Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Read the public notice. The board of commissioners of the city of Mount Julie will conduct a public hearing and consider the following on September 8th at 6:15 at city hall. I'll read it. We have four items for the public hearing. The first one is an ordinance to reszone approximately 48 acres of property at 2190 North Mount Julia Road, map 721, group C, parcel 11 from CTC to CNS BUD, and adopt the preliminary master development plan for 2190 North Mount Juliet Road Convenience Store. The second item is an ordinance to reszone the property located at 8790 Sundersville Road approximately 1 acre map 32H group A parcel 9 from RS40 to RS30. The third item is an ordinance to approve the lease agreement with the Mount Juliet Wilson County Senior Citizen Center for the Mount Juliet Senior Activity Center. The fourth item is an ordinance to approve the land use plan amendment for the Sutton located between East Division Street, Rutland Drive and Gro and Bear Parkway for mixed use to highdensity residential. The public is invited to attend and comment. If you have comments for the board of commissioners that you would like to give on these four items, I would invite you to come forward to the podium and you'll be recognized for three minutes. I'll just ask for your name and address for the record. Hello, good evening. My name is Kevin Forbes. Um, I'm representing another venture LLC on behalf of uh Item One. Um, the primary address for the business is 2176 North Mount Juliet Road at the intersection of Mount Juliet and Division. Um, I own that corner lot in the automotive garage. um and just have some concerns in the development of

this. Uh the property line for um the proposed convenience store is incredibly close uh to the proximity of the front of the automotive garage. There's been a paint booth there for several decades uh that probably has less than six to seven feet to pull out. And with the proposed expansion of the area, I'm concerned that there won't be access to the front of the property as normal uh for them to conduct regular business. In addition, there's uh a private drive um if you're looking at the convenience store property located just to the right of it, which is a um private drive to the back lot property, which has been deeded by the railroad. And in the past, um, when the convenience store was filling their tanks, it frequently had to be used by their heavy delivery trucks and things of that nature, which caused damage to the easement. And of course, additional traffic. Um, as my businesses grow in that area, I'm concerned as they incur more traffic that there'll be a confusion between public use and private use uh in that easement, which can cause issue. Um, and then the front property. Um, I I understand we all probably incur this as property owners, neighboring properties parking on your lot for short-term use, but I do regularly get gas station or convenience store clients parking in the the lot daily. Um, and as we're a very tight lot on the front corner there, uh, parking is obviously very prime, especially in active business hours. Post business hours, not a heavy concern, but during daily traffic, I'm sure you've all seen my lot, uh, it gets pretty crazy. So, um, that's really it, you know, no no opposition to somebody making the most of everything. Just want to make sure that we're not impeded from doing normal business in the process. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Clarence said 200 Maple Way. And I'm not here on the four um items that you have on the agenda, but I am concerned about 11A, the Mirabella. Sir, uh you we're just on the public hearing. We'll have citizen comments at the regular meeting. Okay. We'll get you on. Um get you on at that point. I've got a disabled daughter that I have to take care of. So, will that be shortly? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else to address the board on these the four items listed? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we will reconvene in 10 minutes at 6:30 for a regular meeting.

Good evening everyone. Today is September 8th and I'll call the meeting of the board of commissioners to order. We have a quorum pursuant to city code 62210. Proceed with conducting order of our business. Uh we do have if you're following along do have some agendas in the bar baskets in the back. So without objection we'll set the agenda as published. Hearing no objections we have a 141page packet to go through tonight. So if you're online feel free to follow along on the website or the wire the agenda's in the wire basket as well. So with that I'll recognize Mr. Martin and ask him to lead us in the invocation and pledge.

Thanks to everyone, if you bow your heads with me, please. Gracious Lord, we come together with a shared purpose and ask for your presence to unite us. May peace reign in our hearts as we discuss matters before us. Help us to listen with empathy, speak with kindness, and work collaboratively towards common goals. May your peace be the foundation of our interactions. Jesus Christ's name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, sir. Next item is the approval of the minutes from our last meeting. Is there a motion? Second. Motion in a second. Any questions or comments? All in favor of the minutes as published, please signify by saying I.

Any opposed? Minutes do carry. Next item on our agenda is citizen comments. If you're here to address the board of commissioners, I would invite you to come forward to give your name and address for the record. You'll be recognized. The board's under no obligations to um answer questions from the floor, but we do welcome welcome you and invite you to come forward. We just ask you to keep the topics city related and items going on with the city and not so much individuals. But at that day, I'd open up the floor and invite you to come forward. Giving your name and address, please. Cindy Sharp, 902 Lexi Court, Mount Juliet. Um, I appreciate those who have taken the time to speak with me and respond to my emails regarding the Mirabella subdivision, and I understand it's just a discussion tonight. Um, our community is growing, but our infrastructure is not keeping up. Roads are congested, schools are stretched, safety is at risk. And this is more than an inconvenience. It affects our daily lives and we understand that development happens. We're not against that. But progress must accompany the growth. Safety must accompany the growth. And planning must accompany the growth. Without these, it just leads to one thing. Frustration. Let me say that again. Frustration. The concern will still remain the same. This subdivision sits along a narrow curvy county road, very congested state road where the city has very limited control. Since June 9th, what steps have been taken to make these roads safer for our community? From my perspective,

the focus seems to be to seems to have been helping the developers get sewer connections rather than protecting the community. So, I just urge you to reach out to your state officials, our county officials, because I know I have. We need to ensure that critical infrastructure and projects are prioritized, not placed on the back burner. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Hi, my name is Christa Dansancy. I'm at 602 Cooks Hill Road, Mount Juliet. Thank you.

Um, so what I'd actually like to talk about is what I think the Mirabella development has revealed in that there is a large gap that citizens are falling into. Since May, I've been in touch with over two dozen city, county, and state officials about Lebanon Road. Let me give you a map of the um responses I've gotten. Sorry, I get nervous. The um the city commission here has said that it is a county and state issue. When I speak with the county, they have told me that is a T dot or a city issue. When I contact T dot, they have told me this is a city development. So, it's a city issue. I've spoken to over two dozen representatives. Some of you here have responded to me and nobody has said they are the one to talk to. So a question that I want to pose that I hope will come up during discussion is where is the place for a citizen to talk about their concerns related to Lebanon Road as we continue to expand. We are we are within the urban growth boundary which means we are future Mount Juliet. That's what we are. And when our road is ignored and our road is a bottleneck and our road is deadly and dangerous and our road is not accessible to first responders next to an elementary school, that is Mount Juliet's road. And as we expand and we grow and we put commercial enterprise right up to the road, we kick the count down the down the road, if you'll excuse the pun, for Mount Juliet future city commissioners to deal with. Whereas right now, we have an opportunity to ask that the developer who stands to benefit the most from this growth also helps offset the impact to your neighbors.

So my question again that I'm proposing that I'm asking that I know you don't respond in this moment and that's okay but maybe during discussion can be responded to for the neighbors of Lebanon Road who fall between the cracks. Where's our place? Who do we speak to? Who is in charge of this safety issue? Because T dot says it's not them. Mayor Hut's office says it's not them. The county commissioners told me when it's in front of me I'll talk to you about it. Everyone points me back here and every member here tells me to go back to the people who just sent me here. I think that what Mirabbella has done, which by the way, I think it's a great development for me personally. It's going to improve my property value compared to other developments. I think it's a nice one to have. I'm not against it, but it has revealed a major crack that future Mount Juliet city is going to have to deal with. So, I encourage it to be a part of the discussion now and not be put off. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Um, Clarence said 200 Maple Way. It's really funny that new new uh business is the major topic tonight with everybody. And the concern I have is when I sat on the zoning commission meeting, they told the developers not to bring to the the board of commissioners the proposal for Mirabella until they had all of the septics systems worked out, but they brought it anyway. So, I know that uh TCA844101 says, "Hey, there's not supposed to be any backdoor deals. is supposed to finish everything they said they were going to do from that zoning meeting which they brought up putting a light at the end of Beckwith Road so people can get out. It takes me sometimes 12 minutes to pull out of my subdivision, Green Valley subdivision. That's 55 miles an hour. 109 is now because it's so dangerous and it's four lanes wide with a center turn lane. They're doing 55 by our entrance of our subdivision. They're doing the same thing at the end of Bass Road, which has got a curve that nobody can see around. So, what this lady brought up is, yes, there's a problem. If you take Beck with Road from Lebanon Road down to the new entrance where Mirabbella is going to go in, that's narrow. There's trees 6 in off the side of that road. So, we're saying please, we agree it's going to be a good development. Okay? We're not saying no, don't do it, but do the things that you say that you can do to improve everything because we

don't want it to be like when they opened up the Mount Juliet High School where it was a nightmare traffic jam, getting people in and getting people out. Take care of it now. Listen to what the people are asking you to do. Okay? And because in my mind you guys didn't really follow protocol, I think the first reading for Mirabella subdivision should be two weeks from now when it's posted on the be on the uh signs by the side of the road on Beckwith and on Lebanon Road. I think it should be the first reading, not the second reading. So it gives people that got surprised that this was coming up tonight that they have time to prepare first and second reading. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else to address the board of commissioners? All right, seeing none, we will close citizen comments and we'll move forward. Commissioner reports and comments. With that, I'll recognize Commissioner Giles for your comments. Sir, you're recognized for five minutes.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank all who participated and attended the annual BPAC Greenway walk that was on the 14th of um of August. It was um it was well attended and uh we had really a great time. So, thank you for those who did. A lot of city staff was there and so we're we're really appreciate it. I also want to mention and and I don't do it every time. A lot of us do. I know the last time I said something about the PD, but you know, we've got a great um uh police department. We've got a great fire department. and uh the things that they do today. Some of you may not know that the police apprehended two two suspects that had um homicide warrants for them in another another area and um you know got them off the street. I appreciate that. And then over the last few weeks when we had the storms come through, there was a fire at at Glass Creek and the fire department responded and took care of that. We're just very very fortunate in this city to have both of those departments that are that are so great. So, thanks to both of y'all, both of your departments for what you do for us. Mayor, that concludes my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We'll recognize Vice Mayor Trevette. You're recognized for five minutes.

Yep. Thanks, Mayor. And, uh, thanks for the folks coming out tonight. Also, that are folks that are online. Um, I hope I did reach out to everybody that did reach out to me for some of the concerns. Um, I try to make sure that I did my best to get through all those. and also appreciate staff for also stepping in answering some of the more technical questions uh when it comes down to uh specifics. Um and uh again, it's just, you know, it's a team effort up here. Uh that's one thing that, you know, I can say all day long. You know, we always talk about our first responders. Uh they do amazing job. They take care of our streets. They protect us, but it's also our other departments. Um it's definitely a team effort. Um, that's one thing that I'm really excited about because, uh, every time I turn around, it's always improvements, improvements. And, uh, for for the folks that are out here, um, you know, that are dealing with our staff, you know, you know, they've got a hard job just like you do going to work every day. Uh, but these folks right here, they're dealing with a lot of times from what I've heard and seen is that usually that you only come to the city with a problem. So, if you think about that all the time, they're always looking for a good solution. So, I appreciate the fact that uh that every time I reach out to them, you know, they're in good standings. You know, they try and do their best to have a good attitude. They, you know, all these different departments, they're all about making sure that we are forward facing as customer service. So, I appreciate that. And, you know, uh this commission does not uh uh say it enough, but you know, actually, I think we say it a lot, but still not enough. Uh that we appreciate every department that the city's uh working with as well as our um our community. So, um, last thing is, um, you know, when it comes down to it, uh, just a reminder, uh, these last couple weeks, I was actually heading into some different job sites. I'm still seeing cars that are having some challenges stopping at bus stops. Please, please, please, uh, take a moment if you're heading into work, you're heading back home, slow down. Uh, you know, whatever it is, it's not that important. You know, when it comes down to it, uh, kids getting off those buses, they're either wanting to get to school or they're

wanting to get home. They're not paying attention. So, please slow down, talk it over with your family, your kids that are out, new drivers. Just reiterate that it's uh you know that safety. Mayor, that concludes my reports. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And with that, we'll recognize Commissioner Hefner. You're recognized for five minutes.

Uh thank you, Mayor. I'll be quick. Uh first of all, appreciate everybody coming out, watching on TV, and I do appreciate the citizen comments. Um uh those uh those are meaningful every each and every time. Um so appreciate you guys getting up and and uh speaking. Uh, also want uh just remind I think it's coming up in a couple weeks. Mount Julia Police Department ribbon cutting. Um, do we have a date on that? It's coming up this month, I believe, 22nd. So, really really looking forward to to that. I haven't done the tour yet. So, I plan on doing that in the next uh week or two. So, I see um Deputy Chief Chandler back there shaking his head. So, I'll give you a call. Um, also, uh, sales tax revenues up, which is, um, was a very pleasant surprise for the first, uh, few months of the year. So, really looking forward to, uh, to that midyear review in January. So, very encouraging. I think we're up $2.2 million, uh, over over last year, the same period. So, very, very encouraging. Um, and to that, support your local businesses. We have a few that are that are tinkering on uh, keeping doors open or closed. So, anytime you can shop local, please please do so. Um, it means a great deal to not only the local businesses, but also to the citizens of Mount Juliet because that's where we get our sales tax revenue, which makes up about 80 85% of what fuels this engine called the city of Mount Juliet. So, please keep small businesses here in Mount Juliet in mind. And then also uh Commissioner Giles, to your point about emergency services, Glass Creek apartment, this is the second time that the apartment building got struck by lightning. Uh the first time I think the entire building was burned down. This time I think it was confined to one apartment and maybe some smoke damage on a on a on a secondary one. So good job um in your response times and and getting that uh fire put out. So with that uh conclude my report.

Thank you, sir. That we recognize Commissioner Mley. you recognized for 5 minutes.

Thank you. I don't really have a report, but um I again I want to thank everyone for coming out and speaking. I know that's not easy to do. Um especially when you get up to the podium. I know how nerve nervous people get. Um and thank you for all the great points you make about this traffic and infrastructure, the roads that we need. And uh I I hate when I call somebody and they tell tell me to go here, go there, and you end up back where you started. I know that's frustrating. Um and really it involves all of us. It involves the city, the county, the state, and um it's just hard to get a definitive answer. Um I know the city has um our part that we do like certain things you know I don't I don't know what all it is engineering we're we're required to do our part and then um T dot is required to do their part on state road. So it really it's kind of all of us. Um, so I I agree with everything y'all say and uh and basically how we get road improvements here in the city and even when we approve a development that's currently in the county and we annex it in is we get it through development uh which might include a little widening, some turn lanes, uh a signal, you know, sidewalks. That's how we get these things is through development and that's outside of the capital road projects that we have such as the widening of East Division, Pleasant Grove, um Beckworth Road, those are our capital widening projects. So outside of that, that's how we get um road improvements in the city is through development. And

in addition to what they're required to do when their development is approved, we also ask them, and it's illegal to require it, we ask them to generally um for a voluntary contribution. mo they most generously generously agree uh typically it's about $7,500 per unit whether it's a house, apartment, town home, whatever it is to go toward offsite road improvements. Uh so I don't know if you know that or not. So in addition to what they're already required to do, they do volunteer uh this to put up this money to go toward off-site run improvements. So they they do pay a lot of money to it's very expensive to build here in the city. It's very expensive. Um people not may not realize that. So we the city um I don't know where I'm at on time but the city does um our part I would say to bring these improvements, road improvements um little by little. And I know that if you don't see a lot of construction equipment out there, um that doesn't mean nothing is happening because there's a lot of preconstruction uh things phases to go through, but we do our best there. Um so also wanted to say I missed the last meeting because I had the opportunity to go to the Bahamas with my family and I wasn't going to miss that. And um so that's the second meeting I've missed in secure. So, I I don't think that's bad at all. Um, so and and one thing that I like to do, and I know that every time you leave the house and go somewhere, we're always in a hurry. Always. We're always in a hurry to get here, get there. So, one thing that I just started doing is

not getting in my car and expecting to be on the other side of the town in 5 minutes. So, something I started doing to relieve stress on myself is just enter the address in the GPS and it'll pretty much give you an exact time of arrival and you can prepare for the trip. You know, if you do it before you get in the car, you know how much time you have and that way you're not stressing because you got caught at a red light or you're be behind a pokey person or, you know, whatever. Um, so anyway, I just wanted to share that with you. That's something I started doing to relieve some of the stress of the traffic problem in my life. So anyway, that's all.

Thank you, ma'am. With that, we'll recognize our city manager for his report. So, you're recognized for 10 minutes.

Thank you, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. Thanks everybody for coming out tonight and those watching from home. It's good to see a lot of familiar faces and folks participating in local government. Uh first foremost I want to thank our veterans because without them we wouldn't be here and able to have the freedoms that we have in our country. Very thankful for that. Uh as all the commissioners said so eloquently, thank you for shopping local. I want to thank this elected body, previous elected bodies and our citizens because for somebody that come to work here nearly 36 years ago was the sixth police officer in town. And I can tell you about the tools we had then which was a six shot and a wooden stick, no shoes, a lot of things. Miss Sheila remember that. She's the only person that's been here longer. And to look at the tools that this elected body gives all of our departments, every one of our departments is amazing. LPR cameras, what happened today was a direct correlation between good work with Lebanon, the county in this county. If you're criminal, you're thinking about coming and committing crimes. Do not come to Mount Jet, Tennessee. Do not come to Wilson County, Tennessee. Keep your crime wherever you want to keep it. Do not bring it here. It is not welcome. Our citizens are be protected. The number one thing government is supposed to do is protect the people that make a city a city. And without you all in this room and those watching from home, it is not a city. So that's why we have EMS in a city. Only one of 10 cities in the entire state. Only one the size of Mount Jwitt that has it. Thank you very much for saving lives. The LPR cameras and all the tools we have. The best of the best because that's where it should be. Factory trucks, sweeper trucks, all the tools we've got in the city. I remember we had one public works truck. It's because the vision of this elected body and your willingness to support the things we need here. That's why show up in local is so important. That's why these road improvements are important. I remember being two two and a half years ago with the mayor. We went to an event for the current governor, Governor Lee. Mayor had an idea that we'd go to the state. We went down this commission elected to support by the tune of $25 million to give the state of Tennessee. The governor city is looking for

partners that made that plan because of what you did. In short order, public works department here, Mr. Matt White, applied for a grant, 25 additional million dollars, 50 million to go toward about an $80 million project. That's what this city does so well. Kudos for doing that because that's why we're in the position we're in. Uh our seniors, one of the things you'll see tonight is our senior citizen, our director, and her team is here tonight because they're saying many years ago, how you treat your children and how you treat older people speaks a lot about your community. You'll see a little bit of that tonight. Thank you, elected body, for stepping up and doing what you're going to do here in just a little bit. Another thing, like when we talk about shopping local, uh if you're looking at buying furniture soon, will you do me a favor and hold off for just a few months? Just get a little bit more out of that datine uh mattress that you've got and maybe whatever else that you've got at the house that you're waiting on. I'm wanting two recliners. We've got an Edith and Archie chair at my house for those you old enough to remember that. They need to be replaced, but I'm waiting. So, here's why I'm waiting. Rooms to go and Mount Jill will be opening real soon. For those of you that wondered what happened to uh Joann's Fabrics, it's been replaced with a hab's furniture store. You know why they come to Mount Jill? It's because the per capita income and the median household income here is so good because of you all that they that they're moving their store here. Please buy it here in Mount Jet, Tennessee. Those restaurant, the Mediterranean restaurant that just opened downtown. You asked for higherend. That's a higher end restaurant. Please patronize them. Roadhouse will be open by the end of year. And if you're looking for something to do with your grandkids, you'll have a a slick city that'll be opening up here real soon, too. And it's good for folks my age and older, too. So, I look to see some familiar faces there. And last, but not least, mayor, I've got two wonderful people to recognize. If you'll give me an opportunity and bless me, I'd like to go to the podium.

