Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the November uh 20th 2025 meeting of the Mount Gillette Municipal and Regional Planning Commission meeting. Um as I like to do as we start each meeting like to uh announce our quorum requirements and uh voting requirements as a quorum uh is 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 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 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. like to say that as well because we do have two members absent tonight. I actually believe that both members are traveling overseas uh tonight. So, uh happy for them and hope they have safe travels. Always nice when we see a uh full house here tonight. Uh some maybe a first time, second or third, but welcome. Uh we do enjoy and look forward to uh hearing from you all should there be an opportunity that uh that you wish to speak tonight. As we begin our meeting too, wanted to uh extend a thank you to staff for uh for our uh continuing education that we participated in or some of the members of the planning commission. I think uh Boza and other various and staff alike. We went downtown for the summit 10 conference uh which was a meeting of um not only uh uh Wilson County but the contiguous counties to uh to Nashville, Davidson County. got to learn a little bit about what is going on there. Had some unique speakers uh uh present that. But talking about overall urban planning and kind of uh what is going on here in Middle

Tennessee. So um some very interesting education and thank you to the senior citizen center. Uh they uh they let us uh drive their bus down there so we could all go in one car and be together. and uh it was a nice afternoon and u and so I appreciate staff for their organization of that as they always do uh each and every year. So thank you all for putting that together. Thank you all for spending your day with us and uh getting us educated out there and keeping us in compliance and uh to be members of the planning commission. Uh with that being said, we will move on with our agenda tonight. Um our first item up is to set our agenda. I am not aware of any changes, amendments, or adjustments. Seeing none, we will set the agenda as stated and as posted. Our next item up on our agenda, we'll begin with our uh staff reports. Uh start off, Mr. John planning.

I think I'll defer to Jill on this one. She has a few things to say. All right. Have

First off, we'd like to wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving coming up. Um I hope all of you have a blessed one and enjoy time with your families. Um, I want to ditto what uh, Commissioner uh, Winchester said. We do want to thank each and every one of you that were able to attend the Power 10 conference with us downtown. I do think we gained a lot of of valuable insight into that we are not the only ones within this community that are struggling to maintain development um, looking for a path ahead for our future. Um, got a lot of of good contacts out of it too. So, we look forward to to reaching out to some additional communities to see how not only they can help us, but how we can help them as well. So, we want to thank you. Those of you that were not able to attend, I will be happy to get with you to give you some other options of getting your four hours of required training before the end of the year. So, I'll try to touch base with you all at the first of the week, but wanted to thank you again for all your help and your patience with us.

Wonderful. Thank you, Shane. Public works. First of all, I do want to wish you guys a happy Thanksgiving next week. So, uh few updates. I was just getting the report in from our public works director. Curt Road Signal uh bids were open this week came in $200,000 under budget. Wow.

And we also just received the notice proceed on the TOT uh construction for Town Center Greenway phase three. We uh he's going to go to bid in January and hope to start construction later in the spring. 01 and dirt road widening as many residents have seen a lot of utility relocation going on right now. The roadway project itself uh expect open bids in February and starting in late spring as well. So a lot of things going on on our end and that concludes my staff report. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you guys. And uh I understand that uh now I know this falls underneath public works but uh successful tree lighting the other night and uh heard from a lot of people that thoroughly enjoyed that. So one of those unspoken things that you guys hide underneath the radar that uh think falls underneath you guys a little bit out there. So thank you for staff and and the community and commissioners for organizing something like that. I'd also be remissed. I was reminded this [clears throat] evening or uh or today that um Miss Sheila Luckett is retiring. Um and uh I think December 4th is going to be her retirement celebration, but it's hard to fathom the city without Sheila Luckett as a part of it. Uh she's been very important uh to me in my life and and growing up here in Mount Juliet uh um as I have and always been somebody that's been accessible um been compassionate, been caring, watch this city grow the way that it has. It's been a part of it in so many different aspects. uh the city will be uh missing a Sheila Luckett out there because uh she really cares about this community and and everybody within it. Uh um whether or not through church, through scouts, uh just the city as a whole. Uh just an all-around amazing woman and uh my gratitude for her longtime service to the city of Mount Juliet and this community and helping it be the place that it is to this day. Um very very special woman. So, thank you to uh to Sheila Luckett for that. Our next item up uh does fall underneath our citizen comments. This time we'll take citizen comments. Public is welcome and encouraged to make public comment about any item on our agenda. There'll be two opportunities for you to make those comments. You may speak now or you may speak when the item is presented to the planning commission. Kind of an eitheror. Uh we do ask that you limit

your comments to three minutes or less. Um, also want to make a note on that as I say the three minutes or less because we do have a full house. We want to be conscious and everybody that wants to speak, if everybody wants to speak, come on up. Uh, but if you see me uh up here, kind of raise my hand as you're speaking. Uh, it's not for question. It's just kind of to let you know uh kind of summarize that you got one minute left of those three uh to so summarize your thoughts and your comments back there for us and please allow for time for others to speak at the meeting. Um, so if you see me doing that, uh, consider to wave at you or or no questions, but, uh, please summarize if you do see me do that, uh, to wrap it up for three minutes. So, anyone that wishes to address the planning commission at this time is welcome, encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we'll move forward with our first item on the agenda. Uh, that falls underneath item 5A, a minutes of approval. wants to review the minutes from the October 16th, 2025 uh Mount JW Planning Commission meeting. Do I have any amendments, typos, adjustments? Commissioner Jos, please.

Unless I unless I didn't see it, but I spoke with the city attorney. I think that we need to add in there that um when I left the table, I abstained because of personal and financial interest in 6K. probably needs to be recorded in there. Good comment. Very well. Any additional comments, Commissioner Cersei? Um, I have 12 movers. There's no way I did 12 movers. He didn't. No. So, it's I don't know what happened there. 12. 12 of them. Commissioner Cersi was absent. Yeah, that's

Yeah. I mean, look at the minutes. Did y'all read? We appreciate your presence even though your presence wasn't here. [laughter] I think I might have done one. Yes, sir. Duly noted. That can be corrected. Yes, sir. Any additional changes, typos, errors. That being said, looking for a motion regards this item on our agenda. To approve motion with my second and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I

against abstensions. So approved. Next item [clears throat] up on our agenda is our consent agenda. We'll begin with item 6A is a development letter of credit number SLC 0000005634 for Bayard Farms phase 3B in the amount of 91,676.15 can be released. Item 6B, the development letter of credit number SLC 00005927 for Bears Beard Farms phase 3C in the amount of $102,43924 can be released. Item 6 C, the development letter of credit number 90359774 for Walton's Grove phase 4 in the amount of $266,787.80 can be released. Item 6D, sewer letter of credit number 18139097 for Beck with Point. The amount of 187,47,77.50 can be released. Item 6E, sewer letter of credit number 2710078203 for Hibbit station in the amount of $240,334.50 can be released. Item 6F, review and adopt the 2026 Mount Julant Regional Planning Commission and Border Zoning Appeals Submittal calendars. Item 6G, review the final plat for Cane Break Phase 2, section one located off West Division Street. Item 6H, review the final plat for Bender Cove. Phase 2 located off Bender Ferry Road. Begin with planning. Mr. John, any comments?

Sure thing. Um, only comments would be anything in the staff report. recommend approval on the couple flats and then the other planning related one on there is the calendar. So, no comments on those. Um, that's all. Thanks. Very well. Thank you, Shane. Anything from public works? Staff recommends approval with our comments. Thank you.

Very well. Questions, comments from the commission. I got one real quick one. Uh, item 6H on the Bender Cove. They're moving on to phase two over there. CO still tied to the completion of the road. Correct. And what is the expected completion of the road? [clears throat] Sam might help me on this one. The seal trigger was adjusted to the 25th. they are ran uh there were some legal interpretations that were ultimately made uh from the city manager's office to change that trigger to the 25th CO. I believe they'll also be coming in with the future putt amendment due to change that CO trigger even further due to uh utility conflicts with the gas company primarily.

Please please please the ordinance allowed for a triggering event to happen giving them the 25th CO. It was based on 120 days they got to in good faith acquire the land needed for the right of way. They weren't able to do that within the 120 days which triggered the city taking over which gave them the 25th CO. We never actually had to take over. Yeah. Because they ended up agreeing but either way that's how they got the 25th CO. Okay. So at the 25th CO that trigger will kick in.

Very well. Cool. That's all I have. Any further questions, comments? Seeing none, let's call for citizen comments regards to uh any item on the consent agenda. Anyone wishing to make comment about any item, please go to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, we do need to close the planning commission meeting in order to open a public hearing. The public hearing is in regards to items 6G and 6H. 6G is to review the final plat for Cain break phase 2 section one located off West Division Street. Item 6H is to review the final plat for Bender Cove phase 2 located off Bender Ferry Road. Anyone wishing to make comment during the public hearing on either of those items is welcome encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, 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.

Approve or recommendations are applicable with staff.

We will second. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against [clears throat] extensions. So approved. Next uh item up on our agenda files under uh falls under eight final master development plan site plans. We'll begin with item 7A is to review the final master development plan site plan for Golden Bear Wine and Spirits located at 6330 Golden Bear Gateway. Miss Jill. Um this is just a site plan that's coming in as part of the uh previous project Jolene um project that was submitted in actually 2022. This is under that HUD. It's for a site planed final master development plan. The uh proposed project area is approximately 1.23 acres. It's 11,000 plus square feet of retail. Um they currently after review meet all the commercial design standards. their vehicular access will be directly to uh Golden Bear Gateway. Their parking is adequate for the use as applied for. Um they only have one minor waiver to allow 3.2% of metal coping. Um under that otherwise it is going to be a primarily masonry product. Um the overall the project looks really good. Um staff does recommend approval of the site plan and final master development plan um with the request include the conditions of approval as noted by staff.

Very well. Shane public works. Same thing. We recommend approval with our comments. They're pretty minor in nature and they follow the pud. Thank you.

Very well. Questions or comments from the commission? Got one super minor comment. Just something I would like to see added. Um if I'm correct on the site plan um at the east side where there's kind of a three uh potential for a three-way stop um to have a stop bar as well may maybe in the future creating a three-way access as this project continues to run I believe east uh on the undeveloped lots just kind of make that a little bit of a lots of parking and movement in that three-way way right there, especially with the oneway traffic around the site. Uh just a request to add an additional stop bar on the um I believe it's going to be the eastward lane in the front of the building. That's it.

Any other questions, comments? [snorts] Please, please, Mr. R. Ju just for the record, I don't there there's nothing wrong with site plan necessarily. I'm just not a fan of parking across a frontage road for commercial businesses. I'm not a fan of it. I know it's it's happening along here and just for the record, I'm not a fan of it. I think it's a safety issue, but it's there's there's nothing we can do to make a change.

Further questions, comments? Let's go ahead and ask for citizen comments regards this item on the agenda. Any citizen wish to make comment welcome encouraged to do so. Uh please go to the microphone name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time for a motion in regards item on our agenda.

Motion to approve motion and a second. May I include the and the additional comment on the stop bar. May I include that? Perfect. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against so approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 7B. It is to review the site plan for the Weller Life Amenity Center located at 535 Pleasant Grove Road. Miss Jill.

Thank you again. Um, as you stated, this is for a site plan for the Weller Life Amenity Center. They are coming back in following the approval of um the preliminary master development plan via ordinance 2526, which was done in August of 25. Um, this amenity center uh under those conditions of the PMDP is required to be completed by the 35th certificate of occupancy. Um, it's an 8,500 foot amenity center, approximately 3,500 foot pool, a dog park, and a pickle ball court. Um the mail kiosk is unique to this site because it's located internally within the amenity center and the postmaster has approved this location. They are also including 15 parking spaces for the convenience of the residents of that area. Um they meet and actually exceed the minimum code requirements under the uh preliminary master development plan. Um they will also be meeting within the previous architectural variances that were uh approved at 50/50. They're coming in with a 61% masonry product and 39% board and batten. Um staff does recommend approval of a site plan and request that conditions be included as noted by staff.

