Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the July 16, 2026 meeting of the Mount Julep Municipal and Regional Planning Commission meeting. As we begin our meeting tonight, a couple of quick notes as we are starting up. Commissioner Giles did send his regards that he will be absent at tonight's meeting. Apologizes that he cannot be here. I think Commissioner Searcy is out as well. And then we also have one more absence tonight. Well, kind of this one is an absence, but not really an absence. Our city attorney, Ms. Sam Burnett, is spending some time with her family and she is away from the meeting tonight. But with all the technology that we have these days, she's actually here with us. So she is on a live feed with us where she can hear our microphones as we are speaking tonight and be available to us should we have any questions, comments or concerns. In speaking with her leading up to the meeting, she did ask the Planning Commission as well. She said, Luke, make sure that you keep up with all the microphones. But for any of our members that do speak tonight to make sure that you're kind of speaking towards your microphone there in front of you to make sure that she could hear you plain and clearly. But she is available should we have any questions, comments or concerns that we need from our city attorney. So we wish her well and hope that she is enjoying her family's vacation time and she is awake. So with that being said, we will open our meeting and set our agenda. I am not aware of any changes, adjustments, amendments. Seeing none, we'll set our agenda as stated. Our next item up will be with our staff reports. Beginning with Mr. John Boffman, planning.

thank you um first thing is you got a handout uh it was just the owner on item 9a b c and d so the tanglewood just a small error on the owner that has been changed in this handout you've gotten and i believe is preston is this your last meeting so this will be the last last meeting for Mr George. So thank you for serving. Um, that's all I have.

Wonderful. Thank you. Shane, talk to us about public works. Not knowing about Preston, it's been a pleasure to have you on the board and working with you the last couple of years. One thing I want to talk about was we opened bids on our first official stormwater project with the utility to replace a culvert on Belinda Parkway and correct drainage issues in Clearview. STATES. SO THAT WAS A BIG DAY FOR US. THE PRICES CAME IN VERY NICELY. AND SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS UNDER BUDGET. SO WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT ON OUR NEXT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING FOR RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AND GET THAT PROJECT GOING. SO THAT CLOSES MY REPORT.

FANTASTIC. DOG, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SHARE? I will say my thanks, too, and I'm going to give you a live microphone. You have certainly earned your time and your position here and grateful for that. Any words, Commissioner George? Last one, please.

I want to say thank you. I know that when folks come to the Planning Commission, I've seen a couple times some people blink a couple times and say, well, he's pretty young to be up here. So it's nice to be able to give that perspective and A couple of things I want to say, our staff at the city is some of the hardest working staff and I put them up against any other planning department out there. This city works hard on behalf of its citizens. The staff works tirelessly, your BOC works tirelessly, this planning commission works tirelessly. I know out there in the city we hear talk about growth and how we want to slow growth down and you think that we sit up here and we might rubber stamp a couple things or the BOC might rubber stamp a couple things, but we really do a lot to make sure that what development does happen is the right type of development for the city of Mount Julia. I've said this a couple times up here, and I think it would be remiss if I didn't say it again. The Tennessee Constitution enshrines the property owner's right to develop. So by right, an owner has the ability to develop, and it's the job of the Planning Commission, the staff, the Board of Commissioners to be able to provide bumpers and guards for those developments to make sure they're best for Mount Julia. But There's not a single development that's gone in the city that hasn't taken hours of work on staff behind the scenes, work on planning commissioners, getting ready for these meetings, doing these meetings in your BOC. So I just would encourage citizens that as you start seeing agendas and you see development through the city, there's a lot of time and effort that goes upon this whole group to make sure that that's the right development. It's been a pleasure to be on here.

It's been an honor as well. Your insight will be sorely missed. You put a lot of time and effort into it and learned a lot from having you here. So I wish you the best in your new adventures and anything else that is before you. And best of luck. Yes, sir. With that being said, I want to throw another PSA that Mr. Beasley put out that I read today about Old Leadmon Dirt Road. We've adjusted the speed limit from 35 down to 25 out there. So please don't get any tickets. Be mindful. The purpose of that is due to the construction congestion that is going to be through that. The end result of that widening Old Leadmon Dirt Road creates a walk path. A better road with shoulders and all the nice stuff that goes into it. It's been a long time in the works and so exciting to see that project come to fruition. So please slow down as you're going through those areas over there. Slowing down lets you admire the work and the project and everything else that's going along with it. Um, I would imagine that it will probably go back up, maybe go back up one day, but let's, uh, stay at 25 and stay safe is what we ask. So, uh, please do that. But, um, so Mr. Beasley's message on that too, right before our meeting tonight. So I wanted to, uh, to share that. Uh, with that being said, our next item up will be our, uh, citizen comments. Citizens are, uh, uh, read it here. Um, Public is welcome and encouraged to make public comment about any item on our agenda. There'll be two opportunities for 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. Anyone wishing to speak to the planning commission right now 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 move on to our next item up on the agenda. Next item is item 5A, which is to the review and adopt the minutes from the June 18, 2026, Mount Juliet Regional Planning Commission meeting. Do I have any changes, adjustments, typos? Seeing none, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. I've got a motion and a second. We've got to get you on record out here, so we never know if that's going to come again tonight. So I've got a motion and a second by Commissioner George. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Our next item up on the agenda is our consent agenda. We begin with item 6A, sewer letter of credit number 477538. nine zero eight six seven for stone hollow phase five in the amount of ninety two thousand four hundred and thirteen dollars and twenty cents can be released item six b Review the final plat for Traymore, Phase 1A, located on Benders Ferry Road. Item 6C, review the final plat for Windtree Pines, Phase 6B, located at 908 Champion Way. Item 6D, review the final plat for McFarland Farms, Phase 1A, located at 5266 Old Lebanon Road. Begin with Mr. John. Any comments for this?

Staff recommends approval with any of the conditions in the report.

Very well. Shane, anything from Public Works?

Staff recommends approval with our listed conditions. Thank you.

Questions or comments from the commission at this time? One real quick. This is our first phase on Traymore. Their portion of the road improvements on Vendors Ferry, how do they stand? Where do they stand? Are we in good shape with everything that they're doing right now?

No representations here, but all of that is under the jurisdiction of Wilson County.

Okay. I'd love to hear. Do we have representation for this project?

Well, he's coming up here real quick.

We gave them how many COs prior to the road commission for John?

I can look it up. I don't know.

Okay. Please, name and address for the record.

Josh Sacker, 100 Westwood Place, Westwood.

How are we coming with the road improvement?

We're well underway, so right now we're just kind of fighting the weather a little bit, but we've got the road widening, and we're basically ready to start putting Baystone down.

Very good. What is your anticipation for completion for your guy's portion?

The next 30 days.

Oh, wow. Really? That is great. I don't know if you can speak to this real quick. I noticed lot 12 on your guy's plan. You've got that, you're putting that house almost underneath those electric easements out there. I was just curious of why that ended up being a building lot versus kind of an open space lot.

It's pushed all the way back. And so it's outside of the TVA easement.

so i guess just taking taking the chances on a buyer for that kind of a lot with those lines crossing through there like that so right now we're utilizing lot 12 as our model parking lot okay it'll be used as that for many years to come until it'll be final converted and turned into a house perfect thank you guys yeah absolutely any further comments or questions thank you so much At this time, I'd like to call for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment about any item on the consent agenda 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 our Planning Commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. The public hearing is in regards to item 6B, 6C, and 6D. Item 6B is to review the final plat for Traymore Phase 1A, located on Benders Ferry Road. Item 6C is to review the final plat for Windtree Pines Phase 6B, located at 908 Champion Way. Item 60 is review the final plat for McFarland Farms, Phase 1A, located at 5266 Old Lebanon Dirt Road. Anyone wishing to speak about any of these three 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 at which time I'm looking for a motion in regards to the items on our consent agenda.

Oh, please, John. I just wanted to answer that question. So it's CO, first CO is the road improvements, first CO.

Okay, perfect. And for a motion in regards to items on our consent agenda?

I'll make a motion to approve a positive recommendation of the staff.

It's a motion. Second. 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 7A, to review the site plan for New Tribe Church, located at 260 Clemmons Road.

Mr. John? Sure thing. You probably remember this from two months ago. They went before the BZA, got their conditional use permit, went before the BZA, got some relief on some of the landscape buffers. um and the plan is back before you i guess the only thing i would say is to you know the big issue before was the building facade they did update that i think it looks pretty good now um and we have the percentages busted out in the in the staff report um but they've got brick on every facade now um And if you remember, it has a 750-seat church facility on Clemens Road. And other than that, nothing's different. Wonderful.

We are recommending approval. Thank you. And I actually will support the facade waivers at this point now, too.

Very well. Thank you. Shane, Boba Gorge?

Staff recommends approval with our comments as listed, which are very general in nature.

Very well. Questions, comments from the commission? Seeing no questions or comments from the commission at this time, let's go ahead and call for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment about this item on our agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. Come to the microphone and name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda.

I have a motion for this.

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 um is item 7b review the site plan modification for universal gymnastics located at 5010 marketplace miss jill thank you um

The owners of Universal Gymnastics, which is a marketplace, have provided a new outdoor venue or an expanded outdoor venue that they have been utilizing previously for a lot of their after school activities. attendees for their gymnastics and good for them a good problem they're having is it's become very popular and there are now a lot of outside citizens people inquiring about utilizing it for birthday parties for events to host different items Thankfully, due to social media is where a lot of that popularity has now ranked. Mr. Grace, who owns this with his wife, was telling us that the amount of hits on the social media posts about it has just gone wild, to be honest with you. So with that, they have an issue with the parking. So in saying that, that they are going to have to apply for a modification of the site plan due to parking. They don't have enough for this venue alone. However, Universal does own several properties up and down Marketplace, approximately 67 parking spaces between this outdoor venue. They have just a parking lot that they own and it's directly across the street from the gymnastics that is utilized. And then they are proposing shared parking with three other business entities that are closed during the evening hours when this venue would be purported to be used, including on weekends, which would provide another 60 parking spaces. under the city's regulations it does require joint parking facilities of off-site to be approved by the planning commission and with that two entertainment venues also we don't have a set amount of parking for those those are to be approved by the planning commission as well depending on the amount of people that you expect there so It's kind of a unique situation. John and I have reviewed this and looked through it and spoke with Graves quite a bit about it, trying to figure out a good meeting point on this. Mr. Graves had even discussed trying to get the parcel that lays in between this outdoor venue and also his parking lot to the south. don't know where that stands at this point in time but they're trying everything to make this successful for their business but to also give the city another outdoor venue for some entertainment purposes which is much needed in this area so in saying all that um one of the issues that y'all are going to have to do is determine the amount of parking that y'all feel is favorable for this type of venue and then also to approve the off-site parking agreements which they have with um east coast tent world and adams for this parking as well so i will turn it back to you all for discussion and i'm happy to answer any questions wonderful let me go into it public works got anything on this one not really i didn't think so um

Questions, comments from the commission? I'd like to go ahead and ask for representation of this, too. Come on up. Name and address for the microphone. Just a moment where Commissioner Raz has the floor. Commissioner Raz.

