Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the May 15th at a Mount Juliet Municipal and Regional Planning Commission meeting. Uh as we begin our uh evening tonight like toh read a uh our quorum says the presence of five members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairperson may at his or her discretion wait up to 30 minutes after the scheduled meeting time for a quorum to be present. In the event that a member is required to leave a meeting prior to adjournment and the departure causes a loss of quorum, no further official action may be taken until a quorum is restored other than an adjournment. Majority vote of those commissioners present and in no case less than four affirmative votes shall be required to decide any item of business requiring action by the commission. So everybody welcome uh tonight. I don't know why it is as we were driving in this or as I was coming in this evening, it seems like it's almost inevitable that our Thursday planning commission meetings here in Mount Juliet either have rain or followed by rain, but it's like rain follows planning commission meetings for some reason. So, uh whether or not it's uh hey, it's planning commission time. Bring your uh rain coat or bring your umbrella. It it does seem like we always have a little bit of inclement weather as we come in. Um thank you all for being here. Good to see faces and good to uh to have activity here in the city of Mount Jwit. So, as we begin tonight, we'll begin with the first item up and that is to set our agenda. Do we have any changes, amendments, adjustments, requests? The consent, please, Commissioner Giles. Yeah, I would like to uh remove 6D off the consent. It's a request to move 6D, which is to review the final plat for Mount Juliet Church of Christ located at 1940 North Mount Juliet Road from the consent agenda. We would move that item uh 6D to be heard right before item 7A uh which is a reszone

request. Any other request from the commission? With that being said, we will set the agenda as stated. Next item up falls underneath our staff reports. Mr. Boffman, planning. Well, sure thing. Um, I'd just like to say or remind everybody that, you know, next next month there's no meeting. So, but other than that, uh, Jay, you got anything else? So, we get PTO next next month, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. That's right, Shane. How are things over at public works? I was slightly busy. Um, I do want to uh speak about the equalization basin project this that sewer has been working on, gosh, since I've been at the city, five years in the works. We're uh we've opened bids. We've awarded contract. We've had a precon and we're looking to break ground next month. And that project will be anywhere between 18 months to two years. So if you see construction on your way out of town on 11 and dirt road going towards Hermitage, uh be the biggest sewer project this town's probably t undertaken since providing sewer service back in the 80s. So uh any questions with that, y'all more than free to give us a call. And with that, that'll conclude my staff report. Wonderful. Thank you, Dodd. Anything roads, traffic? Uh yeah. Um, Beckwith Road north of Golden Bear Gateway is going to be closed for the considerable future starting tomorrow. U, I think we're expecting a month or two while they widen that out to a threelane section and make the anticipated connection to uh, Golden Bear Gateway for a new signal there. U, and we're

we're encouraging everyone to go up and use the Division Street ramp. Uh, please avoid using Rutland as your detour. Yeah. And then just throughout the summer, rolling lane closures on Golden Bear Gateway. There's a lot going on out there. So, just give it extra time if you need to. Yes, sir. Yeah, that uh that brand new road is uh taking a few licks as it's continue to develop out over there. You guys probably have your hands full with that one. Um yeah. Yeah. Yes, sir. I mean, that's one of the bigger projects we got going on right now as far as development goes and they're required to do a lot for us, right? Happy to have you on board uh leading us through those things out there. Thank you guys at planning and public works and whatnot for uh for getting us where we need to be. Our uh next item up then is going to uh fall underneath our citizen comments. This time we'll take citizen comments. Public is welcome and encouraged to make public comment about any item on our agenda tonight. There will be two opportunities for you to make comments. You may speak now about the item or you may speak when the item is presented to the planning commission. Uh so either or. And we do ask that you limit your comments to three minutes or less. And anyone that wishes to address a planning commission at this time, welcome to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Joan Gilner, 1409 Tate Lane. I'd like to comment on item 10A, the preliminary master plan for Linhaven phase three or what is now the reserve at Tate Lane. First of all, D West access. I agree with commission staff that a connection to do west should be required if for no other reason that an emergency at the

railroad tracks or on west division prevents emergency vehicles and/or school buses from accessing the development via Tate Lane. If Tate Lane can handle the traffic, then surely so can do west. Thus, the future transportation plan should not be waved to eliminate the due west connection. As far as the fence wall, vegetative buffer zone that's called for, the original plan was for a six- foot high black powdercoated aluminum fence around the entirety of the development with a 15 ft landscape landscape buffer, presumably to obscure the view viewing of backyards in the development. This aesthetic is more consistent with the country-like setting of Tate Lane than a six-foot masonry wall. A six-foot wall will not obscure the second stories or tall playsets of homes, while again presumably trees planted in the buffer zone would eventually provide a more visible barrier once they exceed 6 ft in height. I would like the commission to stay with the original plan of a fence with a 15- ft vegetative barrier. Building materials. Building materials for the development should be consistent with those required by this developer for the homes adjacent to the Tate Lane Reserve which require which required 90% brick not the 5050 masonry and secondary materials posted. Lastly, construction schedule. I'm concerned about the construction timeline. There are partially completed or partially started projects on the west side of Tate Lane and south of the Tate Lane West Division intersection that have been ongoing for well over a year. I don't know what can be done from a timing or permitting perspective, but how many eyes does the Tate Lane area

have to endure if this project goes forward before the others are completed? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time? Good evening. Sharon Nolan, 1409 Tate Lane. Uh my comments are related to the reserve Linhaven master plan development on Tate Lane. Since 2014, the residents of Tate Lane have spent over a decade navigating proposals, plans, community meetings, revisions, and promises tied to the development of this luxury home community. Throughout this time, we've watched the project evolve while bearing the emotional and physical toll and the uncertainty of when it's going to happen. Once the annexation of the property into the city was approved, we accepted that some version of Linhaven development would move forward. We knew we would lose the peaceful rural character of Tate Lane, which has been a quiet country setting with deep roots in the community. Now, here we are 10 years later and the project has returned with a new name, Reserve at Tate Lane. The revised proposal has diminished many of the original design standards that were originally presented to the community. What were once required to be 90% brick homes. We were provided renderings back then in 2012. We were shared detailed plans. Now those standards have been reduced to 50% brick and some other remaining materials. Those other materials usually hardy board only will require more maintenance and aggressive uh

maintenance by the owners that can negatively impact both the longevity and market value of the homes. This change in standards is in stark contrast to some of the existing homes on Tate Lane. All of which I pretty much believe won the 200-year-old Tate property are 90% brick. The previous plans approved a 6-ft powdercoated aluminum fence along Tate Lane. The plan approved a 15t landscape buffer. There was no mention of a security wall. While these features are a departure from the open pastoral settings we've cherish, we reluctantly agree to the idea that some version of a compromise was coming for this community. That compromise hoped to preserve some of the visual harmony of the neighborhood aesthetics and property values. At this point, the only levity I can find in comparing this development is comparing it to Cicas. It keeps coming back and we're never sure whether it's going to be better or worse than the last time. Respectfully, I'd ask that the commission honor the plans that were previously proposed and approved. No mention of a security wall has been really presented or justified. Maintain the six-foot powdercoated fence along Tate Lane. Maintain the 15- ft landscape buffer. Require the 90% construction to be consistent with the architectural character that was presented originally. Preserving these commitments is not only a matter of design. It's a matter of community trust, equity, and long-term value for all the residents, both

existing and new. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any additional citizen comments this time? My name is Jim Hunter. I live at 1478 Tate Lane. I'm here to speak on the uh number 108. Uh have no problem with the development. I do have a problem with the wall. I think it's inconsistent with uh I don't think people move to the country to look at a concrete wall. U I've expressed the same to builder. I'm not uh I also think that since the development is part of the city, it should have a road into the city uh not just down Tate Lane. Uh, furthermore, there are times when things get stuck going over the railroad tracks, a truck or something like that, you could easily block it. Uh, I don't know if it'll be school buses coming up there or not, whatever the case is, but you need another access into there. Uh, I would go back to the original regarding the wall and the buffer. And I appreciate y'all listening. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time? Seeing no additional citizen comments, we'll move forward with our next item on the agenda. And next item is our minutes approval. Uh item 5A is to adopt the minutes from the April 17th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Any errors, typos, adjustments, amendments? Seeing none, looking for a motion in regards item on our agenda. Make a motion to approve. That's a motion. Second and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against. Abstensions. So

approved. Next item up on our agenda falls underneath our consent agenda. We'll begin with item 6A. Uh sewer letter of credit number 55110653 for Enclave at Providence Central in the amount of $120,619.50 can be released. The sewer letter of credit or item 6B, sewer letter of credit number 700000 5284 for Winfield phase 4 in the amount of $131,724 can be released. Item 6 C, review the final plat for Bender Cove phase 1 located off Bender Ferry Road. Item 6E, review the site plan for Legacy 5 MO located at 113 Bear Crossing. Item 6F, review the final master development plan for Silver Springs phase 8 through 13 located on Karen Drive. Item 6G, review the preliminary plat for Silver Springs, phase 8 through 13, located on Karen Drive. Item 6H, review the final plat for the property located at 615 Rutland Drive. Item 6 I, review, which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. It is to review the annexation request including a plan of services for South Green Hill Road from near map 053 parcel 152.00 to near map 053 parcel 153.00. Item 6J uh which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners a zoning ordinance amendment dash or 6-102A uses in commercial and mixed used districts. That being said, we'll start off uh with planning. Any comments regarding the items on the consent agenda? I would just like to say um staff recommends approval or positive

recommendation with all the conditions listed. Um we removed the plaid off the agenda off the consent agenda. I had some comments on that but I'll wait until we get to it. So staff recommends approval with the conditions listed. Thank you. Wow. Thank you. Shane public works. Same thing as John. Wonderful. Thank you guys. I know that we were presented uh um some new information on the uh review the roadway and rightway annexation South Green Hill. What uh just what's the difference between the two? I had the wrong road in the narrative. Yep. Definitely want to make sure we capture that. Yeah, I would say so. Questions or comments from the commission at this time? Seeing none, I have a couple of minor questions myself. Um item 6 C which is the final platform for Benders Cove phase one located Bender Ferry Road. Um I think this is going to get them where they can begin to pull building permits. Um but my question on that is did we put a condition on them that they can pull permits but no COS until the Bender Ferry Road is complete and we still have that marked and they're going to still be aware of that? Yes. Perfect. Um, my other one was 6E. Uh, review the site plan for Legacy 5 MO located at 113 Bear Crossing. Um, let me pull my plan out here. Um, I just wanted to see some additional uh crosswalks and stop signs. Um, and painting on that site plan. Let me pull it out here real quick. some notes on my plan. Just a couple of them. Uh just to to note to get on the record, uh the I guess would be considered the southeast

entrance over where the proposed dumpster is. Um you're going to have future connectivity to the lot uh directly there to the south. Um and you have a sidewalk termination point at that triangle um just north of that uh that entrance right there. And so we just like to see some crosswalks or kind of control that future cross access that's going to happen between these three lots over there. Um particularly as the sidewalks come into unison and so that we create some walkability between these sites. Um that was the main one that I had. Um but could probably be do another crosswalk at the entrance up there for bear crossing. Uh because we again we show uh sidewalks uh on bear crossing and we show sidewalks on internally on the site. They all match up. I'm just not seeing anything on the site. Um and possibly the same up at the north entrance of that. So just those three points of uh of cross access where you have sidewalks, just some additional striping. Um maybe placement of stop signs just because I'm not seeing that uh noted on their plan. anywhere so we control that cross access because I imagine at some point the rear of these lots could be fairly busy and just make sure we get pedestrian traffic that's mixing in with automotive traffic safely coordinated through those areas was my comment on that one may be it and on 6i uh which is the uh the annexation uh out there we've had all the rightway donated to us for that, right? So, no purchasing a rightaway. We're we're good with with the dedication of the rightway in those sections. The the only the intention of that item is to bring that portion of the roadway into the city limit so they

can construct the uh the sidewalk with the multi-use path in accordance with city roads and the put. So, I know we're going to take on a pretty big storm drain that crosses that section when we annex that. we prepared to take care of the maintenance and uh and cleaning up of that because I know that's been a problematic uh um storm drain I guess would be a nice way to put that one. Uh tendency to clog up, tendency to hold water than push it at different flows downstream. So we're ready to take on all that with the storm water utility. We've got the the manpower and the equipment to do it. Fabulous. That's all I have. Any further questions, comments? At this time, we'll take citizen comments regarding any item on the consent agenda. Anyone wishing to make comment uh is welcome to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments uh at this time, I need to close the planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. The public hearing is in regards to items 6 C, 6H, and 6 I. 6 C is to review the final plat for Bender Cove phase 1 located off Bender Ferry Road. Item 6H is to review the final plat for the property located at 615 Rutland Drive. Item 6 I is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners to review the annexation request including a plan of services for South Green Hill Road from near map053 parcel 152.00 to near map 053 parcel 153.00. Anyone wishing to comment about any of those items during the public hearing, welcome to encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll close our public hearing, reopen our planning commission meeting, and at which time I'm looking for a motion in regards to these items on our agenda.