Thank you. Jane, anything from public works?

I need to strike comment three under engineering because that's in direct contradiction to comment number five. So typo on my part, but outside that recommend approval with the conditions is noted. Very well questions or comments from the commission. Seeing no questions or comments this time, let's go ahead and call for citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Any citizen wishing to make comment on this item, it's welcome to encourage to do so, please come to the microphone, name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, like to ask for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. um with Shane's comments from public works.

Very well. It's a motion. Second. Motion a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. So approved. Next item up on our agenda is item 7 C is to review the site plan for Victory Nissan located at 505 Pleasant Grove Road. Mr. John, sure thing. Another another fifth, third, second one maybe this year. Um Oh, sorry. I'm on the I'm I'm skipped. I'm on order here. We'll talk about Nissan.

I had Where is my Nissan? Sorry, packets out of order. Um, okay. So, Victory Nissan, this is on uh in Paddics and basically it's pretty good overall. The reason for it being on the regular agenda primarily is the facade waivers that they're asking for. Some the two waivers. Um, as you can see, it's a uh, you know, kind of a modern looking building. It's 47 and a 47.35% brick. Um, so it's primarily secondary materials, but you can see from the design of the building, it's uh, you know, it reminds me of the Andrews Cadillac down the road. Kind of a similar uh, you know, it's a it's it's different. Um, I actually like the way it looks. um screen wall in le of parapit wall on the on the roof also. Um they don't normally support that but given the design of this building this particular building I think it I think it makes sense. Um but other than that the rest of the comments are pretty straightforward standard comments for for a site plan. Um so we'd recommend approval and with the with the waiverss if you so choose to agree. Um, but that's that's basically the big one on this one.

Thank you, Shane. Anything from public works side? We recommend approval with our comments. One note, uh, there is an existing biote retention area that uh, this labeled in the plan set that will have to be brought into code compliance. Uh, it's fully functioning at the moment, but that's something that can be worked on during the construction of this building if it's approved. and uh we'll just have to be functioning by the time CO is issued. Thank you. Let's open it up uh questions, comments from the commission. Commissioner Johns, please. [clears throat]

So, on the very first page under um overview and history, is that correct? And maybe I just didn't have enough coffee when I was reviewing all of this, but is that supposed to be adjacent to Walmart or adjacent to at home? It's closer to Walmart, but yeah, across the parking lot, but it's across it says on the south side. I just I'm always used to thinking adjacent as being contiguous almost, you know, so it stra Yeah, it straddles the access to at home.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, and then I want to talk about this screening. Have we because some of the others that's on here, we we're making them put the parapit down there. Parapit in there. So, have we voted on screens? Just screen. I mean, I may have missed that, too. Um, have we voted on many waiverss for screens or have we made them put the parapits on there so that it's solid? I don't I think of a couple of the hotels if I'm not mistaken. And you're permitted to allow that if you want. Yeah. Last one I can recall was maybe one of the hotels over um I don't know where there is in Providence Central or Proidence.

Very tall one or something. It was a tall building. Seven Seven Brew as well. There's been a few of those. Some of the you like that modular seven brew building has a screen wall on the roof. So yeah, it 5050. Yeah. Fair. Good questions.

Yeah, it's hard for me to got one question. This maybe Todd, maybe Shane. Um, one of the things with this site plan that you really see where you're kind of uh uh you are splitting inventory in this case uh uh by the access road right there. Um, so obviously we got the crosswalk striped and everything there. Um, just thinking uh relative to the Walmart site there across the street. Um, and kind of guesstimating this I guess as best I can. Uh, the Walmart side does have a stop sign right there as you enter that side off of Pleasant Grove Road. Would it be applicable as well to create this cross access as a kind of a four-way stop? Even though two of the ways would be the parking lot, but uh one of the ways uh or both other ways would be that access road to put a stop sign right there just to further ensure that we're going to get pedestrian traffic over there. Do you want to go buy your new 350Z or something?

[laughter] question.

Um, I was on the fence about making them do a pedestrian beacon there. My general thought was the volumes on this road probably didn't warrant it. Well, I'm I'm thinking about what happens when the other parcel next to because it's very well most things are a catalyst to something else. And so you got raw land adjacent to uh at home back there. And if I'm not mistaken, this is a possible another entry point all the way to Old Pleasant Grove Road at some point. So while we got the opportunity, would it be it's just a kind of a [clears throat] four-way stop? I was thinking more of a four-way bring them to a stop just like you do at Walmart um across the street.

Is Walmart a four-way stop or does the entrance keep going? I think it's it's just coming off of Pleasant Grove that you stop, but maybe the traffic it's a three-way stop. The traffic coming out does not, but the side to side and entrance does. Is that right? I think that's right. I think that's the other way. Entrance is free. Okay. Is that right? The idea being that you you don't want stop traffic queuing back onto Pleasant Grove Road. Yeah.

I don't think that would be a problem at this location. Um I it's one of those things where an always stops probably not warranted there. Uh but it's outside the rightway so it's not our responsibility. Um it wouldn't hurt. Yeah, that's I mean, you know, it's a four-way stop. It's not like I don't think that there'll be that much queuing back there, even if the property does develop, but uh we are sitting here noting that, you know, it was a bread store. You're going to go from here to across the street to, you know, you might buy your bread here, but you're going to go over here to receive it. You're going to have to cross a road either which way uh to potentially do it. I would imagine the bulk of their inventory is going to be on the main lot, but nevertheless, people enjoy options these days and good chance that foot traffic andor golf cart traffic or something like that. Uh, shuttle traffic could get over there. It seems like it just Well, we can maybe add a stop sign right there if that's something that you think wouldn't cause any harm and get

I don't think there'd be any real harm done. Um maybe just as a precaution in the condition add a clause stating that the city reserves the right to remove it. Okay. In case down the line we do have queuing issues. Sure. Sure. Yeah. And and maybe city finds that it's really not warranted out there that's not generating that much because it's just kind of staged inventory but the bulk is over there. But um yeah, nevertheless, we are proving something that we know is going to have pretty steady foot traffic or potential for uh right there. Make me feel a little better. Perfect.

Are you talking about the signaling the the be the the flashing one that you press like on? Yeah, that that was my original thought for that location, but it quite frankly seemed excessive for the amount of foot traffic expected there. I think the increased traffic is going to come some of it from the weller that was just that's going to come and um so with with people walking of course I walk up that way too and people don't walk I mean people don't watch sometimes so yeah stop sign there

yeah further questions comments on the commission seeing none let's go ahead and open this uh up for uh assistant comments anyone wishing to make comment at this time is welcome encouraged to do so and please on the microphone. State your name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. Looking for a motion in regards this item on our agenda. I'll make a motion for approval uh including the uh the requested variances. Uh, also with the addition uh to add a uh four-way uh stop sign at um I guess the entrances to unnamed access row uh with the city's ability to remove them in the future should it be warranted. Is that okay?

Okay. It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. So approved. [clears throat] Next item up on our agenda is item 7D. Review the site plan for Fifth Third Bank located at 1901 North Mount Juliet Road. Mr. John, finally get to talk about the bank. Yes, sir.

Okay. Another another fifth location. And this is an Everett Down Sprouts Hud 1901 North Mount Juliet Road. Um, this is very similar to the one that was approved on Golden Bear a few months ago. And much like the last one, it basically is compliant with code except for the commercial design standards. Again, this one's a lot more modest. They got more uh modest ass got more masonry. Um, you can see it by they had a total 68 and a half% masonry on this structure. And again, we have a screen wall on this one. And if you look at the elevation, just a very tiny little portion on the roof on the back towards the on the northwest elevation. You can see it there. Um, and it's going to be brick. That screen wall is going to be brick. Um, I'd imagine I don't remember off the top of my head, but I'd imagine the previous uh deferred bank had the same ask because pretty similar. Um, and then the other the the third wave request is for thin brick. This is uh there's a little uh detail in the plans. This is uh it's thin brick, thin in depth. It's masonry. It's grouted. It's individually laid. It's just the brick has had you know a reduction in width weight and but functionally it will look like real brick. Um so with that caveat it being grouted and individually laid we'd support within thin brick in this instance. Um I think the rest of the conditions are pretty pretty pretty minor for a site plan and we are recommending approval and that should do it. Thank you. Very well, Shane. Public works.

We recommend approval with our condition if they're minimal in nature and more read like general notes. So, pretty good plan. Very well. Thank you. Questions, comments from the commission? Commissioner Josh, I just want to comment. I think this is a a great addition to that area because it's it's it's a walkable trying to get a walkable downtown area and there's not many banks in that area and so people are walking to Sprouts and you know hopefully walk the bank be you know vehicles off the road etc etc so I think it's it's good George

for Todd any any concerns with the teller lane the queuing right there with it being so close to the access. No, our our code calls for five vehicles of queuing, I believe, and that's a lot at a bank. Yeah. Not on a Friday. I mean, that's fair. Yeah. Set up that direct deposit, folks. Yeah. [laughter] But no, I don't I don't foresee it being a serious concern.

Thank you. I got just one comment and uh and it is all on that quick brick. Um I did take the time to visit the Metro Brick website, watch their uh six, seven minute YouTube video on install an application uh which I am very familiar with. Um sort of like this laying tile up on the side of a building is what this is and that is essentially what you're doing. um is you're laying tile on the side of a building. Um does it meet the terminology of being clay bored and and you know like a quote unquote queen or king brick does? Um technically they are made the same way. Uh outside of the way they are made there is zero resemblance to the two. Um, if you're familiar with mortar, uh, the mortar in this case, um, you ever watched a brick mason put it up, it's applied with a tri and the mortar is trled in and then joined it in. Sometimes flush, sometimes recess. In this case, it's done with tile mortar in a bag, which is a different continuity, different texture, different material. Um so therefore your joint where they say is the same is not the same. So the brick look looks the same u but the material and overall integrity of the structure don't match what our intent of real brick is. Um and therefore I have a struggle with it. Uh if you watch their

video, you basically frame it. Uh you apply a foam board. Um then you apply a waterproofing which has to be applied specifically. Then you apply a lathe. Then you apply a mortar which must set up properly. Then you apply a mortar again. And then you stick your bricks on there. You let those set up. Then you come back again and you apply mortar in which they explain to you in detail that you don't get the mortar on the brick because it doesn't wash off. Um it's just not brick. I mean it's sticking tile on the side of a building is what it is. And um that is the only I agree with every other comment. It's a great place for it. Um like the facade and like the look. I just, you know, it's different if you're requesting that in a limited area, uh, because you are capable of making a queen or a king brick match up with a cut brick. Um, and sometimes you have to go to a cut brick application when it's above a roof or an element in which it's unable to carry. In this case here, I don't see any of those factors being applicable. Um, and it's not necessarily cheaper way out. this is more expensive product than a real brick. Um, so it's not necessarily a cheaper way out by by making them stay to a real brick. It saves them money. Um, but that's where I have our problem with that. I just I don't like it and um I'll leave it at that.

Please, Commissioner Frank. Does it satisfy our Yeah. In our opinion, is it Yeah, that's it. Yeah, it does. Yeah, it seems like it's more would be more expensive just because all the labor. Oh, it is to me. It is. Trust me. Yeah. Yeah. Do we have representation for the project? Please. Please. Microphone. Name and address for the record.

Good evening. Uh my name is Ty Cole. I'm the project architect uh for it. Uh address is 912 Sultterra Road Alabama. Thank you for coming.

Comments to the brick. Uh we're a modular company. So this building is actually kind of like the seven brew comes in modular. Uh the reason we're using the thin brick, we actually put the brick on the building in the plant. We our walls are made for stove panels and when we have to do all brick or the Wayne Scott which is what you always do we use our stove panel which has all the moisture protection all that stuff we adhere all the brick in the thing and we travel to wherever we're going whether we're going to Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina with the brick on it and set it in place. So it does cost more, but allows all that work to be done in the plant so that once you get to the field, you stitch it together much faster. A lot less sight time, turn the bank over to the community much faster.

