Land Use Control Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the August 13th meeting of the Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board. My name is Mary W. Sharp, and I will be serving as your chairperson today. We will begin this morning's meeting with a roll call. Mr. Ragsdale, would you proceed, please?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Gill?

Here.

Mr. Norman?

Here.

Mr. Orgel? Here. Ms. Wilbanks?

Here.

Ms. Scurlock? Ms. Tolbert?

Here.

Chair Sharp?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. Ragsdale. I would like to remind you the copies of today's agenda are located at the front right podium if you need them. If you wish to be a speaker on any case that is on today's agenda, please fill out an attendance speaker's card located at the front podiums. Once you have filled out the card, please bring it up front and hand it to one of our DPD staff members located at the left podium. When that agenda item is called, you will be given an opportunity to speak. At this point, I would like to read our conflict of interest statement. The adopted policy of the Land Use Control Board requires that any member of the board recuse himself or herself from any participation in the discussion or voting on any matter on the meeting's agenda in which he or she may have direct or indirect personal interests. The members shall vacate his or her seat during deliberation on any matter from which they have recused themselves. An abstention may substitute for recusal for the purposes of maintaining a quorum. I would like to now get approval of our minutes from last meeting. May I please have a motion?

Motion to approve last meetings.

Can I get a second? Second. Okay, is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I assume we're ready to vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Motion carries. We don't have any directors' comments today, and we would like to wish a happy birthday to Ms. Desiree on the first, and... Ms. Wilbanks on the 16th. Happy birthday. Mr. Ragsdale, may I please get a secretary's report for this month and an explanation of today's procedures?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have a secretary's report, so I'll go into the procedure and let the record show that Vice Chair Louswell has joined us as well. So the procedure for today's meeting, at the beginning of today's meeting, we will establish a consent agenda for those items where no one in the audience or on the board is requesting an individual public hearing. After the consent agenda is established and approved, we will move on to the regular agenda. For each case on the regular agenda, The DPD planner will give a presentation. This will be followed by the applicant's presentation and any testimony from others who support the application. The applicant and supporters will be given a total of 10 minutes. Following each speaker, the chair will ask the board members if they have any questions for that speaker. Next, the opposition will be given a total of 10 minutes to present their case. Following each speaker, the chair will ask the board members if they have any questions for that speaker. Finally, the applicant will then have a three-minute rebuttal period under the same rules. Following all the presentations and after all parties have been heard, the chair will ask if the board members have any additional questions for anyone who spoke. Then the chair will close the public hearing portion of the case, entertain a motion on the matter, discuss and then vote on the application. If an applicant or any speaker would like to be heard after the conclusion of the public hearing portion of the case, or if a board member wishes to hear additional testimony for any party for additional clarification, A motion will need to be made along with a second and then a two-thirds affirmative vote of the board is required to reopen the public hearing portion of the agenda item. If the public hearing is reopened, both the applicant and the opposition will be allowed an equal amount of time to provide additional testimony. After the additional comments, the board will close the public hearing portion of the case and then deliberate on the case and take the final vote. Again, if any member of the audience wishes to provide testimony in support of or in opposition to a case, he or she would need to fill out a speaker's card. These are available at the front podium. Speaker's cards are not required of applicants since their names are already part of the record.

Thank you, Mr. Ragsdale. The board is a supporter of community involvement and we welcome neighborhood comments and feedback. We are certainly respectful of the fact that many of you have taken off work or adjusted your schedules to be here today. But we ask that your comments be made within the timeframe allowed, please. If there are multiple speakers, please try not to be repetitive so as to make the most of your side's 10 minute time allotment. And you can look in the room and see we have many, many people So make your minutes. Lastly, I'd like to ask you to silence your cell phones so as not to interrupt or disturb anyone during today's proceedings. And to reiterate that we want you to stay within your minutes, I have a little poem for you. Somebody said it couldn't be done when he with a chuckle replied. Well, maybe it couldn't, but he surely wouldn't be one to say so till he tried. So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin on his face. If he heard it, he hid it. And he started to sing as he tackled the thing. Please stay within your 10 minutes. Okay, with our procedures now explained, I'm gonna go to my right, Ms. Lisa Wilbanks. who will be this morning's consent chairperson. She will read items number one through 24 as the consent agenda. Once the consent agenda is read, if you wish to discuss any of these items individually, please come forward and give us the item number and we will pull that case. We will then vote on the remaining consent agenda items as one vote. And following the vote, we will hear the cases that were pulled individually. Ms. Wilbanks, will you proceed please?

Yes, ma'am. Item number one, case MJR 2026-010 in unincorporated Shelby County. The request is a major modification to PD 2019-023CO to revise a concept plan and number of access points located at 1496 Quinn Road. Staff recommendation is hold for one month. Item number two has been dropped. Item number three has been dropped. Item number seven, case S2026-019 in Westwood. The request is a three lot residential major resub division located at 97 West Falls Road. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions and a waiver. Item number eight, case S2026-020 in Southeast Memphis. The request is a one lot commercial major resub division located at 6480 Winchester Road. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Item number 10, case MJR 2026-012 in Oak Haven and Parkway Village. The request is a major modification to PD 2025-002 to remove an outline plan condition located at 0 East Shelby Drive. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Item number 11, case MJR 2026-013 in unincorporated Shelby County. The request is a major modification to PD 04-364 to change outline plan conditions and approve concept plan for single family residential areas located on the east side of Cobb Road and south of US Highway 64. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Item number 13, case PD 2026-00011 in unincorporated Shelby County. The request is a PD amendment to PD 2015-304 to create a new area and change the permissible use zoning from general office to commercial mixed use one located at 8900 Winchester Road. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Item number 15, case S2026-022 in the university area. The request is a two lot. Commercial major resubdivision located at 1541 Cherry Road. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Item number 16, case S2026-024 in Raleigh. The request is a 26-lot residential major subdivision located at 4511 Lansford Drive. Staff recommendation is approval. Item number 18, case S2026-026 in the University area. The request is a three-lot commercial major resubdivision located at 4321 Summer Avenue. Staff recommendation is approval. Item number 19, case S, 2026-027, an unincorporated Shelby County. The request is a three lot commercial major resub division located at 1770 Witten Road. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Item number 20, case S and C, 2026-003 in Cordova. The request is a street name change from Ikea Way to Market Plaza Drive between Germantown Parkway and its westward dead end. Staff recommendation is hold for one month. Item number 21, case SUP 2026-009 in Cora City. The request is a special use permit to allow an outdoor patio use in the South Main District located at 529 South Main Street. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. Item number 22, Case SUP 2026-013 in the Jackson area. Request is a special use permit to allow a car wash in the CMU1 district located at 4628 Summer Avenue. Staff recommendation is a hold. Item number 24, Case SUP 2026-015 in unincorporated Shelby County. The request is a special use permit to allow a hotel in the employment district located at 1770 Witten Road. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. That is our consent agenda.

Thank you, Ms. Wilbanks. So we have pulled items number 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 23 to be heard. The items on the consent agenda will now be voted on with one vote subject to the recommendations of OPD. I mean of DPD. If the consent agenda is approved, only items number 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 23 will have full independent hearings. By voting on the consent agenda, each board member is affirming that he or she has read the staff report and agrees that its findings and were applicable. its recommended conditions. Can I get a motion, please?

Yes, ma'am. Move to approve item number one, case NJR 2026-010 as a whole. Item number seven, case S2026-019. Item number eight, case S2026-020. Item number 10, case NJR2026-012. Item number 12, case NJR2026-013. Item number 13, case PD2026-011. Item number 15, case 2026-022. Item number 16, case S2026-024. Item number 18, case S2026-026. Item number 19, case S2026-027. Item number 20... Case SNC 2026-003 is a hold. Item number 21, case SUP 2026-009. Item number 22, case SUP 2026-013 is a hold. And case number 24, item number SUP, excuse me, case number SUP 2026-015.

Thank you, Ms. Wilbanks. Do I have a second?

Now, Chair, excuse me. I believe there may have been, I just want to correct, make sure that we got, item number 11 is on consent, and item number 12 will be heard.

Yeah, I said 12.

Okay.

And I didn't say 11.

Correct, but I think that the final read-through, I think you may have said 12 instead of 11.

Okay.

I just want to make sure, just to be very clear.

Item number 12, case NJR 2026-013.

Item number 12 will be heard, so item number 11 is on.

I'm sorry, do I need to say it a third time?

Yeah, just make sure that item.

Item number 12, case NJR 2026. Item number 11. Item number 11, case NJR 2026-013. Yes, thank you.

Okay, we got it. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I assume we're ready to vote. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed nay. Motion carries. Now we're going to go to our regular agenda. To my left, Mr. Gill.

Item number four, PD 2026, Israel 4, Oak Haven Parkway Village, new mixed-use plan development to allow uses in conjunction with R6 residential single-family and CMU 2 commercial and EMP industrial truck stop zoning located at 3260 Holmes Road.

Okay, we'll hear it. The applicant, give us your name and address.

Good morning. Sorry, we were late walking up. My name is Thomas Hughley. I'm an attorney with Bradshaw Albert Stewart, 5350 Poplar, Suite 200, Memphis, Tennessee, 38119, for the applicant on the project.

Okay, thank you. We'll hear it first. Go ahead.

Good morning, this is Nabanita Nira with DPD presenting the case PD2026-004 at 0 and 3260 Holmes Road. The applicant is requesting mixed use PD to allow single family residential, commercial and industrial or truck stop zoning. These are the location map and vicinity map. On June 23rd, 166 public notices were mailed. The subject property is zoned RU3 on the north side and CMU2 on the south side. The surrounding land uses are residential, institutional, industrial, warehouse, and vacant. The subject property is currently vacant. The preliminary plan on your screen shows area A for residential, area B for commercial, and area C for industrial use. The proposed residential and commercial uses for area A and area B are allowed by right. However, the proposed use for Area C, truck stop or truck fueling station with convenience store are not allowed in CME2 zoning district. The proposal is inconsistent with Memphis 3.0 general plan. According to the UDC, while reviewing special use permit application for convenience store or gas pumps or gas stations in CMA2 district, the LUCV and governing body must consider the proximity to other gas station or convenience store as well as proximity to single family residential. As you can see on your screen, the proposed truck stop or truck fueling station is in a close proximity to single family residential. The applicant previously submitted a rezoning for CMU2 to EMP at the subject property and withdrawn it before LUCB meeting. The UDC intends PD to promote high-quality environmental design, appropriate location for commercial or industrial, and consistency with Memphis 3.0. A planned development should not be functioned to place an intensive use in a district where that use would otherwise be prohibited. The principal benefit of this request appears to be to the introduction of the truck stop. Again, the proposed PD is close proximity to single family residential and it is not consistent with Memphis 3.0. The residential and commercial use can be allowed with the conventional zoning. In conclusion, the staff recommend rejection. This is the end of our presentation.

Thank you. Do we have any questions of the staff right now? Okay, hearing none, we're ready for your presentation. Is there any opposition? Okay, go ahead and make your presentation.

Thank you. To piggyback off what staff said, most of our, the bulk of this development is in compliance with underlining zoning. really just had the issue of the truck stop. And it seems like they lean on that as being kind of conclusive to turn down the entire development. However, looking at the neighborhood, we will see that there are, to the east, there are multiple warehouses already in place, which is somewhat definitive of the neighborhood. And there is residential around there, but with residential, there does need to be some commercial service, whether it be gas station, grocery store, retail. The retail of which, by the way, my compatriot, Mr. Robinson, will tell you here in a minute, was an addition from meeting with the neighborhood. So along with the housing, again, it looks like the The development is beneficial for the whole neighborhood, and if the truck stop is the only issue, we feel like it's going to benefit the neighborhood in the sense that with all the warehouses, this gives a much closer truck stop to provide the services they need rather than the trucks having to drive two or three miles away. The other service stations are minimum a mile away. Some are two and three, and I believe the closest truck stop is... Three miles away. Additionally, there's been, from what I've heard, and this is anecdotal, but I believe it to be true, that there is some issues with parking with the trucks in the neighborhood at the moment, which I can only assume is a negative for the residential homeowners and tenants in that neighborhood. So this development would kind of take some pressure off that. All that being said, we feel like the development also offers a large development that will not have another warehouse. So it takes up a lot of space that I believe will preclude more warehouses, which is, I think, something else the neighborhood didn't want. We are also highly willing to, of course, put in the money for the road improvements that will be needed for this. You know, between providing housing, retail, and some shopping, and some relief for the trucks, we feel like it's a solid development. Mr. Aaron Robinson, I'm gonna let him speak here for a minute. He is working with us on this case.

