Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Let everybody have a seat real quick. We'll get us going tonight. I'd like to welcome everybody to the Mount Jute Municipal September 17, 2026 meeting of the Mount Jute Municipal and Regional Planning Commission meeting. As we start tonight's meeting, I want to say one thing on a personal note. Two things. One, happy anniversary to my wife, celebrating 30 years tonight. And when you're in public service like this, you get to be here as well. So luckily, that's how we survived 30 years. A lot of patience and a lot of communication, a lot of working together. So happy anniversary to my wife. Want to also extend, I've sat on our planning commission now since 2005. And I've been lucky and blessed with two wonderful parents that have both lived here in Mount Juliet. I lost my mother on Sunday, September 6. So kind of a dedication of this meeting tonight back to my mother, which was super important to me. I lost my father in 2020. But I like to think that they raised a good son. And so kind of an honor and dedication back to both my mother and father, which were both residents of Mount Jewett as well. So just two words of a personal note as we get going here tonight. And as my mom would say, just remember, life goes on, son. Just keep moving. So that is what we do tonight. As we also get going, I would like to announce, because we are down two members, or two members absent tonight, and we are waiting a third member to be appointed to the commission, wanted to announce what our quorum requirements are in voting. It says, quorum, the presence of five members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairperson may, at his or her discretion, wait up to 30 minutes after the scheduled meeting time for a quorum to be present. In the event that a member is required to leave a meeting prior to adjournment and the departure causes a loss of quorum, no further official action may be taken until a quorum is restored other than an adjournment. A majority vote of those commissioners present and in no case less than four affirmative votes shall be required to decide any item of business requiring action by the commission. I do like to announce that for those that this may be attending your first meeting tonight, just so you can understand some of our actions up here from the Planning Commission. With that being said, our first item up tonight will be to set our agenda. At this time, I am not aware of any changes or amendments. Should anyone else have any? Seeing none, we'll set the agenda as stated. Next item up tonight falls underneath our staff reports. Beginning with our city planner, Mr. John.

Sure thing. I'll just pass it off to Shane because we got enough to talk about tonight.

Very well. Thank you.

Shane, Public Works. Let's get this meeting going and sorry for your loss, Chairman.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that. One quick update. How are we doing sidewalks from Green Hill down to Mount Jude Elementary?

that right that what we got going rolling through there everything working pretty good i don't have a formal report from that from where they're at i have been out there looks like they've got the trail cut in pretty well i don't know when the calendar is for paving and okay and such but looks like they are making some hay out there wonderful thank you

All right, our next item up tonight will be our citizen comments. At this time, we'll take citizen comments. The public is welcome and encouraged to make public comment about any item on our agenda. There will be two opportunities for you to make comments. You may speak now or... you may speak when the item is presented to the Planning Commission. Remember, it is a now or then kind of scenario. We do ask that you limit your comments to three minutes or less. And before I open the microphone for any citizen comments at this time, we do have a full house. And as such, Planning Commission does welcome and encourage public comment during this meeting tonight. If you see me, if you were up here at the podium speaking and you see me wave my hand at you like this, I am waving at you because I'm happy that you're here. But That's just kind of a sign that you have one minute left. So I would ask you to summarize your comments at that point in time, because I want to be mindful and respectful to anyone else wishing to speak tonight. And the three minutes just helps us keep and allow everybody to do so that wishes to do so. So with that being said, anyone wishing to make public comment at this time, it's welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

hi my name is randall dunham i live at 149 burton place also known as lynn christie subdivision lot number three in the olden days uh i'm here concerning this uh tillman place pu dud amendment at 6235 central pipe i'd like to read this to you this development is anticipated and by the way i got some help today and i appreciate the help those people give me with this highlighted This development is anticipated to be built around the time the Central Pike Interchange begins construction. The following off-site improvements shall be required should the interchange not be constructed prior to issuing the first seal. A. A traffic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of Pleasant Grove Road and Central Pike. A signal shall be designed to allow for the widening of Central Pike in the region. The signal shall include turn lanes on the central pocket and advance warning sign be prepared to stop when flashing, capital letters. The developers agreed to install the traffic signal within 180 days of land disturbance permit issuance. If the traffic signal is not installed within 180 days, the building permits will be withheld until the traffic signal is complete. A left turn lane on the central pocket of Pleasant Grove Road shall be constructed. Now, this comes from... It doesn't have to be respectfully submitted anyway. This development is anticipated to be built around the time the Central Park Interchange begins construction. The following off-site improvements shall be required should the interchange not be constructed prior to issuing the first COE. uh traffic signal will be constructed what i just read same thing here's the problem and i personally consider it to be something that needs to be addressed the developer is requesting relief from the above listed conditions to the existing right-of-way with not being wide enough to accommodate the requested improvements as well as the adjoining property owners not being willing to sell the right-of-way or grant easements to facilitate the construction of the reference improvements at this time It states on here that it shall be constructed when the Central Park interchange begins construction. I understand that they've agreed with the city and the government, I mean, Nashville, Tennessee, and whoever else is involved. I'm not real private in this, but they said it'd take like six years. The place where I live, I have heard, I've lived there about 24 years, numerous traffic accidents that are over At that interchange, I asked someone today, go over there in the morning, go over there in the evening, pull out and turn left, go into the church bike lot, come back around, do that 10 times. You think your heart don't start racing. You get a feeling in your gut. You're afraid for your life at that interchange. Got one minute. Okay. And I don't know who makes the decisions around here. I guess it's you guys. But, you know, this is not a black or white issue or Republican or Democrat issue or a Hispanic issue. Get behind a big truck and turn left over there. My wife and I have almost been hit. My kids have almost been hit. That's why people cut through the church parking lot. They told me years ago they couldn't grade that hill down and put in a traffic lot. It's real easy and simple, okay? This is common sense. It affects all of us. You guys have got thousands of people, their lives in your hands when you make this decision. You don't have to get an easement. You don't have to put a turning lane in. just put a traffic light that's all you need there's plenty of two-lane roads in this county and in this state that have traffic lights where you can go with the air and turn left you can go with the green light turn right you go through there there's people come up across through there and they'll blow their horn at you they'll come up on your butt ride you like you they own the road it's dangerous it's always been dangerous don't worry about The people selling the easement are putting another lane in. Just fix it until they get the Central Park Interchange done. It can save lives. If it's your family member or someone that goes to church with you or your neighbor and they get hooked up over there, everybody's life is in y'all's hands at that intersection. Go over there tomorrow morning between 7 and 9 and turn left 10 times. You'll see what I'm saying. Sorry I get a little worked up. That's okay. I understand.

I understand. I know exactly what you're talking about. Yes, sir. Thank you, Randall.

Come on up.

evening my name is michelle nelson i live at 607 windy road i'm here to talk about the proposed waiver of the traffic signal as well to add it add to what he has already said my understanding is that it was a requirement associated with approval of the housing development etc and i'm asking that you uphold that requirement and prioritize the safety of the people who live in and travel through this area This is important to me, and I'll explain why. I'm an English teacher in Nashville, married, mom of three kids, grandma to one. My parents live here in Mount Juliet, and my sister and her family live here in Mount Juliet as well. On the evening of August 9th, I was traveling northeast on Central Pike, approaching Mount Pleasant Road, right by that little church you just mentioned. As I crested that rise before the intersection, I saw somebody crossing the double yellow line. That person continued straight at me, and I was able to evade them, go into the grass of that church. They still hit me. I couldn't avoid the collision, and that driver is still in jail on a DUI. It would have been a head-on collision. Could a light have stopped this? Probably not. However... It has the potential to make changes for a lot of other people. I've only been in Mount Juliet less than a month when that happened. All right. So I was fortunate. We didn't have a head-on collision. We didn't end up in the hospital, but somebody else could. The question here is whether or not we should take a responsible, proactive step to improve the safety at an intersection that is already presenting risks. and it's going to get substantially worse. There's construction beginning at Central Pike and I-40. As people travel toward that to avoid the congestion on Mount Juliet Road, that is going to increase traffic there. Then you have a new residential development going in. That is going to increase traffic there, and it's going to become an even greater problem. Now, I'm a former city council member in Texas, I get that decisions like this are complicated, all right? Development brings opportunities, but it brings costs and responsibilities, okay? The city has to balance the financial considerations, the infrastructure needs, development, and the interests of its citizens. But what I have difficulty understanding is why a safety measure that was established as part of the development process would now be considered for a waiver. particularly when the area is continuing to grow and traffic is expected to increase. So the danger at this intersection is not theoretical to me. I've since learned that many residents actively avoid this intersection. After what happened to me, I understand why. So you have a responsibility to the citizens of Mount Juliet and to everyone who travels these roads. You have a responsibility to consider the long-term impact of development decisions. You have a responsibility to make sure that infrastructure keeps pace with growth. And most importantly, you have a responsibility to protect the safety of this community. I respectfully ask you to uphold the requirement for the traffic signal at Central Pike and Pleasant Grove Road. Please don't wait for a tragedy at this intersection to tell us that we should have acted sooner.

Thank you. Thank you.

Please. My name's Harold Cheatham, 6085 Central Pike, right next door to the Tillman Parkway. estates that's going in. I've owned it since 2000 and everything she said is right at home. I mean, if y'all pull the records, there's no telling how many accidents have been at that light and why you would give them, you know, they said they'd put it in within 180 days. It's not in. If they can't get the easement, they got to step up and pay more money or whatever they have to do. But you should stop the project until the The lights put in, plus we got all the apartments down at New Hope Road. Everybody's gonna be coming to Providence. Walmart taking that same intersection right there. I mean, it's a no brainer. I mean, do like the guy said, pull out there three times. All you gotta do is three times and take a left and you're gonna have a close call. I mean, people fly down the road even though it's 35 miles an hour. 60, 70 miles an hour, they'll come across a hill right there. So I don't know why there would be, I mean, why you would even think about it. The light needs to go in before they even started the subdivision and well before they widen the road to the interstate and put the new interchange in. That's all I've got to say.

Thank you.

And this is my wife.

Hi, I'm Harold's wife, Cindy. And I just wanted to read to you some other comments. We put this out on a Facebook page to try to get people aware of the fact that the builder is trying to get out of this, which is irresponsible in my opinion. And I think that you guys should consider the safety and the ability of people to travel safely on Central Pike. There's a woman who said it's already dangerous enough trying to turn left or right on Central Pike over that hill at the intersection, and the city needs to do something more to curb the poorly planned growth and hold developers accountable. Another person said, from Providence area, I often take Central Pike to Pleasant Grove Road to get home to stay away from all the traffic, as the woman before us said, on South Mount Juliet Road. But I will, in bold letters, will never try to turn left off of Pleasant Grove Road onto Central Pike, It's an accident waiting to happen. Another woman said, definitely need a light. People don't know how to use or even know what a mirror is used for. It's obvious that that's a very dangerous intersection. I think if you pull the accident reports from that intersection, which we tried to do, but we weren't going to get that in time for the meeting, you'll probably see that there's hundreds of accidents that have already occurred there. and so i just again respectfully request that you hold the builder accountable to his promise from the beginning that he promised to do install that flashing light make it a red light even with no turning thank you guys name and address for the record