Yes, sir.

All right. This this this will be real quick and I don't usually take this much time, but there's a sweet lady sitting right over there, Miss Sheila Lucky. Raise your hand. It's been a constant beside me. She is going to be retiring December 5th. So, it's short order. So, I really want to do the best I can to embarrass her for the next few months. Everything we can. So, if you if

That's right. No, I said been here longer than me. So, I don't that don't mean you She started really young, right out of middle school. So, uh, she, uh, but Miss Sheila is going to be retiring and enjoying some time with family and things of that nature. So, we're very thankful. But I wanted to point that out because it speaks volumes about what I'm fixing to do. But the people that you see up here, especially our elected body, you all raise your hands for me, please. Okay. They they they made a decision to get into this crazy work called government. They volunteer. They're your neighbors next door. They share the same traffic you do. They live in this community. Their grandkids and children all live in this community, too. And we love it. And they do everything they can. They wake up for a measly handful of dollars a month. They don't make a lot. By state law, you can't pay them a lot. And you'd be pretty surprised what they make. They all have full-time jobs, full-time families. So, we got an opportunity, people like Miss Sheila and other people to see them in their personal lives, their children, what they sacrifice for their families. And it sounds hokey, but it's reality. We all do that every day. We get up like this lady was up here speaking and she got nervous because we love our city. And ultimately at the end of the day, you're just trying to date make today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today. So it's people like this that I like taking opportunity to recognize. And I'm a big kid at heart. So I'm always cutting up with folks and loving on them as we call it. Loving on them because you never know if you know the suicide rates in this country and where they're at today. They've just about double, especially with young folks. It's because we don't take time sometimes to say how you doing, how you feeling, you know, make you feel a little bit better. So, I'm going to take the opportunity to tell a couple of folks and I'm going to give them some really expensive certificates and some really expensive awards that are in a cardboard box. Only the best of cardboard here, okay? But in our small token of saying this doesn't show, but just a small token of how much we appreciate you tonight. It just happens to be that there's two people I'd like to recognize. The first one I'd like to recognize, and I'll let them sit there so that then they can come up, but I'd like to brag a little bit, is Commissioner Scott Hefner. Commissioner, raise your hand. And I know the sacrifices you make along with all of

you make and at different intervals we recognize him. For this particular one, even though it probably feels like 10 years, Commissioner Hefner is a dedicated public servant, works with staff daily, works with citizens daily in addition to his full-time career. Um, and I'd like to recognize him for tonight. I know the sacrifices you make from your wife and your family for five years of service. And uh just say on behalf of all 330 employees and 45,000 residents and the people that patronize this city every day, thank you all. Even for those that hadn't been recognized yet or you're waiting on your 10 or whatever, thank you. Thank you for what you do from the people of Mount Jud. I hear that daily. It is different. Mount Jud is a different city. We see our warts and sometimes we forget the blessings we've got. There's a lot of blessings here and we're working on warts. I promise we work on that every day to make sure we're doing the things that you all want us to do. So, Commissioner Hefner, thank you, my brother, for your service. And we we'll come up get you guys do pictures with Justin if you'd like. Or we can do that now if you'd like to come up and I can hand it to you now.

I would have taken out the box. It looks a lot better.

Thank you. It is my absolute pleasure. And if you want to say something, you're welcome to. If you want to get your mic and say anything. I even give you the opportunity up here.

I just I'll just extension of what I just said. I mean, it's it's my absolute pleasure to serve. Um I felt it was my duty to serve. Um I felt like I could have made a difference and hopefully I have. Um and I'm not not running for district three again. So I'm not going to be a commissioner here. Uh this is my last term and that's by my own choice. So a firm believer in term limits. So anybody in district three, you got three years to think about it. So but anyways, this has been my absolute pleasure and honor to serve the citizens of Mount Juliet and uh the residents of district 3. Thank you for this. It means a lot.

Thank you for your sacrifice, Commissioner. Really appreciate it. All right. Then the next person is a person that I remember going to some meetings with when they first came here. And I don't know if it took I think your time's up, sir. Yeah, I might go over a little bit tonight. But uh another one is I remember going to some meetings early on. There used to be a lady that'd show up and she'd sit right there on the front row and u and talk about city starting fire department. We always had a great relationship with Wimma, but I think since we brought our own fire department on, we've just exceeded all expectations. And I remember the mayor and a lot of the hard work and the gritty work and going to meetings and not being able to speak and and I remember somebody made a comment about his young face. I remember think I would be envious if anybody ever says you look young. Do not get offended by that. Take it as long as you can take it. But the young man sitting right there.

Certainly don't last. That's right. Now you still look just as young now as then and still got a head full of hair. So I'm envious of that. But it's hard to believe that it's been 15 years ago, mayor, that you come to join us as a commissioner. And I think one of the first that hair was red when I started.

That's right. That's right. and uh and I and I saw his two little precious daughters and and they're both I think in college now and uh I think maybe one might getting closer to graduating mayor and I apologize I can't remember all the exact details but not trying to age him but he's got two beautiful daughters and a wonderful wife that's an educator and just watching those little girls grow up over 15 years and realize how many times their dad was here and times we've been out on tail tornado sites together with each one of you that you've been out there picking up limbs and helping your neighbors and all these subdivisions. So, it's hard to believe it's been 15 years and time flies. But, mayor, thank you for what you do for us because I know sometimes in the mayor's seat, you know, everybody wants the mayor, you know, kind of thing. I go to things sometimes, I'm here to represent the the mayor and they're like, "Where's the mayor?" Well, I say he can't be at everything because you imagine he gets tugged at a lot. So, uh, two beautiful daughters, an absolutely beautiful wife, 15 years of service, not only as a commissioner, but also, I believe, is the vice mayor and then the mayor. Uh, so thank you. And again, I hope to get to do this again real soon with the others. I'm not sure when to pick folks's time up, but a lot of you have been commissioners for a lot of you been commissioners for a long time. Seems a little hokey, but it's we're we're very appreciative. And it's hard sometimes to be the mayor because he's got a gabble sometime and mine's coming real close. I need to wrap it up. Mayor, would you come up here so we can formally recognize you? And it's a small token again, but it is a token. And uh to the folks that's in the audience and all the 45,000 citizens, thank you for all that you do. [Applause] I'll conclude with this everybody. Thank you for your patience and hearing me out on that. I get a little long longwinded sometimes. Thanks, commissioners, for all that you do. And mayor, that concludes my report and God bless America.

Well, that was a very interesting report. I will say I did not know that Miss Luckett was our first employee to have shoes. So

or something to that effect. All right, with that we will um move right on to the business of the city, which is number 9A, an ordinance to reszone approximately 0.4 4 acres of property at 2190 North Mount Juliet Road, map 721, group C, parcel 11 from CTC to CNS PUD and to adopt the preliminary master development plan for the convenience store. Have a motion. Motion to second. Any questions or comments? Mr. Mle, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you. Um the I do think this is going to be a nice store and I agree that there needs to be something a whole lot nicer here. Um so according to the plan I've seen it looks like a really nice store. Um I am curious. Let's see. Donna asked you this. Uh you said that number 27 under planning the brick and the clay was removed cuz it's addressed somewhere else.

Okay. 14. And the um the waiver for the canopy you said that that's something that we offer. Okay. Outside of the masonary. Yeah. Weight usually the weight. Okay. and the um pedestrian connection was removed but it's also addressed somewhere else. Uh I removed the condition because in between planning commission and the first EOC reading their plans that they submitted now show one. Okay.

All right. Um [Music] so I really don't like the parking. I think it's going to be a problem. Um the um there's I don't like there's only one handicap spot. Um I think there's a lot going on a half acre and I really don't like three pumps. I don't know why you can't do two. I assume it's because of money but I wasn't here at first reading. BC did pass it and gave them all the variances. So it is what it is. Um and I'm sure that the votes are going to be there to pass second reading. So, I just wanted to say that for the record. That's all.

Thank you. Any questions or comments? All right. All in favor of the ordinance, please signify by saying I. Any opposed? Any extensions? The does carry. On second reading 9B, which is an ordinance to reszone the property located at 8790 Sundersville Road, approximately 1 acre, map 32H, group A, parcel 9 from RS40 to RS30. Motion. I hear a motion. Is there a second? Second.

Any questions or comments on it's on the floor? All right. All in favor of 9B, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Uh 9B does carry. 9 C, which is an ordinance to approve the lease agreement with the Mount Juliet West Wilson County Senior Citizen Service Center for the Mount Juliet Senior Activity Center. Have a motion. Motion and second. The item's on the floor. Uh Commissioner Giles, you're recognized.

Yeah. Uh we need to make amendment to this contract. And I've talked to the attorney about it. I've also talked to a representative from uh from the senior citizen. We need to put something in there unless you got the terminology. Sam, I just come up on this one. I know we've got something else to talk about later, but I just come up with this one. Policy to be endorsed with AI, additional insured. Um so city has a copy of those policy decks. We should have that on file and that is not in lie of a COI. It's in addition to So I make a motion for that. I'll second just so I can hear this more detail from the attorney.

Miss Bernett. Commissioner Diles had just asked if if that would be okay and I have no

I mean if you want the insurance why it's so important they have no problem with it. Most a lot of your insurance companies require that it's physically endorsed on the policy. So it's on the decks and then the COI is also given. A COI is given from an agency. Okay. And let's say that something happened to their contract and the agency didn't tell the city, then we have we have no coverage. But if it's on but if it's on the actual decks of the policy and let's say that they're they're cancelled for some reason, we get notice of that.

And also then if um um Well, anyway, so that that makes us know that they don't. And there's some other things dealing with insurance, but that's that's the main things. It's a common practice in a lot of carriers to require that that be endorsed to the uh on the uh policy before even COIs can be given. Yeah. Commissioner, is this a change to any portion of the contract or addition? Just an addition to it. And could you reward that? Not reward, but reiterate what you just said. Repeat.

Yeah. a policy to be endorsed with additional insured which is the city of Mount Juliet and the address that's been provided on there for the COI. I'm just saying that so that people understand to be endorsed with additional insured so that city has copy of the policy decks. This is not in lie of the COI, but it's in addition to the COI.

Not a replacement of the COI, but an addition to the COI. That's correct. Okay. And again, very common. Yeah, I've already reviewed it with Rob and Yeah. Um, that was your motion. Was there a second? Yeah, there was a second. Okay, got a second on it. Um, Mr. Porter standing back there holding the wall. Uh, any thoughts? Any concerns? We had a discussion. I mean, the insurance pretty typical certificate of insurance, name is additional insured. We're okay with that. We're fine.

Sounds good. So this was the city be provided a copy of the policy policy decks to add to endorse additional insur so the city has a copy of the policy decks not to replace the COI but in addition to all right in favor of the motion please signify and say I

any opposed extensions that has passed we're back on the ordinance as once amended any Any other questions or comments? We've also got in the ordinance, I mean, excuse me, the contract itself under B volunteer, we got payback, a cost payback on here. Um, was this an addition since first reading? This was here first reading. Just just wanted did you want to make a comment on it? I don't have a comment on that. The highlighted sections were just things that I was trying to be bring to the board's attention. Okay.

Nothing needs to be changed in the cost payback. It's just a little bit unique compared to other agreements that we do. Um, that's only if the city decides to boot out the seniors before the end of this contract. So, we don't owe anything unless we boot them out. Well, the way I interpret it is if we kick them out, we owe them money after a certain period of time. Correct. I'm not an attorney. And that's on uh page four of the contract. The only thing I wanted to bring to the board's attention was under section three. Looking at page three, I believe.

Page three. Yes, which is section five for the use. There's a couple blanks as to who is going to be responsible for a couple rooms there. I show three. And I'll also say all of these assignments about who's going to be responsible for things that was chosen by the senior citizen board. Um, if you wanted to look at that closer. Commissioner JS, this is a question for Sam and I know we talked about this, but I wasn't writing the notes when I was talking to you about in the contract. There is nowhere in here. It says that we would wave segregation if it happened. Right.

Um, I doubt that that's in there. Okay. But I can double check. It's really a It's really a hot topic right now. There's a lot you got to really be careful on that because

I can look into it while the board's determining the other blanks and I can get back to you. Okay. Okay. Because we we we shouldn't wave segregation if it's in there. I don't think it's in there. [Applause] And I didn't see it either, but that doesn't mean it's not in I just want to make 100% sure and that's normally in the insurance clause in there somewhere in that section. It is not in there. Yeah, normally it is unless somebody throws it in. I don't think that's been happening. I don't think that's happened. Okay.

Do you want Did you going to make a motion or just a comment? Well, it was a comment. I hope it's not in there anywhere. I don't think it is. It's not in there. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Perfect. Well, under um page three, we have um the uh the burden, I guess, has been placed on our shoulders to decide who will be assigned the janitorial closet labeled number 145. So I think we have some shared space as well between the restrooms. So to me that closet might be another shared space city/ lei. I'm seeing agreement there. Closet number 147. Man, I am not familiar with clause 147 and it has slipped my mind since I last reviewed the plans

right behind the uh the chambers. Okay. Your meeting chambers. Yes, sir. Vice Mayor. No, I just got a quick question. So, um, initially, uh, with our with our old parks, uh, director, there was some discussion that they'd be shared on the utilities. Um, I see that now the city's 100%. I just didn't know what changed there. That was just part of the agreement when they initially the the first agreement or was that did something change because I because I because I remember um like when I seen this and I guess I should have called earlier to throw this so it's not throwing any uh horseshoes in here or anything like that but you know

you talk about the utilities or just the utilities for closet 147. No, I'm saying for the entire utilities. Sorry to go off track here but well I guess it would be the closet utilities. Yeah. And many more. You know what I mean? So, uh, but no, for some reason I I mean, but I remember, uh, you know, our old parks director, that was a discussion for them, the be split. So, we discussed at one point that, but, we went we got off that real quick as far as how to be able to to handle that. It was really not a good way. It's a city building on city property. All the utilities are tied together with the police with the new police station and other we just went another way. We said that's probably not a good idea. They're tied to the new police department. I think they're on a

The fire the water is coming off the street. The old driveway that used to serve the church, the fire water is off a loop. That's on a submeter though, right? It's on a submeter. So it I mean just because it's serving it, it still has a submeter. So for the fire is a submeter. That's correct. Yep. We went another direction stayed away from worrying about utility bills. Okay. I was just looking between that and then sorry mayor to get off topic from the utility room to the utilities but it was between that and then of course the maintenance. I thought we were picking up the maintenance and it was a partnership between the utilities.

I think we're taking care of the maintenance except for city events that come in and and the uh meeting chambers. Everything else we're taking care of I believe. Well, I'm saying the maintenance as in the heating, cooling systems, the air conditioning, the electrical system, fixtures, plumbing systems. Discussion is again that since it was a city building that they would take care of the of the building features themselves. We we got city designated as replacing the light bulbs. Uh, that one may have slipped through. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not sure y'all want to change the light bulbs, but

I mean, we'll change that if we need to. We'll give on that one. Well, I'm saying the in I mean like the operations I mean because there's because again obviously there is the way I look at it is is if staff okay let's say your staff for some reason let's say leaves the lights on or leaves the air conditioner turned down to 67 and and and they leave for the rest of the days there's no there's no accountability there it's going to be left on the taxpayers. So that's my concern. So,

uh, they are very frugal and I understand that sometimes people more likely that an event at night might leave something on than it would be the daytime users. But again, we certainly this is a little bit uncharted uh territory in the shared use and we will work through all these problems. But we we uh assure you that we will be very frugal in the operations. I I I mean there's just I don't know there's a couple, you know, questions. I mean, this is the first reading, right? This is second. This is the second of the first readings.

If we were to push this out for two weeks or I mean like if I was to make a motion to push this out till we get this worked out. Um because this is a a big expense here and I think I and I appreciate the attorney for highlighting that, but um I mean is that going to mess up guys at all? Again, with the city also being able to operate within the building that we're creating, yeah, we didn't have any way really of separating use on utilities or, you know, we we kind of broke out the cleaning depending on who was using the facilities at which time, but it just wasn't a real clean way.

Yeah, I think it'd be a good partnership though. I mean because I mean because we do have other line items in here that are split you know and I think we can go off of the occupancy off the schedule off the planning to be able to say okay if it was this this group here has used it say 40% then there should be some type of accountability there. I just again I'm I'm just a little concerned there because it was something that was uh initially discussed and I'll go back to that because that was when we all sat down over at the parks. You know, one of the very first meetings it was brought up. I but we again we turned off that pretty quick because of the shared operations.

Commissioner J. I thought there would be a separate meter for that compared to the to the police station. For the water meter itself, the domestic water is a separate meter. It's the original meter from the church and the police station that's there currently.

But the fire loop was put in. I don't know if you're aware, but the part of the uh work that the that the uh citizens senior citizens are doing are installing a new sprinkler system. all this time that building has never been sprinkled. So, they're spending a lot of money on a new sprinkler system which will stay with the building forever whether we're in there or not. So, though that particular fire connection is uh made being made off of the uh the loop that was created for the new fire, excuse me, the new police station. And that fire line stays dormant. It just sits there unless there's a need for it. It's a designated fire line. So this line, this facility, the new senior building will also have a connection to that line which is just going to sit there unless it's needed. So it was a we agree that was worked out on the front end when the police station was being designed. So

So there's not a separate electric meter or nothing. Uh electric there is a separate meter. So who's paying that? Well, and again, it's a city building, but we again, I guess at this point, what do we need to talk about more? We we had gotten through that, I thought, but I would say if there's if there's anything here, you have to keep in mind, too, that a portion of this building is still going to be used for city functions. So, correct. I don't I don't know how I don't know how you get into metering it. I don't know if you talk about lease or percentage of square feet or what that does, but that's how you do it. percentage of square feet. Okay. Do you have anything else, Commissioner D?

No, but I was just going to comment that they are responsible for most of the expenses down through here actually except the two up there at the top and then down towards the bottom. You got to go to Let's get to Commissioner Hefner. You you got to look at pages 43 and 44 which gets into and 45 which gets into it's under repairs and maintenance. Um yeah I I would like to I'd like to defer this actually. Um is that a motion? That's a motion. I'll second for one for one meeting. Yeah, I'll second.

I'm going to ask Mr. Porter. I know you've got some sales contracts and agreement with your current place. Part of we can we can handle two two weeks. We do. We have a buyer on the hook ready to sign a contract. The minute I walk, they're probably in the parking lot, but we'll wait. We'll wait two weeks if we need to wait two weeks. Appreciate you. Any questions or comments about the adisement of deferral? Yes, sir. Could we go on and set up a time if there needs to be a meeting that we can go on and take care of these questions prior to the next meeting? That's all I would ask. Uh,

if all if all the commissioners want to be a part of, we have to have, I'm sure, some sort of notice. So, we need to go and set that if we could be a meeting with the board or commissioners or you want to do it with the parks board through the attorney. No, separately. I'm not saying all together. I'm saying separately. Just saying questions to you. I mean, is that something to be able to send to the attorney with all the questions from each commissioner? You could, but you might I might run into getting different feedback. Is it something that we could potentially go with the parks board then and then get that like a executive meeting going with them or do we have to post that as well? Is that something? It can't be.

