Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the May 21st, 2026 meeting of the Mount Julep Municipal and Regional Planning Commission meeting. As we begin our meeting tonight, I do want to announce our quorum requirements. Our quorum requirements for the Planning Commission read as the presence of five members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The chairperson made 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. A 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. I'd like to announce that because we do have one member of the planning commission absent tonight. Commissioner George is absent. And also, as we begin our meeting tonight, I want to extend a huge thank you to a member that has stepped down from our planning commission, and that's Commissioner Rebecca Christensen. I believe served six, seven years, something around that, uh, that time and tenure. Um, I've had the, uh, uh, been fortunate enough to know, uh, Rebecca and her family. Um, since I initially moved and lived over in Hickory Hills, I think, and, uh, That's where we initially met in 2002, I believe, so since that point in time. And she spent as much time and as much compassion about our community there at Hickory Hills. And then her time and tenure in service here just continued through her efforts at Planning Commission. And so I am grateful for knowing her and her family and having her as a welcome member of this Planning Commission. And her absence will be missed from this commission. We look forward to the time when her seat is filled. But I do want to extend a large gratitude to Commissioner Christensen for her time and tenure in service to the city of Mount Juliet via being a planning commission member. So I do want to make that note.

as well uh commissioner bullman uh uh asked me as we began our meeting tonight he's got uh something special that he'd like to share as well so commissioner bullman floors here sir yeah thank you commissioner winchester uh i want to give a huge shout out to mount juliet uh police department fire department and ems i was behind an accident today on mount juliet road at the intersection with west wilson middle school and uh was was first on the scene And from the time 911 was called, it was maybe two minutes for all three services to arrive. They very quickly got both drivers checked out and stabilized. One needed ambulance service, so they got her sorted out and got both cars cleaned up and out of Mount Juliet Road very, very rapidly. So a huge shout out to the coordination and all three of those services. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you. All right. With that being said, our next item up tonight will be to set our agenda. I do have a few or one change to our agenda. That'd be to remove permanently the item known as 12B, which would be a recommendation item. Back to the BOC, that item read as review the zoning ordinance amendment to articles 14, site plan expirations. That has been removed indefinitely per the request of staff. So we will not be hearing that item tonight. I'd also like to make a request to the planning commission to move item 12A up. To be heard immediately after our consent agenda. Our consent agenda is complete with item 7F, I do believe is correct. Yep. or sorry, sorry, item heard immediately after 6E, which is completion of our consent agenda. So we'll hear 6E and I'd like to request item 12A to be moved up. We have several members of our staff here tonight that would like to speak during that time. And so I'd like to move that up on our agenda. Any objections to us doing that? Any other changes, amendments to the agenda? We'll hear the agenda as stated. Next item on our agenda this evening will be our staff reports, and we'll begin with Mr. John Bachman.

Thank you. The only thing I was going to mention was that Ms. Christensen had resigned. I bet you beat me to it. So we've got enough to talk about tonight. That's all.

Thank you, sir. Todd, taking the public works.

Yeah, we got a lot of exciting news in public works and engineering. Actually, starting with the Central Pike Interchange got moved up a couple of years. So we now expect to break ground in 2029. Additionally, South Mount Juliet Road widening got moved up one year. It is now expected to start in 2031. We have more construction happening even sooner than that, though. Old Lebanon Dirt Road widening starts June 15th. Intersection work on the other side of Old Lebanon Dirt Road at North Mount Juliet Road is expected to start next week. You can expect a lane closure on North Mount Juliet Road to provide an adequate work zone. They'll be installing a channelization island, which gives pedestrian refuge and makes that right turn easier. Curd Road signal work is currently underway. That's expected to be done in November. And the EQ Basin is expected to be completed in October.

Wow. Lots going on. Nothing short to do out there right now. That is wonderful. Thank you guys for all that you do for us. The next item up will be our citizen comments. At this time, we will take citizen comments. Public is welcome and encouraged to make public comment about any item on our agenda. There'll be two opportunities for you to make comments. You may speak now or you may speak when the item is presented to the planning commission. We do ask that you limit your comments to three minutes or less. And before I call for the citizen comments up there, we do got a full house. If you look around, I think we got every seat taken here tonight. So we do honor your three minutes up there as you get going. I keep a little timer up here. So if you see me, just kind of raise my hand here randomly as you're speaking. That is kind of just a signal to summarize your comments that you have one minute left. Do that right about two minutes right there. And it's just not that we don't want to hear, but it's kind of focus your comments. And let's make sure everybody has the same opportunity to speak when that comes around. So with that being said, I'd like to open the floor. And anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time is welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we will move on to our first item on the agenda.

man i didn't good evening i did not want to go first i don't know the only one but name and address for the record name and address okay i've never addressed city council for it uh james tanner ploshay uh 118 normandy drive from our juliet thank you oh man eloquence and succinctness is not my strength so bear with me please um i'm i'm concerned about i'd like to speak about the rezoning of the property on chandler road um you know i wrote this out but i'll just try to summarize my thoughts um if you have driven chandler road if you have not i encourage you to go drive chandler road I call it the curviest road in Tennessee. There's a lot of curvy roads, so I don't know if that'll stand up. But I'm not opposed to growth. I'm not opposed to residential increase on Chandler Road. Absolutely not. I'd be hypocritical if I said, hey, no more houses on Chandler Road. I think that's nonsense. think uh construction development is good when i moved there 10 years ago on the channel road i knew it was a just a matter of time before all the land around me was going to be developed no question in my mind it was going to be developed um the i currently live in rs 15. um but as we talked about central pike is going to be expanded 1100 Road is going to be expanded. The number of residences in the area has expanded. Channel Road does not handle the, already does not handle the volume that it has already. I've reached out to MJ Police Department. They were delightful. I asked for statistics about traffic volume, the ratio of traffic volume to accidents on Chandler Road. They were very accommodating. Unfortunately, they have not been able to, they're willing to provide the statistics. They said they have them. They don't have them available immediately. I have some images. If you want to look at them, you can. Not a lot of information here. It's from OpenStreetMap. It's a map of accidents, different types of accidents. You can clear it. Channel Road is the only road in Mount Juliet that connects Central Pike and Old Lebanon Road. It's the only road. And I think that is only going to increase. If we only look at one development, it's not that big of a deal. But again, it's only a matter of time. There are at least three other several acre parcels that I wholly believe are going to be developed in the next decade. I would encourage that when we... Okay, sorry. Man, long-winded as anything. Here's what I would ask. My request is that when we consider rezoning, I think it's a matter of time. It's going to be rezoned. Great. Let's build there. I would request R30 or R40 zoning. I think that... I think it's reasonable that every house that has been built on Chandler Road, since I have lived there, has been an acre or more. I think if we... You can never enforce precedence. There's no... I don't think you can, but if you set the... Everything that has an acre or more, I think if we build larger homes or homes with larger lots, it will not... create a significantly greater burden. Whereas if we do make the change to R20, we will have more than double that number of homes. And it will put a larger burden on the road, on the schools, and there's a bunch of other things. That's the main thing. I think the road cannot be straightened. There's no way to do eminent domain without taking out dozens of homes. I don't think the road can be expanded. So I would just consider, you know, it's going to happen one way or another. I wholeheartedly believe. But I would just say, please consider the long-term impact. I think larger lots will create an easier impact on the neighborhood. I think the charge is only going to increase.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Yes, sir. Any additional citizen comments at this time?

Please. Jennifer Mullaly, 217 Sunny Acre. I'm here to talk about 12A. This also involves a couple of warehouses in my district. So I didn't really know what this was, and I was concerned about the dangers to the – because it – but such a residential. And I was concerned about the houses right there and the residents. But anyway, I now know what it is. And I talked to fire. They assured me there's no dangers to the residents. So that's, I feel okay with it because it's tightening up the restrictions, which is a good thing of what would be allowed in those warehouses.

So thank you. Yes, ma'am. Any additional citizen comments at this time? Seeing no additional citizen comments this time, move to our next item on the agenda. It'll be item 5A, which is our minutes approval. It's to review and adopt the minutes from the April 16, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Have any changements, changes, adjustments, amendments, changements, typos? Seeing none, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion approved. A motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Extensions, so perfect. Next item up on our agenda is our consent agenda. We begin with item 6A, which is review the final plat for Bradshaw Farms, phase 3B, located at Vivrit Lane. Item 6B, review the final plat modification for 230 Monday Memorial Drive. Item 6C, review the final plat for the Project Jolene subdivision, located at 6300 Golden Bear Gateway. Item 6D, review the preliminary plat for 448 Bass Lane, Bass Lane subdivision. Item 6E, review the site plan for Legacy Point Retail Phase 2, located at 115 Legacy Point Boulevard. There are staff reports. Mr. John, planning?

Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed. The most noteworthy thing on this consent agenda, just so you're aware of, is on the Legacy Point Phase 2 building. It's 80% brick, 20% secondary material. So the approval would include that waiver request. Otherwise, recommend approval or just approval here.

Very well. Thank you. Todd, anything from engineering?

Recommend approval with conditions.

Very well. Questions, comments from the commission? Seeing none, at this time I'd like to call for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment about any item on our consent agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. I do need to close our planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. The public hearing is in regards to item 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D. Item 6A is to review the final plat for Bradshaw Farms, phase 3B, located at Riverette Lane. Item 6B is to review the final plat modification for 230 Monday Memorial Drive. Item 6C is to review the final plat for the Project Jolene subdivision located at 6300 Golden Bear Gateway. Item 6D is to review the preliminary plat for 448 Bass Lane, Bass Lane subdivision. Anyone wishing to make comment about any one of those four items during the public hearing is 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, we will close our public hearing and reopen our planning commission meeting, at which time I'm looking for a motion in regards to the items on our consent agenda.

Is the motion to approve?

It's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Raise your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 12A. Item 12A is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. It is to review the zoning ordinance amendment to Article 7IR, Industrial Restrictive Districts.

Mr. John. Fair thing. You said most of it right there. What this amendment will do is it places in IR zoning, it will place basic industry use as a conditional use in IR. And if you look at IR, there are uses that are classified as other types of warehousing, for instance. Some of that overlaps with basic industry. But when it's attached with a manufacturing use, it's classified as basic industry, and it's just not permitted in IR as it sits now. Our thought was put it in IR basic industry as a conditional use. So that means that it goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals for conditional use permit beforehand. So you can actually layer a scrutiny that way. The crux of or the big difference between basic industry and some of the uses that are already allowed in there is the storage of flammable material. But like I was saying, warehousing is permitted in IR, and that allows petroleum storage. So it's kind of – it doesn't – they don't line up quite right. The way it's written right now, you have – you could do – if it was a warehouse use strictly, you'd be allowed to do whatever you wanted to do. regarding the material you're handling. But in a manufacturing instance, the flammable material storage is not permitted. Now, if you look at the uses permitted in basic industry, they're they're things that are they're not what you think of as occurring in a warehouse or a light manufacturing scenario it's things like asphalt production concrete atomic reactor things like things like that things that you know we don't we don't see too much of here um or any of here um so that's the amendment it's simply basic industry use conditionally in ir

very well thank you would you guys have anything on this item nothing very well thank you i'd like to open up for questions comments from the commission this time seeing none we'll uh we'll open the floor to uh to citizen comments anyone wish to make comment regarding this item on the agenda uh please come the microphone and name and address for the record Seeing no citizen comments this time, I'd like to ask for a recommendation in regards to this item on urgent. Motion for a positive recommendation. I'll second that. It's a motion and a second for a positive recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? That is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda falls underneath annexations and rezones. On this one right here, I'd like to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. If it will be, if you all would have any objection to hearing items 7B, or excuse me, 7A, 7B, 7D, and 7E together, That's four items together. And then my request to follow that would be to hear items 7C and 7F together.

Any objection in us doing so?

Very well. Seeing no objection to that, we'll be hearing items 7A, 7B. 7D and 7E together, these are all recommendation items back to the Board of Commissioners. Item 7A is to review the annexation request of the wall property located at 6386 Central Pike. Item 7B is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners is to review the plan of services for the wall property located at 6386 Central Pike. item 7d is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is to review the annexation request for the wall property located 6400 central pike item 7e is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is to review the plan of services for the wall property located 6400 central pike so we are hearing annexation and plan of services together on two concurrent properties is the intent behind combining those together so begin with uh with planning ms johnson

Hello. You've seen some recent submittals of similar annexation free zones along the Central Pike area. This is just consistent with those that we've seen with property owners with the anticipation of the forthcoming Central Pike interchange. They're just getting prepared for possible potential sale. There is no intended change at this time as both properties are single family residences and they intend on staying there. um but they are hoping to go ahead and annex into the city in preparation for that both of the parcels are currently in wilson county's jurisdiction and both of them are compliant with the regulations um for annex territory within the city limits so staff does recommend um positive recommendation for the annexation of both of these properties very well thank you todd anything from engineering on these no sir very well questions comments from the commission

Please, Commissioner Rice.

I just comment that I totally agree. I mean, with the interchange being ramped up about three years, all this is coming. And we know it's going to come. And I would expect the rest of the property owners, proximate to Pleasant Grove Road, they're all going to come in with the same request soon.

That's a good point.

Further questions, comments from the commission? At this time, I'd like to call for citizen comments in regards to these items on our agenda. Anyone wishing to make a comment is welcome and 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 do need to close a planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. Public hearing is in regards to item 7B and 7E. Item 7B is to review the plan of services for the wall property located at 6386 Central Pike. Item 7E is to review the plan of services for the wall property located at 6400 Central Pike. Anyone wishing to make comment during either of those items during the public hearing is welcome and 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, we'll close our public hearing, reopen our planning commission meeting. And I am looking for a motion in regards to these items on our agenda. Positive recommendation? Very well. Second. So a motion and a second for a positive recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? Then there's a positive recommendation. Again, there's no objection to the Planning Commission. I'd like to hear item 7C and 7F together. Seeing no objection to that, we'll hear item 7C, which is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners, is to review the rezone request from Wilson County R1 to CMU for the wall property located at 6386 Central Pike. Item 6F is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners is to review the rezone request from Wilson County R1 to CMU for the wall property located at 6400 Central Pike. Back to planning, Ms. Johnson.

As noted, again, both of these properties with the intent to rezone the property from Wilson County R1 to commercial mixed use, they are within the Urban Growth Foundry, and this is consistent. The CMU request is consistent with the future land use plan for that corridor, and that's what's been deemed for adjacent properties that have been recently annexed and rezoned.

Very well. Thank you. Todd, anything from the engineer?

questions comments from the commission please commissioner franco yeah i have a comment and and i want to thank staff i think i talked to just about everybody today and y'all were very helpful and uh i i was trying to figure out how to put something on the agenda as a planning commission member uh because i've been in and off the board you know i've served almost 10 years three different decades three different makers so there's a lot of time i haven't been here and i don't know how to do it so they told me how to do it and john's very helpful about putting this on the agenda next month and it has to do with trying to figure out whether or not we want mixed use on central pike and the reason that i bring it up is because are we underplaying our hand here I mean, do we really need to leverage commercial on Central Pike with residential multifamily? And there could be a couple different ways to change this. We could change it by changing the land use plan maybe or changing CMU and taking multifamily out of CMU. But I think all of us know what's going to happen on Central Pike. Every development we're going to get is going to be a mixed-use development. Now, these properties aren't going to qualify. So I'm not sure I'm – Sure. Debating against this rezone. But next month, I'd like to have a discussion about this and see what the board thinks. And using the month to think about how to do it. Because there's a number of ways we could do it. And it may be that you guys don't want to do it. But if we don't do it, I think you're going to see Central Pike become apartment alley. And there's plenty already over there. So it's just a matter of what this board thinks the city ought to grow like. Interstate commercial is an option. Could change it. in a land use plan like that, or we could change CMU and take it out. I mean, there's lots of different ways to do it, I suspect. But anyway, I just want to make that comment. I don't know that it really is germane to voting on this because this is under the PUD requirements of these two properties anyway. They couldn't do multifamily if they tried. But that's my comment.

