Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the uh August 21st, 2025 meeting of the Mount Julip Municipal and Regional Planning Commission meeting. Um as we begin our meeting tonight, um do like to talk about a quorum and voting. Uh it says a quorum uh the presence of uh five members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairperson may his or her discretion wait up to 30 minutes after the scheduled meeting time for a quorum to be present. In the event that a member is required to leave a meeting prior to adjournment and the departure causes a loss of quorum. No further official action may be taken until a quorum is restored other than an adjournment. a majority vote of those commissioners present and in no case less than four affirmative votes shall be required to decide any item of business requiring action by the commission. Just like to open up and uh and mention that as we get started. Also want to make uh u mention um one of the things that we uh that the planning commission received. really love our planning commission because um as you'll see as we move on with our agenda tonight, you're going to have the opportunity to speak here. So, as an open um kind of discussion group is what planning commission is uh at times out here where we can discuss various projects amongst the community. uh your planning commission is is an appointed body and we're appointed because we are all here supposed to be made up uh of the community and within the community as we all are just like the folks that come and uh and speak here. So sometimes we receive uh uh your opinions and uh and comments, concerns here at the meeting. Sometimes we receive them by email uh which each member of the planning commission does have a city email here. Um sometimes people find our phone numbers and and call us there uh as well and sometimes we receive letters. Um we all received a letter in

our packages uh uh this time. So wanted to um who whoever the sender may be let them know that we did receive the letter. Um, I will say that the the validity of the letter uh didn't hold much water with me because uh the letter uh came anonymously and um uh did not have a return address on the envelope. It came from a non- Mountain Juliet uh post office uh which you could identify on it, but that was about it. Uh so instead of making comments and concerns here within the planning commission or uh or letting us know that you are a citizen that we're here to represent, it's hard to uh to find any validity within any letter that uh that is presented uh to myself or to the planning commission uh for that such because we want to hear and we're here to represent um citizens of of Mount Juliet, those that live within the city of Mount Jul, those with live within our urban growth boundary because we are a regional municipal planning commission. And so there's people like myself that I I have a Mount Juliet address. Uh but I actually live in county and outside the city limits because we're required to have two members on this board outside of that. And uh just as such, we uh we enjoy the comments. We enjoy hearing from people here. Uh been here a long time and there's been some great discussion. Uh there's been some happy people and there's been some angry people over the time. But uh but all all the time we always find a way to meet in the middle and find common ground. And our common ground is always for what's best for our community, what's best for the citizens, what's best for all of us. I've been here my entire life and I plan to be here uh until uh until God takes me to go with him. And so every decision that I consciously make up here are always in the best interest of those in the crowd and those at home uh this evening tonight. So, I just wanted to make mention of that um that the letter was received but not taken uh simply because um a decision was made not to uh

Timmy who you are. So, with that being said, our next item up on our uh agenda tonight is to uh to set our agenda. I would like to add one item to our agenda uh with the permission of the commission. Um I would like it to be known as item 6N. Uh and this is a request of staff as well and a clarification. Each planning commission member was given a summary of this. Uh it would be known as 6N. It is to review the reconsideration of cons of conditions for Becka station located at 225 Summit Boulevard. Uh I know Shane will explain this a little bit as we uh table it. If there's no objection to that, I'd like to add that as item 6N on the consent agenda. Seeing uh um we will add that as 6N. Any other changes, amendments, adjustments?

Commissioner Rash, I'd like to pull off uh 6H and I for discussion.

6H and I will be uh me summarize that. Make a note here real quick. That will be that's a request to uh both of these are recommendation uh items back to the board of commissioners. Item 6H is to review the potential sale of the city of Mount Juliet property located at 1099 York Road. Item 6 I is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners to review the potential sale of the city of Mount July located 6207 Golden Bear Gateway. Those will be seen or heard immediately after item 6N and prior to item 7A. Any other changes, amendments, adjustments? Commissioner Giles. Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Okay, perfect. Seeing no changes, we'll set the agenda as stated. This time we will move forward with our staff reports. Mr. John Solo tonight.

Thank you. Um I I guess the most interesting comment I have for now is uh Kenny How is his replacement planning tech is John Oaken and he starts next week I believe. So that's news in our department here. And I'd also like to say that the applicant for the courtyards has requested deferral off the off the agenda. So just so you know. Thank you. Okay. Sorry about that. You made mention of that uh as well. Um let's go ahead and ask do we have representation here for for that tonight? See, we will uh uh we're going to go ahead and accept back.

Okay. Please come. Microphone name and address for the record. Smith, 315 Woodland Street, Nashville, Tennessee. Here to request uh the deferral of the uh courtyards at McFarland from the agenda. What item number is that? I believe it's 7 B and C. 7B and 7 C. 7B and 7 C. Yes, sir.

All right. There's a request for a deferral for 7B which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. That item is known as to review the annexation lo including a plan of services for courtyards at McFarland located at 5025 old Lebanon Dirt Road. That is a deferral on that item. Item 7 C is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners as review the preliminary master development plan PUD with the reszone from R1 to RM8 PUD and RS40 PUD for courtyards at McFarland located at 5025 Old Lebanon Dirt Road and that is a deferral. Thank you. To the next meeting. Thank you. My apologies, John. Any uh further comments, John? Yes, sir. Wonderful. Shane,

uh no comments this month. Thank you. Perfect. Todd, anything? Wonderful. We will uh move forward. Our next item up on our agenda uh will be our citizen comments. Public is welcome and encouraged to make public comment about any item on our agenda. There will 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 address the planning commission at this time is welcome encouraged to do so and name and address for the record.

Good evening. I'm John Cooper with the law firm Hollandite 511 Union Street in Nashville. I'm here representing Alliance Residential Company, who is the developer of the commercial mixeduse portion of the Broadstone McFarland Farms development. We are here seeking approval of the final master development plan for commercial phase 1A. That's item 8A on your agenda. A previous version of the final master development plan was disapproved at last month's planning commission meeting. Following that meeting, I submitted a letter to city attorney Miss Bernett outlining our legal position that the final master de development plan did meet all of the applicable zoning code standards and substantially complied with the previously approved preliminary development plan. That being said, um a a revised plan has been submitted and that's what's before you tonight. Um I would note that section 8.2.203.4.7 of the zoning code requires the planning commission to approve the final master development plan if it substantially complies with the preliminary master development plan. The law in Tennessee is very well settled that a denial of a plan that meets all the requirements of the ordinance is not lawful. You also received a letter from attorney Sean Henry on behalf of the property owner agreeing with the position stated in my letter to Miss Bernett that the plan is in substantial compliance. Again, my the design team made some changes. Uh Mr. Walthers with Catalyst Design Group is here to present the plan to you tonight and will walk through the changes. In addition, Mr. Keller with Alliance Residential Company is here to answer any questions. And um as noted in the the memo from the staff, the staff has recommended

approval and has determined that the revised plan is in substantial conformance with the previously approved preliminary development plan. And we would ask for your approval. Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time? Seeing none, we'll move forward with our uh next item up on our agenda. Our first, excuse me, our first item up is going to be underneath item five for minutes approval. Item 5 A to review the minutes from the July 17, 2025 Mullet Regional Planning Commission meeting. Any changes, amendments, adjustments? Seeing none, looking for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. I

make a motion for approval. It's a motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I

against abstensions. So approved. All right. Next item up on our agenda is item six. Falls underneath our consent agenda. We'll begin with item 6A, development. The development cashier check number 152010835 for Nicholls Veil phase 6A in the amount of $71,8722 can be released. Item 6B, the development cashier check number 152010944 for Nicholls Veil phase 7 in the amount of $143,957.35 can be released. Item 6 C, the development cashier check number 152011 042 for Nicholls Veil phase 8 in the amount of $110,323.51 can be released. Item 6D, the development letter of credit number 600551140 for triple crown phase 3 section 1B in the amount of $65,7366 can be released. Item 6E, the development letter of credit number 600551150 for triple crown phase 3 section 1C in the amount of $15,9356 can be released. Item 6F, the sewer letter of credit number is 0023577U for Maple Crossing Park Glenn phase 20 and 21 in the amount of $145,32 can be released. Items 6G is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. That is to review the potential lease of the city of Mount Juliet building located at 1019 Charlie Daniels Parkway. Next item up on our agenda will be item 6J and that is to review the site plan for the city of Mount Juliet public

works equipment and salt shed located at 510 Clemens Road. Item 6K, review the site plan modification for Boho Beauty located at 330 West Division Street. Item 6L, it is to review the final plat for the Mount Juliet Church of Christ located at 1940 North Mount Juliet Road. Item 6M, review the final plat for 1401 East Division Street. Item 6N, review the reconsideration of conditions for Becka station located at 225 Summit Boulevard. Mr. John planning staff recommends approval or positive recommendation as listed in the staff reports and that's all. Thank you.

Very well Shane public works.

Uh before I provide my recommendation item 6N Beck with station at Summit Boulevard right across uh from on right across the er on Summit Boulevard. Uh this item was presented to you last month and after a this item was presented to you last month on the consent agenda. Once it was approved, the developer reached out wanting some further clarification on language centered around a traffic signal that the development is required to install. After meeting with the developer and an advice from the city attorney, we came to an agreement on terms of letters of credit as the project progresses and terms of letters of credit to be placed if the project is approaching a CEO without the traffic signal installed. As I've stated uh previously, this uh the comments before you and I passed out uh each of y'all revised conditions of approval have been agreed upon with staff and the applicant. Uh I notified the applicant yesterday. They were uh accepting of the of the conditions we'd written and I recommend approval of these items. If you've got any questions on this, I'm more than happy to answer those. As far as the other items on the agenda, we either approve or recommend to approve uh going forward to the BC. Thank you.

Very well. Thank you. Questions or comments from the commission.

