Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank everybody for coming down and if everybody, we welcome everyone and thank you for coming down on this very hot day. I'm glad the air conditioning is working today. So yeah, I don't want to jinx us. So welcome and commissioners, welcome. We'll go ahead and get started and this is the Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting of August 13th, 2026. And we'll go ahead and get started on item B, which is the adoption of the agenda. And commissioners, the agenda was sent out earlier. And is there a motion to adopt? There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And the agenda is adopted. Next, we are on item C, which is the approval of the July 23rd, 2026 minutes. And that was also sent out to you commissioners earlier. Is there a motion to approve? Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And the minutes are adopted. And then we are on item D, which is the newer public comment period. And Lisa, if you'll just remind the audience about this particular newer rule that we have, and then we'll get through that.

Sure. Consistent with state law requirements, the commission sets out a time at the beginning of the meeting for items that may not have a regularly scheduled public hearing. We have to provide time during the meeting for persons wishing to speak on any agenda items or items relevant to the commission. And so that time is set up at the beginning. We have a sign-up sheet and no one signed up.

Yes, so I have the sign-up sheet and Commissioner Nguyen signed up. And so we will move on to, and so seeing no one signing up, we'll go on to move on to item E, which is the recognition of the council members and council members. We always appreciate y'all coming down and we take y'all as we see you come in. And so I first saw Council Member Nash. Welcome. Let's make sure your microphone's on.

Thank you for entertaining me for a few minutes. I was speaking earlier with Commissioner Marshall. I want to thank you all for the work you do. 80% of what comes to council is probably zoning issues. And you guys always get the first bite. So if there's a contentious issue, you get the slings and arrows first and kind of give us warning. And we're grateful for that. I have two items on the agenda today. Item number six, the 274 Locustwood Drive, Haywood Lane, a plat move approval, recommended for approval, flat change church. And speaking with the reviewer, they're wanting to move the line to include some parking area that's there for the church, and then they're gonna be selling the home, but leave lots of property for the home. So I find no issue with that and have not heard any complaints about that. And then number 18, a request to rezone from RS 10 to R 10. Property is located at 277 and 281 Tusclan Road. I've conversed with both of the planners there. Prior to my taking office, Council Lady Duvette Blalock had kind of downzoned most all of the residential area of District 27. And I got in on the conversation on the second part of that. And generally supportive. People in the district were very adamant about, we've got enough density now, and generally... District 27 is one of the smaller districts because we are dense and got lots of apartments, lots of townhouses, lots of duplexes and quadruplexes. And so I've been very reticent about making any change from the RS-10 to R-10. But like every big change like that, there's properties that get kind of scooped up in that that maybe don't need to be necessarily changed. And I think this is one of those places where... the developers taking big lots. There's still going to be big lots when they're all done. They're not building tall skinnies. They're building homes very compatible with the neighborhood and the lot size will be very compatible with the established neighborhood there. So I ask for your approval of that change.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman. Appreciate you coming down. Councilman Huffman, you're up. Welcome.

Good afternoon, y'all. Great to see you as always. I am coming here today on behalf of items 10A and 10B on your agendas, really just to give you a little bit of history on this property. This parcel was attempted, there was an attempted rezone by my predecessor to allow some townhomes on this property. Actually, hold on one second. Let me back up a little bit more. In 2020, there was a church on this property, Dodson Chapel United Methodist, that was destroyed by the tornado. At that time, my predecessor tried to put some town homes on this parcel. The flood study came back bad and essentially the neighboring parcel owner Vulcan purchased it in an attempt to one day do something with it. And that something with it is why I'm here today. They are proposing to put a employee center on the property and to hide that with a grass berm with native trees and wildflowers, but also they are willing to put a memorial to this church. Now, the great part about the Hermitage community is it very much is a small place. So we were able to track down the original bell from the church, and that's going to be incorporated into this design. I think this is going to be something that the community is going to be really proud of. So also, I'd like to mention there is space for some sidewalks. That is a item that is ongoing. It's a little bit tricky from an engineering perspective on allowing a sidewalk on that entire end. So we're going to talk to NDOT in between now and when this comes to council. There could be an amendment, so just don't want to catch y'all off guard with that. But with that, I ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman.