A good heads up to kind of make us aware of a discussion for next month on that.

Think about it.

Yeah, is it better to get into an offensive position as that's coming online than defensive and create division?

I'm not sure we have a lot of time.

Yeah, that's true. Good points. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? At this time, let's call for citizen comments in regards to these items on the agenda. And when we should make comments, we're 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 open the floor for a recommendation in regards to these items on our agenda.

I'll make a motion for a positive recommendation.

It's a motion. I'll second that. Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? It's a positive recommendation. All right. Next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. I guess, would there be any objection to hearing items 8A and 8B together? Stay consistent with what we've just done. Annexation and plan of services together. Any objection to us hearing that? Seeing no objection, we will hear items 8A and 8B together. Both the recommendation items back to the Board of Commissioners. Item 8A is review the annexation request for East Division Business Park located at 535 Hunting Hills Drive. Item 8B is review the plan of services for East Division Business Park located at 535 Hunting Hills Drive. Please be reminded that we are only hearing annexation and plan of services at this point in time. Thank you. Mr. Jarr?

Sure thing. Land use, you'll notice, this is familiar. You've seen it before. You'll notice the land use amendment is not on this agenda because the Board of Commissioners sponsored that back, and it passed positively on the first read. And since no action was taken on the annexation in the plan here, we're back with the same plan.

Well, thank you.

Same comments. Sure.

Todd, anything from Engineer? Very well. Thank you. Questions or comments from the Commission? Commissioner Jones?

I'm not sure if I need to address that. No, I'm not. But I want to talk about this address, why they're using Hunting Hills as their location.

It would be better to speak to the address being Hunting Hills at this time, or would it be best for us to address that question when we hear preliminary master development plans?

care I just want to know why they're using that because correct correct me if I'm wrong ingress and egress is all often all from division it's not anything on penny heels oh that's correct I'm not for sure why it's that way good question I mean, you would say go down to Hunting Hills. People don't want people to go down to Hunting Hills to get to this office part.

May I have a comment on that? Please.

I just pulled it up on GIS, and the very corner of the property touches Hunting Hills, and that's the 911 address assigned to it.

There are other parcels up front, Division Y, that address.

Well. You know, if that was the case and someone obviously they find hunting hills, someone may go down hunting hills. I mean, I know we're using GPS and it will take you probably there, but I don't know. I would think that whoever owns this would want that on Division Street myself.

It won't remain the address once it develops. There's a bunch of parcels, a number of parcels that would be combined.

This brings up a question.

Any additional questions, comments of this time? This time, I'd like to open the floor for citizen comments in regards to annexation and plan of services on these requests. Anyone wishing to make comments at this time is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

Hi.

my name is derek stoffel i live in uh 533 hunting hills we're just talking about we're right next to where this property is going to be going concerned about the traffic coming down hunting hills big 18 wheelers getting lost going down our our street um we're also concerned about how close it's going to be to all the houses that have built around there and And the traffic on division coming with these big trucks out in and out of this warehouse is going to be awful. And also the same commission two months ago unanimously voted this down and then somehow got sent to the next process. And now it's back here again. So I just don't understand why everybody here voted no. And now we're back here again. So that's what I have to say on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time? Please name and address for the record.

Question first. Can I speak twice if I want to speak at the next one that you bring up too? Okay. My name is Connie Mitchell. I live at 511 Hunting Hills Drive. To address your question, when Amazon was built, they came down Rutland Road. And if you've been down Rutland Road, it's a one-lane bridge. And they were way over the weight limit. But their GPS brought them in to Amazon that way because Amazon was originally on Rutland Road. But there's a farm between... my Rutland and that Rutland because the city has morphed over the years. So that isn't a good question that you ask that definitely needs to be addressed to get our road off any map quest that would happen. But also as a citizen that is on Hunting Hills, I will address some other issues I have when we talk about the next step. But I just wanted to say that is I don't know if you can remove it from GPS. But as someone who's lived there 42 years and saw a tractor-trailer truck stuck on that road, it is a definite thing that needs to be addressed that that could be pulled so no one accidentally comes down that road again. Thank you.

Any additional citizen comments at this time? I see no additional citizen comments at this time. I'd like to ask for a recommendation in regards to these items on our agenda. Oh, yep, correct. Before we make that request out there, do need to close our Planning Commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. Public hearing is in regards to item 8B, which is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners as to review the plan of services for East Division Business Park located at 535 Hunting Hills Drive. Anyone wishing to make comment during the public hearing is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and 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 recommendation in regards to these items in our agenda. You sure, man?

Just for clarification, what I'm seeing in the plans here, there is no connectivity to Hunting Hills Drive. There is no planned connectivity to Hunting Hills Drive. It's just that it's part of the parcel, correct? There might be a utility connection or something like that, but there's no physical connection at all. Okay.

I'm looking for a recommendation. Annexation plan of services. I'll make a motion for a positive recommendation back to the Board of Commissioners on items 8A and 8B.

Motion in a second.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against. Abstentions. This is a positive recommendation. Next item up on the agenda is also a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners to review the Preliminary Master Development Plan for East Division Business Park at 535 Hunting Hills Drive. Mr. John?

Like I said, it's the same plan, so all the same comments. Nothing's changed.

yeah uh shane wanted me to let you know uh the sewer for this development is going into the amazon pump station which actually needs a little more uh demand it has far too much capacity right now um on my side of things uh this development has proposed three access on division street the primary tractor trailer entrance being the middle driveway They have voluntarily restricted that to right out only, which will keep exiting vehicles off of Division towards downtown and keep them going to Golden Bear. As far as improvements go, they are being required to widen Division Street to three lanes along their frontage. That widening will be done in a way that's compliant with the city's East Division widening project. they're also either extending or replacing the culvert crossing that's right there. So that will be compliant with our widening project as well. And that's a fairly big deal as far as funding that project goes. Additionally, we're getting a turn lane at Old Lebanon Dirt Road. And we are getting a 10 foot path that will connect into the Amazon path and get you to Golden Bear if you choose.

John, something additional?

I should mention the variances requested here since we haven't talked about that actually. You'll see there's only two of them, and it's 100% deviation from Brickerstown. And then the other one is 100-foot buffer that is required of an industrial adjacent to residential. They've got a portion along the south Rather, we're going to take that back, the west property line, where it's various widths, but it's not 100 feet. So any recommendation would have to include stance on those two items. Staff doesn't necessarily support either of them. Like I said, yeah, reduction in the 100-foot buffer for a portion of its required length and then the deviation from masonry. But it is an industrial building. That's all I wanted to add.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll start out. I got a couple questions, comments that... i'd like to address and let's go ahead because i have a feeling some of these are going to go back for representation so let me go ahead and call for representation to come forward on this project uh well i'm asking a few things out here i'm making a few notes uh here and this is more back to staff here initially um the detention pond on the south uh east corner adjacent to hunting hills right now is that a wet pond or is that a dry pond

I believe that's a dry pond, but I'll let Joe speak to it. I think they might be falling into the stream. Name and address for the record.

As of right now, I anticipate it to be a dry pond. You'll see some notes in there that are just standard with staff. If at some point it's a wet pond, it gets a fountain, it gets lighted, it gets a fence around it.

That's where I was going with it?

Already included, yes.

Okay, perfect. That's exactly where I was going, especially with the proximity to residences right there. That's right. If it becomes a wet pond, I'd have that stagnant water sitting right there. Yes, sir. um just a couple other comments that uh that'll go with here um and this kind of addresses commissioner giles concerns and one of the notes that i had made there uh wanting to bring it up was uh full abandonment of the access if there is an access easement on the hunting hills drive to abandon that access easement right there and give up that I think that's probably going to happen pretty easily done there, but that further ensures and when you give up the GPS or you abandon it, it may help to get rid of Google Maps and things like that. Todd, you had a question on that?

Just a point of clarification, the PUD process governs all access. So as shown, if this were to pass, they would not be allowed access to Hunting Hills. Their lot itself goes up to Hunting Hills. So short of subdividing that lot off, they are technically going to touch that road.

But the reconfiguration of this plat would fully abandon any current easements that go along with either of the plats being combined together. That's what I want to make sure is that there's going to be an easement there, and I want to make sure that an easement gets abandoned with the replatting of this property. Every driveway's got an easement.

Obviously, I don't know for sure if there is, but I would assume there isn't an easement. I mean, it just touches the road. It goes right to the road.

It had a driveway on it at one point, so I would have had to assume that there would have to be some kind of access easement because there was a driveway. And with the replatting, I just want to ensure that that easement is abandoned. That should alleviate that comment or that pain that we got with that. Just another comment I want to make sure that we include is, uh, to further exasperate that comment right there, uh, is to include the comment, no construction traffic is to be brought upon or access to this property during its construction process on, uh, Hunting Hills Drive. Um, further again, trying to help the concern that we, uh, heard shared here. Finally, um, My final comment was towards, thank you, I saw the addition of the fence down there. I believe the berm is still down there adjacent to the residential portions. Did have to get my magnifying glass and figure out the FFEs as we go through here. A proposed building showing an FFE of 574, which puts it 14 feet higher than the low point corner. If I'm right, it should be about 560 there versus 574 for the building, so being a low point.

My request there is just kind of simple.

Maybe in the old abandoned driveway area or in the vicinity, Just some additional mature trees or something that's gonna grow into a full hardwood, whether that's a pin oak, oak, maple, something that will create some longevity and eventually grow into a full, nice, beautiful tree there at the edge of that cul-de-sac. It'd further help to block that because it looks like your berm, your fence, and just the natural grade and elevation as the building's gonna be set and FFV's established. will kind of help the other areas outside of that one low point, that being on the southeast corner of the property right there. That is my comments. I will make one more comment on this because I didn't pick up on the tilt panel. When it comes to these heights and whatnot here, understand the application and the rationale. And I'm actually, when we get into buildings of this size, more of a fan of a tilt panel style construction. however i do know that on the tilt panel you can also put designs and your forms out there and so what kind of forms do you are you aware yet because i don't know that we got a full elevation of what the panels will be and just don't want them to be monolithic i am reminded as this building sits right there next to it and wasn't sure that the amazon building would not have forget the technical term or whatever it is on it but you know it's lifetime warranty it's gonna always look just like that and it don't look just like it did when we put it up so want to ensure that it's not just a monolithic look because this will be some important frontage for the city in many many many years to come these buildings are being requested to push to the direct front of of division which is a major corridor will only become a greater corridor as road improvements are made down through there so i do want to ensure you're asking for the overall variance of that i don't mind granting that but i don't want to see just a rectangle piece of concrete, you know what I mean? Because I do know that you can get forms that either have a brick, have some kind of style, some kind of pattern in it, some kind of form, excuse me, that create that texture, that create the look unless you get right up on the building. Till panel construction with these building heights are as much safer application, particularly with the movement of heavy vehicles around them. I used to use the adage of If I were parked in a parking lot at a building of this height and I thought I was in reverse and I'm at forward and I hit the side of the building, if I hit the side of a building of this height, that brick is going to fall all over me and probably kill me when I hit the side of the building. And chances are it hurts somebody on the inside. If I make that same mistake against a tilt panel construction building, I'm going to bounce off. And the only thing that's harmed is my vehicle and my pride. So I just want to make sure that – that we also, I like the style of construction, but also want to make it aesthetically pleasing. So my request would be towards any, should the till panel variants be approved by this body, that the till panels include decorative forms within them and applied appropriately.

You may work with staff on that one. I could address that.

Sure, please.

Real quick, that was part of the variance request, the commitment for the enhanced architectural features. You can see on the elevations there is some painting, the scoring you're talking about, very similar to what you all have seen and approved at a point for Nyer on the south side of 40 right here, what Panettone's just recently tilted up this week. So it was consistent through the corridor.

Thank you.

Please.

The 100-foot buffer, and you were talking about there may be some variances, but I know that some of the residents who live there have children, and a number of them use that cul-de-sac to play and that's not far from where they live. Is there anything else we can do require concerning their safety in the division part of that besides just the landscape greenery?

great question um so in addition to uh the landscaping which we are showing a denser buffer than what city code would typically require we do have a graded berm through that area so very hard to traverse kind of hides our buildings down below the subdivision and we've also added a fence based on some feedback we've heard from the neighbors at previous meetings i think the concern was being able to not only for the kids to move one way, but also for employees of this facility to be able to kind of walk over the burner. So we've got a defense that would prohibit that, no gates, anything.

I'd like to add that the part of the buffer that they're not asking for a variance on is the 100-foot wide section is the portion up against the cul-de-sac area of Hunting Hills. the way the portion is on the other property line. Thank you.

Is the expectation in the future that more industrial will continue down East Division?

I would say not necessarily because the land use plan doesn't support it.

Okay, so this is it?

Well, I mean, this one requires a land use amendment as well just to have it happen, so. It would be the same process again if that were to happen.

Commissioner Jobs?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse. Joe, this address, and John has said that when the addresses come out, I assume you're saying there will be several which will be on divisions. the problem with this is is that in the meantime when these trucks are going in there and just like connie came up here and said and you know for years i've gone out on my porch at my office well be of am to have a cup of coffee and there goes a truck and it goes right behind valley center and why because their gps took them down through there and that was that was before it was a one-way And then they turn on Old London Dirt Road to go out there to go to Amazon. So if it's not stopped now, if something's not done now, it's going to happen. And the question is, how long will it take? Until it stops. So my question to you is, and legal, what can be done now so that it totally gets it off of here and the address is on Division and not on Hunting Hills? Because there's going to be trucks go down Hunting Hills, and it's not right for these people. It's not fair to them. I just don't like it.

If I could, Commissioner, you heard John mention that this is a combination of about seven different pieces of property. one of which has driveway access to Hunting Hills. So as soon as our client would close on all seven pieces of property, we're going to record a consolidation flat merging together and the Hunting Hills address goes away and they get the Division Street address.

Okay.

And I will say, I'm not sure where, I think it may just show up in the staff report as the item description. It is not noted as Hunting Hills anywhere in the plan set before you.

john carver i've had some time to think about this what you're seeing on the agenda is simply a label that we put on it for our own purpose we got to call it something if you look at the plans themselves there isn't reference to hunting hills at all so what i'm guessing happened is when they applied for whatever reason in the application process they used 535 hunting hills It's just a label at this point. It's not the address that it's going to have. Those lots are going to be consolidated into one lot. Its frontage is going to be division.

So that will be on the GPS when that occurs.

flag lot has a i don't know if it's still there but there's a house on it that has driveway access when they consolidate it it will have to change they could have literally just probably applied with a different address and it would have been that address on this agenda

So not that I understand what you say. It's not that I don't believe you. Is there anything that we could put on here to assure that exactly what was said and what plans to be done is going to be done?

My comment should address that.

Yeah.

My comment of the abandonment of permanent abandonment of the easement with the replatting of the property.

And that's going to be on that.

Yeah, that should. Okay. Mix that. All right. And I'll say, too, as somebody that works in project management, you do deal with that. And traditionally, you run your traffic to where you provide them an address that works for GPS. And they will work on this East Division to track this property. So their project management, as long as they give them an East Division address, should flow that traffic that way. Yeah. And I guarantee we will hear of it. We're going to have a condition with no construction traffic, so we give our ability to find the project. Commissioner Rasch, please.

To quit, well, a question and a comment. First question is, some of your grading goes beyond the western property line. Is that something you've got to have an agreement with that property line? We do.

It's part of the purchase agreement for grading easement in lieu of purchasing additional property.

Okay. And my comment is that landscape buffer next to that residential property to the west, it's varying. How thin does it get?