Julie said, I mean, currently, how many spots do they have just for the actual site today?

The actual site has 12. The map that's within your packet provides that because the venue itself has 12. adjacent parking lot to the south at 40 and then directly across universals has 15 so they have 67 total okay only 12 right directly in front of the venue okay i don't think the original intent was or expected for it to be as popular as it is so it's a good problem for them to have okay it's a great problem name and address for the record yeah john graves

And the business address, I'm going to put it as 5010 Marketplace. So this came about, we did, on social media, we started talking about, not Julie Buzz, have to give them credit. They put it out there, we're at 289,000 hits as of the day after six weeks. and over 1700 shares so the community outreach for us doing something like this has just been outstanding and it never was our intention but now we're like okay this is a need within mount jewish community uh we have we are looking at six different scheduled music events uh starting at july 25th with a beatles tribute band that's nationally known and uh jimmy buffett tribute band eagles tribute band we got some really really good stuff coming uh so as far as parking we do have ourselves that we own 67 parking spaces and i do have uh agreements with the adams tent world and east coast We also have the ability to shuttle folks up and down the street. So it keeps anybody off the street from walking out. Safety was a big concern of ours. And then to the opposite side of that, which I've had a conversation, there is WA Wright School, which is about a length of a football field away. There's like 150 parking spaces in that itself. uh looking at some of the uh parking recommendations i think it was four persons per car is what was looked at the max we could ever do uh is 500 according to the city uh guidelines with that and so i know we can with the three other businesses we have 126 spots if you multiply that times four it gets us i'm trying to do the math linda you didn't teach me math uh so Trying to do the math, it's, what, 440, 450 persons. And that's without using the right school at all. So any questions? Yeah, I got it. Please.

see that all the contracts and i love that you did the late work to get those these contracts with these other businesses it makes me a little nervous seeing that they are revocable uh within a 30 day as long as i i just yeah i wrote that up just because i wanted to give them an out if it was falling but talking with them they're they're loving what we're doing and what we're proposing and uh they're

I mean, anything can happen, of course. But they're all in. I'll just put it that way.

My concern is making sure that you and your business have some CYA, if you know what I mean.

Oh, yeah. Trust me. Yeah, absolutely. And the CYA on that summit is a conversation with W.A. Wright School. And, again, they could handle all the parking that we need. The only reason we've delayed in that is because they've been re-roofing the school. But it looks like all that materials up construction vehicles there looks like they're starting to wrap it up at this point.

Okay. Um I guess this may be a question for staff. Let's say one of these businesses cancels the contract for whatever reason. Does that immediately make them non compliant based upon the requested amount of parking?

variable. We don't even have a standard.

Okay. That may work in their favor.

What I was just thinking here is if they lose Adams and East Coast and they still have, what, 65, 67 spaces. Yeah. That's still pretty good.

I mean, I would love to see you guys. Yeah. Yeah. And that's amazing.

Okay. And if I need to, I can go back and rewrite those contracts for a year alone or season. And I don't think that anybody have an issue with that.

I was thinking just to cover yourself. Yeah. I mean, I'm a 12 month contract would make me feel a lot better.

And even Adams is his family. So I know that one's got her.

There you go. Um, My daughter attended Universal for quite some time. And so I've used parking lots and the infrastructure in that area. Have you thought about putting a sidewalk from your 40 unit parking lot kind of up along here? Is that even possible?

It has been a consideration, and we actually discussed that in some of our meetings, and that's where we come up with the whole shuttle service and having shuttle stops. Quite honestly, it's about half the cost. We actually just bought a six-person golf cart.

Oh, okay. You're saying the shuttle would be less than the sidewalk. Half, yeah. Understood.

Yeah.

All right. I'm just thinking out loud.

Trying to keep ticket prices down, brother.

Sure, sure. Um, any withholding concerts and I guess another question for staff that just popped in my head, any issues around, uh, noise concerns in this area?

Yeah, I was going to say they will have to adhere to the noise ordinance and the police department doesn't force that, but it would be 10 PM on weekends.

And the latest, the latest we have to schedule up to nine 30, but we're actually trying to do seven to nine.

Yeah. Perfect. Okay.

And I do believe there is an agreement with the... With the townhomes behind us.

We do have an agreement with them as well. Good.

Checked all the boxes. Checking all the boxes. Yeah, absolutely. I agree having that land just north of your current parking lot would be ideal.

I would love... That's all in discussions, but I can't tell you that it's going to be done at this point.

Understood. Okay. I think that's all I had. Covered a lot of the bases.

thank you a couple more piggyback that just a little bit um that's the first thing that i saw as commissioner bowman said was um i know this road does not have sidewalks it's um one there especially with commissioner giles absent tonight um the fact that i would be saying i would love to see sidewalks here would probably shock him pretty good because he and i go back and forth on the sidewalk thing pretty often um My biggest thought is two things right there. No sidewalks, no street lighting at all. And then we're going to push into night hours. And so I have neither, either or.

There is street lighting.

Street lights all the way up Marketplace? Is that a correct statement?

It is. It's where the crosswalks are at coming from our gym across. We put several out there, and they are down at the other venue. But I understand. But in between, there's empty lots. So, I mean... I guess what I'm saying is we've been dealing with that for several years under universal gymnastics. It's actually how you look at the lumens and the area spread. It actually lights up pretty good even down the street. You're looking at

From our parking lot to the venue area, probably about 250 feet. Yeah, I wanted to go see it at night. My apologies, I wasn't able to get by there and just drive down Marketplace. I don't know that I've ever been down Marketplace at night personally. Maybe when Roy Vaden was open there across the street years ago, but it's slept many nights since then. So there's kind of my double-edged sword to that. I'm not going to have any sidewalks. I'm not going to have any true streetlights, quote-unquote, out there. And then I'm going to put children and then make the responsibility most likely. I hope it wouldn't be a minor, but maybe a chance of a minor driving that golf cart or at least a 16-year-old driving a golf cart.

Under our own personal guidelines, it had to be 21 and older. Okay. The license would not – I mean, we shuttle and run kids around every day, and our guidelines are pretty strict on that just internally. 21 with a clean driving record.

And you, when we allowed the universal across the street with your 40 spots, I guess that is the old Rory Vaden building, right?

Rory Vaden is now Adams, which sits right beside it.

Okay. All right. Perfect. Is that a striped crosswalk that you guys have right there? Yes, it is. Okay. And you're saying that your lights are right there on the crosswalk?

We actually doubled the lighting requirements on that because, again, anytime there's children involved, that is top of mind for us is safety.

Are you going to do anything such as portable signs denoting where your parking is going to be or whatnot? No. for directional purposes signs that we can take out for directional purposes and for shuttle pickup and uh and the parking yes kind of looking at it almost like uh um thinking of it like a church you know yeah churches come and they go and and then you know the uh many of our larger churches control their parking their flow with uh that's exactly that's we actually have we actually have some uh older mature staff that would

participate in as well. Even if I need to get, uh, now Jill Police Department involved in that. That's not a problem.

Um, yeah.

I don't know that I want to necessarily make it a requirement, but I certainly would appreciate to make sure that there's adequate lighting, especially if you push all the way up to your Caribbean vibes building. Yeah.

Uh, that's could probably, I'll take a look at it myself again at night, but I know that currently right now, because we are constantly, and I think if you pay, you can go to middle Tennessee and they'll put a street light on. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, that's what we've done already in the past. There's just, i know there's some poles on the opposite side of the street that yeah we could rent the light basically and put one on the other side of the street that would light up that entire street a little bit of something and i don't mind doing that at all um another question i had was back for staff so if we grant this and um let's just say it's a huge success you're like

I mean, these are five different buildings, so I'm going to go buy my one building, and we're going to put this all in one roof, and I'm going to get all my parking in one place because my gymnastics is good, but this new series of events that you're doing is good, so should you move? Hence the reason for this question back for staff. If we grant this in universal moves, does this go away? It stays with it? it goes away if they move out okay okay perfect that's what i wanted to make sure is that it wasn't something opened where um it opens another can of worms for a future use or something unintentional um by the decision made here um and and that's one of the reasons we limited our license agreements with um the the partners the other other businesses too Let me go back to probably to Todd to this one right here. The lighting, no lighting, no sidewalks right there. This is a city road, correct, Todd?

Correct. This section is anyway. It becomes private. It's the end of a multifamily.

Okay. So at least this section would be here. From your standpoint, if we put any – I'm just thinking of a really successful event as I make this comment right here in overflow parking. Okay. Our ordinance does not allow street parking for a road section like this. Would it be inappropriate or appropriate to put signs out there just kind of denoting no on-street parking? And I guess would that be acceptable to the city to even have them install something like that? We'd be happy to do that. I got to make sure that they would be like, yeah, I understand. I don't want to overstep my bounds over here. It's a benefit of having taught.

No, it's absolutely appropriate. We do have a little bit of railway to do it on both sides of the road. It's more or less just finding the proper places to do it. Cause a lot of these lots more towards Lebanon road are just kind of open frontages. Okay. Um, But once you're past that, yeah, no Parkinson's would be fine.

Okay. I guess that would probably be a condition that I would want added then at least a little bit of something to say. And you can work with staff on location and quantity out there. I don't envision two or three, maybe four if it even gets to that point. just something so it doesn't i heard that you have an agreement with the hoa for the town homes right there which i think is fantastic but at the same time you know if you were living in the town homes definitely don't want to make sure it's a hindrance to their ability to come and go uh absolutely so something along those lines there perfect question commissioner george please

couple questions so is everybody going to be shuttled is it going to be you have to be shuttled we have uh we have a shuttle bus we have golf cart and we have vans that are easy accessible so but does someone have the ability to walk on the road if they want to or do they have to be shut so the the 40 the 67 spots actually have real easy access that they can walk across the property itself uh so we even entertain putting caution tape up other words that you can't walk into the street you you're kind of guided with it if that makes sense uh again we're we're very much about safety as well and uh so we actually consider putting caution tape through there just to keep that from happening if somebody decided to walk but our goal is to try to shuttle everyone that we can

Because I'm thinking and I'm hoping that this happens. Let's say you have a 400 person event. It's a concert. Well, everybody's gone to a concert. And at the end, there's that mass exodus, if you will. You've got 400 people trying to leave at once. Are you going to make 400 people try to wait on a shuttle or a bus or something? I can just envision a herd of people just walking across.

Trust me, I've been thinking the same thing. We do have the shuttle bus, four vans, and the golf cart itself. We do have plenty of mature 21-year-old drivers to shuttle people if we need to. I can put staff up and down the street to keep people off the street. I can walk them straight to the parking lot and completely stay off the street itself. Thank you.