Appreciate the update. Councilman Foe, come on. How are you? Welcome. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Thank you all so much. And thank you to the commissioners for your service to our city. We are all so appreciative. I have three items on the agenda today. And they're agenda items number 11, 12, and 19. And I'm gonna make it really easy. I am in support of all of them. For number 11, this is a rezone from RM 20 to SP with Safe Haven Family Shelter. And, you know, our city always talks about how we need daycares. They are answering that call. And so this rezone so that because they needed office and the daycare, it needed to have mixed use, which is why there was a why we needed to rezone. from RM 20 to SP. Item number 12 is a rezone from CF to SP at 300 McCain Street. And this is the former Crazy Horse space. I think we're familiar with that. And I'm very excited because this is gonna be an affordable housing project. I think to me, nothing of its kind. I'm really, really excited about this so that we can really answer the call of the affordable housing that we need in our city. And then the last one, agenda item number 19, is a rezone from R6 to OR20ANS at 762 Linwood Avenue. I've been very consistent whenever I'm getting rezones around this area. And so if you'll look, they are all consistent and working with the applicants. So I just ask for your support and thank you all so much.

Thank you, Council. I appreciate you coming down. Any other council members? I didn't see any. All right. We'll make sure we get everybody. All right, Commissioner. So next, seeing no other council members, we'll move on to item F, which is items for deferral or withdrawal. Go ahead.

Okay. Items for deferral or withdrawal tonight. Starting on page four of your agenda, item number 5, 2026 SP 028001, 4301 Hillsboro Pike SP, this item will be deferred to the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. On page five of your agenda, item number seven, 2026.105.001, staff recommendation is deferred to August 27th. And item number nine, 2026.Z.051.PR.001, staff recommendation is to defer indefinitely.

Thank you, and so commissioners, make sure we get this correct, the items for withdrawal are items number five, seven, and nine. Is that correct? That's correct. All right, commissioners, you heard the items for deferral or withdrawal. Is there a motion? There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it, and those items are deferred. Next is the consent agenda. Go ahead.

Items noted below on our tentative consent agenda. These items will be read aloud at the beginning of the meeting to determine if there's opposition present. If there's opposition present, please raise your hand and those items will be presented in the order in which they appear on the agenda. If no opposition is present, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. As notice to the public, items on the consent agenda will be voted on at a single time. No individual public hearing will be held, nor will the commission debate these items unless a member of the audience or the commission requests that the item be removed from the consent agenda. Starting on page three of the agenda, item number one, 2025 CP-006-001 Bellevue Community Plan Amendment. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. On page four of your agenda, item number two, 2026 CP-001-001, Jolton Community Plan Amendment. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the agenda to be heard. On page four of your agenda, item number three, 2026 C-013-TX-001. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be heard. Item number four, 2026SP018001, is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number six, 2026S103001, is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. On page five of your agenda, item number eight, 2026Z046PR001, is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 10A, 2026CP014001 and the associated case item 10B, 2026SP033001. Is there anyone here in opposition to these items? These items will be on the consent agenda. On page six of your agenda, item number 11, 2026SP034001. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 12, 2026SP039001. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 13, 2024S116003. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 14, 2026S125001. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 15, 2026Z058PR001 and the associated case item 15B1582P003. Is there anyone here in opposition to these items? These items will be on the consent agenda. Item number 16 on page seven of your agenda, 2026Z039PR001. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 17, 2026Z048PR001, is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 18, 2026Z053PR001, is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. And item number 19, 2026Z056PR001, is there anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. And so that was our first run through of all the items on the tentative consent agenda.

I just ask for clarification. Would you mind rereading six? I think I saw a hand, but I couldn't tell because it went down quickly. Would you mind rereading that just to make sure?

Yeah, I think we need clarification on four as well. Okay, thank you. On item number four, 2026 SP 018001 Elam Station. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? Okay.

That's what I think I saw. Do six instead as well.

