guess before the applicant comes up, what did the master plan show? It's consistent with this. It's just shows a three-foot sidewalk. That's right. Okay. All right. Is there a member present from the applicant?

Stephen Vandross with M2 Group. Stephen, do you have any uh questions or comments? I mean, do you agree with staff comments or y'all I'm assuming y'all are still working through them, but uh do you have anything you'd like to discuss um with?

Yeah, we'll I think we'll work through most of these with staff. I mean, we showed the sidewalk per the approved FMDP. Um so, I think uh I mean, I may have the there was a comment about a 10-ft PUD on the water line. uh extending up kind of the flag portion of that property, but all the open space was al was already required to be a PUD. So, I assume there's no need for an individual 10 foot PUD through there. Other than that, I don't um don't have any other comments.

Yeah, that's that was going to be my next question is I with this being an HPR mo like 99% of the time the open spaces are PUDS. So, I don't know where that Mitchell, do you know where that comment came from? I'm GPU. I'm I'm assuming. Okay.

I'm a little confused. Um how this is not all this the PMD on this is not all that old, is it? I mean, it's a relatively new project, isn't it? Okay. What I'm confused about is I haven't seen a three-foot sidewalk or at least I haven't caught that or paid attention to it. Um, we approved that like within the last three years. Yes, sir. Only because it is on a private street. Private streets aren't technically required to have sidewalks. Thanks for the explanation. I understand.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, we'll see you back in a few weeks. All right, thank you. Thank you.

Item six, we got MJK Watson Town Homes final master development plan. Charlie, evening, commissioners. Charlie Perry, staff planner. The owner and applicant is requesting approval of a final master development plan for MJK Watson Town Homes. This project is consisting of three attached town homes on 0.30 acres. This property is zoned as R six at NC residential located east of Woods Fairy Road and south of Watson Street. Staff had um quite a few uh comments on this project. Um first being with having some extra ADA access um to these units from the parking lot. There is a little bit of a grade change here which requires stairs. So, we would like to see um a sidewalk or something get extended so that there's access to each unit. Um the engineering division had a number of storm water comments on this as well. I'll leave that over to them. Um landscaping, perimeter landscaping is required, but in the zoning ordinance. So staff requested that there will be some additional landscaping around the parking lot to be able to shield some of the lighting from cars when they go in and out, especially with windows being on this um side of the units here. This is the architecture that the applicant proposed. Um we staff would like to see a brickwater table extend around the remainder of the perimeter of the buildings. Uh maybe change the color palette a little bit on this one to make it a little more visually um appealing and to kind of change the the shell of the the units as a whole to kind of give them a staggered effect so it doesn't look like one um one like flat. Um other than that, I can turn over to engineering for the storm water.

Okay. Thanks, Charlie Mitchell. Yeah, we do have several uh storm water and grading comments, but we've been in discussions with the applicant and we can work those out with them. Okay. You feel comfortable that they can address those? Yes, sir. All right. Is there a member from the applicant present?

Go to Beasley Greenlet Design. Uh we have met with engineering. We're working with them. I'm fairly confident that we can just have something work out there. Uh, as far as the planning comments, we're in agreement with the majority of them. Um, having an ADA access to the front of the buildings. Um, I don't believe that's going to be able to happen. It's a crawl space home. U, so right away they're the final floor is 3T above the highest adjacent grade. Um, these units just won't be ADA accessible. I guess my question to staff was is would that is that a code requirement we may not need we may not have that answer today but by the voting meeting it'd be nice to understand if that is I I don't know if there's going to be a provided ADA space and there should be some other measures to be able to further accompany that so that it just doesn't stop at the parking lot for whoever will end up living here.

Okay. So, is it a code requirement to have any ADA space in the parking lot? For most commercial stuff, yes. I'm not entirely sure on the residential side. In in this parking lot, yes. For any multif family, you do need an ADA space. Um we're just not sure if that extends to the units themselves.

Okay. So when with you're considering So these are So I'm going to go back to some of the other more recent ones we've seen lately because we technically saw another project that was a little bit different than this that had that had uh parking off of I believe it was last month had parking off the street came up and split into two parking spaces to the right, two parking spaces to the left. It was a town home development and we did not require an ADA space for those park for that parking.

I think it depends on like rental versus sale. I think that's part of it. How it's like how it's done and how many units. There's a couple different factors to it. I don't think like a duplex on a single lot would trigger something like that. But you get to three, four, five units that are going to be rented out. It's an apartment complex. So, I believe that's the Have they stated these are rental? I can get with the client on that. I believe his intention is to uh sell these. Okay.

Um but I can confirm with him before the voting meeting. I know we originally submitted this two years ago. Um and the first round of comments then was to include an ADA space. So, we have if we could remove that, that would be great. We have a total of six individual spaces now with that extra ADA space and ramp. So it would cut out impervious which would make our storm water calcs work out even better on the engineering side. But that's why the ADA space is shown currently. C can can you explain are the um little square concrete pads in front of the units do those have stairs leading up to them? Yes, they do.

Okay. So the the low end would be at the bottom of those stairs out near the sidewalk. Yes. Yeah, I think I'm showing a 5x5 little stoop right in front of the door at the moment. Is that an accurate representation of how many steps are needed to make grade? Yes. Okay. I mean, you're making up five or six feet in some areas. Thank you. Do you don't have any questions about storm water? No, no, we've we're pretty good on that. Um, as far as the architecture, I'll send those comments to the architect and the client and see what they want to do on that. Yeah, I would I would recommend taking a second look at the architecture if you don't mind. Yeah.

Any other questions or comments? Yes, ma'am. There we go. Sorry. Um, this might be a question for engineering, but I noticed on Woods Ferry Road you have that ADA ramp that kind of crosses into a driveway. Um, is that the location that it was requested or is there something going on the other side of the street? As part of our comments, we're asking them to basically extend the sidewalk and create one ADA ramp instead of having the two separate ones. Okay, perfect.

I have one additional comment I think that I want to just throw out there and that's for the elevations. Can you include since it's raised, can you include that crawl space area as part of the elevation or something that shows the grade of it? Because looking at this, it looks like that's at grade, you know, like a slab on grade type of a a unit versus a crawl space, which is a completely different scenario. Yeah. No, I'll pass that along to them and get them to show that before we resubmit. Or I would I would even think a note or a call out that states whatever material it is to grade would go a long way at understanding that I think what Brian is trying to make sure is that we're just don't have exposed block. Yeah. No, I get it. Foundation.