Absolutely. Good morning. I'm Aaron K. Robinson, Baruch Properties Incorporated. Address is 3264 Sarazin Circle, Memphis, Tennessee, 38125. And as Attorney Hughley so eloquently stated, yes, we are committed to the positive development of the neighborhood. So in meeting with the neighborhood associations that came to the meeting that I attended, they did not want another warehouse. And so that's fine. We dropped that from the initial plan. Uh, and of course we own 27 acres at that intersection. So, uh, the intentions of us is to, uh, build 49 houses. Uh, those would be single family homes. Uh, we will always build brick houses. Everybody will have a two car garage. So minimum three bedrooms, two bedrooms, two bathrooms. And then I think a maximum of four bedrooms, three bathrooms and, uh, to Car Garage. We also agreed to build a mixed use development in terms of the strip mall. So I believe, if I'm not mistaken, we committed to a neighborhood grocery store. So obviously, it wouldn't necessarily be a Walmart or a Target, but it definitely would be a grocery store, very similar, if not the exact one that you will see in Silo Square, the grocery store in Silo Square, which is located in South Haven, is called South Pond Grocery Store. That is a very nice grocery store. And so I would be reaching out to the owner to see if they would definitely be willing to come over and build. And I believe they would. It's just a matter of ironing out the small details. I welcome any questions, comments, suggestions from the board.

Anybody have any questions? No questions? Okay. Anything else you'd like to say as the applicant? All right.

No, I believe we're okay. We'll rest here.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Okay. On that note, we're going to close the public portion of the meeting. Can I get a motion?

I can get a motion. Do you want any discussion?

Not yet.

Motion to approve PD 2026-004. Second.

OK, we have a motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion amongst our board members? Any discussion? OK, hearing none, I assume we're ready to vote. Are we going to vote all together or one at a time?

I have a question. Who had a question?

I'm sorry. Go ahead. This is discussion between us. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay. So they're wanting to put a full truck stop with all the services of truck stop and build residential homes next to the truck stop.

Is that what we're hearing?

And a grocery store. Mm-hmm. And of course, we've already received three opposition letters, but, well, of course, the new neighbors would be aware that there's a truck stop. Did any of the opposition letters say why, other than just truck stop? What were their major concerns with the truck stop?

Okay, the opposition letters was in the- Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I just didn't know if there was further discussion on that. Just trying to recognize it.

Yeah.

I believe the opposition letters were they didn't have a community meeting, but I think they did have a community meeting.

Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I assume we're ready to vote. Are we going to vote? Individually and?

Yes. Okay. Mr. Norman?

No.

Mr. Gill? Yes. Ms. Wilbanks? Yes. Mr. Orgel? Yes. Ms. Scurlock?

No.

Ms. Tolbert?

No.

Vice Chair Lyles-Wallace?

No.

Chair Sharp?

No.

Motion fails.

Okay, sorry.

Item number five, PD 2026-005, Raleigh, new residential plan development to allow townhomes located at 2604 Covington Pike.

Okay, would the applicant come forward, please? And state your name and address, and then we'll hear the case, and then we'll hear the case and the opposition. The applicant here. You can come and give us your name and address.

Sorry. David Bray with the Bray Firm, 2950 Stage Plaza North, Bartlett 38134. Thank you.

We're ready for the press conference.

My name is Truce. I'm presenting PD-2026-005. It is a planned development to allow 15 townhomes located at 2604 Covington Pike. Here's the location map. 110 notices were sent to neighbors on June 15, 2026. It's currently zoned R10, which is residential single-family 10. If you look at the land use map, it's surrounded by single-family zoning and commercial land uses. Here are the current site photos of the property as of 2026. This is the outline plan. As I said, the applicant is requesting 15 town homes with detention center dedicated, an area for parking, and the applicant is providing landscaping to separate it from the plan development, which is behind it, due to the neighbor's concern that they didn't want this plan development to be connected to this. This proposal is consistent with the Memphis 3.0 plan and is consistent. We believe that plan developments are innovative tools that promotes amenities in neighborhoods and staff finds that the application is consistent and we are recommending approval and their conditions are in page 19 and 20 of the staff report. Here ends my presentation.

OK, that's OK. Do we have any questions of staff at this time? OK, hearing none, we're ready for the applicant to make a presentation.

Thank you. So for those of you scratching your head thinking that you've seen this application before, you've seen one on this property before, same applicant. It was originally an application for, I believe, seven single-family residences that would have connected off of... Twin Woods and not had driveway access to Covington Pike. We ran into a couple of problems with the site. One is the amount of field required on it. It sits well below the road. The bigger problem that we ran into as we got into design was that the sewer along that rear portion is actually higher than the natural ground is. And so that was a major hurdle to try and overcome. so working with the neighbors talking with the staff talking with councilwoman what we came up with was a plan to push everything closer to covington pike that's why the lots have less depth now they would have an alley behind them they would actually access off of covington pike and the only access we would have into into twin woods is a pedestrian access and that was at the request of the neighbors because There is a lot of cut through from the kids trying to get out to Covington Pike. So we would have that. Originally, with this plan, we had 16 lots we moved. We took the last lot off on the north end, that's turned to the side, but on the north end to create more of a buffer against the existing single-family residential. To the south of us is commercial, so the buffer was less of a concern at that point. That 50-foot planning area would stay at the natural grade, so our fill area would be limited to the private drive, the parking, and the building pads. So that's how we got here. I know we have some opposition that wants to speak, and I'd like to reserve my time for after they make their comments.

Okay, thank you. We're ready for the opposition. Please come up and state your name and address and give us your remarks.

My name's John Casper. I live at 2857 Stage Park Drive, 38134. I'm the president of the Neighborhood Association. I've got some photos of the property here I'd like the board to see. I want to bring something to the board's attention. It's my number two reason for being in opposition to what you're fixing the boat on today, and that is these drawings are not based on an actual survey. They look like it, but they're not. I got that from Mr. Bray himself at our community meeting. So these aren't actually surveyed drawings made off of a survey of the lot. So what you're looking at could be encroaching on the neighbors, What you're looking at, we could be building, they could be building a fence in the ditch that's going to end up between the east side of this property and the neighbors. So that's my number two reason. My number one reason is his drawing does not show the two storm sewers that go under Covenant Pike. They are not in his drawing. I feel like that's very, very important for the Land Use Control Board because you cannot build home or another building on top of the storm sewer. That just can't be done. So with that alone, we're going to be back in here another day, okay? These missing details on drainage, and I wished I'd put those little arrows that show the water flow through there, and I didn't realize they were so hard to see when I put them in blue. They look great on a computer, but We've got two points of water entering this property and two points of it leaving. And both those go under Covington Pike. And as I said earlier, the back property line on the east, there's a plan for some sort of fence, but it's going to be right there in the drain. The 50-foot planting area is going to drop leaves, grass. It's all going downhill, okay? Nobody's going to clean it. The drains are going to become clogged, ground saturated, people's houses might be flooded. That's hard to say. I think Mr. Bray needs to come back again showing us some drainage solutions. Last thing I'm going to wind up with is building a house on the side of a dirt hill is a terrible idea. It really is. We're not Nashville where everything's built on rock. You dig down until you hit rock. There's nothing there but dirt. And when the ground gets saturated with some of our monsoons that we're known to have between the droughts, the water's going to go under the houses, and the natural tendency is for the house to slide downhill. And any questions? Could everybody get to see the drawing or the photo? Okay. Okay. One last thing I meant to ask. Has anybody here set foot on the property besides me and Mr. Bray? I think it would be great if you went there in person and looked at it. I really do.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Give us your name and address. Okay.

Good morning. My name is Leandra Marr. I live at 5143 Chiswood Cove, 38134 in this neighborhood. Unfortunately, I'm not as prepared as Mr. Casper was this morning. I didn't find out about this proposed land use until a few weeks ago, but I have actually been on the area in addition to In addition to driving like most of us do, I also walk a lot through the neighborhood. And so seeing this was very much a concern, especially with the proposed exit and entrance being on Covington Pike. There's a lot of pedestrian traffic and there's also a lot of car traffic. And I'm very concerned about the possibility of someone getting hurt, especially the young kids, because there is an elementary school not far from this location. They like to go to the corner stores and the gas stations and things like that. So this definitely does propose a concern for their safety and other pedestrians. Also, these 15 townhomes look like they're going to be zero lot homes and they do not match the history and the current single family plans that are in the neighborhood. And that is also something that is not really contributing to the heritage and the the development of our neighborhood. And those are my two main concerns. And like I said, I wish I had been more prepared for this, but I didn't find out about this until just a few weeks ago, but I did want to still come and say something to let you all know that people are concerned and have some opposition to this plan. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We have one more. One more. Mr. Scarborough, can you give us your name and address?

Jim Scarborough, 2605 Covington Pike. I'm right opposite Covington Pike from the development. My concern is drainage. All that water's coming right across Covington Pike into my property. It's already filled that drainage ditch up. since they've started clearing it with a lot of debris and sediment once they get it built if they get it built where's there's even going to be more runoff with the roofing and street and sidewalks and everything else so my main concern is where's all that water i know where it's going because it's going on my property i've dug out The drainage ditch, it was just a small creek almost before they built all the subdivisions and widened Cone and Pike and everything. But I put riprap and rock and erosion cover down over three-quarters of it and When we had a really hard rain like a year and a half ago, we had 10 or 12 inches, it even overflowed my bridge. So now there's even going to be more water coming down. So that's my concern.

OK. All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you all.

Do we have any questions of any of the opposition right now, board members? Do we have any questions? Okay, we're ready for you to come back and give us your rebuttal.

Thank you. Dropping things here. I made a couple of notes so that I could hit the areas in question. The first having to do with the survey. We have recorded plats on three sides of this and a dedicated road on the fourth side. So we're confident on where the property is and prior to it being platted, we'll have a finished survey done on it. As far as the storm sewers, they don't typically show on an outline plan or a preliminary plan. We are aware of them because the previous approval that went through, we got started on grading plans. That's how we know the deficit we have on fill material on this site. There is a large drainage conveyance that goes out there where Common Open Space B is. That's actually part of a drainage easement, the little cross-hatched area. That's where our drainage will go out. That's why we have that detention designated there. So we'll have storm sewer that crosses the private drive and then storm sewer that connects back up into the northeast corner of the development where the drainage lines come out of the existing subdivision. That was on the storm sewers. On the traffic, one of the things that we discussed at the neighborhood meeting was getting a median cut in the location where that drive would come out. Based on the proximity of the median cut to the north, I don't think city engineering would be agreeable to that. We are more than happy to ask the question, and if they are, we would make those modifications, but I believe this is gonna end up being a right in, right out situation for this development. But that'll be a known factor for anybody buying in here because that'll be in place before they were to buy in here. As to traffic and the impact with 15 units, this is going to produce about 120 to 130 trips per day. We will do a traffic impact analysis as we go through the construction plans for city engineering. If further improvements are warranted, that would be on the developer as one of his responsibilities. But based on the existing traffic on Covington Pike, I don't anticipate that 120, 130 trips spread out over the course of the day is going to have a big impact on Covington Pike. And then the other comment was that it was not consistent with the area. If you go back and look at the... overall plan, you see we have single family to the north, we have single family to the east. We have commercial retail to the west. We have what would be light industrial or CMU3 to the southwest. There's some additional single family to the northwest, and there's also multifamily in the area as well. So we feel this is consistent with the overall area. It doesn't match the two single family areas that we abut and that's part of the reason that we've eliminated the connection through those so that we don't have a single family exiting through townhome type development. So happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions? Any questions of the applicant or the opposition?

Yes, ma'am. I have one. Mr. Bray, for the drainage, I believe just from you being here, you're an engineer, correct? Correct. I know a lot of the opposition, they were talking about water and drainage problems. Have you guys done any reports on that or looked into that?

Well, yes and no. So we did it with the subdivision plans because we actually got to the point of submitting to city engineering on the subdivision plans. However, with the new design, we've got a grading plan, but we don't have the drainage all worked out at this point because that's going to change some with the location of where the pipes are going to be and where the detention will be.

And correct me if I'm wrong. plan I believe it's illegal for you to let water drain and engineering would never approved if you let it drain on someone else's property is that accurate we're not allowed to increase the peak rate of flow and that's what the detention will do okay thank you and that's a requirement of city engineering thank you any other questions before I close the public portion okay I'm going to close the public portion of this meeting

Can we get a motion?