And also item number six, 2026 S 103001. Is there anyone here in opposition to this item? Okay. We will have four on the agenda as well. Okay, and I'll go ahead and run through with full captions now. As information for our audience, if you are not satisfied with the decision made by the Planning Commission today, you may appeal the decision by petitioning for a writ of cert with the Davidson County Chancery or Circuit Court. Your appeal must be filed within 60 days of the date of entry of the Planning Commission's decision. To ensure that your appeal is filed in a timely manner and that all procedural requirements have been met, please be advised that you should contact independent legal counsel Our items on the consent agenda tonight are item number one, 2025 CP-006-001 Bellevue Community Plan Amendment. This is a request to amend the Bellevue Community Plan by changing the community character policy from suburban neighborhood maintenance to transition policies. Staff recommendation is to approve. On page four of your agenda, item number six, 2026 S-103-001, This is a request for a final plat to shift lot lines for properties along locust wood and Haywood lane. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions, including exceptions to section three dash 5.2 of the subdivision regulations on page five of your agenda. Item number eight, 2026 Z zero four six PR zero zero one. This is a request to rezone from RS five to R six a for property at three 21 Valeria street. Staff recommendation is to approve. Item number 10, item number 10A, 2026CP014001. This is a request to amend the Donaldson Hermitage Old Hickory Community Plan by adopting a supplemental policy. Staff recommendation is to approve. In the associated case, item 10B, 2026SP033001, Vulcan Materials Company. Staff recommendation... I'm sorry, this is a request to rezone from RS 15 and SP to SP zoning for properties along Dotson Chapel Road. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions if the supplemental policy is approved and to disapprove if the supplemental policy is not approved. On page six of your agenda, item number 11, 2026 SP 034-001, This is a request to rezone from RM 20 to SP for properties located along 3rd Avenue South to permit a mixed use development. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. Item number 12, 2026 SP 039001, This is a request to rezone from CF to SP for property located at 300 McCann Street to permit a multifamily residential development. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions, including the additional condition in the memo before you. Item number 13, 2024 S116003. This is a request for a final plat to create 46 lots using the compact development standards for property along Hamilton Church Road. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions. Item number 14, 2026S125001. This is a request for a concept plan along Kings Lane to create eight lots utilizing the compact development standards. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions. Item number 15A, 2026Z058PR001. This is a request to rezone from AR2A to IWD zoning for properties along Owen Drive and Old Hickory Boulevard. Staff recommendation is to approve. In the associated case, item 15B, 1582P003, this is a request to cancel a planned unit development overlay district for properties along Owen Drive and Old Hickory Boulevard. Staff recommendation is to approve if the associated rezone is approved and disapprove if the associated rezone is not approved. Item number 16, 2026Z039PR001. This is a request to rezone from RS7.5 to R6A for property at 227 Raymond Street. Staff recommendation is to approve. Item number 17, 2026Z048PR001. This is a request to rezone from RS5 to R6A zoning for property at 611 28th Avenue North. Staff recommendation is to approve. Item 18, 2026Z053PR001. And this is a request to rezone from RS 10 to R 10 for properties at 277 and 281 Tusculum Road. Staff recommendation is to approve. Item 19, 2026Z056PR001. This is a request to rezone from our six to our 20 ans staff recommendation is to approve and under item H other business item 20 contract renewal for sell a seat at Patterson item 21 concept plan extension item 22, a UDO standardization memo and item 26 to accept the director's report and approve administrative items. Um, and that concludes our consent agenda. I would like to also correct the recommendation for item number 14, which should be to approve with conditions, including the additional condition added in the memo before you.

Thank you. And so commissioners, we'll go through this, make sure we get this correct. So the following items are to pass on the consent agenda all at one time. And these are the following items. Items number 1, 6, 8, 10A, 10B, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15A, 15B, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 26. Is that correct? That's correct. All right, commissioners, you've heard the items to pass on the consent agenda. Is there a motion?

Motion.