Yeah, my name's Tricia Farmer. I live at 8015 Ritter Drive, and I'm sorry for being late. I just came from Brentwood. I'm calling, or I'm not calling, I'm here. Okay, so, and if this has been pulled from the agenda, just tell me and I'll shut up right now. But I'm So I'm here on behalf of my neighbors. I live in the cul-de-sac on Ritter Drive, which is being proposed to turn into access to the reserve at West Spring Meadows, which is a neighborhood. And so I just wanted to remind this body how you all voted against this. You gave it a negative recommendation, and I'm going to just remind you for the reasons why. when this was proposed several years ago. Ritter Drive was completed in 2021 as a fully constructed cul-de-sac. It has an entire sidewalk all the way around it. The homes, when we purchased them, there is no temporary signage as required by Mount Juliet law. There is no temporary cul-de-sac installed. In fact, the dimensions of the cul-de-sac are that of a permanent cul-de-sac as well. And the... It was never recorded on any of the neighborhood plaques, any of the final plaques as being a temporary cul-de-sac like all the other temporary cul-de-sacs that are in Mount Juliet. When the clamshell properties purchased the property that adjoins our cul-de-sac, they did so with the address of John Wright Road and that first The purchase of that property included the easement for access to John Wright, and that property owner conveyed that access back to someone else, thereby losing their access to John Wright Road, which is why they're now asking to go through the end of our cul-de-sac for their neighborhood. So I just want to remind you all that the city of Mount Julia, there is no... The city should not redesignate or reconstruct retroactively rid or drive to remedy a voluntarily created condition without identifying the legal authority that they have to do so, amending any applicable PUD or a neighborhood subdivision plan, and require the traffic study that is mandated by Tennessee and Mount Juliet 9-107.1. And also, they do not have the requirement to provide sewer access just because they are adjoining. So whenever we're looking at all of the variances and the easement requests and the changes for zoning to allow this neighborhood through our cul-de-sac, none of the reasons that have been cited by this landowner reach the requirements necessary for granting a variance or zoning change for our street. And so, listen, I know y'all have neighborhoods with hundreds of people and that adding two dozen homes at the end of our street isn't really that big a deal. But it is to those of us that live on our street. There are only 12 of us, or 12 to 16 homes, if you include the front of the cul-de-sac. And we purchased and planned these homes, believing that we were moving to a cul-de-sac, and the zoning all supported it, as well as the signage. And so we are just asking that the city reinforce their recommendation like they did a few years ago. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Johnny Wagaman, 2229 North Mount Juliet Road. Good evening, chair, planning commission members. I'm one of the representatives of the downtown rezone that's on your agenda tonight. Tonight's request is five separate property owners representing 15 individual parcels that are requesting CTC as the base zoning for some of the principal parcels within the downtown district. I wanted to kind of clarify the question in front of the commission tonight for everyone that's here and the citizens that are interested in this. This is just a request to establish base zoning. We're not asking the commission tonight to approve a PUD, a site plan, a preliminary master development plan, building design, or residential density. Any future development plan request would require a separate application and a separate public review process. At that time the Commission, staff, the Board of Commissioners, and the public would have the opportunity to evaluate the specific plan including land uses, design, access, infrastructure, traffic improvements, and all other project details. The request tonight is consistent with the direction already established in the area. Over the past year, this body has recommended CTC zoning changes for three parcels totaling 1.7 acres on East Caldwell Street and has supported the town center land use and CTC rezoning for five acres on Oak Hall Drive. Tonight's application continues that same effort, creating a consistent base zoning framework for the downtown district rather than addressing one isolated parcel at a time. The interest in this direction is also growing. Since this rezone was announced, five additional property owners in this area have contacted our group about potentially pursuing similar zoning on their properties, and other owners have expressed interest in participating in the broader redevelopment of this area. again tonight's vote is limited to the base ctc zoning for these parcels it does not approve a pud or any specific future proposal we respectfully ask for a positive recommendation consistent with the commission's recent actions at 43 east caldwell 47 east caldwell 47b east caldwell and 107 timber trail drive thank you for your time and consideration any additional citizen comments at this time

Please name and address for the record.

Yes, sir. My name is Vince King. I live at 24 Fourth Avenue. And I wanted to address the commission tonight with an issue that I feel pretty strongly about. It's in reference to item 11 on the agenda. I'm going to read from the section 14 109 of the public notice in the ordinance notice in a newspaper of general circulation within the city of mount julius shall be given at least 15 days not more than 30 prior to the meeting the notice shall specify a location current and proposed zoning classification and it shall contain graphic illustration of the area I've scoured and I think everybody would agree that public notices from the city are generally put in the Chronicle of Mount Joy. I went back for 30 days and looked at every addition and that's not there. don't know who's messed it up but you didn't put it in the paper and I don't know if that's because you don't want the entire population of the city of Mount Julia to realize what you're fixing to do other developers are fixing to do secondly This is 14109.3, notice by mail. At least 15 days prior to the public hearing concerning the affected property, all owners of record of adjoining property, including those separated by public weight from the premises in question, shall be notified. The notification required to meet this provision shall be accomplished by certified mail. return receipt request return receipts shall be maintained and subject to public examination upon request that didn't happen i have a copy of an envelope that we got in the mail and i assure you it's not certified mail return receipt if they did it that way i want to see the receipts lastly i'd like to address um In your packet, there is a map, Exhibit B, and I believe it's for the rezone. There's two maps in there. And I'd like to call to your attention that on West Caldwell Street, specifically address 47, they have it in purple on this map. It says OPS. I've researched this piece of property. I've talked to the property owner that's owned it for 30 years. And we have people that know the people that owned it prior to her. Nobody knows anything about a rezone, especially the property owner. I have the property taxes for the 2026 from the state of Tennessee property tax assessor's office, residential. So please make note when you get ready to vote on this rezoning that the specific one on West Caldwell, you're doing spot zoning in between two residential properties. I would recommend you don't do that. And lastly, I'm sorry, I said that a while ago. I totally disagree with numerous statements that the staff made in the memorandum concerning this rezoning. They're stating in there that it will not affect the property owners property value, that it will not impede into the residential portion and of the neighborhood which is one of the oldest neighborhoods in in the city by the way but uh and the other thing is is why does nobody know what they're planning on doing they don't want to tell you that ought to be if i was on this commission that would be the first question i would ask any of these developers what do you plan on doing with this if i rezone There's about six or seven different things they can do. I guarantee you if they're rezoning it, they got a plan. And I know there's people at the city that know what it is. They just ain't going to share it with you. But anyway, I respectfully appreciate your time and a negative recommendation.

Thank you. Any additional citizen comments at this time? Seeing none at this time, we'll move forward with our next item up on the agenda. Next item up will be the minutes approval, item 5A, review and adopt the minutes from the August 20th, 2026 Mount Duke Regional Planning Commission meeting. Any motion in a second? All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. messing on that? Sure. What would your preference be to pull it off? any objection for the commission to hearing uh item 6f at uh directly after 6e that's the last time i'm on the consent agenda moving that off the consent agenda seeing no objection we're going to move item 6f off of the consent agenda will be heard immediately following 6e which would be the completion of our consent agenda Item beginning on the consent agenda with item 6A, development letter of credit number 55111181 for Bradshaw Farms, off-site improvements, Woodridge Place sidewalks in the amount of $1,668,702.40 can be released. Excuse me. Item 6B, Development Letter of Credit Number IS000230615U for Park Glen Phase 20 and 21 Maple Crossing in the amount of $213,702.67 can be released. Item 6C, review the masquerading plan for Golden Bear Gateway, track two, located east of 8000 Golden Bear Gateway. Item 6D, review the final plat for Silver Springs, phase 6B, located at 9621 Lebanon Road. Item 6E, review the final plat for East Division Business Park, located at 1940-2062-2106, East Division Street, 535 Hunting Hills Drive, and PO 1800-1830, East Division Street. Begin with Mr. John, planning. Okay.

I don't have anything other staff recommends approval for the planning related items or with the conditions in the report. No other comments.

Very well. Shane, anything for Public Works?

Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed under engineering. Thank you.

Very well. Questions or comments from the commission? See no questions at this time. I'd like to call for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment about any item on the consent agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments, do we need to close our Planning Commission meeting in order to open a public hearing? Public hearing is in regards to items 6D and 6E. Item 6D is to review the final plat for Silver Springs Phase 6B, located at 9621 Lebanon Road. Item 6E is to review the final plat for East Division Business Park, located at 1940-2062-2106 East Division Street, 535 Hunting Hills Drive. and PO 1800 and 1830 East Division Street. Anyone wishing to make a comment during the public hearing about either one of those two items, welcome. I encourage you to do so. And please go to the microphone and name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll close our public hearing, reopen our planning commission meeting, and at which time I'm looking for a motion in regards to the items on our consent agenda. Motion for approval? A second? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye and raise your hand. Against? Abstentions?

So approved.

Next item up on our agenda is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. It is to item 6F, is to review the PUD amendment for Tillman Place, located at 6235 Central Pike.

shane i'm going to throw it over to our traffic engineer very well todd thank you yeah so a little history on the project uh when this came through staff conditioned the traffic signal to be uh installed uh the doc then ins put in a timeline instead of a co trigger on when that traffic signal had to be installed it had to be installed within 180 days of the land disturbance initiating that timeline has now passed so per the pud they are not allowed to pull any more building permits until that signal is installed the condition also reads that a turn lane has to be installed as part of that condition quite frankly a signal at that location with those volumes without a turn lane will back up traffic to nashville um The developer has run into an issue acquiring the right-of-way. The city will not help private development acquire right-of-way. Therefore, they're stuck per that condition of the PIDE. We are not waiving that condition of the PIDE without a PIDE amendment from the elected body approving that. So that's why they're here tonight. more than happy to answer any specific questions about crashes at the location, volumes at the location, and potential alternatives. But that's going to be more of an answering questions than a full presentation.

Without the need for the easements?

the additional easements just as is no there is not sufficient right away to install the turn lane and the signal poles within the existing right-of-way do the homeowners realize that uh it that doesn't matter is there not like like imminent domain for the process of safety There is, and at some point that right-of-way will be acquired as part of the interchange. However, we are not acquiring that right-of-way for the benefit of private development.

Okay. Commissioner Franklin?

You know, when you lose, the old saying is don't lose the lesson. How do we wind up approving something the developer didn't own the right of way for in the first place and then made a condition and set a time period on it happening?

mean could they not show proof of ownership at time of submission it's very common that we condition off-site improvements and require the development to get the right-of-way this is just another example of that at the time i'm sure they were more confident that they were going to be able to get it are they confident that the interchange would be further along at this point is that fair to say i i don't think that's fair to say i think they they always knew that they were tracking in front of the interchange um at the time the interchange was 32 and got moved up a little bit to 29 but that's still a long long ways out right yeah and they like they they

if anything with the interchange getting moved up it's even closer they they always knew that they were going to be tracking ahead of that i had a question for sam real quick i know that legislation was introduced relatively recently that correct me if i'm wrong that precludes cities from asking for voluntary off-site improvements but this is that accurate I'm fine to be wrong.

Not entirely.

Okay. So, okay.

It allows governments to go into cost-sharing agreements, if that's what you're talking about, for infrastructure.

Okay.

Yes.

But because this was done prior, that wouldn't have any effect on this, correct? I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some legal reason why they could get this removed.

Well, I believe in this case, and Todd, can you answer this, did the traffic study require this?

Yes, it was. Yes and no. The original condition had a signal warrant analysis tied to the 60th CO with them being required to install the signal at that time if it was warranted. I'm just telling you with the volumes that we had within the traffic study, it would have been warranted. The Board of Commissioners then accelerated that timeline 280 days from land disturbance. But, yes, the traffic study did show that a signal was called for there.

Commissioner Franklin. A question for our attorney. Is something like this that's ultimately going to be the right-of-way that's going to be owned by, I guess, either the state or the state at some point, and it's going to happen? Could our elected officials or our legislative body vote to make an exception in this case and use them in a domain to acquire this land? Is that something they could even do?

For the purpose of a traffic signal, they could technically do it, yes. Whether it's budgeted for that, I doubt that.

Okay.

Thank you. And it warps noting that there's also some complications with the installation of the signal with the interchange. The original plan included two different traffic signals, one in the current footprint One, after TDOT acquires a bunch of the right-of-way and we need to move the signal poles out of the construction easement. And then finally, TDOT would then install the permanent signal completely independent of this project.

And unfortunately, those conditions were known at the time that the service agreed upon.

And that is absolutely the risk of tracking ahead of the interchange. Yep. Thank you.

your presentation please name and address for the record good evening i'm joe haddock's heritage civil uh thanks todd for the description i'd like to add a little bit more uh history to that i mean this was not a new request that came to public works within this recent submittal we've been in constant communication with public works basically since GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED.

IT HAS ALMOST AS MUCH TO DO WITH THE UTILITY RELOCATIONS AS IT DOES THE ROAD WIDENING.