Let me ask one more. I'll bring it to yours before I overstep my bounds here. And crazy enough, I'm going to go back to the sidewalk again. It's something that I'm kind of stuck or dwelling on and I don't know that I can do this. I need to ask staff this question as well. if we put a trigger on this at two years or three years that it's a successful venture it works out great for you but if it's still ongoing at two years down the road three years down the road what be your willingness to install sidewalk along marketplace yeah if if we're successful i don't have an issue with that at all i mean i i i want to be easy to work with yeah and and quite honestly

Probably a good value to you. Yeah. The lot price is there is a lot beside our parking lot that separates. It's one 100 foot wide lot that separates our property from the parking lot itself. And honestly, I have already, in the way my brain works, I've already been looking at that would make a great amphitheater. And just because of the way the land slopes downstage at the bottom. And so I've actually been, honey, I really haven't discussed this with you. I would love to own that lot as well. But man, they've really gone up in price.

I appreciate the financial commitment to start something like that, and that's the reason why I say it. Years down the road, kind of a trigger out there, and hopefully you can get to the success or get to that point. So to bring that back to staff, I guess since this is kind of an open, there's nothing really to it, I'm kind of looking at it almost like a PUD. per se out there, is it possible to add a three-year trigger to say if the use is continuing that three years to today's date, that a sidewalk must be installed from A to B within one year of that time? I will actually have to refer to that same, because I don't know how we would tie that to anything. To anything, I know.

within the staff ordinance was we stated if there are um if anything changes dramatically with this um where they need to be expanded whether it be parking um the site amphitheater whatever else that they will be required to come back with either a full-blown site plan for a new facility or a site plan modification so we can bring it back before the planning commission because again you all are required to approve any type of entertainment venue parking But as far as the trigger of revisiting the issue of sidewalks, I will have to defer to the attorney because I don't really know how we would tie that trigger.

I'm thinking through that as you're talking, and I would have to agree with you. I don't know that there's anything that we could put there, but a new site plan or redevelopment would trigger that necessity, and at that point we could make a requirement of the sidewalks to be a condition upon approval at that point.

Yeah, that's why we did put that condition within there, that if there are any changes, that it does trigger that to come back.

Very well.

Would it even be legal for them to put a sidewalk across that property that they don't own? Would it be because it's in the right-of-way? It could be in the right-of-way. Okay, cool. Yeah. All right.

Yeah, I'll leave that one alone then. Perfect. Further questions, comments? Commissioner Franklin?

Yeah, I think it's kind of exciting what's happening in Mount Julie with music. I don't know if anybody pays attention to it. I'm not like somebody who lives in Florida and never goes to the beach. I enjoy Music City. I go down there all the time. 3rd and Linsley. A lot of tribute bands go down there. There's usually 250, 300 people at 3rd and Linsley. So something like this could take off.

Yeah, I think it's good.

We hope it does. And if it does, sidewalks, I can tell you would not be an issue. Wouldn't be. So I'm going to do a little marketing.

We do have the Warner Beatles.

They're up for Grammy. They're the July 25th. And my wife, Vicki, and I went and saw them in Brentwood. They had like 1,500 people there. And they are amazing. They sound just like the Beatles if you're a Beatles fan. That's awesome. That's our plan first. Very well. Yes. To help you do your marketing. Is there a website people can go to? So there's, we actually have a Facebook page, Caribbean Vibes Venue there in Mount Juliet. And then there's Mount Juliet Buzz. By the way, they are amazing. And they... We've all been blown away because the very first day they did like a 12-second video, we hit 97,000 views that night. So if that just tells you what the people in Mount Julia are seeking, they were shocked as well as we were. Three days later, we're 157,000 views. Wow. Yeah. That's great.

How long have you all been there at Universal now? A long time.

The gymnastics business, 23 years, I think. Yeah. Yeah, 33 years in business. Then we just came about. We purchased the property down the street at 5010 for an after school care building for kids is what we originally did. And then we started developing. There's a splash pad for kids. We put a pickleball court in a sand volleyball court. So we just created a family. park type environment and then we started getting these requests for birthday parties for family reunions for events like that and then the music thing came along and then when they did a video we're like oh my god what just happened to us so it just it just really came out of nowhere so we've been a little panicky trying to make it all work well wish you all very blessed yeah thank you no doubt appreciate that's great success thank you for other questions comments from the commission

Let me go ahead and open it up to citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment about this item on the agenda is welcome. I encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone and name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. I guess we need to note a number of parking places. Is that a correct statement? And would this be, this is going to be a vote, not any kind of a recommendation, correct?

Between theirs and also the offsite.

Which is 126 spaces, correct? 127. 127 spaces. Very well. So that number just needs to be included in the motion for approval. Okay. I'm looking for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. guess that's it that would be it i'd like to second it uh and may i add the addition to work with staff about uh some signs however two four uh whatever staff decides about no parking on the street that'd be okay very well it's a motion in a second all those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand aye against abstentions congratulations yes sir Next item up on our agenda is item 7C, review the site plan for Hickory Station West, located at 261 West Main Street. Mr. John.

Sure thing. 261 West Main. We got a little... A little site and a little building. You may remember a couple of years ago, they came through with a site plan for this site. There was actually 2 buildings on either side of the road back towards the town homes that expired. And I believe this. single building has come before you before as well and then that one expired as well so this is maybe the third time we've looked at this due to explorations um this one this they had to turn the building on the site versus where it was last time right for access issues and it kind of i'd have an easy time recommending approval of this if it weren't for these two items i'm going to talk about here um they've got a full masonry building meets the bulk of the code but the way it's laid out small site and all that the 20 foot wide d buffer on the south side of the property if you'll notice on the plans a half of it's off site they can't do that I don't know how they're going to address that without shrinking the building or something because of the size you have there. Then the other one that's going to be tough to get around with this layout is the parking in the front yard. They're actually required to be 10 feet off the right-of-way for parking in a front yard like that. It's definitely closer than that. Beyond those two issues,

It's approvable.

Todd has some things to say. Let me finish up what I got to say real quick. I don't think I have anything else on this one. 3,100 square foot building, non-medical professional services, and like I said, it's 100% masonry. He's addressed the bulk of our code regulations and been through the review process a few times, so it's pretty buttoned up other than those two things I just mentioned. If we could probably work a solution out for that, but that's all I have. Thank you.

I just a clarification. And part of the reason why they had to rotate the building is that the drive headed back to the townhomes is not right away. That is private and they were not allowed access to it. So I don't know if that changes because it isn't would like it's not 10 feet from the right away. There's no right away. That's just that townhome lot.

I don't think Well, that's not a public way.

Correct.

So basically that means that Hickory Station Lane is a private drive. Correct. So possibly making that 10 foot off right away, no one will comment to that point in time. You're okay with ingress, egress out of this?

It's kind of... Yeah. So ideally we would love to see that further away from the intersection, but that would require rotating the building and I'm sure there's some planning implications. So on a street as... I mean, calling it a street's being a little generous. West Main does not have a lot of traffic, so I'm not too worried about where that driveway is, and they are being required to improve it along their frontage to support two-way traffic.

Does anybody know, I'll just pull it up on my phone real quick so I can see a quick aerial of it. there's a gravel right there that's on it currently. And then there's a tree line to the west of the property down between it and the adjacent residential property. Does the tree line that I'm seeing, and I may need representation to answer this question for me, represent the MBSL on the back, the 20 foot right there?

Do we have representation for this project here tonight?

Please come to the microphone and name and address for the record. Very well. Give me one second. I need a question or answer from staff. I'll come right back to you. John?

So the code does say front lot line. Nothing to do with the right of way. So the parking thing is still an issue.

OK. All right. Perfect. So I'm looking at the aerial picture right now through Google Maps of the lot as it is right now, and it's got kind of a gravel on it currently. But then there's a tree line on the proposed plan would be the rear of this building. is that tree line representative is that your property or is that tree line there um the neighbor's property uh i'm not exactly sure i think it's probably the neighbor's property the neighbor's property good i'm looking to make sure that was preserved that's part of the reason why i'm asking that question so that makes me feel even better uh that that is the uh the neighbor's property right there um Where will the lighting on your building? Is it just wall packs? Is that what is proposed on this building?

I believe it's a street. It's a serial light on the parking lot.

So decorative pole lighting? Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So let's ask, staff asked us that question. How do you hand, or how are you handling coming into compliance with your type D buffer, but your type D buffers does not appear to be located on your property?

So I think last time we talked, we could have put a vinyl fence. To me, the buffer requirement, I'm not sure if I understand correctly last time.

Did you guys hear that?

You've got your 20-foot landscape buffer. It's off-site, half of it. You technically need to have that on-site. To me, it looks like there's already a buffer adjacent to those townhomes already out there from the aerial. so and that makes sense i was just trying to look up because it might the townhomes might have been required to buffer when they went in and it looks from the area like there is clearly like evergreens and a royal party planted there but the issue to answer your question is that buffer has to be on your property entirely okay um and you have it split here let me

the buffer between rm16 and this this land use actually and we had it situated differently the last time that we saw it i don't well usually remember the buffer being an issue intensive in the class d are most intensive and these aren't that far apart in intensity it's required

Were you able to grant a variance to that?

That was the other thing I was going to ask.

Let me go ahead and open it up. Any further questions from the commission while staff is trying to get us a few of these answers pulled together?

So the parking is adequate. Is that correct?

Parking is adequate. It's just non-compliant with the required to be 10 foot off the right of way, which it is not.

There is no option to waive.

There is no option to waive.

That's not a PUD. Boza would have to be a full-time appeal.

Boza would have to grant. Could Boza grant that?

He could.

so that that proposes a question back for you so as drawn you have something as drawn that is non-compliant that this body has no ability to grant you a variance to um if So if you wanted to continue with this plan, a possibility for you would be to defer this item before the Planning Commission tonight, consult with staff about applying to BOZA, where BOZA could grant you the variance on that buffer requirement. And should that variance be granted via BOZA, then your deferral here would bring you back up to expedite being able to get back to Planning Commission to move forward. But we're unable to grant that. So your site plan is before us tonight. We really can't approve it. So would, with that being said, you could defer if that would be an option for you that you would like to explore. So that's your decision?

Yeah. We'll probably try to look at a variance.

Okay. So would that be a request for deferral then?

Yes, sir.

Everyone?

We'll get with them on that.

Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, please see staff on that. I really enjoyed your building right here. So I hope that that works out and we get to come see you back. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Next item up on our agenda is underneath item 7D. It is to review the final master development plan site plan for Golden Bear Townhomes located at 4515 Beckwith Road.