Okay. If you're saying executive session, we can't do that. If you're just saying a meeting, just a regular parks meeting then. Okay. But then you'd have to post that too. Those are going Parks board meeting is going to be publicly noticed anyway. Yeah, that's what I meant by public. Sorry. Of course suggestion, Commissioner Afer. It's perfect job for director of finance and city manager. There you go. And we can get all our questions to Mr. Martin. Thank you. We're fine with that. I just knew that it would have to be worked in the next two weeks. Correct. Happy to work with it. All right. Thank you all. All in favor of deferral for one meeting, please signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? It will be deferred and reheard or heard at the second meeting this month. Next item is 10A which is an ordinance to reszone approximately 20.1 acres of property known as springs at Mount Juliet located at 2937 Kurd road map 54 parcel 100.03 and 100.01 01 and 100.05 from RS40 to CTC put and to adopt the preliminary master development plan.

Have a motion. Is there a second? I have a second. It's on the table. Anyone like the floor? Commissioner Mley. Okay. Why was this given a negative at plane commission? John, we got a representative here too.

Sure. I'll speak for the planning department perspective and I think the biggest issue that we had with this was some of the blending of the parking for the commercial area like the some of those town homes are right up on that parking lot. And in a normal situation like that where you have commercial and residential adjacent to each other there's buffers required you know we have landscape buffers and in this instance I think a big part of it was just that I mean you have commercial uses commercial parking and the sides of town homes literally adjacent to that parking area. Um, that was a big concern planning related. Um, and I believe there was a number of other like functional concerns, roadway improvements and things like that. Um, so I'll leave it at that.

So, is staff was uh did staff give a recommendation to the planning commission? I believe favorable. Yeah, positive. All right. And then uh as far as public works um staff favorable or to the planning commission or not with conditions. Yeah.

All right. Uh let's see. All right. Do we have representative here? Name and address for the record, please. Address. Yeah. Yep. Preston President Stinley, one Crimson Way, Hendersonville, Tennessee. Thank you. Okay. Um, what is the timeline of this? Like when say if it passed, when do you expect to break ground? um immediately

because I know you got to go back to planning for certain sorry six months uh however long it takes to get you know CDs approved and everything and all go through the whole process. Okay. And overall like to completion of the entire project. Oh gosh. Once you start I would say you know at least two years. Two years. Okay. Um, do you know what impact this would have on the schools? Like have you estimated how many additional children would be moving into this area and how it would impact the schools? We have not. All right. And this is what 158 town home units.

That's correct. Okay. So say maybe two and a half people. How do you do that? two and a half people per unit for Yeah. You want to speak to that? Sorry, I have laryngitis, so forgive my voice. My name is Brent Theny. My address is um excuse me, 8215 Glover Drive, Brentwood, Tennessee. Um typically, yeah, it'll be a number factor. So, it would be I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of two one and a half to two and a half kids per unit depending on. So it's not a like a whole lot and it would be split between elementary, middle school and

Yeah. I mean typically given the nature of the product, it's going to be older or younger people typically, right? So um either typically much younger kids or older people without children often. Okay. And um you agreed to add a parallel parking up on that upper area along road F. There was one little section there where you agreed to add a couple of parallel parking spots on road F F um in between the two buildings or whatnot. I think if we could fit it in, we wouldn't have an opposition to that.

All right. And we had talked about a crosswalk connecting the private road F from the north uh the multipath on the north to the south. To the south. Yes. Yeah. At at the end of that road wherever public works would recommend it to go. Yeah, that would be fine. Okay. And then um another crosswalk on the eastern side for a potential playground area. Yes. U connecting north to south. Yes. So that they wouldn't have to walk all the way to Kurd and go straight to the playground area. Okay, that would be fine.

All right. And um dep depending on where public works would recommend. Yeah, whatever their recommendation. Um so could I put could I add these as a motion to have these added?

Okay. Well, I would like to make a motion to have uh and I I don't Let's see. I've got a little map here, so might it might help you when you're writing it out. um to add two parallel parking spots on the western side in between the units on private road F.

Okay. All right. And then if you come south of that where private road F connects to the public road which is a road A um at the end of that street whether it be on the western side or the eastern side of that road that would connect the um the multi- path on the north side to the south side wherever public works would recommend it to go whether they would recommend it to go on the western side or the eastern side of that road connection. Okay.

All right. And then further to the east on public road A at the it would be at the north of um this is so small I can't read the name of this road. What's the name of this road? Well, way. That's a That's a private road. You're testing my road C. That's C. Okay. So, the there's a multipath on the north side and south side of the public road A. So, over there closer to that um private road, what' you say?

C. C. Um there would have a crosswalk there connecting north to south wherever public works would recommend it to go for a potential future playground. So so they wouldn't have to walk all the way to Kurd. Okay. So those are the three things on the motion.

All right. I've got two parallel parking spots on private road F and then on road A to connect connect a multi-ath um to the north or south to north and south public works to determine location of a crosswalk crosswalk. Okay. Then we've got on public road C, I believe, was what we determined. Well, private road. That's a private road, right? C is a private road. Yes. Okay.

Except for the main road is all private. So, private road C the north multi-ath and the north mult. You want to connect. We want a crosswalk to go to the north and south of that. And the public. Yes. ing the multipath on the north side and south side right at um private road C where it crosses over public road A. That sounds funny. Okay, that was to connect a future playground. Yeah, a potential future playground. Potential future playground. Yeah. And public works would determine exactly where it would go.

Okay. Is there a is there a second on Commissioner Mle's motion? Second. Uh, Vice Mayor, so just quick question. So, how many parking spaces does that come up to totally? Uh, is is that for commissioner or for staff or for the representation? Another name and address. Name another roll. I'm Michael Dwey with Dwey Engineering, 2925 Berry Hill Drive in Nashville, Tennessee 37204. Um, currently we have uh 634 parking stalls u provided.

No, I'm not asking for the commercial site. I'm asking for the residential site. Uh broken out into only residential. Uh I'm not sure I've got it broken out individually. We'll probably have to add that number because the ordinance just asked overall. Yeah. But we can figure that out and get that back to you.

Well, what I'm looking for because I was because I actually went back and talked to staff and uh you like my concern is making sure that we have between 44 and 45 parking spaces somewhere within your area, not including the commercial side, within the residential. So that way again when these families have sure you know family parties, gatherings, however you know um extra parking spaces not in their driveway but on the road somewhere. I want 44 45 parking spaces minimum for this area based off of what our staff's recommendations are. Okay. Can we meet that? Uh I don't know the answer to that. We'll see where we're at total. I know that's kind of a you know you guys pull

in parking. I know and we went to parallel per what staff had asked for it dropped I think it was 44 spaces out of the kind of residential side. Okay. just because of the efficiency of so originally 44 and now you're down at least because we had an overall number and then when we went to parallel it d kicked out 44 and so there's still some parallel in there which he's adding up. So it was probably more in the 60 something range originally. So we went from 60s something down now to something like that to

So we lost eight or 10 spaces. I thought it was like eight or 10 parallel now. So, we went from 60 down to eight or 10. Yes, sir. 12 on the south. 12 um total because of um like I said, you have 12 parallel through the whole entire for 158 58 Southside. And that that was what we worked with uh staff on. They really wanted the parallel and it it really decreases the amount of guest parking that we can have. So if we can go back to the perpendicular stalls that would that would increase the number of guest stalls. Sure. This is the private streets you're talking about too.

Yeah. Todd, what did you have to add?

Yeah. So staff made the recommendation that they remove the parallel stalls as they were on street. We encourage them to provide either on street parallel spaces or perpendicular stalls in a separate lot. Um on public roads, we don't allow pull-in perpendicular parking. Uh and we do have it several places within the code that private streets are supposed to be built to public standard. Um, you know, we do give leeway on that, but with the density that they have proposed and where the locations of those perpendicular stalls were, it was my opinion that it would decrease the safety both for motorists and for pedestrians if we had perpendicular stalls on street.

Is it possible with their driveways? So, I mean, is it possible to do both where I mean, because again, you know, like what I look at is is that and I understand trying to make sure that we have consistency, but we've also um actually in in my district, we've got town homes that have the, you know, the same type of parking. So, um my concern is that the driveways are right now they're pulling out the same way. So, these these town homes, they're pulling out the exact same way. So that's a concern of mine because if we're worried about, you know, the parking for those folks, what about the families that are pulling out of the parking right now? Yeah. So it the concern was really more about spacing. Okay.

Um with driveways, you have more separation, which increases your line of sight. When when you added, you know, three or four stalls of perpendicular parking adjacent to these driveways, that line of sight disappears. Um, so that that's really where where that comment came from.

I'm just thinking about the cars that are already, let's say, you know, like because again, it's going to be double garage. The vehicles are still going to be, you know, like you like if they're running parallel, that means they're going to be cutting back into the actual sidewalk. So, some of these vehicles eventually are going to be blocking sidewalks, which are going to be able to create a blind spot already. So, um, but if we can be able to increase more parking spaces, that means less people's going to, you know, be parking on the road, creating more of a a disturbance, right? You know, it's going to make the roads narrower, slowing down our our first responders that are going to be able to get in there. I mean, we've got a great example right right on the other side of the street here where everybody's parking out in a private drive and the fire trucks have a heck of a time getting in there. So, I understand what staff is looking for, but we're also looking for public and as well as making sure that grandma and grandpa that comes in to visit, they can get in, get out safely. So,

B vice mayor, I think we we need to set that discussion aside because we have a motion on the table right now for sorry, three other items. I was just looking at the Yeah, amount of parks. Come back to you. Apologize. Is there any other questions or comments on uh Commissioner Mley's motion? All right. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? All right. And vice mayor, get you back on the ordinances once amended.

Okay. So, now to go back while he's counting uh that right there. Um I did have a question. So talking with staff because again after we had a chance to get it um to look at the projects the negative recommendation um you know talking to staff when it comes down to lot 116 and 117 to have that you know that gap between commercial and residential obviously to be an inunit there with having lights being pulled in as you know res you know the the commercial still right you know like the commercial still having customers coming in and and coming count. I'm thinking at night time, uh, those units are so close to the end there, that could be a concern there. So, um, I know that was a recommendation to remove those two. Did you guys get a chance to look at those two units? We did. And one of the things we'd ask is we would consider that, but one would be would would there be an opportunity to move that entrance west a little to help with that buffer and to help prevent that since we're technically overparked anyway. You know, one thought was if if we could slide that entrance west um it may help alleviate some of that um for those two units. What's what's the corrective action? Adding what 12 foot, you know, trees up there to be able to put a a buffer.

The thought is this eastern parking spots would then go away and the entrance would slide west a little which would give distance between the building and this the parking lot and sidewalk and it would a add to the buffer. And that's just for unit 116 though, right? That's that's only going to fix them, but not for 117. Probably would not be able to 117. I'll let engineering address that, but probably would impact 116 the most and 117 may it may not be beneficial to that unit

because I don't uh staff, if you don't mind, can I mean, can somebody confirm whether or not if that even meets the the minimal requirements? The buffer, excuse me. In this instance, it's all zoning. I I mean I I think we should probably have like 20 feet. 20 foot buffer would be something typical. And what is that space right there that we're looking at currently? It's we've got very little like five feet behind behind.

These are high-end town homes, right? That's what you guys told me. These are high-end town homes. I think they're high priced for low amenities. And the only thing I like about this project is the commercial. Be honest with you. because I keep hearing high-end town homes, but I'm seeing bare minimum, you know, buffers and bare minimum of everything. So, that's why I'm getting a little frustrated up here is that, you know, you guys are wanting a variance, but at the same time, we're still asking for bare minimums. High-end to me is saying that we're giving exceeding we're we're we're exceeding the bare minimums. We're we're overstepping and we're giving a good product. Right now, I feel like we're not giving that right now. These end users are not going to get what we're asking, which is quiet homes and nice spaces so they have a buffer. So if their kid does walk along the side of their home to go to the backyard, they may have to walk out into the commercial side of the street because of a five foot buffer.

Yeah. I I would I everywhere else on the property is meeting all the buffer requirements that staff had asked for. Yeah. And some is exceeding it if we wanted to go to a 20 foot buffer with a fence. Yeah. Right now it's 30 feet. Again, we're trying to make sure these are high-ends. That's what you guys told me. You know, these are bare minimum requirements is what we're meeting. Sure. I just want to as it's all the other buffers meet the requirement except for the ones leading between the commercial and the residential. The only ones that we don't meet. Correct.

So, lot 17 I mean, yeah, 117 and 116. So, okay, let's move on to the other ones if you don't mind, just because it sounds like we're not going to meet a middle ground. Uh, sorry to cut you off. I apologize, but I'm trying to be respectful of everybody else's time. So, lot 112, uh, there was some discussion about some possible parking spaces down there. Can we meet those? Oh, well, I'm sorry, one I mean I'm I'm sorry, just 12, not 112. My apologies. Just 12. Um, adding parking down there. Yeah. Is it is is that an option? because I was talking to staff about that and that was a a possibility to help add some additional parking spaces because really what I'm looking for is

the 44 to 45 parking spaces. Is that something? Yeah, we can certainly look at extending that road just slightly and uh and adding some some perpendicular stalls because it would be in a dead end. It wouldn't be in a safety situation at that point. It would just be in that turnaround area. So, we could add some U perpendicular stalls there that would uh help alleviate some of parking concerns. All right. So, before I make a motion to remove 117 to 116 unit, is that something you guys would support still for this project?

Let me ask you this. If we if we were able to move the uh entrance over in the commercial to give you the proper buffer to have the highend like we're talking about, would you how about we uh um keep 116 but delete 117 because I don't think I you know hearing what you're saying I don't think we can do anything with 117 but I think we can accommodate the proper buffer um for 116. No, it's okay. Thank you though. I appreciate you. That's why I have here. Thanks. Okay. Commissioner Heer recognized. Thank you, Mayor. Um, was a traffic study done on this project? Yes, sir. And what what did the traffic study say about Lebanon Road?

We'll bring him up here. We'll let we'll let Tyler who did the traffic study address that.

Yeah. Tyler Fosnes, uh, KCI Technologies, 500 11th Avenue North in Nashville. Um, what specifically Lebanon Road? What was the what did the traffic study indicate the impact to Lebanon Road was going to be based on this project?

Well, um, it said a number of things. It said that uh the impact of this traffic from this development is fairly minimal to the actual um Lebanon road operations as compared to like the no build situation that we do the projected in the future on the horizon without our projected development traffic. Um, I can get into some more specifics of like levels of service and that, but I don't know if you want to get that.

No deep details. Just curious what what the impact study said uh about Lebanon Road specifically. We have some residents here that expressed some concerns about Lebanon Road. I expressed the same concerns. And I also see you have some off-site uh road improvements on Lebanon Road um to offset some of the congestion

on that road. Um we in our traffic impact study, we uh identified some potential roadway improvements on Lebanon Road that were um was a left turn lane going westbound on Lebanon Road down to onto Kurd Road. um the the the uh thing we didn't actually recommend that um improvement to be in conjunction with the with this development and that was based on the traffic impact of the development on that movement. Uh our analysis showed about a 5% um 5% of the development's traffic is going to be making that westbound left turn movement on to Kurd road. Um that translates to about just AM and PM peak hour. translates to about seven vehicles in the peak hour uh of traffic for both AM and PM. So that's why we didn't um put it in the specific mitigation measures uh for the for this development.

Okay. Um and I see there is also a left turn lane westbound um Kurt Road and also one on Golden Bear on Golden Bear. a westbound left turn lane on Lebanon Road at Golden Bear. Uh there's already a westbound on on Lebanon Road at Golden Bear. Okay. Isn't there already a westbound left turn lane there? Yes. The recommendation is to extend that increase the queueing capacity. Okay. Stacking. Yeah. Okay. So, an extension of that. Yes. Okay. So, there is a left turn lane there. or just you're asking for an extension, correct? To help alleviate some traffic.

Yes. Perfect. Help you get around that through Q a little better. Even though the traffic study didn't warrant it, they're we're still going to, which is fine. I think it's great. I think it's a good idea. To be clear, I I do want to push back a little bit that the traffic study didn't warrant it. The traffic study did show that it was warranted. The claim is that this development shouldn't be responsible for it. Uh however, we do use the left turn lane warrants included in the exam. So even if it is only seven trips with the amount of through traffic on Lebanon Road, yes, they do warrant that left turn lane. Okay. It's considered an offsite road improvement. Yes. Correct. Okay.

Yeah. I didn't want to make I didn't want to say that it wasn't warranted. The left turn lane is warranted there based on the volumes. I wasn't trying to say that. Sorry for any confusion. Oh, thanks for Yeah. Thanks. So, thanks for clarifying that. Sorry about that. And uh are you immuneable to a $7,500 voluntary contribution per unit uh towards Lebanon Road or

uh well what we would do what I would ask as part of this uh amendment would be it uh if you're immenable to it is to take those offside road take off-site road improvements or any off any road any improvements uh and offset that or allow credit towards that 7500 which is typically what we've done. I think their stance would be if the then language is that generic, no. If it's stuff that is warranted or recommended in the traffic study like Golden Bear, Kurd Road, the other off-site stuff like the pump station, they would be. But if it's geared towards stuff that's not recommended for the traffic study, the answer to that would be no.

No. Just being upfront and honest. Sure. No, no. I appreciate your honesty on that. Sure. So, so the answer Okay, and this is the first reading, so I'm sure some of that can be worked out between now. If it if it goes through tonight, it can be worked out between now and second reading. So, okay. But that's that's the principal's general stance.

Okay, that's all I had. have a question for um public works under the ordinance number 20. It says an assessment of allowance onsite grounder systems will take place at final master development plan. Is that in any way indicating that that any of this is going to be grinder pumps put in? Yes, Mr. Fork, I think you'd be the Or is this just a oneoff in case it's

It's because of the uh terrain. It's a bowl over there. Okay. And it won't flow completely. Gravity. So what percentage of this could possibly be grinder [Music] Yeah. I was thinking is there 19 about 19 units. Okay.

Yeah. It's just not a not a comment I'm usually see on there. It It's because of the terrain. Uh we just Nobody can make that low gravity completely. Yeah.

Because of the depths. We're avoiding anything over 20 feet in depth on the gravity. And for planning, uh, number six does have the remove lot 16 and 17, 116 and 117 to allow space on that. So, just wanted to point out that's already a condition inside of in here as it's written to remove 116 and 117. And then back under engineering I see the following variances are request requested which under number one which is A to allow private streets and B which is to exclude the grass strip between the sidewalks and curbs. Uh B is not supported. Um I'm going to make a motion to adopt 1A for private to support the private streets motion. for just the ones defined in here.

Sorry, I do I do want to throw it out there. Uh since the staff report has come out, the the cross-section has been modified to include the grass strip. So they they're no longer asking for that variance. It is

I wouldn't make an emotion for that one anyway. Well, fair, but the cross-section they are proposing does not meet the full width of an access lane because they took width out of the grass strip. Um, they are using the twoft minimum, which was allowed at the time they submitted. It no longer is. It now defaults to the six foot. Um, which does lead to some potential challenges with your driveways being flush with the sidewalk. Um, and then having to ramp like your your sidewalk would be flush with the driveways and the street crossing each building before ramping back up in between the buildings. Uh so there there are some potential ADA challenges with that, but with the number of units they're proposing, getting a full 50ft cross-section would be challenging. Yeah. So they in order to make the plan as shown work, we'd need to remove the condition requiring a cross-section exceeding an access lane. What number is that?