That's understandable, right, Brian? Okay. Anything else? Yes, sir. Uh you have ADA parking, correct? Yes. So, are the apartments ADA equipped? Uh the units themselves will not be uh just due to the grade on site. Uh they're about like I think three to four to some five feet above the existing elevations um along Watson Street I believe is the small street that we're coming off of. So there will be steps to get into the building. But don't ramp. Just steps. Just steps. So, if I'm in a wheelchair, am I supposed to get in my

I would assume you wouldn't purchase one of these units. Yeah. Okay. I based on my I mean, in my experience, this is kind of a gray area. I mean, I it's when it comes to residential, you're not necessarily you have parking ADA requirements. It's my understanding you don't necessarily have ADA requirements related to an actual residential unit. My thought process as well,

but my kind of my knowledge on the whole ADA unit kind of ends there. Uh obviously if we were talking about an apartment complex, there are there are different requirements and allowments so that folks actually can access their their particular unit. But when it comes to I I I don't know. Oh, this I think it applies the same for an HBR like this. Um I I'm fairly certain. We we'll double check that.

Yeah, we need a definition because if there were six units, you'd be you'd be wanting access to the building, wouldn't you? If there were nine units, I don't know where's your I don't that's I don't know where the threshold is. I don't either. Brian, are you saying that because it's an HPR, you should theoretically provide ADA access to all units? Because I don't think that's the case. I think because it's got the three units making it multif family. Um that's probably I think that's where the trigger is. Okay. It's multif family. I think that's the trigger for it.

Okay. So, but I guess my question is is it one unit or is it all units would be the question. Like the actual units or the parking? No. Uh the parking I mean they're providing ADA access for the parking. Mhm. But any if if you're going to if if the requirement is which I it's still yet to be determined if the if it is requirement per building code it I guess what needs to be determined is is it one unit or is it all units I think I see what you're saying is a two-story apartment complex the upper levels are not ADA compliant unless they have an elevator. Correct.

Okay. Well and then one step further we just saw an HPR How many projects ago the previous project are any of those units ADA accessible? In HBR where someone's like buying a unit, they wouldn't need to provide an ADA space because it's like a single family home. But we aren't regulating whether or not this is for sale or for rent.

Okay. So here here's the here's the regulation. It's it's not a for sale or for rent scenario. It's not an HPR versus anything else scenario. It's a multif family housing requirement. So if if you are designated as multif family, all fair housing parking standards for accessible parking shall be provided is what the zoning ordinance reads. So parking

for parking. Yes. So again, we're not the the the the question about the access way to the uh to the units. It's a whole another question as well, but um the units themselves may not have to be um ADA compliant. I don't I don't I don't believe they are because you look at any old apartment complex anywhere, you've got multiple units up on a second floor. They don't have elevators on those. I mean, there that's not going to be the requirement, but parking requirements are different.

And I'm not I I what I'm I guess I'm not arguing or challenging really anything. What I'm not saying they should get rid of their ADA parking space. What my question is related to is ADA access to a unit when it's theoretically not able to be done. Yeah, we're not we're not going down the we're not trying to ask them to make the units ADA. Um, wasn't there a comment that you were asking for an ADA route to the front of the unit? Just a just a route from the parking to the front of the units, but um that was just kind of a hey, you've got an ADA space here. Yeah,

it seems logical that you would try to make a quick the quickest route possible from that space to your units, but I mean the fact that they're raised up that completely nullifies that whole question. So I don't I don't see a need to continue asking for the pathway from that that space, okay, to the units. But um we still would need to require the actual ADA space. Yes. Where you That's fine. We can That's fine to leave it. It's graded in. It's less than 2%. It's all ADA. Thanks for the context, Brian. Any other questions or comments?

All right. We'll see you back in a few months or a few weeks. Thank you. Um, next is item number seven, Chili's Bar and Grill landscaping revised final mass development plan.

Good evening, commissioners. Brad Hickman, staff planner. Uh, the owner and applicant request approval of a revised final master development plan for the Chili's Bar and Grill for a revised landscaping plan on 1.32 acres zoned MRO PUB multiple residential office and plan unit development district located north of Nashville Pike and west of Village Green Crossing. Uh, this is pretty straightforward. Here is the plan approved in 2001 where they it was approved and they had their plantings. In the intervening years, much of this was cut down. Uh the applicant has come back to us with this plan that meets code wanting to get uh the site replanted and uh other than that there's just a few cleanup comments.

Okay. Thanks, Brad. Is there anything from engineering? No comments.

Okay. Any uh is there a applicant present? Uh hello everyone. Uh I'm Blake Cox. I'm with Freeland and Kaufman. We do all the civil site design and landscape design for Brinker across the US. And we're out of Greenville, South Carolina. Uh to his point, this was an approved existing Chile's development. Uh approved in 2001. Over the years, some of the plants have died. Uh they've been removed unbeknownst to Brinker and we are designing this plan to rectify that issue. Okay.

Uh Brad, what you mentioned the new plan meets code. Yes. Okay. And increases the landscaping that's already there. I don't have any comments. It increases what's already there but decreases it from what was on the plan originally. So, just to clarify that it still meets the code and we're I I think staff's perfectly happy with what they've submitted. Uh, but it is less than what the original approved site plan uh was for.

Okay. I guess I'll ask the question. Is there a reason why, and I know this was a long time ago, is there a reason why the original plan had excess plantings or was that just the will of the original applicant? It could have been because of the old pud that it was in that is since like not active anymore. Okay. I suspect that might be why or they could have just done more plantings than they need to particularly around the building. So that was very typical.

It was due to I remember it. It was due to um LA Green had real high standards for the village green putt as far as landscaping was concerned. So they they went way and above and beyond. But what they're showing here is is fine. It looks it looks good and it certainly meets standards. It creates an opaque bar an opaque buffer around all the parking and um it's a good variety of trees. Okay, I don't have any other questions any of the rest of the commission. Okay, we'll see you back in a few weeks.

All right, next number eight, 406 East Bledsoe Street Residential Development final master development plan. The owner and applicant requests approval of the final master development plan for four single family residential units on 29 acres zoned R six highdensity residential district located north of East Bledsoe Street and east of South Pardeu Avenue. All right, we can see the property here. A little history on this. Um the applicant came to us with a preapp in 2024. Historically, there had been three homes on this lot and they wanted to build four. Um, we explained an FMDP would be required and moved on from there. Uh, in the intervening time, two permits were issued and two of the homes were built. Um, we uh there was some confusion about the process. So we have since rectified that the applicants here to get straight with the process. Um on the so on the east side of the property here there is currently a property line dispute with the neighbor here. Um, so we would like to see that resolved or the plan redesigned to compensate for the most extreme measure. And also a 15-ft buffer yard also required on this side of the property that is not u accommodated for because it's this this was mislabeled for the zoning.