In a second, any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And those items are passed on the consent agenda. Which, commissioners, that leaves us for on item H, which are the items to be considered in public hearing, which are the following. Three items. Items two, three, and four. So we will go ahead and get started. I appreciate everybody coming down. Thank you very much. And we'll go ahead and go to item number two. We'll just give everybody a minute to exit. If we could get everybody to quickly exit, we appreciate that. Thank you. We're ready when you are, Cord.

All right. Good evening commissioners. My name is Corey Clark and I am here to present item number two, the Jolton community plan amendment, uh, 20 C 20 26 C P dash zero zero one dash zero zero one. Oh yeah. All right. Thank you. And so the, uh, before you have a request to amend the Jolton community plan, Uh, staff recommendations to approve and a little bit background about this, uh, community plan amendment. It is in the Jolton community plan amendment or plan area. Uh, it's going to be located along the Eastern side of white Creek, White's Creek Pike, kind of North of interstate 24. Uh, Uh, the study area consists of 10 parcels and parts of parcels with a total area of 9.24 acres. And the proposed amendment would change the policy from rural maintenance, uh, to T T to RM to rural neighborhood center policy. Uh, just a side note, conservation policy will remain in place with this proposed amendment. And so the current policy, as I stated, which is rural maintenance policy, a little bit of background about that. It is a policy intended to maintain the general character of rural neighborhoods as characterized by their development pattern, varying setbacks, building form, and land uses. A couple quick characteristics. Primary agricultural zone districts designed for uses that generally occur in rural rather than urban areas. And with that, you have low levels of connectivity due to the sparse roadway network and the limited presence of multi-use paths and or bikeways. And so the proposed policy, which is rural neighborhood center, that is going to be in the red outline area. Sorry, I should have said that before that. It is intended to maintain, enhance, and create rural neighborhood centers that fit with the rural character and provide consumer goods and services for surrounding rural communities. And a couple characteristics, these T2 neighborhood centers, they contain a mix of uses such as commercial, institutional, mixed use, and residential. At state, they provide services to rural neighborhoods within a 10-minute drive. And lastly, they have low to moderate levels of connectivity with rural roads and multi-paths leading to surrounding rural neighborhoods and open space. And part of our analysis, we looked at several factors, one being the growth and preservation concept map. The study area lies in the green network, which is characterized by natural and rural areas intended to provide ecological services, natural resources, and recreational opportunities. In addition, these areas contain natural sensitive features that can be disturbed or destroyed by development or that pose a health or safety risk when they are developed. Moving forward, looking at mobility and connectivity, the study area has frontage along White's Creek Pike, which is classified as Arterial Boulevard Scenic. Currently, there are no designated sidewalks or bikeways located near the study area. And the site, the closest access to public transit is going to be located about half a mile south at the Jolton Plaza parking ride lot. And looking at some additional factors, we looked at the community care policy. Uh, existing policy is ruled T2 neighborhood center policy, which is to the south, immediate south of the, of the study area. And the current land uses in the area are single family homes with deep setbacks, generous spacing. And the study area to the west of there is a 71 single family unit residential subdivision. And when we look at the base zoning, you can see in the area that the surrounding areas are as 40 to the immediate west there. There's RS 15, which corresponds with the residential subdivision to the south. There's SP and CL zoning. And this case was determined to be a major amendment. So there was a community meeting requirement. This community meeting was held on Thursday, June 25th in conjunction with, or as an add on to a district council member, Joyce Kimbrough's regular district meeting, monthly meeting. Approximately 16 people attended who were noticed for this community event, along with the applicant, the council member and planning staff myself. There we discussed the proposed policy amendment and responded to questions from attendees. The subsequent discussion centered around potential future zoning and potential changes along Jolton's White Creek Pike Corridor. Attendees expressed support for the proposed community plan amendment. And so kind of rounding out the analysis summary, the study area surrounded by rural farmland, single family homes and vacant lands. It lies in the green network area. T2 REM and conservation policies are widespread throughout the surrounding area. T2 NC policy is applied along White's Creek Pike to the south. Uh, the study area is near, uh, the interstate, the interchange with interstate 24. And lastly, public transit access is located at these to the south of the site along the Jolton within the Jolton commercial corridor. And staff recommendation is to approve this community plan amendment.