That is uh engineering 1A. The staff supports conditionally on the proposed cross-section being uh an access lane or greater. I believe they're proposing a 51 ft cross-section. as opposed to or sorry a 41 foot cross-section as opposed to a 50 foot. You said 41 versus correct. [Music]

So the So what exactly are you recommending we we do with this? Because it's it reads right now supported condition on the proposed crosssection meeting meeting the city standards for access lanes or greater. We need to we need to strike the or greater part. Uh no, we need to strike everything after supported. Um their their design standards for grade will be to an access street. Um but with the plan as shown, they don't have room for a full access lane.

Okay. Well, the way it reads on the staff report was internal streets for residential developments shall be private streets. Correct. That saying the same thing. Correct. Okay. Was there a motion for for that? I mean, I made a motion. Was there a second? Okay. Got a second. Vice Mayor, you had a question. Yeah. So, if we're going to be going So, you're saying from 50 feet down to 41, correct? And is there any concern for the first responders or am I misunderstanding? Again, I don't have the map in front of me so I apologize. I'm have to go off of recollection here. Their pavement with stays exactly the same.

Um, so as long as parallel parking or on street parking is uh contained only to the designated spaces, no, this has no impact on first responders. This is purely width taken out of the grass strip so they can meet the minimum allowable. So now we're going back to the bare minimum for this project again, which is what we just talked about, right? I think he's saying the first responders won't have to walk as far to get to the to the houses.

Yeah, these are high-end town homes that we're going back to minimal standards again for for another phase of this fa, you know, like another phase of this project. So, um, so if so, are folks going to be allowed to park on this road? And if so, how's that going to be? Because these are private, how are we going to be able to manage that? That ain't going to be up to us. And I know that's not our problem.

I know. But at the same time, we know that people's going to park on the road, both sides. So, how's that going to work for our first responders to get in safely and respond? Is there a concern there at all from staff? Yeah, there's always concern when we uh have private streets. That's one of the trade-offs um for not having the maintenance cost of them. Um it would just it would need to be included in their HOA guidelines that no parking outside of designated spaces and we should probably add a condition to sign every street no parking. Is that something the developer can make sure and can they add that in the the HOA guidelines or

Yes, we can. So, do we need to make that a motion? Um, I'll I'll make that motion. Second. Okay. Right. So, do you want to go ahead and and and put that in wording for me so that way it's proper coming from you since you're the one that's supporting this? Uh, the motion would read, "All streets should be signed for no parking outside of the designated spaces." Okay, that's my motion. Mayor, we already got it. So, do we already have that in place? We already have a motion on the table. Oh, I'm sorry. All right. So, can I mend your motion? Let's just vote on this one and we can just add to it. It's stand alone.

All right. Sorry to keep uh getting this all flush. Okay. Um, we're just right now we just got a motion to allow private streets in the residential areas. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That does carry. You were

Yeah. All I wanted to comment was when Commissioner Mle had asked initially about why it was a negative recommendation. um planner Bachmann explained that but the functionality of it I think if I just wrote down a couple of things that I remember from that and that was density and traffic and I think one of the areas was Lebanon Road and I know you covered that a little bit but that was and unless I'm wrong besides the stuff you said that was the two things that that was the the major part of that negative recommendation that I remember. So just wanted to comment on that mayor. Thank you sir. Uh, Vice Mayor, you had a motion.

Yes, sir. Uh, so we're going to go back to that again. So, what was it again? Just since we're throwing it all off here. All streets shall be signed. No parking outside of the designated spaces. I'll second. U, it's a motion to add signage that all streets shall be no parking outside of designated spaces. Questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. I. And that's that's uh three times amended. Okay, back on the motion is three times amended. Anyone else? Mr. Mle.

All right. I'm confused, mayor, when you um talked about 1A uh engineering and then uh specifically about B. So, what did we decide on B, the grass strip? B is no longer being requested. Okay. So, was there also a motion to remove B? I think that's a good motion. I Well, that's a motion. I make a motion to remove one B. Any questions or comments? All right. All in favor of removing 1B, please signify by saying I.

Any opposed? Back to the mo back to the ordinance as four times amended. Commissioner Ley. All right. Uh what is the price range of these units?

Yeah. So we uh we anticipate starting in 390 to 400 all the way up to 600,000 plus. All right. And to clarify, Commissioner Hefner, when you brought up the 7500 um and then you had conditions on that, you would agree to it, but then you wouldn't agree to it. So if you agreed to it because typically the 7500 is for off-site road improvements. Um so if

Do you want me to answer? I don't mean to cut you off, but I was going to say typically they go to offsite road improvements. So if some of that went toward the turn lanes on Lebanon Road,

their position is and that's the distinction is what the traffic study warranted or or not warranted did not recommend was the improvements on Lebanon Road. the improvements it recommended off Golden Bear Kurd and then the other offsite the pump station um the force man those kind of things then if that $7500 fee went to those off-site improvements that are caused by the community if you will then they would be okay with it but not if it goes towards not recommended items that are driven by the community, the impact of the community.

All right. So, you're having to put in a pump station, correct? Pump station and a force man and a force man, which amounts to how much? Depends what the force man is, but I would say anywhere probably estimate would be 800 to 1.2 million. It's roughly,200 feet of force main and then the pump station. So, you're asking if the 7500 could go toward that.

Well, just saying trying to define what off-site is, right? You guys have used the term offsite. That is in developmental terms offsite. So, if if that's what you guys are referencing. All right. Well, let me ask um the engineer. Typically, off-site road improvements would be something like the turn lanes on Lebanid Road. Correct. Okay. So, with the um pump station and the force man like in this area, is that something that would be considered offsite or from your perspective or part of what's required for the developer

development? That is really more of a a question for Shane, but I do believe normally sewer related items like that are haven't typically been credited against the off-site improvement, but anything can be credited against that. That's all that's the board's decision. Okay. Can I ask in a different way? Commissioner,

can I ask it a different way? Um are there any maybe this is a qu are there project are there properties around that area that future development could benefit from by tying into that force man. So this this project is the only project that's going to benefit from that force man. Well, there's a property next door and a property across the street to our understanding you cannot service today.

By putting that force man in would if the wells are sized correctly would allow them typically to upsize those pumps to utilize that force main then is that correct? Yes or no? We have

we Mr. Forham, we got a chair for you right up here. They did do a study on the force main the gravity lines and we are about out of capacity as you know on that side. I would want to see some hard data on on what else would go in because I don't think we have that much room to spare on the on data for the uh capacity of the lines. So

So are we improving something that we're already at capacity or are they improving something? We could be giving a small amount of opportunity to someone, but it would really depend on what their capacity requirements are. Got it. Mr. Fork, if the capacity wasn't an issue, would this be the path this sewer would be taking going to the nearest pump station? Um, we could break it up a little differently and go to the north. So a lot of this expense is working around a bottleneck. Correct.

Okay. And I I guess I guess my problem with with that is is this is ongoing expense that the utility has to absorb for the workaround. Is that unless we're going to reverse the floor maintenance in operation of the pump station and the grinders and the grinders. Well, grinders apparently if this is developed that's just going to be a reality of this the way this lays out. Correct.

But I guess my point is if we weren't trying to work around a bottleneck, there'd be a more direct path which would reduce the cost to the developers as well as the taxpayers on well utility payers for ongoing maintenance. Okay. Vice Mayor.

Yeah. Um I was just going over this this up here. So I'd like to uh make a motion to strike the word for u the engineering uh report two where it says recommend it. I'd like to just go ahead and strike that in all together. Okay. Is there a second? So on the engineering report item number two uh where it says uh improvements are recommended. I want to make sure that those are uh those off-site improvements are in place. Miss Bernett

Commissioner, it also says that in number three. I don't know if you want to Oh, it also says Okay, thank you. Um, let me read that for once. Yes. Yeah, that's Yeah, that's that's staff. So, yes. So, uh, so I'd like to strike also. Uh, so so number two for recommended and number three uh in the engineering report. Do I still get your support? Required correct. Are you okay with that? You seconded. Okay. All right. We have um we have a motion on the table to strike recommended on two and three. Any questions or comments? All in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Any any um opposed? Any abstensions? All right, we're back on the ordinance as five times amended. U Commissioner Giles.

So, I've got a question about the capacity. Obviously, I've been very concerned because of what's the north side of. And one of the questions that that I had asked about this was would there be any way so this is the first that I I've heard of this that someone else would be able to use what they put in because I thought that this pump station and this coming was only for that development. So, when one of y'all said going to on both sides, excuse me, when one of y'all said on both sides and across the road, where are you talking about? Are you talking about going east and west, north or south?

Okay. because I specifically asked about that and I didn't think it was because I thought that's why we put a pump station in um on the north side down there somewhere. So I didn't think that that would would be they would be able to hook into that at all. Commissioner, I think that would be very minimal that we could support. Okay. Okay. Without knowing the design or what's intended. Okay. So to support what the mayor asked a while ago too, if if it was gravitational flow and it went towards Lebanon Road, then there wouldn't be any gra there wouldn't be any grinders, would there? [Music]

Um there the gravity sewer would still be it. The reason there's grinders is to reduce the amount the depth of the sewer and what we worked with with uh the utility district to reduce the depth of the sewer. So, it that that we're good e I think we're fine either way, but the the long-term maintenance of of of a less deep sewer was was a better benefit to have the grinders. So, the pump station is going to be though it it would be south of there, correct? Correct. All the way down where down by the commercial and the residential by the

So, it's on your Okay. Okay, I understand. I understand. All right. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Just one more. Vice Mayor, appreciate you gentlemen, by the way, tonight answering all these questions for us. I just want to go back to Commissioner uh Malle. So, I guess the clarification and between staff and obviously, you know, the project, um I just want to get some clarification here. So, if this project wasn't needed, the pump stations would not be needed at this current time. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. So, and and at the end of this project, we're going to be on the hook, the city will be and the taxpayers to be responsible for all the maintenance, all the upkeep, and any, you know, all Yes. All Thank you. I just want to make sure I broke that down for the utilities that everything's going to be on the hook for the taxpayers and for these small amount of units are not going to be it's going to be an expense because the revenue coming from those small units from those 19 units will not be able to cost you know like what the taxpayers is going to be stuck on the hook with correct long term or did I misspe on that one all the units will have uh sewer billings okay

that will support those pump stations. Okay. We we don't charge any different. Well, we charge a different price for a grinder because it's a pressure tap, but every unit would have a bill based off their water usage. So if so, uh if the city was going to install this ourselves, will we go with a grinder system or will we go with a different uh we would try to avoid the grinders, but it's like they brought up the depth of 20 ft. That's our preferred max on safety and operations of sewer lines. Okay.

You get into 20 foot deep and then you have to make a repair. Yeah. You know, you you've got a open ditch as wide as this room. Yeah, I understand. So, we may not have enough room to work. Okay. Just want to make sure that that's the best application that you would be willing to service. That's my concern is make sure that conversation we had with him early on that, you know, 20 ft would be our preferred max. Okay. So, thank you. By my math, the original proposal was 158 town homes. I think 116 117 went away potentially. So that'd be 156 in terms of payers plus the commercial.

Okay. Can I make a comment about the grinders? There's also been an agreement that they would provide a secondary backup grinding unit to the city as a backup that the city could store in case they had to replace it at their cost. Thank you. Appreciate that. That's good to know. That is correct. We're talking about For all 19 of those would have individual grinder pumps. Yes. So is that 19 backups or one backup? 19. 19. Okay. 19 complete systems and in that's in that commissioner right now. I'm sorry. Isn't that what all of them are doing now that we're doing?

That's correct. That's what our requirements. Yeah. So it's nothing over and beyond. Oh, okay. Well, then why'd you make it sound like it was so good? It was news to me. Thanks, Commissioner. All right. Any other questions, comments? No, there's no motion. It was just a discussion. I was just asking the question to get clarification from staff as well as the developer. That's all. City recorder, did I miss the motion? No. Okay. Okay. Just questions. All right. Commissioner Maini, did you want the floor? So to clarify, the 7500 you would agree to if credited for the pump station and the

the offsite improvements. Yes. Forest main. Well, that would be Yeah, that'd be the the forest man and the uh turn lane off Kurd road and the turn lane off Golden Bear. Yes. And and you know help you know and also pay for the grinder pumps. Which well I guess not the pumps. Yeah, I guess just the force main. Yes. Okay. So um and again the estimated cost of the pump station and the force man is 800 800 to 1.2 to 1.2 two and the 7500 only totals what 1.18

well actually a bit less because if we lose two units yeah less than that so basically so it may may or may not be enough to cover the cost of that depending [Music]

yeah commissioner I I kind of see where you're going. I mean, obviously the pump station should not be part of any type of volunteer contribution. That's part of their project and we're on the hook for the long-term expense. I see the road improvements. Absolutely. That's been, you know, standard amongst every project that this city's pushed out or that's approved, excuse me. Um, but when it comes down to the pump stations, that's part of your guys' project because if the project's needed, warranted for your project to be completed, that's I mean that's on on you guys just like the private roads. But I mean I make a I mean like is it is it in the um notes? Did I miss that that it's something in there that we're adding that in there for the volunteer contribution or what?

No, there's nothing. Just want to make sure. Yeah, but I I mean but I think that needs to be clear that that's something that you know that there was no motion. There's no motion. Okay. No. Okay. We're ready to vote. All in favor of the ordinance as amended five times, please signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Any abstensions? Then it passes on first reading. and we will skip a meeting before hearing second reading which I believe that skip meeting will land us on Columbus Day which will then push us to the end of next month 27 I'm going to ask for a fivem minute recess if there's no objections All right. Hearing none, we will recess.

All right. Good evening. We'll call the meeting back to order. Is there any objection to reading both 10 B and C together?

Hearing no objection, I'll read both of those. 10B, which is an ordinance to amend the land use plan for the property known as the Sutton, located on Golden Bear Gateway, map 72, parcel 47, 47.01, 48, and 49. Map 77, parcel 10.02, 11.01, 12.02 02 from mixed use to mixed use and highdensity residential TNC which is an ordinance to reszone approximately 73.96 acres of property known as the sudden located on Golden Bear Gateway map 72 parcel 47 47.01 48 49 that's on map 77 parcel 10.02 02 11.01 and 1202 from OPS put ops and RS42 CMU PUD and RS10 PUD and to adopt the preliminary master development plan for a mixeduse development

by motion and a second. The two items are on the table. Let's see here. I'll start out under engineering uh number under 15. There are some variances requested here. I'm going to make a motion to adopt the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh. The first seven bullet points under 15, which is to reduce disturbance slope more than 20%. Request to allow front-loaded garages on access streets. A request to allow more than 14 lots on a cotack. Request to allow up to 25% shared parking. Request to allow permanent dead end to terminate within 150 ft of property boundary. Request to allow residential frontage on collectors. and a request to waiver sidewalk requirements in areas with environmental impacts. Have a second. Questions or comments? All in favor, please signify by saying I.

I. Any opposed? Okay, we're back on the ordinance as once amended. Um, let's see. I think that one's already captured. Anyone else like the floor? Commissioner Giles. So, um, on here it this is including the 5.16 acres that supposedly we may sell to this developer. Is that correct?

That is correct. my understanding. I think that we need some verbiage in there and I've talked to the attorney and um this needs to be we need something in there that says that that is conditioned upon us voting to sell that piece of property, whatever it would be. So, she's got the terminology. I hope not going to let them reszone our property. No, if I said reszone, I'm talking about I said selling I meant sale if I said reszone, but I'm talking about sale. Miss Bernett, my recommendation would be that it just simply not come back for second reading until there is a pending sale agreement on the property.

Okay. Shouldn't that be in there though when we You could just include it as part of if there's a motion to approve it on first reading here, just include that. doesn't come back until it doesn't actually have to be in the ordinance passage contingent upon the the pending sales agreement. That second reading is contingent on a signed sales agreement, signed sales agreement. Generally, the sales agreement would come first and then this would come before the board, but the order is a little bit mixed up. Okay, that was amendment.

Okay, that's an amendment. Was there a second? Second. Okay, we have a second on the amendment. Uh, we have representation.

Any concern on the amendment? Yeah. Um we would prefer that uh uh for the sake of other parcels that are involved within the larger assemblage in the pud that we pass the plan but the sale of the property obviously would be contingent upon the or the reasonzoning of the city parcel would be contingent upon the the sell agreement of sale to us if that's the concern. Yeah. Well, there's two issues there. Okay. Okay. The first issue is you're talking about reszoning a piece of city property. That's a whole different issue than us agreeing to sell you that piece of property.

So, I'm dealing with the selling of the property. Yeah. And I I believe my understanding was that the the plan the entire plan would not get approved or or could not come back for a second reading until we have an agreement with the city for the sale of the parcel. Right. That's what's that's the amendment proposed. Second reading is contingent upon a signed sales agreement.

Okay. So I I guess my concern would be that the remainder of the parcels we have several property owners that are in this in this assemblage. So our plan would still continue even if the city chose not to sell to us. So for that reason, if we could keep moving forward and then just exclude the city parcel at a if if you choose not to sell to us at a later time. I I think what you I think what needs to be done is some kind of motion for also for that not to be res for them to not reszone it as the mayor was bringing up. I assume because that's the two issues because we're already saying that it would move forward. Um, I mean, if it moves forward, it just wouldn't it wouldn't be conting it would be contingent for y'all to keep that 5.16 acres in there that the city would vote to do that. We would vote to do that because we've not voted yet. See, but yet it's listed in your preliminary if I'm not mistaken. So, if we can't vote on something to say that you're going to because it's not happened yet with us. as the attorney said, it should have come for a vote for us first. So, it's like the horse before the cart, the cart before the horse, whatever that saying is.

And I apologize. You know, I'm not aware of what the process needed to be for the sale of the property, but we've made efforts uh for quite some time and and I I did I wasn't aware that there needed needed to be a proper process that took place prior to us coming to this It's kind of like a catch 22. You don't want to buy the property if this is not going to move forward and we don't want to move forward if you don't have the property.

Would you would would there be an opportunity to add some language that said it would revert back to what it is now if this if the sale didn't happen within a certain number of months or time? That's generally not how we do it. I mean, once the reszone happens, it happens. We'd have to

Well, I thought we could exclude just that piece of property on the on the the on along with that amendment if we had to. I mean, I could we could add to that amendment, could we not? And saying that it would resort back to it wouldn't be reszoned if we didn't sell it. How could it be reszoned? That wouldn't be their place to do that. You would be approving the reszone right now though. Well, he read them both together.

If this passed on both first and second reading, then the reszone would be done because the board would have approved it. Okay. So, we could address this on the second reading. We could read them separately on second reading and then you that would you know we should know by then if we're going to sell it or not. So by second reading you'd be able to separate the parcels and just exclude the city parcel from the reszone. Okay.

Isn't that right? Isn't that right? I mean, we could exclude it from the reszone, then they would have to in order to then include it in the because the reszone is including it in the pud. So, if they excluded it, then later they'd have to add that parcel back into the pud and reopen the pud. This is kind of a it's going to change the the pud, too, greatly. Let's uh hear from Commissioner Hefner. Do do we have an offer that's already been submitted for the property city manager? Yes, sir. And I think it's in the package. It's went before the planning commission and also the uh real estate committee.