Motion to approve PD 2026 is 05.

Second.

We have a motion. We have a second.

And Madam Chair, if I could, there was a friendly amendment that we have, but since there was opposition, we want to make sure that that's clear. There is an amendment, so I wanted to read that if that's okay.

Okay, thank you.

And so it is, there is a revised concept plan that was sent out that reduced the number of lots from 16 to 15, I believe. And we also need to strike outline plan condition number one and replace it with uses permitted 15 town homes. So it's got the revised concept plan that shows the 15 and then the outline plan condition that states 15 instead of 16.

Okay, can I get a second to the motion as amended? Yes. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? Okay, I assume we're ready to vote.

Okay, let me do a roll call. So Mr. Gill? Yes. Mr. Norman? Yes. Mr. Orgel? Yes. Ms. Wilbanks? Yes. Ms. Tolbert?

Yes.

Ms. Scurlock?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lyles-Wallace? Yes. And Chair Sharp?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Item number six, PD 2026-007, Core City, new residential plan development to allow townhomes located at 795 Tanglewood Street.

Okay, could the applicant please come up, introduce yourself? Oh.

David Bray with the Bray Firm, 4950 Stage Plaza North.

Okay, we're ready for the presentation.

Good morning, Kendra Cobbs, Division of Planning and Development. So this is a residential plan development request at 795 Tanglewood Street. And it is located in Midtown Overlay District. 258 notices were sent out on June 16th to the properties that are outlined in blue. So for the zoning, with this being in the Midtown District, that overlay does apply. It is also in a historic district. Part of it is the Cooper-Young Historic District, and also there is R6 underlying zoning. So with the land use, the current land use of the site is industrial, but it's surrounded by mostly single-family residential properties. There are also a couple of vacant lots within the vicinity. And these are photos of the site. This is a vacant warehouse building, and so this is a view from Tanglewood Street, which is where the frontage is, and the building, it extends to the west, and you can view it from Elsie Avenue as well. So looking at the proposal, this is for proposed 15 townhouses. The access would be off of Tanglewood Street. Also, there would be private drives and mainly the townhomes would be accessible through the private drives and rear-loaded garages. And then most of the properties are internal, or most of the units would be internal, but then you have six units that would front Elsie Avenue. So this proposed development was found consistent with Memphis 3.0, with the future land use being ANS. That's Anchor Neighborhood, primarily single units. And so to close the proposal for the 15 unit townhouse development is compatible with the surrounding area, there are similar small lot developments that have been approved more recently and they're also planned developments. And then also with other properties in the area being zoned R6, this development would be consistent with that. The lot sizes would be a minimum of 1,575 square feet. And so there were two neighborhood meetings, and so there were, Concerns within the community that were discussed at those neighborhood meetings, but with the adjustments to the proposed plan, the concept plan, the community members' concerns have seemingly been met. So with that, the project will not have substantial or undue adverse effect upon the adjacent property or the character of the neighborhood, and therefore, staff is recommending approval with the outline plan conditions. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cobb. Do we have any questions of staff at this time? Okay, hearing none, we're ready for your presentation, Mr. Bray.

I'm not going to add a whole lot to the staff report. Just to point out a couple of things. This plan started with 22 units. We had units facing on Tanglewood. We had an additional little spur of a private drive and something of a mix of where the garage doors would face. The first change to the plan came from the fire department concern about access to the western part of the site, so we made some changes there that dropped the units a little bit. And then after the neighborhood meeting, the concern with the neighbors was that all of the drainage comes to the east end of this, and the units that we had there were going to push detention back farther to the west. And so we made the change to add that detention area on the frontage along and address that issue there. And then also in working with staff, we upped the width of the units somewhat to be a little bit larger than some of the others that have been approved in the area. So our width is a little bit larger and our square footage is a little bit smaller, so it's a compromise. But that's how we got to the 15 units. So I will reserve my time for after the opposition speaks, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay, thank you. Any questions? Okay, we're ready for the opposition. We have one card. Can you give us your name, address, and give us your statement?

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hung Diep. I live at 2046 L.C. for 45 years. Me and my parents live there. I grow up there. And unfortunately, my house burned down in January 26, 2025. when we apply application for the two storage and the city denied it because it's a historic district. Now we try to rebuild that house. We had a survey and my house is, on the survey it's half over, a quarter over another gentleman house in the middle of it. So I tried to get the deviation of the survey so we can able to build a house between house and house. And I lived there 40 some year and we have a lot of crime. I mean, I can't even grow tomato without being steal, okay? People stole tomato plant, okay? So when they put the development in, The end of LG Street is the gate to the high end of people there. People live there for half a million dollar house, whatever. I don't know why they block the street, but that's not my thing. Now they're going to plan on building up a lot of houses there. What's going to happen is a lot of traffic is going to go there. And they're going to knock a lot of parking place for them to park, number one, on the end of the street. And then on the other side, behind my house, I'm concerned it's going to be a lot of crime right there where that building is. a lot of units there. I don't mind if they're going to do just very few units, but numerous units, it's so much crime there and I'm very concerned. My thing is now I'm trying, I applied for the architect, everything approved from historic district, the city, The drawing and everything is good. And then two weeks ago, we have the contract to come out fixing to build a house. We realized the property line is over not a gentleman house, so we're not able to get 10 foot in between of house and house. So now we try to apply the application for the property. to able to build because the city complaining that because my land have to have easement, I got that. It's not a big deal. I can move back for the easement. The problem is now my land survey already over another gentleman quarter of his house. So I don't know what we gonna do except for apply application for the five foot instead of the 10 foot between house to house. So Right now, the unit that he's talking about in the Tanglewood, I don't mind them to have there, but they need to redo that number from the front of that Tanglewood back down a little bit. Because right now, it's so many units, there's going to be so many traffic. And if you look on the end of 2046 Elsie, it's a gate there. I don't know why they put the gate there to prevent some people go through that. Now they're going to have a bunch of units there. There ain't nobody able to park there. I mean, there's gonna be a traffic in and out, and a bunch of kids live on the opposite street. They're gonna have issue. A lot of kids. I mean, they play in the street. I lived there for 40-some years, and I know kids. They play basketball. I mean, there's nothing wrong with they playing, but so now it's so many traffic, they're gonna be safety concerned. So right there by Tanglewood, the... The detention area, the whole house has to be redo the unit. There's way too many units there. And my concern is, my house, if you look up the, I got it right here, I forgot to print the picture, but my house is like an arm and a quarter inch over another gentleman's house on my property land. So... the city one, I already apply application for the architect and everything. We show them the mention and everything. We approve it. We get the people coming out to put the lot, you know, drawing and all that and put cement in. They come out and say we can't do that because we violate the drawing per the city between his house and my house, proposed to be like, 10 foot, but we can't, unless he tear his house down. I don't think he's going to do that. But I'm just saying, so I don't know how we're going to be able to get this resolved.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Do you have any questions?

Thank you.

Do you have any questions of him at this time? Okay, if not, we're ready for you to bring your rebuttal.

Thank you. For those that may not have caught it, he is the northwest corner of the intersection of Tanglewood and Elsey. I don't recall meeting him at the neighborhood meeting. In the previous iteration of the plan, we would have had a unit that would have had a side of the house to the rear of his property. So that's been eliminated now. And because those units that face to the north toward the railway will have garage entries on the rear One of his concerns, as we discussed before the meeting, was the fact that that's a higher elevation and it would look over into his house. But that'll be the garage door from those houses, so it's going to be a decent way away from him. And just for clarity, the discrepancy he has with the survey is to the west, not to the north. We have a survey on this, and our property lines are not in dispute. As to the issue of crime, You saw the pictures, it's an abandoned warehouse on this site. Development in here will be a plus to the area. And I failed to mention before, one of the biggest neighborhood concerns was short-term rentals. And we have added that to our covenants that there'll be an HOA that prevents short-term rentals so that we're not gonna have the Airbnb situation. Again, happy to answer any questions that you have. I think I've hit all the high points.

Any questions? No questions? Okay. We're going to close the public portion of this meeting. Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve 2026-007.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Do we have any discussion amongst our board members? Any discussion? Okay, hearing none, I assume we're ready to vote. Do you want to vote?

We can do a roll call. Ms. Wilbanks? Yes. Mr. Orgel? Yes. Ms. Scurlock?

Yes.

Ms. Tolbert?

Yes.

Mr. Gill? Yes. Mr. Norman? Yes. Vice Chair Lyles-Wallace? Yes. Chair Sharp?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, next item on the agenda.

Item number nine, SUP 2026-011, unincorporated Shelby County, special use permit to allow cell tower in the residential single family 8R8 district located at 7560 East Shelby Drive.

Okay. Can you give us your name and address, please?

For the record, Robert Grant. I'm an attorney for AT&T Mobility. My address is 1578 Highway 44 East, Shepherdsville, Kentucky.

Okay, thank you. We'll have the presentation now.

Good morning. As we presented this case last month, I'm going to go through it pretty quickly. So this is in the residential single family district, R8 to be precise. And they are getting part of the, a parcel that is currently a church in, and they want to have a 155 monopole cell tower. Our requirement for this zoning is 150 feet from any residential single family homes, and they are almost around 185. We believe that this is consistent and it does not do any harm or damage and we are approving it with a few conditions here. I believe Mr. Grant has also a new site plan that I can pull up that one. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions of staff at this time? Okay, hearing none, we're ready for your presentation.

PowerPoint presentation up, please. Thank you for hearing this again today. I see some new faces on the board. We spent a lot of time talking about the need for this facility and why it's located where it is. at the last meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. I'm not going to go through that material again. I certainly agree with the staff conclusions that this proposal meets all the requirements of your zoning ordinance, certainly meets all the requirements of Tennessee law and federal law. Did you?

Is it the one?

Can you get that up for us? Next slide, please. Even though what we have proposed meets all the requirements of the ordinance and state and federal law, we did hear the concerns of area residents. And so we spent the last month, we've been busy. We went back to the drawing board. We do have some revisions to our site plan. And we made a good faith effort to address those concerns. One of the biggest concerns that was expressed was some flooding problems. They were concerned that there was runoff from the church property into their neighborhood, into their homes. So this modified site plan includes a drainage plan. with a water retention basin. Can we go to the next slide? That's the water retention basin shown there on the site plan. Next slide, please. One of the other things that they seem to be concerned about quite a bit was that this tower was a little taller than what's normal in the county. So we did a survey of the FCC registered cell sites This is a map of that. As you can imagine, for an urban area with a population and commercial and business, you know, businesses that this community has, there's a lot of infrastructure in this community. And we're working really hard to stay pace with growing changes to the technology. Next slide, please. In Shelby County, there are 410 FCC registered towers. It provides service to Shelby County's 1 million residents. What that does is it provides for their health, safety and welfare. As we discussed last month, I won't go into all of that again. 60 constructed towers exceed 300 feet in the county. The average height of the towers Shelby County is 219 feet. This is considerably taller than the 155 that we have proposed with our original application. That does meet the requirements of your ordinance. However, the neighbors were concerned about the height of the tower. So our engineers took a look at this and they can go as low, can you go back one more please? They can go as low as 120 feet as an alternative. We're willing to do that at your pleasure, your decision, your vote, but we want to make it clear that it doesn't come without a cost and coverage in service to the community. Next slide, please. This is the coverage at 155. What we're looking for is the green, the big splashes of green. We're right in the center. You saw this slide last month. This, and it's connecting with all the surrounding sites. Next slide. If you drop it to 120, you see that that green shrinks. What that means is, is that there are homes to the north and to the west around it that will not get this improved coverage. And as we discussed last month, this is a matter of public safety. What we're deploying is FirstNet technology, which connects us to, which connects first responders to This designated network and what it means is that when folks in these homes, they're going to lose this approved coverage at 120 feet. What it means is that they may not be able to make an emergency call to get police, fire, or medical to their homes in a time of need. As we discussed last month, Over 80% of all homes have dropped landlines. They rely exclusively on their mobile devices. And according to federal statistics, 80% of all E911 calls are made with a mobile device. This is critical. This is a matter of public safety. But we get it that these folks have concerns about the aesthetics of this tower. If you want it lowered, We're willing to do that. It's your vote. Next slide, please. Can you see the next slide, please? Oh, I'm sorry. That's the coverage with no new cell tower. Where all that green was before, that's red and blue. That's the current situation. It is, you know, very clear that there are very significant service issues in this area of the county of the city. Next slide. This is just an aerial view just showing, you know, we recognize that this site is located in the middle of a dense residential area. As we discussed last month, that's where the need is. And the way this technology works, we have to be in the area to serve the area. We can't put a tower across town or someplace else not get that improved coverage that we showed you on those slides. All of those homes to the north that you see up there that are going to lose coverage, those are folks that are not going to get the improved coverage from the 155-foot tower that we propose if it's lowered to 120 feet. I'm going to stop talking, reserve any time that I may have left to respond to any additional concerns the neighbors may have. We did our very best to address their chief concerns. And so I'm going to stop talking. Do you have any questions?