Sure. That's kind of the reason I went there. The brick itself, it's the same brick as the modular brick also. You know, the way they make it from that standpoint. Uh it's just, yeah, the installation of it is a different way of doing it. Um, I don't know about the videos saying you can't wash the grout off because we do that all the time. It says high. You said you must use a high pressure, high heat to get it off.

Yeah, we we're it's just typical masonry cleaning to take the grout off and everything. Now, maybe you get the adhesive on it. Maybe that's what they were talking about. From a grout standpoint, just like it's a masonry building. And if you submitted photographs of some of our examples, even how we do the Wayne Scott top with the Lshapes, make it look like a roll lock all the way around from a full bridge. But yeah, we travel them across, you know, the southeast at this point and don't even have any problem. It's fascinating.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm familiar with the construction and everything of them and of the modulars as well. Uh it's uh never thought that uh well I guess we did. I was here when we adopted the the brick and stone ordinance for the city and and actually the representative for the brick industry argued with us about adopting brick. So it was awfully funny on that. But yeah, it's uh it does meet our qualification. It is a different and I just don't like the product. don't agree with the product in this particular use, especially for just the lower base of a building where it looks like you're going basically a water table around the building and um you know especially a bank. I challenge you to do something nicer and uh stick built and a permanent affiction to the community, not something that we're going to roll in, drop off, open up. You know, used to be a time where you had safe deposit boxes and stuff like that. I challenge everybody to put one in there. It'll blow away.

No, we can't. No, that's a good question. Is there one in there? No, we have a big safe. We don't They don't do safety. And even though these are module, once we put it all together, you can't take this apart and it's it's there forever. Yeah. Commissioner, y'all got a maintenance schedule. If if a brick were to fall off or break, you could fix it. Oh, yeah. 53rd has a national company that takes care of all the facilities, whether it's our brick or the regular bricks. If something happens, a car hits the corner of it. Yes.

I mean, as long as they've got a maintenance schedule, it meets our code. I mean, I have seen us completely throw away our design standards for popular burger joints that I won't name their name before, and I warned and raised alarms about that. So, I'm fine with this. Agree. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Thank you guys. Thank you. Yes, sir. Appreciate it.

Further questions, comments this time, uh, let's go and open the floor for citizen comments. Any assistant wish to make comment during this time, welcome encouraged to do so. Please come to the microphone, name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, like to uh ask for a motion regardless item on our agenda. I'll make a motion approval. Motion conditions um the staff supports Mr. Cersei. Yeah. Motion second by Commissioner Cersei. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. So approved.

Next item up on our agenda falls underneath a PUD amendment and it is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. It's item 8A. review the amendment to allow for outside sales to the Providence Central Preliminary Master Development Plan PUD located at Providence Parkway and Central Park. Mr. Chair,

um, as you stated, this is for a major PUD amendment going back for the Providence Central PUD that was originally approved in 2013 via ordinance 201312. This is merely to amend a use listing um that was in taken care of originally with this CMU zone property portion of the PUD. Um the intent is to return some uses back to the PUD permanently by Wright within the zoning code. Um it was originally allowed by Wright, but the applicant at the time and I guess in discussions with staff and probably at the board of commissioners decided to remove some of those uses. Um the intent is to include back the uh the use for um excuse me I just lost my space here um for specific parcels as shown within the staff report to include outside material equipment sales and repair yards. The reason for this is is they've got a national retailer tenant that is looking at this uh location and in order to uh apply for this location, they would need the utilization for outside material storage such as lumber, plants, etc. So that is the only change to this put amendment. It's just to allow that use to go back in that would have originally been allowed by right there. So, um, staff does, uh, recommend positive recommendation back to the board of commissioners.

I would imagine this one is not a public worksh. Yeah. But, uh, questions, comments from the commission. Wonder who this would be. I know. I think they're both.

Yeah. I just want to make one comment uh on this and would like for it to be included uh as well. Um or considered at least as it goes before the board of commissioners. Um no trailers in the parking lot. Um no uh containers i.e. basically is a trailer without wheels and uh no prefab buildings as well in the parking lot. you know, if you need to do your lumber or plant sales, um, great. But no trailers with mice and rats running out of them and stuff like that. I I do disagree with what kind of trailers are we talking like 18 wheel trailer.

So, not trailers for sale. Fine with that. You could have that close as that of right now. Yeah. Tractor Supply. Somebody who sells trailers. No, thinking of like um your wheat straw and those big. No, I agree. Yep. Yeah. because they seem to never be the nice ones uh that are parked there. But which one looks worse? Let's stick it out there in the parking lot kind of a deal. You talking about the the storage buildings?

Think about like sheds because they build sheds, set them in the parking lot and then try to get you to buy them. and it's just not tasteful to the surrounding neighbors, retailers, and in my opinion, plenty of places to buy or see sheds. You know, look at your catalog out there if you need to. But thinking of more the you know could get away with the the sheds or the building prefab sheds or buildings more than the trailers or containers that they drop with mainly the wheat straw or seasonal products the seasonal sales right in the middle of the parking lot where they'll set the trailer open it up and be able to secure it kind of a thing about those buildings that are of course is this close to residential Most of it becomes we're thinking that it is most of that's around residential. So it's it's

I mean it's not an eye sore to me because I'm not looking at through my window or my deck every day. So the buildings don't bother me as long as it's in an area where that it's other commercial around and you got people you don't have people living there. So I looked at them today Not literally. I just drove by.

Let's think about the one in Herminage. Look at that one up there. And it's kind of resembles all that. You got a whole section of the parking lot that is uh um rental equipment. You got a whole section of the parking lot that is a trailer. Uh two trailers, matter of fact, and just saying, you know, I don't even mind the rental equipment. Uh but the trailers in particular, you know, all of a sudden, you take this and we're approving. We could be approving something with 250 parking places by the time they're done. Really, you got 100 parking places because they're going to park. Not nice stuff out there. Useful stuff because I buy a ton of them, but not very pretty to

I've got a question because I agree with everything you're saying. I just want to ask our city attorney if if we're giving let's say a positive recommendation hypothetically on these uses of outside materials equipment sales, do these comments go anywhere or would it be more impactful to do a negative recommendation? Because I feel like if we approve for outside materials and equipment sales, but then we add the stipulations, it kind of contradicts giving the approval of that. Do you guys add it to just so if we add it even though that the zoning could allow for it these comments would unless it gets next to POC of course but okay

okay good point you have something you want to commissioner Franklin yeah the county struggle with this greatly by the way we can recommend non-recommend and we can make suggestions and I think our chairman has made some suggestions That's just yeah [laughter] suggestion please. Yeah. Well put further discussion questions comments call for please commission in the rear of the building fenced in instead of out in the parking lot. It could be applicable. I mean it would wouldn't be seen if it's in the rear building fenced in

like you talking about the rental equipment and all that. that should be fenced in in the rear of the building. We have to look at individually on a site plan at that point, wouldn't we? But we'd have the we'd still even if we agreed on this on that individual site plan should ABC company come in before us, we would have the ability to make that adjustment when we saw a site plan that lies within this PUD that's allowable. Is that correct?

Yes. you did do something similar to this when you all approved the site plan for the original Ace Hardware that was going to be on the north side of town that is now um not going to come to fruition, but y'all did have some stipulations within that for the the trailers that were supposed to be located within a fenced in area that the fence was high enough that you wouldn't have the visibility of the trailers. We did Lowe's too, didn't we? Mhm. Yep. Then we did it to Lowe's and paddics as well. That looks nice on a daily basis. We'll do that. Is that okay? Yeah.

Let's call for assistant comments. Any assistant wishing to make comment about this item of the agenda? Uh, please go to the microphone. Name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. Looking for a motion in regards to this item on the agenda. Since I've been boisterous, I'll make a motion for a positive recommendation uh with the suggestion uh or consideration, let me put it that way, that the BOC considers no trailers or 18-wheeler trailers uh or containers um to be allowed in the parking lots. It's a motion and a second. All those uh in favor uh signify by saying I raising your hand. I against extensions is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is item 8B. Uh this is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is to review the amendment regarding off-site improvements to the preliminary master development plan put for village at Pleasant Grove and Vintage Vines located off Pleasant Grove Road. Shane public works. Um, this is more so to update the putt ordinance to reflect field conditions that have occurred as a result of the central pike widening project. With that, I'll hand it off to Todd.

Please, Todd.

Yeah. So, the PUD was originally supposed to install a left turn lane and a signal at the intersection of Central Pike and Pleasant Grove Road. Because of the Central Pike interchange project, uh our current and our former public works directors, uh they were working in in tandem with the development decided making them do that was lighting money on fire, relatively speaking, based on the work that they were going to have to come in and do. Instead, they came to agreement that they were going to take the money from the Perlot contributions and apply it to the central uh sorry, to the Pleasant Grove road widening project that'll come in a year or two after the Central Pike interchange comes in. Uh the development agreed to that. Um quite frankly, it's it's more of a benefit to the development itself. They also agreed to construct the full three-lane section in front of their site uh and as well as along the church frontage, but the church frontage is going to come out of their perlock contribution because realistically we just don't, you know, they got two sections and then it would have been our responsibility in the middle. We're just essentially paying them to go do that for us all at once. And that's going to occur at the start of the second phase of this project. Uh the first one is currently under construction.

Questions, comments? Yeah, makes perfect sense. Seeing no uh questions or comments, let's call for assistant comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Anyone wishing to make comment in regards to this item on the agenda, please come to the microphone. Name and address for the record. See no citizen comments at this time. Looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on our agenda. Motion recommendation. Second.

It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda uh falls underneath preliminary master development plan. It is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. It is to review the preliminary master development plan PUD for the Keel subdivision located at 115 Oakmont Drive. Mr. John,

sir. All right. So, we have a recommendation item. Yes. Correct. To uh for PMDP overlay in a reszone. This is at the end of Oakmont Drive, just north of us here a little bit. Um north of Kurd Road, uh, end of Oakmont Drive. It's kind of infill. Uh, there's an open space back here that they got 10.32 acres out of. They're asking for an RS20 pod. So, a medium density RS20 pod. Medium density is the land use uh designation for this particular area. And on this map, you can see we've got RS20 for the south. We've got RS 10 to the east, RS10 to the north. So, we have a higher density district circling this on or hemming this in on the north and the east side. And to the south, we have RS20, medium density residential. To the west along Oakmont Drive, we've got RS40. It's not a putt, it's just straight zone. The applicant here is asking for RS20 bay zoning, put overlay. The area requirement for a pud is met. 10 acres is the minimum for an RS20 pod. And this is 15 15 single family lots. Um you can see on the layout some of our comp I like the idea that it's infill. I think some of the lots might have a have issues with buildability on the uh size of the building envelope which is ideal because there's no amenities proposed here. And I would recommend that if this gets a positive recommendation that it move forward with the worst offending lots be removed and some amenities be approved. As of right now it's 7% improved open space for a

single family residential. Correct. Still yeah HUD. So with that being said that is pretty it's pretty straightforward. That's all they're asking for. um compliant with land use. Overall density is 1.33. RS20 allows up to 2.2 units acre. So, this is well below the RS 20 maximum you're allowed. Lot sizes are fairly decent size. Um it's not uh not quite as not quite as large as the RS40 lots adjacent, but certainly on par with RS10. Um, let me see what else. Average average lot size 22,920 ft. Uh, minimum is 11,087 square ft. So staff does recommend provided there isn't significant issues with public works, you know, analysis here. I know it is a dead end. Um, we have talked to them about potentially connecting to Kurd, but I let maybe let public work speak about that. But I think if we can get rid of some of the uh littleer littleer lots in here and get some type of amenity in here, um, it's not too not too terrible. Um, not too bad. So, planning recommends positive provided everything with public works checks out as well. Um, but if you do positively forward it to the board of commissioners, we got the conditions. They're mostly just standard PUD, initial PUD establishment conditions, things like that. Um, also this PU this PMDP, if you compare

it to our PMDP checklist, it includes everything that's incl. So there aren't ele there aren't elevations at this time, but they aren't asking for any labor. So it's going to have to be full masonry, whatever they put in there. And like I said, it's not they're not required at PMDP to include the elevations. Of course, it could be requested, but they're not asking for any waivers. So the code is going to control it, and the code stays 100% masonry. So that's what they'll be held to. Um, and this is the pod. This is the initiation of a pud. So if there's the waivers aren't asked for here, they uh they aren't they aren't possible to be asked at a later a later date. So the two waiverss that they are asking are now public works uh lane. I'll let them speak on it. Um no, that's that's all I have on this, I think. Thanks,