And based on the offer, what was the recommendation? We didn't have the offer to the planning commission. The planning commission would not see the offer, but the planning commission declined to address the sale of the property at that time. it would have to still go back to the planning commission. So, so if we have an offer on the if we have an offer, why why can't we vote on the sale of the property as part of this putt if we already have an offer in hand or not? Are we are we saying are we are we saying we're their offer is too low or we what's what's the what's the issue? Why do we think this is not

I think that Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want to Well, I mean, well, I just can So, we have an offer on the table, correct? Yes, sir. What? And what did the real estate board say about the offer? Was it too high, too low? I can't imagine it being too high. Yeah, we didn't have that. That's the thing about Scott. I've not even seen the contract saying I missed it. So, we've not even looked at the contract. Oh, you haven't? I thought that was on the agenda to discuss. Uh-uh. It's the real estate what they we came up with. So, we really need to wait on that because

Yeah. I mean, I I Why don't Why don't we have this reviewed by the real estate and they make a recommendation and it's part of the overall approval of the PU and that can be done on the second reading. Could it not? Now, I thought this did go before the real estate committee. It did. And it's it's on it's in the agenda. I'm down here to discuss it. So, was it not discussed the price or the offer? No, we didn't have the offer. The real estate commission does not review the offers. They just review that's our place. The actual just sale of the property. Nothing to do with any offers. So, it's just okay.

Whether or not the city should even consider getting rid of it and what they think the value of it should be. So did we come to a conclusion on the value that's that's coming in on 10 C I mean 10

mayor just an idea and that's why I think it's good that it's here and it's what I meant it went to the real estate committee it also went to the planning committee part of our process but they don't necessarily have a contract what I was hoping is when you all vote whether now or later is that I get a directive from the elected body to go back if it's a If it's a desire of the BLC to either negotiate the price or say not interested in selling. Does that make sense? Yeah. To say here's what the real estate committee said they feel like it's worth. Here's what your appraisal said and then bring that back upon second. But we can do we can do that. We can cover that on the second reading. Did we not?

Just to be clear, it has not gone to the planning commission the sale of the property. So it still has to go to the planning commission. Is that going to be on this month's agenda by chance? It is not

it's not f Friday.

So at this moment it is not on the planning commission agenda. Okay. So theoretically, if this passed tonight, anyway, this would be back for second reading at the end of October, which theoretically could put it on two planning commissions, I guess, between now and then. Um, and we could, it would be an ordinance for the sale, so that would require two separate readings, but we could have a resolution along with second reading to state the intent to accept. Is that a path?

Yeah. Well, I'm going to bring on something 11 that I think that that at that point you can say whether you want to sell it or not. Okay. So, I mean, if it's going to come anyway, it's going to come. It has to come to the plan commission. I mean, we could put it on the next one most probably. And, you know, but that's just the contract. There's no, you know, maybe the second would be would be negotiation for it if we chose to sell it. I'm just talking, you know, I don't

the the replacement right now. I think I think part of the plan here and everybody that's probably listening to us right now is really confused, but we have some existing city amenities on the city property here. And part of this pud is to incorporate those amenities into your development. Is that correct? That's correct. Yep. We will be replacing the trail head, the restroom facility within our development in with in our amenity area. And your development would then maintain those. Correct. The HOA would maintain them. Okay. Still be public restrooms. Correct.

Okay. Just want to clarify that. Designated public restrooms. Okay. All right. Uh, Vice Mayor, so just got a quick question. And I think this may go back to our fire department. I'm glad he stuck around tonight over there taking notes. Um, is this compared to what we Okay. All right. Never mind. I mean, like I'll wait till the next motion. So, I mean like to the next uh line item. Sorry. Are you going to stick around to the end, sir?

Please. Thank you. All right. We'll hold off. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on here that the uh in order to come back for second reading a signed sales agreement needs to be in hand by the applicant. What do you want to do with that? Questions, comments, discussions. Correct. And our attorney point out sales agreements are passed by resolution. So it could be on with second reading.

So that would be the sales agreement coming back, but it wouldn't be signed, right? You would approve it that night. Yeah. Yeah. Which if the board is okay with that, I mean, are you meaningable to All right. How about this? Second reading shall include a sales agreement, either denying it or or accept. Well, I think where we're going with that was the planning commission would get it, then there'd be a sales agreement along with the second reading of the PUD. And we could do the sales agreement, I guess, either with the PUD or before or after, however.

But the sales agreement could be either accept or deny, reject, correct? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Good with that. Yeah. SP. All right. So, we have a motion to change this to second in second reading shall include a sales agreement that's going to require it to go through planning commission first. So, we have a sales agreement in place which was sent to Miss Bernett. Do we need to set aside time to discuss it? What what's the process between now and October?

Okay. Now that we've gone through the other necessary steps and I'll review it and let you know if I recommend any changes, but ultimately it's up to the board to approve it or make additional changes or not approve. I mean, it's all the same. It could be. Yes. Yeah. So, normally when we get a sales agreement, just like if anybody offers us a sale agreement or something, do we have to to vote on it and send it back? you if if we if we voted no, do we have to send it back and say no, we're not going to accept this? It would just be a vote to deny the sales agreement. Okay. But do we send it back at that point? It would it would just be done at that. So send it back to Yeah. Send it back to the party who made the the offer.

Talking about an negotiation. Yeah. Yeah. Let's say that let's say that this board decided if we if we did sell it then it would go on and we'd say hey we would take this much for it plus this plus that etc etc whatever the conditions are. But if we say just outright no, we're not we don't want to sell it for these reasons, would that sales agreement still go back and we just put rejected? I mean, in the past, we've we've kind of empowered the city manager to negotiate that. Yes. No. What I'm talking about when we vote, we're going to vote on it, aren't we? Aren't we?

Yeah. I mean, you can. I mean, there's no requirement to pass it or fail it. Or you could or you could amend it to defer it and have the city manager negotiate or I mean, in my mind, the best the best pass would be to get it on this upcoming planning commission and try to get it back at the end of this month for sales agreement. So, if there is a problem, it's going to be a you got a month to address it between second reading. That's I'll tell you how I do business, but that's seems like the most logical step to me.

So, I guess what you're trying to ask is if you were to redline it, would it come back to us? And would it be after if we figured out there was something else that we should use it for and it was more valuable to the city than what you or someone else would give us at this point without any any um improvements on the piece of property would we have to get back? So, obviously, we're going to vote on this. So we would, but it could be a simple we do not accept your offer. Correct.

How much ever you know the the city manager period. I mean that would be Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Right. We're on the back to the ordinances twice amended. Commissioner Lady.

All righty. Me find the map here. All right. On pageuh C101 I guess this would be a question for planning maybe. Um so on C101 you see at the top where the vertical 10T 10T um greenway trail is and then the the missing space that's not going to be mulched. That's going to be connected and paved to the um 10 foot a lot sidewalk along grid. All right. Um, there's four different colored sidewalks and greenways. There's a blue, orange, green, and brown. Okay. At the top, the vertical brown one. Okay. And the missing part that's now going to be paved to connect to the t the green.

That is a waiver that they're asking for. Staff does not support it. So, unless you guys granted the waiver, it would have to be paved. All right. So staff wants mulch. No, it just has to be picked. Yeah. Okay. Is that something we need to motion for? Well, I I didn't move to adopt that one to include the mulch. I excluded that one on my No, not to have Well, I just left it as it's read. It just says right now for greenway to be a mulch trail. That's kind of where it sets. just means the whole thing connected to the green would be paved.

Okay. All right. Now, south of that um as on the see the street where the the brown ends in the red and then it crosses the street and then there's red. Is there room along that stream to extend the the 10-foot trail path down to connect to where it is on the south side? Is there room along that little stream? I think that's a great idea. I would see what their engineer says, though.

We're having trouble making that ADA compliance. So, because of the short distance, we we'd have to do so many switchbacks. Um, which is why we've looped it sort of and just connected it to the uh red path. Yeah, I see that there is a connection, a roundabout connection via the sidewalk and all that. Um, but I I would imagine that their concern there is probably valid given that, you know, stream being right there. Okay. So, you think that's valid? I I

because it's an ADA issue. Okay. And there is another path to get there. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Um to the left where the section is at the bottom. Um this text is so small. The All right. the the blue section at the bottom, the southern um south of the stream. You see where I'm trying? All right. Um and that connection to the roundabout there, is that a bridge for cars? I can't really tell. The roundabout all the way to the west or going north? Crossing.

That's Yes, that's car. Okay. It's a vehicle. All right. Is a sidewalk cross, correct? All right. And that would include sidewalks. Yes. Okay.

All right. So, I would like to make a motion for the and I don't know that it's necessary. You can tell me for the they were asking for a variance for the facade for 5050. I would like to make a motion that that would be 7030. So under the staff report it's actually listed under waver waivers variances um says 951044 50% masonary 50% secondary hardy board and batten for single family uh planning support 77 70% masonary and 30% secondary. So you want to adopt the 70%.

Yes. Okay. In in lie of the 50/50. So that would I guess the best way to do it is just okay. Hardy board and bat board for single families um shall be allowable 70% masonary 70% secondary 30% but that would also include town homes and anything else you're just asking for a 50/50 across the board. Right. Right. Yes. That was the request for the pud. That's both single family and the multif family they got it listed as. So it's it's everything. Yeah. I don't see it separating.

Yeah. Okay, that was your motion. 7030. Yes. Was there a second on that? Okay. Questions or comments on 7030? All in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? All right. Any extensions?

I have another motion on the town home driveways would be the standard 22 feet by or wait a minute. John has a comment. So, I was actually going to bring up that that waiver can go away because that 22 foot requirement is for the s is only for single family driveways. Our code does not specify a length for for town homes. Um, so they really didn't even need to ask for that for the multifamily. And that's number seven on staff report. Number seven. Yes. Uh, and they I spoke with the applicant. They are meeting the 22 ft for the single family portion. All right. Easy variance.

Yeah. So they will be 22 for town homes as well. No, but she could ask that question. You you could, but they they're not required by code to be 22 feet. The single family is required by code to be 22 feet for a single family. Yes. Okay. So, under the pud, they're asking for in this, they're asking for alley loaded and front-loaded town homes, which are not included in the 22 foot, right? And they're what they're asking for is 7 feet. There's a distance of 7 feet, whether it be along the road or alley. Yeah, it's it's not anywhere close to 22 feet. No. Um, what are you guys? I don't I'm not positive what it actually is off the top of my head.

Oh, I think it's seven feet. Seven is what? Sounds sounds rings a bell. So, what is your opinion of this? Well, there it's not uh going to have to park in the garage. I'm just saying my opinion I I uh I agree. I like the longer driveway. I don't I'm a walker myself and I don't like walking around the cars hanging out over the sidewalk, but our code doesn't require it for multif family the 22 ft. So, all right. So legally legal question if I made a motion to require it but it's not required can I legally can we legally pass it? It's a pud. Yes. It's a what?

It's a pud. So it's so we can ask for extra things essentially. Okay. Well, I have a motion that that um all the driveways whether whatever be the standard 22 by what is it 18

22 ft long driveways is what is that what you're motioning for? The standard which is home. Yes. Okay.

We Oh, wait a Can I? It is our intention to provide additional parking around the town homes. And if you look at the sheet, if we're we were on C1.01, uh we provided parking on the street and then there are pockets of parking like pooling parking in lie of that. And I guess we we designed that with intentions of keeping aestheticals in mind that when you're when you're driving by, if you have a driveway, everybody's going to park there. So, we have provided parking, additional parking. We're just not providing the driveways. Um there's still a 7 foot pad for like pull-in parallel parking purposes. If they were to utilize that, they would be able to fit one car there.

Yeah. I guess my my fear is is there's a there's a development here I want to call their name Hickory Station. Um and the and the lack of parking is just outrageous. But when I look at the plan here, I didn't get the same sense because your point there's the additional parking that development there. There's just like no parking that I'm sure that's what you're wanting to avoid is that similar situation that that we have there. Um, they have garages, but you know, garages is where you put your $4,000 worth of junk and you leave the $40,000 vehicle out. So, way they work.

All right. What What number is where the town homes are? Can you give me a number? Uh, six. So, all the way uh on Golden Bear to the east up top. Yeah, right there. All right. Well, instead of making a motion, can I just get feedback from the board of your opinions of a seven seven foot driveway in the town home section

to and the idea is to encourage everyone to park in the garages. Um but then what if a family has four cars? I mean two two has to park over in the parking area. Yep. Yeah. Two obviously. Yeah. Two would have to just find parking in the additional parking area.

Okay. So can I just get feedback from the board? Okay. Anybody? question. So, so I'm going to go back to this because I mean like this is kind of like okay if you can't park on the street you guys are basically in a sense saying hey don't park in front of your you know your garage right so that's the case then it'd be something you guys would put in your HOA saying hey you can't park in your front yard you plain simple can you guys really enforce that that says hey you can't park your car if you want to watch your car and you're blocking your sidewalk and you got people now walking down the street they I mean like you still got to give a place to wash their car. I mean, I don't think anybody's going to read that fine line when they buy that nice town home. But all of a sudden, they're be like, "Wait a minute, I can't park my car in my driveway to simply clean out my car or to put the car seat in or anything else." So,

I think you'd be able to accomplish those small tasks like cleaning your car, putting a car seat, or unloading groceries by parking outside, but you just wouldn't be able to park it long term. And anybody who sees that would would definitely know that, hey, I'm not going to be able to leave my car here overnight or this is not a permanent parking spot. But we know HOAs are not going to enforce that. I mean, I mean, you would have to have a full-time parking attendant on every street every four hours basically marking everybody's cars that, hey, you know, you you know, you're parking your car here for two hours. You've exceeded the two-hour time limit. You know, I mean, you might as well put a meter in somebody's front of their driveway and say, here, put the meter up. A good good contract with a towing company. take care of that. I've been towed in my neighborhood.

Yeah, but not in your front of your driveway. They can't come on your p I mean Yes, I did. I'm from Florida, man.

Okay. Well, that's a whole another issue. We're in Tennessee. I don't think if uh somebody's coming up to my driveway towing my car is something that I want to be seeing. And I and and and again, it's going to go back to these folks reaching out to the commission. They're going to be reaching out to the HOA. They don't get the response. They're going to reach out to the commission, right? Asking us why would we approve something so crazy? And and I do understand what the commissioner is looking at. both of them, you know, I mean, it makes sense, you know. Um, if it's something that we shouldn't be doing, then maybe we shouldn't be putting the driveway all together there, right? Just make it where it's like a car path. I don't know. Don't give any garages, but that doesn't meet our city requirements. So, um, I mean, personally, I mean, I I think we got to find a middle point here, which is, you know, I mean, if I mean, if we don't have a code and this is a putt and we should be asking for something, again, it's just, you know, I know it's going to cost the project a little bit more, but I mean, somebody's going to have a truck and last thing I want is a stroller to be out in this, you know, out in the busy street when we're trying to keep everybody on the sidewalk safely. So, um, so, Commissioner, I I see your point. I absolutely do because 22 feet even it's a standard for the single family dwellings and but if you look at it it should be too this is a pud for um for the the the condos whether there's two or three or whatever the town homes and the reason is is because people have trailer hitches on their cars or their vehicles and it it protrudes sometimes so people walking they can hit that trailer hitch. So, we come a long time ago to put that 22 feet on there and that was one of the reasons. So, I'm I'm supportive of of your amendment,

Dodd. Uh just a minor point of clarification that these are alley loaded garages uh and they're rear loaded on the alley. So, the intent is that the sidewalk is on the front of the house. Uh and pedestrians, I'm not going to say they're not going to be in the alley, but the intent is that they they would not be. may not be able to find news. People come out the back door because that's where they park. So if they needed to walk down the street for whatever reason, they're going to be on the street. So if that protrudes out the street, they can still absolutely that's where my concern is, you know. So

any other All right. Um any suggestions on a compromise like instead of seven to me set like what is this eight? Is that eight feet? I don't know what you're asking. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. Just Well, I mean, to to to me, it's already a compromise. They're alley loaded. Sidewalks on the front of the house. All right. Cargo in the back. People go in the front. It's our twocar garage, too. Yeah.

Yep. But we've got a two-car garage. And we have a presentation. I don't know if he can, but we can show you what they look like with the sidewalk and the fries.

Okay. I'd like to see it. Any objections proceed to go through I guess quickly. Um you could kind of see the town homes right there in the middle there where they're in the front and I have a couple other images through here right there. So the whole idea is to create a walkable community and having the entrance in the alley and that's the purpose. And if you go to many of these vibrant mixeduse town centers that the whole purpose of the development is to have walkability and pedestrian access. You would not have the driveways here in the front and it would be in the rear and they are very minimum to that. And there are HOA standards. I've been to many of these. I've lived in them and it does get policed and the whole purpose is so that we're not impeding on a sidewalk or impeding into the street and are hanging over with your trailer. It's somewhat, you know, you buy a town home, you're a little more limited than a single family home as a buyer, but it's bringing diversity to your city and offering another option besides a single family home.

Sorry. Commissioner Giles, did you have a question?

Yeah, and I love that concept where that is and I I love the walkability and the front of it, but it still if it's not 22 feet in the back and they realize that it can still impede into that road. And you say people, well, the sidewalk's not there. But we are starting to have more people in this city ride scooters down the sidewalk. I doubt very very seriously that somebody riding a scooter down the sidewalk in front of these condos are going to go in the front door with that scooter. They're going to go in the back and they're going to come down that street to go into their unit. And so if a trailer is pro, you know, protruding out that could hit one of those and hurt a kid or hit an adult. I just I think we need 22 feet. I think it's a good catch. Uh Commissioner Mley. So I'm concerned about people. We we talked about this at BPAC. We're still talking about it. We're seeing people go down the sidewalks on on kids on scooters, you know, not paying attention to the the s the the street uh that they cross and not, you know, it's we're it's it's starting. So,

was it was there an image of the alley the alley side? We can bring one y at second rating and then discuss it further. We might be able to do some research and see what you know what we can come up with. What is the total total units and what's the total parking spaces that are so so what is the total parking spaces for the guest and the homeowners? 114 additional parking spaces in the town home area. And what is that percentage for the total town homes? What is the percentage? It's like 80%.

8%. Well, 80% of the town homes would have one additional space. Okay. Yeah. In addition, in addition to their parking garage. Yeah. And that's not including the commercial side where we're talking where we went with the other developers. Okay. Correct. This is just for the this particular area.

Gotcha. Such a Thank you. Is there any is there any objection while you've got this up from the board of do you have any slides for the amenity that we're talking about replacing for the trail head? Um, we don't have a I think the slide is hidden. Um, figured, but um, it's going to be sort of a standard trail head with, you know, I guess that's what we want to talk to you about. You want a bench with it. You want mapping, that type of thing. We can show you some images definitely in a second. Okay. Second reading with some images that match the rest of our signage.

Yeah. And the public restroom will be available in the um the clubhouse with the single family area there. Yeah, that I mean that's important to me to make sure we're covering everything that we have now and letting letting the uh development pay for the upkeep going forward too. Yeah. Vice Mayor. So, so while we have this up here, where was the proposed uh space that you guys were looking to switch out for the for the uh for the for the project, right? For the space that you guys were looking at where the fire department was looking. Is it on this screen by chance or is it on another

uh so the conversations we had with fire chief was that he needed to be on Rutland and we have a short front to John Rutland which is all the way to uh the west. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. That's where he would prefer it to be and no place else really. Okay. Thank you. I don't know if it was on his land. I believe was it two acres? Yeah,

two acres was a discussion. Um and thereafter I think we we we stopped discussing because there was some back and forth about if there's a need or not. maybe another development had some dedicated acreage for a fire station nearby. So, I'm not sure, you know, where we ended up with that. But initially when we started conversation for the purchase of city parcel that was sort of thrown in the negotiations that we we dedicate or swap two acres um from what we're buying and dedicated on Rutland.