It's approximately 15 to 20 feet wide. If any of you all have driven down Division Street in the past week, you've seen Jones Brothers actually actively grading on those parcels working towards our project boundaries.

so there's it's going to be graded by the time we start our project in reality shows the owner being a myers is yeah is that one of the participants in the sale of this overall property or are they just so she's a member of the family that's actually selling the property to this part of so she's

They're fully aware of the reduced buffer requirement.

All the adjacent owners are aware and probably don't really mind.

No concerns.

Questions, comments from the commission?

Okay.

Is that your comment? Yes. Very well. Thank you. Seeing no additional questions or comments at this time, we're going to open the floor for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment at this time in regards to this item on the agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. Name and address for the record. Just don't forget, if we hit that three minutes, I'm waving at you up here just trying to summarize those comments for weeks. I hate that gavel. So, please, the floor is yours.

All right. My name is Amanda Kern. I live at 534 Hunting Hills. I appreciate a lot of what you guys have already said about the property and protecting the cul-de-sac. We are some of those young kids, and they're in here today. because they do love playing in the cul-de-sac. It's peaceful down there, somewhat peaceful. These more and more warehouses are coming in. It's noisy. There's a lot of light. So I really am concerned about this buffer, even 100 feet. I live at 535. So I'm next to kind of what I would call Amazon and Medline. It's a pretty large buffer between me and those buildings and a very high berm, I'd say over 100 feet tall. And a lot of trees went in between us. I have not seen this new plan that includes a fence that's going to go in. I'd ask that it be similar to the fence that's currently by my property. And 100 feet is really close, and it's really close to that cul-de-sac. So I'm concerned about safety, people coming in and out of those warehouses, the noise of more trucks coming into the neighborhood. It's just 100 feet seems really close to our properties. Yeah. you know we just want to make sure our kids stay safe and nobody can leave i know it's he's saying there's a berm and you could not get over it our fence is just a three ring or three thing fence you could just crawl through it i mean our kids play on it so um i'm just i just would like to see the warehouses push back even further i'd love more of a buffer between us uh and at higher berm i don't want to see it i mean if i if i don't have to see it i'd love to not see it um but we still see the lights so That's what I'm asking for. And just minimal traffic. Keep the traffic off the road. I can't stop all the noise. And when they start building, are we going to get warned about blasting? We're right there. If there's any construction or anything that's going to happen, I'm concerned our house is going to be disrupted. Brand new house. We've lived there a year. So that's my comment.

i will address one if i'm not mistaken and staff please correct me if i'm wrong the proposed fence is an eight foot tall vinyl privacy fence so no penetrations between it's black in color is uh is what it is so basically a hopefully a no maintenance fence uh that's what's being proposed before us today commissioner giles you may be able to speak about our blasting ordinance but i know the boc recently amended our blasting ordinance probably one of the most stringent in middle tennessee as far as notifications or whatnot. Is that right?

Something's shaking my house about four times a day. So something today right now around us is shaking our house.

So we can't survive, but we've got Abramis back here. He might want to come up and explain that.

On the blasting? Yeah.

He's still here? Is he not here? No, I think that he was here.

Yeah, please.

The city can't regulate blasting at all. It's all regulated by the state. Period.

Regulated by state law. Do you know what their notification process is? Just so we can.

I don't know.

100%.

I believe, Commissioner Giles, you might know. Didn't we just recently put some information out about that?

It's on the website. It is? Okay. It's on the website. And to get back to your question, and I don't remember if that's when I was here or not or before I was gone the four years. But we did change that, and we did make the developers comply, and then the state came against us and sent us and said, you cannot do that. So our hands were tied, and they are tied. So it is a state-regulated compliance.

A hundred feet from our house is going to be pretty darn close for some of that.

But it's on the website that gives you, and it gives you a phone number, and it gives you a website that you can – go to and you can make a complaint.

Okay. I'll look for that. Thank you. And now that I know it's a vinyl fence, I don't love that idea. I mean, it's a very pretty fence that we have. It's not privacy at all, but it's going to look really weird when you come down the cul-de-sac and there's this nice wood kind of fence and then a black vinyl fence. So it's going to look, it's going to look weird. I'll just say that. So thank you.

Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time?

My name is Connie Mitchell. I live at 511 Hunting Hills. Been there a long time. Not only am I concerned about safety, I'm also concerned about the values of our homes. And I'm not against, I think they've done a great job on presenting and trying to help meet our needs. But those houses in the Dead End are new construction. The tornado just ravaged our community. So we lost eight houses. just about lost our lives so we all chose to stay and rebuild so i agree the hundred feet is really close if we could just have a semblance that we still own our property and that we still have that dead end instead of feeling like we've been encroached on um i hate to say this but if they could back it up more they're building on division so there's no reason that they need to even hopefully encroach that close to us so i'm asking that we could have I'm asking for 300 ft. So 100 yards, something that's longer, something that gives us a little more view that we still live in the country and that we still are part of Mount Juliet and not part of Nashville. So thank you.

Thank you.

Derek Stoffel, 533 Hunting Hills. I just want to add to if they talking about the 18 wheelers and coming downhill, Hunting Hills is if they're going to do all this, we add some speed bumps maybe on the street too, just to keep it. Well, if they do, you know, just for safety for the kids. Thank you.

Thank you. Further questions or comments?

BUILDINGS. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THOSE BUILDINGS TOWARD THE SOUTH WEREN'T PUSHED UP CLOSER TO THE BUILDINGS IN THE NORTH.

JOE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, PLEASE?

YEAH. I MEAN, I SEE THERE IS SOME SLOPE THERE.

uh you just mentioned that there is some slope to really to minimize grading that we're going to have to do to achieve the site step in the buildings helps with our overall cut bill which leads to less blasting and so forth so the buildings toward the south are going to be higher elevation than the ones toward the north slightly slightly all right um

just to reassure the folks that live on that area what's the overall topography and planting of that rear 100 foot buffer would it be plants on both sides of the fence so that it's mostly correct eventually hidden within the you know five to five to eight year time frame correct and we run the larger trees on top of the berm try to weave the fence in between the planting so it's hidden sure not hidden but it's kind of

disappears into the landscape.

Would the fence be on the development side? On the development side. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Further questions or comments? No additional questions or comments this time. I'd like to call for a recommendation in regards to this item in our agenda.

I'll frame my positive recommendation this way. It's still got to go before council.

So do I have two staff comments?

Motion and a second for that.

Would you all mind if I include the comment of should detention pond three become a wet pond that the appropriate fountain landscape is installed? That when this project, when or if this project is platted, there's a full abandonment of any kind of access easement granted towards Hunting Hills Drive. Also to further include the comment to exasperate that one a little bit that no construction traffic is on Hunting Hills Drive. And then one final that any tilt-up panel construction, I'm assuming you support the variance that is done with enhanced architectural features and elements outside of paint, but also texture in that. So amended. Is that okay? Yeah. Motion and a second for a positive recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? is a failed recommendation is that right that was four three four three was it not yeah four will get you very well that is a positive recommendation next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners review the annexation request for emerson park located off chandler road mr john No, sorry. I have his microphone off. Please, John. Back at you.

So annexation only. It's in the UGB. City limits across the street, across Chandler. That's the only comments I have on the annexation. Recommend approval. Positive.

Since I tabled that, may I request to the Planning Commission to hear plan of services together with that? Very well. Any objection to me amending the tabled item to include item 8 or 9B as well, which would be the plan of services in association with this? Seeing no objection to that, I'm going to amend the item on the floor to include item 9B. So we are hearing both the recommendation items back to the Board of Commissioners. Item 9A is to review the annexation request for Emerson Park located off Chandler Road. Item 9B is to review the plan of services for Emerson Park located off Chandler Road. John, your comments remain the same?

No additional comments.

Very well. Todd, anything from engineering? None on the annexation. Very well. Thank you. Questions or comments from the Commission?

assuming the rezone has previously been approved that's us no every zone is seated okay simple annexation approval it automatically comes in as r1 still is that correct rs40 rs40 i'm sorry

guess um one quick question on this because this one is located away we can supply and provide sewer adequate water pressure and ambulatory and police services to a parcel we technically can't speak on water but yes we can provide a lot of sewer okay other questions comments Seeing none at this time, I'd like to ask for citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Anyone wishing to make a comment, welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone. Name and address for the record.

Stephen Bowman, 1422 Chandler Road. I'm actually representing about nine people here. I don't know if I can get in a little extra time, and I have submissions in on this. I appreciate the time to speak here. A couple of points on this is the sewer availability that was mentioned. It is only allowed for 28 lots and there's 29 lots on the property itself. There are numerous requests for waivers. It's a 14.5 acre parcel. The setbacks are reduced from 20 feet to 7.5 feet. That's a 62% reduction and it's listed as RS 20 right now. I thought I heard you say RS 40, but also the building facade was reduced from 70% brick and stone with 30% fiber and cement board. There's also an elimination of article 10-111, the transitional protective yard buffered adjacent to lot one, which will directly impact a neighbor's lot. The cul-de-sac length is in excess of 700 feet maximum. These are all waiver requests. And the internal street is to be a private gated street. The buffer, I'm sorry, buffer adjacent to lot one externalizes impact on it. The Karsten geological survey should be studied before and not after. I actually have a submittal here where there's photographic proof of the property that I live on that there is a resurgent spring located in the middle of the property that is being developed. And I've located this spot, geolocated it on the maps and where it flows from the property it basically creates a river down through that property and this happens multiple times per year you can see that's not a small little flood that's going through there and down onto continues down through the property down onto my property and completely floods it out And even during, let's continue flooding. And I'll submit this all to you for your request. And that's the creek bed that's created on that property that runs down to my property when it's dry. And that's about four feet deep and about eight feet wide. Further, where they're planning for their retention pond, there is a sinkhole there, cave system, that we're concerned that if water is put into that, it'll seep down into the underground and flood out the additional properties around there. These staff conditions defer the following final conditions. master development plan stage, we had detailed elevations, material percentages, amenities, and amenity details, photometric plan, tree survey, covenants restrictions, rendering of the gate entry, And for the request, we are asking the commission to defer action on agenda items 9B and 9C until the following are resolved. Written confirmation from the West Wilson Utility District of the sewer capacity for 29 lots when it's only at 28. A completed geotechnical cart survey that would include EPA soil tests, environmental impacts for the spring that's in there, a traffic study supporting the MTA waiver and the cul-de-sac connection waivers, a measurable tree preservation standard, which is not specific in there, that has a specific canopy or a caliber inch metric. They've said that they'll save certain amount of trees, but no mention as to what. Reconsideration of the side setback waiver from 20 feet, that is at 20 feet down to 7.5 feet. It's basically putting the houses right on top of each other where it was mentioned before that this area is typically developed on one acre lots. Here we're going to have seven and a half feet in between the lot lines. And developer to pay for structural evaluation for all residents' potential area due to blasting. Some of the road area comes in right next to Mr. Key's property is within probably 50 feet of the home that things are going to be impacted. So I have nine of these that the neighbors have all signed, as well as I've signed this request for the car survey in the environmental impact and we have another uh document from tony pew who i bought the property from 1422 um in 2020 and he lived there from 2012 until 2020 and noticed this flooding that came oops this flooding that uh is caused down there i don't know if i missed anything guys but you can read that yeah i'll have the

Do I submit these into? You may. And keep in mind, too, we're only on annexation plan of services right now. You're speaking more towards preliminary plat, which we are not discussing at this point.

Okay. Well, is that going to be a future meeting or?

No, it's going to follow. It's the next item up on your agenda.

Okay. You can come back up and speak to more about it if need be.

good evening uh kenneth powers 977 chandler road uh i have mirror some of the the concerns that were previously mentioned but my overriding concern from my property is the traffic and the traffic the way that those roads are constructed i i i just have a lot of concerns about the increase in traffic And I understand, as everyone knows, I am a developer in Mount Juliet. And I understand that growth is coming. It's here. But I just think there's probably a constructive engagement that we all can work on at the Residence Inc. People that are affected by this development in a positive way that's productive for everyone. So I My thing is traffic, and I'd like to talk to staff about traffic out there and what's looked at, how it's scored, and all of that. And on a side note, I just wanted to tell everyone, Starbucks opens June 15th at City Station. Thank you.

Any additional questions or comments right now during annexation and plan of services? That is all we're talking about right now.

Right. Understood. Tony Pugh, 1420 Chandler Road. I just wrote this up, but Todd wouldn't read it. So I once owned and sold 1422 to Mr. Bowman. And on that property we're currently discussing for annexation, there is what's known as a resurgence. And what that is is during a rain event, water enters a cave system or a drainage system at an upper elevation and drains from the ground, resurges from the ground at a lower elevation. I have seen and experienced exactly what these pictures showed multiple times per year over the years that I lived there. And the overflow pond, they couldn't build one large enough on that 15 acres to contain the amount of water that flows through there on a rainy event. Secondarily, I'm not a hydrologist, but what I am is a longtime caper. And as such, I have informally studied hydrology and I've been underground many times with hydrologic engineers and have seen firsthand how water moves and what it can do underground. So I can assure you that if that resurgence on that piece of property is blocked or restricted in any way, shape, or form, that water will find another exit. And there's no question about that. My question and concern is this. If that water finds its resurgence on another property, under a neighbor's house or in a neighboring basement who will be responsible for the repair and payment for remediation caused by the new resurgence pattern up to and potentially including addressing a home which may potentially be rendered uninhabitable because of the new resurgence pattern. New resurgence pattern damage may not occur this year. It may not occur next year. It may take a few years, but if and when it does, What recourse will the homeowners have? And now as far as addressing the annexation, do you truly want to annex a piece of property that has that kind of resurgence and that kind of serious expensive potential problems associated with it? Thank you. Thank you.

Any additional citizen comments at this time?

Hello. I'm Griff Akins, 120 Normandy Drive. I live in the Normandy Heights subdivision. I know this is just an annexing discussion and not the development, but one concern I have is I saw that a traffic study was waived. My concern is that the traffic study, if that's something that we are deferring and asking for, it will happen now when schools are out. I work in Nashville and just the increased traffic from Springdale, parents coming in and out, has added about 20 minutes to my commute now. WITH CENTRAL PIKE WIDENING, OLD LEVIN DIRT ROAD WIDENING, WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE TRYING TO TAKE BACK ROADS. COME DOWN WHEN SPRINGDALE IS OPEN, IT'S GOING TO BE CRAZY. WE'VE GOT ALL THIS OTHER TRAFFIC CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING IN THE CENTRAL PIKE INTERCHANGE. ALL THINGS THAT WE NEED, AND I KNOW THIS IS ANNEXING, BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. IT'S GOING TO TURN INTO ANOTHER SUB DIVISION. WE NEED TO ADDRESS ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF FIRST. There are parts of Chandler where two school buses can't cross each other. They have to stop and one has to go around. There's two bins with two large trucks. You have to stop. You have to slow down. All of these things need to be addressed before we consider annexing and spending potentially a lot of money expanding the roads. That's going to be on us and not the developer. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time? Very well. I see no additional citizen comments at this time. We do need to close our Planning Commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. Public hearing is in regards to Item 9B, which is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners to review the plan of services for Emerson Park located off Chandler Road. Anyone wishing to make a comment during the public hearings, welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments this time, we'll close our public hearing, reopen our planning commission meeting, and at which time I am looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda.

of the speakers mentioned the difference between 28 homes versus 29 homes for sewer are we accurate on that that sewer can support this just want the clarity on that uh i believe there's a little bit of wiggle room in the sewer availability where the one extra unit did not change the determination at all uh Tim is here. Tim Borkum is here. If we have super specific sewer questions, but Shane did review that and he did not determine it should be a problem.