I got one uh just real quick. Um I don't know whether this would be planning or public works. Uh one is I'm in favor of 6G. That's the lease uh for the building located at 1019 Troy Daniels Parkway. But I was I was looking at that. Do we not when we built the new police station, do we not replplat and separate those two? Because it looks like when you pull them up on GIS that it crosses right through. So are they now the police station and the old police station two separate properties or are they one? Because they they look like I mean on GIS literally crosses right through the brand new police station. So just that

I was I was just looking at this one. So they're both city controlled facilities. It may be something some housekeeping that we may want to conduct is to separate especially if you're going to have a senior center uh potentially in the old building and uh and then your police station that might be appropriate to replat that. um those parcels or separate those two parcels or if they are separated but if you do look at it in the system it looks like it's got some housekeeping that needs to go along with it. The reason why I looked at that because I was just looking at the map of because that's a much larger facility over there and so you know it as we get in speaking and everything costs money so understand that but um it looks the way that that building backs up currently to the park right there that there's opportunity to not only expand our park but look into some additional planning through that and accessibility uh whether or not they're going to occupy that entire building or whether or not we want to turn all of that parking that is going to be an in excess uh to maybe something green or some other kind of use that there's a definite opportunity with the old building. So, I just wanted to include those comments as this gets recommended back to the board of commissioners that maybe uh to separate the two parcels and look at the opportunity and uh and might be not only an additional to expand and create a new facility for our senior center, but also something with parks or whatnot to expand on what's going on over there within Charlie Daniels Park, too. because whether or not that's parking, playground, uh facility, there's there's I mean this is a huge building, so they're going to be able to expand and and probably not using the building 24/7 as we were with the police station. So, looks like a good planning opportunity for us.

I got a question, Mr. Jones. for the attorney on the insurance part. Obviously, we're going to be named as an additional insured with proof as a certificate of insurance, but I really feel that it would be it would be stronger if they would literally endorse their policy with us being as an additional insured and show proof of that they can give an additional insured deck pages. that yeah, that would be more appropriate brought up on second reading when it comes back to the political BC. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. And I'm not sure either. Um it appears that the city owns the current senior citizen center. Is that correct? It's in the Mount Juliet Church of Christ building. We don't own that.

Okay. Do we know what uh just looking at that corridor right there because even we got Mic Church of Christ on right now and they're continuing to grow their property. If something should happen or the church chooses to do something different with the building as a whole over there. It's another planning identification property because that aligns up perfect with the center across the street as a joint access. And the expansion may be a way to do some traffic relief in that area over there. but if it redevelops. So, just a little planning comment to be included. Any additional questions, comments, concerns. That being said, want to call for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make comment about any item on our consent agenda? Welcome to encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, looking for a motion in regards to the items on our consent. Oh, pause. Yep, that's it. got that's where I was going to pause real quick. We need to close our planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. Public hearing is in regards to items 6L and 6M. Item 6L is to review the final plat for the Mount Juliet Church of Christ located at 1940 North Mount Juliet Road. Item 6M is to review the final plat for 1401 East Division Street. Anyone wishing to make comment about either of those items during the public hearing, welcome encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone name and address for the record. Seeing no public comments, we will 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 the consent agenda.

Make a motion for positive recommendation to the board for those items requiring such and approval for the conditions. It's a motion and a second from Commissioner Franklin. All those in favor signify by saying I. raising your hand. I against extensions. So approved and so positively recommendation. Our next item up on our agenda will be item 6H. This is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is to review the potential sale of the city of Mount Julip property located at 1099 York Road. Mr. John, any comments? No. Shane? No, sir.

Very well. questions or comments from the commission? I go first. Oh, I'd love to go first. Commissioner J.

Well, number one, I would ask y'all to to uh to vote negatively on this to vote no. We are putting up a piece of property for sale that in my opinion the city needs to retain for any future expansion of our of our sewer system in case we ever need it. Although we've got that basin out there, I know we've got that. I know we're getting a deal with um with Metro, but what if in a few years, depending on how good the deal is, I've not seen any kind of contract yet. Do we have a contract, Matt? Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. And how many years do they give us?

Uh that contract's up for renegotiation 2029. 2029. Yes. So, four years. Okay. And our our previous contract was how many years? I believe it was 30 years.

30 years. So we're talking about 30 years versus four years. And we don't know what's going to happen in four years. That's one thing they're wanting to buy. If I correct on this, this is not also this has not come before the real estate committee yet. Okay. um which has nothing to do I assume with them approving or not. I mean for a positive or negative correct but if you look at what was in your packet they are somebody is wanting to sell 46.5 acres of our property out there that we've got of 66.05. So number one we have the shooting range out there for police department. Now whether in this proposal uh Sam or not, I'm not for sure if that is supposed to be uh relocated or not and whether it is or not, I'm not sure what the state uh requirements of that is that's been out there. Is that does that fall under a grandfather clause? Are there a lot of other things we'd have to do to relocate that?

It would fall under a grandfather clause if we left it where it is or even to relocate it. Correct. I I haven't checked the statute on that recently, but I believe that the only requirement is that just on future plats where that piece of property shows up, there has to be a notation about there being a firearms range on that piece of property.

Okay. Well, see, you know, we were there first, not this development that's coming around this. We were there first. So well if we sell this 46.5 acres down here then you know there could be neighbors start complaining well I hear the gun range or etc etc. The other thing about this is there are several departments of our city that uses this property. You take city beautiful they they haul stuff out there. You take um uh the the public works, they take the brush from our city and that type things out there and then they have to have it ground up every maybe two or three years and then hauled off or some of it obviously would be biodegradable. You have the dead animals, the deer that unfortunately we have to that you know you deal with here in the city and other dead animals. They pick those deer up and they take it. is 66.5 acres and they put it if I'm not mistaken in the middle of that. Okay. So, you've got animals that's biodegrading out there, but yet for better words to say this lightly, you sell all of this. You got 20 acres for them to put those dead animals in the center and you got these quote million-dollar homes supposed to come around there and then, oh, I smell something down there. The cities put something down. Of course, they put it down there. So whatever they they offer us to buy 46.5 acres then on the front end it may look like oh this is great this is income coming in and we can and help the budget but on the back end there might be reoccurring expenses down the the the line if if we don't preserve what we've got for what we do with it. The other thing is getting back to this last lease that was 30 years. Okay, that was before my time and everybody's time on this planning commission, not before

your time. I I had to set I had to help settle that lawsuit. There was a $20 million lawsuit involved as well. Okay, then you can correct me when I finish on this, but that property was bought for the future usage if we ever had to put a sewer of sanitary what's it called?

Well, the property was bought. Uh, so Mayor Bredesen would negotiate a rational deal with the city of Mount Juliet. They didn't want Mount Juliet to put this growing city in the Cumberland River up there. They they just that that broke they sued the city of Mount Juliet for $20 million. And back then, I mean, $20 million is a lot of money to me now, but back then that was an astronomical amount of money. And uh so I think it was Mayor Wayne went out and bought this land and it it was the ultimate uh leverage point in settling that $20 million lawsuit and securing a 30-year contract for sewer collection system and we had to take a couple of failed sewer systems that they had out here. There was a lot of things we had to do. We had to run a lot of lines. We had to run trunk lines and then we had to give them $500 a tap. But, uh, I'm with you on this. Um, this was a major, uh, leverage point in that negotiations. And if, if and we're only four years out on the next deal, I think we ought to leave it out there because I don't know if the whole sewer system could be turned around and a treatment plant be built out there. But they don't know it can't.

Right. And and besides that, u Bobby, see down here where this property goes, it goes to the it goes to Cedar Creek before Cedar Creek grows goes into the lake. So how what would we do at that point? Are we going to have to buy an easement across a million-doll homes quote, you know, it it it's ludicrous to me to totally ludicrous to even think about selling this property out there. So that's my opinion. So, um, thank you, Commissioner RS.

I'll start out with Ditto. Um, the the last thing and and I think it was in that conversation was just the liability reasons, a stray bullet somewhere, the safety issues, uh, the lawsuit that would most certainly follow um to allow development to just completely surround a firing range. I think that's just silly and it's irresponsible especially if we moved it cuz then you know I got something else to ask too

and this is for the city attorney too because someone asked me this tonight and and I and and I think I brought this up because one of the things that I've mentioned before when we uh alluded to selling some kind of property is why don't everyone get a chance to buy it and uh I want to know is I thought and some of us think that the state has some kind of of of law that that a municipality would have to put up piece of property and advertise it for sale before we just sell it to some developer that comes and say, "Hey, we want to increase this." Because everybody, these people sitting out here, if long as you're in the city of Mount Juliet, you own this just like all of us do. And if somebody has one opportunity to buy it, why don't somebody else have an opportunity? Why don't you have an opportunity? Why don't you have an opportunity? You know, so I I don't understand this, so I'd like for you to explain it to us.

You are correct. In some instances, some charters, which are often based on the Tennessee statutes, do require or have um certain steps that have to be taken to sell property. Ours does not have that. Um it can be added into our code, but beyond that, we do not have that requirement. Okay. Does this body have the authority to add that into the code or would that be the BOC? That would be the BOC. Okay. And I would imagine that some I think maybe it was 10 11 years ago when you, Commissioner Giles created the real estate committee. I would imagine that that is one of the reasons it was maybe created. I don't know that, but I would guess. One of them.

Commissioner Franklin. Yeah, there's one other reason not not to sell it. Um, it's horrible property. It's swampy. There's no I I can't imagine there being that many buildable lots on there. Really, it's I walked it. I walked way down in it. And I, you know, it's going to be a management problem. If it's sold to a developer and it has to come through here, there's going to be all of the the hassle with, you know, how far how are you gonna cut and fill and I mean there's it's going to be hard to develop this piece of property. It's it's not good property. It's swampy.

Good stuff. Good feedback. Good discussion. Thank you guys. Any further uh comments, questions?