WE CAN PHYSICALLY FIT A THIRD LANE AND THE SIGNAL IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT'S JUST MOVING THE UTILITIES OUT OF THE WAY AND GETTING GRADING EASEMENTS. SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, IT WAS NOT A MONETARY THING. IT WAS A WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING INTERESTED. we have made an exhausted efforts todd's seen multiple iterations of a plan like we had the right away we could we could go within a couple weeks uh at this point um so we would request you know uh We're open to suggestions. Todd and I have worked through signal with no turn lane. He's looked at numbers. We've looked at a three-way stop condition. I'm sure he can speak to that. So just kind of throwing ourselves to your mercy tonight to ask for your positive recommendation to BOC to remove these conditions.

And I will say, Joe is right. This is not a situation where the developer sat on their hands, the deadline expired, and now they're SOL. They were working with us throughout the entire process, and it just didn't come together.

What would, out of curiosity, because I know that a matter of fact, I think this condition was not only placed on Tillman, it was replaced on the church as well down the road that we approved. And I want to say we even put this condition on something else. Neither of those have come to fruition or developed out, but always stressing this intersection right here for improvements in this signalized intersection at that. Can understand kind of where you guys are coming from and what you're up against in this, but I guess two things come out of this. Um, I too, I've lived here my whole life, so I've done your 12 laps out of your, uh, intersection, very familiar with it. I've been there, done that one myself. Um, But to me, one of the most complicated issues of the intersection. I mean, if we can't get the right away, then somebody's knocked down the hill. And so if we can't get the right away and we can't improve it, then sorry that you're ahead of TDOT, but then- clear the blind hill. And then all of a sudden you get a safer interchange. You could, the three-way stop becomes an option for you. So we're not gonna put the money in right away. We're not gonna put the money in utility relocation. We're not gonna put the money in a stoplight. I mean, get rid of the blind hill. I think the city's already acquired the property adjacent to it. So that's not gonna be an issue. The Blind Hill is one of the biggest issues. I mean, you get a curb when you're heading eastbound on Central Pike. But I too heard one of the concerns actually, crazy enough, just this afternoon, not intentionally or for any reason, I went all the way from Providence down Central Pike to Tulip Grove to get home because I needed to be over in the Hermitage Corridor as I was heading home. and uh i was like holy moly metro is putting some serious apartments on that end down there on central pike um and that was not something that that this body saw nor mentioned nor really probably thought through at the time that the planning commission approved this so I know personally if the BOC, I normally find the conditions we put here at Planning Commission are a little bit more stringent than what comes out of the BOC at times. And the fact that the BOC felt enough concern to move that condition up more aggressively than what the Planning Commission had recommended i think that if there's going to be a common ground and there's going to be a solution i know it'll affect traffic in a negative way for a little bit it may be again ahead but i think removing the blind hill also offers you up an opportunity to make it a a safer three-way stop or somebody's not going to be heading westbound and plow through somebody at a stop sign or stoplight for that matter because The intersection was a concern of mine, but the blind hill is the biggest concern of mine over anything at that intersection. It's just always been a punch and pray kind of a situation over there. Kind of just an initial thought. It's not going to have my support, but kind of an initial thought just as discussion and open discussion for you guys, I guess, as this is a recommendation item. For those that are aware, this is a recommendation item. Ultimately, this final decision will be made by the Board of Commissioners, not by the Planning Commission here tonight. So if you're following this project, please follow it all the way through the Board of Commissioners past Planning Commission. So just want to make that note. Hang on one second on that.

Please, Shane. Just as Mr. Haddix brought up before, lowering the hill would also entail the same right-of-way acquisition for utility and slope grading to tie back in. So it's the same issue that they're dealing with as well. Yeah. Yeah.

Unfortunate. Please, Tom.

As an option for consideration, No, it was mentioned that we looked at an always stop. I'm not against an always stop. It would behave similarly like the one down the road. So it's going to be stopped for a while, but that's fine. The only thing I would ask if we want to consider an always stop is that there is an overhead flashing um, warning sign being prepared to stop ahead. Um, because that, that hill is blind both ways. So yeah, even though we don't want to start causing problems either.

Yeah. I couldn't agree more. Uh, I agree. I think that, uh, the statement on the flashing light was one that I had thrown in on that approval when, uh, when the Tillman, uh, uh, property came before us at that point in time. Good point. Further questions, comments.

Is that what you're talking about? It depends.

I mean, really, it depends upon the motion from the Planning Commission tonight and ultimately the decision of the Board of Commissioners.

So who's responsible for it? You're saying we've got to figure that out within what we're doing?

All we do is give either a positive or negative recommendation tonight, and ultimately the Board of Commissioners will make a final decision in regards to what action wants to be taken.

Thank you, Joe. Thank you all.

let me go ahead and open it up for citizen comments at this time anyone wish to make comment is welcome encouraged to do so uh remember you only talk at there early or you talk now uh either which one but anyone wish to make comment is welcome encouraged to do so please come the microphone name and address for the record hi my name is amy reese hubbell i live at 245 burton place um my parents live two doors down from us we've lived there for 40 years um

without cutting down that hill and putting a three-way in there you're going to kill people because people fly coming off of that hill i have a 17 year old and a 15 year old and when they drive going that way it is scary as all get out so i don't care what you have to do but doing anything is better than what you're doing now it's nothing so thank you thank you any additional citizen comments this time

This time we'll close our citizen comments. And I am looking for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda.

I'll make the motion for a negative recommendation to the board of commissioners.

Very well. It's a motion. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against. Abstentions. It's a negative recommendation. Next item up on our agenda falls underneath an annexation. This will be 578 South Green Hill Road, item 7A. It's a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. It's a review of the annexation request for 578 South Green Hill Road. Ms. Jill.

Hello. In the time frame since we published the agenda and through tonight, we've realized that we're going to need to defer this item to speak with the county further about some questions that have come up and been raised about this property and the annexation process between us and the county. So we would respectfully request that the body defer this item for us until we get such time that we can get clarification with the county.

Is that also a deferral for item 7B, which is the plan of services for the same property?

Yes, sir. Thank you.

i accept that deferral item 7a let me repeat that real quick for the public and for planning commission notes for the request of staff item 7a which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners review the annexation request for 578 south green hill road has been deferred one month item 7b which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is to review the plan of services for 578 south green hill road has been deferred Next up on our agenda, falls underneath reserve at Whispering Meadows. It's item 8A. It is review the out-of-city sewer request for the reserve at Whispering Meadows located at 8025 Ritter Drive. This is the out-of-city sewer request.

Shane, please. yes sir the the request is to make 14 connections 14 taps for 14 homes on a piece of property that's being developed in the county the property does have city sewer a city sewer line running along the western edge of it And we do recommend approval with our conditions as noted. Here to answer any questions that you may have.

Questions or comments from the commission?

Is there a reason why we wouldn't annex this as well?

I would have to defer to the developer on that.

Is it going to be private?

The sewer?

I'm sorry. We're jumping ahead. Apologies. Yeah.

Further questions, comments from the commission?

Seeing none at this time, I'll open up to citizen comments. Anyone wish to make a comment in regards to this item on the agenda is welcome. I encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone. Name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll close our citizen comments. Looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda. I'll make a positive recommendation on this item.

I'll second that.

It's a motion and a second for a positive recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? There's a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is item 8B. It is to review the primary plant for the reserve at Whispering Meadows located at 8025 Ritter Drive.

jill hello um this is in regards to um the same property you just heard the out of city sewer service zone for the reserve whispering meadows they're coming before you tonight requesting a preliminary plat for the 14 single family lots as shane noted this is a property that is being developed within wilson county however because it is within the city's urban growth boundary they do have to meet within our subdivision regulations The city has reviewed all of the applicable regulations, and at this time, the only waiver request is in reference to the cul-de-sac length, which we will defer to Public Works for their recommendation on that. Otherwise, staff does recommend approval of the preliminary plat for this subdivision subject to our conditions of approval as included with any report. I also do have a letter that needs to be read into the record, but I will let Shane speak to their part of it before I read the letter into the record.

Our conditions of approval are primarily related to the sewer. As we just heard in the out-of-city sewer request, the sewer within this development will be public. It will be maintained by the City of Mount Juliet. Any Any plan approvals for sewer will follow what we do here in the city. So all jurisdiction over the sewer serving the site will be maintained by the city of Matt and Juliet.

Todd, do you want to make any comments about the road?

Yes, please. Public Works supports the cul-de-sac lane variance. They fall within an allowable unit count on a cul-de-sac, which makes it easier to support. The roads are proposed to be private. We are just asking that they remove the existing temporary cul-de-sac or work out a land agreement with the, I guess it'd be with Commissioner Rask and VHOA as they are the affected property owners.

Very well. Questions, comments from the Commission?

Commissioner Winchester, I do need to read a letter into the record as requested by Mr. David Rast.

It says, Mr. Balfman and members of the Planning Commission, I would like my opinions read into the record during the citizen comment period of the Whispering Drive, excuse me, Whispering Meadows on Ritter Drive. My family lives at 8017 Ritter Drive, right at the entrance of the proposed subdivision. of the previous plans and this plan we fully support this plan as presented tonight the homes and lots are larger and the subdivision should be a positive for the residents of kelsey glen we hope that the construction duration will be kept to a minimum but understand there will be some impacts our asks for this item are as follows revise the plan to show full removal of the existing cul-de-sac and establishing a continuous through street include in the plan a condition to remove the barbed wire fencing around the property for the safety of those in the area. including the plan, a condition to remove all dead and dying trees around the perimeter of the property. As this plan will directly affect our driveway, front yard, and sidewalk, we ask that a condition be made to restore all affected areas on our property, such as driveway, grass, and sidewalk. Although this is an early ask in the process, I expect that the HOA and residents will ask for a regular street sweeping during construction to address the dirt and debris. Respectfully, David Rass.

Thank you.

Let's go ahead and ask for representation in regards to this project on the agenda. Give us a little background or maybe even anything on staff comments or the letter that was just read.

As mentioned by staff, I mean, that's probably one of the cleaner staff reports and conditions I've seen in 15 years up here.

So I think we're in agreement with everything.

in agreement with mr rath's statements it's all stuff that's included heard mentioned these are private roads they will be gated gated community been discussed with fire marshal as you heard everybody's good with the length uh number of homes on the cul-de-sac uh can answer any other questions y'all may have but i think this is a a great little development at the end of the cul-de-sac that um I think it's something we can be proud of, and it minimizes the impact to the existing residents on that road. Can I answer any other questions y'all may have?

Questions or comments from the commission?

An annex request.

If memory serves me correct, annexation and zoning was tried for this property a couple years ago and denied.

That is correct.

Thank you. Thank you. This time I'm going to open it up to citizen comments. Anyone wish to make citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda? Please come to the microphone. Name and address for the record. No, ma'am. See no citizen comments this time. Looking for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Real quick, let me reframe. needs a public hearing at this time i need to is that correct sam just it's blue on my sheet does it need a public hearing let me reply hold your thoughts Very qualified. All right. At this time, I need to close our planning commission meeting in order to open the public hearing. Public hearing is in regards to item 8B, which is to review the preliminary plat for the reserve at Whispering Meadows, located at 8025 Ritter Drive. At this time, Ms. Farmer, you may speak again. We'll make sure to give you that one.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. You're very welcome.

I appreciate it. And I sent y'all the email that I sent.

Name and address real quick for the record. I'm sorry.

Trisha Farmer, 8015 Ritter Drive.

Thank you.

You're welcome. I appreciate the opportunity. Listen, there's a reason why this failed the last time and nothing has changed. Literally, it's still using our cul-de-sac, which was a permanent cul-de-sac, which is on all of the plats. It never is designated as temporary. I will continue to beat this over and over again because all of us purchased homes and built. I built for the second time in Kelsey Glen, specifically in that area because it was a cul-de-sac. uh and we were told that it would stay a cul-de-sac and the zoning and also the the plats all support it it does not say temporary so i do not care this is a better plan a better plan than the last is still a plan that's terrible that still takes away the cul-de-sac that we all built on i will also say um in the email that i forwarded you all that they owned a 1200 john wright And they deeded back half of that lot and the easement to the rights so that they could force the end of the cul-de-sac to use our cul-de-sac. They did that. And it says in the law that they cannot request a variance or change in zoning due to something that they have created. And they created this problem and they're looking to the city to fix it now. And I don't think that's right. I mean, at the end of the day, and also there's never been a traffic study. I lived in Kelsey Glen for 10 years because we built two houses there and there has never been a traffic study. And by law, it says shall be complete. So I don't know how this has even gotten this far because we still don't have a traffic study. so i will continue to show up and be a pain in y'all's butts until uh we get at least a traffic study because by it's you know and i will continue to hold this up in procedural things until we have all the other issues outlined and um and addressed so i appreciate y'all thank you thank you so much and i'll be happy to take any questions if you'll have any i know the other people got questions asked so i'm happy to do so thank you is that a no

That's enough. See no additional citizen comments. I will be closing the public hearing, reopening planning commission meeting. And at which time, I'm looking for a motion in regards to this item in urgent.