Are we tight in that part of town with all the new developments going on on Olin and Dirt Road?

I'm going to be honest. I don't know.

I see. I see him back there shaking his head. No, we're good? Okay. I just want to understand that piece.

Thanks.

make a motion for positive recommendation for the annexation plan of services subject to the approval of the preliminary master development motion in a second for positive recommendation all those in favor signify by saying aye and raise your hand aye against abstentions that is a positive recommendation Next item up on our agenda is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners to review the Preliminary Master Development Plan PUD, including a rezone from Wilson County R1 to RS20 PUD for Emerson Park, located off Chandler Road.

Mr. John. Thank you. Okay, so we have 14 and a half acres here. The land use designation that it has currently is medium density residential, so that's 2.2 units an acre or less. This proposal with the 29 homes on the 14.5 acres, they're asking for RS-20 based zoning, which is a medium density based zoning which matches the land use plan. They've got two units an acre. uh again the maximum and medium density is 2.2 um i'll touch on the waivers staff supports 70 30 brick stone fiber cement board you may have noticed in the plans that if you look through the pattern book there's some other items that contradict that um staff we support 70 percent break 30 percent fiber cement They were asking for a little more than that, but we'll support 70-30. There was some incongruence in the plans. One spot said one thing, another spot said another thing. The 70-30, though, I think staff can support. Waiver for side setbacks 7 and 1 half feet in lieu of the required 20. Staff can support that, too. That's a fairly common ask. Anything lower than that, we don't typically support. Anything less? The waiver for the landscape buffer to lot one, I don't typically support landscape waivers. But in this instance, if you looked at the plan, you're catching a little corner of lot one there. They're installing the buffer around the entire perimeter of the PUD, except for that area on lot one there. It's tough. I don't think it's a huge issue in this instance. But again, it's up to you to make the final call. I'll let Todd talk about the public works waivers. But overall here, from a planning zoning perspective, we've got 29 lots, two units an acre. A request that meets the land use plan. They have amenities. They kindly removed the mail kiosk from the amenity area. there's not a whole lot else to uh to comment on this from the planning zoning perspective they got street light street lighting proposed the uh the four lots that front on chandler road will have shared driveways so one driveway for two for for two lots um they aren't asking for any waivers for any other side by side or setbacks and um i know really these three waivers that are asked in here are common common items that come up Oh, here's another thing. So minimum lot size on a PUD, 7,500 square feet. They have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in here. So that's the minimum lot size. The average is, I don't remember off the top of my head. I don't know if it's in here. But the minimum is 10,000. Our code requires a minimum 7,500. So they're not close to that. They're not over the permitted density based on the land use plan. The waiver, facade waiver is reasonable. So staff, planning and zoning staff, we can recommend approval of the PUD.

Tom, please. Yeah, on the sewer side, they're going to be installing a pump station on the cul-de-sac to pump into a force main down Normandy Drive. On the traffic side, as mentioned, the MTA, which is our traffic study that was waived due to the number of lots in this development, that did technically qualify for a level one study, which includes every intersection from a quarter mile to development. only intersection within that range is right here at normandy drive so it was my opinion based on the crash review the site distance analysis and the projected volume but the only thing that was going to be warranted was a left turn lane into the site which has been conditioned on them um As far as waivers go, the request is for cul-de-sacs exceeding 700 feet. They are not requesting units though. They have hit their maximum number of units on the cul-de-sac, which is why we have the four fronting Chandler Drive. To mitigate impact of units on a collector, we've asked that they share driveways. uh and this this lot uh this development actually does remind me a lot of rosemont if you recall there's a connection that was called for uh with that development that the property owner didn't want to make so instead of forcing that connection our trade-off was well your cul-de-sac that's not serving the restaurant juliet that's going to be a private street So staff is the one requesting that this street be private, sorry, in lieu of our future transportation plan, which has it connecting to some extension of John Hager that may or may not happen. So staff recommends approval with conditions.

Questions, comments from the commission? please.

Apparently I'm vocal tonight. Um, I know we do it all the time and we've done it a lot, but seven and a half feet. I mean, if your neighbor needs a roll of toilet paper, you can just reach over and grab it from and hand it to you. Not a fan of these types of subdivisions that doesn't fit the characteristics of the neighbor. I mean, the other neighbors, much larger lots, but even down norm, they, they're very close, very, very close. Um, the other part is, you know, to get out of the minimum number or maximum number of lots in a cul-de-sac, they put four of their homes that within the development that has a private street, they put four developments on Chandler and they, they use shared drives. That that's nothing of the characteristics of what we do. I know that's something that you worked with the developer on, but, That just seems silly.

I agree with you on that very much so. I'm looking at the space between them, as you mentioned, and then we talked about the buffer area not having enough space there to adequately separate that from the other building plots. So I would be concerned about that whole front section there and how jammed up that section

I'd probably rather grant a variance and have them alley load than...

I'd rather do away with those four lots.

Yeah, that would be even better.

That would be my preference, do away with those four lots.

Does the cold shock length actually apply anyway?

Yes, all of our regulations apply even with private streets.

Let's go ahead and call for a representation to the project, please. We have a representation. Come to the microphone. Name and address for the record.

Good evening. Rob Molchan, SEC, 850 Middle Tennessee Boulevard, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. I'm here to answer any questions you all might have in regards to this project.

Here's my most concerning thing out there. I don't even know. Do we require geotech on one of this sites?

So engineering has a comment in here basically stating if they run into a CARS feature, shut down geotech survey and mitigation. We do not require a geotech survey prior to grading.

Why is that in general? Is it very expensive?

That would be a great question for Shane, and I wish he was here.

something that you look at yeah forward as well would take these types of questions I mean I think we've been provided documentation here and very quality explanation about the resurgence feature water feature whatever we want to whatever the correct or proper terminology if I'm abusing that but a wet spring there because I I agree once you Once you put a plug in something, water finds a way. And if something like that were to get plugged up, it finds a path of least resistance, which would be something on somebody else's property. And so something's got to be done to identify that to be pressed forward. I mean, especially if there's pretty adequate documentation of a feature such as this that affects everything that we're looking at here tonight, it could change. drastically if we don't identify something like that. I just don't get why we wouldn't want that. Whereas when we make the recommendation, it lies within our UGB. It makes sense at some point in time that this is going to be annexed and within the sea limits of Mount Jewett, and that's the reason why I was in favor of that. But my vote towards that, it's not indicative towards my vote towards this project, especially with something identified as quality as what we've seen and provided information on here tonight. Honestly, I don't know that I can make a good decision without knowledge and knowing where this is and how much that's going to change this project that we're seeing here tonight in totality.

Will, we've already had it and the state has already come out. TDEC has put them out for our HD report that we did for the property concurred. They show wet weather conveyances that is shown in your pattern book that you have there, the map that was re-tawn by TDEC on that side. I think based on the discussion from the citizens that live on the properties around us, I think we're going to ask for a deferral tonight for us to kind of regroup and kind of look into this potential water feature that's coming on the ground that was not picked up in the HD report or

because the hd report was done at a point in time when the water resurgence wasn't there but we're going to attempt to ask for deferral tonight for us to go back and take a look and see what's going on with the property just make certain we're covering ourselves i like that and i appreciate that as well um a lot of times we'll hear some random comments and whatnot um been a long time i appreciate you folks doing your homework and the effort that you put into providing the knowledge of something like this i'm sure that you guys really don't want to get too far into something that could totally change this to two lots or one lot that's probably not the objective of of your ownership on this and certainly changes what you want to do and if that's a true statement as it appears to be um yeah i'm sure everybody would want to know about that phase thank you to leave your willingness and that up i believe commissioner jobs you have something that you'd like to share and if it doesn't come back then not able is that correct my motion for 9a and 9b were contingent upon the approval of 9c so it never comes back how would that uh recommendation on 9a and 9b be with the requested deferral because that would still move to the boc is that correct the preliminary plan very well

I would just like to go on record by saying this is exactly what the citizen comment section is for. Right? Can't the city, the planning commission, the board of commissioners can't do 100% due diligence on every single one of these, right? It wasn't raining when the study was done, that type of situation. So for the 12 people that are going to watch this on youtube after the fact right citizens are critical to this process so i really appreciate the information that we shared today thank you guys thank you thank you guys for uh neighbors for showing up we appreciate your uh your input your comments and uh obviously they were hurt

With that being said, we did just accept a deferral. The deferral was for item 9C, which was to review the preliminary master development plan PUD, including a rezone from Wilson County R1 to RS20 PUD for Emerson Park located off Chandler Road. Next item of business up before us tonight will be item 10A, to review the site plan for Two Rivers Forward Service Center located at 204 Belinda Parkway.

Thank you, Chairman. Two Rivers is submitting a site plan for a current piece of property that they own at 204 Belinda Parkway. It is being utilized right now for vehicle over storage from the dealership further down to the west. They are proposing a 25,000 square foot service center for their commercial service vehicles. It's on approximately three acres. um they are planning on moving um their current service center for the commercial vehicles from the 76 belinda parkway location and dealership down the road the zoning is currently ir uh the promote excuse me the proposed use is permitted by right for this with supplementary cannot talk tonight supplementary position uh use regulations all code regulations have been applied in courts with the base zoning all surrounding zoning is industrial restrictive as well so it is conducive to the area the plan is currently compliant with all bulk regulations setbacks height slot coverage and so forth the parking is compliant the landscape plan is currently under review any deficiencies will be reviewed and addressed prior to this middle of construction documents to public works They have requested a waiver from the industrial design standards. They are wanting to do roughly 17 percent bricks, 63 percent metal siding, and 19.8 percent architectural metal panels. This type of building is consistent with other buildings in that area. There's a public storage. There's also some additional warehouses within the area. The applicant has proposed a approximate eight foot water table of brick. um starting from the ground level up staff does support the waiver request and we also do recommend approval based on all of the conditions as applied from us public works and west wilson utility public works staff recommends approval with conditions very well questions comments from the commission very well

Let's call for citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Anyone wish to make comments is welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and 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 would make a motion for a positive recommendation.

You actually approve it. It's a motion for approval because it's not a recommendation.

Yes. Sorry. Motion for approval.

Commissioner Armstead, does that second remain? Very well. That's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 10B, review the site plan for commercial strip center located at 3007 North Mount Juliet Road. Ms. Jill.

Yes, sir. This plan was in front of you all back in April. I don't know if y'all recall it. It's the project that it sits between Grace United Methodist Church and Camp Bow Well on North Mount Juliet Road. The plan did defer or actually did fail due to lack of representation at the meeting. So they have submitted it again. There have been no changes. does not appear any of the conditions that we had originally applied to this have been applied to the project resubmittal so all of our prior comments stand there are some most of the comments are standard along this the plan itself compliant with a lot of the bulk regulations there are no waivers included in this which is highly unusual it does appear that they do want to meet within the commercial design standards so the submittal is provided the staff does recommend approval of it with the conditions that we had previously applied in April so everything stands as originally submitted

kind of similar to planning where we have some contingent conditions that would need to get worked out before construction drawings but it's the same plan as as y'all saw last time so our conditions are the same i am going to ask for a memory rejuvenation

Why did we get hung up on this? But there was a question that was crucial and important to this.

On my end, their site distance profile does not meet TDOT standard for sight distance. As such, they would not be able to get a TDOT permit for their driveway in the location as shown. Now, their representation in our discussions insists that that's an error in their information, right? They didn't have a survey of the road. They were going to get a survey, and if that showed that site distance was adequate, perfect. The driveway goes where it's approved. If not, that driveway moves to the crest of the hill, which could have triggered a site plan modification because now your truck turning template is going to be drastically different. potentially even splitting it into, say, a two building site plan. I believe there was also some contingencies with their sewer routing where they were easements not yet acquired, where Shane had those being conditioned to be submitted prior to construction drawings as well.

With some discussion to ingress and egress as far as movement of a fire truck through this site or something to the commissioner, I was going to speak to that.

Um, the fire marshal did want us to include that the site plan currently indicates fire apparatus access extending only to the rear of the building. It's preferred that the fire department access provides a continuous 360 degree drive around the entire building to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access to all sides of the structure.

substantially to wrap that around the rest of it, it looks like.

Chairman, please. One of my main concerns, and it come up, I think we touched on it, is let's hope this is very successful. And they run out of parking, you know, because one restaurant, one really good restaurant in Mount Julie can run something like this right out of parking. And if it did happen, you'd almost have to turn around, come back out, and then you'd have to decide whether or not you want to try it again, see if anybody left. And if it's at night, you know, then you got people walking out of the parking lot, trying to get into the place. It just seemed to me that the circulation design of this thing, it's kind of dangerous in a way. especially if it's successful. You know, if it fails, it won't be a problem. But I guess everybody hopes it passes. You know, it does real well. And most things in Mount Julia do well. So that's a major concern of mine. And if they did circle the building, like I guess our fire marshal would prefer, that would solve that big problem that I have with it.

Let's call for representation on this project. Come to the microphone, please. Name and address for the record.

Vinny Shalitiano, one on the MLK Bull, which I know you can see.

Well, you want to, I guess, kind of speak to that, why there's not a continuous design around the building for ingress-egress versus kind of the one way in, one way out, as far as the setup here?

One of the main reasons is because of the slope of the site. If you see the side plan, by trying to do that, right now we've got a retaining wall about six feet. And then by doing that, we're not going to have enough burn to put a sidewalk and go around the building.

So is your cut, my apologies, it's very hard to read in the small print. Are you, so the property to your south, you are lower than the property to your south or you're higher than the property to your south?

It's lower. It is about 20 feet from Phoenix floor on the loading all the way to the lowest part, which is 580.

It looks like at this time you've got probably three tenants in here. This has got to be higher.

Yeah, it just is going to be in my cues. We're going to...

Probably in the south of the mower.

Considerable.

Yeah. It's lower. So this isn't... i just can't determine up against terrain contours let me see this john as shown on sheet c202 the contours basically are indicative of the property boundary so this is indicative of the shape of the property is that correct this is so this property is kind of as it goes to that it kind of does that right there it's not a true rectangle semi-rectangle i guess with the s over there or the I'll say I personally don't want to say no to your project. I like the location. I like what you're trying to do here. But to me, we've got to find a way around your building. And I can't speak for everybody else, but I think we've got to find a way around the building to driveability.

Commissioner Frank, I don't know how far out you would be on your TDOT permit on your curb cut, but that would – because that – if if if staff is right here um you know that flipped the whole thing too right you could i mean if this whole site plan would be irrelevant they'd have to start scratch if they went to the top of the hill right correct so we got that kind of hanging out there i wonder how how long before you think tdot will approve or disapprove

So it's not really TDOT. It's how quickly they can get me that site distance profile. Once we have that, we're golden. We can get the TDOT permit. I just, I haven't received it.

Gotcha. Well, that would be another thing that kind of pushes this off for me.

I don't know what the will of the body may be or what your will may be as your ownership over here, but I don't feel like I've got something before me that I can make an adequate decision upon tonight. I might let them finish their sidebar.

I was looking at the flow of 18 wheelers for loading and unloading.

That's true. Is that what you were getting at?

No, you're right. They can shorten the building and be able to go around it, and that would take care of the fire marshals. concerns yeah and it would also take care of of the loading and unloading because they could go that way if they had to or even come back that way the building could just be made you know because even where the driveway is if that building was shorter they could go this way see i mean they would lose half of the side basically because it's 25 feet wide and then they've got some so

anything you wish to share any other comments from you guys you asking me i'm sorry please yes sir i guess what what i was just saying you guys were having a sidebar over here i feel like what what staff is it's my opinion my opinion only um in that what staff has shared with us and waiting for the site distance to determine the uh ability to use the uh interest entrance or ingress egress to this site on a state highway until that's provided to staff it could constitute a major amendment to this property without knowledge of that i think it's the will of this body as i'm determining it right now that we got to find a way around this building with traffic for fire and safety for the community so not necessarily wanting to turn you around but as well staff has provided us a report of uh currently right now planning staff has 28 comments uh that says uh nothing's been attempted to be addressed since prior application in april and then public works also has 13 comments uh so i'd say you got an excessive amount of comments here this evening as well as an issue that we're finding of of safety of how to get in and around the building And a third comment being the site triangle that needs to be provided to staff to make sure that your TDOT entrance will work.