Please, Commissioner. This will save me from talking about the next one because I think they're I had a similar issue with both is I'd like to have a little bit more information. You know, I I know the demographics of the city of Mount Jul. I live here. I know that we're growing. I know that we're I mean, I felt like this whole entire thing was just a fluff piece to me. I didn't actually see anything but a piece of property on a on a map. And how am I supposed to sit up here, and I can't speak for the rest of the commissioners, and make a decision about a sale of property if I didn't have the knowledge like Commissioner Franklin and Commissioner Giles that could share it with us because all we've got is a map. That's it. And we've got all these stats about how what the average household income is going to be in five years. And what what does that do for us? So, I would just ask next time that we talk about potential sales of property to give us some information to where we can make an educated decision, not put it on consent and not make us feel like we're just rubber stamping a cell through so we can get to the bo

that is excellent. Uh, Preston and before tonight, I wanted to make sure that I would would be able when it came to this body to be able to comment like we have and give some of these facts. I asked the question why does it come to the planning commission because I don't I don't remember that. Would you repeat what you told us because it has a lot not to do with I mean to I think answer some of this

the role of the planning commission for the sale of property is simply just either approving or disapproving the actual location that's being sold and nothing more. So we the map is really all that you have to look at. You're just approving. Yep. The planning commission either approves or disapproves this exact location being sold. That's it. And then it's in the BOC's hands. I don't mean to be argumentative by any means, but that's an excuse. My French kind of asinine like it is. I just I don't understand what we're supposed to do. I guess sure, thumbs up. Yeah. This is a piece of property. City wants to sell it. I mean, you want to talk about bureaucracy. Wow. Gosh. That's That's based on TCA, too. That's state.

No. No. And not not saying I mean, if that's how it is. It's just That's why your mayor puts old people on. Yeah. Yeah. Speak for yourself.

Any additional comments? Let's go ahead and call for citizen comments regards this item on the agenda. Any citizens wish to make comment are welcome to courage to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. My name is Hans Schllegel uh 990 York Road and uh I don't know why you guys are against No. Uh so I'm here to speak on behalf of uh Greg Fast and Don Escu and I figure you know we had I get nine minutes right? Uh I don't think I'm going to need it because Commissioner Giles it's uh I just go down what I wrote down. Okay, first thing look at how we had the land in the first place. covered because Don Don gave me the history lesson on the whole thing with Metro and everything. Um, so we're we're we're in agreement with you all with all of it, but uh I guess what I would yeah you know what what the city works uh what public works is going to do all the points you guys already made. So um what I'm trying to think of how I can add value. I think that what it is important as we continue to grow, this isn't going to be the last time that uh developers and outside people want to get an asset that that the city has. And so for this specific property though, I mean I understand the strategy of it, but for this specific property as the city continues to grow with the 66 acres, the way I look at it living right there, um this is the perfect garage for the city that is down away from everybody else and they can and and as the city expands to grow, we're going to need more space for the wood chips, for the street sweepers, for the dead animals, all this stuff. And um I think it's just important for us to remember this moment because this isn't gonna be the last time that they're gonna they're gonna come back and give us more money.

So, but thank you guys. This is I love the discussion and uh I appreciate it. Means a lot to me living out there in our little piece of uh paradise. Yep. Thank you guys. Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time? See no additional citizen comments. Looking for recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda. A motion for a negative recommendation. Got a motion

and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. It is a negative recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is item 6 I and is review the potential sale of the city of Mount Julip property located 6207 Golden Bear Gateway. comments, questions, comments from the commission. Commissioner Josh, I guess I better start. So out of these two PE pieces of property and of course we we know why the other one and this one, you know, as long as we in my opinion, as long as we could be um identified for what we had there somewhere else and make enough money for the city, I wouldn't be opposed to to selling this particular uh piece of property. But we don't know that. This gets into where we are. We don't know this. This one again has not come before the real estate committee. And this again, I will still say it even though we don't have to. I just feel like anybody should have an opportunity to buy this. I said this before when the I just feel that's just the fairness to me because we all that's in the city of Mount Juliet pay taxes here. I So I don't know what else to say on this one. I don't even know how to vote on this one. Commissioner Rex,

I'm just questioning staff or anyone if anyone knows the history of this property, why the city still owns it, why it's still out there, why we don't all why we don't need it any longer, anything along those lines. John, Matt, hello. Matthew White, public works director. Yes, sir.

Uh, this is the the trail head facility. Is this what we're talking about? Um yeah, as part of Amazon's approval, um they they donated this piece of land and built the restroom in trail head parking lot and donated to the city. It was all a part of the Amazon approval process. Um I don't I don't know anything else about why we're sell why we're offering to sell it or anything. Um I think that's being done through our city management office. So, I can try to answer any other questions you have. Okay.

Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, man. I'd say this, too. I'll I'll throw in a little comment on that. What uh I mean, we just looked at a a development last month right there, but you know, after reooking at that and thinking about this that this is coming forward, what if you want to go park or ride a bike? Art, they're big on your Bpack and and everything that you're doing with that. So if you want a place to go

drive your car, put your put your bike in there or walk. We have continuous growth. I mean, Golden Bear is just every meeting it seems we have something new, something new, something new. And the development we saw did not even attempt to incorporate this within itself. So, and I think if you recall, one of my comments was, "Well, looks great if you live in there. What about me? But if I want to go shop in there or or visit in there, there there wasn't anything even designed around helping the regular citizen that would come in or if you want to come in and use the restroom or something else right there. I mean, there's there's all kinds of reasons to hold this as well. Commissioner John,

that's why I I used the in and the word may not been correct contents about it dimmifi back to exactly anything like this or at least this uh caliber or better somewhere else. So, we wouldn't I would never vote to sell this as a board of commissioner unless that's given back to us at another location. Last week we had the annual uh BPAC greenway walk here and uh uh several people in here were there and it was a it was a great turnout. It was a a great event and we had this because a lot of people does does do not know that that greenway is out there and the connectivity and we went a long way. It was very hot and it was but it was a great it was a great walk. So we will have to have that somewhere out there because we we've got the path. We've got the greenway and we want to do it. So that will be part of selling this down the road. This is and again it comes to this body just would you be willing to sell this? You know because when I look at 516 acres, okay, with already a parking lot and the restroom probably would be torn down. Then it goes all back through there, you know? I mean, I can see a a fast food restaurant there, you know, and and I can see this and that there, but there again, they not only would have to, in my opinion, get well, for me to vote for it to give us enough money for that, plus do something else with that down there. So,

you know, it's up to y'all though. I mean, it's obviously

drop a police substation right there. I mean, you're we're only growing that way. Commissioner Franklin. Um, I mean, you could subdivide it almost directly in half and keep your trail head and get rid of the non-developed part. If if the city has to pick up some change somewhere, we've got two pieces of property that have come up for sale. It seems like, you know, we need money. There's got to be a motivation somewhere, right? So, maybe we could compromise it. Is that an is that an idea? I mean, it's already built. The trail head's already there. It's already connects to the trails. We've already got the rightway to it. It's all there. What if it's cut up? It still be worth a lot of money. A couple hundred grand if you cut it in half, I'm sure.

Yeah, I'd say I think because of the the the ingress and eress right here that's stubbed off will go to that property if I'm not mistaken. So, this would be the way to get in there. See, without another uh cut on Golden Bear. That's probably Well, it's the city. They give them away. Further uh further discussion, comments, let's go ahead and call for citizen comments regards this item on the agenda. Any citizens wish to make comment or welcome encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, looking for a motion uh recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda.

Go ahead and make a negative recommendation. Motion for a negative recommendation. Back to the board. I'll second. It's a motion and a second for a negative recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. It's a negative recommendation. Our next item up on uh our agenda falls underneath item 7A. It is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. Excuse me. It is to review the roadway. I'm sorry. Yes.

Yeah. underneath the consent. That's okay. Yeah. Item 7A, it's a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners to review the roadway and rideway annexation including a plan of services for East Division Street around Clemens Road. This going to be Shane.

Uh this annexation request comes before you tonight. the uh as part of the Lynwood station development, they've indicated to us they are ready to uh commence construction activities of the westbound left turn lane at Clemens Road. And for that development to fulfill that condition, the portion of West East Division Street has to be annexed into the city. And this is the first step of that process. Quick comment. Commissioner Rash, just a quick comment. The cover memo mentioned South Green Hill Road correct that. Yeah.

Questions or comments from the commission? I guess I got one. Commissioner Franklin, please.

All right. Um, and I don't want to skip to a deferred item, but it is actually pertinent to this annexation. And I just want to raise this issue on the um on the uh courtyards at McFarland. one of the conditions of approval. I know it's deferred, but it also talks about having the Wilson County Road Commission, road commission superintendent basically agree to a cut on East Division because it's still in uh Wilson County. And here we are, I I don't know, a few hundred feet down the road annexing, but we're not annexing this. And I can tell you, I called the road commissioner and he he's not going to give permission because it's a dangerous road and Mount Julie doesn't want to annex it, but you know, we're willing to put 200 maybe 19 homes on it. Um, so here's here's here's my proposal. Would would it would it make sense to just amend this annexation request to just take Mount Juliet city limits all the way down to the Luther Lining Bridge, which it already is annex to on the east end. And that way you don't have 911 trying to figure out which fire engine, which ambulance, you know, this going in and out of Mount Juliet three times down one road like Nonal Road was, like Tate Lane is. I mean, it's not a good idea. and and now that development is happening in the area, now is the time to fix this. Um, I can assure you Wilson County is never going to pave that section of road because Mount Juliet is designing a project that T dot is already approved. You know, might be a few years, but nobody's going to fix that road. So, what why not just recommend let's annex all the way down? Well, let's annex that extra 4,000 feet with this

2,000 feet and it'll be Mount Juliet all the way to Luther Lenning Bridge instead of Mount Juliet Wilson County. Mount Julie Wilson County. Yeah, we had a recommendation right there at just past Rutland and Luther Lenning Bridge is what a quarter mile past that Rutland intersection at best.

Yeah. Or or even I think it's already to the Luther Lenning Bridge. I'm just trying to think think about this in in real terms. The city is not going to get anything out of not annexing. Wilson County Road Commission is not going to fix that road. It's not going to happen. They're they know you're designing a improvement plan and you know you're not going to fix it. You're not designing a improvement plan. So why would you? It's going to be tore up anyway. So why not go ahead and get it? And then when a developer comes in here, we're not going to be approving to county road standards. We'll be approving to our own road standards. What do you think? Am I crazy? Please. That's good thought.

It's a good thing the public works director here, too. Decisions together. I talked to him about this already. What's uh we uh we try to make calculated decisions based on the best interest of the city and in the moment. Um because the road is not ours. I I can't, you know, collaboratively cannot and director White can talk about this too recommend him annexing something that could cost our taxpayers additionally now and as a redesign comes down the future and I can let him defer to him on that as well. Matt, please.