We get feedback from city staff on those legalities that were brought up.

SURE. SAM, DO YOU WISH TO OPINION?

I AM REVIEWING OUR CODE FOR THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?

I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. I MEAN, IT'S STANDARD PRACTICE, BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR IF THERE'S AN ORDINANCE OR NOT.

Can we table this one until the end?

We can.

We can. Any objection to that? What has been requested to allow to review to address the comments that have been shared with this body is to move item 8B on our agenda. With no motion, no action being taken at this point in time behind item 12. which would be 12a so 8b would be our final item on the agenda prior to adjournment to allow staff to research the comments that have been made and held here any objection to us moving this on the agenda so with that being said we are going to move item 8b to allow those comments to be heard and addressed and we'll move it to the back of our agenda With that being said, we will move forward. Our next item up on the agenda falls underneath the final master development plan site plans, item 9A, to review the final master development plan for Providence Central Town Center, located at Providence Parkway and Central Pike.

Mr. John. Good thing. Here's a oldie but a goodie. This is probably the third time that this pod has been, third iteration of this pod you've seen. As you remember back, the previous iteration had a multifamily. We had a putt amendment where we had a multifamily building with structured parking. That has since failed to materialize. And what you have now before you is more akin to the original approval. This is for area B1. As it's an FMDP, requested um sheet c005 you can see the uh layout change basically from the most current pud or pmdp to what we got now um also on that sheet we got the the substantial compliance criteria listed of which this does not violate any of them in a good way

Let me look at this here.

Substantial compliance, okay. They're asking for some waivers on the materials. Now this was a section of this PUD that did not have any stipulations put on it with the original PUD, with the original PMDP. So they're acceptable requests at this time. And basically what they're asking, this is for the Section B1 as a whole here, is these buildings will be approximately 38% masonry and 62% approximately secondary. So... They can request that at this board, since this didn't have any prior stipulation put on it or condition put on it during the PMDP. Staff, of course, does not support a 38% masonry. It's not typical of what we see in this area. I think something 60% would probably This PUD's kind of all over the place with that, but I think 38% is probably asking for a little much. The summary here, that's 303 residential units, hotel, commercial. If you remember, we repealed our hotel motel ordinance a couple years ago, so there was additional stipulations that were required with that, but that's not, it's not, I don't think it's valid anymore. 31 or 32 acres almost. I want to say commercial space is, let's see here. think 96 000 square feet approximately um 16 000 plus square foot motel and again 303 residential units with that being said if you have any questions we're here or defer to todd there were several conditions in this pod

that would apply during this phase notably the full extension of providence parkway widening the five lanes would be done during this phase but there's some turn lanes and some signal work proposed for this phase that we are asking like It might be out of our hands at this point, because we're smacked up in the middle of that TDOT project. And if TDOT doesn't want to allow that, we can't override that. So in our conditions, we're stating that if those conditions are going to be waived, they need to provide us with a written letter from TDOT stating that those improvements are not required at this time. Yeah, Central Pike and Providence Parkway. There's a couple turn lanes and a signal that are proposed to go there. But it's not our right of way to govern. So if you don't feel that it's going to interfere with the widening project, then we just can't do it.

It's in number seven. Okay.

Okay. Is there any plans to do anything with Adam Park? It's abandoned. No, sir. Who owns City Street? Is there a city right of way?

From what I've gathered, the thing is it builds out. It's ultimately going to be what you call a construction drive. The driveway is going to be built upon. I think BJ's part of it ends. Adams Lane now ends where BJ's, the back of BJ's. So I can check with our public work director to get more further intel on that, but it won't be used as a road again, no.

Please, John. I forgot to mention, if you look at the parking calculations, they're short. They're allowed to ask for a 15% reduction due to the varying peak times of uses is what they have listed in here. So the requirement straight out of the code is 1,251 spaces they proposed.

1063 so that would be something you'd have to okay along with the facade material further questions comments well i think we've had an issue with the the percentages on the building materials yes instead of 40 to 59 i think it should be the opposite on those on those numbers there um and what i think that's what we've been trying to do is make sure and or ensure what we're asking for originally. So I prefer the 61.625 being the masonry rather than the secondary on that, or however else it comes out, 6040.

I actually wrote a, go ahead, Shane.

The old Adam plant will be taken out with the interchange project.

And let me ask this right here of staff real quick. John, one of y'all can probably answer this one. I know that exterior building materials really came up in regards to a couple of projects out there that we granted waivers on. I can't remember the percentages that we granted on them. One in particular that jumps out to me was the Hilton. I believe that's the last hotel before you get into BJ's that is a Hilton, right?

I believe so.

Do you know what we approved for them as far as facade? Because I know that one actually came, deferred, came, deferred, and finally we came to an agreement on that of something, but I can't remember what those percentages were. We can probably look it up here. Okay.

um one other thing i want to clarify is is that you got three retail buildings in here the single storey retail buildings those are full masonry oh wow so there is a portion of this that is full masonry so outside those three buildings is what that request is good point uh let's go ahead and ask for representation of this project uh come on up and name an address for the record please please commissioner bowman item four

not to increase the flora area proposed in the preliminary development plan for non-residential use by more than two percent pmdp is showing 22.5 and fmdp is showing 96 error the actual number is what were you asking about floor area preliminary development by non-residential yeah that's the one so the actual numbers are it actually went down um So it went from 22.5 to... Yeah, it went from, let me see here.

So number four, you said?

Yeah.

388-40-214-635. Okay.

So these numbers in here are accurate.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Please.

Good evening. Joe Haddix, Heritage Civil. Yeah, thanks for clarifying Adams Lane there, Shane. Our developer, you'll remember a couple years ago, Adams Lane was relocated, which was ultimately part of the PUD approval. Save some money on the future interchange project, get it out of the way.

So thank you for that.

I'll probably talk about the previous conditions Todd was mentioning, as shown in Public Works Condition 7. We're in agreement with that. As Todd can attest, the current plan for Central Pike in that area shifts that intersection about 50 feet to the west and raises the grade somewhere in the four to five foot range. So we're trying to work through how we put in temporary improvements that can stay during that construction. So that'll be presented with the final site plan as we come in. would request your approval of the parking reduction by 15% as as allowed as John mentioned just due to the trips accounted for with our residents and all the commercial space in here the material waiver appreciate staff providing the breakdown if you on each one of the elevations we do give a north south east and west And as you're looking at those, it's in the 50 to 55% range masonry for anything visible from Providence Parkway or internal to the project where we're trying to create this nice walkable space, amenity park in the middle. So basically the front of the multifamily buildings. into the commercial space.

And as John mentioned, the waiver is only for the residential buildings and not for the commercial buildings.

So if you were to include the commercial percentages in with the residential and look at it as a cohesive development, we're probably exceeding 60% masonry. It also helps with the residential buildings at their scale. It's hard to break it up and not make it look like a big mass or very institutional, which I don't think anybody wants. So by introducing some other materials and giving us a little flexibility, we can really make it look more like individual units, different building scales. So again, happy to answer any questions. Would appreciate your support on the parking and the material waiver. I'm here to address any questions.

Please, Commissioner Franklin.

I've got a question on parking. You've got a 15% reduction for internal capture. It says required $1,251, total provided $1,068. Where is most of that savings or deletions of parking spaces coming from?

From the retail side?

It's not real clear where it you've reduced for internal capture and adjusting for differential peak parking times. That's a great little phrase, but I mean, I'm just wondering who's not going to get a parking place. I'm not going to go in front of a restaurant or where are they being taken from, but is it just all?

Yeah. So, uh, the, the unit mix here is, um, didn't want to take it from any one location uh oh nor we didn't want to short a specific area so it's kind of throughout but again like during during the day the the restaurants you're assuming that the residents aren't there kind of vice versa coming home at night uh restaurants are closing down as you're coming home so of the thousand of the 1251 At 15%, that reduces to 1,063, of which we've made.

Oil. Still unclear. So it's just the whole parking in general. You're just taking 15% off all the parking, equally distributed or equally non-provided.

Right. We're not trying to set a restaurant or commercial space off in the corner without a parking. We want to make sure everything does have adequate parking. And as you can see from this development, it is rather – Efficient layout, like you could park up along Providence Parkway and walk to the apartments. Nothing is that far of a walk as you come in internal. It's akin to what you've seen recently redeveloped in Green Hills.

Let me throw it over real quick. John, I think you had a comment as well you wish to share?

Jill, I pulled up the approval letter for the Hilton, 74% masonry-ish.

That's what Hilton wound up with? Yeah. OK. I was just curious. That's what I was going to make a quick comment here while Commissioner Frank is looking on this. It's kind of been a hot button of mine throughout the entirety of this year, where you see one, then you see another. This is one that I'll say doesn't necessarily give me the heartburn that others have given me previously. One is that this development has continued to before this body and past has done what they said and oftentimes done more than we've even asked I think that was the extension of Providence Parkway when we had it too they went ahead and built it to the wide and as we developed all the way over to Central Pike Providence Parkway made that connection the infrastructure was there allowing some things to speed up and develop as it came through One of the things too that I'm trying to look at and be more open-minded to for my seat is that as we get some of these areas around the interstate like this is to try to decrease traffic, decrease the impact to our roads. This one, in my opinion, develops out in a form and fashion that is reflective of once you're home, you can walk to get a burger you can walk to shop you can go to convenience retail or whatever it is and there's more of a design plan of what I would say is mixed-use versus several of them that I think that we've seen of recent that I don't necessarily throw that to me, it looked like the minimum commercial that they could do is what we had. And this doesn't come out like that. And as well, looking at the siding variants on this or the facade variants on this one, I think one of the things that's important as well is this will be a visible from I-40 kind of a site as it does develop. And I think the architecture is complimentary to kind of a change in times and season. It does look similar to some of our others that have developed recently in the community. Tastefully done. Architectural elements appear to be long term and conducive. So even though I'm not a fan of a lot of them, this is one that I personally think looks better. Although I was excited about the initial one because it was going to have the courtyard in the middle and, again, kind of the Franklin Green Hill kind of a feel to it, mixed use. And theirs seemed to work really well down there in some of the stuff that had been planned and done. And so I would have liked to have seen something like that, but I understand things do change.

It only has one restaurant in that area. I know there are many restaurants just within driving distance, but I'm just curious if that's the only one particularly planned and you had to plan ahead for any restaurant for the great fit snacking.

one that has an active LOI on the property. So that would be one of the first site plans that you would see coming in. But it's anticipated to have multiple restaurants throughout. Okay.

The retail could potentially be smaller. That's right.

Yeah. This is, again, this is our the entry on the eastern the easternmost entry those four buildings three buildings are kind of the first commercial you're likely to see then everything else we flexible uses feedback in front of you uh commissioner or mr franklin if i could go back to your parking uh question earlier part of it um if you look at how we park the multi-family projects A one-bedroom unit requires one and a half spaces per unit, of which we have 178 on-bedroom units. So just for easy math, it's only one person in there with one vehicle. We pick up 80 parking spaces immediately.

Well, my main concern was the parking around the retail. And as I've dug into it a little bit more, It is distributed better than some I've seen. I'm always worried that if you skimp on parking places in front of retail, now that we have so many choices in Mount Julie, you just lose a customer. And, you know, soon you lose a tenant. And I just try to look out for that.