As it sits right now, I don't think that I have enough right here to... With all due respect, we submit those comments. Yeah, we'll submit it.

You're welcome to come to the microphone and speak as well.

Yeah, all those comments will be submitted. And I got to transmit or share with you right now that everything was sent back. When was, when was that? That was, that was when it was submitted. Let me just check the date. But all those comments, it was like 16 items. They were all addressed and clouded in the submission.

The copy that we have here was submitted and noted on the document as February 20th. This does not show a revised site plan.

No, you have done, sorry, you have the old copy.

Okay, that's what was submitted to us for the resubmittal, so that's why we were not able to note that the comments have been addressed because with the old submittal that we have, the copies that we have, they did not address the comments.

The one that was allotted to the portal?

That's what we have, the type of copies that you all provided are dated February 20th.

I don't know exactly what happened there, but the one that was added to the portal is over here.

Well, the additional copy that we have also says February 4th.

So I've got one with February 20th and February 4th. And these were the paper copies that you all provided to us.

We don't make copies of those.

um to know what happened there um let me ask you this sam this item was deferred from our march agenda i believe instead of our april it was april it was denied okay so they technically could request a deferral

Yep, everyone. May I say something? The previous meeting on the architect record, we did not notify. It's actually that we had to be present on the website. It says that first of all, we have to be present. That's why nobody was here. And then after that, Get in contact and then we resubmit that information again. And I'm looking for the day over here. I'm surprised you got 29 there. What we have here submitted. Just give me a second. Just go into my notes.

So is it fair to say that what we have before us is not what you're planning to do or submit?

Yeah, it's fair to say that what we submitted was addressing the comments that we have.

So would you like for us to vote on what do we have here before us?

Well, it seems like we didn't comply to what was requested before. And then it was not the case. Unfortunately for the owners, we know it's going to cost a lot of money, but denying at this point also will be worse. We will not lose all the work we have done so far.

A request for deferral?

yeah let's just let's let's just defer up and then make sure that you have the right information and because i'm pretty we address everything you ask i don't know exactly what happened mr john i would just like to say that we've checked the electronics the metals the paper copies they're all the same from february so we did not receive anything

updated so that you guys work through that uh we'll uh request your uh acceptance for deferral on that i would encourage you to uh uh jump in and get involved and speak to staff and make sure we got the right thing you've got a something with uh some potential merit to it we'd like to uh to see it so that is a deferral of that item on our agenda For that, I'll repeat that again. Item 10B is deferred. Per the applicant, item 10B was to review the site plan for commercial strips here located at 3007 Northbound Juliet Road. Next item up on our agenda tonight is item 11A. It's review the final master development plan for the Golden Bear multifamily located at 4515 Beckwith Road.

Yes.

Yes.

OK, so Golden Bear Place. We all know that PUD, back with Golden Bear. This would have been, I don't know if you remember back when the PMDP was approved, but it was divided up into several different sections. Area D, I guess, would be this. This is the area of the PMDP that was known as Area D. and it was multi-family and some degree of commercial out parcel commercial um the golden bear place pod as a whole was entitled with 579 residential units in the form of there was some age restricted there were town homes there were apartment buildings 579 units spread across the pod and there was about 262 000 square feet of commercial uses and included in that preliminary mass development plan as well so this section here known as area d on the pmdp What they propose here is 301 residential units and 13,000 or rather 14,045 square feet of commercial. So the part of the whole 579 units and 262,000 square feet of commercial. This portion of it here that they've presented includes like I said 301 units and 14,000 45 square feet of commercial this is the final master development plan only they are not asking for site plan approval here this is just the fmdp so we are just looking at its compliance with pmdp we're not addressing finer detail site plan details they will have to follow up with that if it gets approved sometimes we get these two submittals together an fmdp and a site plan

AS ONE PACKAGE. THIS THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR ONLY THE FINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

SO PURPOSE OF THE FINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS TO NAIL DOWN SOME OF THE ENTITLEMENTS IN THE PMVP AND LIKE I DESCRIBED THIS PORTION OF THE PUD THEY'RE GOING TO USE UP 282 OF THE THEY'RE GOING TO USE UP THERE 301 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THEY'RE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE 14,045 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE GREATER PUD THERE ARE OTHER COMMERCIAL OUTPARCELS THAT WE'VE talked about with other projects that may or may not have happened. McDonald's a part of this. I know Old Acre McDonald's has got an age-restricted potentially portion that's going north of this area we're talking about here. But if you go through the code, there's substantial compliance bullet points in the code. this does not violate any of them what they propose here and looking at the other day i mean there's there's changes in the layout changes and then none of them are major in my opinion essentially what they showed on that pmdp they're accomplishing here in a form of apartment buildings commercial out parcels there's a couple townhomes mixed in here THE AMENITY PACKAGE MEETS SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE PUT OUT IN THE PMVP. SO OVERALL, THESE ARE DIFFICULT TO REVIEW A LOT OF TIMES, BUT OVERALL, I'D SAY WE'RE IN A SITUATION HERE THAT WE CAN DEEM THIS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE PMVP. IT REALLY IS JUST A FINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SO IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM ANY ABILITY TO GO THROUGH COMMENTS OR ANYTHING AFTER THIS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE SITE PLAN. BUT I THINK STAFF CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF IT BASED ON SOME OF THE THINGS I JUST TALKED ABOUT.

uh engineering's comments are pretty minor in nature with the exception that we will not be issuing a land disturbance permit until cars are going down beckwith road again other than that we recommend approval with conditions

Questions, comments? Commissioner Franklin?

Yeah, for John. How are we keeping up with the commitment to age over 55 or whatever? Do we know it's...

I don't believe that the... They had a PUD amendment that would have established that, and it was just different sections of this PUD. The age restrictions have never earmarked for this area of the PUD. Okay. This was always to be standard multifamily. Okay. Now you go to the northern... that area up there came in with a cut amendment for an age-restricted facility up there. This is separate. Okay. Separate developer. Well, now it is a Lake and McDonald here, but further north is their age

I've got two or three quick questions. Is there anything that would keep them from pulling kind of a bait and switch like we've seen before and just completely reconfiguring this? Or is it one of those scenarios where if it's...

They would have done it now. Because once this is nailed down, then they don't have any flexibility.

like number of buildings everything that's that after this this is the way it'll have to be okay because i i for the most part like this layout it's much better than some we've seen another quick question um trash service that dumpster on the south side doesn't service this entire complex does it

I think they have a compactor in there.

There is a compactor down there and then a dumpster as well that looks like it's more so for the commercial aspect of it.

That's kind of how I took it. Compactor for the residential. Okay. You might need to clarify that with the applicant. That's what I was saying.

And we allow the...

THREE RANDOMLY PLACED TOWN HOMES RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE BEHIND COMMERCIAL IT'S ON TO ME BUT THERE'S NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING THERE OKAY UNDERSTOOD ALL RIGHT THESE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE SUPPLIED IN HERE ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT YOU SAW AT PMVP IF NOT IDENTICAL OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS

Let's go ahead and let me call for representation for this project. Name and address for the record. Let me ask staff something real quick before you proceed. As with some of these right here, let me just go ahead and name and address.

Drew Hardison, 615 3rd Avenue South.

Drew, do you have your commercial commitments and components within this? Uh, have you guys been able to get some potential lessees on, on these properties here?

They are not, not yet.

So nothing committed as far as the commercial aspect.

I know that there'll be a mixture of restaurant and commercial there.

And the restaurant is, is freestanding or within a strip center basically. Yeah. And not, uh, not a lower level of any of the residential kind of a deal where it's kind of a mixed use service type. Right. Um, We've just had several projects come in before us with density and with the commercial component along with it. What was important to us was the commercial component, particularly for convenience services and creating additional walkability to keep cars off of roads when you can go to a restaurant or a small grocery or convenience retail type items out there. And some of the, whereas the housing has come along, the commercial components of them have not necessarily followed the same suit. And so it's kind of want to make sure that the commercial components within these are prioritized or is important. is what the residential component that lies within this are. I don't know, Sam, if we can do this at the FMDP. We can't put a trigger on the commercial or tie those to COs to the residential at Final Master Development of Plain County. Very well. We've done that on some previous projects out there that have a commercial and residential component within them. Obviously, it should have been something to look at at PMDP and not something we can add at FMDP. I guess I'd just strongly encourage your ownership in this, that commercial component is an important aspect to the project that's before us here tonight. Yeah, I know that they're fully committed to that. Never mind. Further questions, comments from the commission? Thank you. At this time, I want to call for citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Any citizens wishing to make comments are welcome and 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 going to call for a motion in regards to this item on the agenda. subject to staff comments yeah that's a motion for approval subject staff comments i'll go ahead and second it uh although you're going to beat me to it oh second by commissioner searcy on this yeah it's a motion and a second for approval subject to staff comments all those in favor second five by saying aye and raising your hand aye against abstentions so approved Next item up on our agenda would be item 12C, which is to review the subdivision regulations amendment to article 4-103, streets and pedestrian ways. I'm assuming this is going to be, Todd's going to speak about this one.

Yes, sir.

And I'm assuming as well, planning has no reply on this one. all right very well very well todd the uh the floor is yours sir yes sir um essentially

our city leadership came to shane and i requesting that we amend our street street designs with two goals in mind lower our maintenance burden and increase safety so you'll notice in these amendments that our standard lane width just across the board went down from 12 feet to 11 feet that's pretty in line with industry standard and we dropped our posted speed and our design speed on every category of street on residential streets our residential access street and residential access lane are now going to be identical the only difference being one of those streets allows front-loaded garages one doesn't Our residential collector, we are proposing taking the bike lane off of the street and adding it on as a shared use path to the sidewalk. We've done that plenty through the PUD process. Quite frankly, it's cheaper to maintain and it takes the cyclists out of the way of vehicular traffic, removing a conflict point. So it's considered safer as well. On the commercial side of things, we have removed landscaping from any median islands to reduce costs. We have removed the grass strip between the sidewalk and the edge of pavement as well. As such, we've had to widen the sidewalks by a couple feet to provide our furnishing zone against the curb. And we've also either provided or increased the size of our bike lane buffers along our community collectors and arterials. All of which designed to kind of give multimodal users a little extra space in lieu of having that separation from the grass strip.

Please. To do with actually the content Todd's talking about. But just a reminder, this is a subdivision regulation amendment. So it's one reading here at the Planning Commission. And it's either approved or denied. It does not go to the Board of Commissioners.

That's what I was going to make that point as well. Yeah, there's no asterisk on this one.

There's not.

Nope. This is a final decision by the Planning Commission. We'll open it up for discussion.

I'll get on my podium. I've actually prepared a little slideshow. I can get that queued up. I think just for a matter of reference, I've been a civil engineer for 35 years. I've designed interchanges, interstates, intersection improvement, sidewalk improvement, name it. I've seen it and I've done it. But I'll tell you that the A deciding factor in your design and in all the standards that are established is safety across the board. If you're looking at these three different typical sections, showing where pedestrians might be or might not be, when you're placing pedestrians within the right-of-way, the optimal location is as far away from the road as possible. And that has different definitions and different contexts. The closer you get to the road, the closer the trucks, the cars get to the pedestrians. You know, one mistake can make a difference and a couple of feet can make a difference in some locations. So I just wanted to set that as context of what this slide shows and all I'm shown is that separation is better. If you ever walked along the sidewalk, even on Mount Juliet Road, I think all of us that have walked on that sidewalk would really like to have about five or six feet between the road and the cars going by. But that's, you know, that's ATDOT standard and that's what they build. They don't necessarily build contextually for sidewalks and multimodal. So I just wanted to add that. The first one for the residential collector, making a multi-use path, pushing the bicyclist stuff on there, I absolutely support it. It's a great idea. I couldn't think of a better way to handle that. Some bicyclists like to be on the road. They like to be able to share the road with the cars. But from a safety perspective, you know, one person on their cell phone, not that it ever happens when people are driving, but one person on a cell phone can take out a bicyclist in a hurry. So I absolutely support this revision. The second one, basically, the real change is just getting rid of that buffer for pedestrians. I'd like to see the bicyclists up on some type of a path. You can make it a 10-foot path and put the bicyclists up there or provide a buffer for the bicyclists if possible. But just removing that grass buffer is just a safety issue for me. Similar arguments and comments on this one. The community collector, arterial collector, they're very similar. Placing a buffer between the bicycles and the drivers, great idea. But moving the pedestrians in again, again, I don't think that's a good idea. If we have the room and we've been using it as a standard, why would we not continue to do that? And the real question is maintenance. And in my perspective and in my career, maintenance isn't one of those things you use as a bargaining block for safety. I'll use a couple examples here. Old National Highway, this looks very similar to Mount Juliet Road, sidewalk right next to the road. I wouldn't consider that a safe place to go. If there was a better place to put the sidewalk further out, I'd prefer it. Medical Center Parkway down in Murfreesboro. This is beautiful. In my mind, if you're going to build roads in Mount Juliet, not arterials that just go and go, but if you're building roads in Mount Juliet, providing some landscaping, providing some sidewalks further away from the road. This is what makes it a more safe design. And that's shown that if you got landscaping and trees and things like that, it slows drivers down. Another one close to our heart. Same thing. I took a little liberty. I took a little picture of this and I did some AI on it. Now, City of Mount Juliet had an opportunity to have full input into the design of Mount Juliet Road. I know it was a TDOT design road. But if we could have made it something like this, more like Medical Center Parkway, don't you think it would have been a much better look for the city than just to go with fully either paved over medians or full concrete medians? So when we're looking at this, I'm not saying I want it completely defeated, but I think I'm I'd like to open it up for more comment and more discussion as to the actual design and have it not just be a discussion of saving cost. And I know that's important to the city, but I will never endorse safety for saving costs.

Commissioner Dowell. This last one you've got here, while I see the duty and while I see the safety and while I see the traffic common initiative dealing with this, this was presented to us before you came to this board many years ago for Lebanon Road and down Mount Dewitt Road. And it was turned down because of emergency services and that center lane, that turn lane allowed, it still allows our emergency services to get to, like you were talking about this morning, getting to the accident in a very, very quick manner. So that's one of the reasons, if I'm not mistaken, that we rejected this years ago. It was presented to us. He rejected the original plan.

Back when Mount Julie Road was widened, Mount Juliet didn't have two nickels to rub together. Barely could make the grant match. I mean, we run on $2 million a year, something like that, 80 employees. There wasn't any money. And TDOT wouldn't even build sidewalks. They rejected sidewalks and all the median underground utilities. We wanted to put the utilities underground. TDOT wouldn't do it. It was their highway. That's kind of why it started that way.

And TDOT will not build facilities like this without a maintenance agreement with a local agency. They're proposing one currently, one I'm working on in Thompson Station, if you've been down that way. They're proposing exactly this. And TDOT's supporting it because Thompson Station's dedicating the funding to maintain it.

TDOT has grown more acceptable to this sort of thing. by me coming bicycles just even though we have the if we don't have this this 10-foot path that will be for pedestrians including bicycles bicycles can still go down the highway they have that right this most will not and I think that's a safety factor in itself the the three foot or whatever we have on that Julia Road I actually walked in that one I'm sidewalk when I see a car coming I always go against traffic but you know a lot of your your your cyclists you know I think they'll use that 10-foot path instead of being down there close to the traffic so I see that as a safety aspect if you do have have it like we're trying to do so you know and it's hard to say you know where is that measure is that don't know I just I just you know one day I pulled people unfortunately people go down the bike lane sometimes the opposite way so pedestrian I mean so drivers don't realize and don't think about when you pull out here comes a bike the wrong way no way off at the office I've got create more of a safety or create more safety for the bikers if it was a 10-foot path.