Yeah, it is it's a bad road and we just we are going to annex it later on when it's ready for the project to be to go under construction. But we just don't want to add additional maintenance to the city. We have a a much lower tax rate than the county. We have a much less tax base than the county. So the simple reason is we just we want to defer it a little longer before and wait until we're actually about to widen the road. That's simple answer.

Yeah. Well, it causes two problems. It doesn't solve any. It does. Wilson County is not going to fix it ever. I can assure you they're not because you're going to tear it up. But it it causes a 911 problem. It does. It it it makes the 911 operator and emergency services have to determine have somebody has to figure out which ambulance to send. Somebody's got to do that. And it also makes us try to figure out the county road standards when a development, which one is was deferred today off our agenda. It's not like they're not developing out here because I just reviewed one and county road standards aren't the same as ours anyway. So why, you know, I just don't I just don't understand this case. Yeah, there's probably plenty of cases not to do it, but in this case, it's growing. We're planning a road construction project on it. Why why keep keep muddying this water and just go ahead and do it? Now, I know I'm I represent the county

and I'm on the county commission and I'm on the road commission. So, I'll make that completely clear. I guess I got have a self-interest in this, but really I'm on the planning commission, too. And it just makes perfect sense to me. There's there's nothing to be saved here. The road is not going to be improved until the construction project. What's the timeline on the um redesign?

I estimate that construction would start around 2030, 2032, somewhere in that range. Uh there's still a lot of work to be done. Uh we're early in the design of it. We're going through the federal process for all the environmental studies that we have to do because we plan to apply for a grant for the construction. So we have to follow the federal and T dot process. So we're in that right now. Um I say we probably start buying right away in two or three years and that'll that it's a it's a very long project. three over three mile project that'll probably take us three or four years to buy the rideway. Uh so and once the brideway is bought then we can start construction. So you're still you're probably six to seven years out from construction starting.

Well, what kind of cost are you referring to that if we were not to end it? just the maintenance cost of the road because it hasn't been taken very well care of and it has a lot of potholes and things. Commissioner Jobs, you development that deferred and correct me if I'm wrong. In that development, they had already given us the rightway. Correct. Yeah. So, the city by that part, correct? Yeah. Okay. So if if the city did pass that annexation, then there might be something be put in there for for like the standards and things like that when connectivity happens. So standard by our standard.

Yeah. The the only thing is that if if we annex it now, here's here's what I see trying to to protect the city. If we annexed it now, then we may miss something on this grant stuff for the money to do what we're needing to. Would we? Or does that part when we apply for it? The annexation of it. I don't think that would affect when you apply for the grant is one of those things that we're going to annex this. We'll have to own the road. Yeah. Before we get that point. Okay. We won't apply for the grant until we're closer to construction. Okay. So, we would annex it then. Correct.

Okay. But well, are is there any benefit though to annexing as far as except for maintenance because this development that's coming in, when would they even make a connection to division? That's up to the county. Our our comments in their in their Well, but here's the thing about it, Bobby. They they could still build that subdivision that that development and just come out on old Lebanon dirt road. Yeah. Two in in ingresses and eresses on there. Correct. Correct. And then um uh and then it could be required when we annex it that they connect to division at that point. Yeah.

And and maybe they could do so. And I understand your point especially about the 911, but I'm just trying to think about the city and think about what we could do and that and of course I voted against that that subdivision. I mean that that project, but that doesn't mean I will the next time. I'm looking at some more positive things about it. I just so I've got to I'm sure the BOC would be I would have more appetite for what you're asking for if the county was going to help with some of the cost of the project, but you think they would. It's 4,000 ft. It's less than you think they would. Do you know your m Do you know your per mile maintenance cost or because you guys aren't far out of budget?

I don't I don't have that with me right now. I could get that to you.

Could we Sam, could we possibly as we look to table or make a motion or recommendation regards to this item, could we make a motion to recommend with a consideration uh back to the board of commissioners to go ahead and take it to Luther Lenning? Would that give them the ability to go ahead and if they so choose to just accept this portion because we're also requesting them to just consider from this portion down to the Luther lining bridge and would that still be acceptable if the So if the board of commissioners could either just do this portion or they could hear what the planning commission recommended and possibly take it all the way down.

Make it an option. Make it an option. Correct. I don't think so. It's not like you canider or something for them to consider. I mean, this is either you are positively or negative recommending a specific thing. So, I I wouldn't recommend that. And if we were to do the rest of it, then would that have to be brought to us by staff like this? This item is being brought to us tonight by the city. in this case, Shane being our our director of engineering. So, we wanted to do the remainder of it

and board of commissioners and as I know most of our commissioners do watch and hear our meetings. Um, even if we did just positive this one, would staff have to draw it up, bring it to us as an item or would we be able to amend this as a whole? Amend it right now. You could You'd have to amend it totally right now. Okay. So, what I'm hearing is I could amend it as a request. Just make an amendment to this one, please. I think since the county does own the rideway, they did provide sign off on the annexation request form. So, it there's procedure to it. Yes. Thank you, Shane.

Yeah.

Well, just a little background. Mount Juliet almost 10 years ago told the Wilson County Road Commission that they're going to not do to old East Division what has been done to Nville Road, Tate Lane, multiple other roads for Outland because of the 911 problem that we all experience. That was a commitment made by a previous public works director that that happened and it's frustrating on the county side because that never happened. Now, it's because there's different people here, but that commitment was made years ago and it wasn't followed through. And that and and you know, we all work for the same people. 100% of Mount Juliet is in Wilson County. Everybody is we're all representatives of the same folks and and this this is in good faith on my part. It's not trying to get out of fixing a pothole here really. It's it's really about, you know, making common sense. I would just like to amend this. I just like to make an amendment to recommend the annexation of this other 4,000 feet because this 4,000 feet will take it to past Rland. It'll take it all the way to Luther Lenning Bridge because it's already annexed out there. We've been in and out and in and out. We're doing it just like we did in Honorable Road. And so is that is that appropriate? Can I make that amendment? No, I Shane is absolutely correct and thank you for bringing it up, Shane, that the anytime an annexation occurs, the owner of that piece of property has to approve it. We can't just annex things anymore without owner consent. So Shane is saying that they got the permission for that section of road that's before you right now. They don't have permission for the rest of it. So we cannot do that right now.

I could almost guarantee you that permission by what time did you open tomorrow? Unfortunately, that's not how it's not a problem. Yeah. Yeah. Further discussion, comments.

Thank you for being here. Good call. At this time, let's call for citizen comments. Any citizen wish to make comment in regards to this item on our agenda. Uh, welcome encourage to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. I'm looking for a recommendation regards this item on our agenda. Make a motion to recommend this.

Make a for a positive recommendation. That's a motion. I'll second it. So, so we get it to the table. It's a motion and a second for a positive recommendation. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. Against abstensions. So, approved. whether or so a positive recommendation. So we do hope that very good discussion and that is uh heard as this goes forward and again that's the value of having county commissioner in the presence and a board of commissioner city mount J board of commissioners in regards uh on this body as well as mentioned previously items 7B and 7 C were deferred as we set our agenda to begin our meeting. So, our next item up on the agenda is item 8A. Review the final master development plan site plan for Broadstone at McFarland Farms commercial phase one located at the southwest corner of Cedar Drive and Old Lebanon Dirt Road. John, please.

I know the applicant has a presentation they'd like to show. I'll just say that staff does recommend approval of this item. Um, same as last. Very well. Shane, anything you wish to uh add on this? Staff recommends approval with our conditions. Very well. Thank you. Before we start any of that, let's see does any questions or comments at this time from the commission because I normally lead with this. Very well. We'll turn it over. Name and address for the record, please.

Okay. I appreciate you having the tall mic here. This is good. Um, Andrew Walthers with Catalyst Design Group. We are the applicant, civil engineer, land planner working with Alliance Residential. And I want to start off by apologizing. I uh was on vacation last month. I didn't get a chance to come and see y'all. Um, and so I got a chance to watch the video and as I was watching it, I realized there was a lot of questions and you know, sometimes you look at and and you get kind of wonky with staff and you're doing things with them and you don't realize how it's going to be perceived for folks looking at it for the first time and realize that we probably could have shown things a little more clearly on our end. So part of this presentation I just wanted to go through um I did hear a lot of questions from folks um that I could see why when they were looking at the plan it was not quite clear. So again apologies for that and I thought we'd go through this. So hopefully everybody's got a hard copy. I'll go through um this. So this is the this is the um revised FMDP plan. And one thing to just call your attention to this is really showing graphically both commercial phases one and two um with a red border around what we're proposing tonight for approval of phase one which is the multifamily and the commercial that's along Old Lebanon Dirt Road. Um as we get into some of these slides you'll see some comparisons between the PMDP and the FMDP. But just at a high level I thought I'd point out a few of those differences here. Some of this was worked through with staff, a couple preapp meetings that we had even before we submitted. Um, so you'll notice there's an enhanced green uh greenscape around the front perimeter on uh old Lebanon Dirt Road and you'll see a larger amount of buffer area. Um, you'll also notice the parking lots have been broken up and again we'll see some of

that when we get some of these slides into different pockets. the uh the PMDP plan seemed to have a pretty large sea of asphalt parking and so we wanted to make that improvement as we were working with staff. Um one of the comments made last time with staff and again just a change from the last time we were here was pointing out that we really wanted to have one access drive off Cedar Drive and so we've made that modification. Um previously we had shown an access to the commercial phase 2 also off of Cedar Drive. So you'll see that's a difference. Um, I think staff also commented on increasing the parking connectivity to the phase two commercial. And so you'll see a couple different access points into those parking areas. And then the other thing that we've done uh is is looked at how does that commercial really interface with the other buildings. Um, I think previously we had had kind of a placeholder building. Um, we've been working on that and and working with staff to sort of better align that commercial. So, as you come into the development off Old Levelin Road, you'll have a nice access of that of that commercial building and really creates synergy between the three buildings as it kind of anchors that that uh view as you come into the development. Okay. So, um one of the comments that was made was just talking about how much building frontage there was on Old Lebanon. And again, we didn't document that. It's not necessarily a condition of the PMDP, but just noticing here that we're at um 550 ft. Excuse me. Make sure I get that right as I look at this. 550 ft of that uh was on the approved PMDP as far as building frontage on Old Le or Old Lean Dirt Road. And currently we have 385 feet in our plan of of building commercial frontage that fronts Old Lebanon. Another comment was just wondering it seemed to be questioning how much open space there was. And again, this what