I would add, if you're looking at that plan, on the far west-hand side behind the L-shaped office retail, BUILDING, THAT AT SOME POINT COULD BECOME A ONE TO TWO STORY STRUCTURED PARKING. WE KIND OF CONFIGURED THE GRADING IN THERE TO ACHIEVE THAT. SO WE'RE SET UP IF IT ULTIMATELY DOES BECOME A HUGE ORDEAL WITH PARKING, SORT OF THE DEVELOPER IS ABLE TO ADD SOME. JUST PLANNING AHEAD.

really love where the pool is at. Those folks are going to have a nice view of the parking lot and then interstate 40. I'd love to see that internal somehow, even to have that apartment L flip-flop so the pool is internal to the facility, but it's just a quality of life thing. Other questions, comments?

Thank you. Thank you. Let's go.

One more thing that not on this body last month approved the spectrum sound.

Oh, yeah.

site plan, which is directly across like that had about 25% make sure if you recall, just perfect.

Thank you. Let's go ahead and open the floor up to citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment regarding this item on the agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and name and address for the record.

i'm michelle nelson 607 windy road i wasn't prepared to comment on this but something that kept coming up to me is it's very tempting and normal to look at projects in isolation okay and this project is being discussed in isolation which i understand but we talked earlier about another issue down central pike as building is continuing on central pike pressure is going to build on central pike so make sure you step back and look at the bigger picture when you're looking when you are discussing and viewing these smaller these other projects don't keep them in isolation thank you thank you any additional citizen comments

Closer citizen comments at this time. And at this time, I'm looking for a motion in regards to this item in our agenda. The motion for approval. Does that still stand? Motion for approval.

With the masonry. Well, he did say the masonry changes on the hotel. 70 is what we did on that that was commercial they're doing 100 on their commercial so we think it's okay the way he's got it done here okay i'm okay okay i did want to raise it but he was explaining how that was overall effective overall sure

So it's a motion for approval. Subject to staff comments and with the variance. And with the parking variance. Is that correct?

Parking variance. Yes.

That's a motion. And a second. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on our agenda is to read the final master development plan site plan for Ballards at Elliott Reserve. Okay, at 12-440 and 12-370 Leavenham Road. Mr. John?

Yes, sir. This is in the Elliott Reserve development. This is for the, I believe it's the, would be the easternmost commercial lot. And the plan is for a 9,000 square foot restaurant bar on one and a half acres. And I think the biggest, this looks like a pretty nice building. I got a couple things to talk about here. The only waiver request is for the building facade materials, as usual. Some interests or different things about this is that this waiver will, if you look at the elevations, you'll see that they have a screen wall for the rooftop utility equipment. That typically must be a parapet wall. That's part of the waiver request you'd be weighing in on. Also, the cooler on the side of the building, if you'll see, that has fiber cement screening around it as well. Staff supports both of these or all these facade variances. And that's the gist of it. I think parking is compliant. Everything should be good. Conditions are pretty typical for a site plan for a restaurant. Yeah, that's about it. Standard stuff with this one. Jane, anything from Public Works?

Staff recommends approval with our conditions as listed. Thank you.

Questions, comments from the commission? no questions or comments this time we have representation uh for this project i'd like to speak you're welcome encouraged to do so name and address for the record evening joe haddix heritage civil uh we're in agreement with all staff comments and conditions and respectfully request your approval of the waivers as requested any questions comments thank you thank you This time, I'd like to call for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment in regards to this item on the agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and name an address for your record. Seeing no citizen comments this time, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. There's a motion and a second. For those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on the agenda is item 9C, review the site plan for Cheerville, located at 235 Bear Crossing. Ms. Jill.

Sorry, a little discombobulated. This is for a site plan at the Legacy Point development. This is going to be an athletic facility. It is across from Costco and located close to the upcoming Slick City development. It's approximately 17,766 square foot, single story athletic facility. They will have cross access to Slick City, 54 parking spaces, and they are requesting a commercial design standards waiver which is conducive to the area of what's been set precedence and approved previously. They're wanting 36.7% masonry and 58.3% secondary, which will be utilized in the metal panels, such as what was approved for Slick City and Costco. Staff does recommend approval of the site plan in accordance with the conditions of approval we've included in your staff report.

Shane, anything from Public Works?

Approval of their conditions is listed. Thank you.

Very well. Questions or comments from the commission? Please, Commissioner Bowman.

Huge fan of Cheerville, further east down division. I'm a cheer dad myself, so I'm there often. Very familiar with the current facility and love to see all of the owners expanding their business in the area. had a question primarily around parking because of my familiarity with the current facility and and parking can be um interesting to say the least so are we is is the building properly parked today and or will they have access to some of those spots within slick cities parking

I am glad you asked that because due to the unique nature of this facility, with it being an athletic type facility, they are proposing 54 spaces. And I do know at the height of when they have their classes and so forth there that it can be. quite high in numbers. So the Planning Commission does have the ability to determine the proper number of spaces. There's not been any indication as to whether there will be a shared parking agreement, but what seems to be for the most part in that area, Legacy Point are good neighbors amongst each other with those type parking and everything. And since this is a limited use at certain times of the day, that does give you all the ability to approve or delineate from what's been requested.

OK, that actually would love feedback from the school and call for representation.

This project kind of microphone name and address for the record.

Jessica Gore, para design 145 Bear Crossing. We we've worked with the owner significantly. They, of course, have the East Division location currently, and they've built the new location also in Hendersonville. and they feel like that's more than adequate parking for them at this time there is cross access with slick city and also costco so i think the idea is there are many people that do drop off especially for the older kids but when we discuss that with the owner because were some some thoughts on pushing the building back but there are some slope slope issues as well as um the existing storm structure that's going in with slick city that goes to the um regional pond so that's that's how we landed where we are but we we did ask the question of the owners like is this enough parking and she indicated that it was

are you going to seek a parking agreement additional parking agreement i can inquire about that with the owner i would the only reason i bring that up is i did a little research the other day on dropping off and picking up my daughter from the current facility and there probably 90 plus spots now shared amongst the rest of the businesses. But a vast majority of that parking is a Cheerville customers at the current facility. And it is a pro to the best of my knowledge is approximately 8,000 square feet where this facility is going to be 17,000. So I'm just making the assumption that there will be far more students at this facility than the current. And I, I, I think that's 54 spots is going to greatly inhibit their ability to get people in and out of the facility. I don't know if there is any ability at all. I kind of doodled to put any parking behind the building. Like you mentioned, it has slopes back there. So I'm not sure if that's a possibility, but I would strongly recommend looking into those.

There's a strain buffer back there.

What's that?

There's a strain buffer back there.

Got it.

okay i see enough thank you yeah i got one for you real quick um this one gives me i know we staff said that we've approved some with the metal facade over here in this area um but i want to say was if slick city was just the rear of the building which unfortunately looks like it probably faces this a little bit right now this one looks like a pole barn from an architecture standpoint.

Sleek City actually had some metal on the front, whereas this one does not.

And my concern is the monolithic nature of the other three sides, that there's like no architectural design whatsoever with them, that it really looks like a shed or a pole barn.

Sleek City is very similar in the design. If you are aware of the industrial behind, I believe it's, hold on, I'm going to come up with it.

I just gave the church a hard time about this over on Clemens.

That's right. This backs up to industrial across the street. Hollister is behind this.

How visible? Because this looks pretty visible from the interstate. Is this pretty visible from the interstate with your FFA?

This is not visible from the interstate. It's kind of tucked right back by Costco. If you look, if you go to the end of Legacy Point.

I was trying to figure out.

The high point is toward the end. This actually slopes down. You know how Costco slopes down? Well, it's been brought up a little bit. That site has been brought up a little bit, but we had to keep going down to marry the cross-access with Costco's drive that was already stubbed out. So this is going to sit lower than Slick City.

Sort of sit kind of down a little bit.

Just a little bit. Now, they do want a little bit of visibility from Legacy Point.

sure and and if you're at legacy point which part of the building am i seeing am i seeing the front if i'm at legacy point that's really the visual point on this reason why i'm asking is because looking at your landscape plan too it's mainly around the parking lot and the reverse l perimeter that does that but no plantings or anything on i guess the south side of the building Yeah, because the building faces kind of northeast. So the south side of the building right there on the parking. If you guys have any heartburn, just put some of those, maybe five, six trees over through there because I'm sure that you're going to do a clean clearing. Just a few trees. It's going to be some green space over there. Just add a little bit of shade. It may be something that they enjoy down the road with picnic tables or something if you get some established trees on the back. Are you saying in the rear? Yeah, kind of in the triangle back there. You see there's your stream buffer.

They can add some at the top of the bank.

Yeah, you know what I mean? Just that area to the back of the building, maybe five or six trees across through there. Provide some shade down the road and just kind of break that up a little bit. I don't think it hurts anything from that standpoint.

Not a major commitment, but.

That's right.

Yeah, just a little. Because, I mean, eventually that could be a nice place for picnic tables or places to gather or something like that. know for these type of events so could could be something that would be nice in the future further questions comments from the commission thank you thank you thank you This time I want to go ahead and call for citizen comments. Anyone wish to make a comment in regards to this item in our agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. I see no citizen comments at this time. I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve, subject to staff comments, approval of variance request, as well as the addition of five to six trees on the south side of the building. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 9D. It's to review the site plan for Grays Point Commons, located at 3336 North Mount Juliet Road. Ms. Jill.

Thank you. This site plan that is being proposed before you tonight is for a multi-story tenant building that is going to be located just south of Faulkner Lane. The building is approximately 9,822 square feet, two stories that is expected to host office retail and restaurant. It is currently zoned CTC and therefore permitted by right. They have met pretty much all of the conditions that have been set forth to them in prior reviews. They only have one waiver variance request. They're requesting a 15% reduction. which is equivalent of eight spaces. They are required 73 for the varied uses and they are proposing 65. Staff does support that reduction in the parking due to the uncertainty of the use at this time. There is a cross-access easement over to the north to the veterinary office and it appears that they will be using a shared drive with access to North Mount Juliet Road, but I will defer to public works to speak to that, but staff does recommend approval with the conditions as provided in your staff report.

Thank you. Okay, public works. We want to talk about the access. Yes, sir. Todd, please.

As Jill mentioned, no direct access to North Mount Juliet Road. They'll be using two existing driveways, and I want to thank the development for their cooperation in exploring that as an option. the 15% might be a little aggressive on the shared parking. Nothing crazy. I don't think they're drastically under what they need. I did a shared parking analysis and got about 10%. So we're talking about the difference of three or four spaces. But honestly, I'll defer to John and planning about whether they think it's appropriate or not.

Okay.

Got a quick question while we have you here, Todd. i can't tell and and couldn't really pick up on where this connects on the south side right there is that is that that access road that goes all the way back to the church in between yes sir the gwen medical center i guess is what uh what it's called yeah so that's where that is are you good with that access point there todd versus lining up with the westerly access point that's to that accesses the gwen building Because it looks like on the plot that that's how they access is further west versus. Yes, sir.

Once they're no longer in the public right of way, it gets up to the landowners. And I'd rather have a misaligned driveway on a. pretty low volume off arterial driveway than to have a direct connection and have three driveways in that sort of a stand.

It allows us to keep the dumpster at the rear, too. I was kind of noticing that if you move that around and line those up, it really makes it a challenge.

Okay. And if things get too backed up, they can always circle around and get out. I believe there's now indirect access all the way to Faulkner, so...

Okay. So they really have, they'll have access to Faulkner through the adjacent property. They'll have access across from Hatfield. Then they would have access off that church access road right there. Exactly.

Okay.

Good.

Further questions, comments from the commission?

Seeing none at this time, I'll open the floor for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make comments is welcome and encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. There is one variance request. Yeah, it is an approval, but there is one variance request of attendance. Motion. Motion. In a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raise your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 9E, the site plan for Lightbridge Academy, located at 11233 Leavenham Road. Ms. Jill.