So we're not building any roads such as Mountain View Road right now or Lebanon Road or anything else out there? i know i had to uh paper rock scissors mr barlow several different times because of his roundabouts as i told him shook his hand and congratulated him on his t-dot i was like i'm already roundabouts around there man uh but uh uh his roundabout did prove me wrong over there willoughby station appears to be as time has gone on uh work a little bit better but it was his thinking outside of the box. He had approached me at one point in time just discussing Lebanon Road, kind of doing this right here. And if I recall, I guess somehow being the... h person on here on this body i was around here as this got widened you know and and uh and did this our previous administration uh uh argue wouldn't have liked them because he's like you putting a sidewalk anywhere around there uh and and now we we get them everywhere he's like we ain't gonna maintain that we ain't gonna do that uh but uh you know it's kind of uh the the Maintenance comes along with setting high standards out there. With anything that you do, you can buy something expensive, do something expensive, your maintenance is always going to be expensive at the same time. But at the same time, times change, and you've also got to look at shaping. What are you going to do to it? Look, because you can't argue that something like this is beautiful. But then you've got to also step back to say we don't build roads in the city. We've got TDOT out there so we can encourage approved designs for any highways or anything else out there. Wilson County and then the road building business that I'm getting into the road building business.

First project actually is to present a grant for each division a 50 million dollar project with a point percent match 10 million and that passed the last road commission oh wow so wilson county would get the equipment and engineers and people necessary to well build roads we found a funding source and uh if this passes on east division even though i didn't vote for it um it will it'll add three

but uh so yeah yeah wilson county has gotten into the road building business i had to find a funding source first so we created one with aft so it seems like these days that mount july is taking more roads from wilson county than what wilson county is providing roads to mount july so it'd probably be safe to say that even if wilson county gets in the road building business that within our city limits outside of a widening project such as division it would be nolan boyd the wilson county big county yeah yeah i mean it's a wilson there's only 550 square miles 22 here you know there's only so much so i guess my my point within so I mean just kind of looking I'm gonna go kind of front to back and help me as I go through the provided sheet right here because I want to see applicability of changes and just give me a point of reference for them so the first one is a residential collector Todd where do we see tonight did we see residential collectors come before this body as far as roads if so which project did DID WE SEE A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR DESIGNED?

WE DID NOT SEE ONE TONIGHT.

OKAY. SO GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING NEW THAT'S COME ALONG.

Wintry Club Drive and Wintry Pines is this exact design.

Okay. So it is the black and white up top is what we required them to do? Oh, no, sir.

I'm sorry. Wintry Club Drive is the proposed design. For the top design, we're looking more banner drive north of the Roundabout.

Okay. So this would be over in Jackson Hills. The top would, best example would be in Jackson Hills. And the bottom would be, best example would be Windtree Pines.

Correct.

Correct. And what I'm looking at at the bottom is, even though it's a proposed standard, that developer chose to use a model such as this with the six foot to grass and 10 foot multi-use and 24 foot road section.

To be honest, it's been standard practice of engineering to request this section for our residential collectors, but we've been doing that through the PUD process. So this is more a request to codify what our practice has been for the last two years since I've been here, maybe three from before.

this is what everybody the puds that we're getting this is what everybody's asking for oh thank you yes um let me ask you this now those are two great residential examples where with this i'm not going to see this in any commercial development correct correct So this is more, page one is more getting in tune with what this body's been approving anyway.

Correct.

So we can kind of take a check mark and say, all right, this just kind of gets us what we've been approving anyway and move on from that. Could I ask a question here? Please, please.

Well, Chandler Radford Road would be considered a residential collective.

Right. The more I've thought about it, the more I'm leaning towards that being a minor collector. When you read descriptions of our road classification, residential collectors are really just meant to get you out of your subdivision. While our minor collectors are supposed to give local connectivity between neighborhoods and, uh, and our arterials how would how then would pleasant grove road not be a minor collector as well pleasant grove road is a minor collector or a community collector depending on where on the road so it wouldn't be considered a residential corrupt collector no sir so this cross section wouldn't apply to that project no sir see the one of the problems the only problem that i have with this cross section is trying to put it into an older neighborhood

If you tried to retrofit this, it would be very difficult. If you're doing new construction, new pods, great. Because everybody that's going to buy into this is going to see it. But if you bought a one acre lot in 1980 and then all of a sudden you've got a bicycle whizzing by your window, that's

That kind of gets you. That is an excellent discussion that we absolutely need to touch on. However, the residential collector, we're not going to be retrofitting people's neighborhood streets. They are what they are. We'll repay them as needed. But your subdivision is what it is.

We're going to reduce maintenance costs.

Yeah, that would be a huge task to retrofit.

I don't think that's quite the objective there. Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

I'm with you. I'm with you. I think something. It didn't get glazed over, but I think one of the even more important points in reading through this is that speed limits on every one of these was dropped by five miles an hour. So from a safety perspective, that should help in a big way.

And while we're on the residential side, there is another important point that I don't want to just slip by you guys. There is now a condition in our...

4.103.3, I think.

Yeah, 4.103.403 intersections. Whenever a residential collector intersects with a residential access street or larger, we are now calling for some form of horizontal traffic calming. could either be roundabouts or center medians with pedestrian refuge at the intersection but something to keep traffic going slow through intersections unless this body decides that the road network is laid out in a way that would essentially make it impossible to speed anyway so you have a curving road, meandering road, your speeds are going to be naturally lower anyway. We probably don't need to do that. That will be up to y'all. But that is a big change that I forgot to mention earlier. More roundabouts as Andy would have wanted.

I will collect significant heat, but I am a big fan of roundabouts.

I like them in neighborhoods. Just the retrofit on the bigger roads. Yeah, we looked at Windtree Pines, speaking of, one of that roundabout right there at Windtree Pines entrance. And Andy loved it. No, please no. No, please no.

There is a lot of irony. Windtree Pines is pretty much exactly what we're trying to do here on the residential side.

All right, so that kind of answers our questions, I think, for the most part on residential collector. So let's kind of flip the page and let's talk now about the minor collector. I guess where would I see this or where am I seeing this? And if you can help relate this to a first person for me.

I THINK OUR NEWEST EXAMPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE PURPLE MARTIN WAY. SO THAT'S GOING TO LOOK PURPLE MARTIN WAYS WHICH CONNECTS THE LINDA CITY TO SUMMIT BOULEVARD.

OKAY. THAT'S A GOOD ONE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS THE NAME OF THE STREET. THAT'S A PRETTY STREET NAME.

I APOLOGIZE. THAT ONE IS A FIVE LANE SECTION.

Where have we done something recently or where can I get a visual example or something I've driven here in town where athletes' way. A minor collector would be athletes' way.

Correct.

Okay.

Now, there are several streets in town that, as Mr. Franklin mentioned, are classified as minor collectors that do not have this cross-section because they just predate the standard. Card Road, Chandler Road, all those collecting, connecting streets between our arterials should technically look like this. if we ever got the funds to upgrade them, they would.

Who does that live in Dirt Road, west of Mount Juliet Road?

That is being designed as a minor collector. The center turn all the way, right? Yes, correct.

But you're designing it according to this top one right now and not necessarily to this bottom?

Yes, which brings up a point Matt White wanted me to bring up. TDOT standards do call for grass strips at certain speeds. So for projects that are TDOT grant projects for our retrofits, we could still have grass strips. We would need to coordinate that with TDOT to get a design waiver essentially. And with the trend that TDOT has been making lately, it's not a guarantee that they would waive that.

So you'd have to design to a TDOT standard on that? Potentially. And does this exceed TDOT standards or this is below TDOT standards?

this would be right at maybe at par i guess it could be as well so my understanding based on my conversations with math is that this would be below t dot standard okay but any grant correct me if i'm wrong any grant that we've already received um it will be to tdot standards so they will be these strips of grass because we've already received the we've already had the approval on that uh

so two different answers for you both kind of the same on streets that are already designed or in the design process such as black and grove road old lebanon dirt road uh East Division Street would be a community collector, but it's the same concept. Those are already in design. I don't think we're changing those designs. Those projects are moving along. So those will have our standard sections. I think on those ones we did move the bike lane off the street to a shared use path, but there would be the grass strip still.

We already have money from that. So we have to basically, or the city would have to come up and pay for it.

And those designs are already being worked on or are already complete. They're in various stages of the process. For future projects, if we were to widen Curd Road, and I'm not saying that's on our to-do list before the residents of Curd Road freak out, we could request the design variance to not include the grass strip. Depending on the road, there'd be different appetites from TDOT for that because that does reduce your total right away and it does reduce your total right away needed to be acquired. I know I spoke a little bit with Mr. Franklin today about that exact topic. So there certainly would be projects where they'd be all for that. There'd be other situations where the road has a little bit more traffic, a little higher speed. I think particularly along those community collectors and arterials, I'd expect a little more pushback. Certain grants like Safe Streets for All, those projects cut TDOT out of the equation entirely. Those are funded federally and locally. Those would be our subdivision reg standards. The Tillman property has had conversations with us right off the interchange. Those would be our subdivision standards. That wouldn't be outside a TDOT project. So the grass strips would not be included.

So outside of Old London Dirt Road, where do we require, do we require minor collectors with any subdivisions or anything else that we'd see outside of a major road such as Old London Dirt Road?

Yeah, typically we see it with our commercial and our mixed-use developments when they come in. Okay. caveat that with we've been offloading the responsibility for a lot of these developments now where we're requiring private streets which get a little more leeway um if it's a private street have a grass strip we don't really care right we're not maintaining it um i i think the direction where we've been getting we're going to continue to push private streets whenever possible but if

know we we have large tracts of land adjacent to interstates right now that are coming in to redevelop and they will be requesting public streets it's most likely they'll be designed as minor collector yes sir okay on the on the top section example here that is our current standard uh i know the bottom the new one kind of defines your travel lane and your turning lane is this top 36 inches or 36 feet of pavement is that a that's a four lane road no sir that's a three lane road 12 12 12. so it's a three so it's 12 12 12. okay perfect so really our our most major change to this one would be reduction in your travel lane down from 12 to 11 your center turning lane remains at a 12 foot and then pushing the sidewalk to the curb instead of having the grass strip. That would be your most, just in a visual representation. Increasing the sidewalk 25%. Yeah, increasing the sidewalk 25%. Yeah, because you're doing away with all the grass and everything right there.

And that's for accessibility.

Yeah, sure. Okay. Any further questions on this one here? Let's roll. Let's talk about the next one that I'm showing would be our community collector. So I guess tell us, Todd, have we seen any community collectors lately? If we have not, share us an example where this would be useful.

We haven't seen many lately. The best example I can give you is Pleasant Grove Road through Walmart.

OK. So this would be kind of the Pleasant Grove in front of Walmart, Lowe's.

Correct.

And it is built to the top that we're showing right here, correct?

Slate changes. I think that's a two-foot grass strip. It was built before we changed that code, but yes.

Does it have a bike lane on it?

No, sir. No, sir.

So it's just Pleasant Grove is just really two lanes, one side, two lanes, other side, so minus the bike lane. So it's a 30-foot pavement, 15-foot lanes, or probably has some stripes and gutter on it?

Probably 26-foot pavement on each side of the median.

Okay. Legacy would be another example of that. Legacy is close.

I have my problems with Legacy Point Boulevard, to be honest. The median is substantially shorter. Well, not substantially, but the median is shorter on Legacy Point Boulevard. And in lieu of bike lanes, there's on-street parking on Legacy Point Boulevard. So it is also not an exact match.

Where would we, do you foresee right now any projects that you guys may have knowledge on that we're going to see a road section like this come before us?

Yes, sir. Depending on the layout, I could see the Tillman property along Central Pike. If they do proceed with developing that land, that would include this section most likely.

the bel air project if that comes back for another pod that would likely include one of these sections those that may not be familiar bel air is uh the south of south of south of 40 no i guess it'd be east yeah south and then east of that section yeah the section of beckwith over there that's what's he means in reference in bel air that we all want a county and cities and cooperation agreement on and didn't do more of that um so if i'm writing what i'm seeing here biggest change that we'd be looking for on this is we just have a uh a concrete median and a sidewalk that pushes to the curb with no grass buffer between the two. And essentially, when you remove the grass, it widens the sidewalk almost by default.

We've reallocated a little bit of space from the travel lane to create a buffer on your bike lane.

What do you guys think about the, this one right here jumps at me, especially seeing Commissioner Rath's drawing up here. know we require i mean just in the last project we saw tonight of those apartments uh anytime we create islands out there we're making people put landscaping within them um but we're gonna say it's acceptable as we travel down the road to say hey we're just gonna look at a sea of storm water and we're gonna figure out how to handle all the storm water without using any of natural resources or Mother Nature to help us out on any of that.

Is that in the potential to jump a medium?

If you got landscaping in it, there's going to be more. My truck can turn around on a concrete medium pretty easy, but I couldn't turn around on a landscape medium very easy. Any thoughts, concerns to that? I've been crossing over that. This is one of the things that jumped at me on this one. I like the reduction in the lane size because I agree that that does seem to slow people down fairly well. One of the things I did was I took my tape measure and tried to do it solo because I drive a pretty big truck. My truck is seven feet wide. My mirrors are just shy of 13 inches. So I'm rolling down our roads at just say nine feet is what I'm rolling down the road, maybe a little bit more than nine feet wide. I don't have those big... big trailer mirrors on the side of mine as some of those big trucks like mine does so i'm rolling about nine feet eleven um i'd like to consider myself a good driver so it gives me a pretty good leeway but i'm a i'm a daily division guy so i've mastered uh the the roads out there so we would see this on tillman bel air i mean is that that i guess kind of To have a concrete and no landscape or nothing right there?

Well, aesthetically, I understand.

Yeah.

It's, you know, Nathan implies. Yeah. I don't think it's going to take the safety away from you.

yeah kind of one of those things it should we adopt this I say a lot of this that makes sense but kind of my recommendation would be maybe some staggered green within it because you just get into it that probably is even more problematic if you do something like that because you know it says Bobby would say in our X director of public works reason why he didn't want sidewalks is because he didn't want trees in them because he didn't want roots pushing this stuff up and required him to go out and tear a sidewalk out or somebody tripping on sidewalk and coming after us or or whatever should happen and Times have changed since 20, 21 years ago out there in philosophies, and we've obviously changed a lot here. Thoughts and feedback?

Well, the thought is, I mean, what you've mentioned are two PUDs for this type of facility. In those PUDs, can we not include maintenance as a condition of approval? They have to maintain the landscaping within that PUD.

is private streets they do i believe pleasant grove road they maintain that am i correct that hoa out of they're out of the plant or wherever they are they are supposed to be responsible for trimming the trees and all that kind of maintenance we have conditioned in the past

medians at intersections and roundabouts designating them open space and requiring that to be the maintenance responsibilities in hoa the difficulty is commercial hoas are a little harder to crack the whip on than residential ones um which I think is why a lot of this maintenance is falling on the city, which is why it was requested in the first place that we bring this forward.

Yeah. And that's a prime example too that you're talking about Pleasant Grove Road. I don't want to tell you that I've had to complain over the years because tree limbs hit me in the face because and you have to call the city manager, and then he gets on there. We had to take our resources from the city and do the maintenance up there. And, you know, so that's, you're right. I mean, it's harder to get them to do it.

Never really thought about it from the standpoint of how you get a mower on a 16-foot landscape and not blow gravel or grass into somebody else's car to create a whole other problem in itself.