I'll make a motion to approve with all staff conditions, including your comments. Very well. Thank you. It's a motion and a second and that would include positive recommendations on the staff items. Second hold. Very well. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. So approved. Our next item up on the agenda uh is going to be item 6D, which is to review the final plat for Mount Juliet Church of Christ located 1940 North Mount Juliet Road. We'll begin uh planning. any uh comments in regards to this item? Um, so a big part of this uh plat was to get the uh public access easement established for the greenway trail across the south side of this. Uh the plat does does have that 20 ft wide. Um and it extends across the width of their property from Mount Julie Road west. Um the rest of the plat they're consolidating two lots into one basically. And the other big part of this is the rightway abandonment for Second Avenue that kind of runs through the middle of this property. And with that rightway abandonment, it has to go to the board of commissioners. So this is a forwarding. You got to forward this to the that to the board of commissioners. It's a final plat, but they got to review it for the uh rightway abandonment. Um there's a handful of minor errors in it. Um things like uh they have two lots labeled as lot two. It should be one two three. It's one two two. Um but that's that's about it as far as planning uh you know issues with it. They're minor uh can be addressed before we get signatures. Um so staff does recommend forwarding it to the board of commissioners because of the rightway

abandonment. Thank you. Shane, anything from public works? Uh, nothing additional. Very well. Commissioner Giles, I think you had some comments on this one. Do we have representation present tonight for this project, please? Okay, good. Good. May have a few questions here real quick. So, name and address for the record, please. My name is Tim Martin. Want the address of the church or my home address? Either which one you want to give us. Both church. Perfect. Thank you. Perfect. Um, the reason I pulled this from the consent agenda, I want to explain some things. I want people in the audience to hear a little history of of a situation here. So, many years ago, prior to me being on the commission years ago and the planning commission, apparently we uh abandoned the city, abandoned that bridge. And for those of you who've been here longer than me, make sure that I'm saying this correctly. And apparently at that time that bridge, for those of you in Mount who remember going across the bridge, that was the way we went across the bridge for years, then we would still do that. That bridge was abandoned and and um and we we couldn't go across it. So when the development uh came, the potential development about 200 18 maybe. Uh, does that sound right, Luke? Yes, sir. called the the district. Uh, those developers had agreed to install the the greenway, which would be on the north side of the creek property owned by the Church of Christ. And I've always commented and and thanked y'all, and I will again publicly. I always have, and you're a lot in this community, and we appreciate

you. Um, I brought this up what, four months ago, whenever it was when after I got back on the board and would they would the Church of Christ give us the rightway for that greenway that was supposed to be coming the original plans of that dis quote district that subdivision they were supposed to ne negotiate with the Church of Christ and get that rideway. They were going to build the greenway and etc etc. So, I don't remember if it was you or whoever was here knew nothing about this when I brought it up because since this was going to be recorded, what better time to go on and get the rideway recorded at one time when they go. So, uh it was deferred and apparently they've been a lot of conversations with the city and the Church of Christ and and y'all have graciously said that you would would give us this. So, I would have been fine with this tonight without even bringing this back except saying thank you again. But about two months ago, I was in discussion with someone in the city about this bridge because the way that the law is most of the time is that if you abandon something, the the adjacent property owners own a portion of that bridge. So, we're trying to figure out which property owner owns whatever. But I was told that it looked like because of the the the maps, the um GS what's it called? The GIS. Yeah, GIS maps that the rightway was still belonged still to the city. So being ecstatic about it, I actually told people that. Then this week I read an email where it said we really don't know. So, if we really don't know, how would anybody else know that's adjacent to this bridge? So, then I see

that this is coming and I just learned and saw that email two days ago. So since this is coming before the body tonight, my question is in case we don't own the bridge, in case it never got recorded, in case whatever the law was in 2010 or 8 or 12 or whenever it was, would the Church of Christ donate that section of the bridge, which is truly the rightway of that greenway because it's going to come through there, to the city as well. though that if we in actuality don't own the right away of the bridge, we do have that section as we continue. The terminology in this says that you are dedicating and and so that is that is finite. It will be for sure when it's recorded that would be ours. Correct. That that um that access correct okay we understand it to be an easement not a rightway. Yes. Right. Right. The easement. I'm sorry. And then later on in here it it says that the district may construct and my question they may and they may not. That's not been approved. But whether they do or whether they don't it that easement will still remain. Correct. Okay. Would the church of Christ be willing to dedicate if you own a quarter of that bridge? Who knows yet? If we find out that you do, would you all donate that to us so that we can put a greenway across there? The the attorney has the terminology. I just met with her a while ago because this has come to fruition. So would you read read that? A suggested terminology would be should

it be determined that the section of the bridge located in the southeast corner of the property is owned by the Mount Juliet Church of Christ owner agrees to dedicate said portion to the city. I think we certainly would be. I'm not of a level to be signatory to that, but we would certainly work with you to do that because to be honest with you, we don't want to own a part of that bridge because when somebody falls off of it, they're going to sue us. And so I think we would be amanable to that, but I'm not I can't speak to that without talking to my elders first, but there's no reason we wouldn't that I can think of. We we can make it a condition and then if they aren't agreeable, then they come back. Yeah. Because it has to go to the the BOC anyway. Yeah. If she can get if you can get me that information very quickly if there's something we need to sign for that, we would like to do that because we would like to keep this ball rolling on getting this settled. Absolutely. And I'm sorry I had to bring this up. It really was. We were talking about that earlier, right? We don't have any reason to want that bridge. I mean, it's in flood pl flood way as a matter of fact. So, yeah, if if the city attorney can get us that document that we can sign, can we do it something simple like Indeed or by without having to do a plat and all that kind of we would just change it on the plat. Okay. Yep. We're sorry, not we. You guys would change it on the plat. Yes. Our surveyors here too, we can handle that. You could do that, too. you we can get it approved to have a condition when we get signatur we've got some corrections to make anyway right yes exactly yes thank you so much I'm sorry again that I have you bring this up it's no problem and we appreciate you being and saying thank you for the easement over there perfect and just one clarification item back for staff we on my agenda it's not showing as a recommendation item this is a recommendation item to the board of commissioners okay perfect do we need to make vote on that. Just include it in the motion if you do. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Any uh further questions, comments in regards to this item on our agenda? Seeing none, at this time, we'll call for assistant comments. Any assistants wish to make comments in regards to this item on the agenda, welcome to encourage to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments in regards to this item, we do need to close the planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. The public hearing is in regards to item 6D, which is to review the final plat for Mount Juliet Church of Christ located 1940 North Mount Juliet Road. Anyone wishing to make comment during the public hearing is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please go to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll close the public hearing, reopen the planning commission meeting, and at which time I am looking for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. It's a motion. Would you like to include include the the um the condition and all of the staff's uh comments and the addition of the city attorneys? Yes. Very well. That's a motion. Second and a second. And that is a positive recommendation. Correct. Commissioner. Yes, sir. Second stands. It's a motion in a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. It is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our uh agenda falls underneath the reszone. That's item 7A, which is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners to re review the reszone request from RS40 to AR40 for 718 Monttoello Drive. Mr. Bobin, and this is another recommendation item to the board of commissioners. This is uh 15 12 acres on Monttoello Drive and all they're just asking for a reszone from RS40 to AR40 which is the A low density residential.

It's basic it's similar to RS40 except you're allowed to keep animals like horses things like that. Um which is I think the intent of this their intent. Um so the land use plan supports it. Uh meets all the findings in the zoning code. So staff recommends approval uh affording an approval recommendation to board of commissioners. Thank you. Thank you Shane. Anything from public works on this one? No sir. Very well. Questions or comments from the commissioner. Seeing none at this time would like to call for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make comments? Welcome encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion for a positive recommendation. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. Excuse me. That is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda falls under a site plans. It is to review the site plan for Jam Enterprises LLC located at 15239 Lebanon Road. Begin with planning, Miss Johnson. Hello. Um, this project u was sent to us. It is a commercial door installation and repair company. They are wanting to place a two-story 9,770 ft building on a shared lot with Vintage Wine and Spirits, which is down in the shallow area at the base of Lebanon Road. Um, it's currently zone CG, which is allowed by Wright. The um height is 56 at its highest structural point. However, it does not exceed the 35 foot recommendation or maximum of inhabitable space. So they do meet that recommendation or that requirement under

the zoning code. Um the bulk regs are within range. Um the access will be shared via an access drive with vintage wine. Um that is shown on the plat. The parking they have 47 spaces that are required. They have 38 on site and there is 15 additional spaces that will be via joint shared agreement with vintage wine as well. Um the commercial design guidelines show the uh requires 100% masonry. They are requesting a waiver um for a portion of this. Currently the plant as shown has 73% masonry, 27% metal panels. The HVAC is ground mounted and will be screened with masonry to um match the dumpster on site. Um as stated above, they do have a few waivers. Um they are requesting a waiver from the sidewalk that is going to be required along the roadway rightway. Uh secondary materials they're requesting a waiver of up to 50% per secondary. And then on number three on the waiver that is no longer required as shown on our staff report because the applicant corrected the 35 ft inhabitable space. So please disregard that third waiver on there. Um all of our conditions are the typical ones you see. Uh a few that are outside of that is the proposed fencing detail. Um we're requesting it to be low maintenance and opaque. The final plat um we just want to make sure that it does show and establish the lot and the easements for the parking and the drive. Um we've also requested a revision of the phototric because the rear of the lot backs up to some Wilson County residential. So they have to have the zero candle at that point and then also the uh sidewalk as required under the zoning code to the roadway. Um staff recommends a approval of the site plan with the conditions as noted and if there's any waiverss approved by the planning commission as well.