Okay. Thank you so much. So our just sorry one more thing on this our our offer currently which you have does not include the dedication of two acres. This is full purchase of the city parcels and relocating the um trail head and restroom facility in our development. Thank you.

You got a big old box there. That's my technical term for it with a number one on it right there off what I believe's Rutland. Is there is there going to be room for two acres plus that big number one now that we've gone gotten so much into planning. I think it'd be very tough to accommodate two acres there on Rutland without disturbing parking. And of course, traffic patterns is a big thing because fire station could not share the the access with the big box. So, we'd have to have a proper placement

and that would that to me would be tough to move the big box because I don't want it putt further in the development and then drive traffic to it through the residential portions. Correct. Yeah, that that was the idea for us to put it at the corner of Rutling Golden Bear. Anyways, we wanted them to have their isolated area so it does not impact the residential portion and the town center uh created around Athletes Way and beyond. And I'm I'm guessing the fire department doesn't want to go through the residential area either. And visibility too for that.

They have to have a hard corner. Yes, that's correct. So, if if the fire department's something we want to pursue, that's got to be talked through very carefully. I'm imagining this whole to get to conversations about anybody giving two acres for a fire department. It's probably contingent upon whatever goes in one. Correct.

Yes. Okay. Yeah, it it would heavily impact that area and and I don't know if we could still maintain the use that we have for one that's that area is 8 acres. So if you're taking 25% of the land from that and it's the park the parking that's required. Correct. Yep. Okay. Commissioner J.

Okay, I think we got that one. I'm going to I'm going make a a motion here to to try to tell with some of these variances. We've got under staff report, we've got number one, which is access street to allow front-loaded garage with rec direct decorative doors. Um two, which is 33 single family units on the Kodasac and three the single family bulk regulations as follows. Front sat backs 20 feet, side sex back seven and a half, minimum lot width 50, lot coverage 50%. Um, four, we've already addressed five, which is to emit perimeter fence around multif family. Six, which is the maximum height of 55 ft. The development site is approximately a one mile from the I40 interchange outside of the one and a half miles. for additional height. Um, I'd support that. 10, which is to omit

the masonary columns between the single family and two car twocar garage front facing with decorative doors. Uh, 11 is front-facing single family garage door to be 50% of the front facade with decorative garage doors. Uh, 12 single family front-loaded garages to be flush with the front facade. 13 single family lots less than 10,000 ft. Uh 14 grocery store to be 10,000 square feet and 15 25% of shared parking to in the mixed use area of the pud. And then 17 is to allow the town home balconies to encroach into the yards. I'll make that as a motion.

Second. Got a second. Uh, John, just an FYI for a couple of these. Um, number three, the side setback. It's RS10. It's only 7 and 1/2t required by code to begin with. Okay. A lot of these we get it's 25 foot for the side and then you know so seven and a half sounds pretty appalling for a 25 foot requirement but it's only seven and a half feet to begin with or it's only 8 feet to begin with required for RS10 and they're only asking for a half a half a foot off six inches.

Yeah. Okay. So that number three um there was another one on here. Okay. So, the the height it's outside of the limit, but the fire, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the fire department is capable of handling the height they're asking for nowadays. Um, that's what I've heard over and over. Um, he said make it taller. And then, uh, number 13. So, 13 that we have that state that ordinance that says 10,000 foot minimum, 15,000 average. that specifically says in that ordinance our putt like residential putt only. This is a mixeduse putt. I don't think that applies to this putt. So that waiver can just go away that request.

Well, I read them all. So I unless there's concern commission. So this is 1 through six. Why is it doing that? 1 through six. 10 through 15. Let me uh and then 17. Um 1 2 3 four we've already adopted five and six 10 11 12 13 14 15 and 17 okay cuz I think 16 has already been adopted and 18's the mulch discussion so I didn't include those

Todd uh just a clarification on 16 when you stated adopted that's adopted the staff recommendation and not adopted the variance. Correct. Because both both sets of staff does not support. Yeah, it was adopted earlier under engineering the seventh bullet point. So is that is that adopting the variance or adopting the staff recommendation? It was adopting the ovariance.

I would ask for you to reconsider. Okay, we circle back to that one. It's not included in my current one anyway. Questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Okay, those are adopted. Um, we'll give you the floor, Todd, and let you discuss that one. Yeah, I'd just like to circle back to the the engineering variances then because there were there were a few that weren't supported. Correct.

Um uh request to allow front loading garages on access streets not supported. I believe they're amending their plan so that won't be required. Um uh waving the sidewalk requirement is not supported. Um and the parking analysis um for the shared parking 25% uh I I wouldn't support that without seeing a justification for that amount. Um, I would be supportive of a a smaller amount in the range at 10 to 15%, but multif family and commercial don't share parking the best. You tend to go shopping in the afternoon, but you also tend to be home. So,

can we can we circle on back to seven? That was the original concern which was yes the request to wave the sidewalk requirements in the environmental impacts with request to wave sidewalk requirements in areas with environmental impacts and you're recommend I I see it was not supported by staff which so you want the sidewalks in the environmentally impacted areas correct we we're been pretty consistent at this point that sidewalks are required along all frontage Okay.

Okay. Then I'll make um I'll make a motion then to remove that waiver which was the request to wave sidewalk requirements in the areas with environmental impacts. Is there a second? Second. Are any questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? And

what else did you have? Uh, yes. Um, public works variance. Bullet three, I don't know why these aren't numbered. Bullet two, uh, is frontloaded garages and access streets. U bullet four, allow up to 25% shared parking. Um, I would request that that get dropped to 15% maximum. Um, and the the final request one

that was not adopted. Perfect. And yeah, so I guess two and four would need to be and two, the request to allow more than 14 lots on a culde-sac. I'm sorry, wrong one. request to allow front-loaded garages on access streets. I didn't I didn't have a problem with it. Um, and then number four, I'll make the motion to the request to it currently reads request to allow up to 25% shared parking. I'll say uh I'll make a motion to substitute 25 with 15%. Second.

Second. Any questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That's adopted. Any other commission?

All right. Um along Golden Bear where the trailway starts. Can I would like to make a motion that we install some sort of signage. I don't want it to be some flashing well advertised thing, but something so that walkers, cyclist walking along there knows there's a bathroom, there's restroom. So some some kind of subtle little sign right there. Um cuz you know we don't want to well advertise it to get people down there. We don't want, but we do want pedestrians and cyclists um to know that there are restroom facilities available if they're needed. So, I would like to make a motion to have some kind of subtle signage right there at where that 10-foot greenway trail connects to um Golden Bear.

Okay. So, you just want signage for pointing to the trail trail head trail. But would the would they know that the trail head means restroom without saying restroom? Uh, I wouldn't think I wouldn't if I was walking I would think trail head there's no restroom because it doesn't say restroom.

So, you want the sign to say restroom or not restroom? I do, but I want it to be subtle. I don't want it well advertised, but it's not just a show facilities on there. That can easily be done if this if it passes for y'all to buy that that 5.6 acres. They But you want the signage on the trail anyway, not avail.

Yeah. some somewhere so that people that aren't going to walk into the development, they're just walking along Golden Bear. Well, okay. So, what about the It says trail head this way, but the little icon for a restroom rather than saying restaurant. Yeah, there's there are there Yeah, there's many types of that out there that can be Okay. All right. Well, I'll wait for um motioning for that now and in a second reading. You can bring some ideas.

Okay. All right. So, back to the driveways on the uh town homes. If we went to a 20 foot driveway or somewhere in between, how many units would you lose? We'd have to do an exercise to see how many units we'd lose. Um, just right off the Yeah, it would be very significant because we're adding uh 40 feet on each side, each alley. 44T. Yep. All right. So, it's second reading. Could you bring that back so we would know? Yep. Okay. Okay.

All right. and timeline when it say if this did get approved um your estimated timeline of breaking ground on phase one would be how long 2027 27 y all right and so all phases completed would be what 2032 32 okay now um I had brought up schools yes so um the estimated impact on schools is about uh 226 kids, right? Um and that would be split. Um elementary about 51, middle school about 104, high school about 86. That's correct.

Okay. That's according to the Tennessee kids population statistics. Okay. Now, the culdeac on Rutland This text is so small I can't even tell where Rutland is now. The culdeac on Rutland. Would that would that be stubbed for future? No, it wouldn't. Are youing this right here? That is internal to the site. Okay. It really only stops into this development. Yeah. that went over there.

Yeah, that's internal to the developments. All right. Um and no, not for future developments. Okay. Um that was all the questions I think Commissioner Giles. Um Commissioner Mleen on the on the school things and I understand your your concern about the number of students, but correct me if I'm wrong. We we send all of these developments to the board of education and we rarely get anything back saying anything. Did we get something back on this development?

I was actually looking at that same thing while uh Commissioner Mle was talking and it says no comments, but you're right. We do send, you know, we have we do send a packet. Yeah. We have people in this city that blames us for the overcrowding of schools. Yet, we can't even get a response from the from the the the board of education on saying, "Yay, nay. We're not going to build. We are. They're going to have to build if we have to have it." I'm not I'm not saying it's a concern. It is a concern, but it's really, correct me if I'm wrong. It's really not. So, yeah. So, and unfortunately, so I wish they would if they have a a problem with it for better words. But the other thing, are you going to make a motion to have the driveways extend 22 feet?

Well, we're going to wait for second reading because u I had asked how many units they're going to lose and she said it would be significant. She's going to bring that back at second reading. So, I was going to hold off on making a motion for that for now. Okay. So, are you making a motion too for the width of the alley? the road to the extent the width the road or the driveway. The No, the road. Is it wide enough for emergency services? Yeah, they they still have access through the front there.

And that's what I thought most people would go anyway if you had a if you had an emergency there. But I can't I'm I'm I'm just confused on when you're talking about the width. That's that's what's No, I didn't have a question about the width. I had a question about the driveway length which was 7 feet versus 22 feet which is standard. Yeah, because it's not required but we can because it's a putt. We can because I asked that question but I was going to hold off on making a motion until second reading when they're going to bring back how many units they would lose. Okay. Okay. Cuz I think it should be 22. Well, I like the longer one, but I I personally was going to hold off on the motion

going down that that road, that street. But at any rate, if you're not going to make it, we can on the second if that's the, you know,

Vice Mayor. So, I'm going to go back to uh because again, obviously, there's a question here that's being circled around. So, we go back to the back alleyways where the cars are going to be in and out. Yes, sir. Okay. Will the first responders be able to get to the back alleyway? Uh, based off those roots wide. 20 ft wide. Yep. So, they should be able to Okay. Yep. And we have a good turn around within. So, we can be able to do a turn. They be able to turn around. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Just want to make sure there was some, you know, there was some questions there. I just want to make sure we were covered because he was shaking his head. He wasn't for sure yet. So, he's the boss when it comes to safety

and his team. So, I just want to make sure we're covered. So, thank you. That's all I have. Mayor. Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Heapner. [Music]

Okay. Um on um the traffic studies uh for signal, sorry, uh traffic signal warrants signal warrants analysis. Um can we why can't we make that prior to masquerading? So installation of the signal has to be done as warranted. Uh if that signal is already warranted, we could absolutely require that at mass grading. We could

That's my I guess that's my point. I if Why are we waiting to do a warrant? Why can't we just require the the analysis done now versus it's it's a little bit of a of a phasing thing, right? So if for instance the the lot across the street, right, they graded and now we're waiting. Well, that's the problem. We're going to get into this waiting match because nobody's going to go forward because correct because they're going to burden 100% of the cost. So

they're waiting. They're going to wait. they're going to wait longer. So, why don't we just say the warrant should be done sooner rather than later or put some time period on it.

Yeah. I mean, that's the the the intent of the the warrant analysis is to get it as soon as possible and have it active as soon as it's needed. you know, as far as 100% of the cost going to one development, yeah, it is it is a waiting game. It if you trip the warrant, you're going to be the one to pay for the signal because we don't have a mechanism to split the cost. If it was me, I would be talking to the adjacent land owner who is also conditioned for that signal and let's see if we can come to an agreement here, but we can't require that,

right? Um, as far as requiring this signal before the warrant is met, we could have it installed and have it bagged and have it waiting around until that warrant is hit before we can activate it. Um, and this I'm 100% confident at some point within this development that signal will go. Yeah, you've got 600 households going in this development. And you've got a large commercial retail that's going right on that corner. So the the I don't need a warrant. Yeah. To tell me that a signal is going to be required on that corner. But if you're saying that's what we need,

it it's more about when the signal is activated than anything. So you're saying when you say bag it, what are you talking about? You just install it, but you just flash. literally have trash bags on the signal heads because it can't be activated. Is there something a little more decorative than a gas? Once it's blank, it's a four-way stop. Garbage bag. Decorative trash bags. It is industry standard. Who pays for the the signal that's going to have trash bags hanging off of them? Well, if you want to condition it at mass grading, it would be the Sutton. Unless for some reason project Jolene decided they wanted to come in between now and second reading, but I've got my doubts. Yeah.

Would you be amanable to that? So what you're proposing is when we get our masquerading permit, we'd have to have the signal up or before we start masquerading. Correct. And at that point, it's not warranted because the traffic count is not there. I mean, we we have no contribution to the traffic count. to warrant this signal. Is it based on is the warrant based on the the existing traffic or is it based on it the future? It can be based on the future traffic, but we would need to know which phase because that wouldn't make sense. If it's based on current traffic, then it's not going to warrant it. Correct.

Which is why we'd have to back it. It almost seems like why why are we that's So you gota you got to build the commercial out before you actually do the warrant. Well, you we can approximate the trips that each phase is going to generate, right? Okay. And we will take that and we will have them count the the traffic and we will add the the trips we anticipate being added by that next phase. And that's when we know all right, this is the phase that that signal needs to get activated. Yeah. And that that's just based on the guidance within the the MUTCD. Okay. So, what's your But there is there is nothing saying we can't have it built built and bagged.

Built and bagged. It's just uh big beautiful bag. Big beautiful bags. There is an incoming development in my neighborhood that has completed a signal modification and half the signal because there's it's a three-way intersection becoming a four. Half the signals just have bags and they've had it for about a year now. Okay. And it's just it's how it has to be done unfortunately. So can we do the warrant analysis with future anticipation of traffic by mass grading?

Uh so just just based on the lead time for traffic signals, I would recommend building permit over mass grading if you want to have it before anything is even coming out of the ground. um they're just real backlogged on on getting signals. So they they would need some time to plan ahead. So typically, right, we at CO is when we would have to have it installed and active. So we we can definitely commit to that is before we even get to get the CO, we'll have it installed and activated or even at building permit, we can install it. Okay.

A building permit for the building itself. A building permit for the commercial building. Correct. Okay. Can I can I motion that? Yeah. Is this a This would be what a change under what number is this? I think 16 A I A I. But if I may, the signal will still be inactive and bagged for a long period of time. Let's say the building's under construction for eight to 10 months. So for that period of time, it will just be installed but bagged. Okay?

Right? Therefore, the developer who's across the street could utilize a signal at our cost because it's already up. And at that point, even if because the condition on their put is that at before they get their seal, they have to do an analysis and if it warrants a signal, then they have to install it. But like you said, it would be a waiting game. We would probably be on the hook for it. Well, I don't know if there's I mean, they're putting in a storage facility. I don't know how much traffic a storage facility is going to generate. I mean, you go there, you dump your stuff off in a box, and you leave. You don't you're not traveling there every day to go pull stuff out of your storage unit, but I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure whatever's going in this big box number one is going to generate a lot more traffic than than a storage facility. Just my common sense thinking

and shared cost is something you guys cannot enforce. I would say get with the developer. Yeah. Yeah. But no, we can't get in the middle middle of that. So we can we can talk to them between the first and the second rating and bring back our findings by then. Okay. Do we need to codify anything right now? Not right now. We we can address that at at second reading and because if they come to an agreement Yeah. better. So it's so if I make sure I just I'm understanding this.

The development across the street's got a similar requirement as this development and it's all timing. Okay. Based on the warrant. Yes. Correct. And it's a Yeah. first to the first to the party pay. Correct. Which means they could both wait and wait. Commercial doesn't get built because they're both waiting and waiting and waiting. That's not productive either. No, Mr. Martin. Mayor, I'm just throwing this out there just because we had this before and Commissioner Giles may recall this. At one point years ago on Mount Jet Road, there was a Dunkin Donuts looking at going at Rutland.

Oh yeah.

Northwest Rutland. And uh at that time the bank that went in to this day, nothing's ever came, but if it ever did at that time if one of those corners had been a Duncan, they were going to be required to pay a percentage of that traffic light. Uh when the bank went in, they they funded the entire cost. Mr. Phil Smart, he was used to be on our planning commission, is was part of the bank then before he retired. Um, I don't know if you could do that if it's even an idea that you could say, "Okay, if they fund it and then whenever something came in the future, you could create a percentage, I guess you'd say, even in a quadrant that somebody could pay for it." I want to use that to bring it up is not to pass the cost on to anybody else or any other developers out there that we did do that. So if anything ever comes at any of those corners or down northwest Rutland like the Christian Academy, one time there's a private developer looking at doing a another assisted living facility, they would be required or mandated through this to pay some percentage of that.

We did we did something too with Costco cost Costco cost Costco and the road out there the road. Yeah, it was there was some collaboration worked out there. Yeah, the Amazon paid for not what Amazon Costco and the um Mark not Mark Jack Lowry. Yeah, they split the cost 5050 on that. Just an idea. Not trying to muddy. You were part of that. Remember that? She was the engineer on that. Yeah. And by the way, that traffic study from Costco, I remember this.

Hide or hide? Because I remember you saying it. I remember you telling me that they only warned it that they only anticipated 12 cars driving down that road. I I sit at that I said I sit there and count 12 cars a minute going down that road going to Costco. I kind of joked at the time that there's no way Costco is going to only going to generate 12 cars a day going down that road. But anyways, I'm not a fan of traffic studies, but whatever. That was just just an idea. No, I think that's a great idea. I think it's Yeah, just share the car. There's four corners. Yeah, there's four corners that are going to build right there. If they pull the trigger now and they do it.

Mr. Brunette, do you have any wisdom for us? Maybe not wisdom, but we are in the middle of one of those types of um deals that Todd, do do you remember what development that is? Yeah. Was it Beck Point and Beck Station? Beck with Point and Beck with station have that and it's a little bit messy for the city because we're responsible for collecting the money then giving it elsewhere and you have to keep track of it. It it wouldn't be my recommendation. It can be done but it it's a little bit messy. Commissioner Jiles,

could they not have like not a trust but it could be a third party who would be take care of that that they would have to to hire to take care of that? instead of the city a mediator do what? A mediator. Yes. Thank you. I mean they could but then that would just be their agreement, their deal. But they could do that. They could agree with that and then the money could be collected uh or go through that, but that would be their responsibility to absolutely not the city. Yeah. Well, the other thing I guess that comes to mind is the other putts already passed, right? So you can't you can't go back and force that on them willy-nilly change that one.

No, not unless they're really willing to willy-nilly. So if this body thinks that the traffic light should be installed prior to when our traffic generator is has a certificate of occupancy. Yep. Then we could install it. We could pro potentially agree to just deducting 50% of the cost to install the traffic light from our offsite I mean our our contributions. Yes, I think that's fair. Yeah. So, we could do it again. It would sit there for months, but that would be sort of the

It takes a long time to put in a traffic system. Yep. So to have it already up and running and we literally flip a switch to turn it on when we need it, I think is not a bad thing. I think it's planning ahead. So where the cost would be split anyway um between us and the other developer, but in this case it would just get subtracted from our contributions. Credit. Yep. Credit. Yep. Vice Mayor, what's the cost projected? We would have to bring that to you by second rating. I'll have to get our guys to look at it and see.