Thank you. Okay, thanks Brad. Is there uh anything from mentioning? So, per the zoning ordinance, we will require sidewalks along East Bledsoe and South Part. Additionally, the driveway closest to South Parardeu has already been poured. Um, that's an issue because on the plan they're calling out for pvious concrete and we don't have any asurances that it was poured using pvious concrete. And additionally, storm water is just not a fan of storm um pvious concrete as a storm water measure. All right. Is there uh Bruce, do you want to come forward?

Bruce Rainy representing the owner on this. Uh one correction. This actually started with four homes. One burned down a few years ago and we just coming back with the same same thing. We understand the issue with the boundary line. We're in the process. I'm hoping to resolve it without going to court, but uh that may or may not happen. It's up to my client. We have uh we could possibly move the fourth building uh if necessary and that's really going to be his call as to whether he built holes off on the fourth building or I move it slightly to be able to achieve the setback line. There's only it's only 7 and 12 ft on the front zero in the back. So, it's not 450 square feet that we're discussing. Um, so anyway, it's not our intent to I don't want to try this at the planning commission. I don't want to put the planning commission and he doesn't want to put the planning commission in that position. However, it's really going to be up to him as to whether he wants to u maybe delay approval of the fourth building or something like that. The main thing I think uh is to start the project into the proper procedure which we missed. And uh at best right now I've got all the comments. We're going

to be addressing those over the next two weeks and we'll come back to this body with uh an answer on that in fact before we come back here. Okay.

Brad, you mentioned that uh the planning staff was looking at this from a I guess a worst case standpoint of the property line dispute. if if they find that the property line is in fact I guess the 7 and 1/2 ft or whatever the distance is into the into the property. What does that put us from a a property area standpoint and a density allowment? Um the property is about 126 they need 116. So what Bruce is saying that about 450 is what they may lose. They'd still be within the tolerance for four units. four unit. Okay.

But they would need to move back far enough to give a 5ft sidey yard there and the 15t buffer. They would just have to work that on the plan. Yeah. Is there is there an existing buffer there today? Uh there is not. Okay. Not on that side. Not even a fence. No. Okay. Any other I guess questions from commission? So in the worst case scenario, they could still build four units. They might just have to move the four units to have a bigger buffer. Is that right?

Yeah. Their parking kind of relies on these spaces between, but this this here, this space here, they may be able to compact to bring them over if necessary. Would that be that's one of those one of the options. Bruce, what two units have been built? The ones on the corner. Yes, sir. Those two,

any other questions from the commission? Any other questions from staff? My only question, I mean, with the with the driveway that's already been poured, uh, it sounds like they haven't they don't have anything that shows how the driveway was put in, but have they have they done any testing to see if it does infiltrate water? Not that I'm aware of now. Okay. That may be a solution to actually do testing on the pvious pavement to see if it actually works. But

there there's so many variables and possibilities here that uh uh I've looked at about all of them. Engineering won't have a problem with but uh moving that that building slightly. That's a possibility. In fact, I have room where I can change my parking slightly between building two and three and just move building four. Yeah. To meet that. So, it's there's so many Okay. things that we can work. It sounds like you're working through it. Uh you have any other questions for staff? No, sir.

Okay. Uh seeing none from the commission, we'll see you back in a few weeks. Thank you.

All right. All right, we're going to go to item number nine. This is Shipman Mechanical Service De Moas Residences Final Master Development Plan. Charlie, the owner and applicant request approval for a final master development plan for three single family residential units on a 0.34 acre lot that is owned to R six Highdensity Residential located north of Deas Street and east of Center Street. The applicant proposes three single family residences on the unit with access coming off of Deas Street. Um they are proposing a 5-ft uh sidewalk with the required grass strip on uh Deas Street and Center Street as well. Um staff had minor comments mainly just cleanup uh comments. U we do need to see some architecture for this um project. So we're hoping to get that in the resubmitt. um if they are missing a storm water sheet that's called out. I think that's note number um 16 or 17 on the bottom there. And then lastly, staff is concerned about the uh building that encroaches into this property that I believe belongs to the neighbors over here. It's about a twoft encroachment. Uh we're just concerned that there there could be an impact to whoever lives in the houses over here where they're backing out of the driveway may end up hitting that building. So we would like to see um some like reflectors or reflective tape on that corner just to make that a little more visible for them. And then because the um intensity of residential uses is increasing on this lot, we would like to see some either landscaping or a fence along this um eastern property line as well. Thanks.

Okay. Okay, thanks Charlie. Uh applicant present Bruce Rainey representing the shipments. We got the staff comments. We're in the process of going through them. Uh I haven't run into a an issue with them at this point. Okay. Uh engineering, did you have anything to add? No, just minor storm water and grading comments. Okay. I This one seems fairly straightforward. But I don't have any questions or comments any from the commission. All right, seeing none. See you back in a few weeks.

Next, we're going to go to item number 10, Savannah Marketplace Lot 4 amended preliminary master development plan and final master development plan. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of a final master of an amended PMDP and final master development plan for Savannah marketplace lot 4 for a multi-tenant retail food service building on one and a half acres uh zone PGC plan general commercial district located south of Nashville Pike and west of Gordon's Crossing. Um, so this is kind of the last, well, one of the last out parcels uh for Savannah. Uh, staff had kind of a few banks of comments for this. Um, one, um, we have some connectivity that we want to see here along the private drive, um, including extending the private drive to the property boundary. Um so I have questions uh about the architecture. Uh staff has asked for um a little bit more detail um and some elevated um kind of differentiating marks between uh the top and uh kind of the base, middle, and top portions of the elevations. Um we're also we appreciate this um diagram with the um elevation change. We just want to ensure that the HVACs are screened for Nashville Pike as we have with all of these out here. Um and then the other big kind of comment from us from a site perspective is from engineering

um regarding Nashville Pike and I'll hand it over to Mitchell. Hey Mitchell. So we're just asking for a right turn lane into this um this drive here that is consistent with the traffic impact study. Okay. Uh I guess uh before we call the board the traffic impact study is that one that was updated with this site or with the m with the development as a whole? Development as a whole. Okay. Uh call for the applicant.

Uh Wes McIll, civil engineer. Um I did not we're still going through all the comments so I didn't see the right turn one uh lane. I know that we are doing a updated traffic impact study with the other improvements there. So we'd like to kind of furer that as we're looking at the overall one, but we can talk about that offline and have a consensus before the voting session. Okay.

Um did have um couple questions uh related to the amended PMDP. Um just we just need to confirm the process. We submitted as a FMDP that's an approved use on a zoned out lot um which was shown as a vacant outlot on the PMDP and just need to understand the process of amending the PMDP to make sure that we're not throwing any other you potential revisions to that PMDP. Sam there's nothing else they need to do. So, this is just establishing the use on the property with a PMDP that had out parcels that weren't specific. So, that's the only amendment. There's no change you need to do other than what you've submitted.