Shane public works. Uh we recommend approval with or comments as listed. There's two I do want to touch on. The first one is that this development has requested sewer availability, but it is not in the best interest of Mount Juliet to serve this project due to its proximity and infrastructure that Metro already has in that area. So, uh, we're still processing the paperwork, but we will be not serving the city will not serve this development and we'll let them go to Metro for sewer service. And um I'm gonna let Todd talk about the front the project's uh sidewalk along the frontage. Very well. Todd, please. Yeah, this um this project is requesting to wave the requirement to install sidewalks along their frontage on Lebanon Road. Uh I support that request. As much as I hate doing that with sidewalks, um got a couple tonight actually that are doing that. The reasoning being with this section of Lebanon Road being squeezed up against the creek like it is, construction of this sidewalk would actually be quite a undertaking. Um certainly outside the expected uh contribution from any one particular project. We're talking retaining walls in the stream buffer. Um, so the the juice isn't really worth the squeeze in this section of Lebanon Road, unfortunately. Um, that's going to have to be a city, state cooperative, um, last phase of our Lebanon Road sidewalk project. Um, as far as sidewalk to the development, uh, internally to the site, they're attempting to to make that

connection via the existing sidewalk along the the vintage wine and spirits. Um, kind of a cross connection up their driveway, but but they are providing some pedestrian access in between the sites. Shane has more comments, please. Last thing, where the sidewalk would be going, they would also be in the flood plane and it's zone A through there. And any type of excavation, even sitting the equipment and moving one bucket of dirt to get the sidewalk in would require FEMA approval. getting a Clomar Lomar it would like you said don't it's not worth the worth the juice coming out of the orange for this sidewalk so that's another reason on our support of the waiver I can remember this uh I I was wondering when I saw that because I thought this came in as a three lot pud many years ago this was three lot base zone that we approved this is that correct so it was never a pud cuz I think we initially approved this what probably 12 years ago or more. Okay. But I remember the same we got to the same determination. Matter of fact, Commissioner Giles was serving with me on planning commission if I'm not mistaken when we saw this and we we had the same issue with the sidewalk as Vintage Wine. um did their proposed building up there and u we granted the same waiver uh for them uh during that time specifically for the reasons that Todd and and both Shane uh stated. We've granted it once before previously as far as that sidewalk waiver due to the same conditions out there. Uh that very very difficult section to try

to drop a sidewalk in because of the guard rail, because of the flood zone, uh because of the topo uh that happens out there. Uh there were multiple reasons why we ended up doing that one at that time. But and correct me if I'm wrong, there is one more lot remain remaining back in there. Is that right? Cuz I thought this was maybe Yeah, adjacent right there in front of this lot and I guess to the east of the liquor store to the south of this proposal currently the way it stands, it's all one lot. It is all one lot. Okay. Maybe as we just looked at as a whole, but it shows three uh three separate I think the original intent back in 2012 was to separate it into three lots, but that never came to fruition. So, it's still currently just the shared lot. Okay. Very well. That being said, uh, questions, comments from the commission, Commissioner J. Um, Oh, please. I was just going to mention we've already got a submitt for the plat for this to split it into two lots for next month. So, Okay. So, that has been several several years. So, I can't remember if I voted for this, which I doubt very seriously that I did. Um, and I don't think that our ordinance was passed at the time that required the sidewalk on both sides. Can anybody help me remember that? We had we had the ordinance. Well, not both sides of the subdivision, but we had the sidewalk ordinance in the in the um and No, I don't think you voted for I probably didn't. My question now about it, because obviously I probably won't vote for it again. Uh my question is why can't the sidewalk be moved north so that you're not in the flood

plane address that I mean a lot of sidewalks sometimes just like we've done for example over on Bender's Ferry in an area the builder put it over in instead of the rightway of the the road they put it over in their land so that in their their common ground or whatever. so that they could have a sidewalk. Why can't we do that there? It's what? It require multiple stream crossings to make it accessible to everyone. Okay. It's it's a small. Okay. Right. And I can see that over here. So the ingress and egress is from it's not from it's it's from that goes through the parking lot of the church. Is that correct? Correct. and vintage spirits. Yeah. Okay. So, vintage spirits whether I don't know if they got permission if they've got something written that grants them them. I remember at the time because that church was a client of mine. So, I remembered at the time that that that was a question that that they would allow them to do it. Now, whether that was written agreement or not, my question this time, has this business got written agreement that they can use that drive? That's a private drive of the church, not public. Is that correct? First, let me give my name. Yep, there you go. Neil Hall, Parad Design, 145 Bear Crossing, Mount Juliet, uh representing the owners. Uh the the access that Vintage Wine has, I believe, is theirs. Now, they have cross access to the church. Okay. I believe it is. And then that access there is an access easement to this lot to the to the project light uh lot. So um we would be just you know vehicular access. We

are trying to connect pedestrian as um Shane or Todd once said, you know, we're connecting with a crosswalk and um kind of doing the best we can there um for to keep some pedestrian access, but uh going along frontage or even going north, it'd be a huge span to cross uh at least at least a 60 ft buffer there. If I recall too, when we initially approved this, as Miss Johnson was saying, there was three proposed three proposed structures on this one lot. Um, that that access easement was already there, but during that time, that access easement was via the Aldi grocery store when Aldi was there, predates the church. And that access came from when it was a grocery store strip center and not a church at that point in time. And we didn't close it because we felt like we gave this project i.e. the liquor store now and then this one here their access there. But we chose not to close that access at the time being a grocery store in public. We felt like it was going to good cross activity. But who would have known that it was going to a church would buy a retail strip center? Um and so when we initially did approve this, it was it was just a grocery store and retail strip center with chicken reel. Miss them uh over over there uh in that one. And uh and the grocery store was still there when we actually approved this. The church owned that when we approved this 2012. Yes. Really? Yes. Because they knew about that. about them using their their drive. Yeah. So, they may have owned it and not

been had not moved in yet at that point. Well, I don't know. Yeah. I remember when the church came through, I was on staff and it was after Vintage Wine because I wasn't on staff then. Well, I remember they had to that was that was a something that they had to either negotiate or think about or whatever. Yeah. So, I don't know. Further questions? The the the request for the sidewalk uh waiver is not just because they don't want to do it. It's just because it's would be extremely difficult. I'm not saying it's not possible. Yeah, it's possible. Anything's possible with enough money. Further questions, comments from the commission? Yeah, please. Commissioner Georgia. No, I I completely agree. I don't think a sidewalk is is justified there. I don't think we need one long-term for city impact when this needs to be repaired. That's going to be on the taxpayers's dime. It's going to be a sidewalk, but I'd argue it's probably not going to be utilized. So, um I agree with staff on this one. I don't think we need a sidewalk there. It just doesn't make sense and the it's not worth paying the money to have to do that much, not to mention getting federal government involved. So, thank you. Further questions, comments. Thank you, Neil. Uh, this time, let's uh open the floor for assistant comments. Any citizens wishing to make comment are welcome, encouraged to do so. Uh, please come to the microphone and name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. Like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. I'll make a motion to approve with approving the variance to not fill the sidewalk. Subject to staff comments. Subject to staff

comotion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I raising your hand. I I against abstensions. So approved. Next item up uh on our agenda still remains underneath site plans. It's item 8B, which is to review the site plan for Boho Beauty located at 330 West Division Street. Miss Johnson, this submitt is um for a salon. The Boho Beauty currently resides next door adjacent just to the east at 258 West Division um and a strip mall. Um they currently share with an insurance agency. The intent is to build the salon. It's approximately a one-story 3,921 square foot. Um they are currently zoned CTC which does allow this use by right. Um they abut um zoning of the railroad and then to the due north of RS40, so low density residential commercial town center to the east and south and then RS20 um to the due west which is the Eagle Park that is owned by the city. Um they do meet all the bulk regulations. The overall building height is 24 feet. So it's well within the uh confines of the 35 ft maximum. They do have two outlets of access. Um one is on West Division that will be for ingress egress and then an egress only on 4th Avenue. They do have drive aisles that are only one way around the building. Um they have requested a sidewalk waiver for their Fourth Avenue area. Um the planning and zoning department does not support that waiver at this time. They also um have excessive parking. Um there are only 24 spots required. They are requesting 48. So it's double the amount of parking. So it's really pushing the impervious surface ratios. Um the

commercial design guidelines, they are not requesting any waiverss. They are going to do 100% masonry product. Um the HVAC is roof mounted and will be screened via parapit wall. Um there is a small typo error in the um staff report on the dumpster. We have requested them to move it to the northwest corner. It says northeast. So I apologize for that error, but it has been requested to move in that northwest corner up there ab budding 4th Avenue. Um and again the only waiver that they are requesting is to uh wave the requirement for the sidewalk along the 4th Avenue side of their property. Um staff recommends approval of the site plan um with the conditions that we've listed and any waiverss as approved by the planning commission. Uh we recommend approval of this pro of this development with our comments. Um we do we do support the waiver of omitting the sidewalk along 4th Avenue and I'll let Todd talk about that. Yeah, I'm coming off real anti- Sidewalk tonight, and I hate that for me. Um, the reason for this one I feel less passionately about than the last one. Um, because quite honestly, this would be a very easy place to build that sidewalk. However, um, there's two things going on to the north of here that are worth considering when you're weighing this waiver. The first one is the rail crossing. If the sidewalk ever connects north, we will be responsible for building that rail crossing and that is expensive. And the second is the geometry of 4th Avenue north of the rail crossing. It's 14 15 ft wide, no sidewalks on either side. Um, and that's unlikely to change uh without essentially that entire neighborhood

redeveloping. Um, so the likelihood of this sidewalk carrying north is is slim. Um, which is why we would support not building this section because we doubt it would ever connect. But this one's up to you. I mean, they're all up to you. But questions, comments on the question. Turn my mic back on, please. Commissioner George, I I reached out to Shane and Todd today and had a little conversation about the sidewalk. And my goal was to try to make the sidewalk useful. And after talking more with them, I came to the same conclusion they did that there's really no use for it. It's it's just putting concrete down that the city's going to have to use taxpayer money to to fix along the way. It's not going to serve any type of purpose. So, um, appreciate Shane and Todd hopping on the phone this morning and and chatting about that. But uh I I do agree that we should give that waiver. Commissioner Jones, would that sidewalk connect to any other? Uh it would tie into the Division Street Greenway, right? Uh but it would not connect to any parcel north. And since we don't have a crystal ball and we really can't see the future of that development up in the old part of town, we really don't know. We and actually people do go down sidewalks from other sidewalks and you've got a heavy amount of traffic in that area and that sidewalk could serve for a place for like mothers with the the the the strollers to get out of the way of some of the other people walking to do whatever they need to to go on down the greenway. I feel like that it is needed. So obviously I'm not going to support this if you don't put that sidewalk in there. So, I mean, we if you go back to when we started the sidewalk ordinance and

started getting sidewalks in this city, I've had so many people say that sidewalk's going to nowhere. It's just a piece of sidewalk out there. And look at 20 years later or whatever, how the connectivity of the sidewalks have have come. I've heard so much about that sidewalk up there in front of that that um uh uh up there next to the interstate where you had the mattress store. Who would want that? who were there and it connected years later. You look over on Clemens, there's a sidewalk right there and there's not anywhere else. Someone's built a fence in front of of it down there like that. But, you know, someday that will connect. I had somebody call and complain that we put a sidewalk out there and that person's probably never walked that sidewalk, but it was just because he didn't like looking at it, but he didn't have the foresight to think about the future. So, I think we're we're we're really this is this is totally wrong. We need to put that sidewalk in. Thank you. Further questions, comments? Commissioner Rash, just a question on the number of parking spaces. Does that seem I mean seems like overkill and did we talk to the applicant? I mean, during design, maybe turn that into green space or something else. Let's go ahead and we did express our concerns that that does seem like an excessive amount. Um even with the use that's double the amount that is required um per city code and of course we like to try to avoid having excessive parking parking lots because it's just not conducive to the yeah the impervious conducive to the overall aesthetics to the city. Um, we expressed our concerns and the, uh, owner of the property wants to move forward with the requested parking at 48 spaces. Let's go ahead and ask for representation as well uh, to help Commissioner Rash with this question and name and address for the record, please.