you're seeing here is a combination of both phases one and two of the open space. And so um the approved PMDP had just under six acres of of open space. The proposed FMDP actually has seven over seven and a half acres of open space and that includes a proposed dog park which is in that little sliver piece that comes up on the east side adjacent to the residential and then the amphitheater and there's some detention areas back behind the the commercial. Um you'll also note here we just had an asphalt area tally. I think that was another question as far as how much asphalt were we doing more or less. Um the PMDP, if you measure that out, had 6.9 acres of asphalt area. We've got 5.54. And again, you'll sort of notice the the sequencing of the parking is trying to be broken up where instead of having three or four large bays of parking, trying to sequence those and structure those in a way that that is a little more appealing uh hopefully for from a landscape perspective and and from an open space perspective. I think another question was just making sure that our total ground coverage of buildings was consistent with the PMDP. And again, it is hard to compare sometimes when you're looking at a couple different site plans. Um, so the approved PMDP had the 116,500 square feet of total building coverage for all buildings, residential and commercial. And we have a proposal of 113,918 square foot. So again under that which is not surprising we have less asphalt we have less building coverage therefore we have more uh open space in this development. So with that again this is just ending on the or the uh current proposed site plan. Uh you'll see staff uh we want to thank them. We've worked really hard. We've had actually three pre uh pre-development meetings working through these issues. They've been very supportive and and and gracious with

their time with us. And as you'll note in the packet, they um do find and we do find as well that we comply with all conditions of the PMDP. So with that, I'm here with Mr. Steven Keller who's with Alliance Residential Residential. We are happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson, please. On the second on the second page you brought up, did you say there was 350 linear feet on 11 and dirt road? 300 385 feet of building frontage building linear footage frontage on Lebanon Road versus the 550 that was in the approved PMDP.

So that's the one over on the right. This is the one on the left was the previous is that I'm sorry. Old Lebanon I'm probably old Lebanon Dirt Road to the north of the project. I see what it is. I see. So that was what was was approved and you're saying this is the one you're bringing now. the 385. Yeah, I should have pointed that out. The approved PMDP site plan is on the left side. So again, that's in our that's in the overall set of plans is like 0.1 that PMDP sheet. And then on the right side is what our current proposed FMDP plan. What was that building that was 200 feet linear feet

that was actually uh on the east side of the PMDP? That was the commercial building, the 24,000 foot commercial. I didn't mention this, but that was actually one of the other things that we started working with staff. And again, not to critique the PMDP. It was it was submitted and approved, but you know, typically you transition sort of from from a commercial to maybe a a dense multi- or or denser residential into the single family or or less dense residential. this plan having the commercial sort of a butdding up against the the residential. That was one of the reasons, excuse me, why we wanted to move that commercial back and sort of anchor the rear part of the multifamily. And it sort of gives a little bit more buffering um and a little less parking sort of facing out to that uh residential area. And again, sort of transitioning the residential to to one another, the residential uses from denser to less dense in the single family. Did that answer your question?

Yes, sir. It does. What was What's that other building compared to the one that it was? The one that's proposed.

Sure. So, what you're really seeing is a consolidation. Instead of doing the four four buildings, you're talking about three total buildings, right? So, the the initial plan had the three that were I guess up against Cedar. Those were all three multif family buildings with a component of commercial on the ground level. We're simply doing two residential buildings that have the commercial on the ground floor for the PMDP. And then our 24,000 foot commercial building is now anchoring the rear. So it's really a consolidation of the residential buildings from what you would see as sort of three buildings that had residential usage into into two. Okay. Does that help?

Yeah. Okay. So, what was the what was the on the PMDP original uh plan for phasing of the development itself? Well, the entire PMDP uh you may recall had um all of the residential to the east. So, it had phase one and 1A and two I think it was was the the single family residential and the town homes. Was that not I mean was this not phase one right here as we see it as a whole? Um, no. This was not necessarily identified as any phasing. Um, it just showed the entire PMDP. You didn't mark your phasing or state your phasing at PMDP.

I don't think the phasing was specifically enumerated at PMDP. Um, uh, but that said, the FMDP that pre predated this was the phase one and two uh, residential. That's all, as you guys probably know, underway, approved, under construction. Lot of activity going on in the site. So, that's all been approved. Um, there wasn't a sequencing order or any priority given in the in the PMDP as far as what needed to come. And so, um, to their credit, I think they started the residential, which is nice. And now we're coming in with some multif family to to help anchor and and finish out the project ultimately with some commercial. Um, I ask uh primarily because as it uh if we never move to phase two, you got a non-compliant um project on us because you're not willing to change the 4,800 square ft uh from your convenient or whatever your office is called on there. So, we're relying upon your phase two to complete to even meet our ordinance, which you have 15 years to do. May take 15 years to do it over there. As you know, if you do commercial architecture and engineering as well, the commercial market, uh particularly on facilities like this is not necessarily a a hot commodity at the moment, regardless of location. And so

concern is that, you know, your your unwillingness to change and bring phase one into compliance with our uh uh with our ordinance uh for this uh for this type of zoning request. Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm not 100% sure I follow that in the sense that, you know, I don't know if that conversation was had when you did the phase one and two residential for single family. Well, we didn't have phases as you just said, so we wouldn't have been able to discuss it at PMDP. Yes, sir. Well, again at PMDP, but that's been approved. So, I'm I guess what I'm referring to is at the FMDP approval of the residential.

Yeah. I'm just trying to judge how I was supposed to vote and and determine what you're wanting to do because I mean, as I stated last month, it it seems different to me. My understanding is that it's not. Um, so I just question the phasing on that. I mean, was the on this original and they approved PMDP, where was your commercial located on the original? Yeah. No, it was on there that what you're seeing on the left side is is the is the total area the 13 acres of Go ahead, Steve.

Sorry, Stephen Keller, 5299 Indiana. I'm the developer on the project. Uh for starters, as it comes to just the phase one commercial without our co-works, we're at 13,200, which is still 5% of the 261. Um uh and honestly, it's not an unwillingness. like I'm happy to relook at that 4,500 ft². I believe a condition of approval was actually that we would revise resubmit with planning staff. Um but what you're seeing here is in the original plan you actually had 11,000 ft of commercial spread amongst the three buildings. Um and we're here with 13,000 kind of mainly all focused up there on the road. And the main driver for that was to make it appealable to commercial uses, right? We're the first mover here. We're the first ones. And you know, you need kind of a synergistic upfront location that creates desire for retail, right? Two or three separate 3,000 square foot boxes are very hard to lease as opposed to kind of one congruent 8 to 10,000 foot box that offers you kind of a mass of uses.

Do you consider these re these revisions unsubstantial to to the PMDP approval?

Yes. Yes, we concur with staff and and agree that these are these are consistent with the type of uh changes that would come in at an FMVP and again there we would look at these as improvements upon the FMVP based on an actual product as Mr. Keller mentioned. So you are let me go back to your comment right there because I'm going read staff summary. Uh it says uh however the proposal of the live workspaces shown at 4,800 square feet cannot be allowed uh to be counted towards the required commercial square footage underneath our ordinance. And that's right and there is no it says to revise and resubmit. So you are going to revise and resubmit and be agreeable to that condition and comment on there.

Right. So, if you look at the if you look at the 13,200 non-residential foot square foot floor area, let me go back slide up in the upper right corner of your packet. That 13,200 already excludes that 4,800 of live work at staff's recommendation. So, we're taking that out. We're not counting it. Now, the the the non-residential floor area, what it what it talks about in the ordinance is that it just can't be above what was approved. We're certainly not above that. We're actually well below that. So, that's where this sent this this is compliant. What you may be getting at is when the commercial What's that?

Well, staff says the 5% commercial requirement is to be obtained between phase one and phase two. As approved by the PMDP PUD, there's 35,000 square feet, 10% commercial to be included. 18,000 square feet is being per proposed in this phase. However, the proposal of the live workspaces shown at 4,800 square feet can't be allowed to go towards that. That's right. So, you were going to change your live workspaces to commercial to bring the phase one into compliance and we're not going to have to wait on phase two for that.

Yeah. I'm not sure I'm not sure that's I'm not sure that that makes it non-compliant, I guess, is our point because we're already taking it out. We're already saying it's not included in our commercial, right? Just as staff is saying, you can't count that. That's the 13,200 which is proposed during this phase. That's less than the what was allowed and and allowed in the PMDP was a 35,000 square foot of commercial. So, we're we're well under that now. And and what it means is when the when the phase two commercial comes in, that's where the designation and staff can certainly weigh in on this. That's where the designation of how we've counted that 4,800 would would apply. If it counts as commercial, then then they would have a little less to to build.

Too much commercial, right? Because you only have what is it 5% variance in what's approved. And so if we had our 4,800, that building would actually have to be smaller on the backside. That's right. To stay in compliance, our project in and of itself is compliant without the 4,800 square feet. Well, I'll further read staff's comment. Says, "Under your website, live workspaces are designed for the renters uh to be able to work remotely and do not provide any type of commercial services for customers to utilize. Therefore, these units do not qualify underneath our commercial requirements. And the 4,800 foot can make cannot be counted towards the 5% commercial square footage requirements. And what am I getting? What am I all getting at with this?

I mean, obviously, it's FMDP, so we'll let you get through on this, but my argument is going to be still the same. I've told staff this. I don't see it looking like what was presented to us at PMDP. And I mean I'm sorry you can argue whatever you need to argue. One of the things one of the there's two comments that I get as being a member of this planning commission. One is look do something about traffic. We try you guys are doing a great job to help us relieve that. And so don't think that my comments are ungrateful towards that because it it is it's a big financial commitment. I recognize that. The other one that I get is that less on the apartments and the density and whatnot coming in here. This feels architecturally like an apartment and whatever you name it. And so when I leave here and I go live in this community as you guys don't, I have to explain the decisions that I make to a citizen that walks up to me and asks that. And when they are clearly voicing and communicating something to me, when you broke them up into the four separate parcels, and that's what I was trying to explain at the last minute, it doesn't have that same feeling. It's the same density. It's the same everything. No, no arguing towards that. I agree with you guys 100%.