Thank you. And, um, commissioners, I actually forgot to go over how we operate as a planning commission. Cause there's some folks that may be new to this process. So first we have the presentation, um, as Corey did, then we'll open the public hearing and then it, the applicant will come up and they'll get, eight minutes and they can save two of the eight minutes for rebuttal. And then anyone wishing to speak after the applicant and then the rebuttal by the applicant and then the council member, and then we'll close the public hearing and then we'll deliberate as a commission. So I just want to remind everybody of the process. Each speaker other than the applicant gets two minutes. We have a timer right here. We really do appreciate everybody coming down. So thank you, Corey. Great presentation. Commissioners, we'll open this item for public hearing. And is the applicant present? Welcome. Please state your name. Appreciate it. You can use eight minutes, and you can save two of the eight minutes for rebuttal.

Understood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the commission, for hearing our application this evening. My name is John Michael. I'm an attorney with the Thompson Burton Law Firm here in Nashville, 1801 West End Avenue. We request your approval of the policy amendment that's been submitted from T2RM to T2NC, Neighborhood Center, The very beginning of the property in question is about 300 feet from the off ramp for Interstate 24 at the White's Creek exit here along White's Creek Pike. And additionally, it is next door to a commercial SP to our immediate south. I believe some have heard of that as a Silverman SP and we believe that this is an appropriate extension of the policy from that Southern boundary up to this property. One of the things that we're pleased that staff outlined very particularly is that this is a nine plus acre section that is considered for this policy change. The seven, eight, nine contiguous lots that are owned by the family trust here comprise dozens of acres. I think it's north of 50 acres with probably a solid majority of that land being under conservation policy. To me, that's noteworthy because as staff explained, that has to stay conservation policy. So the only part of these properties that are in play are pushed up closer to White's Creek pipe, which is appropriate, and well outside of the conservation policy that will be maintained without development. The staff recommendation for this approval details all of the technical bases that I would normally come in and argue on behalf of a case like this. However, point by point, as you go through the analysis, whether environmental, whether MCSP oriented, whether in terms of the existing policy and the broader Jolton community plan, Everything I would have gotten into was covered in the report in the way that I would have hoped to address it. So for such technical details, I'll just humbly direct you back to the staff report and its recommendation for approval. As noted, the council member organized the community meeting in conjunction with her normal monthly meeting. That was on June 25th down in the Bordeaux area at Ivy House, Ivy Center, I believe. We appreciated her including us on the agenda so that we could have this community meeting. I think it's important to note a clarification. There were plenty of people there who had concerns, questions, and even outright opposition to the requests that we're bringing here today. I wouldn't want to fail to acknowledge that because that was part of the discussion. However, very helpfully, our longtime friend, former Representative Gary Moore, also was kind enough to organize and host a second meeting for those who had other questions about the policy amendment and exactly what that meant. As many of you know, Representative Moore has stayed incredibly thoroughly engaged in the community even since he's no longer in office. and is a respected voice in that neighborhood. He organized the meeting that took place at the Paradise Ridge Park on July the 14th, and although far fewer people attended that one, my client was in fact in attendance for both in the event that he could help answer any questions about this request. In the rather simple closing, we believe the request is appropriate, as stated by staff. We believe it's appropriate specifically for your vote of approval, as noted by staff. My client is here to answer any questions that the commissioners may have regarding ownership through the trust or anything like that. I, of course, am happy to answer any questions that the commissioners may have with regard to our application. Again, we thank you for your service and for your time hearing us out. Thank you.

And we'll save two minutes for a battle. Anyone wishing to speak? Come on up. Welcome. And if everybody would come up closer, maybe we can get through it. Just state your name and then you have two minutes. Welcome.