Jake Porter, Heritage Civil, 2055 North Mount Juliet Road. Just a question about the number of parking spaces. Is there there a reason behind it? Just to fill in the space or uh No, definitely not just to fill the space in. Um the owner and the developer of the property is here also. Um and she can probably give a little bit more insight to it, but during business hours um they have 24 to 30 people at a given time that could be there. Um, but they also will have like um, and pardon me for not ever knowing what these are, but popup I say pop-up shops or popup parties or something in the evenings uh, basically an event or something. Um, that their building capacity does support that would require more parking. Um, they're currently in the the building directly next door. And I know y'all have been by this property a thousand times like I have and see the the temporary paved area that's actually on her property now. um was because the building next door is underparked per the code or it's parked correctly per code but underparked for the uses that are in it. So we're trying to uh alleviate that piece of it but also um again understand doubling the code is usually excessive but um we do meet all the storm water ordinance the pond will reduce peak flows and and water qualities everything's taken care of on site uh for this property and uh we we do see that it is uh needed for this potential use. Okay. I'm I'm just a little biased in this area. I'm pretty fond of it and like it's looking very strip mallish when it was very quiet and peaceful next there at Eagle Park and everything. So, just looking for a little bit more landscaping. I understand what you're saying though. I was going to kind of piggy back my question back for staff. If we go under condition four to move that dumpster over there, it puts it right up next to Eagle Park and kind of a greenway head right there instead of tuck back there center on the property. I would agree

with some landscaping, but I don't know if we'd really want that dumpster sitting right there at the corner of Fourth Avenue. [Music] The recommendation was because of the one-way drive around the building, there's not a lot of accessibility for vehicular movement there with that and if you've got a dumpster in there trying to pull out right smack dab in the middle of the parking lot, it was just not going to be conducive to the flow around the building. So, that was just the thought process to try and just move it out of the way instead of just right in the middle of the parking lot. I'd rather keep it where it's at. Yeah. Yeah. I'm kind of kind of there as well. Chairman, just please just to piggyback on the concern there. We do have truck turn templates for the um Juliet's fire department, the fire, the largest fire vehicle as well as the dumpster loading trucks. Um and they can make all the turns around the building. That is why that little um space is a little bit wider right there. Meets that full piece. And uh we we will there's a the arrow on the the painted arrow striped there on the ground is a little bit further back. We'll pull that out again to make it apparent that it's a one way around the building. Um, and that dumpster truck is it would be designed so it's coming around the building and going south back to division. So, it does not need to be accessing uh Fourth Avenue at all. One of the things that really stood out to me that I liked as I looked at this plan initially was the one-way traffic throughout the throughout the site and the angled parking uh as well. uh trying to at least minimalize the traffic at the uh entrance point on the west division and uh put them more to an intersection which would be fourth and uh and division over there uh more of a traditional per se intersection. Let me ask staff or or Shane, this probably falls underneath public works. Do we have uh crosswalk striping on 4th Avenue right there? Yes, we do have curtain striping right now. I can't meant to

look at it. Every time I drove past that also there the striping is from the existing sidewalk on division crossing division and that's where the greenway starts and we got it right there across fourth from this property. Yes. To that side. I say I'm I'm with Commissioner George over here that I don't I don't foresee us going there. I really I know that Commissioner Giles said that uh it could develop that area over there. I'm one that really hopes that it never develops because if Mount Juliet itself has a quote unquote historic district, um it is that area right there. Um I know as long as I would be sitting on this commission that somebody have a real struggle with me to do anything in that that corridor right there. um just because of the age of the houses, the historic nature of those houses, the accessibility back to the uh to the funeral home back there. Um I think some of our most beautiful homes lie within that one little area back there. So be a darn shame. Um I think it'd be fought pretty hard over there. And and then I know that those neighbors um especially as we were doing some of our construction projects really fought because it used to be a people would try to cut through that neighborhood to get back out right there next to the um medical office uh over here in the old chamber of commerce building uh as a school cut through at one time and kind of hindered that. But it's only a kind of a 15 foot uh Shane said and Todd said I think a 15oot road there. nice if the city could eventually do something in there, but I don't even know that there's rightways or I guess we need to widen the road really so that vehicle traffic can get through there safer so that before we address pedestrian traffic um kind of in my opinion but um yeah, further

questions, comments? Mors, please, please, please. I sit in a meeting about two months ago with a proposal to actually put a commercial building over there. And matter of fact, it was the city hall and uh that is actually still under consideration in that area uh when we get our assessment back. That is one of the properties and it may not deem one of those places. So unfortunately fortunately I don't know how you know we don't know how anybody's going to vote and all that when it comes up if we do that etc etc uh but it is being looked at so that's why I think eventually fortunately or unfortunately that will be developed so that's you know and that was as recent as y'all remember two months ago maybe I hope y'all don't put a seat call over here. Further questions, comments from the commission. Thank you. This time, let's call for citizen comments regards this item on the agenda. Any citizens wishing to make comment are welcome, encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. I'll make a motion to approve accepting the waiver for no sidewalk and maintaining the dumpster where it is on the plan submitted as well as any staff comments. Second. Are we maintaining the uh reduction back to code of only 24 spaces? Uh no, I'll approve the waiver for the spaces. I think they're needed. Very well. Second. Have a second. Stand. Yes. Got a motion and a second. All those in

favor signify by say nine. Raise your hand. I I against abstensions. So approved. Next item up on our agenda is a falls underneath mass grading is to review the mass grading plan for the reserve at Tate Lane located on Tate Lane. Mr. Buffin, I'll actually defer to public works on this item. I don't have much to say. Very well. Thank you, Shane. I will say it is peculiar to see a masquerading plan come in with the PUD. Um, but with looking at looking at these on a case- by case basis, there was a previously approved PUD. There's nominal changes to the previously approved HUD when it comes through now. Um the only thing that we ask if you guys do approve that development or this mass guarding portion of the pud uh we just we want to analyze cars features as they show up on the property and we'll review the uh the drainage report at at the masquerading plan review to ensure that they meet uh TD deck requirements. Um those would be comments number one and two along with any uh comments about uh EPSC and any existing buffers which would be comment number three. Uh but with that as long as those conditions are are maintained in the mass grading set number one, two and three uh we recommend approval. Very well. Thank you. questions, comments from the comm uh commission at this time. I want to say uh thank you real quick uh

to both planning and public works because you piggyback one of my constant comments is uh in regards to your erosion control measures and whatnot getting them out of buffers, pushing them away, try to preserve those areas that we're considering buffers here and uh uh the accidental removal of vegetation uh because we put our erosion control measures in those areas. uh prevents that by including comments that prevent those erosion control from getting into uh said buffer. So, thank you guys for including that comment from a staff level back out. So, Todd, you had some comments, please? Uh my only comment is uh I'd ask that this vote be contingent on the PUD because there's a real good chance that some of this grading is about to change. I will please. I'm just saying there. Okay, perfect. Very well. Would this be u masquerading with the connection road? We I'd like we'd like to talk about that when the pud come is up for discussion. All right. We'll address that. So, that's my business. Yeah. Yeah. And this is uh uh that's a a great point Commissioner Rash just shared just uh as Shane just spoke of there. He's got some additional comments, but the comments are reserved uh for preliminary master development plan when it's presented on down the agenda, not necessarily at the time of mass grading. So as we're seeing land use plans, we hold uh hold comments for when we see uh see the plan itself there. So kind of the same scenario except this is just mass grading only. So that being said, uh let's call for assistant comments regards this item on the agenda. Any senses wish to make comment or welcome encourage to do so. Come to the microphone and name and address for the record.

I'm not 100% sure since Name and address for the record, please. Joe Waznjak, 211 Paul Drive. Thank you. So, I don't know if it this is where I need to say it, but uh I'm concerned with storm water runoff from my property at 211. I'm surrounded by four houses plus my own that all slope to the back right hand corner from Paul Drive that run right at that little bit that's touches that property. And it's been that way for 42 years since I've lived here. So, I just want to make sure that the water that collects water that from a storm runs across my property has someplace to go. Well, that it's going to be contained within the development. It's going to be what is is that your question is is whether or not it would be No, I don't need a lake on my back property line because that and the other thing is when they did the development on Grady's property, they put a 4ft BM on the back of the property that faces us and the water from the two houses to my left on the back side of them now run to my property to go off on that corner. Pardon me. Yeah. And when you get any kind of heavy rain, if they say it's one to two inches of rain, I've got a lot of storm water coming across my property. So, I just want to make sure it's got someplace to go if we're talking about tail lane because it gets muddy back in that corner between Linda's property and that little piece that runs all the way down along there where the wood line is. So, I don't know what's in the plan for that, but just I wanted to bring it up to make sure somebody's aware of it because we're on the other side of it, but the water got to go somewhere. Very well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you,

Joan Gilner 1409 Tate Lane again. Um, and just to piggyback on what he said, I remember when we had these discussions before, there was great concern about the drainage on due west that we don't configure the Linhaven 3 such that the drainage gets worse on due west. Anything done on tape estates needs to be consistent and not exacerbate problems elsewhere I think is what everybody's saying. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional questions, comments? See no additional uh assistant comments at this time. Like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. I'll make a motion to approve. Subject to the approval of the PMDP. Yep. Second that. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. So approved. Next item up on our uh agenda falls underneath 9B. Also a mass grading is to review the mass grading for Hamilton Reserve located at 12465 Lebanon Road. Shane uh speaking with honesty and peculiarities, this is I think only the second time I've seen a masquerading plan come in with a site plan. So I do want to preface that. Um, I can let the project representation speak to why they're bringing in the mass grading plan, but

if you so choose to approve it, u I've got the same three comments that I had on the last project about the remediation of cars features uh installation of EPSC measures outside of preserve landscaping buffers and u evaluating the report for drainage. to ensure uh it meets TD deck requirements sediment if sediment basins are proposed. Uh the project already has a this project has already been studied with regards to flood plane and we have and it was zoned a there's a lumber or letter of map revision that does classify the flood plane on this site. So comments four, five, and six are all stipulations within the flood plane ordinance that shall be followed if you if this plan is approved. And we'll analyze those when the masquerading construction set comes into uh comes in for review. Uh comment number seven is a coordination comment with the city project for the Lebanon Road sidewalks phase three that run from Naval to Green Hill High School. So any grading, we just want to make sure that that project is not impacted since it is with uh general fund money and grants. Outside of that, uh if you do choose to approve, we would like for this project to be approved with these comments. Thank you. Very well. Please, Commissioner George. Hey Shane, do you have any concern on us approving

or approving this without you seeing the plans? Talking about like a proposed site plan. Yeah. Um I feel a little apprehensive myself because we don't really know what we're looking at. My personal opinion if is that what you're asking about approving a masquerading without sight plan. I think it's like I said it's peculiar. It's odd but you as the board decide if they want to proceed with that or not. Like I said, I've only seen one other one since I've been here. Okay. Thank you. Representation. Yeah. Let's go ahead. Name and address for the record. Jake Porter, Heritage Civil, 2055 North Mount Jet Road. Um, so this project currently is not a commercial or residential or any specifically slated project. Um the purpose for this mass grading plan is there is a site across the street across the street that is going to have a massive amount of export material that we need to find a place to put and this stretch of the road would be an ideal place for something in the future. Um there's again there's nothing that is slated for this so we don't have an active site plan to present with this. Um, however, the purpose of the grading is to utilize that materials across the road um to fill this lot up to a um let's say acceptable level, but a a sellable feature as far as a flat pad. It would be a um I say beautifification, that's not the right word, but it will make it more buildable as far as the property, more more of a a cell for the future development of the property itself. Uh but again, ultimately the reason there's no layout is that we have uh another project across the road that is um under contract for this one to utilize it as a fill area uh to improve its its marketability for the owners. Is this property currently significantly below