Okay? It's just procedural for us. Okay? And also, this doesn't have to go through city council review unless it is somehow determined to be a major amendment, which we're not recommending that that be considered. It's not changing, you know, anything substantially to where it would be recommended as a major amendment. Okay. So, I I'll ask a question to that. The you the use the use is allowed per the original PMDP.

Yes. I guess in my mind, why would it constitute an amended PMDP if the use is allowed? It is historically how we've done it. That is historically how like actually nailing down what that use is and saying this lot is not just commercial is now this use. So it's just basically it's up to the will of the body to decide that it's it is indeed a minor. Yeah. Would recommend that it is. we would recommend and you know there is a list of 15 to 17 approved uses for Savannah. Okay.

So we're saying that we're amending it and saying it's just going to be these two things on this piece of property. That's really kind of the the main amendment is just instead of it being anything, it's just this. Just this is just a curiosity question for staff. Say 20 years down the road, this owner decides to sell the property, the tenants move out and they change the use. Would they apply for an amended PMDP at that time? So, or is it a change of use site plan?

No. So, this is a master plan zoning. Um, in our current system, unless we just completely change how we do plans, it would be an amended PMDP revised FMDP. Okay. Thank you. Um, Wes, did that answer your question? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Did you have anything else?

Yeah, just wanted to to mention a couple other things. Uh, we agree with the um getting a pedestrian connectivity. We are going to propose an alternative, but we can work through staff with that. And then for the private drive extension, we'll extend that as far as we possibly can with grading, which was been historically approved on this site before. So, we did have a few architecture related items. I'll hand it over to Kyle's the architect.

I'm uh Kyle McKinnus with 513 architecture. So the last sheet had a few comments which is our scope here. Um regarding the lighting, we can our preference is to to uplight signage. It just creates a more consistent um you know elegant way to shine without glare in your eyes when you enter. It also may highlight a little bit of the architectural detailing up at the corners. Um, we've got a a very thin, it's like that round. It's just sticks off the wall. We use it all the time. It's it's a great u light fixture for uplighting signage. We don't This is just a shell project. So, we're you know, it's restaurant one, restaurant two. That's all we know right now. They may end up not needing that. So, that's just kind of a holding spot until if they need backlit chat and letters or something like that. That that light won't be there. So, um, we'll we'll reintroduce that, uh, the way it is, unless it's a it's a no-go. And if you need a down light, we just turn it upside down, but it' be like most things, glaring in your face a little bit when you walk in the scuppers on the back. No, they're not connecting. That's that's a big tall parapit wall for screening those rooftop units as you discussed. Um, so no, they're not going to connect. Those are just collector boxes running down in the down spouts. And then consider running expansion joints behind down spouts. That's that kind of goes against what I would recommend. Uh because you need to be able to inspect those and it's just caul. So you need to be able to reccock those without taking off the down spouts.

Um we can wrap the post and we'll come up with a way to kind of accentuate the base create that base middle and capital uh on our next submission. Um the bump out. Yeah, the one bump out. Oh, yeah. There was a comment on the on the civil portion about a bump out where we we show a retail. It's actually receding and and we're not trying to accentuate the retail. The restaurants are the important thing. So, they're they're the end caps that need to be stay dominant in the form. So, there was a comment about bringing that middle portion out and popping it up. That's just not what the client wants to do. They want to emphasize the restaurants. The retail is kind of like a hyphen in between.

Yeah. It's not trying to be the thing. So, um I mean my my opinion is this what y'all have shown is very consistent with what is next door with the Yeah. I mean ML Rose tops up. I mean the two ends are the the most important things on those. Yeah. I mean it looks like y'all are doing a good job of distinguishing between the restaurant and the retail with the with the mixture material. Yeah. On the facade. I mean, the really the fact that the in my opinion, the fact that the restaurants are bumped out provides even more of a

it's not much. It's it's like a 4 inch recess. It's not like we're trying to we're just trying to get a little differentiation, shadow line and and accentuate the restaurant is popping out and it's white versus a dark color. You know, there's it's we're just trying to keep it pretty simple. Um it's got some nice awnings. They're not cloth. They're metal roof awnings. Mapes awnings. Are there the MAPE signings? No, no, they'll be built in place. They'll be there'll be a Okay. They'll be slope roofing on a wood, you know, wood frame painted. They'll be I think there's some similar ones in the development next door, but we'll probably take these a little bit more

a little bit more simpler finishes. Not trying to be rustic, so to speak. It's just it's kind of white or black, you know. Um and on the sides, excuse me, we can there was a note about creating a a brick base. So essentially I think we can do a brick base about 4 ft tall on those columns uh at the sides and also about 4t create some sort of water table or Wayne's coat you know to create that base. Uh I still don't think we need to change materials. We can just pop out a roll lock or do some soldier and roll lock type stuff to make the brick work a little bit more. Uh we've got some of that going on above the signage or between the signage band and the uh and the um awnings as well. So,

okay. And the the comment about the um show screening from car height, it's it's going to be virtually the same. And also with this diagram, we've actually at the 11th hour changed the FFE a little bit. So, the FF is 30 in higher than what we're showing. So, that's going to only help us be more screened. So, we'll we'll adjust that. Okay. I mean, it sounds like you're you're addressing the ones you can. I mean, as far as the my my opinion, the look and feel of the building is very similar to what we have next door. I mean, especially even more so with the minor changes that you're making to the facade.

I think the main thing is create that brick base just just instead of the brick going all the way down, we'll do something with a roll lock or or you know, maybe a different size brick. It's bigger down here. It changes up here. But you know, I don't want to I don't want to change materials necessarily. Um yeah, but it is a painted brick. It's not a um but so it' be painted all the way down. We just need to do something to accentuate the the base. Okay. All the way around. Are there any questions or comments from commission? No, I think it looks good.

Yeah, I agree, John. Um I think it looks good. I think it's it's uh I'm excited to see what goes there. So, anything else? All right, seeing none, we'll see y'all back in a few weeks. Thank y'all. All right. Number 11, McCain Station Lot 4, amended preliminary master development plan and final master development plan. And I have to recuse myself from this item.