Yes, sir. This is another site plan before you tonight for a child care facility that is going to be located just to the due east of the Mount Juliet Village Shopping Center, directly behind Walgreens. The facility is going to be approximately 11,960 square feet. They are not requesting any variances or waivers, which is very unique in this day and time. They are going to be presenting a 100% masonry product. One of the codes that we do call out on here in accordance with 3-106-6C is that they do or are required for safe pickup and delivery of children. An unloading zone is required. One unloading space is required for each 20 children. Loading and unloading of the children from vehicle shall only be permitted on the driveway through parking area and directly in front of the facility. We do require that they have the people drop off and pick up areas and staff parking signage is noted in front of the facility. 50 parking spaces are what is required for this type of facility given the size they're proposing. 35, you all do have the ability to give the waiver on that reduction of the parking. One other issue that has kind of been brought up is the circulation around the perimeter of the building is there's only one means of ingress and egress onto Ballpark Road that directly connects to Mount Juliet Village along with the Mount Juliet Little League facilities. I'll defer on the perimeter area, the perimeter around to Public Works, but staff does recommend approval subject to the conditions that's provided in your staff report.

Shane, public works.

We recommend approval of our conditions as listed.

Questions, comments from the commission? I have one. So looking at this, if I'm correct, the property, eventually this is going to have, I'm thinking about cross-access to the easterly properties on this, the alignment from the public center towards the front, and eventually accessing the Claire Day property, should it develop, to provide access back over to the stoplight. Is that how this site would develop, should the adjacent property develop? So that's my question back to you.

Yes, sir. The development team did indicate the potential for the Southern part portion of this parcel to develop. We do have a condition in there that they grant the easement to the Easter re parcel from that, that stub you see on the South there. And once you're at that stub, there's an access easement to get to the signal. So let me,

that's perfect that's that's kind of what i wanted to make sure that we had those mechanisms in place and the easements uh for that to happen uh should this develop most likely that'll come thereafter one of the things i thought on this too is it's going to be access in the private ballpark road uh if i'm not mistaken there that Pretty good slope area where this access point is going to be on that. That is a non-maintained road or access right there. That means nobody's going to salt it or do anything should weather events happen. Then you're going to put this many kids right there at that same point as well. I believe it turns into a private drive right about this point or before. with no one maintaining and would it be that in lieu makes me think even if it was a temporary stub out to the south side of this that would eventually be closed would it be prudent of us to make this more of a horseshoe access at this point in time even if I mean, I see no reason why it wouldn't be a good idea to open up two access points to that private drive or ballpark road. And just thinking that the northerly point of this and that access point, trying to visualize where that's going to be, I think that's just before you get to the gate that is closed and locked to the ballpark, if I'm not mistaken. So that's kind of a magic question, whoever.

i'm glad you mentioned that too as well um because one of the conditions of approval is an on-site vehicle turnaround or separate entrance and exit points passenger loading area shall be provided in accordance condition okay do you want to speak to the other issue or thoughts on that yeah so i did a lot of digging on the access to this one and generally what i found was

It's not far right away. We don't have the same power to regulate that. I mean, the access they show is north of the gate, but that's between the property owners to figure out. Our hands are a little bit tied since we're so far off the road here.

So the access point is to the north of the ballpark gate.

I mean, when the ballpark locks it, their gate, they had no access. Again, that's going to be between the property owners to work out, but if you read the plots, they do have some entitlements to access from that road. The flood actually helped pay for Ballpark Road.

Go ahead. Name and address for the record.

We own that property and The gate is located on our property, and we've allowed the Little League to have that gate there. We've talked to them, and they're going to relocate that gate to their property line, which is at the bottom of the hill. So if that helps your decision any, that gate will no longer be there.

I know the ballpark is struggling with funds right now, not even the ability to pave their parking lot. Do you think this development could assist them in that, moving of that gate?

Well, the road doesn't belong to the ballpark. It belongs to the shopping center, I believe. If you look at the property lines, you're probably aware of that. So it's really up to the shopping center to maintain the road. If there is any maintenance, the way we see it, I'm not sure how you might interpret it.

No, I was just looking at the expense of moving a gate like that for the Little League ballpark that's struggling for funds as it is currently.

I said he would relocate the gate for you.

How about that?

You'll be made president again next year.

Thank you. Let's go ahead and call for representation.

Alex Buttermer, 2101 Rexford Road.

Talk about any of that. I mean, you think all of that's good. You guys would be willing to help them a little bit on that?

We definitely will be. I mean, moving a gate is pretty simple. We have explored changing the entrance to plan south where that additional parking is. And just with the topo of that specific property, there would be a 10 foot retaining wall really against the building um i mean we this is our seventh iteration of a site plan and this is the one that really fits best for this specific property so understand the concern about ice um and that is something that uh we can work with with a tenant on That is a valid concern, but the single entrance is really the only way to get this specific building and parking here.

I would imagine once you guys start, that would make the property to the north more attractive for development. It kind of relieves the issue of that, just making sure that we got everything kind of lined up and in place for that to happen whenever it does. Exactly right. And during replatting, we will grant that easement. It would be a good location right there next to all your clientele. That's right. Yeah. That's pretty neat. Other questions, comments? Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you. Let's go ahead and open this up for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to make a comment at this time is welcome. I encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone. Name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'd like to ask for a motion or a regard to this item on our agenda. Very well. That's a motion. And a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? So approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 9F, is to review the site plan for Nashville Motorcars located at 80 Belinda Parkway. Ms. Chiu.

Thank you. Yet another site plan before you tonight. This facility is going to be located at 80 Belinda Parkway. It will be sandwiched in between the current dealerships of Two Rivers Ford and Music City Honda. It is going to incorporate two buildings, a 4,100 square foot sales facility and a 17,000 square foot service center. It is currently zoned CMU PUD, so it is permitted by right. There will be cross access to Two Rivers Florida and Music City Honda. They are requesting 147 parking spaces. They are only required to provide 43. However, for the unique use of the sales and storage, they do have to have that excessive amount of parking. They do have one commercial design standards waiver for the facade materials. The current sales facility building is going to have 95% masonry, 5% secondary. The service facility that is tucked in the rear of the property is requesting a 55% masonry, 45% secondary material of metal panels. Staff does support the requested waiver for those materials. We also do recommend approval in accordance with the conditions on the stack report as provided.

Thank you. Shane, anything from Public Works?

No, sir. We recommend approval of our conditions as listed.

Very well. Questions, comments from the commission?

We have to know roughly what the percentages of the facades are on the Ford and Honda dealers. I'm thinking in my mind.

Bigger variances than this, I think.

Yeah.

I think.

least for the sales facility they're going to be predominantly the masonry so they're going to be the standout product because they are fronting well into parkway which is an ideal situation if there is going to be any variations we would prefer that it be that service facility in the rear but i would say at least the sales building is going to stand out with much more masonry on the front that's great for the questions comments

Let's open the floor for citizen comments. Anyone wish to make a comment in regards to this item on the agenda? We'll encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone and name and address for the record. I see no citizen comments this time. I'd like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions?

So approved.

Next item up on our agenda is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners to review the land use plan amendment to light industrial for East Division Street Logistics located at 1271 East Division Street. This is the land use plan only. Mr. John.

The request is land use, as you said, light industrial from mixed use. It's currently mixed use out there. And the request is because there's a warehouse already there. So staff does not recommend approval since the land use plan does not support industrial. Very well. Thank you.

Questions or comments from the commission? Seeing none at this time, we'll call for assistance and comments in regards to this item on the agenda. We are reviewing the land use plan. Anyone wish to make a comment is welcome and encouraged to do so. Come to the microphone. Name and address for the record.

I'm here representing the developer on this one. just wanted to give some background on the project here you know this developer has inherited this project from the future landowner uh who got this project previously approved inside of uh the county so our my client has bought a you know shovel ready lot got started with construction and at this time you know after uh you know getting a feel for You know, where the project was at and consulting with, you know, city staff, we feel that this is the best path forward for both our client and the city. You know, with this project, we are proposing to install a half mile of public sewer through Forest Main and widen East Vision Street and add an additional turn lane to widen it to three lanes. We just ask for a positive recommendation here.

So the person you represent wasn't the original person that got the approvals on this property, is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you. Seeing no additional citizen comments at this time, we'll close our citizen comments. At which time, we're looking for a recommendation in regards to this item in our agenda. I'll make a motion for a negative recommendation.

Second.

It's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? There's a negative recommendation. With a negative recommendation on this, Sam, I need to continue forward with the rest of these items on the agenda. Is that correct?

I suppose the applicant could continue with annexation if they wanted to, but you might want to ask if they're even interested.

May I inquire to the applicant? You have received a negative recommendation for the Planning Commission in regards to the Land Use Plan Amendment. Would it be your desire to continue forward with the annexation request, plan of services, and preliminary master development plan in regards to this item on the agenda, or would you desire to defer those? If you come to the microphone and request deferral on items 10 B, 10 C and 10 D please.

We'd like to defer items 10B, 10C, and 10D, please.

I will accept a deferral on that. That is a request by the applicant. We are accepting the deferral of item 10B, which is a recommendation item. Back to the Board of Commissioners. Review the annexation request for East Division Street Logistics. Okay, 1271 East Division Street, item 10C. Deferred per the request of the applicant, which is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. Review the plan of services for East Division Street Logistics located at 1271 East Division Street. Item 10D has requested deferral by the applicant. That is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners. Review the preliminary master development plan, including the rezone request to our PUD for East Division Street Logistics located at 1271 East Division Street. All three of those items have been deferred per the request of the applicant. Next item up on our agenda would be goals underneath downtown Mount Juliet. It's item 11A. This is a recommendation item back to the Board of Commissioners to review the land use plan amendment to town center for the downtown Mount Juliet parcels located at 4851 at 68 West Caldwell Avenue, 56 and 63rd Avenue, and 0 North Mount Juliet Road. Mr. John?

Sure thing. Mr. Wagaman gave a pretty good overview of what they're doing here on this land use. You have two separate land uses amendments that they're asking to change. One is low density residential and neighborhood commercial on a few of the lots. The requested classification for the land use is town center for all of them. staff does not typically support land use plan amendments. Thank you.

Very well. Shane, would Public Works have any opinion on this?

No, sir.

Very well. Questions or comments from the commission? Let me go ahead and ask, do we have a representation for this? Name and address for the record.

Mike Wright with Lowe's Design, 2809 Foster Avenue, representing multiple applicants.

All right, Mike, I got to ask the magic question, at least for me and what I have heard. Let me just start with the citizen comments out there.

are we aware uh is this in compliance with all public notifications so that i know that that concern was brought up so let's go ahead and ask that and or do you want to speak to that or i believe the public notifications the gentleman referred to as this is a recommendation the voc it's a legislative act and those notifications are specifically before the public car the public hearing before the voc meeting um mr baldwin may want to confirmed or didn't correct that, but I think that's what the situation is.

The certified letters are required before the public hearing, which happens at the BOC. And same with the newspaper. The Planning Commission bylaws require just regular mail to be sent to neighbors before Planning Commission. So that has been met.

Very well. Yes.

Very well. All right.

I should clarify that signs were required and the signs went out.

been here a long time I'm not aware that I have seen something with this kind of impact one presented to the Planning Commission with no applicant whatsoever to find on any application or any document that I've been presented here in front of me which not excited about it says the applicant so the applicant I've got Nothing. We've got maps that are public information. One, I don't have an applicant on anything that I've got here presented in front of me. Two is you're asking for something big right in the middle of Mount Julent and you provided zero vision. um when you're asking for something like this in my opinion it would be a good time to at least present some kind of a concept plan to give us some kind of basis to make a decision on and we have again not been provided with anything on that so multiple reasons i'm confused as to we're going to hear land use plan now and then we're going to hear a rezone request immediately thereafter and you've given us nothing well if i may start with the applicant question

If I remember correctly, on the form, there are three slots, one for engineer, one for owner, one for applicant. The owner was provided for each parcel, as well as signed affidavits as required by those owners.

Hang on real quick. Does staff agree with that right there, and why would we not receive that?

I did ask for information. No. And staff did give it to me.

I was going to say, generally, as standard, we don't provide the applications. We just verify all that information is legitimate and all the applicable information that is given to us in the affidavits are correct.

Gotcha. All right.

Cool. So your second question, Mr. Chairman, or your second concern? As I assume you well know, the applications before you are in no small part a result of the city's fairly recent RFP process to establish a town center. Negotiations with Mission Development, I think, were finalized not that long ago. As Mr. Wagaman mentioned in his comments, I feel that requesting CTC is not without precedent. And while I'm a designer and love to do concept plans and prepare those things, we've not been authorized to do so at this point. That's about all I can tell you.