the road grade? Yes, if you look at it, it is um and I can go through and get numbers. that drops off several feet from the road and then has a steady slope back down to the uh to the creek that's back there with the flood line. Okay. So, little bit of a concern personally if we're going to raise up the the middle of the property. Is that going to affect all of those homes on the left hand side? Is water going to then Sorry. No, the stream runs between those homes and our property. to know it will not affect those at all. Oh, I see it. Okay. Thank you. That's really faint. Is there a timeline for when you say you're going to use that pro uh fill material? Is there a timeline for fill material to settle in compact before it will be I I'll go back and restate it. Engineered fill. It will be compacted to um constructable measures. So, it'll be installed in I'm going throw numbers here. six inch lifts and compacted to certain compaction rates per the geotech recommendation at the time of construction. So, it won't just be dumped. It will not just be a fill like a landfill or a a big dump area with piles. It will be um filled from the ground up and it will be leveled out and flattened and compacted to standards. Jake, are you going to is the field going to be contained to between the creek and Lebanon Road or is your desire to get fill which I means that you're going to be taking your trucks and everything up marketplace to the back side of the creek? No, currently is the front the front portion from the creek forward. I'll say fort sorry from the creek towards Leven road is the area with which we're trying to fill. If if anything and this is going to come whenever we go through construction plan review with Shane and them um we'll have

to do we discuss with them no rise certifications cut fill compensation as far as in the flood plane the the storage volumes for water. Um there may be some cut that may happen on the backside but it will not it won't be on marketplace. Um, so we can put a condition that on it that just says no construction traffic on marketplace would basically prohibit your ability because you can't you're not going to cross a creek in a dump truck anyway. Correct. Or pay a major fine if you did. And again, staying on state routes is the ideal constructibility. Shane, please. Last comment I want to mention and I'm going to give Todd credit for this getting on the grading side as a excellent traffic engineer that he got before me. Um due to the utilities on the site, specifically West Wilson, um we will need to get their sign off them and West Wilson and Middle Tennessee Electric before we'll approve the plans. Gotcha. Commissioner Jones, please. when you were referring to the geotechnical supervision for better words. I think that's what you said. Yes, sir. So, what kind of records I mean do you keep those records that are reviewed by the city? Not that y'all would I'm just I'm trying to bring this. How do we know? I don't know if I remember a situation like this where it would be it would be compressed to it would be buildable pretty soon. I thought that was a good question down here. So, how do we how do we monitor that? How do we review that for accuracy? Which portion do we just take somebody's word, somebody's report that says this is what happened and and we do because it's stamp probably is a is that how we do it? Yeah. I don't want to answer for Shane, but at the construction process, yeah, there's a it won't be me, but there's a separate licensed geotechnical engineer who is on site watching compaction and does fill out and file for records or

reports that prove that those are them. And I could be wrong. I believe maybe the city also has inspectors that go out there and check those. They take the sample to see if it's exactly what they say. Is that We don't take the sample. we do uh within uh I'm trying to there's a code or a state law that does allow us to take third party inspectors stamped letters. So, they're putting their liability on the line if something would fail as acceptance of of that uh of that process. If they didn't compact and they just be shooting themselves in the foot with having to do a whole lot of work after the fact to make it buildable. When you talk about construction, I'm sorry. You'd have to dig it out. Yeah. Yeah. When you talk about when you bring the constructions plans, were you referring to the mass grading or were you referring to something else coming in the future? That this we're this would be a site plan mass grading plan for you all's vote and then we would turn them into the title changes to a construction document set that gets turned into the public works office for review. It's just a nomenclature at that point. I think question Mr. Rash. So just clarify what I'm seeing is it's just a place to it's an opportunity that you found to level out some property. Um get rid of some waste dirt that you have from another site and make this sailable. Um depending on the time between when you think you would, you know, develop it further, what kind of stabilization can you provide? Can you commit to to the code, state code, city code? Everything has Mount Julie has a 90% vegetated mandate before you're allowed to close out your permits. Um, as far as mass grading, it's seed and straw. It'll be grass. Um,

it won't, and again, it being directly on and adjacent to a jurisdictional stream or a TA jurisdictional stream. Um, we also have the state always constantly bringing down your necks every week to have inspections out there, too. So, um, yeah, that would be up on the forefront of my mind as far as giving my plans off to be constructed. I'm always, hey, this really is a sensitive area. Um and again back to the yes there are minimum requirements for those things but we typically try to get as much on there as we can that um to ensure that all the water that leaves that site is not contaminated by say contaminated but dirty water for you know your permitting and and monitoring of this is is greater than normal due to correct it that being one of three blue line streams in the city limits of Mount Jula if I'm not mistaken. Um, just one one more question. Where where are you going to put your construction entrance? Uh, currently shown on C20. Okay, I got it. But it's going off the state highway. Again, just back to staying off city streets is the most ideal for us. So, we don't have Please, Commissioner Session. I guess this is for you, Shane. um when they do this mass grading and they're raising the level, we're going to have an increased water flow. How is that going to affect the drain that's going behind the nursery, then behind the ham store and all the way to Speedway? Because that's a real dangerous area right there when it rains. Now, how how they going to control the the water there? It's a really good question. Um the natural

flow does go from west to east and ultimately be our job to ensure that they don't put any more water on the sites, okay, to their to their direct downstream neighbor. So I believe just want to check We would we would analyze the drainage report and if they they currently don't show sediment ponds but if those are needed to ensure that the runoff generated by the grading activities is equal to or greater than what it was before. Then they would have to provide the appropriate sediment ponds to keep the water in place. So we're not adding any more water. But that'll be a construction plan. In case increase water, they would have to do it, right? Oh, yes. Yes. But we we would analyze the report and make sure that that if they do add more water that it's being detained. Okay. I have a concern with that. Can I add to that, please? Commissioner Rice, just just to add to that, it's not really a question. I'm an engineer myself, but it's it's basically vegetative land now that's sloping down more towards creek and they're flattening it out. The difference between the runoff is marginal between the two vegetative lands. I mean, once

once they stabilize everything, it's not going to be much different than it is today. Marginal. It's when when you put in more impervious is when you really start to cause some problems and increase your or decrease your uh time of concentration is when it changes. Okay. Eventually they're going to do it on the over side too. Mhm. Right. Don't know. Yeah. I just I just find it concerning that we're we're talking about a mass grading plan was something that we don't have site plans to review. I mean, we just 10 minutes ago approved a mass grading on the condition that the PUD passed. So, I I'm seeing that if if we vote for this, we're kind of talking out of both sides of our mouth here. We're saying, okay, for one project, we need a PUD to approve the the mass grading needs to happen if the PUD approves, but for this one, we're just going to approve the mass grading. And I understand the situation you're in. You've got a lot of dirt you've got to haul off, but I I just don't think that this is a precedent that we need to set that we will allow mass grading plans to move forward without sight plans. It just seems like we're putting the cart before the horse. But that is just my humble opinion. Mr. Jones, when we're going to be we will monitor the water that Mr. Cersei is talking about. And what if what if not that I don't agree with what what you're saying and I'm not an engineer but what if after the fact it's not if if there's not something to control that show us during this grading process it would be after the fact there could be some destruction what do we do about that after it occurs are they lily are they liable for that you you see where I'm getting Mr. Mr. Cersei made a very very good point as

well as as Preston. That's I so I I don't you know we can monitor but what's going to happen when it's it's over. That's this gentleman right back here was talking about the water on on the other one and I mean what are we going to do? Stop it then? And then one of y'all brought up something about the sidewalk. Our our when is that? We talked about that at BPAC. When is that supposed to the construction of that supposed to start? Uh public works director was anticipating a notice to proceed from T dot so we could bid it this summer. Okay. So probably help you on the shotwalk because it'd be level land instead of something you got to put steel because of the slope. You're going to have to put a handrail across it. Sure. Just to again to reiterate everything that you've just spoken on is the front piece of a typical site plan as Commissioner Dorch mentioned. Um number one, this lot is um I'll put heavy air quotes on unbuildable as it sits. It's not the most ideal lot because it slopes down towards the creek as it does. It's below the road. So in order to get someone to potentially want to build on this land, it would need to be raised. If anyone here in the future comes in says, "We want to build right here." They have to go find this 40,000 45,000 cubic yards of dirt somewhere, purchase it, bring it to the land, bring it there, raise everything up just like we're talking about, and then continue on with their site plan. That is a massive cost to them in the future. The land that I say again, the deal that has been struck with the land owners is that uh the property across the street has it available. They will help this land owner increase their property value and raise it up um make it more marketable. etc. in that process. Um, again, not to toot engineers horns or anything like that. There's good ones, there's bad ones. I get it. Um, but yes, it is kind of on a position of you all are putting

your trust in me and my engineering's ability to measure the water coming off a site right now and measure the water that's going to be coming off a site whenever they're done with it and to construct anything that's necessary to reduce those peak flows, which is the standard code. Uh Mount Juliet's code currently now has been updated to to reduce those peak flows to the hundred-year storm event. Um which again we will do, we have done and we always will do. Um to rock back on that again is TAC. The state has its own line of code that says hey you you have to you can't increase that stream elevation. You can't increase, you know, certain amounts of flow on your neighbors. You can't decrease the volume of storage for the flood plane. um all these things with water which again fall back on to engineers such as myself and commissioner asked people that do this is our you know our living what we do um and we put it out here for you guys to look at and vote on and and we get a thorough review from staff. So, you know, as far as not to say anybody's accusing anybody anything, but as far as sneaking things through or hurting people's properties adjacent to that is absolutely the last thing on our agenda and one of the um honestly one of the things in our in our industry that is a liability. It is my job to ensure that uh the neighbors and the neighbors for this project are not going to be um you know negatively affected by someone else developing their property. I believe wholeheartedly in that person's right to develop their property. However, I do wholeheartedly believe in neighbors rights to maintain their property as it is. So, um, and I would like to randomly that if I would like to know where you all live after this because I'm also on the other project as well because I would like to know if you have water issues now. We're trying to mitigate those as richly. Great. I'd appreciate that. Um, same thing here. Again, we have we're surrounded by the the large stream at hand there. So, it's a little harder to say, "Hey, what are your problems downstream?" because they're coming from upstream, they're coming from downstream. We don't want to make

them any worse. And in I will point a couple of instances out, we make them better. If we add storage, if we can slow down water from our property, uh per Shane's um or I guess commissioner asked your point earlier, this property currently is sloping between 10 and 20% from the roadway down to the creek. Um when we're done, it'll be I'll say virtually flat, less than 3 or 4% slope. So the water will land and gravity will is slower to go towards the creek. So it actually slows water down um to all of your points in the future. Whenever a site plan does come through, there will be more impervious surface at that point. There will be whether it be underground detention or an above ground pond that you'll see uh that will have to detain that excess water. But typical um masquerading plans usually have uh the inertability to flatten land out. And by flattening land, you're you're actually reducing runoff because it's actually had spends more time on that surface soaking into the ground rather than shooting over into the creek and going downstream. So again, at the end of the day, we will absolutely run the necessary calcs and provide the drainage calcs um under our stamp and liability to the city to review and the state as well and be permitted appropriately and checked as they go through the construction phases as well. I can tell you personally they're sensitive on that. Um my previous employer, we were on Tekk permit at the corner of Benton Douglas and Lebanon Road and we had a stop work issued on us because of failed uh um measures and they came in quick and came in with fines and which had some swift movement to it. Further questions, comments. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you all. At this time, let's uh call for citizen comments. Any citizens wish to

make comment, welcome to encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'm looking for a motion in regards this item on our agenda. Make a motion for approval. Second. It's a motion and a second uh for approval. Uh may I add one condition to that? Just um no construction traffic on marketplace. Would your second hold? It's motion and a second. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. So approved. Next item up on the agenda uh is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. It is to review the preliminary master development plan plan unit development renewal for reserve at Tate Lane located on Tate Lane. Mr. Buffman, thank you. Um, I feel like we've talked about this already, but I'll give a little reminder because this is this is uh this isn't a new project. The reason we're seeing this again is because this preliminary PL uh development plan has expired. So, what you have in front of you here is extremely similar to the original plan. Some of the things that have changed actually were brought up by the public comment. Um, this is a PMDP only. The base zoning is R RS20 plans expired. Uh it's 18 and a half acres and the total lot count once it's all done is 36 lots. Same as the initial HUD that was approved. Um I think I'll just touch on some of