Okay. So, quick question. So, to go back to the developer that that's going to need it and you're saying it is warranted for them to put it and we miss that. No, it's come down time. Um, that that's Sorry to switch by the way. I apologize. You guys are in the same peripheral view right there. So, I apologize. That project is conditioned to install that signal. However, they are conditioned to install it as warranted. And every single out parcel they have, they're required to submit a analysis stating whether that signal is going to become warranted or not.

When's that project going to kick off?

It technically already has. uh they've masqueraded um and now it's it's just up to them when they want to bring it in. You know, they've already gone through planning for an FMDP insight plan for the public storage on the corner. Uh and we've had discussions about some of the other out parcels. We have not had discussions about the large industrial warehousing in the back at this time, but you know, it's it's we can't dictate when they come in. No, I understand that. But what I'm trying to get at is if they're gonna if they're way ahead of these these folks projects, right? And we stay on this and again, I'm not trying to pass the bug, but we already have a partnership that's willing to split it, whatever the percentage is, 50/50, whatever. That's my thought is that's where I think that we need to be careful is that you know if you're going to come back if they're going to come back and they're going to show that it is warranted based off of what you're requesting and they're way ahead of us by a couple years then again by the time you guys get to your point you're probably looking at least what maybe two years out there you go so you think they're going to be done with their project in the next two years so that's probably going to be a mood point here that's what I'm trying to get at here

so I wouldn't expect that. I believe at this point in time and I cannot speak for this land owner, but I believe that the sudden development wants to be more aggressive with their schedule. This site or this or this team right here or wants to be more aggressive. Okay. I'm sorry. Um but that's subject to change at the will of a land owner. So, all right. Well, that that's the struggle with all of this. That's why it ends up being well, whoever comes in first pays for it first because we can't control their schedules.

Well, hopefully you guys can be able to work out with the developer, the existing one, and see if there's a partnership there. They obviously know that they're going to have to come back if you know that again, we're all going to be back here at some point. So, just wanted to see. Thank you, Commissioner Giles. So, I heard you say the contra uh the contribution the um so you're already planning to give us 1,500 per unit. Um yes, we are willing to make a contribution. I said 15. Is that not right? I meant 7500. I'm sorry. Yeah, you're already planning on doing that, correct? Yeah. Okay. Did that come up agreed on 1500?

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, listen. I ran out of coffee a long time ago. Um, okay. So, we'll do the traffic light. Okay. So, with that in mind though, you're talking about putting that towards the traffic light, but you're already warranted to do that, aren't you? At least in conjunction with the property owner across the street. Well, it's not warranted at this point and it wouldn't be at mass grading, right? For whatever reason, this ends up not being a ger and some other big box or office space that does not require or doesn't generate as many trips, then we might not be warranted at that point.

So, in other words, you don't have you don't have a contract yet for someone to come in for a for a grocery store, right? We we do. We do, but things happen and uh you know, stuff changes over time, so we do. Okay. So, there may be something else that we might want to ask for that $7,500 per unit, too. It may happen. So, but that's not right now. You're you're just saying you may put it through the traffic light. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Hefner.

So, we're going to we're going to hold off on that until second reading. Um did uh did you get a chance to look at the um East Division Street and those drop off points? Yep. We are our engineers are working through the just preliminary look at it to see what utilities would have to be relocated and how steep those slopes are to to kind of just grasp the extent of improvements. So to get everybody up to speed on what we're talking about. So, um, I've said East Division Street is one of the most dangerous streets probably in the city for sure, maybe maybe even in the county.

And so, came up with an idea to have um this developer install rails, guardrails. I know there's there's pros and cons um about it, but we've had several accidents and rolloffs that go down that gorge ravine, whatever it is, 20, 30 foot drop. So, they're looking into what um what would take to put guard rails up on designated areas that uh public works is outlined on a on a map, which they have. Um I don't know if it's part of the packet or not, but um so they're looking into that. We are looking into that. Yeah. And will you have some idea by it second reading?

Yep. The cost and all of that by second reading hopefully. Okay. Yeah. All right. Perfect. any where am I pretty accurate any other concerns or issues with with that? No, that's summed it up pretty well. Um we provided them late last week with that map, so they they haven't had a lot of time to look at it. Correct. So, it's a good short-term measure. Correct. Widening East Division Street is going to take some time and a lot more money, I think. What was your estimate? Uh, I believe Matt White quoted it at 72 million.

$72 million to widen that stretch of road. So, it's going to take us a while to get there, if we even get there at all. But, in the meantime, we can put some guard rails up to create some some safety measures to prevent people from rolling off into the ravine. So, that that's all I had and we can discuss that second reading as well. Yep. That's all I had. Mr. from Lily and on that other developers have contributed to the widening of East develop or east division as well. So including Amazon. So I just wanted to throw that out as Miss Bernett.

Um just going I apologize going all the way back to amendment two about the proposed sales agreement. I apologize I misspoke. It did go to the planning commission. Kenny, you were right. So I apologize for that. Um, the planning commission did review the sale of the property and it was a negative recommendation. They were quick. Did it tell us that? The planning commission would not review the actual sales agreement. The planning commission only reviews just the sale of the property.

Anything else? Write a vote, John. I just want to bring to your attention one of the conditions that we that we have in here. It's pretty impactful. Um might not want to include it. Um it's under under planning and zoning 26. That's going to be quite a change for them. I might have been a little bold in asking that. Oh. Oh, ordinance number 600.

I'm looking at staff reports. Storm water rule 4104 needs needs a construction plan 100-year storm for detention. No, I'm sorry. I'm on engineering, John. Yeah, that's just that's uh clearly not your area. Um mixed use regulations shall be adhered to.

Mixed uses along the entire Golden Bear frontage. Um, it was a a thought maybe since that's a major commercial corridor that instead of there being housing along Golden Bear, maybe we would want to see more commercial uses along that corridor. I don't uh it wouldn't uh wouldn't bother me to remove it. All right. Yeah, I was looking at six and not 26. Motion. I'll second questions or comments on removal of 26.

And that is to I've got a question. So that is to allow more residential or or are you are you suggesting is it say I'm trying to find it on here. Does that increase the commercial on Golden Bear? It wouldn't necessarily increase the commercial. It just might change the layout so that the commercial was more prominent along Golden Bear. Okay. just on the northern part where you got the two areas of town homes up there. I don't think it's a a pertinent point at this at this stage. Okay. Yeah. Commercial where the town homes are on

like on the north side of it. Yes. But it's not our preference if Well, that's that's kind of where you start to taper off too, right? Yes. It could slope up. Yes. And our other concern is that that we would create a a huge parking lot between the town homes and the commercial use and then those town homes would be less desirable and it would be very hard to blend those uses. Also, the commercial would then be separated from the town center area because there's that environmental separation that naturally just happens. So, we would prefer not to add commercial to to the eastern portion of the site because of all of those reasons. Okay.

Want to keep the commercial to the town center that walkability and synergy at the town. I'm good. All right. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Any extensions? That does carry. Anything else? All right. All in favor of the ordinance as amended on first reading, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Any extensions? Does carry. We'll be back at the end of October.

Thank you. 10D, which is an ordinance to annex into the corporate boundaries of the city of Mount Juliet roadway and associate rideway on East Division Street from the existing city limits at the northwestern property corner of parcel 7267 to a point approximately 2,293 linear feet east along east division being located within the city's urban growth boundary. Have a motion.

Second. Any questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? That does carry. 10 E. An ordinance to reszone the property located at 3336 North Mount Juliet Road, approximately 1.37 acres, map 54, parcel 179.01 from RS40 to CTC. Here a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? All in favor of 10E, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions. That does pass. 10F, an ordinance to resone the property at 43 East Cobwell Street, approximately 0.57 acres, map 721, Group A, parcel 3 from RS40 to CTC.

Have a motion. Is there a second and a second on this? Uh, questions or comments? Mr. Mley ask who was it that requested the reszone let me see if it's in here burned rubber I've got property owner on here. That's it. Probably who? I got the property owner. I don't remember his name.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? That does pass. Uh 10G, an ordinance to reszone the property located at 47/47B East Cobwell Street, approximately 1.2 acres, map 721, group A, parcel 5 and parcel 6 from RS40 to CTC.

Got a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Mley. Okay, if you're looking at the map, it makes sense to me to do 43 because it's equal to CTC across um East Caldwell, but these two pieces um goes further into the residential. So, I don't understand. Is it the same is it the same property owner? I don't believe it is the same property owner. It is.

Okay. Um the more important thing I think to note is that the land use plan calls for Town Center all the way uh east to Ridgerest Drive there. So one, two, three, four, four or five of those parcels heading east also have a CTC land use. So, it's not at the edge like it looks as far as the land use plan goes. All right. And there's also CTC behind. Well, you can see on the map there. Um, yeah. Oh, and where to the south like industrial? Yeah, that's

industrial zoned or commercially zoned behind those. Um, like I said, the land use plan calls for CT or town center all the way over to Ridgerest Drive there on the map that you see. So

my concern is um piece by piece by piece if these get reszone for CTC and then there's 20 acres a developer can come in and buy what would stop them from from coming in requesting a pud CTC pud for multif family? Absolutely nothing. Nothing. So, for that reason, I'm going to vote against it.

Noted. Any other questions or comments? All in favor of the ordinance, please signify by saying I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? That does pass. 10H, which is an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2526 budget ordinance 2535 to accept insurance proceeds and appropriate funds for the repair of a traffic signal cabinet. I hear a motion. Second and a second. Questions or comments? All in favor of 10H, please signify by saying I.

I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? It does pass. Uh 10 I a resolution authorizing the mayor to sign a certificate of compliance for SFM LLC DBA Sprouts Farmers Market number 588 located at 1919 North Mount Juliet Road to sell wine. Second. Motion and second. Question or comments? All in favor please signify by saying I. Any opposed? That does pass. Next item is a discussion item. This is for the Marabella development. Commissioner Hefner, you have the floor.

Uh, appreciate it. Um, ask the applicant to come on up. Um, there's some updates that, uh, we want to relay to the board. Um, we're doing this, I think they're on the agenda for the next board meeting. So, if there's any questions or follow-ups, they've got a couple of weeks to um to get those back before the next second reading. Correct.

With barge design. Um we also have Kyle Allen here with us and Drew Barge and also M2 who's been the engineer of record. We're assisting the client with this. I think there's a slide. I don't know if we can bring it up. Is is there any objection to the slides or hearing? None.

It so I know we've been deferred on the project for quite a while. We just wanted to come back before it's going to hearing on September 22nd is when we're back before you. One of the main issues was sewer access. So we just wanted to come and give an update and Kyle can also give some updates on other things he's working on. But we've secured approval from all three adjacent property owners. Oh, so sorry. I'm usually pretty loud without it, but um we've secured three um easements from the adjacent property owners to provide sewer through there. Two of the easements have been recorded and one will be recorded before we come back to you on September 22nd. And the project will u connect directly to sewer within this existing sewer easement. The pointer is not working, so I can't really point it out. But if you look up there on the blow up, there's a 20 foot existing public sewer easement that's been recorded and platted that runs through the development. And we will connect directly to that um through the other three property owners. And we will do this for the preferred option of being gravity connection. And with the property owner's approval, construction will be on Mr. Bradshaw's property. Correct. Yes. So, we just wanted to provide that update if you have any questions.

What's the length? The length of our sewer 7,800 ft. Yeah. This is all gravity. Yes, sir.

Yes. Okay. And I'll just I'll just note that we've worked with staff and this is the preferred option both of us and of staff and um the sewer will be sized for the basin. So this will benefit not only our development but any future development upstream or adjacent to this line. Uh it will get up to 18 inches in diameter which in the world of sewer is a significant trunk line. So, just wanted to mention that as well. Okay.

Commissioner Le, um, on this public easement, does that do we know if the city legally owns that? Oh, we'll let the attorney handle that.

On the plat, it's labeled as a sanitary sewer easement. It doesn't actually say a public sanitary sooner easement. So that's why there was some back and forth about whose easement it actually is. Now sanitary sewers, we do own all of them. So it is likely ours, but there is cons maybe some concern that it may not be. So that's why they have proposed an indemnity agreement. So that way if that property owner attempts to fight us over it, they will indemnify us for that legal battle. And what will that mean? Huh? Pay for no taxpayer money will be used. No taxpayer for the legal battle.

So th this is um an agreement assuming it's our property or and then wouldn't wouldn't we need a court to make a determination though? Commissioner, are you asking about the document that was sent to us today by email? Okay. We could have a court tell us that it is ours. Obviously, that would prolong the process significantly. Um, that's why they have proposed this agreement instead.

If I could just add something here. So, it is labeled on the recorded plat as a sanitary sewer easement. There's also precedent that it is public because the school board tied to that easement. So, the only way that could happen is if that were a public easement. So, there there's precedent there. We're we're confident that is a public sanitary sewer ement. So would there be a legal advice of agreeing or not? I mean what's what's the in your position um since we since a court hasn't made a determination what what is your opinion about moving forward? I would say that this agreement would suffice. This only became an issue because that property owner voiced opinion that he did not think it was ours, but that was some time ago and I think that opinion has changed. Um, so I don't anticipate it being an issue. This agreement is just in case it does become an issue, but I don't think it's likely.

Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns? All right. Thank you. Next item is a real estate advisory report. Recognize Commissioner Giles. Okay. So the these two pieces of property came before the planning commission with negative recommendations to sell which I know you brought up that the sales agreement but that it was for sale but I but we didn't have the sales agreement

right but they still one was because of the usage we're talking about two properties here one because of the the need for the city on York code. Um when when it was explained how the city used that piece of property, when it was also brought out that we only have a 4-year agreement with Metro for our sewer, even though we've got that basin, we don't know what's going to happen in four years. the fact that that property was bought because we were going to have to uh build possibly a sewer refinery maybe. I'm not that's correct. Just clarify this is York Road.

Yes. Yes. Yeah. And I said York Road. This is the first piece on York Road. So with all of those variables and because that piece of property that was up for sale uh went to Cedar Creek where that we would need access to that if we was to ever do it and because of the public works uses those 44 acres because City Beautiful uses those 404 acres because parks I think have used them to put some stuff on those 44 acres. um it it just it just it wasn't feasible to sell as far as the planning commission was concerned as far as the um the piece of property at the planning. Again, the planning happened before the real estate. So, the planning because they didn't know how much was offered if I remember this correctly and all that this they said no on that too. So, that was a negative to sell that piece of property. So, then moving on, I'm just catching you up on all of this. So moving on to the real estate commission I mean committee excuse me we met to come with to a value of the property in my opinion where it is right now. So what somebody does with it 20 years later is really in my opinion not my concern. If we're wanting to sell something then you know what's the value of it right now in the market. So, if you looked at the the minutes which was in your packet, you seen that the the planning uh the the real estate committee thought that the value of York property was approximately 3.5 million the way it is right now. They thought um that the value of the Golden Bear was about 2.5 2.4 to 2.5 the way it is. Okay. One of the things that was mentioned at that real estate committee was to look because that land sloped down through there. So we start, you know, we most of us thought, well,

that's right. That's that's all could be put in there. But it's sort of deceptive when you look at that piece of property for sale on Golden Bear. You see that triangle and you say, "Oh, that's that's where the the storm water uh basin is and blah blah blah." But in actuality it's not. And so when you look at the topo on there now uh when you look at it and you start subtracting as it that slopes down it's really not that much and then it goes back up towards that triangle. So in actuality I've got something to show y'all. I'm not for selling that piece of property out there because I think it's more valuable to the city for these reasons. one. Um, let's say that we got two acres wherever on on that development on the Sutton development and they're going to put that that uh trail head somewhere with the amenities and all that. We still don't have um we don't know if there's rock up there. So, if we build a fire station there, we're probably going to have to blast. If you look along uh Golden Bear from that area up to approximately where that area would be that we possibly would get the two acres and have that that rock is x amount of of height through there. So that's going to have to be taken down. We have the best of both worlds and here's the reason why. And um Hunter could you I mean uh River could you put that up please? And then I met with the fire department and if you go back to 2020 for those of us who were on the commission of a lot of us talk to Amazon when they come in and we asked for that piece of property over there for a fire station and then I was reminded of this which I had forgotten about. um uh

previous mayor Hagerty was in some kind of meeting with with the county mayor and they were going thought that that was supposed to be given to the county and it ended up because it was written from Amazon that it was recorded in Amazon it was supposed to be given to the city you know for a fire station or whatever we're going to do well so if you look at this topo and I met with the fire I'd like for you to come up now and let's talk about this where we're getting with this is there is room on this piece of property to build the correct size fire department that we need and we don't have to worry. We've got a lot here. So, I'm gonna let uh I'm g let Joey talk about that. Yeah. Chief Edwards, Deputy Fire Chief. Um we met last week uh with Commissioner Giles. We walked the property and uh I had my same reservations at first about it. I'll be honest with you. Um I'd always known the property was there. I was around here in 2020 when we had those meetings uh with former mayor Hagerty and Mayor Huau. Um there was a little bit of debate about whose it was and and we got all that clarified, but it it was the cities. Um and a lot has transpired. I just wrote down four quick notes um that that kind of went along with it. Number one, we we always said we wanted to be closer to I40 uh because there was no access uh from station one on on Blend City side. you'd have to go all the way, if you're familiar, go all the way around Belinda City, come up around Posey Hill area, come back down through Beck with really congested afternoons. So, it was never really an option. Uh, that all really changed with Summit Boulevard being implemented into into that that area there with going from Beckwith over to Belinda City. So, um, we anticipate it's probably going to improve response time for for our station one to get over to that area, especially to the interchange, the Costco, by three or four more minutes, and it may even be

better than that. But, um, we we do see an improvement there. Therefore, being able to maybe move station 4 instead of closer to the interstate like we had originally planned, move it a little bit more to the north. Um, preferably north of Rutland. um that that would kind of be where we would consider because we don't want to move it too far because of the development as you just heard from Marabella and all the other things that could possibly go in in that area. So that's the reason why um we're definitely not talking a large station here. Um this would be more or less an another fire engine as well as a an ambulance. Uh so we're talking maybe 8,000 10,000t fire station. And then in the in the my last notes really we're just looking for future land. This isn't going to be built tomorrow. This isn't going to be built uh even probably a year or two or even three years from now. This is really for future for us. So um regardless that's just kind of of of the notes with it. This property will work um that we currently have. Um, Adam Meadows had to step step out, but um, we we did talk to him about the the retention basin and the storm water that's there currently that you see on the map that's just kind of north of the parking lot there. Um, essentially to the to the left of that uh, the wooded area that would just have to be um, utilized in that space um, for your storm water. And um obviously in coordination with engineering would have to work with a little bit of a head wall to the south of the property. Uh there is a retention basin right across the street. If you'll look uh right there in front of the Amazon uh that little retention basin that's there that will that will kind of have to go in coordination with uh with engineering. But other than that, we do feel the property is suitable u for a fire station, future fire station um as well as accommodating all the storm water requirements that that he did review. So,

can you show them where the fire station could be and how you would utilize your your ingress and egress?