Shane. Public works. Before I hand it off to Todd on roadway comments, I do want to mention that uh northern portion of the development, there are some lots that are uh affected by the flood plane. as long as they follow the condition we've laid out. But disregard the lot numbers. They were relying numbered, but I did not update, but uh they will have to follow FEMA and team of standards and along with the flood plan ordinance on getting those lots permitted. Uh condition number three, uh the applicant will need to request sewer availability. I'm not concerned about capacity to serve the development, but I do have a as noted I do have a preference that this development be served by gravity. It would require going through the old call HOA development to be served. Uh and that would be the gravity option like I said which we prefer due to maintenance concerns with the alternative which would be force maning grinder systems. Um you can't avoid topographical challenges. That's understandable used for for grinders. But um in any instance, we try to promote gravity flow for our for our lots and residents just due to the strain and uh maintenance responsibilities the city will have long term. And like I said, if topographical issues do exist, we do ask that any grinder installed in this subdivision, a subsequent redundant grinder be provided to the city for future maintenance. And all it's all will be public will be maintaining it, you know, long term and within 20 foot eastments. So I'll hand

it off top roadways. Very well, Don, please. Um, this one's pretty simple. They're asking for the culde-sac variances that we see pretty often here. Uh, and that's for length and unit count. Starting with unit count, they're proposing 16 additional homes on Oakmont. That put would put the total at uh 28. So, three over. So, they're they're right there. particularly with some of these lots where we're kind of questioning the ability to put a home on, right? So, they're really right at target for units. The problem is length. Um they're this is going to be a half mile long called sack by the end. Um now I it is requested that they provided right away connecting to an adjacent parcel to perhaps get down the Kurd road eventually. Um, but we we wouldn't have a time frame on that. So, we do have to treat this as if it's going to be a culde-sac indefinitely. U and and for reference, our our code does call for a maximum length of 750 ft for culdeacs, but admittedly, we've gotten pretty loose with that regulation. Yeah, that's all I got. Very well. Thank you. Questions, comments from the commission, Commissioner Franklin?

Yeah, I had a question about this long rideway that u this parcel to the north that comes down to Kurd Road. I I assume the only reason that parcels exist is because it's a big flag lot and it receives it is is it it's just going to maintain right away off the new road. Cemetery back there. There's actually they're and they're going to maintain that access. We've asked that they provide a parking spot. So, if anybody wants to visit that cemetery, I didn't know that was cemetery. Yeah, there's a Yeah, actually at that northwest corner. I can't either. I mean I mean I've looked and looked. Well, I don't understand why it's not on this. It is trees. Yeah.

Well, I I got some more questions. Um I'm sorry. This this could ultimately develop into a different a completely different subdivision. Um, the way it's proposed, these are going to turn into permanent culde-sacs. Is that what I'm hearing?

Uh, the southern has the potential to be extended. If that has the RS20 label on the to develop, uh, we we would extend the road all the way down the road. So the answer is no. It's not. If if this were to happen as designed, it wouldn't be a permanent culde-sac. It would be a temporary culary. Okay. Um that's that's the answer. Um let's see what else. Is there not a minimum number of um percentage for amenity in a in a residential pud is required by our ordinance?

And what would 7% of this land mass be? Say open space. Yeah. % of the improved has to be improved. Improved. Yes. And it show this shows zero. Show zero. But you know like we were talking with those smaller lots. Get rid of those provide some amenity. Um they're going to have to provide the amenity now anyway. And the way it's laid out now, there isn't any space for it without getting rid of some some

is is the only reason it's coming in as a pud u instead of just a straight RS20 zoning because we can vary the coal sack length without it going to boza. Is that I I if if it's not really even a pud if it's got zero amenities. I mean it. Yeah. The only way to get the waiver is what they're requesting. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner George, please. Yeah. Share sentiments with Commissioner Franklin about the the cemetery easement. It brings up a question I know we can't see, but I don't know where this parking spot for the cemetery is going to be. They're going to have some work to do.

I I I I really I mean I've got issues with lot 210, 203, even really 202. I mean, there's some of these that I just I can't wrap my head around how you build a house on. And I mean, it just seems like, yeah, they're they're coming in, I guess, technically by right, they're coming in under what, six homes, seven homes maybe, from what the max they could do. But I mean, gosh, it feels like you're putting a lot in one area if you really think about it. So, I just I've got got a lot of concerns with this later. I wish and I to Commissioner Reglin's point, they're coming because they need the the culde-sac variances, but because it's a putt, I think we've got a little bit we've got an ability to to have more of an opinion than if it was straight zoning where our hands would be tied. So, um I don't think I'm going to be supporting this as it is today. I'd love to see it come back something better because this is not it.

Mr. J, you had some comments as well. So, thank y'all for pointing out where the cemetery is because the whole time before this I was looking at these lots somewhere and didn't even look up there and I didn't realize that access to it. So, how big is the cemetery? Is it does it list this down here somewhere? How many acres? How many whatever? No. Okay. So, who takes care of this this cemetery?

Actually, we've done a quite a bit of research um into this. I've spoke with the Tennessee Historical Commission um the state historic preservation office. This is labeled as unnamed cemetery number 17 because they cannot locate any specific family members that are tied in with this cemetery. There have been notes where they said that some cities and counties have chosen to maintain these unnamed cemeteries if they do not want to deem the access and responsibility to the HOA. The city as a whole or as a standard has always required the HOAs to maintain these cemeteries and that is the same as such with this. Um, one of the things is under the state historical commission, um, the main thing is any adjacent properties that are developed, the cemetery cannot be touched, including the assigned access easements within 10 ft of any known grave. John and I are actually going to go out and look at this cemetery and do a little bit of walking around to try and see if we can help get some additional information to the historical commission with what they've requested. Um they also state that it includes you cannot run any vehicles through the cemetery to get from one flat to another and typically a 30-foot buffer around the cemetery um is required for any extraneous graves which is a likely possibility with this. So uh the state law typically says 10 ft but the historical commission recommends 30 feet just because of hidden or unknown or or you know with some of the grave sites that you don't have the headstones that they're showing. Um they don't necessarily recommend cities taking these over, but he did give us some recommendations of some different cities that had done so. Um so this is just something we're trying to figure out if there are any families. I've also done some research with some families I know that did live in the area um that they felt like that it's probably a um maybe a slave cemetery. Um but there's still no information with through the historical commission. So, we're going

to try to go up there and see if we can find any headstones, get some additional information, and partner with them on that. I'd love to go one day when y'all go if it's available.

Many, many years ago, for those of you maybe who remember, Luke and I definitely remember. And I'll never forget when Luke and I went to that cemetery and there laid a a woman with her children that died at birth from 1792 or some such. And then some of you know what happened to that situation. And so ever since then, um I I just I I'm not going to vote for anything unless somebody is going to do something about this cemetery. There needs to be some kind of fence around it. Is not the responsibility of the city. It's the responsibility of the developer, whoever that is. There needs to be parking. It needs to be under HOA so that they maintain it. You and I live in the same subdivision. And I don't know if you realize that there's a cemetery in our subdivision. I have no clue, you know, who nobody takes care of that. Of course, I wasn't on this board when that subdivision was was made as many years ago. Um, but, uh, we need to do, in my opinion, we need to do this. Uh, you're going to laugh at this and it's okay. I don't care. I've walked to where they moved that cemetery and said, "I'm sorry that this happened to y'all." Of course, nobody's going to listen to that. They don't hear me. But still, it bothered me so bad. And if wherever that that boundary is, Jill, there is something called a if I get this right from 1927 below uh before 1927, it might be 1937. Of course, they're not asking to move these, whoever the representative is out here, but you know, you can hire someone

to come. I think it's an anthrop anthropologist, maybe somebody, I may have that terminology wrong, to tell us where those graves are because I don't want any graves disturbed from building this stuff. So, I don't know. We have heard before where you can request for them to come out possibly through um the historical commission to do LAR scanning okay of the ground. So they would do that for this

that or they do have a a joint effort with a company that can come out and do the LAR scanning of the area to see if there are any buried grave sites there without the the headstones or tombstones that are there. Um Mr. Perry with the historical commission has done a lot of research. we were back into September, we were looking into this. So, it's not going to go um untouched. There is, as we have done with previous ones, and and I'm sure John has made within the recommendation of this that they do maintain the cemetery, that it does have a decorative lowmaintenance fence around the area that it does have parking. Even though we don't know who this family, this cemetery belongs to, we still want people to have the ability to come in because like you said, a lot of these scout troops will come in from time to time to time as part of their projects and maintain or clean up these cemeteries. So, we want to give that availability to that. But we also too would like to find the history behind this and honor those those families of those grave sites there if there's anything we can do to get it on the historical commission as a name cemetery and find the history behind it as well. Well, hopefully someone will step up that maybe has family there, but I can almost assure you that if someone's out there digging and they exume a grave, then you're going to have a family member come because it's called a liability exposure. And um it happens. It happens more often than you think. So, a lot of these churches have coverage for that. Now, you wonder why I would know that, right? So, um, it's very, very important in my opinion, but we're going to have to have something about something about that. I can't I can't do anything. I can't vote for this.

A couple of quick ones real quick just to get in there. Just uh, and looking back at this, pretty fascinating [clears throat] that your current access to that cemetery is all the way from Kerr Road. So, you come from Kurd all the way back in there. I too was unaware that that that was sitting back in there and reiterate Commissioner Gile's comments. Uh that one that visit is honestly still stuck in my head. It was it was you could tell that at some point

uh the one thing I learned from it is probably had some form of the plague or something because there a lot of commonality uh in the headstones uh that laid there. Um and it was not biased in age because children um men, women both uh were there but a lot of must have been some some bad years of something going on through that stretch. Just want to make a few comments should it uh move forward right here. Um one is that the amenities really don't bother me on this. This is the first time that I can recall that I've seen a halfacre lot proposal uh on a single family development in I don't know when. Uh halfacres allow you a little bit more discretion as a homeowner um to do pools to do your own amenities to have your own hardcapes out there. uh whereas the the 7500 10,000 square foot lots don't necessarily offer that and increase the heightens the necess necessity for amenities out there. Um so it kind of leaves it, you know, I think that's a a welcome opportunity to allow a homeowner to purchase their land, not have the financial burden of of that uh HOA for something that they can put into their backyard. So halfacre lots do allow you to do some of that and have that flexibility. I also agree with Commissioner George over here in staff. I think you made it the phase two lots out there uh presents some very inherent challenges uh on how you place houses upon these lots. Uh looking at your building envelopes, looking at uh maintaining your requested setbacks, uh being able to get them house fits and and have them some marketable building plan uh presents its challenges. Therefore, I kind of feel like that this would be one that may never move to a phase two project um because it is phased and actually that access easement that goes runs across this from Kurd

road is a separation line for phase one to phase two. So, should it move forward wanted to include the comment that no mass grading or whatnot be done in phase two uh until it's the intent to bring phase two online. Um, so that means no clearing, no uh erosion controls within phase two, nothing be done. So that way if it only develops out on phase one, uh, all these lots that you see in phase two aren't done until the intent is there to complete phase two and build out phase two. Um, because I think that they look at design that that this design could change and be more appropriate. Uh, also within that, um, I only see the buffer going around the, um, what would be the eastern corridor of it. Um, I think there's a staff comment that it says it doesn't really say the depth of the buffer. Uh, but want to maintain that buffer uh, all the way around the existing uh, neighborhoods there. Uh so it' be my request that the uh any natural vegetation or buffer um be defined and be undisturbed and that including any uh erosion control measures or anything that should lie within uh that buffer that there is no disturbance of that that allows the homeowners of uh Oak Hall um to maintain a tree line and a n natural buffer between them because those are full woods uh particularly to the homeowners to the east of this neighborhood right there. Um, I think Shane, you had mentioned this that [clears throat] you'd prefer to maintain gravity and couldn't agree with you more. Uh, so they would have to go through the HOA of uh, Oak Hall in order to get there, which there are no easements in place that would allow them to do that. So, they'd have to negotiate and purchase that in order to do so.