Okay. No questions for them at this time. We are ready for the opposition. If you come up and give us your name, address, and what you want to say. Keeping in mind, we have five questions. People in opposition, you got 10 minutes. That's approximately two minutes each. So try not to repeat what the other person said. And we got you.

Good morning, Chairman, board members. My name is Eunice Jackson Rogers. My address is 7549 S.B. Cove. On the left of me, you will see my neighbors. All of them did come out. I do have additional almost 50 from the petition signatures of the neighbors that could not make it out. Some of them I could not make it to due to, I had a surgery, but I couldn't walk around to get it, but they was willing to address. I first want to thank you all for the time that you're allowing to listen to our concerns throughout our community. And today we'd like you to consider that this application for our families that we're requesting discussing for years to come would be denied I understand that reliable wireless service is important. We all use our phones and no one here is saying that technology isn't necessary. We're not against progress. We are asking for reasonable progression. We're asking just not to place the burden on the neighborhood but to use other alternatives. We're not asking for special treatment, we're just asking for them to just consider the impact of the economy. They did not inform us of the new additional information today. My written things that I wrote down will reflect only the things that we prior talked about. We did send emails from the Bridgewood Association, but none of them did not comply or reply back to us. So we was under the impression that they did nothing or any concerns. So we just ask that you just take in consideration of what we're saying. We know AT&T is one of the largest telecom companies In fact, as of August of 2026, AT&T has marketed approximately $159.3 billion. So whether the tower is to be built somewhere else is not determined by AT&T's future, but ours is. For many of us, our homes represent our years of hard work, long hours, sacrifices, the dreams of our children. Our homes are not just buildings. They are our college funds, retirement, security, emergency service. According to the presentation that you'll see on today, this proposal would place approximately 1.3 billion of our homeowner equity. So, This is the existing tower, the commercial zoning properties, co-location opportunities. We're just asking for something smaller or less intrusive. I'm gonna let my other members speak. Okay, thank you. Give us your name and address.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Dr. Celeste Williams. I live at 7583 S.B. Cove. Next slide, please, and thank you so much for hearing us again. As we presented last July, there were several things that concerned us. Aesthetic, economic burden, and fairness and disparity. So just looking at this chart, we saw there was a trend in that there are about five cell towers within one mile of us already, and there are about four AT&T towers within two miles of us. So I just went back to gathering additional information about reviewing applications for cell towers in residential neighborhoods and other neighborhoods. the city of Memphis and Shelby County. And I saw there were two towers. One was Forest Hill Irene area. This was a Verizon wireless 130 foot stealth design that was approved by the board. And then there was another one that was a 125 foot monopole on a church lot again. The citizens came out and they said, no, they don't like the code. They didn't like the fact that it would be 500 feet from their school. And so they argued for the well-being of their children in their neighborhood. And this board denied it. And I want you to notice that, well, this current application places a hazard within 100 feet of a preschool and daycare. Next one, please. So while we may not all agree on the health hazards, we all have to agree on those physical hazards to those children. Electrical burn injuries, that's about 20% of those types of injuries occur outside where children just wander around and get into high voltage things. There's a fire hazard. there's that diesel exhaust from that giant diesel tank that's gonna be sitting on the property, and there's falling debris. And the school is located within that fall zone. Now some communities have buffers, but I couldn't see if Shelby County had a buffer for that for school zones. Next one, please. So you can see, this is the ad for the current daycare and preschool that's on that property. On your survey, you don't say anything about how far the tail tower is going to be from the required recreational area of that daycare. There is no construction plan to ensure the safety of those children for doing the construction, doing the operation, doing the maintenance. So when I also looked at what our companies, communication companies and tower companies doing in these other locations, how are they providing services? And in our particular location, at least 55% of the people still have a landline. Again, I just did a quick poll on Nextdoor to see how many people still had a landline and about 55% people do. So let's look at what, no, go back please. Let's look at in Collierville. Collierville has not received an application from any communications company in the last 17 years. The first one was in 2025. It was gonna be on the high school lot. And as you can see, that tower would be 140 feet of stealth design and 140 feet away from the school. When I looked at what type of AT&T applications, how are they providing services to the people in Collierville? They're doing co-locations. They're doing modifications with advanced antennas. They're giving them higher technology. Next. So I also looked in what's going on in Germantown. I just went to the planning and development department that says, let me know what carriers are doing. They're all doing small cell towers, best technology, sometimes 5G. You can see the other one is a 55 feet monopole. It's a tree style and it's in a commercial zone. So we were only asking to receive, to invest in our community with the smarter technology. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We have one more in opposition.

Hi, my name is Tyranny Matthews. My address is 7560 S.B. Cole, Memphis, Tennessee, 38125.

Okay, you have two minutes.

May I ask for an extension? Is that possible?

No, because we asked you to, everybody to, okay.

Thank you. Well, we're asking for alternatives, and they did come up, the AT&T attorney did mention about some alternatives that they've done to address the drainage issues and all that. They have not run that by any of the homeowners. We reached out and didn't hear from them. And he mentioned about the fact that they want the technology to be able to have safety services for first responders. My neighbor next door had a fire just a week ago. And the fire department, Shelby County Fire Department was there within minutes and saved her home and our homes as well. from that fire, so there's no issue with services right now. We have AT&T in our home, and my home is the one that's on the picture on the first part of the slide. So we don't have any problems with services. I don't know what, they may want to boost their services, but they could co-locate towers and put the small cell phone towers in those areas like they have in Collierville and also in Germantown. Next slide, please. So co-locating, there are at least five areas where there are existing towers in our community within less than a mile from that location of that church that they could co-locate their cell phone tower or antennas on those towers to boost that service in the area that they're talking about. Next slide, please. So we're requesting a more rigorous evaluation of alternative solutions with engineering analysis done not by AT&T engineers, but by the Shelby County engineers. That would be more subjective. There are zone areas already, commercially zoned areas within less than a mile of where they want to put this tower on the church parking lot. Again, we ask that you just consider AT&T putting a small cell tower there. They could do more alternatives. They mentioned about the drainage and lowering the tower. but they can at least put the small cell tower, not a massive tower. Next slide, please. So we want to ask the board to stop the trend. The examples of the type of small cell towers that are being used right now that my neighbor just mentioned, we could use those. They could put those up there and it would be aesthetically more appealing, aesthetically to our neighborhood. It's a smaller environmental impact. less intrusive design, and it keeps our property value because right now we're looking at over $1.7 billion in property value, equity that could be lost with a massive cell phone tower located on that church parking lot, not to mention the safety of those children in that daycare on that lot. And that's generational wealth when it boils down to it. I'm sure all my neighbors there will be in agreement as well because they own homes in that area and that's just within 50 homes of that cell phone tower where they're talking about putting that massive tower. We're talking $1.7 million equity loss in homes and being able to resell our homes or get the value out of our homes if that massive tower is there. This type of design doesn't have as much of an effect on our equity. So please, deny it.

Thank you. Okay, do we have any questions of the opposition before we get back to the support? Okay.

I'm sorry, questions of the opposition.

Questions of the opposition.

So you mentioned, the first speaker, you mentioned that some of your presentation was based on information you had before hearing from AT&T today, is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And so for the presentations, do any of what they have presented today, does it meet your request?

If the design look as the one above, then it would meet our request. We wasn't completely denying no service, but we just want to be evenly considered in the fairness. So we were not... it would not meet our requirements that we were asking. That's what we was asking with the picture above. Sorry.

And this is not a question, but this is a statement for all of them. As you have presented, there is a body of knowledge that the members of the board are aware of where there are actual towers being built in some spaces where you say that they are not. And I wanted to make sure that the clarity of it is, you know, there is, we can pull that information up from sitting here to see where towers are being located. And so in some of those spaces where you thought there may not be towers, there are actual towers under construction, even as we speak, and some that have already gone in advance process.

AT&T has already registered this tower of

That's it.

Thank you. Thank you. OK, we're back to the applicant and we didn't hear the two people in support.

She's absolutely correct. This has been registered with the FCC. It's part of our due diligence. And it's one of the first things that we do when we start one of these development projects. I jotted down a few notes that I'd like to hit. I think you're correct that they prepared their presentation without knowing the changes that we've made. But anyway, there was some discussion about equity loss. We filed with our application a report from an appraiser who's done studies in similar communities as Memphis. and determine that a cell site does not impact property values. There was some discussion about health effects, and I'm sure this board is already aware that state and federal law prevent you from taking those issues into consideration. There was some discussion about things falling off the tower. The tower, there's an engineering report submitted with the application. The tower is designed with a zero-foot fall zone radius. What that means is it's designed to kink or fold over on itself within the existing lease compound. It does not fall like a tree. I've seen engineers testify before that if a wind event comes through big enough to damage this cell site, Because of the significant foundations, there won't be anything left for it to fall on. Finally, there was some discussion of collocation. We submitted materials with our application. that shows the radio design search area. There are no tall structures within the radio design search area where this tower needs to be. If we move it outside of that search area, as we discussed last month, it interferes with those surrounding sites that you saw on those coverage plots. So you end up getting a degradation of service, not an improvement of service. She's absolutely right. We do collocate and we collocate a lot. I do a lot of leases for AT&T for collocation. That is our preferred solution when we need to resolve service issues in an area. That's where we go to first. There's a report filed with our two reports, in fact, that discuss this issue and with the application materials, there were no collocation alternatives. What we had was a residential area that needed service, that desperately needed service, and we needed to figure out a way to do it. Your ordinance says in a residential area, go to an institutional property and a church is defined as an institutional property. This is the preferred location. This parcel is the largest parcel within the search area. It is hands down the best and is our site selection report. demonstrates it's the only available alternative. There was a couple of other smaller churches that were not interested. This is the only place we can put this tower. to provide for these neighbors in this area. This is the only place we can do it. And in terms of the small cell, our plots show you as the tower gets smaller, the coverage gets worse. In fact, we're working on a site in another community right now where there is a small cell in place. It's not getting the job done. So we're going in now and looking for a location and designing a new macro site like we're proposing now to get the job done. So I'm going to stop talking.

OK, you've used your 13 minutes, but we had two people that were in support.

Yeah, that would be the pastor. I believe he's here. He's got some letters from church members and community members that support. So not everybody. are not in support of this. If you want to, I know I used my time.

Yes, you used your time. All right. Okay. And so that's what I was trying to stop you so that they could have a chance to say something, but your time is up.

It's hard to stop a lawyer from talking.

Oh. Thank you. Sorry about that. Unless we want to hear anything from... Give them 30 seconds each. No? OK. All right. OK. Do we have any further questions of the applicant and or the opposition? OK. Hearing none from our board, we're going to close the public portion of this meeting. And we are calling for the motion.

Motion to approve SUP 2026-011. Second.

We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion?

Madam Chair, I do think that there were a couple of things that we needed to address as conditions. One, the applicant did propose a site plan that had grading and drainage and attention. We would want to add a condition number four that would be applicant shall submit a grading, drainage, and detention plan to city engineering, to county engineering for administrative approval. So that would be one. And then if there was any discussion about the height, y'all would just need to address that.

Okay. Well, we have a motion and we get a second. Again, as amended, if you don't mind. Okay, thank you very much. I assume we're ready to vote.

Okay, I can do a roll call. Mr. Gill? Yes. Ms. Wilbanks? Yes. Ms. Tolbert?

Yes.

Ms. Scurlock?

Yes.

Mr. Orville? Yes. Mr. Norman? No. Vice Chair Louse-Wallace?

Yes.

And Chair Sharp?

No.

Motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

Item number PD-2026-009, Cordova, new residential plan development to allow 84 single-family lots located at 1277 Dexter Lane.

Okay.

Can the applicant give us your name and address?

Shane Gorey with Baroom Capital, 1810 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 36606.