Mr. John. Sure thing. Golden Bear Place pod. Another section of that. This particular final master development plan and site plan is for I'm not sure how much of this you remember, but the original PMDP, this would have been the far corner up in the northeast corner up towards the auto auction up there in that corner. This is not the part of the PUD that had the age-restricted 55-plus This is the area to the north and east of that. And what they're proposing here This pod has 670 some odd units of residential approved in it. I want to say about 150,000 square feet of commercial that were required with the PMVP. And a couple of months ago, you saw the multifamily and some mixed use come through in a FMVP cyclone for another phase of this. THIS CORNER ON THE PMBP INCLUDED I BELIEVE ON THE PMBP IT WAS A MIXED USE BUILDING. SO THEY HAD A MIXED USE BUILDING UP IN THAT CORNER. IT HAS CHANGED TO STRICTLY TOWN HOMES NOW. THAT DOESN'T PROCLUDE THEM FROM HAVING TO INCLUDE THE STATED 145, 800 AND WHATEVER SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL WAS IN THE PUD. BUT THEY DO HAVE JUST TOWN HOMES UP IN THIS CORNER. AND THEY'RE NOT AGE RESTRICTIVE IN ANY WAY, NOT THAT I CAN TELL FROM THESE PLANS. There's 127 of them. They have a 70-30 facade requirement per the PUD. So the applicant is aware of that. You know, they said they've addressed it in here. One of the other comments I had on this, I guess, was that they got a couple different products in here and we only seen a couple elevations in here, not of all the products, if I remember correctly. I could be wrong. No, it looks like there's just a handful of them. I think there's four or five different types. So that's what you're looking at here. It's 127 units in townhomes, northeast corner of the pod and on the other side of the creek. UM AND THAT'S IT THAT'S WHAT IT IS UM THE FMDP SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IF YOU GO THROUGH THAT THOSE BULLET POINTS THEY DON'T VIOLATE ANY OF THOSE UM IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE PMDP BEING THAT IT'S NOT A MIXED USE BUILDING IT'S KIND OF AN ODD SPOT FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING IN MY THOUGHTS THOUGH BEING THAT IT'S IN THE FAR CORNER OF THAT PUD UM SO I do recommend approval. There was a couple things in here I would like to see, like cleaner and more . We're going to need to have them work with us and send us the rest of the elevations. Like I said, they've got 70-30 masonry requirement. They're aware of that. There's a clubhouse they'll have to submit later on for that. It'll be 2,000 square feet plus. We've got a lot of conditions, but it's, you know, being that it's a PUD, there's a lot of conditions from the PUD to kind of circle back on and make sure I capture it again. So I don't think there's anything else terribly outstanding on this. But, yeah, that would be it. If you've got any questions, let me know. Thank you. Jane, public board?

The one item I want to touch on is condition number five. The PUD ordinance stated that a flood study was being performed on site. And this site in particular is one of the main areas in the PUD area affected by that. Before a land disturbance permit can be issued, the flood study will have to go to FEMA for approval. want to give credit credit to our floodplain manager shorty hunt on this one he did the leg work on it and in consultation with uh tennessee emergency management agency team uh that guidance is what is in the staff report. So once they do that, they get their approval, then they are free to go to construction. Outside of that, we have general comments that can be addressed at construction plan review, and we recommend approval. Very well. Thank you.

Let's open it up for Commissioner Rex.

Is this FEMA regulated?

So the Floodplain ordinance dictates that if your drainage area is greater than one square mile, that a flood study shall be submitted to the city for review.

Okay. I guess the question I'm leading to is, is FEMA an approval authority, or will they just say everything's good and we have a no-rise issue? I mean, I don't know what kind of approval we get from FEMA on this.

It's the latter.

what you just said okay question please um you say it's in substantial compliance but they did switch the is there a way going forward that they they can revisit their compliance nature of the i mean they got to put it somewhere else right yeah are we sure that

Can they reduce commercial?

To be in substantial, that's an interesting point for a discussion item later in the meeting. If our ordinance is written that way, that's a big problem, folks. We had a number of those maintenance switches. We've been here before.

We ran into one before that was a completely different look altogether, but they had the same square footage and units and everything.

I remember your epistle.

Yeah.

You weren't wrong.

Commissioner George and myself both, I'm happy. So that's where I was kind of struggling how this was in substantial compliance and at FMDP here before us because now with it being commercial, does this not kick in a variance requirement for maximum length of cul-de-sac? So therefore making it non-compliant? It was commercial? So did we grant a variance?

To my recollection, it was always one current access point. However, they are required to stub to the property to the south. That was at the time coming in together. It was Beckwith Motorsports. That project's now fallen through. if and when that parcel comes back through, they'll be required to connect and be, that was the requirement on the Golden Bear Place PUD. So that was addressed at the time, whether it was explicitly called out that they're hitting their cul-de-sacs or not. Honestly, I think if we even gave them the variance, because the cul-de-sac up in the corner there, was always well exceeding allowable length uh i don't have the ordinance in front of me but i i willing to bet we just granted them the variance see but i don't know if i'm willing to bet on that one because the i thought as well that this had a trigger to the commercial portion of it

that if we allowed the residential that whether or not a co tie as we're trying to do to some of these because of what commissioner george expressed um or that the commercial was coming in prior to the residential and that's the reason why the residential was acceptable um at this immediate time as you said and and as the rumor mill flows through town that there's other tdec and fema issues over there that may make that site shrink exceptionally or never come before this body and the financial um cost to do anything on that property may uh exceed the value of such because of what's happening around here. So we're going to bury some town homes around the swamp. That's basically what we're going to do, and then we're going to provide one way in to something that will probably never come to fruition over there to the side. So we're exceeding the maximum length of the cul-de-sac.

There's going to be another one of those situations on the corner of Curd and, oh, geez, the town homes that were built on that swamp where they can't touch it.

they're not going to be able to touch any of the landscaping in and around this way out of sight yeah i would be honest with you i mean the mixed use building in the uh in the corner unfortunately our code i don't see where it supports i agree it's it's not the same but if you go by the

well if this were to be a freestanding project comes before this body I don't see this body approving it was only one way in one way out and it would require a variance request in order to do that but if it comes in as a piece for an entire master project I could see that as a portion of it but we're relying upon the connection to be made and at this point in time the fact that the This is going to be developed, and the commercial portion is not. It tells me that with the commercial portion being the high value, no other reason because it's adjacent to Interstate 40. So the fact that we're not seeing that tells me that that is doubtful that we will see that project come before this body at any time in order to give this relief, and I think it's a safety concern right now.

i hate to get our attorney off our vacation but you know i think we've been here before when staff says something is in substantial compliance and the board tends to disagree and i don't know we haven't taken a vote with the board but any stretch but What about that question? How does that shake out? I would feel much better about addressing our attorney on that.

I'm looking at elevations here. I mean, I'm seeing buildings at 555 and with as green as what floodplain at 554. We're given buildings a foot of leeway on a hundred year flood that could with one way in and one way out yeah it's not a good idea it would never get approved yes sir sorry I'm gonna let the speaker that that is wetland please name and address for the record you know which is what the code requires so but the green shaded area those are wetlands

Were you a part of the initial submittal of this overall master project?

No sir, I was not. So barge is just taking it over? Correct. For this project freestanding?

Yes.

And one thing I'd like to add though, is just that the commercial can be reallocated elsewhere within the PUD, even though it's not within this block.

the commercial is going to continue to be pushed and pushed and pushed and eventually we're going to be in a place where there isn't enough land that could be allocated to support that much commercial yeah the i'm asking the city attorney if she can speak towards this

They're getting her on the microphone where she'll be able to speak. We'll be able to hear her. Give us one moment. We're going to test our technology. What's that? I've got a quick question. Please, please, please, while they're arranging that, if she starts to speak, then I'm going to pause you real quick. Yes, sir.

I guess this is partially to staff and partially to the developer. The future clubhouse, I don't see a pool and totally understand why that may or may not be. So I see that as more of an intermittent use clubhouse for things like parties and such. In our current neighborhood, got maybe a similarly sized clubhouse. um we have probably at least twice as much parking as is here and parking still floods out into the street so if there is any way possible i know codes are a thing but if there's any way possible to add to that parking in a significant way i can just see that being a necessary thing i know there's some additional parking further down the street but everybody's going to be lined up on that understood that private drive there i got you i'd do whatever you could to accommodate those folks

All right. There we go. But the planning commission would need to decide that it is not in substantial compliance, which there are six parts to that, and you'll find it on the first page of your staff report at the bottom. Number one, you might be able to find something there if it violates any provision of this article, or even if it doesn't comply with the PUD in any way. but the specific conditions of the blood. Other than that, I'm going to guess two, three, four and five and six. Staff has already addressed those.

Help you. We're reading through this at the moment. Yeah, one of my questions, Sam, that I had back for staff was in regards to when this came in, it came in as a mixed use with residential and the commercial, of course, the allowance of the residential towards it. But I thought that this section over here of my memory, I don't have the original submittal, was more mixed use, i.e. mixed use towards commercial. and not putting this many residences that exceeds our current ordinance of maximum length of a cul-de-sac with no immediate plan before this body to make any connectivity to it. So it's still a one way in, one way out for 127 units.

Staff would have to pull up the original plans. I don't have those to compare it. So I don't know what the original approval was for.

Very well. A little sidebar discussion. Commissioner Franklin, do you have something else you want to add?

Well, I mean, the cul-de-sac linked on a commercial business use is not the same as residential use. I mean, it's not even... the same subject correct would that fall into the category number six land use involve any land use not specified on the approved preliminary development plan uh in in this instance it could be violating of number six because um and i'm not sure i was part of the approval of this so i don't have a mayor i've been on office planning commission i wasn't here so i'm probably the worst one to talk about it but i can't imagine this board or or even any of them going for this many in a cul-de-sac when so much is discussed about a lot a lot less variance that that occurs here so i guess my point being is that it might have been it was probably approved because it was a business use and it wasn't going to necessarily be a health and safety issue for people to get trapped in a one-way in one way out thing and whether know tree comes across the road and you've got 120 something units instead of businesses shut down it's a lot different right it's a different land use and so i'm not i guess my observation would be it might violate number six very well should i get something you wish to have we're going to check the ordinance right now to see what it if any address cul-de-sac is addressed within that document okay perfect

Any additional questions, comments at this point?

Chairman, you can also table this one to the end if you want to move on while staff looks into it.

be uh i think that would be a fantastic suggestion any any objection to that i'm sorry to keep you waiting up here uh on this right here but obviously not too excited about it but also at the same time i want to make sure that we make the appropriate decision for everybody involved right there um so Any objection to moving this to the back of our agenda? Very well. And staff will continue to work on that. Sam, I'm going to leave you on there. I'm going to just kind of set you here on my table. So if we need you, we'll shout at you.

All right.

With that being said, we're going to move item 7D to the back of the agenda to be heard prior to item 10A. So 7D is going to move to the back of the agenda. Next item up on our agenda will be item 8A. This is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. This is to review the rezone request from RS-40 to CMU for the Baker property located at 1888 Golden Bear Gateway.

Thank you.

This would be Ms. Jill, please.