Okay. The owner and applicant requests approval of a amendment to the McCain station preliminary master development plan and final master development plan for a restaurant that is located on lock for the McCain Station development to construct a 8,500 foot building on 1.5 acres. This property is zoned as PGC plan general commercial located east of Big Station Camp Boulevard and south of Provine Boulevard. for a visual reference. I know that map isn't the most appropriate size, but this is the lot that is directly to the south of the 7-Eleven. Staff had quite a bit of comments on this project. Um, first being getting some adequate sidewalk access to the um the restaurant from uh Big Station Camp Boulevard to be at least extend that sidewalk that ends over here and then having some sort of connection from Provine Boulevard up to um the structure. The landscaping is primarily consistent with the um McCain Station master development plan and also with the zoning ordinance. Um it does not fully meet the PGC requirements for the perimeter landscaping. Um staff is asking for the uh parking island in the middle to be landscaped to um be in compliance with the zoning ordinance and have some additional landscaping along the uh big station camp boulevard side just to be consistent with the the surrounding uh projects even with the uh 7-Eleven over here. Um the lighting plan will need a little bit of work. Um the zoning ordinance requires that there is to be at least um no greater than half a foot candle of light that can be shed off of the property when it comes to public streets

and um the surrounding areas. There is a couple spots um on this corner over here on the uh southern side of the property and over here where the foot candles go over one foot candle, some pushing one and a half. So the lighting will have to be reworked to be able to accommodate for that. and the architecture. The applicant proposes to have a primarily brick and stone um structure. They are going to be using some uh metal paneling on this um structure as well. So, they'll have to get a um exception to the architecture requirement because the metal material is not necessarily permitted in PGC or in the McCain station um architecture list. Thank you. Okay,

yeah, this property is within the big station camp transportation improvement district, so it will be subject to the contribution, but other than that, uh, grading stormwater comments, working out with the applicant. Okay, thank you, Wes. Wes McIll, civil engineer. Um, we're in agreement with staff comments. I I would caveat the um landscaping. We'll have to get TVA to approve any landscaping in there, but we're going to attempt to meet the zoning ordinance as best as we can there. Okay.

Um and then architecture, alternative architecture request. I mean, that is uh to meet the branding of the end user there. Uh so we'd like to be happy to discuss that if you'all have questions about it. I mean, my comment on the architecture is I think it the building looks really good. I obviously have a mixture of materials. The color combo looks really cool. I I don't necessarily have really any issue with it. U you answered my question about the landscaping amount. Likely there would be no trees in that area. It'll all have to be shrubs. Uh I don't see TVA approving any trees. So any questions or comments from commission?

What is the smaller structure that's beside the building? that is a ex I'm won't call it an accessory structure, but it's going to be part of the kitchen kind of cooking area that's associated with the restaurant. John, you got anything? No. Steve?

Okay. Uh I I don't have any other questions or comments, so we'll see you back in a few weeks. Thank Thank you. Number 12, Hidden Creek Commons Infrastructure Revision Revised Final Master Development Plan. The owner and applicant requests approval of this final master development plan for Hidden Creek Commons Infrastructure. This is on a site totaling 8.72 acres. This is also zoned as PGC Plan General Commercial located east of Big Station Camp Boulevard and south of Springdale Lane. U bring you guys up to speed on this, especially for the new members. Um back in 2024, I believe the first half of this infrastructure plan was brought to this body to um construct this portion of um I think that's Sweet Brier and it's going to extend all the way down to um Springdale. Um it included having an access over here with a right in right out. Um this is just the second half of that um infrastructure plan. Um there were there was talks at that time to figure out where this road was going to go, whether it was going to end out over here or up here. Um it appears that an agreement has been reached to be able to have it here. Thanks.

Thank you, engineering. Minor comments on this one. Okay. Wes, we're in agreement with staff comments. we've we've discussed and we'll work out everything before uh voting session. Awesome. Yeah, this one's very straightforward. I know we've seen this uh time or two uh in the past. Any uh questions or comments from commission. Seeing none, we'll see you back in a few weeks. All right. Thank you.

Next, New House Preston Park Lot 5 Final Master Development Plan. The own and applicant requests approval of a final master development plan for new house Preston Park lot 5 to construct a medical office and a general office space building on 1 acre zone PGC plan general commercial district located east of Warick Warick Warwick Road and north of National Pike. Sorry, I got tongue twisted there.

Uh you see the property here. It's part of the Preston Park development. uh extends all the way back to Tulip popppler. Uh we have what is listed as the podiatrist office and then some general office space here. Um, some of the first things that pop out that popped out to staff was, uh, we have a sidewalk and buffer yard that cross here. So, that has to be remedied. Uh, this is PGC, so there are elevated um, landscaping requirements um, right off the bat. Some of them be the shrub row to block headlights around the parking lot. Um staff is currently researching uh the viability of this entrance uh around the access easement here. So we'll have to get back to that. Uh the lighting is good. Uh the PMDP required 70% brick and stone as a condition of approval. Uh the back is listed as all CMU so that has to be corrected as well. Thank you.

Thanks, Brad. Engineering, do you have anything? Yeah, several storm water comments, grading comments, but we'll work them out. Okay. Thank you. Applicant present. Ferguson, Greenwood Design. Uh, happy to answer any questions. We're in agreement with all staff comments. Uh the only one that we're going to have some trouble with is the couple of typos on the survey just because it's a survey of record and uh if it's going to come down to, you know, need to get that fixed, we'll go with the client, but those are the only ones that I see a problem with.

Okay. Um yeah, I mean my my only comment was going to be about the and it sounds like it's it'll it's already a comment, but was going to be about the material used on the back of the building. And it looks like it was the same. Yeah, we just copied and paste. We didn't have updated architect, but uh I'm going to get with them tomorrow. So, should have that by the time um voting meeting comes. What's the um I'm I'm assuming you guys putting the access where y'all have it on the site. Is that in in an attempt to keep it off the street that's fronting the houses or

uh so uh kind of speak with you guys, you talk to you guys through this? Um, we're doing some research and I'm going to get with the clients tomorrow to figure out if we have access off of the access easement. If not, the FMD FMDP for this one will kind of shift. We'll extend it to where the original entrance is or where the entrance is off of I forget whatever that South Street is. Um, just to get firetruck access. Uh, so it'll be a part of this FMDP instead of the next phase. Yeah. Um, that'll be the only change that'll come up if we can't get access off the access easement.

Okay. But did we show an access here in the FMDP or the uh the PMDP? I mean, yeah, it's been here the whole time. Okay. I mean, if they don't have access to that road, but I mean, this lines up with the access across the street. Was that a planning comment or an engineering comment? That was an engineering comment, I believe. And it was just because the easements never got recorded for that area.

That's right. Okay, it sounds like Keller working through that. Yeah, we're going to try our best. Any questions or comments from the commission? I just want to confirm what you asked about the back of the building will not be CMU block, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I specifically remember it being CMU in the PMDP when they brought it through and that was a comment then. So, um I don't have any other questions or comments. Do y'all? Um question maybe for engineering is are they going to be required to cross Lififor is that Lford lane um with the pedestrian ramps or site crosswalks there.