the some of the items. Um the connection to do West staff does support would like to see that. Um, kind of echoing some of the comments uh brought up by the public was the the wall around the perimeter. Uh, staff would definitely rather see the original design with the picket or something else, not a concrete wall that's proposed now. Um, I would also com comment take a look at the waiverss and variances since that pod was expired. These would have to get reinccorporated in. If you have any issues with any of the whether or not we support it or not, um please bring it up. But in the staff report, I think the planning related waiverss staff does support them. Um the bulk rags and uh the big one is the residential uh design standards for the masonry. Uh they're asking for 50/50. Um, and that's all all walls of the house cumulative. Um, but yeah, like I said, just it's a this is the PMDP approval only um because it's expired and uh we do recommend approval or forwarding it to the board of commissioners with a positive recommendation. Thank you. [Music] We uh any improvements that come about on this project to tight land will be under the county's jurisdiction. Uh we we've requested that the engineer provide us those construction plans as this project progresses. Uh the sidewalk along Tates Lane will be outside the rideway and under the

maintenance of the HOA due to it being county rightway since they don't allow sidewalks in the rideway. Um and under condition seven with our roadway variances and waiver requests. I I do want to say that we uh we do support the request for private roads. Sorry, let me take over. You want to take that? Okay. I can't make a statement on whether I support private roads until we make a determination about whether we need to connect to due west. If it connects, it has to be public. If it doesn't, I do not want to own this road. Um, and I apologize to Jake because we had a conversation earlier and just digging a little deeper into his plans. Um, sort of has me a little um, back and forth on that. So the first thing about that connection to do west and the reason why it says that I support not making that connection is because it has previously been waved by the board of commissioners in order when this put was first approved. And you know I'm I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Do I support what was the previous will of the board of commissioners or do I support what our planning document says? Um it's a hard argument to make. Uh but I ended up supporting it on the basis that it did have that previous approval. Otherwise, it would have been absolutely a requirement that they make that connection to do West because it's in the future transportation plan. Uh their road layout is exactly what was previously approved for the most part. Uh few notice noticeable differences in like the design of their parking.

Um, as such, because their putt has expired, their cross-section is no longer allowable, and we need to have a a waiver to allow um because we no longer allow extruded curbs on our roadway to the point where our standard detail for them says do not use these on public rights away. Um, however, with their culde-sac variance, with this being an access lane past the intersection with their smaller culde-sac, uh, they would need to get a wider cross-section to meet fire code and it'd be about a 52 foot rightway instead of a 50- foot rightway to get the additional width that fire typically requests there. Um, yeah, this all really does come down to whether the planning commission wants to grant them the waiver to do West Avenue or not. I want to piggy back once on the statement of this and Todd touched on it and ultimately um we did go back and forth and um when the buck stops with us. Uh we're here to uphold the code and you know and we do we are we do want to be aware of history and you guys have been there especially chairman especially probably commissioner Giles and that history did play a part in our comment but ultimately um we we did decide to change here at the table due to the fact of what the code is and we're employed to execute the code. Thank you.

I think the conditions hit. Anything else? Um, one of the other ones I thought about bringing up. It's kind of a It's not in our code, but we do ask that landscape buffers be put in open space since this was first approved. It's something we've asked because it sometimes causes some issues. Um, we've asked for it on this, but it's not it's not been addressed on the latest submitt, but again, it's a it's an ask in this pud process. That's a good that's a good point. I want to I want to ask you something, but that's a good point. Will you elaborate on that just a little bit so people understand when this came through and I was here too then back then that wasn't in effect about the buffers and it's listed on this if I'm not mistaken on the actual individual lot but in actuality they don't get that land they get it but they just can't use it or that's right because the buffer's there in other words it wasn't on the the their land so and if the buffer's there they have to maintain the buffer correct Well, the HOA maintains its even it's on their land. Okay. As long as Okay. Well, sure. Again, we don't know that it's an HOA, do we? Or do we? So, if HOA uh manages or maintains the buffer, but it's on private property, but we we don't talk a whole lot about HOAs because we don't have a lot of is that would that be in the condition? Is that in the comments etc that they would have to Well, it would be their requirement to, but no, it probably it wouldn't be in our notes. Okay. And it and that wall would be on the other side that's being proposed.

Correct. So, the buffer would actually be on the private property but being maintained by the HOA. So, anyway, that's interesting. Then my question to you Todd, if and I under I think I understand you're talking about if it was private roads it should be with the entrance only from Tate Lane. And why is that? Just because we're we're connecting to a a public. So my my general rule of thumb is for these small subdivisions, little culde-sacs off of collectors like this, there's no reason for the city to own it because it doesn't serve the city of Mount Juliet any good. It just serves the specific residents good. Um, and we can do that with PUDS. can make that recommendation. Um particularly when the applicant wants it gated, wants it private. Um we're all kind of in agreement like I don't want to pay for that road. Um but you punch through to do West Avenue, all of a sudden that serves uh not necessarily uh city residents but county residents as well. um as it provides an alternative to taking Tate Lane, which if you've driven Tate Lane north of this site, it gets dicey. Um and this provides an alternate route to North Mount Juliet Road through the that neighborhood off of D West. Uh so you can get to D West, you can get to Faulner, you can get to um a couple other locations. you'd have your choice of where you wanted to get to North Oculate Road. Okay. So, and I I pretty well understand, but on on this map, so in other words, that road on D West and in Linhaven Court, that's public, correct?

Correct. Okay. Could that that little piece that connects to that not be public? Just that and the rest be private. Two private entrances is what you're saying. If it's private, they have the right to be public here because it connects to public. If if it's private, I would say they would have the right to gate it. It's their road. They can do what they want with it. Um, and they are requesting to gate this subdivision. I honestly think that's pretty important to them, but I'd let them speak on that. Okay. Then then the next question dealing with this is the wall. You've got your sidewalks going up Tate Lane, which is obviously I agree on. I'm a little concerned that it's just five instead of six foot. Okay, that's pretty well the standard everywhere now out, you know, where the Mount J Road and now up in Bender Ferry, we're putting 10 feet paths and stuff. So, that should be at least six foot uh on take lane if if it goes forward. Um, so anyway, but the wall is going to be on on, in other words, the wall the the sidewalk would be I know it's going to be on on it wouldn't be in the rightway, but but the wall would be behind the sidewalk. In other words, you go up Tate Lane, you see a sidewalk and a wall. Is that the way it is? It'd have to be, wouldn't it? Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay. Actually, it appears as though it would be sidewalk landscape. Uh, what is that? I can't read that number. 161 18 foot landscape buffer and then wall, right? Am I reading that accurately?

Say it one more time. It appears as though on Tate Lane it would be sidewalk and then 16 or 18 foot landscape buffer and then Yeah, it's 15. 15. Thank you. Oh, there it is. Thank you. 15. I'm using my Yeah, correct. Okay, I got two while you guys are looking at that. So, as Commissioner Giles mentioned, um was part of this board when we initially approved this development. Um as well as, uh the Linhaven or what is now Linhaven. Now, this is being called reserve at Tate Lane. One point in time, they were proposed together. Uh this one um separated away. Uh there was a lot of um discussion in regards to that connection over there at um into what is now known as Len Haven uh through this neighborhood. Um and it all came back to no connection uh right there. um concerns were the traffic to cut through uh the potential that this could create um all the way up to um the intersection uh right there across from the library where this feeds out onto Mount Juliet Road and the blind lefthand turn that you really make coming out of that. I believe there's a title company right there. Birthright title on the c on the corner of that property. You're trying to make a north damb bound movement right there. Um it's challenging. Your sight lines are extremely challenging because of uh your traffic flow at that point. That was one of the major concerns that we had uh to connecting these two. um not necessarily the connection, the connection made

sense between the two neighborhoods, uh but the potential for the cross traffic right there uh going east to west and um road designs um in that area um caused us to make a recommendation to not recommend the connection of the two developments. Speak to that real quick. Um, my only other comment that I have uh right here um on this one and I think Miss Davis, M maybe Mr. Hunter, one of the the ladies that spoke initially here um during our public comments um was the rail crossing right there. Um one of the things I've never figured out was um the speed table immediately to the north of that rail crossing. Um, I've got a automobile that can no longer even go down Tate Lane because you nose down and then you have to figure out how in the world you're supposed to go over a speed table. Um, part of my condition on this or or comment whether or not it passes or fails will be removing the speed table right there. Um, not to say that there's not a warrant maybe for a speed table or crosswalk or something in there. Um but that speed table is not very well thought out, not very very well designed uh per standards of a speed table. Um it's detrimental in my opinion to the whole road of Tate Lane. Um and just honestly makes there's just zero logic by the location of that. So I would request that the speed table be removed um should this continue to press forward. um make a make a road accessible again right there uh for uh for automobiles and just wanted to add those two notes right there as far as somebody that saw this initially and as Todd

mentioned as well um physically on paper um Commissioner Giles would probably say as well uh some changes to it and looks like some changes on the request of design uh but ultimately um and its appearance is like what was approved um years ago. Now, please do just just speaking on that speed table real quick. Um because I also had some questions about it recently for the traffic commission. Um do we think that would have to be approved by the traffic commission if it was approved to go in originally? I don't know that everybody anybody ever approved that. All of a sudden it was like bam. I guess you'd have to check to see if it was approved, but the BOC would have the authority to agree to remove it. So, this is this is going to them. So, and the the second point on that is I think we installed it on the county portion of the road. So, we might have to remove it. It's just it's so close to the rail tracks. You're nose down as you make that movement. I just it wouldn't approved as a condition to us. I think somebody said, "Hey, we'd like this." And hey, we built it. The intention was to protect that greenway crossing. That's exactly um but in actuality, yeah, that it should not be there. Yeah. I think it's a hazard to railroad crossing period. Uh for those who are getting out of church in at that time and uh you usually don't have a train coming at that point, but um you never know. Yeah. So I I or and I can I can work something if this goes before the BOC, but if we remove that, we'd likely want to add something in lie of that to protect that that crosswalk. So

that can be a beacon or something. I like that. That's a question. I'm certainly no expert on mail kiosks, but that is a somewhat peculiar spot. It feels like right after the gate. Are those is that parking on the north hand side? So, a couple spot. Okay, got it. I was going to ask if there was any parking for the mail kiosk, but I see it there just to the east of it. Okay, let's go ahead and ask for representation to discuss the project. Uh name and address for the record, please. Jake Porter, heritage civil 2055 North Road. Do you want me to I can touch on that some of the stuff that everyone's talked about or you want direct questions? Tell us tell us what you want to do. Um so um and I'm forgetting who said what now. the buffer and I know I've agreed me me and Jill and and John have talked about this during the the preapp and during the tech review and and commented on the buffer versus open space for landscape um for landscaping and for new puds we usually do in incorporate this because again I also agree with um with the problems that have had in the past as far as maintaining those those landscape um areas and keeping those homeowners from potentially cutting them down or, you know, doing whatever they want to inside them even though they don't have the right to because it's in those easements. Um, however, for this one, um, I'll back up just a little bit there. Uh, this is a previously approved and currently approved zoning, if I'm saying that correctly. So, all of these things are currently still active as far as zoning goes. So, we're just trying to get the plan itself reapp reapproved, which is why it matches the previous plan so closely. caveat some of the