Absolutely. Thank you. My name is Elaine Urbino and I live down on Morgan Road, right by that. I'm speaking in opposition to this case, 2026 CP 001001. I just wanted to highlight three concerns that I have. The first is in relation to the character of the area that I live. This change moves some area, some acres from the rural maintenance to rural neighborhood center, which to me doesn't match the low density rural pattern that was highlighted in that definition earlier. And that risks to me setting a precedent for further changes nearby. That's honestly one of the major issues that I have is setting that precedent. The second is related to infrastructure, particularly water. I'm concerned that the water service in this part of Dalton wasn't designed to support the neighborhood center level development, along with the impact on local roads and drainage. We've actually already had some infrastructure related issues. You can notice the change in water pressure that has come over the past couple of years with some of the newer subdivisions. So that's something that we have noticed on Morgan Road with further development. And third, I just wanted to mention conservation. This parcel is meant to retain the conservation overlay, although I don't understand how that's compatible with the designation that allows for more intensive development in general. I do recognize that there was the area kind of to the right of that is still within that conservation designation. However, to the left, all of that bleeds through, particularly from the habitat and kind of ecological side of things. So because of that, uh, I just wanted to kind of voice my concerns with that and ask that you will disapprove this amendment. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome representative Moore. Good to see you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. First of all, thank each of you for your service to the city of Nashville. We appreciate it. Uh, I stand here in opposition. My name is Gary Moore. I live at 2946 Morgan road on the opposite side of the road from the lady that just spoke. So I'm actually in district 10 and not district one, but this is not a district issue. This is a community plan issue. I've been a member of the Jordan community for 48 years. And it was mentioned in the staff study that there were 16 people there and eight of those people I have identified that are actually opposed to this. I did not sign a petition that night because it was a district one meeting. And I would assume, I've read the National Next and I would assume that when they have a community meeting, it would be held in a community that's directly affected, not in a other end of the district. But that doesn't say that. It just says they must have a meeting so they can have it anywhere. I guess they could have a community meeting for Joelton in South Nashville somewhere, the way the language reads. But you would think common sense would say you would have the meeting in the community, which is directly affected. Had that meeting been held in Joelton proper, I guarantee you would have probably 100 people there at that meeting. And the majority of that 100 people would have been opposed to it. I can assure you that. There's a lot of things that concerns me. And number one is the picking apart of the Nashville next plan. I don't know you to tell any of you how much work went into developing the Nashville next plan. A lot of hard work went into it and I would like to see it stay intact as it is. And I would ask you to vote no on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Welcome. Good evening. My name is Mark James. I live at 2911 Morgan Road here in opposition along with my wife, Tammy. I've been in Jolton for 41 years. My wife's been there for 62. At the, and the first thing that the applicant didn't bring up, the purpose of this change is to sell the property. It's not anybody, no developers or anything like that. Mr. Michael brought it up at the district one meeting that the family just wants to sell it. So, I'M SORRY THAT I'M AGAINST THIS. AND HE WAS ASKED IF THE PROPERTY, CAN THE PROPERTY BE SOLD AS IS AND HIS ANSWER WAS YES. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE STAFF REPORT DOESN'T SHOW, I KNOW THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTH, THIS IS THE ACTUAL MAP FROM THE PLANNING WEBSITE. If you look up here, this is where the property starts. That's up for policy change. North of I-24, 300 acres right here. 107 acres of it is still rural or commercial vacant property. I'm not certain why we need to add to it. And at the same time, A FEW YEARS AGO, ONE OF THE PRIOR COMMISSIONERS ASSEMBLED ME THE NATIONAL NEXT PLAN. I READ IT PAGE TO PAGE. I HAVE READ EVERYTHING ABOUT JOELTON, THAT SECTION. NOWHERE IN THERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE POLICIES ARE CHANGED TO SALE PROPERTY. IT'S NORMALLY FOR DEVELOPMENT. WITHIN THAT PLAN, It says right here, intensification should take place within the current boundaries of the center rather than through expansion of the policy that the application and boundary are established during the community planning process. Cut and dry. So all I can say is this plan does not meet, for me, Nashville Next. Thank you, sir. Thanks.

Anyone else? Wishing to speak. Seeing none. Two minute rebuttal. No rebuttal. Okay. And I don't see the council members. So seeing no one else wishing to speak, I declare the public hearing closed and commissioner Marshall, you want to start us off?