Okay, we'll now have the presentation.

This is Nabanita Neera presenting the case PD2026-009 at 1277 Dexter Lane. The applicant is requesting a residential plan development to allow 84 single family residential lot. These are the location map and vicinity map. On July 22, 259 public notices were mailed. The subject property is currently zoned conservation agriculture, CA, and surrounding land uses are residential and institutional. These are the current condition of the subject property. The proposed outline plan is on your screen. The applicant is requesting 84 lot single family residential with minimum lot size 4,600 square feet. Among these 48 lot, 84 lot, 40 lots are sized between 4,600 to 5,800 square feet, and other 44 lots are in range 6,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. The two access points to this PD, one from Dexter Lane and the other connecting existing start road from Red Creek Drive. There is a common open space on the north side with stormwater detention and walking trail. The dedication for proposed Cordova Road is through the subject property and the applicant proposed to have a neighborhood amenity like walking trail and maintained by the HOA. The proposed residential PD is consistent with the Memphis 3.0 general plan. We received 72 neighborhood opposition letters and counting and multiple phone calls regarding this application. Their main concern are traffic, infrastructure, drainage and rental development. After the neighborhood meeting, the applicant submitted the revised plan that we've seen where they reduced the lot number from 94 to 84. As I already mentioned, the PD is consistent with Memphis 3.0. In conclusion, the staff recommend approval with outline plan condition. This is the end of staff recommendation. Have you done any questions?

Thank you. Do you have any questions of staff at this time? Okay, hearing none, we're ready for your presentation from the applicant.

Good morning, Madam Chairman. Good to see you and other members of the board. It's a beautiful day, and I'm happy to be in it.

Good to see you.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is a request by Mr. Michael Butnarski, who's the developer. He's not with us today, but however, Mr. Shane Gorey is present. He introduced himself earlier. And I'm Brian Bacchus, Bacchus Urban Design Group, 5320 White Diamond Street, Memphis, Tennessee, 38109. With me also is the development design engineer, Mr. Michael Davis, who's with the Reeves firm, and also Christine Donhart, who's also with the Reeves firm's This is our development plan that is in the Cordova area, as you can notice by the land use map. It's a large partial. It currently is occupied by a single family home owned by the Rogers family. This development is approximately 24 acres in size. and the current zoning is conservation agriculture. This is probably the last piece of the puzzle to extend Cordova Road. As you can notice by the graphic here, this Cordova Road is the last major principal arterial that will stretch along this portion of Cordova. Next slide, please. This is the outline slash landscape plan It shows a total of 84 lots. The original plan did not include Cordova Road right away. The applicant has since came back to the Land Use Control Board and staff to present an 84-lot development to include a large amount of open space and also to provide stormwater detention and improvements along Dexter Lane Road. So with this plan, we have... provided 84 lots and reduced the density to 3.4, increased the lot size to 4,600 square feet, and all the other setbacks and design requirements are the same. The original plan, as I stated earlier, it would include all the right-of-way at Cordova Road, but the required dedication of Cordova Road through the site required a deviation in the typical lot sizes. The reduced density was 94 to 84, and, of course, the lot sizes were reduced as well. Neighborhood stability, this property will have owner occupancy by a homeowners association with documents, and also there are no housing choice voucher. This is no housing choice voucher program. The rents, I mean, the... The incomes in this neighborhood and also in this zip code does not limit, does not allow Section 8 housing, which is commonly known as Section 8 housing. The southernmost lot, we gave additional buffer at the southernmost lot. It also gives the adjacent neighbor a wider and mature natural buffer along the south side. Next slide, please. These are representative architecture of the homes in the area. This is similar to the development to the south at the northeast corner of Trinity Road and Erickson, North Erickson Road. These are very well-designed homes with high-pitched roofs with openings symmetrical about the front. The yards, we have front yards. Some of the homes may have carriage-loaded garages. So some of the lots in the development will be able to accommodate carriage load as well as maybe the front loading garages. Next slide. These are representative of what's out there on the ground today. This is Cordova Road facing west, connects to the school. East, sorry. Facing east, yes, you're correct. Next slide. This is the Woodlands of Cordova, across from the site. There's a wood fence. As you notice, this is Dexter Lane, looking south, I believe. Yes. Next slide. Woodlands of Cordova across from the site. This is a retaining wall with a wrought iron fence. Next slide, please. And this is the woodlands of Cordova across from the site. It was also a wrought iron fence. A very beautiful entrance to that neighborhood. Next slide. This is Cordova the Village, southeast of the site with a wood fence with brick columns, sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Next slide, please. We're requesting additional, a couple amendments, Madam Chairman and members of the Board, dealing with landscaping, Roman numeral 5A. We're asking that this condition be amended to include a six foot in height privacy fence with masonry columns with a street type A. The justification here is to provide rear yard privacy for lots backing up to Dexter Lane, also to provide rear yard privacy for neighbors across Dexter Lane. and also to allow for Condition 5B to read as follows. Any fencing along Dexter Lane shall be as indicated above, with no fencing installed along both sides of Future Cordova Road right away, with subject to the final civil design and construction of the roadway. This justification is that Dexter Lane streetscape shall be installed to maximize the privacy to the front yards of Dexter Lane. Any fencing along Cordova Road right away is counterintuitive to the development plan, since Cordova Road is subject to final design and construction. I believe that's the end of my presentation, Madam Chairman. I'll be happy to answer any questions. As stated earlier, we did have a neighborhood meeting, a very active neighborhood meeting, and a sign was posted on the site. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you. Do you have any questions?

This single family is for lease or fee simple? Owner-occupied. Owner-occupied. Yes, sir. Fee simple. Yes, sir. All right.

Anybody else?

I have a quick question. You said there is a plan to extend Cordova Road over here. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Or, yes, sir, there is a plan now to extend Cordova Road or no?

Yes, the city is involved with that. They asked the applicant to dedicate Cordova Road adjacent to their property on both sides, so yes.

Anybody else before we hear the opposition? OK, we're ready for the opposition, but we have seven cards. So keep in mind, you have 10 minutes. That's about a minute per person, a minute and 25 seconds.

morning my name is jason pelfrey i live in 1183 chapel park boulevard first off thank you for your service i understand that this could be a hard decision for you to make but i appreciate our voices being heard so our neighborhood in cordova the town is uh uses dexter lane coley macon road every day so these roads and i'm representing 110 110 homeowners in cordova the town so With these roads carry a heavy load and during peak hours can often reach gridlock, this is simply daily reality for the people who live there. The developer is requesting a zoning change to allow higher density layout and they argue that this density is necessary for the project economic feasibility. We understand that every site has challenges, but economic feasibility for a private development cannot be the sole reason to increase density in the area already struggling with traffic and infrastructure strain. There's a Memphis School of Excellence and Riverwood Elementary. If you ever travel along these two roads during down Dexter or Macon at drop-off or pickup, you'll understand what I mean by gridlock and how bad it is. There's no traffic control. There's no one directing traffic at these schools. It's basically a heyday of trying to navigate getting through these areas. We also noticed that the proposal lot sizes are smaller than those in the surrounding neighborhoods. That difference affects how neighborhoods feel and how traffic flows. CC, Cordova, the town, and nearby communities have charm that come from their spacing, their tree cover, and their quieter residential character. Preserving that charm matters to the people who live in my neighborhood. The develop mentions preserving trees to the extent possible, but without a tree survey or canopy analysis, we do not know what that means. The outline plan shows detention basins and new streets that will require clearing and uncertainly is significant to the neighbors who value the green space that currently exists. Keep in mind, Cordova Town residents are not opposed to development. We welcome thoughtful projects that fit the character and infrastructure of our area, but this proposal as presented does not yet demonstrate that fit. For those reasons, and speaking only for the Cordova, the town residents, I respectively ask the board to recommend denial of the Dexter Crest plan community development. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Name and address.

My name is Jim McCarver. 8389 Wood Manor Cove. I'm the president of the Magnolias of Cordova Homeowners Association. The northern boundary of our neighborhood is also the southern boundary of the development property. I want to echo what Jeff has said earlier, especially about the traffic. Just one of the earlier cases that we heard today for the one development on Covington Pike, It was gonna be for 15 homes, and they said it was an increase of 150 trips a day, 10 trips per car. They're doing 84 homes. That's an increase of 840 trips per day on a two-lane road, and it's not two-lane just to Dexter. It's two-lane to Macon. It's two-lane to Cully. The entire traffic infrastructure cannot support that kind of growth. Our opposition is also centered upon definitely a loss of property value when we have this large of a development coming in. We are very concerned with the schools, especially Riverwood Elementary, which is going to be right across the street from this development. The children that go to this school will be too close for any type of buses to come and pick them up. So it will either be they will be walking to school or they will be driven by their parents. If they walk to school, that means they have to cross Dexter Road with no traffic lights, with no stop signs, with no type of school guard, nothing to help to accommodate that. And that will just be an accident waiting to happen. They said that they wanted to build 84 homes in this division, in this development, 24 acres. They did a very simple math, and they said, okay, that's going to be 3.5 homes per acre. That's just not true. It's 24 acres, yes, but now let's take out what they need for the green space and for the roads, and now we're going to have probably closer to 18 acres. They're going to be able to actually build homes. which means now it's going to be 4.6 homes per acre. The homes will be on top of each other. The home values within a mile of our home division is between 375 and $450,000. These homes will not be in line with those values. The last thing that I would like to add is I'm very, very concerned that while they have talked about owner occupied, the capital group that is putting up the money for this, the developers of this subdivision, their niche market, according to their website, is in build to rent, or single-family rentals. That's from their website. This was brought up to them at the community meeting three weeks ago, and we were told by these developers that that's no longer the case, that they did that during the housing crisis we had back in 2008 or so. So either one of two things have happened. Either A, they have not, redone or modified their website in the last close to 20 years, or they have not been forthcoming on what exactly it is that they plan to do, that they have not been forthcoming in truthfulness to us as homeowners in the area and other folks who may be interested in this development. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is James Stewart. I live at 8640 Riverwood Farms Parkway in the Riverwood community, which is right around the corner, directly across from the Riverwood Elementary School. The size homes they're talking about, the average size home in the immediate neighborhoods is two to three lots per acre, and even at a generous size of 3.5, it's still not consistent with the... with the immediate neighborhoods. The neighborhood that the developers showed as an example is over two miles away at Trinity and Erickson, which is not going, that neighborhood doesn't affect the traffic flow that's been discussed here. As a matter for the children walking to school, they do not qualify for bus service because of the close proximity to the school. North on Dexter Lane, no sidewalks. It's not safe to walk there as an adult, and these are elementary school-aged children. They would have to cross Dexter Lane, which is notorious for speeding already. It's highly congested. The only route they would be able to walk down Stern Lane is a couple hundred yards that is currently designated as school buses only. Parental traffic, you cannot come up that drive to, you know, drop off your kids. There's no regular traffic. It's just school buses up and down. There are no sidewalks on that walk. The entrance that the children are supposed to use is off of Riverwood Farms Parkway, and there's no safe way whatsoever to get from that development around the corner to the school. So these are issues that were not previously touched on in the

Good morning. I'm Tom Harris. I live in 1561 River Farms Cove. I'm on the board for the Riverwood Farms Association. I wanted to clarify something that's in here. The corridor that's mentioned here and is on this map goes through our subdivision. It goes through for several blocks. When you call 311, because the city owns it, it's city property, it's corridor, the city owns it, but when the 311 called about the city maintaining that corridor, the 311 says they don't own it, they don't have any responsibility for it, and they don't maintain it. which causes us heartache because it goes right through our subdivision and it's not a maintained property and it's overgrown and whatever. If you look at where this also, the corridor comes out on this proposed map, it goes into the school property. The school added some property to their backside when it was put in place. I don't think the school is going to give up that property to let the corridor come on through their property. It's the best fit for that neighborhood because it goes out directly. It leaves a direct extra wide way out to the parkway. It's not going to happen. And the north side of us, we butt up to a large, another farming area. I don't think the city's going to take over their property to put the corridor through. The corridor is a dead issue. It's in your plan, it's in your documents, but nobody's going to complete that corridor on this section that's under concession. And I don't know how the planning scheme deals with it, but I wish they would so we could deal with them maintaining the city property.