So that portion is private uh but there is along I don't know the name traveling down Lifford uh there is a pedestrian crossing at that location and so they would just tie to that. Okay. Which one? I mean, looking at the plan, which one is that? Sorry. I don't The vert is traveling uh plan north and south. To the left or right? Oh, right there. Okay. Oh, yeah.

Okay. It's a good question. Any other questions? Seeing none, see you back in a few weeks. See you. Thank you. Next we've got item 14, Smith shoulder Milikin Matthews edition um revised final master development plan.

Uh the owner and applicant requests approval of a revised final master development plan for an office edition on 1.14 acres zoned MRO multiple residential and office district located at 1164 Nashville Pike. Uh this is in the Nashville Pike corridor, but the addition is going on the back of the property here. Um it does come out to about 933 ft. So engineering may have something to add about storm water. We have some elevations. The uh applicant intends to make it match the home roof and siding. Other than that, we had mostly minor comments.

Thanks, Brad. Engineering. So, there was a previous plan that went through on this site that had the connected the back access to Lifford Lane. So, our comment for storm water is going to be you need to the building addition and that back access drive will need to be incorporated in the storm water. Okay. Remind me when that plan went through. I don't have a date. This is like when the last year and a half, two years.

I'm coming up on my 2-y year anniversary and it went through during that time. So, Did we not have it in our ordinance at the time that they needed to have storm water? Well, it was likely under the threshold of 800.

It looks like more than 800, but okay. Is there a member from the applicant present? John Park. Now, I know nothing about the entrance. That That wasn't anything to do with Yeah. Before you move forward, can you state your address, please? Say that again. State your address, please. My address? Yes. Uh 283 Hickory Ridge Road in Gallatton. Okay. Thank you. Marian, you have that. Okay. Well, uh, do you have any questions or comments?

Uh, no. I There was a few markups on a plan that you sent me from engineering about, of course, Zach drew this up. We kind of got a little behind a ball because I didn't realize I was going to actually have to go through the planning commission on it. We thought it was going to be in the house. But regardless, um, topo, I mean, there's no elevation changes on this project. I mean, we're we're we're going with exact elevation the h, you know, house elevation, uh, as far as foundation. Um, there's no elevation changes in the back. So, Zach was like, I don't really feel like there unless you just have to have a topo.

Yeah. My main reason for the comment was I didn't know if pedestrian access was going to be into that building addition or it was just going to be internal. There is going to be a side door and then go which I know we just quick drew this up by hand. Um, so if you go back to the plat, it's going to you can kind I don't have a marker, but it's going to come off this left side and tie the steps are going to come right off that and tie into that right there that parking lot right there. And there's already uh there's like two handicap spaces and then there's probably a I don't know 8 10 foot wide marked out walkway space that it's going to tie into. But as far as like grade elevation, anything like that would be I mean no changes to it because that grounds, you know, I'm not going to say it's level, but it's we're not going to build it up or anything like that because we're tying in and going to do exactly what I mean. It's going to look identical to what the building is there now. I think we can work through some of those things.

Okay. Questions or comments from commissioner? John, you good? No. Only to say that Miss Scher has been a a model citizen in upholding the Nashville Pike corridor plan. So, I just really want to work with them as much as possible. Um, and what they're doing is um on the back of the building. I'm not even sure what the objection is. Is the objection about the driveway connection to the to the rear lipid lane? No objection. It just needs to be incorporated into their storm water calculations.

Okay. And so John, addressing that to you, what concern do you have about incorporating that into your storm water calculations? Is that going to set you over some type of threshold that requires you to have I have no idea what it's going to entail cuz I mean like I said that's that's just been thrown on. I I had nothing to do with that entrance. Okay. And and part of that entrance if I'm not mistaken is still it's gravel. I mean I if you go or there's part of that parking lot that's gravel back there. Yeah. But I mean we're you know I like you said I don't know why that wasn't addressed when they went through the first time as far as storm water goes. So

the threshold is 800 square f feet. So the building addition itself is going to set them over the threshold 140 ft. Yeah, which I I agree with that. I think that they should have to meet the stormwater ordinance for the addition, but I I don't know. I'm having a hard time, I guess, warranting the the other, but I I mean, it's which other specifically?

The driveway connection because we actually we saw this plan come before us. And I guess at the time I mean at the time it came before us theoretically, in my opinion, that's when we should have asked for the storm water improvements because of that drive. But we didn't. But that was also prior to us even starting the whole infill guidance with the uh with the with 800 foot threshold.

Currently the there's no point of connection to that rear liper lane or whatever that's called. There's no point of connection back there right now. Is Yes, there is. Oh, there is. Yeah. We saw the plan on the ground, right? Yeah. You can come in either way. Yes. Like in the ground like they installed it already. Okay. And we approved that plan. So that's why I'm saying I'm having a hard time determining whether or not that it's warranted because we've already approved the plan and they've installed it. I hear exactly what you're saying. Uh just to be clear whether it's warranted to encompass that area, but it's already warranted for the expansion, right?

Yeah. I'm I'm in agreement with the expansion. I'm I meet the requirement. It's it's added landscaping or rain garden or I mean, usually people just do added landscaping to meet that requirement. Um, I just don't want to double the amount of square footage they have to offset because we didn't we didn't pick it up in a previous plan. That's all I'm saying. I don't have any other questions or comments outside of that. Anyone else? I usually see things black and white. This is one time when I'm advocating kind of some gray. If if we're unsure about something and we need to air on one side or the other, I go back to saying that's Miss Scholar and this building has been a model example of of upholding the Nashville Pike corridor plan. I'd rather uh if it's truly a gray area, I'd rather

give them some slack as much as we have the latitude to do so. Uh and so no, I wouldn't want to incorporate I wouldn't want to include the square footage of the rear access driveway into the uh C stormwater calculations if we can do so without violating some type of ordinance. Okay. I'm usually not that gray. Okay. All right. You have any other questions? Uh I do not. Okay. We'll see you back in a few weeks. Thank you. Item number 15, Kennaw Office Park building 8 amended preliminary master development plan and final master development plan.

Yes, the applicant is requesting approval of uh building 8 for Kennesaw office park. Uh this is the FMDP approval. This will be a multi-tenant building uh that is consistent with the rest of the office park. This had a PMDP come through a number of years ago for this whole area of Kennesaw. Uh these two buildings three and four are already built as is uh the daycare right here. And this building is currently under construction. Uh the architecture provided is generally consistent with what uh they've shown previously with the PMDP with some a little bit some updates. Uh we would want to ensure that it was approved by their architecture board through the Chemist Farms Association. Um otherwise the plan is generally consistent with the PMDP with some minor revisions.

Okay. Uh engineering a drainage report was not included in their submittal. So they'll need to include that in the resubmitt otherwise we'll request deferral. And the only other item is a portion of the V state gap trail goes through this property and the current alignment is clipping the corner of of this building. So that will impact it and it will need to be shifted. Okay.