Yeah. Um, if you'll look at the map just kind of coming off the road that's coming uh as you see basically right there at the blue and where the road is when you make the entrance into the trail head directly north of that where it's kind of got a little I guess it's a little curve right there. We would make a public access road that would go straight due north of there uh into a fire station parking lot. The station front would actually face towards Golden Bear. Um and the bay doors would be uh kind of right and left if you're looking down at the building. They would make a swoop coming around the building into the bays this way and then going back out on that main road back to the main intersection. That is great. Whoever's got that. Thank you, John. Yes.

So, essentially the the they're going to pull in right through here. The station will face this way. So, the front of your building should be in this general area. The this road is the one I'm I'm referring to. We would need to come in this way to come back through the bays and then back out the doors to the main intersection. If that makes sense at all. Um, obviously this is just um this is just looking at the acreage. We we feel it'll work. Um, I don't have any drawings for it. This is pretty new. All this didn't come about until um again a week or two ago. I know the the Sutton development. I I have not had a chance to actually see uh other than tonight a rough estimate of where it would go. Um I haven't analyzed it. I haven't looked at it. Um, I will say that the more and more I look at this property and especially what we're doing with preeemption, um, I do like the fact that we come out on a main intersection that already has a signal, um, that could be preempted, uh, for the safety of our our responders, uh, once they get emergency call. So yes,

you said originally you wanted to be closer to 40 because of Costco and Belinda City. Assuming the response times coming from the fire station over there is pretty slow. It it was until Summit Boulevard will be active for us. Okay. The whole Summit Boulevard changed the dynamic and I anticipate it relieving a lot of traffic. um stress coming, you know, people heading out that way. They're probably going to use it as a cut through, but but it does allow us to to traverse through that area much faster than going at the at the corner at Posey Hill, Beckwith, and uh and Rutland

because the city the city already owns land um five acres in fact, maybe eight as part of the Mark McDonald project, which is right across the street from Costco. Mhm. Um that was actually originally when that putt came through was Jamie Chief Luffman's um ask when we were in those meetings that uh fire station go there that's land we already own and they're developing it and they're going to be blasting and they're going to get it site ready for us. Is that

land that we already own is that area given it's a mile down the road um is that something that can be revisited? I' I'd say we could look at it. Um I think more if we if we do take it a little bit north, I think eventually it will probably help for future. Uh especially just because now uh station one, if you look at it on a map compared to that area, it's so close. I'm not sure it makes the most sense uh to do that, but I don't think Summit Boulevard was on the I don't think Summit Boulevard was created um when that when that came about. And aren't we planning to do another future fire station on Lebanon Road?

I think I think it'll be warranted. It depends obviously on what this board decides. The Bender Ferry and the Marbella project. All that goes goes hand in hand. Okay. Yeah. I'm just Yeah, just trying to weigh everything out. I This is land we already own. Yeah. No, I understand. Um and I think that was our thought here was land we owned here. I think that's that's definitely uh we're we're looking at all the options and and ultimately as I said my fourth bullet point was we need we just need land for the future and for the growth of the department. Mhm. Okay.

Vice Mayor ladies first. You're recognized, sir. Oh, okay. Thanks. I was trying to be nice, Commissioner. I apologize. Real quick, just the current firehouse that we're at that we're wrapping up down the street. Just budgetary cost today. Where we at with that site? Yeah. Are you asking how much that station was? Yeah. Total neighborhood. I don't want quote, but it's somewhere in the ballpark of 10 to 11 million. And the one over uh on Lebanon Road, it was about four or five million if I think well to be honest with I believe it was about four and a half but there was a lot of concessions because of not meeting requirements. So that one up there is that about the size that we're looking for of what we have up there up on Lebanon Road.

Probably be something very similar to it. Yes, sir. This here if you'll remember it's it's got added a training room and a lot more bedrooms. Um totally get it. Yeah. Plus, it's more centralized in a city and it's a different uh workshop there. So, I get it. So, this one up here is is is what you're projecting for what we're going to need over here.

I I would say that'd be correct. I me personally, I wouldn't I would not build a fire station anything less than three bays from this point forward only just due to because of reserve apparatus. Um, we already know over there at the city hall annex, you know, it's if if you had 9 million square feet, that feels like you need 19 million. I I we've seem to run out of space a lot. So, I I would um just for the growth of the city, I would I would encourage to to build three bay fire stations for the future just because of holding reserve apparatus and ambulances. Okay.

All right. Commissioner Millennia. Um, so Mirabella, this would be within five miles.

I don't know that. Um, I I haven't I haven't got that depth in in research as far as where where it's at. I I'll certainly look at it um to see exactly where it is. I believe this will be closer uh to Marbella than than if we went further south. I I I can tell you for a fact it will not cover Bender's Ferry. Uh as we mentioned, the one on Lebanon Road, I did a rough estimate and from that area from that driveway right there just to maybe the entrance is 5.8 miles to Bender Ferry project.

If um [Music] cuz that what does that do? Go down and come back up. Is that what you said? Uh the topo on it shows about 565 570 on on the um on this tip here. Um and and it goes to about 560 through the center right here and then rising back up to 565 towards this end. So I was talking to shorty earlier about a estimate on and he said in general most properties are uh you can build on at least 40%. So, I was asking about this property. Um, so if we take that percentage, um, and that's 5 acres. So, 40% of five acres. I mean, you're talking what? Two and a half.

Two acres. Two. So, yeah. Um, approximately. Really? And that's what you need to build a fire, correct? Two acres.

Yes, ma'am. Roughly. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. And and Okay. And and also with this one being on the south, we're going to be closer to Division because you were mentioning all the it's it's so dangerous on division. So, with with the light already there, we don't know when the light's going to come up there as we we talked about earlier. Um and of course, we don't know when this fire station's going to come. But, you know, I talked about the voluntary contribution of 7,500. Um, you know, it could go to a new fire station here as well. And we already have this property here. And as far as the value of this is concerned, I meant to throw this in while ago. This was asis when it would come through the the uh the real estate committee. In actuality, if you put this out to bid for, of course, we could change the zoning to it ourselves, but if you put this out to bid for like a fast food to come in or or um uh some kind of uh station or something, the value of this would probably be more like five mil. So, you know, they were talking about the slope that's going to be filled in with with gravel. And in this area where he's talking about with the fire station from the end of that that ingress there um it's about 288 feet. Is that correct? To the end of our property. Yes.

When I'm out there I never think about that when we see this on the map. We never think about that. We think, "Oh, that's unusable. That's a lot of space." So, um and the trail head would stay there. They they would just bum them. They would just take a little of that parking lot. Uh, and that's where he was talking about. Yeah. Right. Right there is where I would figure to be as a drive coming in. Sure. So, I mean, that would be nothing. And we would have a city building there eventually to help maintain and and and watch that parking lot, which we've got cameras anyway, I assume, on there, don't we, Chief? I don't know. I'm not aware.

Okay. Um, so it doesn't have to be moved and we don't have to do anything. We don't have to worry. I mean, that's already been dug out. I don't think there's a lot of rock there. If there was, we wouldn't have to be doing as much uh blasting as we would somewhere else. And again, the light's already there. So, this is what I think we should do because of that, right? Anyone else? All right. Did you have anything else? No, I don't think so. Commissioner J. Thank you. All right. The next item is yours as well for the status.

A question. Excuse me. Excuse me. I have a question. Hand up. I had my hand up. Like way off guard. Okay. Sorry. Um, so say if we did build a um fireh hall there, what would happen to our public restrooms in our trail head? Okay. I'm sorry. What did you say? I was looking at the distance. I was 287. I said 288. So I missed it by one foot.

All right. So, if we build a fireh hall there, what would happen to our trail head and our restrooms? The trail head there wouldn't move. It would stay there. Okay. What about the restrooms? It would stay there. That I'm including the restrooms in it. So, you would have the fire department there. So, you've got you've got city personnel there 24 hours a day.

Okay. So, you're proposing to leave the restrooms and then the fireh hall could be built in the back part. It is the back part. Um, yeah, he Yeah, he he'll show you again where that is. It's It all makes sense. And that development will have to put that road the rest of the road down through there. I'm I'm That's on theirs anyway, if I'm not mistaken. She wants to know where the fire station. I thought you're talking about

replacing that is what I thought the proposal was. Um, the fire station would be in this general area and like I said, the front of the building would be somewhere in this area and going to the north kind of like this the length of this area. Okay, I got you. All right. So, if the real estate commission estimated that property as is is worth 2.5 million. Okay. Why would it be worth potentially five million if we were to sell it for someone? Put it out on the market for people to to be able to bid against it.

And that was one of the things from the um from the uh planning commission, if I remember correctly, was because of transparency. They thought that anytime we sell a piece of city property, anybody should be able to bid on it, not just a developer that's adjacent to it. So, if you put this out in the national on listed that or whatever, you could probably get about five million for it. Yeah, they're going to have to fill in. They're going to have to do some sewer improvements. You got a little sewer over there, but I'm sure they'd have to increase it to go under it. But, so I just brought that in to say if you know if it was put out on the market, you we might be able to get five million for it.

All right. So, who is it that proposed that we sell the York property?

It just wasn't necessarily proposed. There's a developer doing a development in the area in York Road and the conversation started because of proximity of the current firing range to the development. And so, of course, we met with the chief and some other representatives from the police department. So, I said, "Well, if you got it, you know, if you're interested, I could take some before the commission for transparency to get it before the real estate committee because that's the only option I have if somebody is interested in a property is it to bring it to you guys because it's currently not listed." And the other thing was because it had been discussed during budget time about possibly selling some of the city properties. So, I'd mentioned a while back about it's always good to bring it before the commission. In this case, we had to go for the real estate committee and the planning commission and then the BLC just so you'd have the opportunity to talk about it and then give me direction on whether or not listing the property through a commercial broker or accept the offer or decline it. Does does that make sense?

Yeah. And Commissioner Giles, earlier when you I thought you were talking about York Road, you were talking about 44 I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. Did Did you mean were you talking about acreage? It's 44 acres that was proposed to be sold. Oh, 66. Out of the 64, there was four. Out of the 66. Okay. Uhhuh. And isn't that correct? I don't know. It's close. It's It's Yeah, it's like 68, but yes, sir. These That's That's That's accurate. I think it was 44.

Oh, and leaving 20 or whatever for the city. Was that the idea? Okay. Commissioner Hefer,

I I do have a comment about the York Road and this I guess the leverage over the sewer negotiations with the with the with Nashville Metro. But before I get to that, here's the here's the issue I have with just selling this parcel off. Yes. Could we get more money for it? Yep. But you're going to get a McDonald's. You're going to get a fast food restaurant. What what they're proposing is to do a master development plan around all of that property, not just developing five acres. I would much rather see that developed under a master development plan under a pud than just sell at random to the highest bidder and then they'd throw whatever they can in there. That's just my opinion. I think that's a better way of incorporating and and getting money for it, fair market value, or however we go about determining the sales price for that property. We can always go look down Golden Bear and potentially find some other property to buy. But I'd much rather see it master developed and rethink or relook at the the land that we own down on further down south and Golden Bear. Um but the idea of keeping and maintaining bathrooms too that's at a cost to the citizens whereas um the Sutton are going to take over that expense of that m maintaining and managing it's still going to be a public restroom that we don't have to take care of. Um and I just think yeah the fire station if it ideally if you can put a fire station you can work a fire station into the master development plan I think that's the best of all worlds. Um I don't know if it's possible. I don't know how that affects the big box retailer or whoever's going in there. They're gone. Okay. Well, so we've got that consider. Um, but I I just think generally speaking, I think I would much rather

see it incorporated into a larger ma masterdeveloped piece of property which includes all the surrounding areas.

I agree. Um, and as far as the the York Road, I mean, I know I know it was purchased with one day of maybe the city getting into the sewer treatment business. I don't know. Do we really want to get in the sewer treatment business or what's the cost to build a sewer treatment plant? What's the cost to maintain a sewer treatment plant? And if we've got a contract they're going to be negotiating with Metro here within the next years, shouldn't we be breaking ground on a sewer treatment plant right now or are we going to wait until a year before we're going to negotiate that contract? In which case, we lose all of our leverage because they're going to call our bluff and they're like, "There's nothing you're going to do right now with that property." So, if we're going to if we're going to build a sewer treatment plant on that property, let's we need to start having those conversations right now. But if we're going to negotiate a contract with Metro, we need to be having those conversations right now as well.

So, okay. So, if if if I may speak, let me the the basin was built so that we would hopefully have better rates with Metro. Is that it was going to be a requirement in the future. Yeah. Okay. So, that requirement was was met. So, at the planning commission, I didn't know this and I asked specifically how many years we would have. Okay. Which I assume would be 15, 20 years. It's four years. Yeah. Four years on that original I think it's a 40-year contract. 30 or 40 year contract. The 30's over and we're going to have it. It's the four years now. I thought that was a new contract. Four years.

It would have to be renegotiated at that point. That's why the sewer basin was needed because every every city out there during the renegotiation processes were having to have that that was just to capture so we can send a steady flow into Nashville because they got tired of I guess picking up the peaks and valleys and the flow rates on it. So it so it makes sense.

But there is I mean there is an old study out there on what it would take to reverse the flow of the sewer system to send it to York Road. U I'll just say it ain't cheap and I didn't adjust it for today's dollars either. Well, and one thing the planning commission brought up or or the real estate committee was was that if we went out to buy that piece of property for what we utilize it for today, where would we find it? Because uh you're just mentioning the the sewer, but in actuality, we've got the public works that take the dead deer off the road and put it in the middle of this piece of property. So you sell that 44 acres, you've got 20 acres for people to throw their for us to throw the dead deer on. And guess what's going to happen? People are going to start complaining. So then we're going to have to find another avenue that's going to be reoccurring expenses to get rid of those carcasses. So what's that going to do? Incinerate it. And so when we incinerate any any animal from the the um the animal control center down here that they've had to put down or whatever, it cost a lot more because of the heat of that. So here we are, we're going to have more expenses down the road when we don't have any expenses now and it takes care of our needs in the city. So

well, I don't know if throwing dead animals around that property is the most is the healthiest thing to do either. There's buzzards that fly in and out of there, create Well, that's why buzzards are made, I'm assuming, they bodegrade into the property. I've been there. I've seen dead animals all over that property, including the vultures, right? Or with resale value and all and all of our branches and limbs. It's a dumping. It's a dumping ground for the city. It is. So, what are we going to do without it? Not put it on We don't want to put it on Clemens because we don't have that much there like out there. And then public works has to come in every couple years and have that ground up. So some of it's biodegradable into the soil, but a lot of it's not.

I'll say any dumping out there to the best of my knowledge is in total compliance with anything from the EPA or Tekk. Yes. So biodegradable uh stuff. Commissioner Mle. So for the record, I don't support selling any of the 66 acres on York. Yeah.

Well, and this is a discussion and I don't either. We're not making a motion on we can't make a motion on that tonight. But and also if if if I may getting back to what you said, Commissioner um Hefner, about the the McDonald's, I actually would rather see if if we're not going to be there, I would actually rather see a McDonald's that we know is going to generate x amount of taxes because you've got Amazon on one side, you got this development that's going to go on the back. So, we're going to get a lot of tax money. And in the master to plan, you've got a certain amount of retail on both sides there. But this is preliminary tonight. This in the final. So that means it can change by the time it comes back. And there could just long as percentage is met. And it may not look like what we see tonight. Vice Mayor, thanks for all the discussion. Um, I'm just asking for the deputy chief and our chief to make sure that they validate what's a mile down the street with the other development and see if there's any pros and cons to come back to the commission, please. Um, so that way we can know what the pros and cons are. And then I mean me personally um you know I mean if there's a possibility to um to even have this you know land ready you know if it I mean like if the if there's a possibility to move this somewhere else on Golden Bear that's something there. Um again you know it's it's important for us to be able to make sure that I think it's you know if you're going to have such a large project right there um have the first responders right behind there. I mean I mean there's some benefit there for all those residents and the commercial folks as well. So um and I know that may or may not work for you know for the exact plan but you know you know when you got several thousands of people that are just in your development plus what we have right across the street between Amazon very large industrial building and then right up the street you got all the other commercials. It's just it's it's I mean

it's smart when it comes down to the safety side. So, you know, there's some homework coming out of tonight and just wanted to bring that up. Those are some expectations on my end that I'm going to be calling you back up and asking. So, thank you.

I'll just add on here. Um, I think the proposal tonight's more valuable to the city than the this one parcel by itself. And there's some advantages to be gained from a comprehensive plan for that entire area there. Especially if we can reduce cost to the city far as ongoing operations cost. Ideally, we can work something out with a fire station somewhere in that area wherever makes sense. Um York Road, I don't I don't feel a com I don't see feel the same compelling reason to move on it as quickly. I mean, I haven't seen any details on any of the offerings on that one, I don't believe. So, my feedback. Anything else? Make sure I look for hands this time. All right, Mr. Giles, you are you have the floor for 11 C.

Well, I just wanted to put this on because this has been dragging on so long and I don't understand it. So, I'd like for some explanation why we don't have this already. Um, hearsay is that somebody from staff told them to halt on this. We went through the budget process. The budget is well long gone and we still have nothing in front of us. So, I'd like for somebody to comment from city staff on what's going on and did y'all tell them to halt on this and if you did, why? And why is it still halted? Mr. Martin?

Yeah. Mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, it's not halted. I think at the time during the budget uh the department heads because they would need to interview individual department heads and people within those departments that they were busy focused on that then instead of the individual interviews. So it was pause not necessarily halted I guess you'd say just during the budget but it's since since the budget passed it they were back in action. As a matter of fact we just had interviews with him a couple of weeks ago where they were coming out interviewing different department heads. So it was just a temporary pause at the time during the budget because this year's budget was pretty difficult process and so everybody was focused on that. So it's been unhalted. It was just halted for a short period of time during the budget procedure.

Okay. So the budget, we voted on the budget, correct me if I'm wrong, in June. Is that when we had Yeah, probably. So it sounds about right. And this is September and we've still not met with them as the commission. What I can do um is tell them that we'd like for them to expedite that part with the commission. Yes, I could do that. I mean, I just think it's taken too long to tell us what our needs are. Yeah. Before city hall.

As far as other time constraints, I mean, we'll take responsibility for the fact we were focusing on the budget at the time, but that was a temporary halt. And then they were that was during the budget process. So, anything from then on in July and August, they've been continuing to do their interviews and all, but if it's about moving the commission up in the process, I'll be glad to say, "Hey, we're paying these folks good money, so you need to get something set with commissioners and sit down with them individually." I can do that as easy as tomorrow. That's why I had them provide this report for you at least on a time frame. But, uh, most of the staff that I'm aware of, at least from the department head standpoints here at the city hall, have already met with them about our needs, assessments, and what we could see with that. So, I can do that easily. But I hope that explains where there was a halt. There was a everybody being so focused on that, we felt like that was paramount to what they were wanting at the time, but it was it was temporary. They should they've been full-blown since then. It's a complex process, but I will get that set up for you all. Have them send some dates that works for each one of you so that they can meet with you convenience. Does that will that work for everybody?

That'd be good, I think. Yeah. As far as the other property, mayor, I know I'm backtracking a little bit on that. I'll just I'm just going to pull that if anybody approached us about that. I'll just rece I'll just say, "Hey, it's best for the city to hang on to that property unless somebody comes with something mindblowing." But they were approached. They approached us. I felt like you guys deserved at least be able to talk about it. I like I like the process. So, we'll just hang on to that part. Thank you. All right. Any questions or comments?

All right. Anything else, Commissioner J? Oh no. All right. Uh reaching the end of our agenda. If there's no objections, we will adjourn. Hearing none, we are journed.