Madam Chair, the opposition has about 30 seconds. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Zee Hopkins. I'm the president of the Wilmington Cordova Homeowners Association. We're the property directly to the east of this proposed development. Our driveway to our entry, or neighborhood, is adjacent from the proposed. We have a traffic issue. And with that being said, not to touch on everything else that was said, we were able to collect 370 plus petition signatures electronically. There is so much opposition from the four surrounding HOAs in this area. It's not what you're developing, or I'm sorry, it's not because of a development, it's just because of what you're developing. We already have issues and we would like to oppose this altogether.

Okay, thank you. Your time is up on the opposition side. I'm sorry. Okay, we are ready for the rebuttal.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Concerning traffic, this dedication of Cordova Road would alleviate all these concerns with traffic eventually. That's a true, Madam Chairman, please. That's a true statement. This roadway, Madam Chairman.

Go ahead.

This roadway, when it's extended and built out, it will alleviate the traffic in this area. There's no doubt about that. City Engineer has required that they dedicate this portion of the roadway. The school property has also dedicated right of way today. So this is the last piece, as I said in my earlier presentation, this is the last piece to get this road. The other thing would be to, regarding a tree survey, that's part of the application that we have to submit to the Division of Planning and Development. They provided common open space around the property to meet that requirement. The schools, the bus traffic only, I'm not sure why children don't walk to school in this area. You know why? They don't have sidewalks. There's no sidewalks on Cordova Road. So any event that this Cordova Road is constructed in its entirety, you will have these kind of amenities and facilities available for small children and parents to walk to school. This is not unheard of. It happens all over the city. Regarding the fee simple units Mr. Gill asked me about, the applicant has committed to fee simple owner-occupied units in this development. Regarding the website, his website is outdated. It needs to be updated. I mean, this is not a situation where the applicant has not committed to single-family residential owner-occupied fee simple homes. He's going to do that. Regarding the school property, we've addressed that. Regarding the ADT, the average daily traffic from this development, it is not 840 trips per day. It's more like 336. Four trips per household. That's the average. And that's not going to happen all at one time. the applicant is proposing to build this development within two phases. At least two phases, that's correct. So it will not all happen at one time. We will not wake up overnight and see 84 homes out here. During that time, you will have a rational way of developing the build-out. So that's where we are, Madam Chairman, and I hope that you will consider the amendments we offered as well as the modifications to the plan. And we also want to thank staff for recommending approval to try to move this project forward. With that, Madam Chairman, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Board members, do you have any questions of either the opposition or the applicant? Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? Then we're going to close the public portion of this meeting. We need a motion.

Motion to approve PD 2026-009. Second.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Can we please have any discussion if you have any?

Yes, ma'am. I'd like to just say a few things. Very pro-development. I know this property will be developed at some point, but at this time, that road cannot handle that amount of traffic, especially... With the schools, and another thing is when you've got one exit right now, no matter which way you go, you're at a three-way stop sign, and it is just awful. You know, Cordova Road's been... going through for years and unfortunately i'll defer to city engineering if he may know when it's on the plans but i don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime eventually it will but it will not right now and that that is truly my number one reason why i would never support this number of lots on this street at this time but if city engineering can tell us when he knows if it will be constructed i would love to hear that thank you thank you anybody else

Any further discussion? Hearing none, I assume we're ready to vote. We will do a roll call.

Yes, Madam Chair, and I did just want to ask, there was, there were a couple of amendments that the applicant had mentioned. We are not in support of those amendments, and I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any need to discuss those. Okay. All right.

Okay.

Mr. Gill?

No.

Mr. Norman?

No.

Ms. Wilbanks?

No.

Ms. Scurlock?

No.

Ms. Tolbert?

No.

Mr. Ortle? No. Vice Chair Liles-Wallace?

No.

And Chair Sharp?

No.

Motion fails.

Item number 14 PD-2026-012, formerly known as Z-2026-003, unincorporated Shelby County, new industrial plan development located at Zero Pisgah Road.

Okay, will the applicant come forward? Give us your name and address and then we'll hear the case.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Honorable Board Members, Deidre Brittnam, 3385 Airways Boulevard, Suite 229 here in Memphis, representing the applicant. We're present, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we're ready for the presentation.

Good morning, Chloe Christian with DPD. I'll be presenting this case, case number PD20206012, This case was previously, or not this exact case, but this property was previously in front of this body in May as a rezoning request, Z2026003. But this case was remanded back to the board by county commission to be processed as a planned development. The applicant is here with us today, Bo Chambliss, represented by Mr. Brittenham. And the property is located at Pisgah Road. And the request is now a planned development to allow industrial uses. I'll be pretty brief with the background of this, as you all are pretty familiar with the location, but we did recent public notices on July 24th, and I will note that we did receive a letter of opposition after the deadline, so it's not in the report, but I did wanna mention that. The property's currently vacant, but it's surrounded by mostly residential uses and some civic uses. Mount Pisgah Middle School is not too far south of this area, Here's some photos of the property. Here is the concept plan that was submitted by the applicant's team. As you can see, there are a total of six proposed access points, three on either the west and eastern side of the property. And there are, in this concept plan, unmarked structures that have been proposed. This is just a zoomed out rendering of the plan that shows the location of the floodplain and Grace Creek and some easements. So in conclusion, as I mentioned before, this application is a remanded version of a rezoning request that we received in May to allow an industrial plan development. And similarly to our recommendation for the rezoning case, we have found that the surrounding nature of the subject property does not lend itself to a use or a proposal such as this, especially considering the potential of an increased level of industrial vehicle traffic along Houston Levee and Pisgah Road. These roads are both two lane, minor arterial roads that mostly serve residential uses and civic uses. And per comments from county engineering, there are no plans to expand or widen Houston Levee in this vicinity or Pisgah Road in this vicinity at this point in time. So in our opinion, the roads cannot sustain the level of traffic that this proposal may introduce. And as such, the project will have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon the adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, the traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, and other matters that affect the public's health, safety, and general welfare. As such, we do recommend rejection of this case. However, if approved, We recommend outline plan conditions that you can find on pages 15 through 17 of the staff report. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay, we're ready for your presentation.

Again, hello, Madam Chair. Good morning to all. I'd like to do a quick introduction. My name's Dedrick Brittnam. As I stated earlier, I'm representing the applicant. And as part of the development team, and Mr. Bo Chambliss, who's gonna make a presentation, and his colleague is Chapman Brown. And we also have now joining the development team, Cindy Reeves. The reason we're back here today is because Commissioner Mills represents this particular area. Commissioner Mills wanted us to return to the Land Use Control Board for consideration of a planned development. This site is about jobs. This is an employment site. What we are asking is that you allow us to move forward with employment uses, and we have limited those uses according to the conditions that Ms. Reeves will discuss later. So this site is utility ready. It's utility ready. It's ready for development, and you'll see that in the presentation. And as far as the traffic is concerned, This area and most of Shelby County, since development has been going on, it's development-driven widening, development-driven improvements. So we'd like you to see the presentation now. And Mr. Chambliss will conduct that, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Dedrick. Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board. I'm Bo Chambliss with Chambliss Capital. We're here on case PD 2026-012, Twinwood Planned Development, approximately 53 acres at Houston Levee, Pisgah, located in District 1. Commissioner Mills requested that we come back to the Land Use Control Board as a planned development rather than a straight rezoning. We listened, and that's exactly why we're here today with a conditioned PD. The property is currently, next slide please. The property is currently conservation agriculture. CA is Shelby County's standard holding zone for land awaiting development. The site has been idle and heavily vegetated for decades, never in active agricultural use. We are proposing a carefully conditioned EMP-based plan development EMP is a district specifically designed for clean, employment-generating uses, supports the long-planned Houston Levee Corridor, and brings ready infrastructure online for jobs and tax revenue. Unlike a pure EMP rezoning, every commitment is written into the outline plan as a binding condition that runs with the land. The Commission directed the conversion to a PD, so we could add protective covenants. So, next slide. Here's a concept, a small bay flex space building set towards the east, smaller buildings towards the west are intended for self-storage, a proven transitional use. Access points are shown conceptually, landscape buffers run along both frontages, final access locations and numbers remain under county engineer control. Next slide. Chambers Capital is a locally based Memphis development company focused on careful long horizon investment in Shelby County. I live within a half mile of this site and I intend to remain a long-term steward. The property is a historic wood family tract, 53 acres held for generations, and one of the last large unbuilt parcels along Houston Levee, east of Morning Sun. It is set vacant, waiting for the corridor to mature. Next slide. Three facts decide this case. The first, the corridor, is designated, excuse me, and already being improved through the same developer-driven process used on this stretch of Houston levee. Second, the infrastructure EMP needs is already in the ground. Third, the immediate neighborhood is overwhelmingly vacant, not residential. Every adopted plan points in the same direction. Next slide. We acknowledge the, well, so we acknowledge the county engineer's comment that no public widening project is currently funded in the short term, CIP or TIP, for this segment, and that's accurate. However, localized segment widening is already occurring on this corridor through developer mandates. When the Land Use Control Board and county engineer approve a major land use change along Houston Levee, they routinely require the developer to dedicate the 54 feet from the center line and construct the localized lane improvements at the developer's expense. That is exactly what our outline plan conditions require us to do. Next slide. slide shows the power lines, fiber, gas, sewer, and the flood plan that already defined the site. So next slide.

So on this slide, you can see, next slide.

10, please, yeah. All right, so this slide, you can see four lane sections in front of recent developments along this corridor. Those improvements were delivered through the same developer-driven dedication and construction process we were proposing. Exactly the mechanism deployed directly north and one mile south on Houston Levee. Next slide. Within the 750-foot extension from the property line the UDC requires us to study, known as the neighborhood notification area, 80% is vacant land and another 12% is roads or county land. Only 7.6 is any kind of residential use. Multifamily to the north, a boarding house, and there is land at the southeast corner that is single-family. However, the actual dwelling is located outside the notification area. There are exactly zero single-family homes inside the 202-acre neighborhood notification area of the site. Next slide. If you look at the bar chart, vacant land dominates by a factor of 10. This is not a residential neighborhood. It is a corridor in transition. Next slide. Compatibility is physically built into the site. The nearest single-family residence lies 1,000 to 1,200 feet from the property line, separated by Grace Creek with its 200-foot no-build setback on each bank. Next slide. The 100-year floodplain, the 500-foot-wide TVA transmission easement, heavy mature vegetation, and intervening CA-zoned land functioning as permanent, unbuildable natural barrier between any activity on this site and the nearest homes. Next slide. Virtually all the surrounding land is undevelopable for practical purposes. Whether by floodplain, wetlands, Gray's Creek, the wide TVA power easements, or lack of sewer access, these constraints create a permanent buffer that far exceeds the highest standard the UDC could ever require. Next slide. If you look at the scale, one football field is 300 feet. More than three full football fields fit in this 1,000 plus foot gap between our property and the nearest single family home. Next slide. Shelby County already successfully integrates employment designing with residential uses. Citizens want to work, want the opportunity to work near where they live. Next slide. Because this is a planned development, the commitments are conditions of the outline plan. They run with land and we are in agreement with 24 higher impact uses that are prohibited. Next slide. The public benefits are immediate and substantial, 53 acres of vital Greenbelt land converted to productive employment, immediate tax base uplift from Greenbelt to employment valuation. Then again, on development and new jobs supporting the long-stated plan and the 1999 Shelby County Growth Plan for employment centers to move eastward and southeastward into the Grays Peak Basin, exactly where this site sits. Next slide. This site today, vacant, heavily vegetated, waiting for the corridor, has already been planned around it. Next slide. We respectfully request approval for PD 2026-012. The corridor is designated for four lanes and is already being improved through the same developer dedication process we are proposing to follow. The infrastructure is already here. The plan is fixed, conditioned, and guided by a local owner who lives a half mile away. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer your questions.

Cindy Reeves, SR Consulting, 5909 Shelby Oaks Drive, Suite 200. We had met with Commissioner Mills, and Commissioner Mills had suggested that we come back to the Land Use Control Board for approval of a plan development that will be voted on before she leaves office this month. The conditions we feel specifically, they actually go into the EMP district, which is intended to accommodate office like manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, wholesale processing and commercial uses. in order to promote economic viability, encourage employment growth, and limit the encroachment of non-industrial development within established areas. Development should be operated in a relatively clean and manner way and should not be obnoxious to nearby residential or commercial uses. That is the intent of this property. Our client lives within a half a mile of this property. It's not going to be developed as something that is obnoxious or not good for the neighborhood we feel that the direction of going in the plan the direction of going in a plan development is the right direction to go and we would appreciate if the planning control board could support us on that the widening of the roads is of course developer driven and we're just pleased to go to the county commission and would hope to have your support of this

Thank you, and I think your time is up. Okay, is there any opposition? Okay, do you have any questions of the applicant at this time? No questions? I have a quick question.