Awesome. Uh member from the applicant present Clint Easley, Southeastern Building Corporation. Uh, we agree with all staff comments, but there was So, I guess the only thing that I wanted to talk about was the greenway and it seemed like it kind of shifted from what I guess I don't know where that came from unless that came from somebody at the city. Not the shifting, but the original on the PMDP. When did that get decided that it was going to get moved?

I'm not sure on when it was moved or if it was moved, but right now they're going through the NEPO process, so it's it's pretty well. Is it getting shifted because of the uh the stream? I think it I mean it's mainly grading too issues.

I guess the only thing that we would ask if it isn't our property. So if and we're we're willing to work with you guys of course but we would rather you know we like that layout. So if it could be shifted away a little bit further back from the building that's fine but we just would like to have some open communication with engineering or whoever is doing it so we can work on that because in the back you notice you've got the AC pads that are in the back there. You'll need at least we'll need 10 feet to get in there and work. So the the walking trail would need to be a little bit further back from that. Is there a a plan that shows where the trail got moved to?

Yes. If you go to Yeah. Keep going. There's an amended PMDP site plan. It might not be. I don't know if we have I guess I guess my my question is is there a plan that shows the proposed layout that they're wanting today as well? Well, no. the proposed layout like what we're seeing with the trail conflicting with the building? Not that I'm aware of. There is it's there's a brown like on on the comments that we received Friday, I guess. Um there's a brown dash line and a few

Okay. side of the building. Okay. I can see the the topo off this back side. Yeah. Um I mean it sounds like they're y'all are willing to relocate it and make it work. Yeah, we are. We we we just want to have you know open you. We're good. We kind of we can figure it out together. The thing it with it is obviously the the grading back there is I know it's tough. So yeah, we're open to that. I just wanted to bring that up. Engineering, are you good with that? Yeah, I mean, yes.

I mean, this would be the the opportunity for us to amend it. I can't I don't know if I was on the commission whenever we amended it last time or changed it last time. John, do you remember anything? No, I don't. Okay. I think our I mean our main issue with changing it now is we're reversing, you know, a long process. We're in we're in the NEPA review process, so having to take it back, redo it, and then send it back in for review. It's going to be a long process.

Okay. Is there a potential alternative where you could move it to the front of the building? Um the problem with that is probably ADA. Yeah. Because when you're coming up that slope on the plan, I guess west side, it'd almost be you'd have to switch back it a lot. I don't think there's enough room there. Maybe I don't understand the issue fully. Are we talking about uh fine determination of exactly where this dotted brown line aka greenway is on this plan? Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. But the the intricacy of this is the fact that the city is already going through a NEPA process where they're getting approval for having the greenway in a particular location due to the proximity to the stream. Did I say that correctly? Oh, proximity grading too. Yeah. Okay. So, by move by relocating, you're going to put it a lot closer to a stream. I mean potentially to make it work with this building layout and location. That's what we would have to do. Yes. What I've got a picture

the NEPA coordination was not was a city the city initiated that. Can you refresh my memory as to why? I know you weren't here. I know that's a tough question, but there's a grant on that. So, I mean that's the city's been working through the grant paperwork process and the processing of it. Okay. So, but was that based off of Sorry to cut you off, John. Was that was that grant and that plan for that greenway based off of fieldrun topo and placement of that greenway or was it just a

No, it's it's fieldr run topo. It's proposed grading. It's the whole thing. Okay. Clint, you got some I' I've got the picture, but I don't know if you want want to pass it around, but I've got a picture of it here and kind of showing where our concern is. If you guys want to look at it. You don't mind? Can you pass it?

Thank you. So, what does an amendment to the NEPA process look like?

I'm not 100% sure. All I know is it would be timely. It It would take quite a bit of time. Can you guys pass that over here for Mr. Fan to see as Do you have any idea how much time? I don't. Okay. Like is it like 6 months or a year or I would say it's probably close to that. Okay. But very uncertain.

Let me look at I guess with the grant, say the grants issued, right? Who's installing the greenway? probably be No, I think it's it it'd be subbed out through the city. I would have said subbed out through the city. I believe that's right. It looks to me like in in relation to the stream. Um changing the route of this thing doesn't actually get you closer to the stream. It just routes further from the corner of the building and closer over to uh Kennesaw Boulevard, maybe. Yes. Um almost decreasing that radius around the building.

I don't see anywhere that it gets it closer to the stream. Now, there's a possibility that because of the contour lines, it might get you might get into a wall, but right that's that's better than I thought where Dylan had it where we had it shown it was out of the buffer. I think the what we had shown on the if you flip back through. So I don't it was kind of out of the blue for us when this that comment was made. So my understanding that if we alter that location of the of the greenway that because it slows down the NEPA process it could slow down the client by a year.

Yes. Yeah. What if the client masgraded the the greenway? Like what if the developer masgraded the greenway and got it to a point to where it was graded? All you had to do is put asphalt down. I mean, we're talking about this building would be we we'd be starting this building in seven months. That's the way it sits from right now. So, we're trying to go vertical in six to seven months. That's what I'm saying. You're going to have mass grading efforts. Yeah. You're going to have mass, you're going to have grading efforts on the site if they graded and I was their grading plan would have to be updated to incorporate the grading for the greenway,

right? Like if we put this on the plan and just kind of show it. But I was worried about was a setback off of the the walking trail, you know, because if it's right there on the back corner of the building, you know, how does that work? Can we show it? Go ahead. So just looking at that brown line and then looking at this top right here. Am I correct in assuming that the the current NEPA sub submission was based on following a particular contour line?

Right. So whenever they made the turn kind of wrapping around that building, you know, you're following along contour lines which gets you back up to grade at less than 5%. If you're going perpendicular with those contours, you're not going to be able to make make that grade up without switchbacks or retaining walls.

Why can't they just push that outlet? I think that's an outlet for that uh storm water uh drainage. Can't they extend that about 20 or 30 feet more and fill that area in and have your contour line pushed further away from the building, you still be following the contour line that the NEPA permit was that was the objective. That was the purpose. But I don't know anything about NEPA stuff. So, I don't know if you can just make that change or if you have to go through a 12-month process. Yeah. I mean, any changes to the alignment, I believe, would require a formal change to the process. Even if the topography changes,

no, not if the topography changed, I wouldn't say. As long as But if we change the alignment, so if if that building stays where it's at, we would be changing the alignment of the of the greenway. Even though the intent of the line on the map was to follow a contour line, if you change the contour line further out, it's a lot of fill material. We can show it. My preference would be to show it 10 or 20 feet off the back corner of that building and then when the time comes if you guys get through this process and the grading needs to change. Obviously, I think that would just be something that happens when whoever puts the walking trail in, it's bid like that. You might have to put a retaining wall in, you know, or something. Just change the grading in the back to get that if that makes sense. I just don't want to tie us to the walking trail being 3 foot off the back of the building on our property because there's nothing set in stone right now. So I don't want to show something that

I think if I hear what you're saying is the um let's say the NEPA I mean let's say the brown line currently follows contour line 475. You see that on the map. The addition of a retaining wall out there into that area and pushing that drainage outlet further out would change contour line 475 20 or 25 ft away from the building. It would. But would that be our responsibility to go ahead and do that?