Okay? But it's got a different feel. And you can't deny the feeling is different. and and my comment is still towards it's disrespectful to this planning commission. Yeah, and I appreciate that. And again, I picked up on that listening to the video, not being here last time. I picked up on that. That's partly why we wanted to present and and reasons why we felt like it was an improvement and we understand maybe we disagree and that's that's okay. We appreciate your comment. I know you guys get a lot you guys you catch a lot. So, I get it. Yeah. So, appreciate that.

Yeah. I hope you do develop your your phase two on that. And that's the reason why that that I asked because the commercial portion is as the PMD was presented to us particularly your little the the possibility of the amphitheater over there which even your phase 2 doesn't show any connectivity or anything to it. So I discount the thought that that'll ever become a reality um based upon this right here. And then I hope it does. The the commercial could add a lot to there that we really wanted to to see it do and and and hoped and optimistic that it does. And so I I hope that it continues to grow towards that as as you uh continue to press forward with your project.

And Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it. And all I would like to add is, you know, we we echo your sentiments on that, right? The the green space improvements are in design now. I expect that they'll be before this board here I think closer to the end of the year. Obviously, it's not part of our development, but you know, as part of this process, you know, we are making contractual obligations that the seller has to deliver them to us and we are contributing financial contributions. And so, I mean, I I ask that you you know, I will continue to be a presence here on the end. Very grateful. We look forward to seeing you in the future. I think Commissioner George, you had something. simple question and I'd honestly love just a yes or no. I don't need any anything else. Let's just be simple.

Tough for me. Oh, I think it's super easy because I can give a yes or no to this. If you're a citizen and you're watching this tonight and you contact a planning commission member and you look at these two plans between the preliminary and the final, yes or no, do they look different?

Of course they look different. They're completely That's and that's the problem though. And I'm not as as tactful as our chairman is because I'm not going to sit here and say, "Well, I've got to vote for something because that's what that's what TCA says. I have to go to bed and sleep at night and I live here. Y'all don't live here." The chairman said said it, too. We live in this community and we have to answer to the people that live in this community. My problem is, you talk about how great of a plan this is. Where was this at the PMDP? And the concern I have is if we're going to start making changes that are grossly different in terms of an architectural standpoint, when we get to this part, it should kick itself right back to the PMDP and let the board of commissioners look at it again to compare because right now as it sits, you have an appointed body who has to according to the code rubber stamp this through and we don't get a single elected official other than we've got Commissioner Giles here to to give an opinion on it. And that just doesn't feel right to me. So, I'm going to vote with my conscience and what I think is right because I saw this in 2023 and I see it now and it's different.

Yeah. And my only response to that would be uh appreciate that, understand I think the where to handle that would be at the PMDP level. Yeah. and that which we see we go to other communities and work if the PMDP if you want at that level to put certain restrictions of timing sequencing look feel I would that's where I would recommend that it go because otherwise we are sort of subject to be but and I I don't want to get back and forth

can we put those type of conditions on somebody at PMDP or no you just said on the uh structure of of the buildings or the positioning placement of the buildings. That has to be exactly what we approve at PMDP. I'd have to check on that and I will, but obviously it doesn't pertain to this, but I don't believe that we

Yeah, exactly. That's where my frustration lies is that we've got one plan that you've got the planning commission that's approved. The board of commissioners has approved. The city staff has looked at and we've come together and said, "Okay, this is what it's going to look like." The citizens who attended all those meetings saw a plan of this is what it's going to look like. And now here we are, not even two years later with a completely different plan and you're telling us you have to approve it. You have no choice but you have to approve it. and we're sitting here being bought in on one idea and being told, "Oh, no, you have to sell this idea." So, could get me in trouble and that's okay because I decided to join the planning commission. I was excited to join to make a difference and be a voice for people in the community. So, I'm going to be voting no for this. Can't speak for the rest of my commissioners, but this doesn't sit right with me and I'm not going to vote on something that I don't think's right. Commissioner Bowman.

Yeah, a few things here. Um, looking back at some of the variances and waiverss that the BOC approved at the time, especially going from the 35- ft maximum height to a 50- foot maximum height, uh, at the previous plan, I think that if they were looking at this new plan, seeing two monolithic buildings that are going to be 55 ft, that might not have passed so easily back then versus four more distributed buildings at that height. That's just one of those things. Uh I appreciate the additional presentation that would have been useful a week ago. I don't know if it would have changed things uh on our vote then. Uh to your uh lawyer, I can also appreciate lawyer speak, but I would like plain speak and the fact that you're going to sue the city if we don't approve this tonight. Right. I mean, that's what I heard. I think that's what everybody here heard. Uh, I think that you've not taken care of the people that are going to live here, right? You've got a pool that was kind of shrouded in the back of the development previously where people would, you know, maybe want to congregate away from the commercial element and now your pool is right in the mix of the commercial element up front. Uh there was mention of those parking spaces right up front on the primary entrance in. That's not particularly safe, right? People are going to be pulling in and backing out of those main main primary uh parking spots with uh for the commercial environment with people trying to pull in and pull out. Uh doesn't seem like a lot of thought was put into that. So, yeah, I'm I'm not going to get the city in trouble over this, but uh there Yeah, there was should have been a lot of additional thought put into this.

Further questions coming? Commissioner Franklin, please. Well, I wasn't here on the preliminary, so you know, I'm probably less insulted by this if that's uh my question is if variants were granted for heights of buildings and the number of buildings change, do those variances still apply? same. You want to repeat that real quick, B? Well, if variances were given on a number of buildings and those buildings numbers have changed, do those variances still apply? Staff has the authority to make certain or approve certain modifications, which is what I'm assuming.

I take, if I may, please. The height waiver was granted for the entirety of the pod. Does that make sense? So like any building in the pod could hit that height. Yeah.

Yeah. I there's more there's less buildings. I mean they're different but it was a relief from the height requirement or the height maximum for the whole pod. That's how I would understand it. um regardless of what the number of buildings or what where they or you know the design of them the maximum height in that pod was allowed to be 50 ft. So so are all um there's a there's there's a list of all things that has to be in substantial compliance. Is it staff's staff is saying it is in substantial compliance based on that list in the ordinance. you know, the number of residential units can't go up, commercial can't go down, coverage building, which they showed.

Okay. Well, I don't like the whole thing at all, but I'm going to have to vote for it because it's already approved. Feels very much like a bait and switch.

Please, Commissioner. I'll just say when you guys say these are minimal changes. Um when I'm looking at these plans, this is not minimal changes. You guys changed this whole phase completely. And I have seen on this commission smaller changes made that went back to preliminary master development plan. They resubmitted and this is is so so large. Um, I have a son who is an architect in Georgia and I ask him when they have something that significantly is changed from FM or from PMDP to FMDP, he we can't do it. We have to go back to PMDP. And so at this point, I mean, how much can we allow to change, you know, and not be held hostage over it, saying, "Oh, we've already done preliminary." Well, you're setting a precedence right now that anybody as long as they meet the same specs can build highrises or build up to whatever variant.

That's what I was going to say. Yeah. This is this right here is a precedence that we're setting for the future of development in the city because this is going to be the blueprint, the playbook to do this type of work unless all the codes are changed in some way, shape or form to limit it in the future, which is really diff which could be really difficult. Yep. Please.

I would just like to remind the entire commission that our city code is very clear about the consideration of final master development plans. If they are st substantially compliant, then the planning commission should approve it. Staff has told you that is substantially compliant. So if you choose to make a motion to deny this, I would just recommend that you be very clear in your motion as to why you are doing it. And this is not a precedent. This is our code. Further questions, comments. Thank you guys. Let's go ahead and open the floor for uh citizen comments. Any citizen wish to make comment in regards to this item on the agenda is welcome encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'm looking for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Remember, no motion constitutes approval. That's a motion and a second. Uh, and for the record, let the record show that Commissioner Giles stepped away from the table. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raise your hand. Against abstensions. So, approved.

All right. Next uh item up on the um let me go back to excuse me real quick before I move forward. I just realized that I made an error on something previously, Sam. So, I need your opinion of how to conduct my error. I failed to hold a public hearing for item 7A. Then just do it now. That's how you fix doing now.

Okay. Very well. We'll be closing our planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. The public hearing is in regards to item 7A, which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. It is to review the roadway and rideway annexation, including a plan of services for East Division Street around Clemens Road. Anyone wishing to make comment in regards to that item during the public hearing, it's welcome, encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no comments in regards to that item on the agenda, we'll close our public hearing. We open our planning commission meeting at which time uh we are on item 8B, which is to review the site plan for the Mount Julian Academy fieldhouse located 735 North Mount Jul. Mr. John playing.

Sure thing. Uh site plan like you said this is at uh it's on the church existing property now. The uh there's various zoning districts across that property. This is all in the CNS zoning part of it. Um they got two buildings totaling u 30,000 ft. I think they're both uh 15,000 ft. It's a practice facilities and a fieldhouse. They've got uh there's a couple couple waiverss. Um one is for the facade. They've got some metal uh included in there, but it's uh primarily primarily masonry to match existing structures out there. Um staff supports that. Um the other one is that for this particular use, uh it's the parking number isn't specified in the code. It's left up to the board. Uh they have 95 spaces. Staff feels this is uh appropriate enough. Um and that's really the the bulk of this one. This one's pretty straightforward and staff does recommend approval.

Nice. Shane, anything from public works? Todd, handle this one. All right, Todd, please.

Uh yeah, two two things worth noting. The first is that they're showing their construction entrance as coming off of that uh road through the Wilson County Schools. Um there is a condition in there saying that um permission is required, you know, written authorization to do so. Uh but if they don't obtain that, the construction entrance would be from Northwest Rutland Road. So something to keep in mind. Uh the second is that they will they will be paving the drive aisle to the facility through their existing gravel parking lot. Uh and they would like to continue to use that gravel parking lot until such time that full paving can be done. They have stated intent to improve that parking lot in the future, but that is a bit of an irregular request and would be up to y'all. Do we need to offer them any type of variance for that or I'm I'm not really even sure.