The current subject property, what is it zoned for? The maps show everything around it, but what is its current zoning?

It's currently zoned CA, which is conservation agriculture. Okay.

One thing that might not have been mentioned, it's on CA, so you really can't develop it as much. It's in the unincorporated area of Shelby County, and it is one of the few parcels that has allowed sewer entitlements. So it is ready for development.

Anybody else? Any other questions? Okay, we're going to close the public portion of this meeting.

Motion to approve item number 14, PD 2026-012. We have a motion.

We have a second. Is there any discussion? Okay, hearing none, I assume we're ready.

Madam Chair, the applicant did mention a couple of things they wanted to amend on the conditions that we're still recommending rejection, but this would just amend. I'll pass this out, but they are wanting to add three restricted uses, which are contractor storage, truck stop, tractor trailer sales. So if that's amenable to the board, then we can do that without objection. They also wanted to add to the uses permitted an intent statement for the EMP district, which we don't think is necessary. I mean, that is the light industrial district. So we don't really, this is a redundant and it could be confusing. So we would recommend not adding that, but accepting the three uses that are restricted that they have offered. So if that is amenable to...

the board, and the applicant. Madam Chair, we're fine with the suggestions of Mr. Ragsdale, Director Ragsdale.

Okay.

Okay, so we're adding that to as amended? Yes. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can we get a second on that? Second. Okay. All right. I assume we're ready to vote if there's no further discussion.

Okay. Mr. Orgel? Yes. Mr. Norman? Yes. Ms. Wilbanks?

No.

Ms. Scurlock?

Yes.

Ms. Tolbert?

Yes.

Mr. Gill? Yes. Vice Chair Liles-Wallace?

No.

Chair Sharp?

No.

Motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

Item number 17, S-2026-025. Thank you very much. University four lot residential major resub division located at 283 North Mendenhall Road.

All right, will the applicant come and give us your name and address? And we do have one person in opposition. Name and address.

Hi, Madam Chair. My name is Corey Brady, 9967 Bentwig Creek Cove, Collierville, and I'm here representing Val Smith of 3795 Sherwood Avenue, Memphis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll hear the case.

Good morning again. Kendra Cobbs, Division of Planning and Development. This is a request for a resubdivision. It's a four-lot residential building. re-subdivision and it is the lot that is actually addressed as 283 North Mendenhall Road. This is located in East Memphis and 131 notices were mailed out July 22nd. So looking at the zoning, this is a residential single family 10. Please note that should be corrected under there. It is our 10 zoning. And with the land use map, it is all single family residential properties, the subject property and all surrounding properties. There is, within the next block, there is an elementary school, White Station Elementary School. So this is how the property currently looks. There is a single family home that sits on the lot and it faces Chickasaw Road and Also, there is a detached garage that faces Chickasaw Road as well. And so looking at more of kind of angled from North Mendenhall Road and Chickasaw Road, this is showing Southwest. And basically from North Mendenhall Road, you really can't see the property, the house that sits on the lot. It was previously subdivided, part of Tambarc subdivision from 1958 that is highlighted in yellow, the subject property. And this is the preliminary plan that is proposed. So four lots, they're all meeting the minimum R10 zoning requirements. The minimum lot size that's proposed is 10,262 square feet. And also on lots one and four, carriage court garages are proposed. And so with this application, although the R10 zoning district requirements are being met with the proposed subdivision, The carriage court garages are not being met per the Unified Development Code standards, and that would be the contextual infill standards. Reason being that this is within this block face, which would be from North Mendenhall Road and Pinewood Street, which is to the west. Within that block face, there are no street-facing garages. And so per our code with... request of a carriage court garage that would fall under a street facing garage. And in addition to the block face, you would have to also have more than, or at least half of the properties would have to have street facing garages and there would be no alley present. So that's the condition within the code that would permit this carriage court garage. So just to reiterate, this is a proposal to subdivide within the R10 zoning district per subsection 392H of the Unified Development Code. Street facing garages are only permitted if an alley is not present and more than half the structure is on the same block face. features street facing garages. In this case, the block face does not meet that requirement. The other two properties that are, actually three properties that are on the lot, one faces, that block face would be North Mendenhall Road, and then the other two properties, their block face will be included in Pinewood Street. So, Despite the proposal for Carriage Court garages, all other proposals for the subdivision do meet the requirements of the code and the preliminary plan as conditioned is compatible with and in keeping with the character of development in the neighborhood. So we are recommending approval with the one condition that street facing garages would not be permitted. Thank you.

thank you any questions okay we're ready we're ready for your presentation madam chair thank you board members appreciate your opportunity i will be brief um it has been a pleasure working with kendra it is rare for us to disagree with staff and in this case we you know we're always amicable with staff i think those of you that know our developments know that but in this case we just are looking to maintain the option of a carriage court garage. That's really what we're here to do, and we'd like to explain why. I have an illustration. This is the code that's presented to you, and if anyone cannot see this, I have paper copies that I'm happy to hand out. And again, what we're looking to maintain is a carriage court option. The UDC 3.9H states street-facing garages incorporate Carports may be allowed if an alley is not present, switching to my binoculars here, an alley is not present and more than half the structures on the same block face features facing garages or carports. In these instances, garages or carport placement must meet the standards of 3.9.1, which is outlined on the left of your page. Where we politely and respectfully disagree, if you'll change to the next slide, please, Ms. Kendra. There we go. This, and if you could zoom out just a touch, please, if that's possible. Thank you. Zoom out just a touch. What you see here is the green area represents our 750-foot notification area. The red bold outline obviously is the site as it's labeled. And the yellow dots, the six yellow dots represent homes that have street-facing garages immediately facing Chickasaw. And the pink homes are all of the homes within the notification area that have or exhibit street-facing garages. Again, most importantly, because the code speaks to our block, Chickasaw is our three road. Six of the nine homes facing Chickasaw have street facing garages. If you'll scroll down to one more page, These numbers correspond to each of those homes. Obviously, number six is the existing home, the site where we are working. Number one, number two, number three, number four, number five, these photos and number six were all taken from Chickasaw. And each of those homes have a garage facing Chickasaw. Now, to take it one step further, we did have a neighborhood meeting. 144 people were notified. We had 17 attendees. It was a great conversation. And following that meeting, we had some follow-up conversations with our immediate neighbors. Everyone was invited, provided my cell phone, and invited to have private meetings if they preferred. Again, Ms. Conley, who I believe is in the room, and Ms. Chase, Cynthia Chase, our west adjacent neighbors, and an individual named Matt Kopp attended that meeting where we went through the project and made some agreements to the development. And also, they, the neighbors themselves, asked us to maintain street-facing garages in a carriage court format. in this package that i have and you guys don't have it but we've received two additional letters of support from one of our adjacent neighbors and also from matt kopp again who attended the private meeting both recommending approval of this and specifically requesting that we maintain the option for carriage court garages so again we're doing so at the request of our neighbors, at the request of our builders, Tommy Burns, David McLemore, we both reached out and they both provided some statements there and some packets I can hand out to you as well. So again, I just wanna be clear, we're just wanting to maintain that option for a carriage court format garage. That being said, I'd love to answer any of your questions. I just don't wanna take up too much time.

Any questions? Okay, hearing none, we do have one person in opposition. If you would come up and give us your name and address and make your presentation, please.

Good morning. I'm a little bit nervous, so I'm going to read this, if that's okay. And I would like to ask a question. It seems that the process is the builder speaks, the people speak, and then the builder gets to speak again. Do the people get to speak again?

No. No, okay.

I was not sure about that. Okay. Good morning, members of the board. Okay, we need your name and address. My name is Ann Wheaties, and for the last 50 years, I have lived at 302 Pinewood, which is on the corner of Pinewood and Chickasaw, directly across the street from this proposed development. I am here today on behalf of myself and my neighbors to ask you to reject the proposed development at 283 North Mendenhall Road. We are not against progress. However, any new development must respect the established footprint of our neighborhood. This current proposal fails that test. It does not fit the character or the infrastructure of our community. First, let us look at neighborhood comparability. Our neighborhood is defined by wide lots and mature trees, not crowded layouts. Under Memphis 3.0 anchor neighborhood policies, the residential 38117 area is mapped under nurture or sustained, meaning Enfield must focus on stabilization rather than large structural change. The scale of this project violates the unified look of this specific stretch of Chickasaw. It forces a massive footprint onto a lot that cannot support it. This will directly harm the property values and peace of nearby neighbors. Second, traffic safety is a massive concern. Chickasaw Road is already a major stressed artery. Adding dense residential traffic at this exact location creates a severe safety bottleneck. Drivers already battle tight sightlines and heavy construction here. Turning one driveway into four creates new traffic safety hazards on an already busy street that is gridlocked with traffic, with cars lining up in front of White Station Elementary, down Chickasaw, down Mendenhall, all the way to Summer Avenue with morning drop-off and afternoon pickups. This project will only make those daily hazards worse. Finally, our local infrastructure cannot handle this load. We have serious concerns about stormwater drainage and aging utility lines. Because this is also a protected wellhead water zone, the sudden massive increase in roofs and concrete poses a real flooding risk for neighborhood yards. The Memphis and Shelby County United Development Code protects neighborhoods from this exact type of overdevelopment. The developer will likely claim that these homes will raise our property values, but long-term values comes from maintaining the beautiful open character of our neighborhood. Squeezing four homes here violates the established architectural harmony of our block. this project brings too many risks with zero benefits to the existing neighborhood, I ask that you vote no on this application. And even if you approve it, I ask that you help protect our neighborhood by requesting that developer decrease the density of this development by only building two or three homes on this property. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

I do have pictures of the traffic. I don't know how to do PowerPoint, but if anyone would like to look at the cars lined up from Summer Avenue all the way, I would be happy to let you see these.

Okay, thank you. Any questions? Do we have any questions? We'll pass it down the row. Do we have any questions of her right now? Okay, hearing none, we're ready for your rebuttal.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. I would like to address a couple of the traffic obviously is not our doing. There is a school here and we're aware of that. It is unfortunate. We have had a traffic study prepared, a trip generation study by our professional engineers, and we're gonna add two trips in the a.m. hour and three trips in the p.m. hour to this development. We respect Ms. Anne's opinion. I think she would agree. We were very respectful to her. I hope she would at the neighborhood meeting and value her input. I would like to present to you as well a letter that we recently received from Ms. Erin Conley, who I believe is in the room. I don't want to put her on the spot necessarily, but I do want to just read this blip of her statement. And all that I would like to read is it says, I'm writing to respectfully ask that the board consider allowing the carriage court garages as shown on the plat submitted with the application for the subdivision at 283 North Main Street. I'd also like to report a second letter, the statement that came in after the deadline cut off from Mr. Matt Kopp, that he lists all of the various things that we've added in addition to our regional plan, enlarged setbacks, deepened setbacks from the street. But he also says, however, while I do support the developer's efforts to accommodate the neighbor's request, I disagree with planning staff assessment that carriage court garages do not meet the contextual infill requirements of UDC. 3.92, and approval is recommended with the condition that garages be set back. Within the neighborhood on similarly sized lots, including along Chickasaw Road, there is a precedent of street-facing garage doors less than 100 feet from the line. So all that being said, again, as Ms. Cobb has summarized, the proposed development does meet the intent of Memphis 3.0. It adheres to the R10 zoning district. And again, all we're doing is asking if we could maintain the option, the option to construct carriage court garages. And with that said, I appreciate your response. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Madam Chair. Okay.

If I may, I just wanted to clarify that what Mr. Brady mentioned with the homes that were within the block face, if I could just direct you all to the map and maybe make the position of staff a little more clear. So within the block, which is Chickasaw Road, And the houses that are proposed, they would face Chickasaw Road. So that is the block face. And within, okay, there we go. The mouse isn't working. But in between North Mendenhall Road and Pinewood Street, there are no houses that currently face Chickasaw Road. other than the subject property. The three lots that one is to the northwest corner, that faces North Mendenhall Road. So that would be its block face, North Mendenhall Road. And then the other two lots to the west that are at the corner of Pinewood Street, they face Pinewood Street. So those properties, their block face would be Pinewood Street. And so the position is that within this block face, there are no street facing garages between Pinewood Street and North Mendenhall Road. And so that's why it's not meeting the requirements of the code. Thank you.