Mr. Frank, I guess my my main confusion between the residential collector and this one was that this is obviously a faster, more unsafe road to four lines of travel. And and yet we've got the bike lane down there next to it put a two foot buffer between it. That's great. But why in the world didn't we do a 10 foot on each side and just put the bikes up away from the road altogether, and then cut that two-foot buffer and that one-foot grass strip out and just shorten it, take it down from 110 down to about 90?

The answer is separation. Keeping the bike lane on the road keeps the sidewalk further away from the travel lane. With the understanding that with an eight-foot sidewalk, even though it's not ideal for that purpose, inexperienced cyclists would just take the sidewalk. We can't call it a shared use path at that width.

No, what I said was if you change the cross section and got away, got rid of the bike lane and the buffer to it, that's six feet to pick up on. You also pick up another foot of grass on the outside. I don't see why you need. And so you increase that two foot and that six, seven by two, you save five feet on each side. You wind up with a 10 foot travel long. You get your bikes out of the way of the road.

But we're moving our pedestrians five feet, six feet closer to the travel way. And as Commissioner Ross said, feet matter in these situations when you're talking about clear zones. Right. Now, it is a give and a take here. I do not love the fact that our cyclists are adjacent to that road with nothing but a buffer. The thought being, in the future, I'm going to keep pushing for vertical separation in our bike lanes, but it seems like there's not enough support for that at this moment.

I'm not a big walker or a big bicyclist. Sorry, Art. But... But it always, yeah, it always gets to the truck rider. Yeah, truck rider. Why bicyclists and walkers can't share a path together and, you know, we're required to do it behind a high-powered automobile, but for some reason there's a reluctancy to do it when you're going so slow to figure out how to get along. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

The collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian is going to hurt. It is not going to be fatal in most cases.

it going to be if a car gets you?

A collision between a cyclist and a vehicle, if traveling along the straightaway. At intersections, at lower speeds, it can be fine. But along the straightaway, with a roadway departure crash, it is almost always fatal.

That's the purpose of your BPAC ride, isn't it, right?

You know, the ride of silence was last night. And I was going to mention this too. There was a lady there that was comprised that they couldn't ride because of the weather. But the ceremony still took place. Michael Mullins was there and I was there. I'm trying to see if anybody else in here was there at this ceremony. And so you have some people that speak about their relative that got killed because a car hit them but I wanted to say that there was a lady who who made the comment and she's from Murfreesboro and she brought up Tennessee comment and let me on a lot of matt julia she built that julia she said that they come out here and see what we've done on our greenways and our sidewalks and she just gives us praise for it and she's from from mercury's trial so you know bicyclists they They're another piece of equipment for transportation. And while it's not fatal, like most of the time, like you're saying, on the sidewalk, if you've got someone who's handicapped or something or they're using some kind of wheelchair type thing and someone hits them you know that they make it cause a lot of injury or if you have a cyclist on that that sidewalk that has no clue and runs into a child or someone it could be very very serious so we used to take required to have bicycle safety when I was in kindergarten or first grade

I don't know if anybody remembers that, but you had that at Hermitage Elementary at that time. And we rode our bikes to school all the time. We had a bike parade just kind of celebrating that you passed that. But part of what we learned in bicycle safety, just like a car, slow down until you can safely come across somebody. And then... because we were having to share the sidewalk. And they were, like Commissioner Rasch showed, there were these little narrow ones that people used to have, you know.

It was different from the country. We didn't even have kindergarten. We didn't have kindergarten, and we definitely didn't have no sidewalks.

Or running water, right?

Well, I was born they didn't have running water, but anyway. Maybe they had running water. Go ahead, Todd. You had something else?

COMMISSIONER GILES RAISES A VERY GOOD POINT THERE, WHICH JUST REMINDS ME THAT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CITY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS RECOMMENDS DEDICATED SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR ALL MODES. We're just not quite there yet, unfortunately. I would love for our standard to look more like what Metro has been able to accomplish on Lebanon Road right across our county line. But they've done a good job creating vertical separation, dedicating space for cyclists separate from the pedestrian. Unfortunately, we just don't necessarily have the will towards multimodal users in Mount Juliet right now, nor do we have the maintenance budget to repair the bollards and the delineators in the road, as they will get knocked down.

Nor do you have the funds because in Metro, they do sweep the streets, but they only sweep the section for the bicycles. So if you're driving a car, it's too bad. You can run over the nails. If you're walking on the sidewalk, it's too bad. You can walk on the nails. But if you're on a bike, they sweep just that section. They have a special sweeper that loads and unloads down to Oakwood Commons. It does nothing but sweep the bike on it.

Huh?

It's fascinating.

The metro taxpayers also voted for a tax.

Yeah, but we sweep our roads. They've got a sweeper that just does nothing. So really the main discussion, I guess, Commissioner Rask, you don't have anything different than what is proposed either. outside of the landscaping right there and i guess to me it was a bigger deal but then just seeing the applicability of it there's so few places out there that we have that um this is not my proposal yeah yeah sorry what's there but the We would have, I guess we'd have the ability, it's going to be my thing on this one if we take the landscaping out, we would have the ability to put it in in certain areas. Would that be fair? Because I'm thinking like, so let's use Pleasant Grove as a great example right there. As you come in off of Mount Juliet Road, It's kind of nice to have that break and that landscaping right there, and it's kind of a transitional area. But then as you get on through there, once we're past the Lowe's entrance or whatnot, just per se, to go back to a concrete right there, but at your transitional points, your iconic points, it's kind of an architectural thing. You've got to have your iconic statement. that i'd like to make sure that we leave leeway to install those at certain iconic points because if not we're kind of going against what we ask people to do within our developments and saying hey you know we're great with you putting that island there but you're gonna have to put you something there so it's just not a sea of asphalt concrete and i don't want to see our roads create a sea of asphalt concrete that i'd like to see some trees and whatnot in there. Maybe iconic or entrance points or sculptures or anything.

residential this is just I mean it does for the collector road things but not well he said he'd go right through to open property well I know right what I'm saying is it's it's like when they have private streets and they they're going to have the grass strips and everything and I know what you're talking about Pleasant Grove Road and how that's not there might be some instances where we as a body in this could say hey could you do that somewhere as long as they take care of it but speaking of pleasant well road you know when you turn in the lows back there there's a there's a piece of concrete pretty wide and everything i mean to me that's sort of safety because people are from nets out there and so if they're trying to go in and come out you can stand on that i don't mind the concrete and i don't mind the concrete at all i feel a lot safer being up just in the middle of it i mean i'll walk the area because where my office is sometimes so and and while these come here this this time to change they could always come back again for whatever reason the city you know we the the body didn't didn't want it or they wanted to change it's just a lot like a lot of things and we've even made the comments we've evolved over these years so i mean You know, it's trial and error a lot of times, so I don't see no reason why we couldn't change and adopt this and go forward.

And would quantify the cost difference per whatever unit of each of these roads would be?

No, sir.

Let's just one last thing. All right. To your point. In my mind, I would rather have the landscaping as the standard and then apply exceptions as they come through rather than do it the other way. Because if we establish a concrete median, that's all they're going to build. And if we ask for more, we can ask, but we have an established standard. And they can just say, no, we're not going to do that. If you have a standard, we're going to build it to that.

and there'd be fully in compliance that that's multiple making it as i said at entrance points high visibility that you still require that i don't know what the correct terminology it works in some places and it's i i would make that recommendation that those points be at intersections yeah that that's really going to be the most enforceable way to to do that kind of what i'm thinking um But in saying that statement, too, if you're going to, as it comes out of my mouth, I'm thinking about maintenance on that. In all actuality, entrance points are probably the hardest freaking areas to maintain because they're your constant point of movement in traffic. So getting me or you over there to weed eat or cut or mulch or water or whatever presents a greater challenge at those points. than it does on down the road. So that's a thought. All right, let's move on. Let's just finish discussing these right here. So we've only got one more, and then we get through it. So let's talk about the arterial. Tell us where we would see arterial section in a road design like this. Have we done any like that?

There's not currently one in the city. The closest you'll find is the design proposed for East Division, the five-lane median section similar to this. TDOT classifies Division as an arterial. The most notable arterials in town are Malculate Road and Lebanon Road. And those are our current five-lane sections.

No, sir.

This would be new construction or upgraded facilities that lack the businesses that North Mount Juliet Road and Lebanon Road have. I think part of the reason why a median was rejected on those roads is

you have to pay a lot of money to cut off someone's existing access so i don't foresee either of those roads getting anything ever well and again as i said before why we rejected it before was because of the emergency services and we see that all the time we have to move over and they're in the middle of the lane going as you well know we're right next to davidson county and we have a lot of They try to come out here, but our police department takes care of them. But they've got to get to the things. So that's why those major roads, I think it's important to have the lane like we have.

Random question.

If you pull somebody, if you're speeding and you get pulled over on this arterial section right here, you would pull to the curb. or you could technically pull to the curb on this. We're not going to have those mallards that would prevent that. Of course, I would imagine you'd want to get off of the main road, which way if you got pulled over, but that would be one of the... The buffer would just be lined.

Yes, sir. It is just a painted buffer.

Okay. What's the closest cross-section of Gold Bear?

Golden bear. Ooh, that's a good question.

This one? Maybe pretty close to this. Pretty close. Well, they're grassed medians, but they're still.

Yeah, golden bear is pretty close to the top existing section. Those are wide medians out there. Golden Bear does not have a consistent bike lane or shared use path. Some places it has both, some places it has neither. It's pretty confusing. It's mostly just we have a wide shoulder on Golden Bear, but in some places we put a bike area on. We're getting there. The shared use paths are gradually coming in as sites develop. Art's making sure of that. Yeah, it does have the wider median. The wider median is intended to give us the flexibility as intersections develop to put in dual left turn lanes. We're now cutting that down with the thought being that we're pre-planning any future arterial that's going in where in situations where we'd have an intersection that would require a dual left, we would know that at the time. No, sir. But just with how the city is built out, if we ever had an arterial, we would know we'd need to widen the road at a major intersection as it came through. And you can always narrow that back down. Carrying that 27 foot is just extra right away we need to acquire, extra maintenance costs, just 10 feet for preparedness sake as opposed to planning on the front end when you construct it.

so you mentioned division if we're doing engineering and design right now for the widening of division is this what division is being designed to look like right now no no sir the division is going to look a lot closer to our

existing cross-section. The difference being we took the shared use path off the road and put it on the, or we took the bike lane, I'm sorry, we took the bike lane off the road and put it on the sidewalk and created a shared use path instead.

10 feet.

10 feet, correct.

And that would be this top section right here for the arterial? Yes, sir. And that's kind of where, I mean, to be honest with you, and I don't mean to sound inconsiderate of this thing that's about to be, but to me, a bicycle is a pedestrian in my world. And a pedestrian should be on the sidewalks. A motorized vehicle should be on the road out there. And when you intermingle anything like that, you create danger. I don't mind them going over to the curb. I think these days, anytime that you're on the sidewalk, walk path, whatever you're on, and you're within the proximity of cars, unless you're on like our greenway or whatnot, that's about really knowing place to me, the bicyclists are walking that really truly are ultimately safe. Two foot, six foot, three foot grass strip or whatever else. But something that's crucial and is important as the roadways are and the safety of the roadways, narrowing the roadways down because narrowing the roadways down does slow traffic out there, which we all know needs to happen. You know, as I said, I was in that traffic because of Pleasant Grove wreck yesterday. It took me an hour and a half to go from Central Pike. And, you know, I didn't have anywhere to go. I was enjoying sports talk. And I actually listened to, finished up a portion of a great podcast that I was on. And luckily I did have a cold Coke in there. So I was fine. all good on it but and i mean people were hateful and angry and aggressive as we uh as particularly as we got there in providence and and right next to me was about you a police officer in the same and they were diligent enough to kind of be like man you know can't somebody do something pick the blue lights on and get around all this stuff you know that's what i would have done uh but we're doing a lot of design for a lot of what we don't have and that is catering to bicycle and the pedestrian and to me we've put them all on multi-use paths i like i love to hear that you're that's the the design um that you're doing for division um and and the only thing that i see on anything that you've proposed to me that gives me any heartburn is Why are we not doing this multi-use path everywhere and pushing it to the curb just like that because it's hard to maintain a grass trip between the curb. Metro installed some additional sidewalks on Tulip Grove as I went past them today. They did a great job on the sidewalk. You know what they never did? Never put a bit of dirt, a bit of sod, a bit of seed between the curb and the sidewalk. It looks terrible. And the sidewalk looks great. the road looks terrible they halfway and most of the people you know as a builder myself i can say we don't give any attention to what kind of dirt the quality of dirt that we put in between the sidewalk and the curve uh it's most of the time it's the stuff that i don't want any yard that's filled with gravel and stuff that really doesn't it's not conducive to grow grass so i like the idea of pushing to the curve i like the idea of growing as a multi-use path And I like the idea of everything that we are in life is finding a way for people to work together. And if you do bicycles and you do them on a multi-use path, people find a way to work together. People find a way to be harmonious. I think my only real comment, George, is I think that helps to narrow down. I think that helps our maintenance. I think that at the same time, by doing those multi-use paths, I think people I used to run a fast food business and people would come in and out of my fast food and you trained them as much as as you train your employees people learn process learn how to get in get out and learn behaviors and if we create the multimodal paths uh and remove and maybe we can't i don't know if that's legal but we can't intermingle bicyclists and pedestrians together but a lot of these roads seem like we're doing a lot of design and we're giving up a lot and we're creating a lot of maintenance or a bicycle that we're going to see

Two or three on a day?

And it's just my personal nickel on all this.

We certainly can do shared use path against the curb. The two things I'd caution when doing so, the first being your driveways. When you eliminate the grass drip, you've taken your driveway, which is supposed to meet your sidewalk at the sidewalk's level. You've now lowered that to your road level. You've now shifted that to an automobile space. Now your cyclists, which are moving faster, there's potential that car pulls up in front of bike, bike hits side of car.

But you've already solved that on the residential right here, bike.

given us that uh six foot grass and residential and a 10-foot multi-use so you kind of already solved that issue didn't you yes um but the the task in front of me is eliminating the grass strip That that's really where this has started. The residential neighborhood grass, we commercial people.

Yeah, exactly. But we would. So we're not really worried about driveways, because residential we're going to require what you gave us down here.

And that's that keeps it as a multimodal space. It's residential driveways where it's people backing out slowly, and they're going to hear the beep on their cameras, and it's not as concerning. Also, we're not supposed to have driveways on residential collectors. We should stop granting that variance. Topic for another day. When you shift that from a multimodal space to an automotive space, people peek and creep, and they're now in your driveway. or in your path, I should say. Sorry, long day. Now that's still a safer collision than vehicle on cyclists at full speed. I hate the fact that we're weighing which collisions we want. That doesn't thrill me. In reality, that is what we have to do.

And every one of the drawings are underneath perfect scenarios of flat level. That's a whole other... Topo adjusts the entire discussion and everything that goes with it. We will need to address... Too much flat that's left out there.