I will state that several projects Mr. Wagaman is misinformed that we did have information and concepts and plans on at least two that he tried to refer to when he spoke before this body and and I think he made a poor assumption in that this body is appointed and therefore being an appointed body doesn't mean that we track or knowledge of what goes on within city hall itself and its operations or and or desires so the fact that we have really nothing is a poor assumption i can tell you myself personally i like to think that i'm fairly tied into things and um honestly

i don't know well i think you misunderstood mr chairman it's not my intention to insinuate that the planning commission was anyway involved in that process i was simply alluding to the fact that the applications before you are a result of that process all right i'm just welcome to speak well i mean

The problem with this is it's in violation of the existing land use plan, and this body's pretty good about allowing land use plan amendments. Maybe too good about that sometimes, but I've never voted on one that I didn't know what the goal or the mission was here. I think I know what the goal and mission is here, but I can't confirm that. But I don't have enough information to really support it. Kind of the same opinion.

Further questions, comments from the commission? Thank you. Seeing none, at this time we'll call for citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Any citizens who wish to make a comment are welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on the agenda.

If we vote negative, is this still going to the Board of Commissioners?

I would have to receive sponsorship, but it would be allowed to proceed forward to the Board of Commissioners. That would be correct.

I'm going to make a negative recommendation.

Motion for a negative recommendation?

Aye, sir.

And a second. It's a motion and a second for a negative recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? That is a negative recommendation. I am going to move upon the assumption that we should hear item 11b at this time as well. very well perfect um next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners review the rezone request to ctc commercial town center for the downtown mount jewett parcels located 69 71 and 73 east hill street 46 48 and 50 a and b east caldwell avenue 46 west division street 46 48 49 51 53 and 68 west caldwell avenue 63rd avenue zero north mountain road mr john there's nothing else to add to that very well would imagine public works has nothing on this either very well questions or comments from the commission Do we have representation that would like to speak towards this?

Again, Mike Wright with List Design, 2809 Foster Avenue. I'm just here to answer your question, Mr. Chairman.

Comments remain the same, except it appears this time I have multiple applicants that are even greater than the applicants were on the land use plan amendments. And again, we don't show anything towards that i know that this body very doesn't very often recommend rezone requests without any type of a concept plan or knowledge of what is proposed or wanting to be done without such knowledge or concept there so just comments remain the same here too thank you Can we go ahead and open the floor for citizen comments? Anyone wishing to make a comment in regards to this item on the agenda is welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

Hello. My name is Robin Eakes, and I live at 56 West Caldwell. First of all, my understanding that to be in the CTC, you have to front North Mount Junior Road. Properties 49, 51, and 53 do not front Mount Lee Road. second of all you're supposed to have five acres according to the downtown ctc that property actually has even though they say 4.86 i have the exact measurements on each property they have 4.5 so they are still way way short on this project number two They have 56 3rd Avenue on the land use thing. Well, 56 3rd Avenue is a residential property. So I'm not understanding why that was even put in there. Because on the other end is a residential property, and on this end is a residential property. I am definitely against the rezone for the CTC. I live directly across the street. And I don't want it. And every time it comes up, I will be up here to say the same thing. I do not want it. I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Seeing no additional citizen comments at this time, we'll close our citizen comments, at which time I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion in a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? That is a negative recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item. It is item 12A, to review the zoning ordinance amendment to Article 8. I believe this would be Mr. Johns.

And probably Miss Jill. Double down. For the FMDP here, I can see it involved removing... Give us a sec real quick.

Let some people exit here real quick. I'll give you guys a chance to regroup here.

Perfect. Mr. John, you have the floor. Thanks. OK, so two amendments in here. One is to our FMDP checklist. And in response to some of the items we've been seeing lately with drastic layout changes, the PMDP checklist says approximate location. So I removed it from the FMDP checklist. So by the time you get the FMDP, you're going to know the exact location. It's going to require not the approximate location, the location. of the buildings. And then the other thing was the substantial compliance list. This one was a little tougher. I welcome some kind of feedback on this language, but basically I added to to two items to it. And number seven, the original list with six very location massing or design of buildings from what was proposed in the preliminary master development plan to degree determined unacceptable to the planning commission. That kind of ties in with the FMDP change. I don't know how legal that language. That's a tough one, the verb put in the writing there, like what the threshold is. And then also I added because not only does the building design change sometimes significantly, the overall layout of these buildings kind of hold them to that a little tighter too on this substantial compliance. Some of the other items, the other list of items, left them alone. I think they're fine.

Very good. Thank you. First of all, we appreciate your guys' effort on this right here. I'm happy I got a bunch, so I can either lead or I'll lead. All right. Item 1A, John, and I know there's no change right here, but this is just kind of a Q&A, kind of a deal back for you. Grading plan indicating the anticipated finished topography of the area involved contour shall be shown vertical intervals no greater than two feet where topography does not extend 10% and five feet elsewhere. Does... Things like that address, you know, I guess kind of how, one of the things I like to look at on a plan, the size we give our plans, often I'm using the magnifying function on my phone so I can zoom in on it, but I like to look at the FFE of the building versus the adjacent land. Does something like that, I mean, are we capturing what the FFE of the grade is going to be versus the FFE of the surrounding properties right there? Because some of my heartburn has been of elevation versus adjacents out there and we see that sometimes particularly when we see bigger industrial type projects adjacent to other projects and then like tonight i had to look at that cheerville and then understand what that ffe for the building was versus the ffe back there and i know not really applicable to these out here but i guess just kind of question do you guys does this capture that or give you guys good teeth to make sure that you understand the way the building is going to sit and against the rest of the properties around and that should comp should grab it right there okay no do you disagree this language here Yeah, just making sure it gives you the teeth that it's going to grade out.

I think it gives us the latitude to ask for that, yes.

Okay. I thought it did, but just kind of one of those things that jumped into my head on that. So, B, I made a comment here. Can we make this firm to further assist buildings not moving? And so, A, what I'm meaning there is the circulation diagram of, which is important because if you move your buildings then the circulation or how we think a plan is going to move people in, move people out, not necessarily just their access points to the main roads, but interior circulation can, you know, movement of a building can change exactly how a site functions and not functions, not only the access points, when it looks like most of them maintain the access point, when they move a building, it also affects circulation right there. And so that's kind of my question back is, Does this firm it up so that they gotta totally redo everything if they're moving a building around? Because to me that changes your circulation pattern, which has been part of my argument that they're not substantial compliance when they move a building because it changes how you ingress and egress, even though the access points may be the same. So that's kinda item 1B.

maybe it does but i just want to make sure since we're opening the the box i want to make sure that it gives you guys the ability to address some of the concerns that that see it up here yeah i understand what you're saying um as far as vehicle circulation goes the they are held to where the connections are to the public right away and then internally Internally, we've always had the opportunity to flag something that we felt was dangerous. I think the location of buildings could absolutely change the internal circulation into something dangerous.

but it still could be in substantial compliance, which was my frustration.

But if it's a public safety issue, we could flag it. Now, I don't necessarily know what that looks like. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking back to Golden Bear Place, right, with your concerns about the parking and the intersection, where I don't think that necessarily warranted turning it down for public safety because it's

slow driving i understand that and that's what i mean that it doesn't really give you the teeth to that because to me backing out at an intersection should be a public safety so now and then hence triggering a major modification and not in substantial compliance

I do think that it all comes back down to the location of the building, but it's different from what it was in the past. This language gives you the ability to flag it for whatever reason, and we don't need to prove that there's a safety hazard there. So there would be more teeth to address your concerns there. Okay. Assuming we catch it on the front end of the. Okay.

So I mean, so you think that I look at circulation internally on a site. I know it's a big emphasis for me. I know your ingress and egress points, which are bigger regardless, but how you drive through and maneuver and then some of these building movements have created something that doesn't feel, doesn't drive the same. And I want to be able to give you teeth to kick it back to planning. um to say hey this you know moving the buildings where your buildings may work or you're in compliance with number of units or parking or whatever it doesn't look or drive the same you know and that's kind of been one of my fields with a couple of the projects that they just didn't even internal circulation just didn't feel the same and that golden bear being there so i just want to make sure it gives you guys that same kind of teeth and leeway to be able to say And that's a big change on the circulation. So therefore, it is a major amendment, and it's not in substantial compliance. So I want to provide that to you.

Now, I would caution for some of those larger PUDs, where we're looking at it from a thousand foot scale. Yeah, I know. Golden Bear being one of them, where the circulation wasn't that different from what we approved in the PUD. But because we were looking at such a macro scale, it might have slipped through. So we're going to have to

all start taking a microscope to these things when they come through yeah and it's just like that one you know i know the original plan we didn't have some of those intersections and parking and i know they were trying to avoid variance to this body because the variance would have kicked them in and then not been it's just substantial compliance so they found parking very creatively on that particular one perfect um e on this just because this affects it this is at final master development plan we often see a condition of landscape plan under review or whatnot so it's a landscaping plan indicating all proposed landscaping and buffers i want to make sure that we don't see the comment under review or inspection and that it has been accepted and approved by us does that give you that yes that accomplishes that that comment that you sometimes see in the staff reports essentially means the consultant still has the plans we haven't heard back from her yet yeah yeah okay um g um g is a plan for each building site showing uh the pro or she struck the approximate location of all lots buildings um will this keep building footprints will this help better to keep building footprints closer to PMDP in your opinion?

With the requirements of substantial conformance, yes.

Perfect, I thought so too, all right. So number three, tabulation proposed residential densities to be allocated to various parts of a residential plan unit development. One, I have a question, can we hold them to this? Example, approximately 1,000, but spread, or 1,000 units but spread across versus the FMDP where they were all together or vice versa out there. And so meaning that some have been a cluster where we had that 1,000 units maybe all in one building or we had, they were allowed 1,000 units or they were spread between five buildings where then they've come back, we have two buildings with 500 out there. So they are therefore in substantial compliance because they still, they didn't increase their unit counts.

see what i'm going with that yes the general rule or that we follow you know you're right that doesn't always that's not always an issue but it does come up now i think the language you have in their tabulation of proposed residential densities to be allocated to various parts of the residential plan unit development it kind of already says that yeah um so now that's not the substantial compliance that's just a checklist item so

I think if you want to... That's just a question back for you. To me, that could use a little bit of something maybe as you go to BOC to prevent it from being, you know, we got a 100-acre site, we've approved 1,000 units, and they're all spread evenly across that 100 acres, but then all of a sudden it comes back to us and all 1,000 units are really on 10 of those 100 acres. Right.

Do you think seven and eight that were added to the substantial compliance list at the bottom address that adequately?

I do. I mean, you divulged into it better than I have. So I'm just saying it would be an opportunity if you think that. I mean, you see where I'm going with that.

I see where you're going with that. I could probably tweak this language into substantial compliance.

Yeah, because some of them, they've manipulated that density that we did approve. And since it didn't increase the density, it is in substantial compliance. But we might have improved that density in a more scattered form or maybe in a more compact form, too, is equally likely. Like that one we saw tonight at Providence. I like the way that that one developed out. Yeah. So just something for you right there. Number two, I went all the way down under 8-203.5 to number two, vary the lot requirements submitted in the preliminary plan by more than 10%. I guess kind of explain that one to me.

That's, you don't add, if you have lots proposed, say Golden Bear Place. Yeah. If they went as far as to delineate lots on it, individual lots at that phase, they couldn't increase the size or decrease the size of them. Those lots have to kind of stay about the same area that was initially proposed.

okay okay perfect perfect um and then going to your edited number seven uh underneath that and this may include todd in this statement as well so it says vary the location uh massing uh or design of buildings from what was proposed in the preliminary master development plan to a degree determined unacceptable to the planning commission Should we include things such as roads, access points, or drive aisles included within that statement? Because it kind of jumps back and addresses what I was talking about earlier about the circulation patterns. So would this be an appropriate place to add, again, that same language that if the plan changes, that we should put something about roads, circulation, drive aisles? maybe and and it's kind of more give you tools is what we're trying to do hopefully okay personally would like something like that that kind of addresses everything and and I just have one question would this be the right place to add or this may fall underneath multi-use to add a trigger against CEOs or percentage completion of the commercial versus the residential for our multi uses out there would this be that would this be the correct document to say, to not make it, if we're reviewing or approving a PUD, if we forget to put a trigger in there for the commercial to be done, then we're in trouble. But if we put it in a document that says, hey, if you wanna do mixed use, you gotta have at least X percentage of your commercial done by X percent of your residential out there. kind of a thing because wanting to make sure that some of the mixed use projects that we do see and excited about seeing are also had the commercial components which i think are exciting to make those work similar to the comment that i made on providence comment comments today is that that's going to get people home that's going to get people parked that's going to get people walking on our greenways on our trails and our sidewalks and everything else take cars off of the road and keep them internal but then if they just do the high density portion of the multi-use it doesn't have the same effect if the commercial never really develops. And it seems like we have an open door for the commercial to never develop.