changes you've noticed we'll go through. Um so back to the buffer and NBS buffer and landscape buffer if we there is essentially zero effect whether it's um in an open space or if it's in an easement. The only issue that causes for us on the development side of it is that it reduces if you add that as an open space area it will reduce the size of the lot and it will reduce the buildability the buildable envelope on the lot. So it'll push that rear setback line in 15 feet from what it was already approved to be. Um so since a since the grandfather dam or I think grandfather den still in active zoning we're trying to stick to that zoning stick those same lot sizes roughly those same lot sizes same lot averages. Um but that is the reason it's on there to move forward to the landscape. Um and a little forward in what you all's comment about the order of landscape buffer sidewalk wall. If you're standing on Tate Lane, it will be a 15 foot well the edge of Tate Lane and then a 15 foot um type A2 I think it's A2 landscape buffer zone then the sidewalk and then the wall. Um I will point out that the landscape buffers around this property are not required at all. There is zero landscaping required for this project. Um these are all things that are added that were approved previously. They were shown previously and trust me I I fully support not leaving a blank wall there or a blank fence or anything. I I also agree with landscaping. It softens the look of everything. It looks better. So around the property itself there's A2 um landscape buffers being provided. Uh on top of that is the you know maintaining if we have a landscape buffer we're going to try our best to keep everything that's already there because again older trees older bushes everything else creates more screening than a new tree that's going to be 10 years in the making. Right. So all this stuff has been added in those landscape

zones um trying to u help the neighborly field around it because again the screening wall um it's a screening wall that's what they the developers requested and would like and um so they feel that they want for this this particular someone earlier I'll coin a term the luxury uh homes luxury subdivision that this is as far as gated community private streets um things like that. Uh so as far as the uh the landscape order, it is Tate Lane, landscape buffer, sidewalk, wall. Um for the connection to due west, um I do understand again typically it's a no-brainer. You want to get as many entrances and exits as you can feasible in the subdivision. So you have multiple access points. Um this is a 36 lot subdivision. It does not require two access points uh per code, per fire code for anything like that. That was previously approved. Um the current zoning shows that it just they just needed one connected Tate Lane and to just devil's advocate side of it will give the Tate lane the it'll give these new homes an ability to go through due west and go out that direction rather than using Tate Lane. Um, my counterpoint to that is the people in the back of due west instead of driving over all the speed humps to get back to what is it? Mount Juliet Road, they will likely go through this subdivision and potentially increase traffic on Tate Lane and potentially I hate I've got two acres on Tate Lane. I'd hope I'd love to build there someday, but it is a 14 or 15 foot wide country road with potholes and I can't stand it when I'm sitting out there just looking at my land and have people blowing through there that don't live there. They're not from here. They're just going as fast as they can. um I'd have zero interest in increasing opening it up to the other side. So that's just again my personal I guess devil's advocate side of that comment. Um the connection between due west and our property obviously will change our

layout. Again I'll go back to say um this plan was previously approved in 2014. It was uh erroneously approved again in 2021 because the zoning had expired but it got through somehow. Um we got to FNVP with this plan itself. um recently and that's when it got caught that it was um Miss Bernett pointed out that everything expired. So, we're just trying to get that again that same plan reapproved so they can uh start construction. I would like to randomly point out and thank staff for working with us and Shane, you know, to your point uh Commissioner George about the mass grading plan that we have pending this approval is because uh because of all that delay that's happened the last six months. um they've been wanting to under construction two months ago, but because of the issues that have happened with the um zoning and everything or with the the planning expired, um Jennifer Hamlin and the city, we got together and they say, "Hey, we're going to, you know, do everything can. Let's let's kind of fast track this so we can get it going for you, which is great. We want we expect to go through this process and hear all the um comments and conditions and try to talk them out like this. So, we appreciate that. Appreciate them going through it with us. Um but that is why this plan is so similar to the previous plan. Um and then speed table removal. I I agree it's county road. We already have uh del left turn lane that is been approved by the county road commission going into the property. Um so any you know I think Shane or whatever say say that any road improvements has to go through them. Again, we're we're open to that if that's something that helps um ease that pain. We can do that. Um Commissioner Giles, I believe, comment for six foot sidewalks. 5 foot is the code. Um totally open to six foot. That eases anything there. We can make them six going down there. Um again, I know we get to that point of saying sidewalks nowhere, but you never know if that church wants to put a sidewalk in. You never know if Tate Lane, you know, the Tates decide to sell their land and build shopping mall. We we want a

sidewalk. We're going to want that connected. So that front that front sidewalk is kind of key to us. Um but all to say it's a luxury subdivision, luxury homes. That's the point of it. That's what they're going for. I I I can honestly say that maybe you all understand it better than I do. It's not necessarily something that's in my realm of, you know, of ability to afford it, I guess, but it is someone's and and the developer loves this pro. I say air quotes on product but loves this the fact of um a screening wall uh private roads private facilities private gate um you know one in one out no you know that that's just that's their that's where their selling point is so it is a little bit different um than Willy Station or you know all all the subdivision going in around they are very those are very nice and I agree with those we do a lot of those as well um this is this is going to be an elevated experience. This is supposed to be a very um Steve I wish he had comments here. He his his goal is to make it, you know, not not to look like anything else, but it's a watercolor Florida. Oh, Steve's here. Uh watercolor effect. It wants it to be a real really the nicest place in Mount Juliet. And um everything we have on this plan is what we think will push it to that. Um but again please if you have any questions pertaining to engineering side of it please ask again anything development side we'll we can have them come up and expect you know we'll talk through that as well um yeah anything else please just ask and we'll do our best answer please commissioner George I agree we don't need access to do west for multitude of reasons number one is we've got to honor what the BOC did last time. I think that's we shouldn't set a precedent where we can flip things on a dime. Secondly, I don't think we need to add additional traffic on that way. I know I don't I don't go to church at uh

the church below this, but if I did and there was a long line, I certainly would try to find a different way. So, I think it's going to cause additional traffic to go on D West Drive on top of the 36 homes. And I I guess the final point on that one is that the minute that we make a connection to do West, we have to do public roads. We have one of the lowest property taxes in the s in the state of Tennessee. It's not going to justify to pay for the roads in that subdivision as well as it it just kind of contradicts the entire plan they're going for. You know, why have you can't have a gated community when you've got you've got a public road running through it? So, um, but I I'm fine with the project. I think it's good for what it is. I think we've got to honor what the BOC previously approved and make adjustments as we can along the way to make it better. But, um, I think overall something's got to go here. I think some of the citizens made comments that this has been 10 years in the making. So, I I think if we can move forward with this and we can get this to the finish line, we can ease some of the burdens of the citizens wanting to know and wondering if and when this is going to happen, we can we can get something in there that makes sense and it looks right and um we can kind of put this whole Linhaven reserve at Tate Lane fiasco to peace for once. on that one. I I still think it should be a connector some way for the safety purposes and access for um what would would be developing and I understand the purpose of uh what the developer is uh and the owner is trying to do in creating this great um wonderful place. Uh, but in order to get those luxury homes, we need to do at least that 90% brick if they're going to do the luxury

homes is what I'm thinking. And instead of the 50/50 as well. And that's what some of the other people were mentioning too that we should keep that um continuity as what the rest of Tate Lane is pretty much looks like right across from that needs to uh uh be uh about the same there. But I am also concerned about the wall. I'm not a fan of the wall. I will not support the wall. And I do think that it's important to keep that uh setting that the um owners, the other owners in the area were trying to um uh support as well. and that uh it does need a um a landscape uh buffer there between the subdivision and the backs of the of the homes there in order to um privatize that for not only the the people across the street but also the homeowners as well. Um a fence is fine. The powdercoated fence is great. Um, but as long as there's the landscaping and I don't know exactly where that sidewalk is going to go in that, but um somehow if there has to be a sidewalk, that would be all. But um uh that's that's that's what I'm thinking right there. But I do think the access is important and I can foresee that being important to other developments as well. Only other I'll piggyback that comment on two things. Uh there is um the thing came about the construction of that roundabout is not really conducive where this tie-in point in Linhaven would be for another entrance over there. Right. Uh, but I was going to also piggy back the moving away from the 50/50 uh request here to more of a I was more of

a 6535 um because I I did look up these plans Hillary 2 Harmon Henley and the entire back is Hardy board uh with no real elevation to the rear of these. Their front elevations are nice and if you look at the breakdown that they gave us, it's in line with the composition of materials that they're out there. Um, and I think that it would play better to a 6535. I don't know that we've granted anybody a 50/50 before, but a 6535 gives you a little bit of leeway to for architectural design incorporation and whatnot. 9010 really doesn't handle too much on an executive style, particularly in your gables and uh sides, your areas over roof kind of a deal. 6535 gives you a little bit of a play so you can get a true differentiation into to your plans. Uh but not a 50/50. And my main concern is that they're meeting their percentages for the entirety of the property on the front. uh and they're not doing anything to the rear elevations of these houses. And if you look at them uh online that uh their houses uh there is no breakdown of the composition of materials on the rear of these houses. It's 100% alternative material. Can I ask a question? clarify with the city attorney is that when we went through the tech reviews and and the pre everything the building materials is one of the things that was still intact with the zoning previously and at that point there was no this is before the 100% bigger stone became a thing in Mount Juliet um and per the request of the of staff we just added those material that uh I say recommendation but we put numbers to it said here's this this this one this particular were showing has this percentages these percent just to show what they were. It wasn't

necessarily set the minimums. So just I don't want to sound again argumentative but there's there was back to the the zoning as it stands that's uh already in effect is not building material facade based and again uh I would like to let the owner speak yeah to the the style of homes um the price point the things like that I don't want to I want to wipe out everyone's mind this is going to be an ugly Hardy board house these are I let him Name and address for the record. Steve Griffith, 1614 Tate Lane. I'm directly across from this property. I've owned this property for many years and I can tell you the history and your concern on the other entrance. So, I've paid to design this twice now. Um, when we designed it the first time, the reason that roundabout there is there and the reason it was designed with no other entrance, I wanted an entrance. And when I came up here to get it approved, there was absolutely no chance that they were ever going to let an entrance go through there, I developed Linhaven and I wanted to connect them and they uh completely shot it down and said, "No, you even need to put lots here because we don't ever want it coming through there in the future and because we do not want people using that as a pass through and going down Tate Lane." And so I paid to design it and then I paid to redesign it a second time here. And I live across the street from there. My house is 12,000 square feet. It's a very beautiful house. It's not it's a five six million house. It is 100% 100% hardy. Um so you're talking about the neighborhood. Uh the wall I own 30 acres down the street. It has a onemile wall around it. So that wall

matches this wall will be much shorter, will be much better landscaped on it because it's in the city. But it is it is a very high-end wall and it cost me a lot more money to put it in there. But I like the safety aspect of the wall as well. You know, if the police in here can tell you, there was a police chase that went down our road just the other day. There was an arson two days ago that backed up to one of my properties there and but the police chase ended at the other end of Tate Lane. I've got 10 children. If you're if if if you've been on Tate Lane, the traffic there is very fast and people don't know that road. We get trucks that get stuck down that road all the time. We don't need to add more traffic there. And that wall will be very well landscaped. I talked to Mr. Hunter who's a great man. and he was in here speaking earlier. I think I don't know if he spake. I was at my son's graduation honors presentation. So, I'm sorry I wasn't here, but um we we are going to make this the nicest neighborhood in Mount Juliet. The average home price in there will be 1.5 million and above. Um I'm going to be on the street until they carry me out of my house. My permanent house is being built just two houses down from the house that I'm currently in. And um I would ask you just to consider we have waited and waited on this property and we we're trying to make this weather um we had great help with the staff here, Jennifer Hamlin. The reason we're in here just for the grading is because we're trying to beat the weather so that we can start grading it before the winter, which will put us off another year. And we're we're we're trying to keep this moving forward. And we've already got a builder who's going to build beautiful homes in here. It'll be a very good add-on to the city's uh tax base because this will be