That's my assumption, sir. Yes. Perfect. Uh just wanted to be clear about that. So most likely should we approve it would probably end up on what staff doesn't want would be grinder systems tapped into the sewer system out there. Uh those unfamiliar with grinders uh once they're accepted by the city, city maintains and changes those uh and it is an expense uh recurring expense back to the city. Uh those are my comments toward it. Should it move forward? Well,

I guess I can't wrap my head around the temporary culdeac in the south, seeing as there's just one parcel to the south. There's already a house on it between the south and Kurd road and and I know as a planning commission we always want connectivity. I get it. Um that we could maybe we could even use the easement off Kurd road as an emergency fire protector. But one thing that kind of bothers me about the planning process in general is when when you approve a neighborhood and it goes 30 or 40 years with a with a dead end and it was a temporary culde-sac but nobody knew it. It's just always the asphalt's there. It's a circle and you you use it every day and then you find out well no this is just a temporary gold sack. you've lived here for your whole life and this can be a road through here and go on and connect to another road and that you know that's I don't know it just it upsets people and and it it changes the way they use their property and I guess for me to support this or to vote positively it it we have to make this a permanent culde-sac I mean that's just a deal killer for me because what's going to happen is someday that could I guess I doubt very seriously if anybody can do a lot of develop on this small a lot between that and Kurd road. I mean, how many how many lots could you get there? Maybe one more. I I mean, it's too little for a pud. There's nothing that can really happen. It probably wouldn't happen anywhere, but it could. And if it did, some planning commission someday is going to make it go to Kurd Road and then that's going to completely change one of one of our older subdivisions. It's a really nice subdivision up there, especially, you know, the first homes. I mean, can you imagine if you lived in that neighborhood for your whole life and then all of a sudden you're cook and if you could connect this neighborhood to Kurd Road, you know it's going to happen

at five o'clock at night. But that would be my deal killer on this one. Correct.

Just two comments on this one. One, because I've lived through it. Um if if the even if it's a temporary culde-sac temporary could be for 20 years there would still need to be sidewalk going all the way around. It would need to there would need to have connectivity even in the interim. Um and the other end um the other comments more of a procedural um we we see these culde-sac variances all the time and some we approve, some we don't. Um, some we recommend, some we don't. Um, I would just like to get a stronger stance on that from the engineering side of what's acceptable and what's not. Um, I I don't want to keep going down the slippery slope of saying, "Well, 1500's good. Well, 2,000's good. Well, 2500's good." At what point do we say enough? And then at that at that point, we're going to have a developer screaming foul because we approved the one for 1700 feet and theirs is 18. So I just want to get I'd like to see us tighten up a little bit more on that requirement or better define it.

Well, further questions, comments from the commission,

please. I'll say I'm really torn on this because first of all, I'm happy to see something come in at single family homes, but I feel like they missed the mark here with you've got starting with 67 square foot lot down to an 11,000 foot lot where you've got these big beautiful yards in the front part of this neighborhood that they could have continued with a lot fewer larger lots and homes because let's face it, Mount Juliet does not have very many of those anymore. So, you know, you can incorporate in like that cemetery being there. You could take some of these other lots and combine them. And I mean, that may just be my opinion, but I feel like they missed a really good opportunity there.

Let's go ahead and uh ask for representation of this project. Uh do we have representation for this project here? Please go to the microphone, name and address for the record. I'm Hayden Deberry with Elliot Smith and Associates out of Paris, Tennessee. Our address is 302 North Car Cwell Street in Paris. [snorts] You have a question? Yeah. Commissioner Jones. So, you see where the cemetery where I was we were shown where that that is. Yes, sir. And so, you've got your your lots up there. So, how did you know when you had this drawn where to put these lines?

We did a boundary survey on the place, a boundary and a topographic survey for our survey crew. Okay. So, and [clears throat] I guess what I'm trying to say is if those are, you know, very very old graves, which they pro probably are. How do we know that there's not some on these lots?

I'm not sure. uh we have tried to reach out to well we have talked uh over here with with them and and trying to find somebody [clears throat] to to reach out to them and a lot of times you can go on the tax map and find a me the mailing address and of course there isn't one so really there's nobody to reach out to um in regards to do anything um but that's part of the reason we've left separate subject here but part of the reason we've left the the easement there wouldn't mind kind of moving that to allow a little better access along that far west side. Of course, we can't reach out to nobody to to change that, you know, but um but to answer your question, I I I don't know.

I mean, so name and address for the record if he's part of your group. How about name and address for the record?

Yeah. Uh my name is Mil 241 Court, Tennessee. So I did a lot of search about this cemetery before I bought the property. I talked to uh the lawyer. I bought it from the Wilson County. So I asked the lawyer who is the owner for this cemetery. Um what's the easement for? He told me it is your land the you give the easement to the cemetery. So it is considered my land. The easement we provide this easement to the cemetery. Okay. uh after I make the big chess I hire lawyer and I hire title company try to um know who's the owner who we need to talk to um we not able to find any result I make a lot of search to lawyer working try to communicate with anyone but we not able to find any result we try to move this ement somewhere to be able to make the size of the lots better and equal but we not able to locate the owner of the uh cemetery and we're not able to change the way how the ement crossing the land um [clears throat] so that's why we have to come up with this drawing uh about the cemetery uh I went multiple time walking on the forest try to locate the cemetery multiple time but I'm not able to locate anything it's just heavy forest you not even able able to walk. I get uh hurt a lot. You walk between the trees forest just forest. I was not you were not even able to go off. So I make a lot of search. I I try to walk on it to locate it or find anything but I'm not able to find anything. Uh so it is just forest. I know for sure 99% there is no bodies in this cemetery. It just

left like that for many years for decades. But okay, it's okay. Um, you can do your own search. But I'm not able to find any result. I'm not a I didn't find any result. I tried to walk by myself multiple time. I didn't I just forest. Um, well, I think what the city staff was talking about doing with the uh the what did you say? Not historical, but what was that? What you said? Yeah, they can do some kind of of light scan for better words. Okay,

with maybe in in in conjunction connection with you to to try to come up if there was anything. Obviously, there could be some that would be so old there would be no even an anthropologist couldn't find it. They have to sift through and see if there's any bone and see if there's any metal from people. and look was

but I don't that's not what we're getting the case in. I think they can they'll be they would be able to see maybe you know from the movement down under however they do that. I don't even like to think about but at any rate um I think this is is something that's going to have to be done because if it's that old we just don't we just don't know. People don't know. Back then they used wood they used wood crosses and people's names on it. wood planks and something and then it gets hit by something and then you know um the I I just or in a flood zone. Yeah. Oh, and I didn't realize that either. Y

Well, anyway, I don't know. It's a [clears throat] challenge. I mean, it's a challenge. I love the single family homes, though. And I love what you said about it, too. That was, you know, we need more of that. Um, so anyway, I don't I don't know. It's a challenge. So, yeah. Regarding getting somebody out there to come do the the study uh for remains. Um, you know, what typically, you know, who who would be the owner of this property, you know, like as far as would there be maybe a problem with trespassing of some sort like is is that, you know, kind of get out. I really I think that's a legal question. I don't know.

Yeah. I'm not for sure. ownership back to if it is a family cemetery, the ownership reverts back to said family, but at this time they have no documented family under this cemetery, but I was looking the access easement was granted in 1957 at the county. Um, and this is a farm that has been deed over that I can see three times that goes back into the early 1920s from the research that we've done. So, I will be happy to connect you with Mr. Perry at the historical preservation committee with the state and he probably can give you some connections in order for us to get further documentation for that cemetery so we can make sure that it is properly honored and maintained. Yeah. Let me ask you a quick question right here. You you've heard several comments amongst the commission tonight. Obviously, you've heard staff comments as well of planning and public works. Sounds like there's a you know, we don't understand how you're going to be able to do it if some lot fits. You've heard comments on culde-sacs. You've heard comments on how you're going to get sewer. cities obviously would prefer to keep you on gravity right here. Uh you obviously heard a lot of comments by the commission itself. This be something that you'd prefer to request a at least a 30-day deferral to get some of this homework in, be able to bring this back to the commission with some of these substantial answers uh that you have uh or or that you've heard tonight. Some of the concerns from staff, some of the concerns from the planning commission as well. just to maybe dot some eyes and and cross some tees in the next 30 days if if you should request a deferral does put you forward on our December agenda

is uh is what that does uh automatically I guess how many times are they able to defer I mean if technically needed more time you can do it twice is that correct I I don't remember what that is I don't remember what that is either but at least give you 30 days there's quite a bit of concerns up here. Um, and and you've heard, you know, quite a bit. It sounds like the cemetery being one of the, you know, kind of hot buttons. Yeah, I know that you get a difficult task ahead of you. Yeah. Could it be deferred longer if they wanted it for the first time?

They would have to actually probably ask u um our city attorney how long they could whether or not you can request an indefinite deferral. That way you wouldn't have to pay the fees again or whether it had to be I mean really the only problem the thing that will take the longest is going to be the cemetery. The rest of it we can we'll hand over with him say 30 days but but uh that just helps y'all out need so if and we would allow you to to work with staff on how long that that your deferral should be requested should you wish to go in that direction. Um,

I can't really give you advice or or or whatnot or or say that you should, but you you heard a lot of expressed concerns in regards to this. Yeah. Um, Mina here, he or Mina, he's the owner. Sure. I don't know. Are you want to make that today? you can get like positive feedback and you can work on the other stuff other

I can't tell you right now that you're going to get a positive recommendation or a negative recommendation I'm just saying you've heard of the abundance of been concerns in regards to multiple issues that lie within your site as it's proposed here so I can't give you an indication of how the vote would go um I can say that if it goes negative from us and then it goes negative neative uh back at the board of commissioners as well. It's what a year or two years before they can bring a project one year. Um so if you got negative from us and then negative at the board of commissioners as well, you're basically stopped for a year at that point. So it would your personal choice.

Okay. That's our plan is to build nice single family homes and I don't like small lots. Yeah. I'm planning to build um I want to make big lots, nice lots. So that's my goal and that's fine. I think Terry D is okay with the staff. I don't Okay. Okay. It's it's it it this would be up to you but you can you can defer it indefinitely and then you can work on I think the major thing is the cemetery. It's not really the lot thing because you can combine some [clears throat] of those lots and that kind of thing

because this is obviously November the 20th and and it's starting into the holidays and and some of these people are going to be traveling and a bunch of stuff. It's going to really limit your your availability from these people. So, I'm just trying to help you. I would because indefinitely and you could bring it back in February or January even if you had to or March or whatever. [clears throat] I'm I'm just c can we ask for 30 days from now and if we feel like we need more time we can let them know. You may John I want to clarify that question so the planning commission cannot defer it but correct you may ask. Yes. Correct.

Okay. Can we ask for days and if we need more time I will let them know? I would just do it indefinitely one and then they can choose when to come back. Yeah. Yeah. That's if if you wanted to request an is that a request for indefinite deferral, then you're going to communicate with staff when you're wanting to come back. Yes. Okay. I'm going to accept that as a request for an indefinite deferral. Very well. Thank you, sir. Thank you guys.