As you stated, this is for a rezone approval for two parcels owned by Ms. Baker that's been submitted. The property originally was rezoned back in 2011 when we did the widening of Curd Road and turned it into Golden Bear Gateway. There were several parcels at that time that were annexed due to the need for the roadway, the right of way, and so forth. at that time no reason was requested during that period so it defaulted to our standard rs40 low density residential since that time miss baker has had the desire to rezone this area to commercial mixed use it is consistent with the land use plan the one thing i did want to note a part of this on these two parcels which are approximately between 18 and 19 acres The eastern portion of the property of about five acres of it to the east that abuts the creek line that backs up to Woodridge. is zoned as Parks and Greenway. If you all do rezone this, accept the rezone tonight and approve it to send it forth to the Board of Commissioners, that will not change the Parks and Greenway portion because it is in the flood zone. It's in showing within flood zone. Sorry, I just had my notes on it here. um on the boundary survey it does show it in flood zone ae which is a high risk area so that's why it was originally deemed parks and greenway because it's not suitable for building potential so we just want it noted on here that the rezone will only apply to the area that is currently shown as rs40 not the parks and greenway portion very well what uh one question that jumped out on on me on this what are some of our liable uses in cmu Pretty wide open retail, restaurant, professional, non-medical, medical, office use. Pretty wide open. I mean, it's probably one of our more allowable uses for just a wide array of services. I think it's limited on some of your convenience services, but definitely restaurant, retail, so forth.

So if staff likes that instead of your two across the street are CRC and CNS, and now we're going to go to CMU, so CMU would be your preferred use for that area?

We'd have to do a land use amendment for those districts.

We did?

She'd have to do a land use amendment to get a neighborhood commercial across the street. Okay. What she's asking is what the land use already is.

Which is the CMU.

do you have anything for public works on this one very well questions comments from the commission please commissioner um john one question we we got residential to the north residential to the south was that kind of the same situation where they just defaulted to the rs-10 and the rs-20 when i could tell yeah there was a lot of annexations back in 2011 okay and yeah they were annexed in and nobody didn't notice they didn't

so just default defaulted out okay and that would happen regardless of the land use you have to ask for the reason right regardless of what the land use says okay good thank you yeah city already um acquired the right away on this property for the widening of golden bear okay good question yeah i remember that unfortunately i remember that back to 2011.

It's the first time. It always surprised me that we didn't see anything, but they have a beautiful home right there. So your guys' home will be sadly missed. It's a unique and beautiful build over there should this redevelop to a CMU. Hate to see it go, but certainly would under their understanding. See no additional questions or comments at this time. We'll open it up to citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make comments about this item on the agenda is welcome, encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, name and address for the record. May also, before I ask for a motion or a recommendation in regards to this item on the agenda, just for the record, let it be known that Commissioner Franklin has stepped away for this item on our agenda. So with that being said, I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to item on our agenda. Motion and a second for a positive recommendation. All those in favor, second five are saying aye. Raise your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? It is a positive recommendation. All right. Next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item. This is item 9A. It is to review the land use amendment plan for low-density residential to thoroughfare commercial for the Williams property located at 98 Tanglewood Drive. Ms. Jill.

Thank you. As was noted at the beginning of the meeting, we did have a amended staff report that was put out before you at the table. And there's nothing that has been changed in this other than the applicant and property owner name was incorrect. I'd like to thank Commissioner Armistead for letting us know about that. That was an error on our part when we were transposing over for our formatted staff report. So I do apologize for the inconvenience. This property We'll assume you want to hear the land use first. Yes, ma'am, please. This property currently is within Wilson County's jurisdiction. It's a through lot. It has frontage on both Tanglewood and South Green Hill Road. It currently has a single family home on this lot. The applicant has not proposed any specific use or need for this request, so we are just looking at it as such. The Future land use amendment that they are requesting is for thoroughfare commercial. The request does not meet with the future land use plan because it currently calls for low density residential in that area. There is a lot of thoroughfare commercial to the north. and to the east and west but to the due south uh property is low density residential so it's kind of a mixed bag there with what um is all allowed but the fact is that with the future land use plan it does call for low density and that's where they're requesting the change to commercial very well um questions comments from the commission

Mr. Williams is my neighbor somewhat on the other end of the street. So I was concerned about the situation where the owner listed as John Craze originally. I was like, that can't be. How is that? But anyway, so we clarified that. That's all good. But he does say he is not planning to do anything at this point. And I've talked with several other neighbors who are concerned. seem to be okay with it as long as it is does not become a situation to the east of the property as there is another set of buildings just across the street that have had some issues with materials being left all around the three sets of buildings that are on that property that mr. Russell Kirby built many many years ago back before he passed away and so I just I feel like as long as we know and I do appreciate buffers so there needs to be definitely if something happens commercial-wise with this property. We definitely have neighbors who want to maintain their acre lots. That's what those are. And we're not necessarily, we do not want to be in the city. So that's not an issue for us. So at this point, thank you. And so i i think it's as as long as he he's looking forward to you know the future concerning the property eventually i think that's what is uh his intention at that point so um i think i would be okay at first i was like oh no no no and then i got to thinking about the other things that are around it and i've talked with a few of the neighbors there and you know as long as we're going to have something nice, that's fine. I'm okay with that. I mean, we don't know what it would be, of course, but there are lots of codes and things to abide by.

Here's what I saw on this one as well, because I'm just like yourself, in and out of there a whole bunch. I don't know in my tenure sitting here, I can say that we've doubled down to a property behind one and said let's randomly commercial zone a property that's not fronting a major thoroughfare as this one is not. Any building that would come on this would be hard to meet our setback requirements. Ingress egress would either have to come off tangle wood or off of Green Hill, which does not have a good proximity right there and causes an issue, in my opinion, at South Green Hill Road should this property develop autonomously. If this property were to be combined with the property adjacent to Lebanon Road, I'd probably have a different feel with this because then things like that Class D buffer that we discussed earlier would kick in. um make it a suitable site we could maintain ingress and egress off of lebanon road with the redevelopment of this site i could see them combined together but independently at least in my time here i tried to think through that and i don't know that we have ever taken a property that is not running a major thoroughfare and allowed a property to to be changed to commercial. And my fear of doing something like that here today, I empathize for the potential issues or understanding of issues that are going on over there. But at the same time, it sets a precedent that I personally am not supportive of moving forward. Because if you do one, you almost got to do the other and provide a substantial reason why you wouldn't do another in lieu of this. And so that would be my concern because if this were to develop underneath this zoning classification, they're going to go, I mean, I don't think anybody on Tanglewood wants it to go there. So automatically that means it's going to default coming in and out of Green Hill. And I don't know how you get an entrance in and out of Green Hill. I would like it if it were to redevelop the entire corner. I think that there's merit to that. So if there's a question or something out there towards that, replant it, combine them together. You can bring it to us as a concept plan. You can bring it to us in multiple ways. They're cost effective. But just a random rezone of a commercial property doesn't touch a major thoroughfare, I think, is a dangerous move by this model.

just point out one other thing that we're looking at here a second ago that's a residence in that top right corner so you'd have a residence surrounded by thoroughfare commercial i don't think i'd want to be that guy and that's why i was saying that we would if there is anything in the future that were to be

developed. And my thinking and Mr. Williams' thinking was that in addition it would also incorporate the front part of it too i think that's where he would hopefully going but maybe we're a little bit premature in making that proof uh making that uh i certainly think my opinion would change if there were that because i would be looking at an entrance in and off of lebanon road versus an entrance off of tanglewood or um south green hill road so it changes the

my entire comments and opinions and allows me to put buffers to protect those houses that would be adjacent to it and gives me a safer point of ingress, egress as somebody that travels South Green Hill as much as I do right there. It'd be nice to have a little convenient retail right there. Let me ask staff, do we even have sewer right there?

Repeat that, I'm sorry.

Do we even have sewer right there? Where's sewer, Shane? It is in close proximity, actually, yes.

Really? Where is it? Out of curiosity. And a Stewart title?

Directly across the street.

Oh, at Greenhill?

Yes.

Greenhill Church has it? Mm-hmm. Do they really? OK. But we've not pushed further. That's the terminus point at this point, isn't it? No. So the sewer doesn't continue to go west anymore down Lebanon Road?

No, it does.

new across the street off south south green hill the villages of south green hill have sewer as well yeah but they're not getting it off leavener road are they are they really okay from what i can tell but that's my way to put the dollar general i thought we had to put the dollar general on septic for some reason

OK. That's the last commercial building on sewer in the city.

Is Dollar General? Dollar General. Yes. OK. So the gap is between Dollar General and St. Stephen, somewhere in there? Yes, sir.

Questions, comments? I'm sorry. Just to piggyback on yours, we'll just go ahead and beat that horse again. We've seen this numerous times when they've combined the parcels and they want to make the whole thing commercial. That's been a whole lot easier to approve, but I don't see how we can do anything with this.

Mr. George third time since this is my last one. I think also it to your point, Mr. Chairman, it does set a dangerous precedence that you will have every single single family residential home that touches thoroughfare commercial now come forward and say, well, you proved it here. Everybody, everybody across everywhere is going to try to cash on it. But I do agree. I think it was it was one parcel would be a different story. But it's you said a dangerous precedent all across Lebanon Road, Mount Julia Road of everything.

every adjacent thoroughfare commercial property wanting to cash in and get some type of commercial and at some point you got to draw a line and i think that line is you've got to be on a major thoroughfare let me go ahead and ask do we have please shine or just for the record there's a manhole at the intersection of south green hill and lebanon road on the south just just as you turn into south green hill there's a manhole in the grass uh next to the gas lines next to that vacant lot

Oh, okay, okay.

The strip building, there's a vacant lot, then there's the road. There's a manhole. So on the east side?

Yes. Okay. On the west side of that lot. Okay, gotcha. Do we have representation that would like to speak to this? Well, let me open it up for citizen comments, and please come on up, name and address for the record.

Jayma Morgan, 204 Tanglewood Drive. Thank you. So I'm glad to hear that you seem to be opposed to this. My kids are in the neighborhood. I really don't want it to be a thoroughfare. I don't want it to be commercial. I moved to this neighborhood because it was well established, had trees, was somewhere that was safe for my kids to be raised, where I didn't have to worry about commercialism. Yes, there is the commercial strips that face 70 and I totally understand that and I get that, but they do have egress and they do have the ability to exit onto 70 from their parking lots. And I just don't want to have the precedent set where people can have a commercial property within my neighborhood. And it's nothing against the Williams, but I really would, I want my kids to be able to come back and move into my neighborhood and want it to be the way it is now when they grew up. Sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Please.