But I would say that that would more appropriately fit in the mixed use section or whatever Could we stipulate that something like that in the zoning ordinance? But it wouldn't be appropriate in what we're looking at right now. That would be a different amendment.

Okay. Yeah, just something that we might look into later. You guys get your hands full on everything else.

It is something we could put in a zoning ordinance.

i i that's let's consider outside of this yeah yeah okay commissioner franklin please that's an soi a dash two go three five last number four it's always kind of bothered me i thought that was backwards especially in it seems like that's never a problem that way increase the floor area proposed in the preliminary developed plan for non-resident i had used by more than two percent shouldn't that be for residential instead of non-residential

So for instance, that Providence Central one we saw literally did that. The floor area went way down. Now, I left that alone because I think if we give them carte blanche to increase, it's going to change the plan. It's going to change the circulation. It's going to change the layout. And it kind of works against what we're trying to do here, keep consistency.

Well, if they want to build more commercial instead of residential by 2%, isn't that a better thing than the other way around?

But it affects the design of the plan, it can. And that kind of, I don't know how to, I don't think it would.

But you're still leaving 2% variance in one aspect of the plan. It just happens to cut off.

I did struggle with that. See what I mean?

We're limiting what we're trying to do. not to control here. I guess you could, but I mean, I haven't seen it really a problem the other way.

I have, I mean, there's a project I'm working with right now that actually is adding a floor to the building, so they're going to violate that.

If they do, it's just a major amendment. They just got to get it

I'm okay with considering that, but I think there's a huge change that's going to automatically, well, yeah, it would be a putt amendment, you know, if you fall into that. That could be, I haven't been on on that one.

If our goal in this document is to limit them trying to abuse increasing, in this case, new residential development more, it just seems like we're limiting it the wrong way. if that's what we're always catching in the violation. Maybe you can put it in both ways. That's good. I mean, I can't.

A lot of them, I'd like to see them increase the commercial area that goes with it.

That's what I'm saying. We never get that.

We are already residential. You can't increase it, period. There's a little bit of flexibility with commercial. I did think about that, but kind of where i landed i think how much is that because i've seen some where it's it they're they're allowed to increase it but then it you might end up with another building or you might end up with a building with different massing or design because now it's two stories so i hear what you're saying and i agree i agree um i can pass that a little further um i think

I know ultimately it will be something to send to the BOC and what their desire is going to be, but just some food for thought for you as you prepare to take it to the BOC, you know, and kind of that leeway and autonomy back for you. You've done a really good job right here.

I appreciate it.

And some food for thought. Sure. Anybody else?

I have a comment. Please. that number seven and eight under the substantial compliance from a legal standpoint makes me feel absolutely uncomfortable because there's no standard. It's just whatever the planning commission determines, which can lead to the planning commission acting very arbitrary or in a capricious way.

How do you think we could sure that up to decrease that? And I guess from my standpoint, I'm prepared to push it forward. Would that be something that you could just coordinate with John to clean that up for protection purposes?

Absolutely.

I just wanted to make the planning commission aware of that.

I actually just saw that coming.

I don't know what the line is. It's tough to quantify that.

I try to think through a lot of decisions up here over the years and one of them is residual effects, cause and effect of changes out there and certainly don't want to be a part of anything that would gather or cause difficulties. Hopefully this is to create clarity and ease ultimately as it pushes forward. So certainly I would encourage you to please work with staff to, if that's a concern, make sure it's addressed, please.

Could possibly just omit the last clause on the sentence. Vary the location, mass, and design of the buildings.

Like an unprofessional verbiage.

That effectively would lock them into FMDP. It needs to look like BNDP.

And it's okay if they change, but it just needs to come back as an amendment and let us look at it and understand it. Because there's a lot of them. I mean, we saw one tonight. It's changed three times. That Providence Commons House. I mean, and it's okay for them to change. Times change. I mean, that's 10 years ago. Heck, things change in less time these days, but 10 years is great.

If you choose to go down that route, I think it would take a big change to other portions of our code because the whole thing with PMDPs is that they are conceptual in nature. So it will require changes to the language elsewhere.

And I guess that's a great point.

I've heard that before. It's been a while since I've actually heard that statement.

But to me, that's important that the Planning Commission understands that a PMDP is conceptual, whereas we feel that a PMDP is what we're going to get.

The definition of it, I believe, starts with conceptual, or it says the word conceptual right in the definition.

It's for zoning impediments, basically. Yeah, just not... Like we were asked with the downtown thing, what are you doing here?

Yeah.

That's the service that's provided, basically.

Yeah, because we have, and very few people use it, we have that as just a true conceptual as a submittal or an application that you can apply for at the city. I think I've only seen it maybe two or three times in my tenure up here. but that's a that's a good point maybe something we're getting what are we doing for continuing education this year i guess we're getting to that point aren't we yeah i got a couple ideas so maybe sam something like that back for for us to you want to care to do any kind of uh presentation for our continuous education this year to maybe talk about a few things like that i think that that would be warranted and welcome Well, you can get a little overtime. I'm not lying.

I'll see what John has in mind.

I know that we're probably running up against time to get our continuing education in here. And I think just some feedback from yourself and the things that you do and see. We do have several new members here and whatnot. And obviously, you look at tonight's agenda, it's just massive. It's a lot to comprehend up here. So UNDERSTANDING IT EVEN SLIGHTLY FROM YOUR EYES WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO ALL OF US.

OKAY. WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BOUNCE OFF AND TEST TO SEE IF THEY COULD PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON IT?

WE CAN SEE. I KNOW KIND OF DEPENDS ON LIKE THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TENDS TO STAY OUT OF PLANNING STUFF BECAUSE IT JUST CHANGES SO MUCH FROM CITY TO CITY. But there is the center for local planning. I can't remember. But there is an organization that does things like that. So you can check on that.

Questions, comments from the commission? Let me go ahead and open this up to citizen comments. Anyone wish to make a comment at this time? I would encourage you to do so. Please come to the microphone and name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time.

I'd like to ask for a recommendation regardless of the margin.

I'll make a motion for a positive recommendation. I think that it's a step forward. I don't know how you capture the feedback other than notes or reviewing the tape on that honestly. I think there were some good discussions I'll be happy to give. My questions are written down on my sheet. I'll be happy to give staff the questions that I presented there. uh so that there but the motion includes the leeway of both the city attorney and our city planner um to uh to present it to the board of commissioners that'd be my motion second Motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye and raise your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? There's a positive recommendation. All right. Y'all thought we were going to adjourn. We're not. We are going to move to item 8B. We are going to regress tonight. Item 8B is to review the preliminary plan for the reserve at Whispering Meadows, located at 8025 Ritter Drive. uh we were trying to allow our city attorney to find some information so i'll turn it over to sam please in our code under temporary stub streets it does not require

any type of signage. In this case, that Ritter Drive, the dedicated right-of-way action was right to the property line, which is an indication that it would be temporary in nature. In fact, cul-de-sacs are required to be at least 150 feet away if they are not temporary, which obviously is not the case here.

Very well. Further questions or comments from the Commission?

It's a gated community. It's a gated private community.

Okay. Can we ensure that the... Come on up.

Name and address for the record.

Sorry. Addicts here at Civil. Good evening again.

Can we ensure that the gates open inward or is far enough back from those properties so as to not impede the front of their property?

Yes, sir. Yeah, and I believe I'm hiring for Mr. Porter tonight. He's on vacation, so I believe he's already coordinating that with both local fire marshal and county fire marshal. Sure. Gate location and gate access for emergency services.

Please, Commissioner Franklin.

I mean, it's not got anything to do with the plan, but I mean, why in the world does the city not want to annex this? Because this little cul-de-sac is going to be dangling in the county, surrounded completely by Mount Juliet, and emergency services are going to have to go all the way through Mount Juliet from Wilson County to serve these few houses. I know we're backed up really good with 911, but still, you know, we keep doing this.

Do you want to speak to that?

I can't speak for what the city may want, but we can't force annexation unless the applicant asks for it.

Do you know why it was turned down?

I believe the last time it came through, again, that's all from memory, had twice as many lots as what's currently shown.

Did it also have a connector?

It did.

Sorry.

It went to John Wright, didn't it?

To speak about what happened last time, part of what

The part of the issue with the prior plan was the density was above allowable for cul-de-sac. We changed our subdivision regulations, and that increased. So now it's compliant with that. The other issue was that it was going to be an access street feeding into an access lane. So it's going to be 24 feet of pavement into 22. We also changed that. So now they'd both be 22.

So there really isn't any reason today it couldn't be in the city. Not really. In the current configuration. Brought in as our S40. But the landlord.

The landlord.

Yeah. Save him some sewer bill money.

sitting there okay perfect yeah i i mean variation in types of housing it's been a while since we've seen anything with these size lots yeah and uh i too would love it to be in the city i think i voted for it the first time We'll go ahead and let you. Go ahead. We'll call for citizen comments. Come on up. You've been patient. I'm very grateful for that. Just a quick question. Give me your name and address one more time.

Trisha Farmer, 8050 Motor Drive.

Thank you. So the county does have a rule requirement for a temporary sub street. So where does the county, like, where does that end? If you were saying that this abuts up to that property, then the county should have had signage that it was a temporary dead end street. It literally says right here and that there's a Wilson County code. And Tom Brashear confirmed that three years ago when I spoke with him, and Gerard Bullock whenever this came up.

In the growth area of Mount Jewett, the city of Mount Jewett Planning Commission has the subdivision authority, not the county.

Okay, but you guys literally just came up here and said that the rules were now just changed to allow for this neighborhood. When we built our homes up the street, the zoning did not allow for that to change. The access lane did not change. The widths and the requirements and the max number of homes all changed because of this development. That is, yes, it did.

So, you know. Just a point of contention that they weren't changed for this development. They were changed citywide. This development had nothing to do with those changes. an entire redraw of street width, sidewalks across the whole city.

I can say, though, I do feel like you should be grandfathered in if you build a home in an area and you have that investment that you're making and the codes when you purchase a home and the area and the land, that that should be taken into account. They're putting more homes on the streets than what are even there right now. There are only 12 homes. and you're going to more than double that without a traffic study even how could this even be up for a vote without a traffic study talk to you don't speak to it 14 units is below the 50 peak hour trips required for a traffic study but this is a the sub street it has a maximum access of capacity of 25 dwellings it's going to exceed 25 dwellings by adding this neighborhood

Sure, but those are existing. The incoming development is only in charge of studying what they are adding, and that is below the threshold for a traffic study.

No, that's convenient.

Thank you.

I sent you all the documentation here, and it does say shall. I did not see anywhere where it says the rule that it is of less than, especially if you're going to be doubling the number of homes on a street. We've never had a traffic study in Kelsey Glen. And the neighborhood's over 15 years old. And 15 years ago, we didn't have DoorDash. We didn't have Uber Eats. We didn't have all the delivery drivers and services that we have today. Thank you.

Thank you.

as a valid point that may be a good issue to take up in the future as far as those traffic studies combining, you know, existing with future.

Other questions, comments? Close our citizen comments as well right now and open the floor for motion regards this item in our agenda. I do need to, this is blue, so I need to do the public hearing again, shouldn't I? Or no, I did the public hearing earlier. Just do it. Do it in compliance. Perfect. Move for a motion in regards to this item and our agenda.

Motion so approved.

It's a motion.

Second.

And a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye and raise your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? That is approved. With that being said, I am looking for a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion. I'll second that. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.