Appreciate you guys. Please before we go quickly just and ask if you could work in lock step with them on this as close as you can because I've got some concerns when we've got a property that's deed as a cemetery and I've got we've got a property owner that says he's almost 99% sure there's no bodies. It gives me 100% certainty that I don't trust them doing it by themselves. So, if someone in the city could please just and lock stuff with them because I just hearing that just makes me feel very uncomfortable about them independently doing this process by themselves. That would be my

We'll be happy to. That's one reason that we did do a lot of detailed research and have involved the state historical commission because, as I said, we want to make sure they're honored there. I appreciate that. All right. So, I want to make a comment because I'm sure that a lot of you all are probably out here for this uh Oall development. So, I don't want to feel like that that that's kind of left you guys hanging out there. Um, so as of this moment, uh, that's a 30-day request for deferral. So, uh, well, it's indefinite at this moment. Yeah, he he applicant.

Yeah, but he corrected him though and he said yes on the indefinite. So, um, what I would encourage you all to do, uh, on that with the deferral because it could be 30 days, it could be six months, it could be three or four months. We we don't know. We're not the applicant here. Nor will staff have that answer for you. Um, our agendas for planning commission are um, available on the website one week prior to the planning commission meeting. And so you would be able to see the applicant applying. Again, uh you're going to see as we move forward here some um we're reviewing a zoning ordinance regarding uh some notifications out there. Unfortunately, on this one, there's not going to be any additional notification requirements uh out there. So, you'd have to follow the agenda for the planning commission. Uh we meet the third Thursday of every single month. Um, tonight we approved our planning commission calendar uh for next year. Uh, so if you wanted to follow it, um, I would encourage you to follow it whether or not you're following for this item or not because it's very good information out there about what is coming into the city of Mount Juliet, also what comes within our urban growth boundary out there, not only within the city limits. Um, so it's kind of some fun facts for uh for you to stay up to to date on your u what's happening in the city out there. Um, but as far as I'm aware, Sam, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no notifications that would happen. That's probably the best course from a citizen standpoint to be able to follow to see when this is, of course, you can call and ask staff as well. Uh, but the agenda does go on the city's website one week prior to each meeting, which is the third Thursday. So, the second Thursday of every month is when we publish our agenda out there,

depending on if this zoning ordinance amendment does pass. Okay. The timing could work out right where it does end up being a sign out there, but I definitely wouldn't depend on it at this point.

Okay. Yeah, that's a good point. We're we're trying to get out there. I know that um I think this is sponsored by the city and another and uh maybe the board of commissioners or member of the board of commissioners. We're trying to do more out there to make sure that adjacent property owners, citizens as a whole are aware of what's happening through uh through increased signs, increased uh certified mail notifications, things out there such as that. So, um one of the things we're hearing later in the agenda is hopefully uh addressing some of that out there. I wish I could say there was a a better way that you would be notified out there. That's the best nickels worth of advice that I can give you to kind of follow when it comes back out there. Um, I personally have one of my closest and nearest and dearest friends that abuts this property. So, uh, when I see it, I know I'll let her know. Uh, but unfortunately, I don't know all of you guys here in the crowd. So, kind of follow it that way. Staff is super accessible, um, and always willing to take calls, answer emails or whatnot out there. So, you got some good people here u working for you all within the city. So, I know you guys wanted to hear a little bit more about it, but it is deferred at this time.

Sammy, anything you wish to input on that? No. Very well. Thank you all. Uh, if you did come for that, Commissioner Franklin. Yeah. I was just like to ask staff and I don't know if it's possible, but this could be an opportunity to get this cemetery fixed. Yeah. And, you know, it might be hard. It might be a little legal leg work. It may not be possible, but if it is, I would certainly hope we might use this. This could be a blessing. I mean, you know, could be.

Yep. Yep. Yeah. Without a doubt. Very well. Let's move on with the remainder of our uh agenda tonight. Uh the next item up on our uh agenda uh falls under zoning ordinance amendments. We'll begin with item 10A. His recommendation item back to the board of commissioners is review the zoning ordinance amendment to section 9-106 regarding access management. Um Shane public works.

Go ahead and propose this. Oh, it came from the city attorney's office. Do anybody want to speak on this amendment? Was uh sponsored by Commissioner Giles and Commissioner Mley at the board of commissioners.

You want to speak? Well, [clears throat] Commissioner Mley was was the one and I did co-sponsor it. And so there have been u quite a few [clears throat] quite a bit of confusion on on when you develop something. There was recently something developed here in the city and the owner had to go through a lot of things that he shouldn't have had to go through just because of the wording. It was under it was not understood. It was it was just it was just not clear. And so it's just been some of the areas have been rewritten so that anybody should be able to understand what it is. So if you have somebody in California that wants to look at our zoning code and see, okay, well we may come down there and do something. They can read this and they don't understand and they can understand it and so they don't have to go next door and get somebody to sign up on something for them to develop their piece of property. You know, it's things like that. So, it went before the commission and it was unanimous voting on it.

So, perfect. I I got just a few small comments then.

Um just maybe you guys consider maybe you didn't. Um one of the things that that jumped out at me um because this is not this is overall not commercial or residential. It's going to really grab both. Um like in section five talking about the construction and maintenance. Um this is these are kind of what if scenarios. Uh what if it is residential um you know who is who is paying it's saying that both parties are paying for that. So if it's turned over to an HOA you're basically saying that an HOA and the way that it's worded here that they have to share equal financial responsibility in that. Um so you're putting that burden upon a potential HOA to share in that because this property connects to this property. Um, so Luke wants to connect to Art's property and if I do, Art, whether you like it or not, if [snorts] it's there, you got to pay for it, too. You got fiduciary responsibility to me as well. [clears throat]

But the D the HOA should do that. The problem in the passes is that that stub should be as close as it possibly can to the line and then that connection should be the the financial responsibility of both parties who owns that those pieces of property. So, if that's two HOAs, it's two HOAs. Um, that's a one-time occurring and it's just the maintenance of the road that would be whoever that is. And if it's HOA, it's HOA and it's their street.

But if you're talking and I'm just saying if you're at some connection points, I mean, you could be talking half million dollars. I mean, in the drop of a bucket, easy. And you're I mean I don't know any HOA that all of a sudden gets excited about a $250,000 check or a half million dollar check to connect to a neighborhood that they probably don't want. But the way it was written, they have to go get the permission of that subdivision to do it. And the way that this is written now is that if there was a connection up to it, they can't make that person connect to it. Right. So it takes care of that.

Yeah. But if it's there and it's, let's just say it's never [clears throat] done on this side. So, I'm going to use one of the more popular ones. I'll use Dr. Franklin's office. Yeah. [laughter]

Yeah. Yeah. I I'll use those two there. Uh and uh uh and Dr. Pere's building over there uh with that is that there's a easement that we required across the front. Dr. prey don't want it uh over there uh on his and so should that connection want to Dr. Prey would have to help him pay for it. All I'm saying is is that the way this is written right now that particularly for residential more applicable in my opinion than commercial but you're putting financial responsibility and burdens potentially on people or groups of people that may not be aware of it. So, should somebody want to make that connection, which we've granted from both sides as an easement or whatnot, it should be this cat right here, the new guy that is wanting to make the connection, his financial responsibility to to take we just looked at a temporary culde-sac, tear that culde-sac back out, make that just a single lane road, complete the sidewalks that we just said we wanted to go all the way around it. I mean, that's a huge expense.

So, I mean, we're putting it on an HOA to pay for that. Well, going back to the illustration that you just used up there, that doctor, whomever, if that doctor didn't want it, then there wouldn't be a if that should have been done by the planning commission years ago. That was the city's fault for not maintain for not doing that. Let's call it the way it is. He learn they won the lawsuit. Yeah. So, my understanding there was no Well, whatever. I mean, that was my resation. Yeah. Okay. Well, of course, this was before advice in this game. It's still your fault. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, that was before time, but at any rate, to get back to yours, if you're not careful, then someone could could not do that knowing that the that there's going to be there there's going to be some kind of new construction development coming to to put that expense on someone else. And that's not fair either. So that's why it's written the way it's written.

And I'm just I'm just thinking out loud understand that it's going to be equally shared expense. And so at some point that HOA on the other side of the person making the connection is going to have to downstroke a that check. It's going to be a big check. Sam I won't comment on the financial part of it, but the residential part of it. Normally, you wouldn't, this wouldn't apply to residential because those are public streets. So, those don't involve easements. They're just being connected. This is commercial developments. So, Sprouts can connect to the physicians plaza. That's where this is coming into play. Not residential.

But they wouldn't have to follow this on a residential two potential connectors. We don't need easements for public roadways. They just connect. So, we just need to pay attention if they were private roadways. Correct. Yeah. To kind of follow up, we for temporary culde-sacs, we require them to to dedicate the rightway all the way to the adjacent property owner is us. Okay.

Uh and really it's just a condition of approval for the incoming residential, tear out the culde-sac, connect to it, and that's it. It's it's no different than when we ask them to connect to a existing street perpendicular. It's okay. I'm I'm I'm a big fan of it and and like it. I'm just kind of one of those things I'm looking for potential unintended consequences of what we do. And that that was kind of one of my fears there. My uh um I wrote a suggestion right here just I say maybe a provision that caps the time frame on the shared costs out there. You know, where they're designed to connect. this one's turned over whether or not commercially or what not. Um that I don't know, just seems unfair that if I've bought a property, I've owned it for 20 years, it does show a stub out there and all of a sudden Art wants to connect his property to mine. Let's just say commercially right there as well. That all of a sudden, hey, he's going to make the connection to me finally. Oh, and then by the way, I have to absorb half of its cost to do it.

No, it's not his cost. It would be the cost on his side. It would be the connection to it if they didn't put the stub up because this commission didn't in didn't require them to. Sorry, that's your all's fault. He should have pulled it up there. But if it been up there, you're not talking about a whole lot of space. This says when post Well, I know.

You see what I'm saying? It's not. And like like a lot of times you put it on the plaque whether and it and it specifies that on there that if it's either it's either stubbed out or it's on the plaque that it will be you know like for example I know of one one PL that says they will give cross access when they get access to a light and it's possible that it will come. Yeah. because there's no other reason to see. So, it's on the plat. There's cross access up there. That's the responsibility of that owner up to the line.

But if that owner gets that cross access and so that he can get to the to the light and that financial burden is put upon this lot that's making the cross access connection of the of installing the light, does he not have to? Yeah. But does he not have to example? I mean, you see what I'm Yeah. I'm just saying giving approval down the road for future connection is different from having a financial burden tied to that approval. I think that's where everybody's coming from here. Yeah. Is I'll give you approval all day long, but 10 years down the road you ask me to pay for it, that's a different story. If you want to pay for it to make that connection, that's your business.

Yeah. That's all I'm saying is because the way it's written, it says right here says both stoves can be connected. It is the financial responsibility of each owner to pay for their property portion of the connection if it's committed. But it doesn't say an if. And property shall not be subdivided to avoid this requirement. There's no if in it. It is saying that we decide to connect. It's happening and you're sharing the cost. Yes, sir. So I'm just looking at unintended consequence. All I'm saying that could be a very consequence and a burden.

Well, is it our place to dictate financial responsibility between two property retroactively? There's only one there's only a few entities in the state that allow retroactively cause access and and that's through imminent domain and you know even the RTA the regional transportation authority doesn't have imminent domain and a private property owner can't be compelled to force a private property owner to even connect and we and after it's developed we don't have any authority other than using our power of imminent domain and then turn it over to a developer which that looks really really good, right? Nobody wants to even do that.

So I I this is I think I'm in I'm in favor of it because I think it

I don't think this was un I don't think this was enforceable. I think we were trying to get developers and one private we were trying to make private people compel other private people to do things they don't have any authority to do. I think that's what they're trying to do here. Am I getting this right? Is that the is because crossing out some of this cross access quarters in number two I if you leave them in here I don't just don't see how you can make that happen. I mean let me just tell you something. I've lived here a long time and we've got some very, very sharp private owners and they are the king of spite strips and they are the king and queens of figuring out how to buy property that they want to continue, especially property next door to them. You know, they don't want the value of to go up. So, they're not going to, you know what I'm saying? So, so how do we legislate one private property owner to make another private property owner connect or do something on behalf so they can develop because that property owner probably doesn't want them to develop because they probably rather have that property and develop it themselves. We get a lot of that around here.