I don't know. I'm just I I trying to find a way for you to move forward quicker than a year. What would stop? Okay, so you get your approval from NEA. What happens if you make a field change during construction? Sure. I mean, that's what I was saying. Yeah. I mean, it it's you're not because in the grand scheme of things, you're not changing the alignment.

I mean, yes, you you you're you're pushing it out another probably 15 feet, but that the overall alignment of the trail and the could be 10. I mean, yeah. I we really just need 10 feet to get HVAC in. if if anybody if some something was to ever happen to any of those units in in the back the way they sit, they got to get back there and service them. They got to be able to set a unit down, you know, whatever. So,

I mean, I I just I don't I don't know. In my mind, in in simple terms, this doesn't in my opinion, this doesn't change the alignment, but I mean, someone could view it differently. I mean, it it's still what's occurring if we if we if we approve this FMDP what's occurring with the greenway is still meets the intent of what had to happen with the greenway. Sure.

It's just a minor field change. I mean I don't I'm not trying to impact the the NEPA coordination or efforts that you you guys have put in because I'm I'm sure that's extensive. But so I have a quick question on that. So my understanding of NEPA which is limited is that there's like a outer boundary of the Nepa area that we're studying. Um so is there room to move the greenway within that boundary or is the boundary like literally the exact area where you thought the green wave was going to go? There is some Okay. I guess there is some flexibility within that area that study area. Okay. So even if we moved it, you would still be within the NEPA study area

potentially. I mean, we would have to look into it to verify. Okay. Is there is there already a a a dedicated easement for the greenway? No. In this location?

Not that I'm aware of. No. I I would I would say your your study area is pretty broad because there's not a dedicated easement for the if there was a dedicated easement that we were talking about moving that that was already established then I would I mean again I don't want to pretend that I'm deciding for NEPA or what or but me you bring up a good point I it's a minor fluctuation Also, I'm sorry, question for for for y'all, but if there's no easement, I mean, could we even make them move the building over? I guess I'm confused why they have to even ask.

So, my that was my question. So if there is no easement there, there is an understanding that there's going to be a greenway through there and we we've noted that on the PMDP FNDP here, but it's I don't know probably 30 ft from where it's shown. Where do we show it today? You know, if we're going to resubmit in this FMDP, that's that's my entire question. Do we just leave it where it's at previously and then or how do we do that? Okay, so question for staff. In my experience, whenever we've had a project that has a greenway going through it, we have had to establish an easement for the greenway. Would this also be the request of this developer?

Yes. When I think whenever it's further along in the process, we would ask for that easement with the plot, which would be well, not we've had to show the the easement on the FNP historically. You'd want it shown here, but it'd be formally recorded with the plat. Correct. Yes. But I think if they're going if they're willing to fully dedicate the easement that that only in my opinion solidifies the NEPA process, would it not?

Yeah. My only hesitation is the steep grade in the area. Yes, we have a boundary for the NEPA, but if we start encroaching into the boundary because, you know, we're trying to tie in at 3 to one slopes and we're having to shift it and encroach into the slope and then catch back up to grade, we may not within the study area. It's my only hesitation. Okay. I was just going to add typically you don't get the easements or anything until after NEPA because if something comes out in NEPA where you have to change your alignment of that path or anything like that, you don't want to already have your easement. Yeah. And then have to go back and change that. So

is there um pretty much no flexibility on moving the building? I mean is it with the size of the lot or anything like that? We already uh reduced the size of the building to for adequate uh storm water. So, and parking. Parking is not the biggest issue, but the site's tight. So, um not really. Um no, we we really we don't want to. I I would almost be okay with them just updating the grading and drainage plan to show at least the start of the greenway if they were willing to do that. Not the entire thing across the entire property because that's part of the NEA process, but in the grant, but from the tie-in at Kennesaw to at least the back corner of their building because then from there it's just getting down to grade on the back side of the building and down to where the stream is.

Yeah. And I think everybody knows that the grading is not just going to be from that back corner of that building to that first contour line. You know, it's going to be So, I'll uh I'll talk to to Dylan tomorrow and we can like I said, we had no issue working with you guys on We just don't want to get tied to something. Yeah. Right against the corner of the building. So, I guess I same question. Where do you want us to show it on the when we come back for the meeting? Yeah. Okay. I don't have any other questions commission. Um and this might just be my ignorance, but is that culde-sac on somebody else's rideway?

Ours is yours. Yeah, it's there's an existing we're building two u threetory buildings right there to the adjacent right there that uh right side of that right now. But that an easement or anything isn't needed for that in the meantime or I think it depends on just the order of all of these since you guys are you own all of it. Yeah, we own all of it. So if we ever went to sell something or we'd probably record cross access or something just to apply amendment at that time. Okay. And then one other question just because I don't know shrubs and trees that much. Have we checked the site distance on that access with the vegetation that's proposed?

That is a comment of ours. Okay. To check the site distance

questions. Anyone else? Clint, you have anything else? I'll just be in contact over the next couple weeks and we'll see where we land. But all good. Awesome. Thanks. We'll see you back in a few weeks. All right. Next, we'll go to uh item 16, other business and announcements.

I'll just make a quick mention. I know uh Mayor Brown uh tonight was unable to make it. She had a TML event this evening. Um so, she was going to try to make it back if she could, but um she apologized for uh missing tonight. Uh also, I don't think we got the chance at the beginning of the meeting to introduce Tiffany Reid as our newest planning commission member. Uh so we got two new ones right next right in row um with Tanner and Tiffany both starting last meeting and then this meeting. U really excited to have her on board as well and looking forward to uh working with her for many meetings in the future. Um, as far as any any other updates, uh, we are still working through our last bits of changes that we're trying to do for the zoning code. So, we don't have that yet to be able to hand out and start the process yet with you all. Um, just bear with us. We've had just quite a bit of work on our plates that over this past couple months and so we are diligently trying to plug time into our schedules to be able to get that accomplished. Uh but just stay tuned and we'll get it to you as soon as we can.

Awesome. So other than that, I don't have any other business. Tiffany, good to have you. Thank you. Yeah. Uh okay. Anyone else?