Dwayne Lanham. I used to live in the county years ago, but moved over to Rutherford County, but I'm with Benchmark Realty. and will be representing Mr. Williams. And the way we were looking at it was, at first, and by the way, he had an accident or he would come up and speak himself. The way we were looking at it was, But the church is right across the street right there at South Green Hill. There's more development that's coming up, as you know. And so to be able to exit out that way, at least you'd be able to make that right turn. And I don't know if that's something that would be considered. And then you're quickly on to Lebanon Road. But then coming out Tanglewood, you know, it's just a quick left turn. And I understand their concern with it. you know, more commercial or more traffic. We were thinking more like a doctor's office. So people would come in there on the Tanglewood side off Lebanon Road and most likely exit out that way instead of carrying back out through the neighborhood, which would make it a lot more simpler. I think Ms. Armistead probably agree with that, that most people would go out that side. So that's kind of the way we were looking at it. and then we talked to mr giles he seemed to think that it was oh yeah no no no problem it looked like but i understand your concerns with it we're just asking for some consideration in that because you know i know it's kind of teetering on okay it's going to be intrusive with the neighbors maybe a little bit but most of that traffic would carry back out i feel like to lebanon road which would make more sense that if that if that would uh be under consideration

The way I see it is that anybody that's going to buy that for commercial value and a commercial price, they ain't going to use that house. They're coming to the highest traffic point, and the highest traffic point is South Green Hill. They will not go to Tanglewood. That's just not what commercial businesses do. They need to be seen. They're coming to South Green Hill, and that's where they're coming for this body, and they'll request an access point right there. We have no restrictions from the ability to deny that. We might get into a TDOT rule as far as spacing off of a thoroughfare or whatnot or access to that. Or it could be the slope, but if they grade the slope down, it could even come that way. The house, I think, is of no value to here. The value here would be the commercial zoning over top of it. And I'd say the house getting bulldozed over in this site, totally redeveloping underneath that. And that's the concern that we share is really what could happen to it autonomously like that. I don't see it as a doctor's office. It could easily be a commercial thoroughfare. It could be a vape store, cigarette shop. know whatever it wanted to be right there at commercial thoroughfare there's multiple intrusive uses that i don't think that any of the neighbors would want that this zoning would allow it to be and i don't think the house holds value that access point to south green hill where your major traffic is um that's where that's where your value sits on this property so the only shot we really have is for the guy who owns the commercial right there facing lebanon road to purchase it maybe it would be considered at that point yeah are you guys buying it

We've talked to him about when the conversation very first started was to buy on the 0.6 of the 1.6. and he was interested and then mr williams got to thinking more about it um about just selling the entire 1.6 and we started talking with mr giles about it so that's kind of how the conversation originated and carried out to this point yeah and and as i said i mean i personally that i live right off of south green hill myself personally i don't know that i wouldn't mind seeing the two develop together as one

We'd have to look at access points, buffers, things like that that make sense should it ever come forth like that. But I saw it as a corner. My father's best friend used to own that corner piece until he passed. And I think that his heirs ended up selling them to whoever that owner is over there now. But I used to fuss at him about his railroad ties up there at the front all the time. He wouldn't spend any money on fixing those railroad ties, and fortunately, eventually they collapsed. They had to be corrected out there. And my father actually had his personal business in that strip center sitting up front, and I guess it sounds like that may have been the heyday or the better, although that 18-wheeler trailer sitting there never was a good thing. So I guess we at least got that gone. I think that's gone, isn't it? Yeah, the 18-wheeler trailer's gone. Yeah, so at least that parcel's gone right there.

Well, the man that owns the commercial that faces Lebanon Road, Mr. Goda, he's got a back entrance of

yeah out that way so we figured that you know one more could at least make that right turn to make it all work maybe limiting it to that or something i don't know the way he's developed his site he can't really have any act or doesn't really have any parking lot access to it and have to come before us to improve that and get get that as a full access point and i would think that we wouldn't be too excited about that ever happened.

So if he's interested in it, the likelihood of getting it approved would be better, but not guaranteed.

Kind of the way you look at it.

Green Hills Investment, is that what it was called? Yeah. Up front there? That's him, Mr. Goda. Green Hills Investments, they've got those two lots. If they were to look at purchasing that one on the corner, Simic, Simsic, sorry, and then... then mr williams property and redeveloping that whole chunk it would make more sense okay right in that scenario with a long building maybe parking all the way around it buffers the whole bit but the family that owns the one that's residential would have to go commercial or be purchased and

it would make it a lot more favorable okay yeah and i see where you're coming from too you know the doctor's office wanted to get off the beaten path and and do it as something like that and repurpose the house i'd say that's not a possibility but you know could we limit it to that just doctor offices instead of no commercial thoroughfare is uh wide open yeah okay just making sure outside of commercial interstate it's probably our

Pretty wide open. It's CRC and CG. Yeah, CRC.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Could you change the request on just limiting it to get the approval for a single doctor opposite, maybe redesign the house?

I don't think that I'd be excited about it going commercial at all.

Okay.

And that's just personal. You're welcome to. I guess you would have to, if you wanted to change your request, I think that you'd have to make my application to change your request, or could he change it at this meeting? Yeah. So it's up to you. You could also defer if you wanted to do that and have further discussion and make a decision whether or not you wanted to press forward. So that's also an option that would be on your table as well.

Okay. I appreciate it.

Please, Commissioner Rapps.

The bigger issue that's already been said, but I'll just say it again, is that With a lot of things that we are presented with and are asked to approve, a lot of times we set precedent. And what this precedent would set is, like Preston said, every residential lot behind every thoroughfare commercial would say, okay, well, we want thoroughfare commercial too, and it will just start bleeding into the neighborhoods. And without them combining with the ones that are fronting the major thoroughfare, it just doesn't make sense.

Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Appreciate it. Thanks.

Let me revisit that. Would you like for us to take action on that, or would you like to defer your requests before this body tonight, or what would be your desire?

I'd like to talk to Mr. Giles if we could. So if that's a deferral route in order to do that, we could do that.

That would certainly allow you time in order to do something like that.

Yeah, I sure appreciate it.

So let me hold you up here for a moment. Okay. Would that be a request of deferral for – I've got to read these also. My apologies. Sure. a request i'm going to take it that it's a request for referral item 9a which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners review the land use amendment plan for low density residential thoroughfare commercial for the williams property located 98 tanglewood drive item 9b which is also a recommendation item which is to review the annexation request for the williams property located 98 tanglewood drive Item 9C, which is a recommendation item to review the plan of services for the Williams property located at 98 Tanglewood Drive. And then item 9D, which is also a recommendation item, is to review the rezone request from Wilson County R1 to CRC for the Williams property located at 98 Tanglewood Drive. Your request would be a deferral of those four items.

Yes, sir.

Very well. Thank you, guys. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Next item up on our agenda is we're going to bring it back to us. It's item seven days to review the final master development plan site plan for Golden Bear townhomes located at 4515 Beckwith Road. Mr. John, you have the floor, sir.

Sorry for the stroke, possible stroke causing. OK. There's been multiple PUD amendments with this PUD. And the 2024 amendment. Rezone that corner to RM16 with 145 townhomes. So with the zoning that they have out there, they can't even do the mixed-use building. It doesn't support it. And they were approved for 145 townhomes. They have 127. They had to eliminate a few because of the wetlands. So I have no issues with it at this point. that was part of an overall pud though correct this was yes it was a putt amendment um in 2004 there was at least three amendments with this and the one from 2024 that's what it was it changed the townhomes 145 townhomes and they got rid of the mixed use zoning up there and it was rm16 so did that put depend on another outlet

Okay.

Another entrance.

Todd, did you get some input?

I wasn't here. So when the PUD amendment came through, it always showed one ingress and egress point with the stub to the property to the south. However, no variance was granted to allow that. That was just an oversight on staff's part. I will say when that came through, we hadn't received the flood study and it wasn't marked as a floodway across there. So there, that is safety grounds to, uh, I don't want to say revoke a variance that was never granted, but, um, it is grounds to definitely feel differently about having only one exit. Um, That said, they are, not to use the word substantial compliance on you, but access-wise, they're doing exactly what they've shown from the pipeline. I will.

Please, Shane.

What I'll say about the access with the Garson floodplain, that's the reason the flood study is required to be sent to FEMA to get guidance on how it is to be constructed.

Please, please, please. You can go ahead and give me name and address for the record.

Drew Hardison, 615 3rd Avenue South. And I'll just say that we're constructing this bridge in accordance with FEMA regulations. The pavement will be at least a foot above the 100-year floodplain. So we are complying with FEMA regulations and are just about to finish that and submit that to the city, which would then go on a subsequent review to FEMA.

And if that flood study comes back showing anything different, then it would kick it out of substantial compliance, requiring it to come back here again?

We would not be allowed to get a land disturbance permit.

Yeah, they would. We would have to reassess independent. That could affect their site plan. Based on what FEMA, based on what the approval process that looks like, that will determine what they can and cannot build or how they build it.

It would really be related to the elevation of the road and the size of the bridge.

You can tell we're not excited about it. I think it's a bad development, a bad place. Further questions, comments? very well thank you uh this time we'll call for citizen comments this is wish to make comment welcome encourage to do so on the microphone name and address for the record see no citizen comments this time i'm looking for a motion in regards this item on the agenda Make a motion to approve with staff comments. No, it's not a recommendation. It's a vote. FMDP. It's a motion to approve with subject to staff comments. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Raise your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? There's an approval. Very well. okay all right our next item up on the agenda which is that much more valid now uh is uh to uh item tonight is to discuss the city of mount julep land use plan i'll go ahead and open on this even though i'm not the one to put this on the agenda um please please please uh let me put you up here where everybody can hear you please

I was just going to ask the commission if you, since this is not a voting item, I'm just a discussion item. If you anticipate any questions for me, if not, then I will probably leave the meeting.

With sending Sam on vacation.

The only thing I will add is that I did double check and the planning commission does have the authority to initiate amendments to the land use plan. So it can be started here.

Oh, great. Good news. Well, you left us with good news, and so we hope that you have a wonderful vacation.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Bye-bye. All right. I'll go ahead and open up on that one right there. As I said, even though I didn't put that there, that right there is a reason, as Commissioner Franklin stated, that we're sitting up there loaded with mixed use on something that is going to be developed sooner rather than later everybody because of the project that was just submitted got a full copy of that land use plan as we currently have it if you haven't seen it before i've personally now set on three or four land use plan studies or whatnot for the city in my time here i will tell you that the intention of the mixed use up there the last time that this came before there was not even a remote thought of central pike being an interchange off of interstate 40. There was a remote thought of Golden Bear Beckwith Road that was actually on our radar, and I think in its fledgling states moving forward out there. Because of what we've seen here on a couple, Commissioner George actually brought it up tonight, the other one, the substantial compliance. I either want to know whether or not it's coming in commercial or whether or not it's coming in residential. and i think the land use plan provides the vision of what that is and i think some of the new ways of interpreting interpreting our mixed use zoning classification has not been necessarily beneficial to this city and so i certainly would be in favor of opening it up and defining the vision that the city has um our our elected officials uh planning commission um would like to hear from the general public of what they would want to see up there as well i'd say something opens it up everywhere that's one I'll throw it out there on the table again I think that we also need to just look at maybe it's good maybe it's not we just had a a rezone in an area that that covers the grounds that i'm uh that i was talking about basically division north and division north all the way up at least to cedar creek yacht club everything there lies within our ugb uh with trey moore's approval tonight that's your terminus point of the sewer um and with sewer being that close now um They've already moved gas and your other major utilities across the lake. They've made that move, it's there. So you have gas, you have power, you have all major utilities outside of sewer. I can see requests to this body in the coming five, 10, 15, 20 years, which is unrealistic that we'll see Bender's Ferry Bender's Ferry is going to change a lot. Bender's Ferry has changed a lot in the last five years. Bender's Ferry is going to change a lot in the next 10 years, in the next 15 or 20 years. It's one of, and that stretch down Golden Bear, um all the way up to that point it's it every that's your last big parcels of land those your last big tracks over there and i think that if we don't define a clear vision for the the vision is going to be brought to us with projects like we've seen here tonight that's my thought please