Yeah. Right. [clears throat] I think Sam brought up with the Sprouts and the Physicians Plaza. Um that's more than one owner. That's what four, five owners if my memory of Physicians Plaza. A Physicians Plaza connecting to Sprouts. It's more than one. Yeah, it's [clears throat] four. Yeah. So, you take that and then you multiply it. It's not just two people at that point. Then you've got a bigger mess because you've got residentially inverse condemnation lawsuits are not fun. You have to pay their legal fee. And

I'm gonna allow Commissioner Ras just made a good point. Do you want to share that? just I think it's good. I think what's written here is fine. I got one question that I'm going to ask city attorney about. But I think in that sentence in and I guess uh item five if we just struck where it says when both stubs can be connected is financial responsibility of each owner to pay the prop their property portion of the connection. If we just strike that, the rest just fine. And then my question in city is, can we dictate who pays for what? Is that within our legal boundaries to do that?

This was a sentence, I believe, that Commissioner Maly added. Um, no, I would not recommend that. No. I I think if we just strike the reference to financial responsibility, I think I could get behind this. Okay. So, let me ask you something then. If we take that out of there, so who is going to pay for it? You know, they both can. One second. That's their business. You know, a lot of these things that we get our developers are volunteers. Yeah. But when we hold a site plan over somebody's head approval and and they say they're going to give us 30 ft of rideway, we can make them.

If you got if you got a large commercial property and you tell a developer that there's a quarter of a million dollars standing in between you and developing this property, I think they'll come up with the money pretty quickly. I think that's what it boils down to. And if for some reason their neighboring property is nice enough or kind enough to pitch some money in, then good for them. But I don't think it's it's our job to to play referee and make people pay. Well, here's an example that came up here in the city about this over on another area because of the the the the contour of the land, the the slope of the land. [clears throat] If they didn't bring that, if they wasn't required to bring that up to the line, they bought that property and developed it knowing that someday they put the cross access there. except they didn't bring it up the line. Whoever buys that property is going to have to either bring their property up to match it or go over there and bring their property down. So, in actuality, they should have brought their property down initially to connect to that. But because they didn't because exactly what you said about about this, then they're putting the burden on someone else that may not be able to do that and they're just waiting to be able to acquire that piece of property.

Well, but then they should have developed first. That's a bad way to say it, but it's it's private ownership. It's already owned, already approved, and already recorded at the register of deeds.

And you're you're getting into that. It's not they're not volunteering it. You're you're asking you're we are it's inverse condemnation folks. I mean any other way I'm Hey, I got electrocuted worse than anybody in here with this. I'm telling you it's bad lawsuit to lose and I I just don't think you can compel it. I think you brought up a good point. We have one more suggestion since I'm stirred the thought. [laughter] This would be sorry just on number six. [clears throat] It says the city may wave or modify joint use driveways or cross access corridors. Um my recommendation would be that that the city is a little bit of a broad comment for something of that kind of action that that should read the board of commissioners I would specify or the planning commission whomever you guys would deem acceptable to make that kind of a decision. But a waiver or a modification of these sorts shouldn't just fall upon a broad term such as the city because those could be some major waiverss or modifications that technically you know an employee of public works could say that's great he's the city. [snorts]

It's probably worded like that because it would depend on what type of plan I guess it is. is I mean if it came in as a PUD and now we're amending the PUD, it has to go through all of the normal steps to amend it. If it fits within the parameters that staff is allowed to fix things, then it would just fall there. So,

yeah. Or or I'd even be a fan of saying the city attorney, but I'm just saying to specify something. Yeah, exactly. To to just specify where it's going. Who's going to who's going to make this decision? Because somebody needs to make this decision. And who is going to make that decision? I think the term city is for as significant of a waiver and a modification as this could turn into that. I think the term city is I mean John, you're come to John. John, I mean I'd say nope. Go to Shane or Matt or Todd. I'm gonna say not going to follow me. I'm not going to do that. I don't want to take the responsibility for that. So I would just suggest that to be you know board of commissioners or um your planning comm wh whomever it is but I just think the word city is a little bit too broad for something as significant as approving a waiver or modification something. That'd be my only other comment.

Going back up on number five where it says can be connected. Another word that could be used there are connected and then it's not can be it's are and that's when the decision of the city says y'all need to connect it. Then the financial responsibility falls on both property owners wherever it is instead of can be it could a word could be put there are because it may not be ever connected. Yeah. still have the problem with dictating financial responsibility.

They they're they're big boys, they're developers. If they want to connect, they'll find a way to do it. They'll find money to do it. Especially if one if they're both coming in at the same time, we can hit the multipliers and say, "Yeah, you need to provide stuff to the property line. But if there's one existing there and someone's coming in to develop property next door, that's your down, buddy. We're not going to say you you already developed your property. You're a business owner that owns that property." Oh, yeah. By the way, this guy wants to come in now and you got to share the responsibility with connection. Hell no. I wouldn't do it. I've built a house where

I've had somebody that they should have cut their lot on the side and didn't and put a major financial burden but on developing the lot adjacent to them. But it is what it is. We had to play the card we were dealt to make it work. So if you got that high low scenario out there, I just, you know, person that we did the work for knew it was there when they got it and came to meet it. You know, kind of one of those things. But just a suggestion because I know this is a recommendation item back, but there's some loopholes in here that I think that you guys could probably close.

Shane, please. Um, so my big concern with with number five as written, um, essentially every stub we currently have is void because no property owner is going to pay to carry that stub if it wasn't brought to the property line, even if the easement was given. Um, and we we lose the ability to enforce cross connectivity if that stub wasn't carried at the property line. Quite frankly, I'm not sure we can even construct stubs to the property line just with the limitations of how far a paper can go without crossing the line. Um, now I do absolutely agree that we do need to be better defining like what what occurred that brought this up absolutely shouldn't happen. Um, however, I I I think that clause as written, absolutely takes all enforcability out of our hands.

Good points. Very, very good. And that's just we looked I can remember years ago we looked at um something within the sign ordinance because of these um neon lights in the windows that were so bright and we were about to pass a sign ordinance that didn't allow you it was going to cover you could we going to have to take those neon lights out of your windows but the unintended consequence of passing that also meant that your mom and pops which I'm going call the stretch uh on uh Lebanon Road at Northb Mount Juliet Road, you know, you got just a string of uh in the in the Jones buildings up there of small retailers, mom and pops, every one of those would have had to pull their signs out of their windows, open, close, those kinds of things. So just kind of looking at what could be great intent, great suggestion, uh but what could be unintended consequences of fixing something and these are I see them as possible consequences or unintended consequences of such. So that's the reason why I wanted to bring them forward. [clears throat]

Yeah. because we've seen some circumstances if it's not rewritten. That's the thing about it. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's a it's a tough one, but yeah, we can make a recommendation here momentarily. Everybody give it on discussion. Perfect. Let's go ahead and call for citizen comments. Got to do that to make it official. [laughter] Name and address for the record. Bill Robinson, 1400 North Mount Juliet Road, Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Uh, I'm the subject of of the problem here.

When we developed Sprouts, we were asked to connect to the property next door, which we did, and we were going to, and then we were told uh by the city attorney that we had to have a reciprocal agreement. Well, when we went to the five owners of that, which turned out they didn't have a property owners association or anything. They had their LLC had gone to bunk. I worked for eight months. I couldn't force them. We were willing. We went ahead and spend the 15 or 20 grand to connect to them, put the sidewalks in and the handicaps in. So, the money wasn't the issue with us. It was being able to follow the guidelines of the city. We were told that you couldn't even have we shouldn't even been issued a permit for Ever Downs because we didn't have a reciprocal easement before we bought the land which is is you cannot force we all know I could name some property owners in Mount Juliet. I've been out here over 50 years. We all know property owners in Mount Juliet wouldn't sign an easement if their life depended on it because they've got a farm and and I'm de let's let's say you're developing Green Hills next door to a farm and you say, "Okay, we've got a beautiful development. Everybody likes it. The commission, the BOC, the planning commission, and you get up there and you say, "Okay, we've got one access to a to a farm here." And this farmer says, "Hey, I got cows over here and I'm not going to give you an access. You know, my kids are going to have this farm and everybody wants it, but you've agreed to pave to the property line and you're saying now we can't have this development, the Green Hills Mall, because you can't make a property owner do it." I property owner sign an easement. I think that in a in a in a

court of law that would be inverse condemnation. I've been told by some constitutional attorneys that that this is not legal. Of course, we didn't have we had a development under roof. We couldn't go to court and and be three years down the road. But I don't know what this wording needs to be, but it needs to say if a developer is trying to get to the property next door and is perfectly willing to do it, I don't think you should force that developer to make an independent private citizen sign an easement before he can get his development approved. And that's what your current ordinance says. And it's it's ridiculous to me. And it's never been enforced before. We've got 50 of these situations out there right now. So, the attorney is going to be awful busy if the city doesn't turn change this because they're gonna have to file 40 or 50 lawsuits to make all these people sign reciprocal easements is the way it's written today. So, those are all my comments. I just want to make the point. It took me eight months and we had to got down to legal action. we everything just to try to get these people on board and it was and I don't have a dog in the fight now. We're we're we've got it signed and we found out that they were under the same ordinance I did and uh and they had to comply with city ordinance, but we could have uh you know said, "Hey, y'all bring the road on up." Because they were required to. The city just didn't make them to it. But we went ahead and put the connected and and opened up the sprouts. But I just want to make sure it's not fair for other people to to force people to sign uh easements. Thank y'all very much.

Thank you.

And the way this is written, see, is that if they can put the the the access on the actual plant because it may never develop over there. So that person, it's up there. But then if it does, it's that person because that person chose 20 years before not to bring it up there and and thinking, okay, if it ever does, then I will then I'm responsible for doing that. That's what this is trying to get a across. and we have selectively enforced something on someone that we hadn't before. But yet, we've got someone out here that cares enough about the city that didn't bring a suit against us. So, you know, I I commend Commissioner Mley for taking this on and and what Little Li did to help. She was the one who did this and I commend her for it.

It does fix the problem. this problem. Passing this fixes this problem. Yes, that problem was taken a little bit out of context, but yes.

Well, I I guess just out of curiosity because we do approve [clears throat] a lot of things with cross connectivity or connectivity to adjacent properties. Um, I've not done or been involved in any type of that development or style development where I can speak firsthand, but if we're showing connectivity to an adjacent property, why do we not have in our subdivision regulations that requires them to take their road or their what we have approved here to the edge [clears throat and snorts] of their property line? And then therefore trying to add here.

Yeah, it does that too. Or if you go look at us for if you go look at recorded plas which I did before the Oakmont thing because I want to find out if it was a temporary permanent culdeite and the way it was platted is the road rightway went right to the edge of the property. So it's the plat the recorded plat that determines really whether or not it's a temporary culde-sac you know it all looks like a circle of asphalt but I mean on the plat plat doesn't match the you know what's on the ground so that's how as far as I know we've been doing that for years right and if we're platting it all the way to the property's edge then then it's there right there is no

it's not somebody else's responsibility to go across on them and do it it's their responsibility you to bring it up. I I thought I thought this problem was solved. I thought this took care of it. So, I don't know. If you guys think this will fix it, I'll certainly vote for it because, you know, developers raise money. You know, that's what they do. They're money raisers. They borrow money. They go out and try to put something together and try to make return. And man, a lot. I mean, you can you we could have lost sprouts over this. Yeah. I mean, look at the tax this has already brought in the taxes for us here in the city. when it was open. It could have been open before then. So, yeah. Yeah. Interesting. I definitely see your issues. So, let's uh

I guess make a motion. Let's u ask for recommendation regards this item on the agenda. I got one more. Sorry. No, please.