Sure. Thank you. So I guess the question that I would have, uh, The Nashville next plan does state the way the community want things to be done. However, does that permit it from being adjusted based on an individual project like this that comes before the planning commission? I would think that the planning commission still would have the flexibility to make adjustments to the Nashville next plan. So can you help me with that a little bit?

Sure. Um, that's right. We, um, so Nashville next was of course adopted in 2015 and since that time there have been number of, um, amendments to that plan. Um, there, there were several on the agenda tonight that actually were on the consent agenda already passed. And so we do consider it a living document. We consider it to be eligible for update. And so this is a proposed update to that plan. So it's not unusual for you all to consider amendments to those policies.

Thank you. I mean, I'm familiar with that area there. And certainly I understand. where the community comes from when they are seeing different things come that away. However, based on what I'm looking at here, this meet, you know, policy. And so I think from my standpoint, if it meets policy, then we move it on and let that debate continue to happen, you know, at the council level. So I support it.

Thank you, Mr. And councilman. Thank you chair. I wonder if staff might help us understand here and based on some of the public comments that we've received here the difference between a plan amendment and a rezoning itself. Will this rezone any parcels or change any of the uses permitted by any of them?

Sure, that's a thank you for that. No, this is so this is just a policy change. This is a decision that's made here at the Planning Commission only. It does not change the zoning of any of the property and If there were to be applications for rezoning, they would be considered in the same way that all other applications for rezoning are. And we take those and consider those on an individualized basis and analyze sort of the facts of the property to make our recommendation.

Thank you. Thank you. So if there's anything proposed to rezone this, that's something that the community and the district council member would still have control over if and when that's proposed.

Any proposed rezoning would go through the same process or any proposed rezoning would go the process of coming to an application will be made. Staff would make a recommendation to the planning commission. The planning commission would then review it, make a recommendation to Metro Council and then Metro Council would ultimately make the decision because any zone changes are legislative.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Commissioner Leslie.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask a question. I see some of the land was carved out under the conservation, policy. Correct. And then within this, this particular, uh, pieces of land, I see we're talking about a green network. And so within that green network, although we have that, this is not within that conservation policy, does that green network, uh, apply any other restrictions as to relative to the conservation policy? Is it restricted to some restriction?

So, no. So classifications, the way that Nashville Next works is that there was a growth and preservation concept map, which is sort of a very high level, which designated things as, designated the county into areas like centers, corridors, green network, neighborhood. And then those were sort of translated down into the actual community character policy, which is where we get a little bit more specific into things like, T2 Rural Maintenance or T2 Neighborhood Center. And so the green network is sort of that broader classification, but that doesn't restrict it in any way in regards to the policy changing to neighborhood center. Conservation, we do view a little bit different because that's the policy itself. And so the conservation policy will remain on the remainder of the property and only this part that is not subject to conservation policy, which generally recognizes that there's some constraint on the property. It could be floodplain or problem soils. So whatever the constraint is, that's where conservation policy is. So the green network is different. It's sort of a higher level classification. But when you get down to the policy level, these properties aren't constrained in that way.

Any other discussion? Commissioner Dunn.

Just I want to make sure I'm understanding something right. Regarding the other question about the zoning. So we, I understand the underlying zoning doesn't change. This is a policy area change, but the underlying zoning for whatever comes in front of us within that area, we will be holding up our decisions against a different and new policy. So it really could impact what is on the property, even if the underlying zoning doesn't change.

We would staff and the planning commission, um, would consider any zone changes against the policy that's in place at the time that the zone changes are applied for. Okay.

So, um, and, and I understand this is not, there's no plan in front of us for building any houses. This is a, this is just a policy change, but I did want to, um, I share the public comment in general that when we build more impervious, um, housing, it can change water flow. Um, but I just wanted to clarify just on the record that that's not before us and that Metro water would be any plan that ends up being addressed under whatever policies in place at the time, Metro water would have to do their own examination of those types of questions. Is that right?