i'll just add and i think i'm just piggybacking on some previous conversations in a different area of course and and unfortunately i'll sit here and be a nimby person but we're we're going to get a brand new interchange starting in 29 at central pike um The big Tillman property there is shown as interstate commercial. That's going to come in as mixed use. I don't know when. I think sooner rather than later. If that comes in mixed use, we've got mixed use all the way around it. And my fear is that we're going to have a nice, beautiful interchange constructed. I'm a roadway person, so I think interchanges are beautiful. And it's basically going to serve all the mixed-use land parcels around it. I think, Mr. Franklin, that was one of your concerns as well at one point. how do we control that how do we make it so that it you know it's just something that's just going to serve those because i think all the other folks that are wanting to access the interstate good luck because we're going to have a ton of mixed use probably a ton of residential in that area because it's a brand new interchange it's it we're just doing a repeat of providence well you know one of the things that this is doing

allowing multi-family to come in through the mixed use cracked window of our zoning is it it's actually squandering future market demanded commercial areas that will come online at some point in other words if you fill golden bear up let's forget central pipe for just a second i think our most impending need to change this is actually golden bear because every developer is going to want to leverage multi-family in there all they can because it's an instant sale and then when it's all built out we will have allowed them to leverage in early commercial that wasn't really market demanded just to get it now. And then later on, we're going to wind up with no space for real market demanded commercial that might've been greater. See what I mean? So it's kind of getting us both ways. It's when this, when this happened, it wasn't, Mount Julie wasn't the same place as it is now. 25 years ago, There's three restaurants here and a stoplight. And so, you know, there just wasn't any way to get commercial. And this was a good way to do it. But right now we got a Costco, you know, that's sort of like the, you know, we're not hurting to get commercial. And I don't think we have to leverage it at all. One way to fix this problem would just be to take that land, that take that zoning approach. of mixed use I mean just take it out just don't allow it in it I mean you could amend the zoning or it's wouldn't even have to be a land use plan amendment at all involved you know that's one option and that would fix two quarters instantly wouldn't do anything about vendors fairies different subject But that is one option, just to not allow it. Take high density residents from multifamily out of that zoning? Yeah, just take it out of that zoning, just to where that zoning classification didn't include that use, right? That'd do it. But that'd take it out citywide. But you know what? That might be the better fix, because it's actually hurting the city, in my opinion, in two places. One, instantly, right now, in Golden Bear. And then... And so, you know, the school down there off the Central Pike, which has turned out to be one great elementary school, by the way. And it's going to wind up if we don't do something. All the kids that live in homes in Mount Juliet won't be going to that school. They'll be going to whoever lives in apartments surrounding it. And then they'll be bused to another school until another school is built. That's generally how it happens. So it doesn't just affect, you know, future residents. This affects residents that are already here because their children are going to be jockeyed around until schools finally get built. The biggest problem I got with multifamily is the time. You get 500 units, it takes 18 months. You get 500 single-family homes, it takes 10 to 15 years, right? Well, the school system can adjust to one a whole lot easier than can the other. so i mean i don't have to over tell this i think everybody understands the problem we saw it again and also our ordinance our ordinance is written opposite than it should be to even try to utilize this it shouldn't say increase floor area proposing a preliminary development plan for non-residential use you can't do that you can't disagree it could should our ordinance is even opposite of what our intentions are it's so So I think before you appoint a committee, I mean, you've got full authority to appoint a committee to do a spot check, you know, and start that if you want to do it. But for our discussion, we might ought to consider just amending the zoning ordinance. Well, I mean, we can't do either, but we can recommend it. And that might be a better fix. I mean, would we put... Would everybody agree that the most abrasive residential is multifamily? Of course, the most abrasive industrial is restrictive industrial. We wouldn't put restrictive industrial in a mixed-use development. But we're putting a very restrictive residential in a mixed-use development. And so one option is just to take it out of the zoning classification. Just make it not a use in that classification. Just take it off the chart. Or if the city commission has to do it, we just recommend it. That would fix it everywhere. And then RM-16 would just have to be zoned, right? It would be in a land-used area. It would be available, but you'd still have to go get your RM-16 zoning one parcel at a time. It goes away someday. It's, what, three months deep in it? That's one way to do it. The other way is to amend the land use plan and just take the mixed use classification out, slim it down.

That's a good point. So, Paul, discussion?

Absolutely, 100%. Because we're going to see more of this, I think. They're going to have these mixed use approves and they're going to come in with high density residential and We just got to take a bite of that unpleasant sandwich and approve it. But if we just take it out, then they've got to come do it individually. They're going to have to come get it. If they're going to do, and full disclosure, that's my company. That was my firm that he was representing. I mean, they'll come in there and they switch it out. And it's usually at the developer's request, but they switch it out. And it is a bait and switch. And we're stuck. We got nothing. We got no teeth to stop it. And I think, I don't know what the next steps would be is, you know, put together a recommendation or put together an ordinance to pass two.

If that's the case, then maybe the answer is to take it out of that classroom. Just take RM-16 out of that as a zoning. I mean, if that's really the problem. Because if we just change the land use plan, we didn't fix that problem.

It'll stop the bait and switch. never heard a citizen or a resident of the city of mount juliet be excited about a new condo townhouse or apartment building going in right the only people that are excited are the developers and for generations. Single-family homes are still selling very rapidly in the city, and you can look at all of the condos and townhouses that are sitting on the market all over. I drive by them all the time in north Mount Juliet. It's just the reality of the situation.

One advantage is to apartments, if there is one, in a community like ours, and it's only one I know of, really, is it does yank the rug out from major corporations that come in and buy up whole neighborhoods and turn them into rental neighborhoods. But the federal government just passed something to stop that. The president didn't sign it. We went into law. That's the only real good thing. That's the only good thing that I know about them. The really bad thing as an elected official and someone who takes phone calls and complaints, I can tell you one thing. There is nothing that will make a constituent madder than messing with their children. And there is no more messing with one's children than to take them out of one school that they went through all their life and take them 15 minutes down the road to another school. And then they look out the window and see the reason for that is a four-story apartment. And that's why I believe, like you say, the public doesn't like them because it leads to that complaint.

I mean, we already drive our kids, you know, halfway across the city from Tustin Gardens to West Wilson when we drive past two perfectly good elementary schools already along the way and a middle school.

What?

So, yeah.

When was the last time the land use plan was done? I think it was with Lisa Keelan.

2015.

Yeah, it was Lisa Keelan, wasn't it? yeah i think uh for those lisa keelum was our uh city planner at that point in time is this a is this a land use plan problem or is it a zoning on this problem i think that's the first order discussion that's a good point because i can as i said i sat on that committee and and what we're seeing now i wouldn't number one i wouldn't imagine i'd still be here that's for sure um We chose, and it's just such a different environment, because we chose mixed use so that we could get a feel to how the city wanted to be developed. And we felt that mixed use was most appropriate. So we didn't say that, well, commercial, you have to go here. Residential, you have to go here. This has to be like this. That mixed use at that time wasn't being used like it is now. That mixed use was kind of, hey, maybe we would like that to be residential. hey maybe we would like that to be commercial and that was our thinking for mixed use because we we didn't feel like at that point in time i mean and so much has changed since then um that we needed to

be the dictators of that, if that makes sense.

We kind of wanted to see how it was going to develop because Providence was coming on line. Paddocks was in the works kind of at that time. So we had those, but we... still felt these out boundaries. You know, Golden Bear is just boom now. But Golden Bear wasn't around. There was no thought of the Central Pike. And, Lord, you couldn't imagine the neighborhood on Bender's Ferry. I mean, honestly, that would be, you know, go all the way to Edmond Road, whatever, you know, put mixed use on it. Well, see what but somebody throws something against the wall and see if it sticks and that was kind of the the theory honestly the theory of thought and and what what was going to happen we knew the interchange was going to come but you know the way that golden bear kind of meandered and and went up there and and the new mount jude high school i mean heck at that time there wasn't a green hill high school and and at that point in time the the school board hadn't purchased more land to put another school on uh on golden bear so we've got all of that right there and just so much building a school year folks so i i think three years in a row and i never thought i'd see that i want to say that you've brought up a very valid point in my opinion um is that is mixed use the problem you know maybe mixed use is not the problem but the problem is is seeing the way that the residential portion is being manipulated within our mixed use zoning uh i don't think is acceptable right now that's my personal opinion what if the land use plan allowed allowed someone to propose rm16

in land use proposals, but not necessarily be a part of a commercial zoning classification necessarily, or not allowed in the ones that we seem to be prone to using so much. I mean, I think our problem was in doing this, I mean, there's nobody to blame here. Mount Julie was a completely different city when this happened, okay? To say, I mean, it's just what, there's not even a way to compare what we're talking. We're talking about two different cities. We just haven't been in the same place 25 years apart. But I don't know. I mean, I'm not saying that there's nowhere in this city that apartment can't go. I'm just saying that when our zoning ordinance allows for it to be corrupting our buildings, best quarter. I mean, folks, Mount Juliet's going away with commercial quarters. Golden Bear is one of the last to rise, folks. I mean, we're just not going to have a whole lot more of them. I don't believe there's ever going to be one western connector that's going to be like that. I don't think. There's going to be a lot of turns and traffic calming will be 100 turns to get through there. I believe that's the way it's going to go forward. I'm just... You may have a little commercial corridor down Central Pike maybe, but that's it. And so if we let multi-use chew that up, just to get quick strip centers in the near time and then not have a commercial corridor at all left in the city, There won't be any more commercial at some point. We may be cutting our own water off just a little later than we think.

I'll say this too. So just looking at these spaces right here and saying, all right, guys, here's your color-coded options at the bottom. If we open that door, what color code of that is right? And so the land use plan needs a study, but the mixed use needs a fix. Yeah.

I believe that. Those are two different things.

It doesn't help, as we saw tonight, it doesn't help anything that's already been previously approved. But it sets a standard in the grounds and ultimately up to our elected officials to either choose or accept a recommendation when it comes down to it.

So what would be the...

I'd like to, y'all may be guarded towards this, but what would staff's opinion be towards this? And you can say we have no opinion. I'm fine with that too.

I actually have a lot of opinions on this.

All right, John.