Forgot about that. In item three, I just want some clarification on what that means. It's understood that the new development will not be required to get the adjoining property owner to sign any document to provide access. Does that mean it's there? I'm using it. I'm connecting whether you want it or not. Is that what that says? Um, this part was written by Commissioner Mley, I believe, but I think the intent is that in the case of not an old development already being in place. So, one development is coming in and it's undeveloped on each side, they will have to provide an access easement for the other side should it develop to be able to come onto to cross over to their property. Then when the new development if it does come then they would also provide cross access and now we essentially have flowing both ways. But again this is only in areas where the city has decided that it's a cross access quarter. This isn't all the time right this is just in cases where we want cross access

and that have to be executed at final plat. It would be on the plat and then also by instrument. Great. Yeah. Is this this verbiage? Are you gonna straighten the verbiage up or or is this verbage the verbage that Commissioner Mle wants?

Is it enforceable? I can't I I can't get behind this without it being rewarded. Plain and simple. I I think we're setting us up for lawsuits. We're taking care of hopefully not getting a lawsuit. You can have unintended consequences trying to fix one problem and create another one.

Well, if something isn't recommended or is done, is it worse to leave it the way it is is the question. I mean, it's a choice. It may not be perfect, but is it a step in the right direction? And does does it heal a wound if not cure the patient here? I don't I mean,

here's a thought. I think it's a step, but I think in its current form is not something I can get behind. I think with legal counsel advice and reworking of the wording, it is something we could get behind. It's something that could be valuable. But the way it's written, when we we we've reviewed other things like this before where the wording just wasn't quite right and we had to go back and redo it. And I think to Commissioner Rass's point, there's not a single person on the board of commissioners that's an attorney. And that's why we have a city attorney.

And I think Commissioner Mley might have had the best intentions here, but I think at the end of the day, that's why we have a city attorney on payroll is to take an idea and make it close loopholes, look at unintended consequences, and make it the best it possibly can be. And I think right here is a prime example of we are not using the resources that we have at the city. Yeah,

I I just I would just like and that that's the part that kept striking me is as we've asked questions about this, it's well, this is how the commissioner wrote it. This is how the commissioner wanted it. It's like, well, I I would much rather sit here and have the city attorney say, I got an idea, I worked with the commissioner on it, and I'm good with this. And I have not heard that sentence at all tonight. And that brings a lot of concern because why Why do we have t why do we have taxpayer dollars going to a city attorney that has the skill and talent to do her job and we're not using her? Like that's I just that's the part that that's just I can't wrap my head around.

Mr. J. Yeah. Another comment. Do you have a lot of opposition against the wording in this document? I had opposition to certain sections. Yes. Okay. And that could be that could be reviewed with Malle and myself and then brought to the board of commissioners. Yes. Okay.

And I guess that's my concern. I don't want to chime in again and I don't want to put the city attorney in an awkward spot. But if we have a city attorney that behind the scenes before this comes to us says, "I have concerns and this is still coming before us with concerns." That's a problem to me. That that's why we have staff. That's why we have staff that works on the plats and we have public works and we have Todd that looks at engineering. We have Sam that looks at legal. I mean, just because you have an idea, that's well and good. But, I mean, we have resources here, guys. That's that's the whole point of having staff. If that was the case, shut city hall down and let BOC sit up here 24/7 and answer every question. I mean, it just it really Yeah. Well, exactly. Yeah. It it just really frustrates me that we have all this staff and we have these experts and we're not using them and we're just trying to steamroll something through it. Just

if I can add something my role is to just make recommendations. So Oh, yeah. I know. The BOC can take it or leave it. Um so I just make the recommendation. The BOC can bring whatever they want before you. So this was well within any commissioner's right to bring No, no, completely get that. And I I think the frustration is more just on the fact that we've got expert opinions or recommendations and we are choosing to ignore them and that is my concern. Not even ask. Yeah. Not even ask or if you did just keep going. So

So that gets us to a point of a requesting a recommendation back on this. Um a motion like that one. I will second that one. I am looking for a motion in regards to sign urgent motion for a negative recommendation. A second. I think that you should I would highly motion for a negative recommendation pending consult with the city attorney for fine-tuning the language within these to protect the city. Is that

my third? Do you want to include any specifics within that such as your comments on number three, such as the financial responsibility, such as the broad term of the city and number six?

Okay, I'll add all [laughter] those. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Um, yeah. Uh, consideration for striking uh the sentence when both stubs can be connected. as financial responsibility to each donor to pay for their portion of the connection. Um item six, clarification on a jurisdictional body within the city to be allowed to make those decisions. Um and clarification of the last sentence on item three. So motion George support that. That is a negative recommendation with suggestions uh with the first and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. There's a negative recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners. It is to review the zoning ordinance amendment section 14-109 regarding public notice requirements. Mr. John,

sure thing. You um hinted at this earlier. So all this does is move the public notice requirement from 10 days I believe it's 10 days before the second hearing at BOC and it will now be pending approval of this 10 days prior to the planning commission and that all that so that you know that knocks it ahead weeks um versus what it is now required. Um, this would also apply to both board of zoning appeals as well. So, public notice for board of zoning appeals is also included and staff recommends positive. Thank you.

Questions, comments from the commission.

State law allow us to do this. Is it okay? I got one quick one and I just want to make sure I'm reading it right because I put a little note right here. Uh item one, general requirements. Maybe reading it out loud will help me uh answer my own question. I don't know. It states the planning and zoning department or its design or its design shall post signs on properties for which either an action by the board of zoning appeals or request for change of zoning classification has been requested. Should that not state and planning commission or is this just simply referring to actions that go before boza? All right. What if it goes before planning? Because it to me it doesn't seem applicable because it doesn't say either an action by the board of zoning appeals or request to change. What about actions that just come to planning and maybe not boza? See where I'm going with that?

Yeah, the request for zoning class the change of zoning classification is automatically planning commission board doesn't handle that. And we're not doing all planning commission items. That's why it specifically says a change in zoning classification. But specifically the action by the board of zoning appeals because it's all actions of the board of zoning appeals. For the planning commission part, it's just the request for a change of zoning classification. It's everything for the BZA, just zoning classification for PC.

Okay. And it kind of threw me when it starts out planning and zoning and then it goes back to just saying just boza. So just making sure that that's not a clarification item. Perfect question. I know I'm delaying everything here. I'm [laughter] sorry. Um question and I think I've asked you about this before, John. Um we we have requirements for them being posted. We don't have requirements for them to be removed or taken down. because I I mean I I've driven through plenty of neighborhoods and they're just all over the place. Is it a requirement that we can put on the property owner or is it this the city is removed? Can we dictate that?

I don't know what happens with the pilot because he does it for the um the applicants responsible for placing and removing the signs and they are supposed to remove them once the project is finished. We don't have quite enough people to drive around and enforce that in real life, but that is their instruction. Well, without language in here, we don't have an opportunity to send them a letter say take your crap down. Adding some language could be beneficial. Could we consider adding some language to that that property owners taken down and then we could violate them if they don't?

Okay. a later let's worry about this as it is right now but a future amendment. Yeah. Okay. Further questions comments this time call for citizen comments. Any citizen wish to make comment. Welcome Kurt to do so. Name and address for the record. See no citizen comments. Looking for recommendation regards this item on our agenda. motion for a positive recommendation with comments about vetting up time for when it's time to be removed and that time can be determined by staff.

I'll make a recommendation on our political signs uh or temporary non-commercial temporary signs that involve political signs as well. We have uh verbiage within the sign ordinance that says within five days following the end okay of the election so forth and so on. So

so Commissioner George I think Commissioner Franklin you had the second still seconds good. Commissioner George you're good. That's a motion a second for a positive recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. That is a positive recommendation. Next item up on our agenda is item 10 C, which is a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners, is review the zoning ordinance amendment to section 5-104.3 regarding variable lot subdivisions.

Mr. John, we're going to delete that section. That's all. [laughter] need some clear. Are you going to delete that section or [clears throat] just that section will be removed from the ordinance entirely? I I uh I would appine that I hate that word, but I would appine that it's it's redundant with the with the PUD process and it doesn't serve a a reason. It doesn't serve a real purpose with the PUD process that we have as we know it. The intent that we initially thought it would is not there. Exactly.

Correct. Agreed. Questions, comments from the commission. Very well. This time we'll call for citizen comments. See no citizen comments. I am looking for a motion in regards to this item on our agenda. Recommendation.

It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions is a positive recommendation. Uh next item up is item 10D. It's also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners to review the zoning ordinance amendment to section 8-207.54 or 4.A regarding open space requirements. Miss Jill,

just a short and sweet version on this one. Um, as you know, we currently have pending legislation that came before you all in October to uh reduce the minimum lot size to 7,500 square feet. It passed first reading of BFC on November 10th. In the process of doing that, we thought it would be behoove us to review the open space requirements because as it stands currently the open space um we require 7% for all residential puds and then 20% for your RM8 and RM16 zoning. So, our recommendation as staff uh because of the smaller lots create more opportunities for amenities and open space. We thought a standard 20% across the board for all residential puts um instead of separating it for 7% for the nonRM8 and nonRM16. Um it reduces the burden on the city. It enhances the opportunity for quality of life improvements. And this would be improved recreational open space. So staff does recommend a positive recommendation back to the board of commissioners to just have an across the board 20%.

Questions, comments from the commission?

Of course, I've got a couple. Um, one, this is uh really my main one because it as I read it, it it falls back in several several several several times within, but there's several references to this being at uh final master development plan um that go through here. Um, I I got so many circled that that I can't, you know, point them out. But I would prefer to see this a preliminary master development plan because, as I was told not too long back, we got to a final master development plan that I personally did not like and I didn't think was like the preliminary master development plan that we approved. Um, therefore, I would like to see this requirement be upheld at preliminary master development plan so that the planning commission still has the ability to make adjustments should it be deemed so because when it comes to final, I'm not aware that we can make any further adjustments and we're just kind of blessing it and moving it forward. So I would prefer to see something like this come to us be a requirement that's completed at the presentation of preliminary versus final. That would be my major suggestion on it because it does it it final final final final uh as you read the documents all in there. Um so I would recommend it to be um a preliminary master development plan. And just one other uh random one out there um just falls underneath the recreational equipment says all recreational equipment provided within any shared general use recreation space shall be durable commercial grade equipment. Did we inspect that?

Because I've seen some playground stuff and if it's commercial well I'm running for president of the United States next week. Yeah. [laughter] But it doesn't seem I've seen a couple not going to throw any particular projects under a bus, but their stuff looks like they went to Lowe's and bought it. I can tell you personally, I've been out on landscape inspections and we have had them withdraw equipment

because it did not meet the the specifications. There are uh I can't remember the exact um qualifications on it, but there are specifications um for playground equipment um nationally accepted playground equipment and we do uh adhere to those. So we it's the consumer product safety commission, excuse me. Um yeah, you say it right here. I mean this gives you teeth is what I'm saying.

It does and we have had them remove them. I mean so and it is something that is is looked at at you know final landscape if if we go through and that is a requirement there but that is something that we put in within the site plans or within the the puds and everything that we do require the commercial grade equipment that adhere to the consumer product safety commission's requirements and we can't we do have the teeth to make them pull them out and we have great I mean I can personally adhere to that.

I love it. That's what I That's what I was looking for because you it's like this thing gives you all the teeth to do it. And uh so I hope you're holding them to the fire on that right there because uh we had a lot of talk tonight about amenities and uh yeah I mean bless anybody that puts together any kind of swing set. So there rather build a house than a swing set. Uh further questions, comments, discussion from the commission. Let's call for citizen comments regards this item on the agenda. Any citizen comments? Seeing no assisting comments, I am looking for recommendation in regards to this item on the agenda. I will make a recommendation a a motion for a positive recommendation uh with the change within the ordinance to be preliminary uh master development plan and not final master development plan. Second.

That is my motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against abstensions. That is a positive recommendation. I am looking for a motion to adjourn. Motion second. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. I against extensions. We are journ.