Thank you. You have a question?

Okay.

No questions. All right. We're going to close the public portion of the meeting. We're ready. Motion. Make a motion.

Motion to approve item number 17, S-2026-025. Second.

Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion?

I have a little. A traffic study for four houses to me is overkill. Sorry, I don't know why. This is a developer that just kills me. If you had to put, I'm fine with the Courage Court basically it's just turning the garage right called a hook and so that you can you don't see the garage if you're looking at the house because the alternative is you skinny the house up and then have to put the house in the back i mean put the car in the back and i'd much rather these take up the full width of the lot versus going to tall skinnies so i'm i am personally fine with the carriage court um

and the current approval i mean for four houses seems pretty easy okay anybody else any further discussion okay hearing none i assume we're ready to vote one so madam chair we can't change the conditions of the city engineer that would be up to the city engineer when it was submitted for the traffic. So it's not a condition of approval, but it would, correct, yes.

No big deal, I just thought traffic study for four houses just seems like a, I mean 100 houses I get, 80 even, 50.

Yeah, it would be a trip.

That's okay.

Okay. Are we ready to vote? Go ahead, I'm sorry.

Can I, you want me to make a motion with the way I, with the carriage court real quick and see? Yes, well, I was going to mention, I mean, the width of the lot, I mean, you mentioned tall, skinny as well, but the width of the lots are fairly wide, but there's, yeah, it's like 65 feet, but was that something that you wanted to discuss further because?

No, I'm just, I am fine with the condition of using the carriage court.

But currently it does not allow it. So our position is that we would not allow it. So unless there's a motion to change that.

So right now they'd have to put houses, they'd have to put the car behind the house.

Correct. And as Ms. Cubs mentioned like the street facing garages that were shown, those are actually side street garages. They're not actually the primary street garages. So just for clarity.

Do you consider the primary street Chickasaw over Mendenhall?

For these, it would be Chickasaw. Correct.

I mean, I think there are other hooks and street facing garages in the neighborhood. I am personally fine, but the board can do what it wants to do.

Did you say that you can't do it? You can't?

Well, the board could discuss that if you wanted to discuss it, but at this point, our conditions do not allow it.

I'll make a motion to allow for Carriage Court garages in this development.

Okay, so I have a motion and a second to add a condition. Is there any objection to that?

Objection to adding the condition or objection to the carriage court garages?

To adding the condition.

Ah, nope.

Okay, so hearing none, I'm ready to vote.

Yes.

Ms. Gerlach? Ms. Wilbanks? Yes. Mr. Norman? Yes. Mr. Gill? Yes. Mr. Orgel? Yes. Ms. Tolbert?

No.

Vice Chair Liles-Wallace?

Yes.

And Chair Sharp?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number 23, SUP 2026014, University Special Use Permit to Allow Car Wash in the Commercial Mixed Use 1, CMU 1 District, located at 2451 Summer Avenue.

Okay, would the applicant please come? Give us your name and address. And then we'll have a short presentation.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, Brian Bacchus, Bacchus Urban Design Group, 53 Tony White Diamond Street, Memphis, Tennessee, and this is Mr. Shomon.

Okay, thank you. We'll have a presentation first, then we'll listen to your side. Okay, go ahead.

Good morning. This request is a car wash in CMU-1 zoning district. So you see the location map and also the vicinity map here. The zoning, as mentioned, is CMU-1. In 2004, city of Memphis down zoned this area from light industrial, which is known as employment district nowadays, to CMU-1 to increase the commercial mixed use development pattern and decrease the intensity of this corridor. It is also in a location that has single-family, multi-family commercial uses around this subject property. As you can see, there is a house very close to this property. If we consider the property line, it's almost 20 feet that separates these two And also if we consider from the proposed building for the car wash to the single family home, it's almost 120 feet. And also from the first vacuum to the nearest home is also 72 feet distance. You can see a few pictures of the site here. It is currently a vacant land from the above. And this is a survey that the applicant proposed, provided to us. And the applicant also sent us a revised site plan and also revised landscape plan before the meeting that is included here. We believe that this is an inconsistent use, and Memphis 3.0 believes that this is also inconsistent with objective 1.5, which is strengthen neighborhood commercial districts, and also 1.5.6, which is supporting the redevelopment of the commercial corridor and the community anchors. Also to mention, also these are the elevations that they provided to us. Also to mention that we have four other car washes along Summer Avenue between North Parkway and North White Station listed in here, Sunshine Car Wash. magic hand car wash, take five car wash, and jumbo car car wash. So we believe that this is a detrimental use to this neighborhood, and it does not support the walkable corridor that we are envisioning for the future of Summer Avenue. We are rejecting the case. However, we have a few conditions if approved, and that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, do we have any questions? I have a quick question. Is there a map that shows the vicinity of the additional car washes to this proposal, or did you just have a list of the addresses?

You mean to the residential homes?

No, you mentioned there were four other car washes along the summer corridor. Is there something that shows?

It's within the five miles from North Parkway to North White Station.

Right, but you don't have a visual that shows exactly where? No, ma'am. Okay, thank you.

Okay, we're ready for your presentation. We need your name and address again and your presentation.

Good morning. My name is Hazem Shoman. I live at 4621 Spring Midway, Olive Branch, Mississippi. I've been a local resident and a developer and a businessman and an operator to my businesses for the last 15 years. The greater Memphis area is my home and the only place where I do business. Thank you for giving me the chance to talk today. I want to talk about a couple of things, and it is me, who I am, what I do, and then the project. As I said, for the last 15 years, I've only done business here. I have another car wash currently open in Memphis under the same brand, Shine and Roll. It's on Manchester Road. And we have another one under construction in South Haven, Mississippi. I take great pride of what I do because I only do it in my home. And this is where I plan to live and do business for the rest of my life. And this is why I think versus other businesses, projects from the same pattern. And nothing wrong being corporate-run and being owned by private equity, but it would be nice to help the small local businesses because as a local business owner, from the start of the project, we have local contractors, we supply everything locally when we can, and we're involved in the operations day in, day out. and whenever it's time to expand, the investment will go back into Memphis. As far as this project, we've done quite the due diligence, and we think that the area really needs it. I understand that there was four other car washes mentioned, but only one of them follows the same concept, which is the TIG-5. The other ones are hand washes, and self-serve, which the take five is still a different pattern of traffic that we think. We looked at the area very carefully and we would only build something that we think is gonna improve the area, not vice versa. Currently, the buildings that are next door, the lot has been vacant for 10 years. Nobody wanted to develop anything and we're taking a chance on that. And even the buildings next to the property are kind of in a deteriorated condition. And we think us going there will encourage the whole area to step up their game and improve the properties. And from there, if you have any questions, I'll be here, but I'll let Mr. Bryant.

Madam Chairman, we also have one person who's in support of this application. We'd like to give him about 30 seconds to speak. Thank you.

Okay, go ahead. Name and address.

Good morning. My name is Colonel Sanders Snowden, and I am here as a citizen who drives along this summer corridor every day. This is exactly... what West Summer Avenue needs. You go down to East Summer Avenue, you see there's a Chipotle, there's a Chick-fil-A, but it all starts with someone rolling the dice with a car wash. Someone has to take the risk. East Summer Avenue is developed. It's looking fantastic. They even have a Starbucks there. West Summer Avenue, not so much. And it starts with someone taking a risk, wanting to roll the dice, and wanting to do something like this along West Summer Corridor. Right now, it's a blank, vacant lot. And this area needs this. It's a new, beautiful structure. It brings jobs, brings taxes to the city of Memphis. And this is a site, if you look at the way that you can make it work, as it said, you can do a little bit of design change. You can do a little bit of the noise. All of that can be mitigated. But this is what Summer Avenue needs in this area. When you go there, it looks sad. I'm there every day. It looks depressed. It needs new development. And this is the first domino and the effect to get this rolling in this area in accordance with Memphis 3.0. If we don't do this, it remains a vacant lot, then it just remains that way and nothing happens. Allow this first step to happen and allow this development to occur so people in the community see something happening around them. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate the support. And we also agree with the shot in the arm situation where this area is It's a distressed area. You could really, really, really use some shot in the arm for new development. As you can see on the slide above, the front portion of this site is commercial mixed use. The rear portion is EMP. This is a split zoning piece of property. The EMP is to the south. So we're asking for a special use permit to allow the car wash in the CME portion. So the EMP currently permits it by right. Next slide, please. This is, as stated earlier, look at this. These properties are very distressed properties. There's a public alley that leads to a residential development. Next slide. The same alley looking south. You got barbed wire fencing, constantine wire, chain link fencing. This is a service station across the street that needs to be updated as well. There's an old drive movie theater, another service station. This is a food truck drive-in location. Next slide. And the subject property, as stated by Mr. Shulman, is a locally owned, family-run operation, staffed all day. Operating hours are 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m., which is typical of your full-service car washes. The gates will be closed after hours. Mr. Shulman, as stated earlier, he runs over 10 stores. He only requests the hours of operation to be 7.30 to 7.30 p.m., It's manned all day during the hours. The car wash is also secured. The applicant is proposing 22 vacuum locations. It would have a concentrated vacuum area, which we moved it to the east of the site, away from residential. You can see that in our site plan. All recent development in this area is to the east. There's no development going on at this immediate area. The previous building was torn down in 2014. The lot has been vacant many years. And this is an architecturally sound addition. It places the building up to the street and the vacuums would not be visible from residential. No known orders that prevents location of vehicle washes along Summer Avenue. Summer Avenue is a state highway. It always has been. It's always been operated that way, and so I'm not sure why we would prohibit these types of establishment along Summer Avenue. We do have a graphic in our folder that states the location, Ms. Talbert, of where these car washes are. This is the 2400 block. The nearest one is four blocks away. is approximately, I believe she stated 3,000, 600, 6,000 block. So this is the only car wash, full service car wash. in this area that is proposed today. Madam Chairman, we appreciate your consideration of this application. Mr. Shulman, I believe, will do a tremendous job in developing this site. He's a proven developer of this type of facility. So we're just asking for your approval with some amended conditions that we've shown on the screen as well. I believe they're in our slide. So I think they were dealing with the hours of operation and also the amended landscape screen adjacent to the residential. Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. It's on the screen.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions at this time? No questions? Okay. Did we have any opposition? We did not, did we? No?

All right, Madam Chairman, I'm sorry. We had one letter of opposition, but we also had one letter of support in your packet.

No, I mean, did somebody come? So nobody's here. Okay.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, no further questions. We'll close the public portion of this meeting, and we are asking for a motion.

Motion to approve item 23, SUP 2026014.

We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion?

I just have a question. Okay. The conditions on the staff report says that the applicant hours should be from 8 to 6, and that differed from what was posted by the applicant. So if we approve, do we approve as confirmed?

Correct. So we're recommending rejection, but if approved, we have these conditions. So we don't have an issue with changing the condition number two from 730 to 730 if the board has no issue. But we do not agree with the recommended revision that they had to condition number one, which was instead of the site-proof fence, because it's a budding residential fence. So if the board is interested in discussing that number two, changing the hours of operation, if approved, of course.

No, I approve of the conditions.

Okay.

So keep it as is.

Do you want to add that as an amendment or what?

No, I just was asking for clarification. I like the conditions as presented. Anything else? Nope.

Okay.

Well, I was just going to say, I don't disagree with you about this part of summer and needing new development or just new, I hate to say wood, but just new development. And this has been a rough area for a long time. And Years ago, the city, I was on the board that got federal funds to change summer from an East Parkway to 240, make it more walkable. And parts of summer have had a bit of a renaissance, but this section has not. And so it's hard to turn down this use to me that on a vacant piece of ground in this section of summer, but that's it.

Okay. Go ahead.

Madam Chair, there's one other condition regarding the landscaping that Mr. Ragdell mentioned.

We want to open the public portion again because we've already closed it. So if you want, if the board's okay.

But say the board, do you want to open the public portion again? Or do we have enough to go ahead and vote? No.

Just a clarification.

Okay. Do you want?

Ready to vote? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Norman? Yes. Mr. Ork, no, Mr. Ork had to step out. Mr. Gill? Yes. Ms. Tolbert?

Yes.

Ms. Scurlock?

Yes.

Ms. Wilbanks? Yes. Vice Chair Lyles-Wallace?

Yes.

And Chair Sharp? Yes. Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, if there's no other business to come before us, I'm sure everybody wants to hear. Meeting adjourned.