I 100% agree that the way our mixed use code is written is abusable. One of the things that sticks out in my mind is when I think of mixed use, until I came to the city of Mount Juliet, that did not include out parcels. mixed use building you know you've got commercial on the ground floor and you got residents above yeah absolutely if you just eliminate the out parcel thing that takes care of a massive chunk of the problem because they have to build the building to get the residences and the commercial if you do it that way so i have opinions on that and i have opinions on like the land use plan for sure DEFINITELY. BUT I THINK THERE'S MERIT IN BOTH OF THOSE AVENUES. I THINK THIS MIXED USE CODE IS WE KEEP INCREASING THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE MIXED USE PRODUCT, I THINK, IS UP NOW TO 30% AS OF AN AMENDMENT NOT THAT LONG AGO THROUGH THE BOC, WHICH IS RAISING THAT. I MEAN, IT WAS 5% WHEN I STARTED WORKING HERE, AND NOW IT'S UP TO 30% COMMERCIAL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN LIEU But I think I've always had a problem with the outparsals. That's where you get somebody to go to residential and they walk away from the outparsal. You can eliminate that. That's not mixed use.

No.

That's just abuse of the allowance of multifamily in a commercial district.

That's, you know, like we were talking about. And the biggest offender of that, I think, is when you have a commercial outparsal.

But when they sit there, I'm going to go through that on a lot of these. Old Edmond Dirt Road, arguing back and forth, 25%. So to me, that's a fault, a big fault in the code. And then the land use plan, yeah, stuff like Benders Ferry Road. Why is there medium density residential land use up Benders Ferry Road? It's just sprawled. It should all be low density, up non-available low density.

Well, I'll say too and piggyback that I know that land use plan studies the last time that we did one do require funding, do require money. And I'm just going to take a random guess that there is no money in our current budget for land use plan. You know, with CTAS, MTAS, we engaged them and their assistance and knowledge, and they were a huge part in providing us detailed information, and it did take the better part of a year to do that. i'm personally leaning towards trying to craft a uh a recommendation back to our board of commissioners and and take it out but how how do we craft that and how do we go about do we craft it and bring it as a voting item if we don't like it then we defer another month and then push it forward what would be the the will of the spot you you remember when

The land use plan, we had a small amendment committee. And Phil Smart was on it. Remember? And that was when Golden Bear looked like it was going to happen. It looked like funding was there and it was coming on board.

Do you remember?

I do. And it wasn't a full-blown MTAS land use plan study. It was just an area study. And I think there was two or three areas that were studied, and I think it didn't take but three months or so. It was short. It was quick. It didn't cost any money. I was over there in the other conference room with the big table with all the cigarette burns.

Oh, yeah.

Remember that?

Yeah. Now Kenny's office now.

Yeah. That could be an option. I mean, if there's no funding to do a land use plan study, it could be a corridor study. Because really and truly what we're talking about are corridors. And then it doesn't cost any money. And all it is, a committee appointed. You could appoint a committee. And you can set the expectation. And all the deliverable would be a recommendation to this board. And then from there, we take it, leave it, or amend it and then send it on to the full body that's the way we did it before and it didn't cost anything but some donuts and i think somebody bought a pizza a time or two a little bit of time yep would that would that be done as a separate exercise from evaluating what mixed use is and possibly changing that ordinance i hate to break it to john but that's kind of his job

it'd be uh like i said i got a lot of thoughts on that so it'd be fun we would be happy to have you put them down on paper for review so that we can understand those what are we talking about exactly here the ordinance amendment i could if we want to do that i feel like that's the low hanging fruit i think that's the simplest well land use plan

the second aspirational well and and the reason being is i think time is of the essence that interchange is going to be here and the developers are already wringing their hands they know what's coming golden bear they're already wringing their hands i think we need to i don't want to sound well whatever i don't want to sound too abrupt but i think we need to put an end to it so that we've got something to stand on, or else these things are going to get continued and shoved at us, and we won't have anything to stand on.

Things that were approved must have been before my time on this board, or all of a sudden just had those two industrial warehouses on Golden Bear. I don't recall seeing those since 24. They must have happened prior to that, and they just one day just boom, we've got massive warehouses where it could have been a lot of good uses for that land, but it already been approved and we can't do anything about it. We're not going to get another opportunity to stop this.

Once that horse is gone, it's gone.

I said this a couple months ago, whenever that monolithic, as you put it so eloquently, plan. I mean, they've got the playbook. They know what to do. So between now and this body fixing it, they're going to use that same playbook as long as they can because they can bait and switch everybody, get everybody on board, get the BOC on board, and then they can pull out and save some money and we'll do it. It's a playbook, and they're going to keep running it until we stop it. I agree with the urgency. I won't be here for that urgency, but I agree that you've got to close that loop because they're going to keep using it.

You may have said it in motion. You may very well have. You were mad that night. You were so mad. I ain't never seen you that mad.

Well, and to be fair, I mean, nothing against staff, because staff, at the end of the day, has got to do their job. But it was a rock and a hard place, because they're like, oh, you have to approve it. There's nothing you can do. And I was like, well, the heck there is. I still voted against it because I'm on a more of a spirited vote of what I lay my head down. And I know that my votes are what I thought was best. But, yeah, I mean, they've got the playbook. I mean, if anybody that we see the same people over and over here every single month. I mean, if I'm sitting in the audience and I'm a frequent flyer and I see that happen, I'm taking a middle back of my head and saying, OK, well, we got a we got a way to do that.

You want to appoint a committee?

How do we make it actionable? I personally, because we've got to be mindful of sunshine laws, as Sam that vacated the phone right there should say, you've got to be careful about that. So I would probably recommend... three members of planning commission, um, and potentially three from the public, uh, as well, uh, for further input, um, kind of a deal. It would be, you know, we'd have to agree. We go to the chamber and ask for somebody or just finish odd. Yeah. So, uh, maybe three members for planning commission to enter the general public. a boc member on there that way you already got a leg up going into bs go three three and then seven my boc would give you seven what would uh be the general feel for everybody on that seems reasonable how frequently would this body i mean you gotta establish your committee we can establish three members here tonight uh but then we would need to um see who on the boc would want to be a part of this i would imagine commissioner giles probably would but i don't want to speak on his behalf and his absence

Oh, that's the best way to do it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what you get for not being here, Art. Yeah, he'd be so proud of me wanting to sidewalk tonight, though. Yeah. Yeah. I think Art would be a welcome addition because he's come and gone similar to Bobby and been here for a long time through a lot of different changes. Art was a... commissioner during a lot of the early growth I think that are pretty sure that art was a city commissioner when the current land use plan was adopted yep I'm not mistaken so art would would be good value so I would certainly recommend art to be one of them I'd love to be maybe part of my last hurrah personally

so i would need two more i guess who would be interested or willing to serve sure i would else want to i would personally recommend commissioner winchester vice commissioner rast and mr franklin uh i feel like i am pro i believe i would love to have say in that but i also feel that i am a bit green to be making those types of recommendations

am you'd be part of a gang so it's not something you're staying on your own chairs i'll be i'll open up and if anybody wants anybody else wants to do it i'll vacate but i'm more than happy to do it preston you're a member of the public i'm moving out of the city are you really gonna yeah i would encourage though thinking about it though maybe getting the mayor or vice mayor is like an ex-officio non-voting member

I just think the more VOC bite in, you can get on the front end, it'll help at the end. Because that's where, if it's going to stall out, it's going to stall out at the VOC.

Yeah.

Yeah. Because that's, and we'll, so we'll, I'll open an email thread amongst us. And I guess think about, do you have any proposed members? Yeah, they get your email.

so that gives us VOC 3 PC why don't you bring a person I'll bring a person economic development person

of some degree be involved in this and it's just a question maybe not from city staff because there is an economic development oh yeah i mean because we're changing an economic development policy that's i mean i think maybe i don't know what will happen jcd well the director maybe even i don't know i don't know who it should be i'm just saying should there be someone or or staff staff

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll try to reach out and speak to the mayor. I'll reach out and I'll come see staff and speak to staff directly. I'll talk to even the chamber president. I'll talk to Corey Johns on our JCDB that lives in Mount Juliet as well. And amongst them, I'll see if I can't find three proposed citizens to uh to serve and you know maybe somebody's actually listening to this right now at nine o'clock on a thursday night and says man that's what i want to do i'm gonna go get them i'm gonna stop posting on facebook and i'm gonna go make a difference yep that's what i wrote today we're saying those people are sick every one of them so and and i guess in the meantime um i want me to start looking into that i would like to see something come from staff i think it would be the will of this body unless anybody objects to see something from staff presented to us that removes the rm-16 out of a mixed use

that we know of or of gold.

Well, you not only have a land use map, there is an entire land use plan is what, about 70 pages, somewhere right in there. There's an entire land use plan. If you want to give a staff, I'm sure they print you a copy of it. It's available online, but the land use plan, I mean, at one time we were looking at density bonuses and The transportation plan is part of it, and there's as much focus about the transportation plan as the land use plan. Last time we even revisited it. But the land use plan is actually a bonded book that is out there as well, that it's more than just a map, actually. And a lot of people don't understand that it is more than just a map. So it's pretty cool. We good?

Todd, please. For the committee's consideration, since you brought up the transportation plan, it is also not terribly up to date.

So if you have some recommendations, feel free to... You'd like to make a recommendation about the effects of the land use plan study as to the transportation plan as well?

The transportation plan certainly does not reflect an interchange in that area. I'll put it that way.

I'm going to assume that you have also been kind of looking at how this could be handled.

Similar to John, I have many opinions.

Yeah.

Yeah. We don't want to go there.

think i'd like to see the scope that the committee comes up with for what they're going to study for land use and i'm more than happy to provide as much input i think that'd be great during that process i think that i mean if where we get with the corridor study i i think the participation of the transit transportation plan and yourself would be a welcome addition to that um because they they're really virtually tied together and everything and for those who don't know as well there's uh speaking of transportation i know that todd is one of our speakers to that but mayor hutto is doing one of his yep yep at uh providence united methodist church 7 30 but the 21st the 21st tuesday the 21st so you can rsvp in county mayor's office or I'd say just show up if you really want to. But his little series that he's done have been pretty cool, been good stuff out there and good information. A lot of times it's just listening, especially as a member of this body. First thing we do sometimes is listen.

I would say I would love to have him sit down.

Yep.

We will.

we can't have what would be sunshine law on that how many people can we have as long as it's publicly that we're going to conduct a meeting so staff would have to help us do a public notification that the committee is going to meet yep and i'd have to coordinate use of city facilities either which way so that'd be okay very well

Thank you, guys.

Thank you, Preston, especially last two rounds. You got plenty of motion, so we got your name in the official record. Yeah, wish you all the best.

I just want to say one thing.

Please.

I just want to say a shout-out to you guys.

You may have been

along with that. It's a little thing, but it shows you care and I very much appreciate it. I'm sure the rest of us do as well.

i read planes all day every day and a lot of times that barge plan was the hardest plan i've seen in a long time to read barge is a good one yeah yeah yeah super soft i look for the guy in the green shirt i need a motion to adjourn it's a motion i'll make a motion Motion to adjourn?

Second.

Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Raise your hand against abstention. We are adjourned.