I don't Yeah. Yeah. We haven't seen that their property. Okay. Fair. Thank you. It is an improvement to a existing non-compliant lot. So, it's improved. Yeah. The improvement is the improvement over the improvement. Very well. Thank you guys. questions, comments from the commission. We have representation that wishes to speak and name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. Charlie Dean, Dean with the Dean Design Group here representing the project. Um, I guess as they've stated, we've got a couple of um waiverss that we're asking for. the I guess the for the extent of it being a waiver where the parking we obviously have an adequate amount of parking on the property but we're providing 95 spaces with these two 30,000 or two two combination 30,000t buildings so um and then the architectural variances you guys have uh um I guess heard John's opinion on that and they're recommending approval we would request your approval as well um as far as the other uh things that Todd just mentioned there. Um we have made um an application to Mr. Leil with the school board and we're waiting that we will provide that when to staff when we get that back from the school board. Um obviously as Todd said if if we don't get access off that road then we'll just come to the other access that we have it won't um you know shut down our access. So, um, the, uh, I guess the final thing we have, you know, if you've been out there, there's an existing gravel parking, a large gravel parking lot out there to get access to this facility. We wanted to to pave the drive lane of that. In the future, we anticipate building that out, adding parking spaces off of that drive lane. At that time, obviously, we'll be uh uh adding that paving and adding additional sidewalks, connectivity to the the future structures, but we'd like to do that at that time and uh and not do that now. But I'd be happy to answer any other questions if you have any.

Are you going to if you don't get access through there, are you going to take them off Northwest Rutland or you going to take them off Mount Jul? Just out of curiosity. Construction access. Yeah. Uh construction would just come off of Rutland. Come off of Northwest Rutland. Yes, sir. That that's closer to the to the development site. And then it would it would get in through that second entrance down there next to the soccer field. The Yeah, the farthest one down. Yeah, the far the farthest east on Rutland. Yes, sir. Trying to think. So, the proposed construction entrance would be behind West Wilson Middle School near the football field near your football field area or their football field area. Right. There's an existing um

the gate there's an existing entrance off of that side that used to go back to the uh old um Hanza hut building that was back there that got blown down by the uh tornado. And um so we would just continue to maintain that access that would allow us to come in and and service the construction site without you know as much interruption to the drop off and you know the pickup drop off um rhythm with that. Um, Miss Posey is with Mount Juliet Christian has has made that um I guess extended that conversation with Mr. Lrol and and certainly we're going to be uh mindful of their pickup and drop off drop offs and that sort of thing. So, we'll certainly comply with whatever conditions that that the school board puts on us.

Yeah, that was going to be my primary point is to make sure we don't take one problem away and make another. Of course. As well as with debris, making sure that that nice freshly paved road is maintained. Understood. Yep. Further questions, comments? Thank you. Thank you. This time like to call for citizen comments regards this item on the agenda. Any citizens wish to make comment are welcome encouraged to do so and please go to the microphone name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Make a motion to approve. Second.

It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. So approved. Yes, please. Um I just realized something. I believe the item before this the FMDP for the broadstone. I don't recall um the motion including staff conditions. So, if the planning commission intended to include staff conditions, we would need to do a motion to reconsider and revote on it and state the motion again to include the conditions. I don't think it included it. It didn't.

So, I need to bring the item back just for a vote. you'd have to do a motion to reconsider which has to be brought by anyone who was on the prevailing side to reconsider that motion. Once that passes, then you can um reconsider it. Yes. But I need to table the item just as I read it originally. Is that correct? Like review the final master development plan and then just basically revote. You just need to make a motion to reconsider the final master development plan of the Broadstone vote on that and then right at that point then you would actually reconsider it and then the other commissioner can make the same motion.

Make a motion to reconsider. Let me get you on microphone real quick. Oh, make a motion to reconsider the Broadstone plan. I'll second that motion. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. That is a motion. And now would you I'll make a motion positive recommendation with the staff conditions for Broadstone or motion for approval. Not a positive approval. Approval subject to staff comments. Yes.

I'll second that again. Um since I had the second on the first one. So that's a motion and a second for approval. Subject to staff comments. All those in favor signify by saying I raising your hand. I against abstensions. So approve. Next item up on our agenda is to review the preliminary plat for Weller Life at Mount Julant Grove Road. Let me ask this real quick. Any Should we hear plumary plant and FMDP at the same or should we continue with them separate? the planning commission's

what would be the will of the commission do them together related yeah they're basically the same so if that is that the will of the commission any objection to hearing them together very well we will hear items 8 C and 8 D together 8 C is to review the preliminary plat for Willer life at Mount Juliet located at 535 Pleasant Grove Road and item 8 D is to review the final master development plan site plan for Willer Life and Mount Juliet located at 535 Pleasant Grove Road. Sir, Mr. John, floor is yours.

Thing um you know uh again final master development plan this one is basically identical to the preliminary master development plan and the preliminary plat I have no comments on and the FMDP is recommended to be approved with any of the conditions we have in there. Um, this one had very little if any change. Thank you. Okay. Corks staff staff re ah staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. No comments and approval of the FMDP with our comments.

Very well. Questions, comments from the commission. See no questions or comments. If we have representation, you're welcome to come to the microphone. Name and address for the record if you desire. Brenda Shackleford um 2305 Klein Avenue. I'm with CSG and I'm just here. I'll answer any questions if y'all have them. Very well. Thank you. See no questions. Thank you. Let's go ahead and call for uh citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Anyone wish to make comment? welcome encouraged to do so. Name and address for the record.

Hey, thank you very much. Uh Nelson Andrews actually reside in Brentwood but have property at 560 Pleasant Grove Road which is the location of Andrews Cadillac Mount Juliet which is adjacent to this uh this development. So say we're we're really glad to have them do the development. Very positive about it. I wanted to come by tonight because I haven't been able to find the actual well the preliminary site plan on the website and wanted to make sure they've got proper screening uh in terms of noise and other things for the residents for this development. If you take a look at it, you know, it backs up to two automotive dealerships and a Super Walmart. And that Super Walmart has a loading dock and I'm sure you all are aware that Walmart gets his deliveries all through the night. So, I just wanted to make sure because there's that super Walmart there and there's two car dealerships there while this is still open land and I don't want to be back here myself in years in the future being asked to add additional screening or noise abatement or things to to our dealerships there because of complaints from the residents that came next door later.

So, we're very excited to have this here. Um, I know it's a challenge having residential right next to commercial and not just kind of commercial. I mean fullboat Walmart commercial. So, um, so I just want to make sure that was on everyone's radar as we take a look at this development. And just, you know, when we first bought that land, we knew there'd be something behind it. If you look at our land, you can see where we put trees along the the future street. You know, we've already landscaped for this to come in. Very excited about it. We just want to make sure we avoid a future conflict if we can. Making sure that uh good fences make good neighbors. Exactly. Yes, sir. And and also want and and thank you very much to all of you all for your service to the community. I mean, this is a lot of work and I really appreciate all the thought and the effort you all put into it.

Thank you for your investment in our community. Well, absolutely. Glad to be here.

Do you want to speak to that buffer, John, real quick, please? thing. Um, excluding the drive up to the town homes, I don't think there's a point where any of the the town homes are within 200 feet of Walmart or the park or the car dealership parking areas. So, it's at, you know, I just scaled it right here roughly. And, uh, there's substantial distance. And then there's also our standard screening buffer that they meet um with this plan. So the buffer and then the just the additional space. Uh there's detention area in between say the dealership and the town homes and then same with Walmart, you know, it's it's it's a it's a a bit down the hill.

Very well. That help a little bit? Okay. You're happy? I'm happy. Yes, sir. Very well. Please name and address for the record. Yeah, Chris Ricker, 503 Sycamore Drive. Uh, I border the entire west side of this this property. And I must say, Mr. Andrews, I don't hear any of the Cadillac dealership noise. The Dodge dealership noise I hear consistently. So, I appreciate your comments and your consideration for the citizens that'll be living behind that area.

I do have one question on the plan. I saw a secondary the main entrance to the west of that is a secondary road that ends and there's not a barrier right there. What is the future plan for that? Todd's got an answer. Todd, please. That was a slight misunderstanding where the development team thought we were asking for a stub. They're actually not allowed to stub um as that is their fire turnaround. It's a maximum of 150 ft which would maintain the proper buffer there. I appreciate the answer. Yes, sir. Good question. Commissioner J, you had some comment. This is the second time this has come to us, right? It was It came the first time. Yes, sir.

Okay. You know, I'm going to have to say this because it's I I want y'all to be aware of it. I'm sure it's not going to make any difference, but it makes a difference to me. So when this project came through this body the first time, these were going to be fee simple ownership. And then when it came to the BOC, it was not. And yet we don't have a law in this country that says they have to come back here and explain that to us. And no one's explained it to y'all. Whether that matters or not, it matters to me. And what was said at BOC was there was there was a mistake. Well, a mistake should be rectified by coming back and saying, "Hey, we made a mistake and this is the way it is." So, I think there's a president sat here and I'm against it because of that. So, what you're seeing is not what you saw when it came through here the first time. Uh, I know they've complied and I'm glad that they have and and and as John says, it looks the same as other, but I just wanted to bring that up to this meeting. It is not fe simple. It's a and and I'm not against the concept. It's a concept that I hadn't seen and I didn't know that till it got to BOC. So that means the concept was never explained to anybody here at this table.

Would you like to explain?

I think um can somebody tell me what the definition of be simple is? It is ownership of that piece of property that you can sell at your discretion for the price that you want to get out of it.

And I understand there is a difference and and I'll tell you the the mistake was not in any miscommunication. The mistake was in my understanding when we set this up the the first time we were working with the client. They said we want these individually deed like cool. So when you all asked me are these individually deed or fe simple that's how I understood it and I said yes they are and they still are. It just turns out one person is going to own them instead of 70 people owning them. So one person is going to own them. It's treated like a PSL that people buy the the right to be there and then they have a maintenance fee and they they're going to put more money than I have in my house down for the privilege of living there. Um and then and and I regret saying that it was a mistake. It was my misunderstanding. I don't think what we presented was a mistake. It was my not understanding the concept during that first phase and then they told me what the concept was. But it still is individually deed town homes like anything else. It's just that one person owns them all or one entity owns them all and they can be sold. They can you know they will be sold or they can be sold.