like, you know, two or three homes in value that you can add to your tax base. So, I'd say please consider the work that we put into this. You know, if you look across the street, again, it's 100% um uh Hardy and it's a beautiful home. Uh, and we're only going to put in there very high-end homes. If you've ever been to Watercolor, uh, down in Florida, this is where the inspiration for this neighborhood has come from. And my house across the street is a very good representation of there. These will have more traditional brick and stone accents, but they will be very, very nice. Um, I don't know if there's any other questions for anyone here. I'd be happy to ask answer any questions. Um, but I've got I've got a lot of personal um investment here. I sold both of these ladies their home and I know that they probably not I I didn't hear what they said, but I'm sure they're not happy with some part of it. But, you know, I I' I've developed that whole area there. And I'd like to finish this and and get it across the finish line. So, if there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Okay. And oh, there's one other issue we're dealing there where I I didn't listen to the sidewalk thing, but I met with Freddy and there is a water line going through there and you all did some type of easement or annexation because you were going to try to put the connector possibly through there and that got shot down. Well, that that wider easement or access is there and Freddy's going to have an issue with the water line if it stays in there. And I'm I think you can explain it better. I don't understand it, but there's something that's no longer being used that got added in many years a few years ago when they were trying to get the western connector that affects his

waterline and he's adamant that, you know, that water line can't be in that special region or something. So, I'm I'm going to let him explain it, but it's already there. So that was at this point it's we we've had conversations with Wes Wilson in it. Wes Wilson's um preference is that their water lines maintain on private property in an easement preferably over being inside the rideway for the city or the county. Um the previous plan that was submitted previous before this this round um had a rideway dedication that was 12 or 13 or 14 feet depending on where you were on the road. Um that put their water line into the rideway. to that point they were going to require and they would require um the length of that water line be dug up and moved out of the rideway. So we have discussed with them and the road commission u to get our our roadway expansion that's happening out front uh on Tate Lane inside a rightaway that is appropriately sized for that rideway and not for it doesn't affect the water anymore. So the water will maintain on the private property in the easement. So again, that's all worked out at this point. Um, but caps more questions you can get. Please feel free further questions, comments from the commission. Please, I just wanted to be clear about what I said with the zoning. So it is absolutely accurate that they are 100% locked in with everything that is zoning. So that includes the number of units, density, lot size, which would incorporate buffers and setbacks, and their base zoning. Um, but design standards are not one of those things. So that's the planning commission and the board commissioner's decision. Very well. [Music] And also completely up to the board, but I might suggest that since there seems to be differing opinions and a lot of nuances going on that maybe the planning commission vote one by one on the waiverss and the variances so we're absolutely clear about what's being

decided or what's being supported and what is not and then ultimately at the end vote on the PMDP as a whole based on the decisions that were made on each individual variance or waiver. But that is your call. Just a suggestion. So, eight votes or nine total votes. Just based on all the comments I've heard, it might make it easier, but it is your call. Yes. I thought she was talking about every one of those. No, just the waiverss and the variances where it says staff supports or doesn't support public works to determine. Correct. Further questions, comments uh no m I'm sorry you spoke at the meeting at the start of the meeting. You're going only one opportunity to speak. One correction or just for that variance number three um maximum lot coverage 25% 35% required. I think it should be 35% is what we're requesting. 25% is what is required currently I believe. I want to I can check back with you're requesting 25. No, we're requesting 35. We're requesting 35. So then that's not a variance request if they're requesting 35. Is that correct? Is that what you're trying to say? Because we have it as 5.103. Maximum lock coverage requested is 25% 35% is required. So you're only requesting 35% lock coverage. So therefore, you don't need covered, right? We're exceeding the max by using doing 35%. The max is 25. The max. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, that's I was trying

to If you flop the numbers in the waiver, it'll correct it. Okay. You want 35? 35 requested. 35 requested. And as we go through again as same if whenever we do them waver one by one or whatever it is you can I I am still blurry at best at which ones are active variances that are not up for voted which ones are right yeah that's yes I see yes required 25 Max max. They're requesting 35. So, hence the variance. It's just worded improperly. Requested instead of required. That's right. It's coverage. Okay. I know you said that. I'm just trying to Yeah, it's just worded improperly on our sheet, I'd say. All right. Uh, any further questions, comments from the commission? Seeing none, let's call for assistant comments in regards to this item on our agenda. Any s wish to make comment or welcome encourage to do so and come to the microphone and name and address for the record. Please name and address for the record. Chad Pot, 1660 Tate Lane. Um, while the while the submitted is is exactly the same, a lot has changed on Tate Lane. Uh, Green Hills 12 home, Green Hill High School, 12 homes on the Zumbro property. The soccer practice field's been completed. Uh, if Tate Lane can handle the traffic, surely D West can. I guess what we're saying is we're still in favor of D West being the access point. Okay. Thank you. That's all.

See no additional citizen comments. Um so city attorney is recommending us table for vote each and every one of the variances and then vote on the project itself and eight even though we have no recommendation from staff. So we can't really we're not engineers up here. One of us is, but we have no recommendation. Yeah, we show just public works to determine under our comments under Yeah. 7D. Yeah. ABCD. So related. So it's a typo on our variance waiverss because staff supports. Is that correct? Is that way I'm reading that? Supported. Supported. Supported on A, B, and C and D. Well, Seven is planning steps public. Okay. Item six.

Okay. Items four, five, seven, and eight are I mean, my only question with doing it this way is you're going to be making recommendations right here when you don't have a recommendation on the subdivision itself and their comments are directly related to a connection or no connection to due west. So, it's hard to kind of separate and vote for them individually when you don't know what you're voting on. Maybe I would suggest we do the vote like normal, but if it becomes an issue where it gets denied, then we go back and go one by one. Really, I think that probably be better. This was my idea and I think the the reason it I find it helpful is because I can go ahead and tell you that there's been comments made by other planning commissioners that I will not support the project if they have it a certain way. So my thought process was to just do this like standard parliamentary procedure. make a main motion to approve the plan and then each variance is an amendment to that motion and then at the end of it we have a total thing because if somebody in this room says that they support the plan but require connection to do west I will be voting no and then we'll go back and forth for two three hours depending on how the vote shakes out. Yeah. I think that was I was just trying to get us out of here at a decent time. Yeah. Yeah. And that's that's the reason why I say that I mean you you really need the vote on the plan because eight um really has to do whether or not you have a connection. Seven is a connection. Um five has to do most likely with the connection. Chairman, I'm I'm sorry. I might have

said it incorrectly, but um Commissioner George said it correctly. you would make a motion to either approve or deny and then while that is on the table then you would make intermittent amendments to it and then there would be a final vote. Okay. So you kind of leave that main motion pending while you make the amendments and then you'll have a then you will do that main motion at the end so that way you know if you're approving or what the focus is. Okay. All right. We we start with four and work our way down. And I think by the time we get to the end product, we've got a decision across the board. Are you really going to start with the project itself and then move forward? I can start the I can All right. With that being said, we've gone through citizen comments. Let's uh um let's ask for a motion regardless item on our agenda. I'm going to make a motion to approve the or make a positive recommendation rather um for the reserve at Tate Lane. That's a motion for a positive recommendation. I can do I'll do the second but we want to go through this. Yeah. Mot motion in a second. I would like to propose that we approve variance number four total sack length exceeding 700 ft length and 14 unit maximum as supported by public works. Okay as well. Yes, I'll second that one. And now and now you would vote on that one. Yeah. Now we can vote on that specific amendment to the We didn't vote on it going forward. I thought you had to do that first. He's got a motion for a positive recommendation. As long as the main motion's on the table, you can add as many amendments as you want down the road. This becomes the main motion as amended with every proceeding thing just passed. Correct. All right. I've got a motion and a second uh for

positive recommendation. Uh and that motion includes um approval of variance waiver number four, which would be the culde-sac length exceeding 700 ft in length and 14 unit maximum. That is correct on your motion and your second. Yes, but we're just voting on the amendment though. We're not voting on the motion itself and the amendment i.e. being just the approval of number four. Very well. Yeah. So, how does that affect the fact that that is a culdeac? It would have to be redesigned. Is that correct? This would have no impact. This would just allow them to allow the plan to be heard basically. And this would allow them to if they did have to redesign it, just have culde-sacs exceeding 700 feet and 14 units. They're because either way here, they're going to have to have culde-sacs. Yeah. So really, you're only voting on the amendment if that amendment uh and that would be the approval of culde-sac length exceeding 700 ft and 14 unit maximum is what we're voting on would be the amendment. So I've got a motion and a second on that amendment right there. So we're voting on the amendment only at this point in time. So all those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I I against extensions. Commissioner George table's yours. Like to make an amendment to approve variance number five that all roads be 25 miles an hour as supported by public works. Second that as well. That's a motion and a second uh for the approval of number five. all roads to 25 miles an hour. That being said, uh got a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I I against extensions. One is approved.

Commissioner George like to make another amendment uh variance number 65-104.4 four single family residential design standards, cumulative 50% masonary and 50% secondary materials for each home facade as supported by staff. So it's a motion without a second it would die. That was just that amendment. Yeah. To approve it as staff supported it. Yeah, I'll go ahead and second it till we table that for a vote. So, I got a motion and a second um on number six uh which would be 5-104.4 single family residential design standards 50 uh 50% masonry 50% secondary materials for each home facade. Uh motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against that one is declined. Commissioner George table is yours. Move in with a positive recommendation for variance number seven transportation plan that there will be no connection between due west and Tate Lane um as supported by public works and as not supported by planning staff. I'll second that. So your motion is no connection. Yes. Correct. It's a motion and a second uh for the transportation plan. No connection between D West and Tate Lane. Uh motion a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I I against abstensions. That one is approved. Make a amendment for positive approval on variance number eight private roads. All roads to be private in lie of public uh as supported by

public works contingent on number seven passing as it did. Number seven was approved. So your motion is to make all roads private. Correct. Seconded as noted. That's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against so approved. Now the question becomes since we decline this might be for the attorney since we decline the variance for number six do we need to come back with a different percentage or do we just leave that off and move past it. It would just be that that was negatively that portion was negatively recommended by okay the planning commission. So the BOC will ultimately make that decision. Okay. Cool. Correct. Yep. All right. So now it's as amended with all those conditions and we can go back to our regularly scheduled program. Now you're just back on the main motion for approval. So I currently have a motion. Your second commissioner Ras does stand. Yes. Any uh amendments or additions to that motion outside of that? No more. Not having the wall there. No. Um, I I I don't think that the wall is conducive to the area's um aesthetics in that area. And I I asked that the wall be eliminated. That could be an amendment. Are you leaving the wall in or I want to leave the wall in. So, but she could she could have an amendment right now. make an amendment to uh eliminate the wall and continue with the uh landscape buffer and uh any kind of other fencing other than just a wall. So, I think the the landscape buffer is in there regardless, right? So, it would be uh

really the motion would be towards uh leaving the wall or diverting back to the powder coated metal fence. Then the powder coated what if we eliminate the wall? This is a gated area. What What's going there to keep anybody back from going in there? A fence. Powder coated metal fence. Fence. Huh? The powder coated metal fence. Okay. Metal fence. Black. Okay. Usually. So, your motion uh would be an amendment to eliminate the wall and in its place be a powdercoated metal fence. Yes. I'll second. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against no abstensions. That would be a Did I get four? Yeah. Be four nos. Four no. So that would be disapproved. So the wall stays four yeses. It wasn't a majority vote. So it passed. Yep. That is correct. Yep. Yeah. I didn't catch everybody's vote. My apologies. I thought it What was So that motion that amendment did fail. Uh so the wall stays in. Um I thought we had four four to four. Yeah. So I got a motion and a second for a positive recommendation. Yeah. Yeah. They're going to do it again. I've got a motion and a second for a positive recommendation. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I I against abstensions. That would be a positive recommendation. All right. Work. I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. I've got a

motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I raise your hand. I against abbstensions.