We will need to address accessibility of sidewalks without a grass grip. That is a... more minor detail i think we're hitting the big stuff right now but that is something we've run into when people have come in requesting these street type driveways on anything greater than five percent it gets real tricky to keep an idea compliant sidewalk yes what are the what are the uh shared 10 foot what are they made of they're not concrete right no sir goes our asphalt

offer in real quick i know you put if you'd like to give us some input we're gonna call this we're gonna call this section higher ups comments so please join us i know you've got a lot of time and effort in this and grateful for that so i know i don't know if i've ever seen patience in you as much as i have right here i'm about bit the half of my jaw

please michael mullins 24 25 north nigeria road uh i want to start with the things that i do agree with you on i do agree with commissioner rath that green ships are prettier they're more aesthetically pleasing uh purple martin way is very pretty as you drive through there as i do on my way home most days uh i agree uh with you commissioner winchester that i won't uh Todd to wash his mouth out with soap for mentioning those ugly poles on the side of the road in Davidson County. I don't have any interest in those, but I also want to preface that I'm not an engineer. I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, and I don't play one on TV, but I did spend 28 years in this city as a police officer in this city and the last couple years i was blessed to be the chief of police and there is a thing that we need to factor in in in my previous role safety was an issue and i hated i mean i think me and commissioner rath spoke about the the ill-fated attempt at speed humps throughout the city and that I am pleased that we're trying to slow down traffic through design now and not going through the speed hump process. But in all of these, like Nathan said, was that we're slowing down speeds five miles an hour in all of these. So you're also factoring in these collisions factoring in that we're attempting to, if God forbid a collision does occur, we're slowing down traffic. And as a couple of you had said, the difference of a two-foot thing isn't really going to make a whole lot of difference, but someone having to mount a piece of concrete to make that collision is a thing. It's going to slow down people. we've talked a lot about the different types of collisions that we can come into but we've missed one minor topic in the role that i'm in now i do have to factor in the finances of these and i understand mr rath has designed these for 35 years as an engineer i don't know that he's ever had to figure out how to pay for them or The reoccurring maintenance of that or the collision or the safety aspect of the staff member. We haven't talked about anything about the staff member that's out there on a zero turn trying to cut Pleasant Grove Road, which we do tend to take care of most of Pleasant Grove Road. And for all the pretty aesthetic grass strips we have in the city, there's a Waterford Court. If you want to see what a not pretty grass strip looks like, drive over to Waterford subdivision right now. And there's more dirt than there is grass over there. And I understand we're in a drought and those things happen, but they're not always pretty. But our staff members are out there having to weed eat that as cars are driving by. and the grass strip is to the curb. So there's no safety protection for our staff that's out there with their back turned to traffic trying to maintain these grass strips that are out there. I cannot speak for the will of this commission, but I do know that for any of you that had nothing else better to do, and could have put cigarettes out in your eye socket maybe to watch the budget workshop that we just went through we're having some financial issues in the city currently you see all the stuff on social media about the current tax rate and whether we're going to lower the tax rate whether we're going to have to maintain or what our future is but we also have a hundred million dollars worth of infrastructure we have to pay for over the next five years and we got to figure out how to fund that But we are paying for cars that are driving down the road because a lawnmower hits a piece of chunk of dirt or a rock and we're paying for cars that are driving up and down the road in the maintenance area that we're taking care of. We're paying for injuries where people are stepping off the edge of the curb into a grass strip and receiving an injury because that's in our right-of-way. there is a lot of things to factor in and yes, I enjoy looking at driving down purple Martin way and seeing the pretty trees and the grass on the way. And, but there's another side to that that we have to factor on. I, you know, I like Land Rovers. I happen to have a Ford F-150 budget though. Right. i would really like to drive that land rover but i can't afford to do it i have to do the things i have to do and then the other thing where uh commissioner winchester you talked about you're not a bicyclist and you're not uh someone that spends as much time walking up and down the road every one of the plans that are set in front of you have been approved with a positive recommendation from the Mount Juliet Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. So on that committee are people that are cyclists, you know, professional cyclists. People on that committee are people that tend to walk and travel our roads every day in our city. And this is the plan that they said that they approve of, all of these. And then the Board of Commissioners. not too long ago we had another workshop where the maybe not the entire commission but the vast majority of those commissioners are moving towards a strong towns concept and i don't know if all of you are aware of what strong towns are or not but it's about creating safety through environmental design But it's also about finding financial responsibility of being able to limit the long-term maintenance for the city. Because if I can lower the long-term maintenance for the city, then we can afford that extra police officer. We can afford that extra firefighter. Because we're not having to hire a bunch of grass cutters that are going to be riding up and down Purple Martin weed-eating around trees, throwing rocks into the roadway and damaging my Ford F-150. We have to be realistic and find the happy medium. And I do appreciate Todd because me and Todd went a long time around in circles about these plans. This is our compromise for me and Todd. This is the will of our Board of Commissioners. This is the will of our Mount Juliet Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. These are the people that are affected by this. And when you're making whatever decision you want to vote on, think about that grass cutter that's going to be out there with his back to the road. We got to factor in his safety too, right?

Let me ask you real quick, leading back there to my final comment, or where I left that outside, get rid of the residential collector. What are your thoughts on getting rid of the bike lane out in the middle of the road and making a multi-use pass and pushing them to the curb?

So I live in Providence, and we do have multi-use paths, and we share that path with cyclists, with walkers and runners, and I don't have an issue with that, but I also understand what Todd's saying, that not every opportunity is going to create that. I think, Todd, am I mistaken, isn't i don't remember what it's uh mcfarland place uh mcfarland yes over here don't they have 10-foot concrete to curve over there running uh running east on old lebanon dirt road i'm pretty sure is there all right i'm not a fan of the grass strip that's why i'm saying just I would like concrete to curb because I mean, again, you're creating space, but I understand that that doesn't fit every need. Um, but we do got to figure out a way to create safety for our people, but through environmental design, find a way. And, uh, Commissioner Bowman, I am a big fan of roundabouts. I really am. But we've got to find different ways, creative ways. And that's when I finally, I think I broke Todd when I said, just be creative. Right?

Yeah.

We've got to find creative ways to do these things through design to slow down traffic. There was a very wise man, I'm not going to mention who he is, but he might be sitting in the room on the back right now, that said we can't continue to build speedways through our neighborhoods and then complain about speeding. So we've got to figure out a way to do these things, right?

Good point.

I didn't notice anything behind me.

He's watching you.

Anything else?

Any questions? Thank you. Come on up here, sir.

James Maness, 2558 Edinburgh Street. Postal address of Old Hickory, Tennessee, but I do reside in the great city of Mount Juliet. Spelled the proper way with an M and a T. appropriate as it should be. But Mr. Chairman, members, distinguished members of this commission, I am here to appeal to your humanity and the magnanimous nature of each one of your individual souls to heed what this man has said on this. And I have, I did ask specifically for the reduction of the travel lanes in our neighborhoods. to me we're putting ourselves under a long-term investment for additional asphalt all encouraging speeding just so people can come stand at this podium and complain about the speeders just so the folks and they're close to my heart those individuals that vote on the budget and they try their best but they are just mere politicians trying to take on this task of balancing the budget but that extra payment that we pay to put down has to be maintained and then we have individuals come up here and ask us to put down and spend even more money on pavement on what we affectionately call a speed bump and That was one of my main requests was building these speedways through our residential neighborhoods only to come back to put in speed humps to try to slow folks down after we built speedways. Trying to cut down on this stuff. I really like some of these things that they've done on the roadway standards on this, the multimodal path, getting people off. I can't say how it's going to work with everything as far as combining pedestrians and bicyclists in the same way. I do know it seems to work very well on the town center trail when I get out there. I'm not on a bicycle. I get passed quite regularly on a bicycle. In fact, I get passed by most walkers, but that's beside the fact. It seems to work very well, and I like that. I like the separation. I think we'd get more use of it, too. It's keeping that stuff separated off of it, getting the bicycle lanes out of there, reducing our costs from maintenance and getting it to something that we have a safer ability to support and maintain as it's going on in the city. That's my two cents. Thank you.

So You'd recommend no bike lane because our proposal shows the bike lane still out there on the road.

Yep. And I understand, too, that there's some places that that may be required for what we have to work with. But I just say as a general rule, I would prefer to. And I know I talked to, I think, Matt today about grant opportunities that require some of this stuff to be built to TDOT standards. And my question was, it's just trying to limit that to one side for us, the ongoing maintenance. And he's like, you've got to put something on one side, even if it's smaller or something, if you want to do the 10-foot multimodal path on one side, because that meets the requirements, I believe. Todd can obviously speak a lot better to that than I can, but I'm just trying to limit us while providing and meeting those standards at the same time.

Mopad.

More better?

I did. Because it is the more better way to say it.

So you would support approving as we have been submitted for all of the revisions and all of these cross-sections?

I can live with what's here on this thing. I mean, there's some minor things that I think everybody would probably have a little variation of opinion on. But I'd say what you have here is definitely a path forward and improvement.

questions comments discussion we technically get on the record real quick this time we'll call for citizen comments there we go so let me let me go ahead and knock that out real quick with that being said need to close our Planning Commission meeting in order to open a public hearing public hearing as regards to item 12 C which is reviewed subdivision regulations amendment article 4-103 which is streets and pedestrian ways. Anyone wishing to speak during the public hearings, welcome the courage to do so. Seeing no citizen comments, we'll close the public hearing, reopen our planning commission meeting. At which time, Mr. Todd, additional comment, please.

If the board does wish to remove the bike lanes and put them behind the curb, I note that the sidewalk width would then have to increase to 12 feet. 10 foot is our minimum. uh path width uh and then the two feet most adjacent to the curve just don't count they're they're the furnishing zone um and are largely inaccessible in large portions of that sidewalk um just for your consideration mr johnson comments oh i'm getting ready to make a motion you better have any more comments

i'd like to make a motion please i'll make a motion to approve the amendment as we sit here it's motion i'll second it yeah speech to that one please

Electric box. all right motorcycle i got a motion in a second uh all those in favor signify by saying aye and raise your hand all right against extensions next item up on our agenda is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is to item 12d to review the zoning ordinance amendment to article is that 10 11 sign regulations And I didn't get a copy of this one for some reason. I think I got your second. Did you get multiple copies?

No, well, or something. I don't recall.

Yeah, no, no, no. Keep going. I got Mr. Rice. We'll share. We're good.

We did even more of a revision to it. It's actually a complete rewrite of our sign ordinance. The intent behind all this is actually just to revamp, to give the city a lot more flexibility for aesthetics for marketing potential for all sorts of businesses from your mom and pop shops to your large corporations we were limited in the design and style of a lot of our signs a lot of the ordinance was antiquated with what we had so we have gone through and looked and compared and looked at other municipalities to kind of see who had what where could we kind of look at some of the shared details and what could we do better If anything, our most important aspect of this is giving these businesses the ability to thrive. And in doing so, a lot of that seems to be surrounded around the ability to market by signage. So we went through, took another good look at this. We've worked on it for a few months now. I greatly appreciate all of the input from John and Sam and the Mr. Mullins and also Mr. Potts have helped diligently with this. It's been a huge undertaking, but I'm very proud of the outcome of what we have. We have added several new sign types within this. We have also updated a lot of the existing signage that we have. We've even worked so much as with law enforcement regarding like something as simple as window signs. You'll see the window perforation that completely covers some of these windows in these businesses. And I've had discussions with Chief Chandler about that. And that is a huge safety provision. Some of the window signage was like solid background, striping and everything. We've moved it to where it's either at the top or the bottom of the window. So there's no visual damage. blockage there for safety reasons. Gosh forbid if something happened at one of these businesses and they got an emergency call. So they have the visual acuity to be able to see what's going on within that business when they arrive. So simple things like that that you don't even think of. We've prohibited a lot of stuff now to help with that. We've added a lot of different types of wall signs. We've expanded our temporary signs. But then on the other aspect of it, we've prohibited some more signs that we're having continual problems with. We've really tightened down on the neon, the LED rope signs. We've even gone so far as we've gotten a tremendous amount of complaints about the neon around a couple of new businesses. approved recently while it is pretty and it is visually attractive to some people others it is causing issues with motorists as a distraction so we're trying to ride that fine line of what is you know appropriate so that is another thing that we have prohibited now external illuminations with lighted signage on the outside of these buildings instead of having flashing colors they're going to have to remain static for one color for 10 minutes. It's not to say your sign can't go from red to blue, but it's going to have to stay that color for a minimum of 10 minutes. We're just trying to avoid distractions for motorists and everything as well, and anything we can do to help with safety. As Todd was just speaking to the roads, we don't want other distractions there as well, and signage can be. So if y'all have any questions, I don't know if you've had a chance to really look through it, but I do feel like it's a good starting point, a good proposal to put out there. The last one we had, we did have a lot of input from the business community, so we've not heard anything so far. I look forward to a lot of them seeing this, having the opportunity to speak to what they think. But at this point, I think this is a very good starting point and good proposal for you all to review and get your feedback on it.

Questions, comments from the commission?

I do know that you've worked on this for a long time. Did you get any feedback from Chamber of Commerce on this or approach them at all? They paused it.

Yeah, I've not spoke with him personally, I believe. Spoke to him, Mark.

Positive feedback from them, Mark and Drew.

Please, Commissioner Johnson. And I thank you all for doing this, too, because I think a lot of your businesses who obviously depend on the site for people to go in and shop, and we need those tax dollars. But on the other hand, I want to ask you this question because I've not seen this and I'm not read every every word in here for a business like mine that is office top business. There's no retail. There's nothing like that. you know we do have blinds on the window because of the time that we work because we process policies at night when it's dark I don't want somebody coming up looking at me but I don't think well I mean you know that's it's the way it is someone could that wouldn't apply to that that's just the businesses that are okay well I mean can you imagine y'all are laughing but good night I mean I turned around and seen somebody looking through that window, didn't I? The ambulance.

You're going here. Art. Art. Art. Commissioner Bull.

Update. It looks like it may not have gotten duplicated under the temporary non-commercial signs. One sign per candidate issue subject with no duplicate signs allowed under the quantities. It doesn't say anything that I can find in here about her property. So just reading through it, to me it reads one signed her candidate period.

A lot of the provisions that we have under this are regulated by TCA, especially when you get to your election and campaign signs. The way that the city has always interpreted and allowed it is one sign per candidate, issue, subject, so forth, per property. So we're trying to avoid having five signs of the same candidate, and I think that's what the state had looked at. Now, you can have unlimited... It's whatever party you represent, if you have a social issue that you want out there, even things such as Vacation Bible School. We're just trying to avoid the duplication and just the overrun of these types of signs while still giving you the ability to express your opinion. and freedom of speech with it. But again, a lot of this is regulated strictly by TCA, but we can put it per property.

I would just think that adding the per property would make the most sense.

So you can't put 10 Luke for Chairman of Planning Commission signed in your yard. No, I know you won't. You can't have 10 Bowman for Street 10 in your yard.

Oh, Jill, that would, and I think this is a good question that you brought up too. So one sign per property, but that would be like in the ground. That doesn't, that wouldn't apply to someone that's got one in the window of their vehicle or on the side as a magnet or in the sign holder in the back of the truck. Right.

This is your freestanding. Yeah.

Okay. Fisher Franklin, you had something you wanted to? Yeah.

there is a special place in heaven for people who enforce sign ordinances and those who write amendments to them so amen yep further feedback questions comments call persistent comments i do just want to take this opportunity to publicly thank jill and marty potts for all the time they spent rewriting this uh and also uh sam who meticulously picked it apart every time they submitted it and the time that it had to be rewritten and rewritten and rewritten as jill spoke last time it came up it came up with from challenges from our chamber and from our local real estate developers or real estate people. We did take the final product to the chamber, sat down with select members of their board, along with Mark and Michelle, and they went through it and they approved of the complete document. And then we also did meet with the Realtors Association trying to get ahead of that as well. And they gave their blessing as well. So hopefully we get through two readings this time without running into a bus all. But it's all because of the work that Jill and Marty put into it. And if Sam picked it apart, hopefully nobody else can. So that's where we're at. And I do appreciate the work that they all put in on that.

That's right. any additional citizen comments seeing none looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda we'll make a recommendation for a positive approval for commission that's a motion second and a second all those in favor signify by saying aye aye against abstentions is a positive recommendation i'm looking for a motion to adjourn motion second all those in favor signify by saying aye raise your hand aye against abstention You're adjourned.