Who determines the selling price? the owner. Yeah. Okay. Uh the one owner that owns all 70. Um. Yes. Yes. And I guess if they choose to sell one, they can sell one, but their choice is going to be they're going to they're going to own all 70 of them. Yeah. If you don't mind, will you explain to them this concept though? you know, like they give X and then when they sell it, they would still however that was. And I've been told that there's another um senior living and I wish I could remember what it was, but I've been told there's another one that has the same concept. Okay.

In in the city of Mount Julie,

excuse me. So, um so it it's I think we all understand it best if it's a PSL. So, you have the right to sit in that seat and people buy, let's just say $500,000, put $500,000 down, they have the right to live in that house, they will pay a maintenance fee monthly and and it's my understanding that if you want your light bulb changed, they'll come in and change your light bulb and then when you're ready to leave uh or you die, then that it's it's equity and goes to your family. So if it in increased in value, let's say it increased in value to a million dollars in 10 years, then um they get 90% of that back. So they would get $900,000. 10% would go to the owner and then that 900,000 would go to the children or to the person that leaves. Does that make sense? So, it's like a PSL. You don't own the seat, but you own the right to sit in that seat.

And and and correct me if I'm wrong. At the BOC, you also y'all also explained that they wouldn't lose. It's not that I'm against this concept. I'm against the way that it was presented to us and nothing can be done about it. And there again, we approve something upon what we were told. But correct me if I'm wrong. If if if times were the other way and they sold it, wouldn't they still get a certain percentage of it in that guaranteed also? Or did I hear that wrong? Well, I don't know if I I would have to check on that. They get 90% of whatever the selling price is or so.

So, in other words, if they gave 500, right? If they gave 500,000 up front and 10 years later it sold for 5,000, they would only get 450,000. um or 455,000 or whatever it would be. I mean, yeah. Yeah. So, they're going to lose at the end if it if if it goes down in value. So, it could go up or it could go down. So, you buying a house. Same thing. No, I didn't think so. No, no, that was my whole thing. I specifically asked about that. That was very important to me.

Andird. Then at BOC, it was just thrown without any notice. That's still what my and and and I went and talked to the attorney because I I said, "Why is that not supposed to come back to us?" Because to me, that's a that's that's different. But apparently it's not different enough to everybody. It is to art, you know. Is does PSL stand for private sector lease? Is that private seed license? She's talking about like Titans. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. I just throw that out there like I understood it that way, too. Yeah, he was just referring to like a Titans where you own the seat, but you don't have

Sorry, I thought that was there is there is a technical term like that in housing, but Okay. I'm curious what the what the real term is. Same price. Yeah, it's just buyer beware is really what it boils down to. Well, it sounds like it's a good way for whomever owns all 70 units to make their 10% every time an elderly person passes along. It is they're bank rolling on the elder. It's a good way to keep the hospitals from getting your money for your house. It's only 4% more than a real estate. It's an interesting concept. Yeah, they're that Franklin kind of hit the nail on the head right there. It is a good way to protect your asset and social security because you don't own it. Therefore,

put all your money into buying your house and you spend all your money now social security kicks in. You still have a choice. You did. I' I've understand it. That's old banker in me. Uh, further questions from one dude. One person, John Doe. Look, and and I'm not telling y'all to vote against this. I I'm wanting to y'all to understand and and you understand this was they didn't know this. Yes. They didn't know this. Do you have other facilities like this with that arrangement? I'm I'm with the engineer. The the client does have that's that's their arrangement and and they're Does it do well or do you know? Yeah.

I mean I think and people are very happy and honestly I've never even considered living in a retirement community but yeah. Will this come change my life? Yeah. Keep up keep up nights like this may consider. Yeah. I understand. It does say age restricted units and I I looked for is there an age listed on here? Um 65 55 is there. Yeah, I know. I think in within the code of 55, but they refer to it as elderly. And then they have a um in the house plans. I looked at the house plans and I'm all about house plans and I'm like four bedrooms for elderly

and and upstairs and I'm thinking what that doesn't you usually fit with an um a um elderly plan there. Most people are looking for one level and something simple. I think there's a difference between elderly and 55 and up as somebody who is in that category. Yeah. So I'll say I've got a fourbedroom just moved in a townhouse with four bedrooms because I want a place for all my children to come come and visit on Christmas. Yeah. Yeah. I need to talk to that. You need product to have in town. I would like further questions, comments from the commission.

Thank you so much. Let's go ahead and call for citizen comments in regards to items 8 C and 8 D. Any citizens wish to make comment, welcome, encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. Looking for a motion in regards to items 8 C and 8 D. I'll make the motion to approve staff comment. It's motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. So approved.

The next item up on our agenda is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. Uh it's a 9A. It's to review the reszone request from RS40 to CTC for 336 North Mount Juliet Road. Mr. John,

as you said, 3336 North Mount Julia Road. This is uh I think it's one parcel south of Falner on the west side of Mount Juliet, north mount Julia Rub. Um there's a single family home now, but uh it's and it's zoned RS40. The request is to go to CTC, which is what lines both sides of Mount Juliet Road in this vicinity. This is kind of like a remaining island of RS40 there. I think the site's about an acre and a half or an acre and a quarter. Um the land use plan supports it. Surrounding zoning district CTC, uh the applicant, uh they they don't have an actual I think I remember in the preapp or something, one of the meetings he said mentioned something about a small, you know, retail or office use there potentially. Um, so that's and that's, you know, what CTC is for. So given that the land use plan supports it and the location and all that, staff does support the reason. Thank you.

Shane, anything for public works? Yes, sir. Real quick question for you, John. If we uh grant the reszone request um and it were to pass BC, are they able to use the building as is CTC use? Yes, it would just fall under that uh you know the non-conforming use, non-conforming building regulations. So can't make it any more non-conforming. So they wouldn't have to bring parking, ADA, water quality. They'd have to bring all that. Yeah, absolutely. If they were going to use it as a commercial use. Yes. So they could remodel the building, but they'd have to come into compliance with everything.

Many instances of that. Yeah. Around town. Perfect. Commissioner John. Yeah. I just want to make a comment. We're better off to put CTC on a five lane road in Mount Juliet Road. I think it's fantastic. Very well. Any additional questions, comments from the commission? Seeing none, we have any citizens uh comments. Welcome to make comment at this time. See no citizen comments. Looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on the agenda. Second.

That's a positive recommendation. Very well. Positive recommendation and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising their hand. I against abstensions. That is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is item 9B. Uh it is a recommendation item as well is to review the reszone request from RS40 to CTC for 43 East Cowwell Street. Mr. John,

sure thing. This is uh rather similar. It's uh same thing. Town Center commercial land use RS40 single family house. Um they're requesting CTC. There is CTC zoning to the west of it towards M Juliet Road and actually the parcel to the east of it. Single family house residential lot at some point that's gone to CTC as well. So this one is in uh kind of sandwiched in between the two. The land use plan calls for this is the address of this is 43. As you go east the address goes the addresses go up. Lan use plan calls for CTC commercial all the way down to I believe uh 55 East Caldwell. So a couple lots past this one. Um it's part of the town center commercial area that you know downtown core here. So the land use plan does call for CTC in the whole area. Um and like the other one it would it would fall under the same same regulations. So staff recommends approval or recommends positive recommendation to the board of commissioners. Thank you.

Shane, anything public works? No, sir. Very well. Questions, comments, Commissioner George? And it I did want to ask on the last one because I think this one's a little different, especially when we hear the third one and you've got two different properties on the same street that have started to change zoning. It begs the question of I would really like to see what they're wanting to do with it because I can see the wheel in my mind turning of okay, well, you've got this property that's CTC and now you've got this one that's going to move to CTC and you've got this one that's going to move to CTC. So, it sounds like there's going to be a bigger picture. I've said this before, I would really just love to see a site plan to go along with zoning, but I digress.

Do we have representation uh present tonight on this project? Nope. Very well. Please. I will say, you know, in the preliminary meetings on this, I don't they did not have have anything planned for it at this time. I it was just maybe to get the commercial zoning because it's marketability. Marketability. Yeah. Correct.

Mr. Jeff, you have some input. I think what and I don't know this but I mean if I owned it I would I would definitely want to do this because I think with the the potential development of where we are now especially over here whether this building leaves or not it would open them up so we might get something even more to come in here if they could if the zoning was already there for them to acquire those. So I think that's what it is because if you think about it as you go all the way up that hill there's not very much quote retail that would Most probably that would depend on the the traffic on on Mount Juliet Road that would want it, but an extension of something would. And if they wanted office, they could it could still be done in there, which would be wonderful places for for offices like mine or something like that off the main road.

Yep. Questions, comments? Seeing none, uh let's call for assistant comments regards this item. Seeing no assisted comments at this time, I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on urgent recommendation for positive positive recommendation. It's a positive recommendation

and second by commissioner Christen. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. That is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our uh agenda is item 9 C. It is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners to review the reszone request from RS40 to CTC for 47 and 47 ft East Cowwell Street. John, it's uh basically the same as the uh last one. I think we actually met with these two property owners uh at the same time they came in um exactly the same. Thank you. Positive recommendation. Shane, I'm going to guess same.

Same. Very well. Any additional questions, comments? Same. Please. Um, and maybe to staff, how far back off of Mont Juliet Road, can we continue to do CTC? So, if you if you look at this map where that Ridgerest Drive is, that's the line that the land use plans recommends. Uh, Town Center commercial. Okay. Yeah. All right. Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure this wasn't gonna build up middle of town. In the middle of town. Yeah, keep on going. Thank you.

This time, let's call for assistant comments. See no assistant comments this time. Looking for a recommendation in regards to item on our agenda. Positive recommendation. It's a motion for positive second by Commissioner Cerson. All those in favor signify by raising say I raising your hand. I against extensions. That is a positive recommendation. That being said, 8:45 I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn. Motion to Oh, it's exciting. We We can take some more time to figure this one out. I've got a motion in a second. All those in favor signify say I and raise your hand. I against abstensions. We are sure.