That's correct. So, um, uh, rezoning is generally the entitlements and then everything has to go through building permit or final site plan review. And at that time, um, all of the Metro agencies in dot reviews for access water services, reviews for both water and sewer capacity, um, Metro stormwater reviews for stormwater regulations. So all of those agencies are reviewing in advance of any permitting.

Great. Thank you. And, um, so I, I think I'm in favor of staff's recommendation. I appreciate that the study area was, is, um, bounded on that corridor area on White's Creek Pike. And the staff report notes that it's mostly flat and that the conservation policy remains in that area. So, or the conservation overlay. So I'm in favor of adopting staff's recommendation.

Any other questions? We'll need a motion. Anybody want to make a commission done then or commission?

Go ahead, Commissioner Marshall. I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendation and request policy change from rural maintenance T2RM policy to rural neighborhood center policy. That's a proper motion.

Is there a second? Second. No second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And it is adopted. We appreciate everybody coming down. Thank you, Representative. All right. So that leads us to item number two. Item number two. I'm sorry, it's not item number two. It's actually item number three. Commissioner corrected me. It's the second item, which is item number three for public hearing tonight. Yes, you knew what I meant. Okay, go ahead, Dustin.

All right, Dustin Shane, staff planner. Item number three is a text amendment related to adult and child care. So the amendment as filed separated adult day services from childcare within title 17. It replaced the daycare use with these two uses throughout the metropolitan code. It did make related updates across titles two, six and seven, which are not part of this review. And then the staff report that we proposed has as a substitute for your consideration. So that some history on July 23rd, planning commission was presented with this and commissioners questioned whether the functional differences between adult and childcare justify having separate zoning uses and whether the current shared permissions should change. The bill as filed does reduce permissions for adult daycare regarding the home-based accessory option and also when it's included in multifamily developments. Staff did a survey of peer cities and found mixed approaches with no real predominant consensus. So based on the similar zoning impacts, staff determined that there's not really a clear basis for reducing permissions for adult daycare. So the staff proposed substitute still separates the uses definitionally within title 17, but regulates them identically. Um, so that means it restores the home accessory option for adult daycare. It also restores the option for the zoning administrator to waive certain standards for adult daycare when it's in large multifamily developments. Um, So that retains the existing permissions that the use now enjoys in common with childcare while still establishing adult daycare as a distinct land use. So what's the rationale for maintaining separate definitions? Well, it does provide a clear alignment with the corresponding state regulatory frameworks that govern each use. Title 17 refers users to these state regulations, um, So having them as separate uses helps prevent confusion regarding the differing state permit requirements. And this reflects that there are some functional differences to the uses internal to the site, such as how the outdoor areas are designed, the clinical requirements, staff qualification differences, and then the fact that adult care requires individualized care plans. So staff recommends approval with a substitute. And after the two meeting deferral, this item is ready for your recommendation to council. The public hearing at council has been deferred from August 4th to September 1st. Thank you.

Thank you. And so we will, we've already had the public hearing on this. So it's closed and this is the second meeting. And so the council member is not here. She's the applicant, but council member Horton, since you'd pulled the item, I think we usually recognize the commissioner that pulled the item. So councilman Horton.

Thank you, chair. Um, I appreciate all the staff's work on this and the analysis. And I think the substitute is a significant improvement over the bill as filed. I did have a couple lingering concerns, even with the substituted version. And I think the first one is, I think while the staff analysis knows that the two uses, which would be bifurcated as a result of the substitute are treated consistently under title 17, my read of the substitute, and please tell me if this is wrong, is that it retains for a child, the permit prioritization that the council recently passed in, in earlier this summer, but removes it for adult daycare. Is that, is that accurate?

So the permit prioritization is in title two, not title 17 and the planning commission is limited to review and recommendation on title 17.

Got it.

So it, yes.

Got it. I mean, it's okay. I just thinking this through because we're, I guess we're issuing a recommendation, which affects the bill as a whole, even though only a part of it is with our review here. I guess my concerns are on the good things that this bill does. Is it. directs the reader towards state or childcare ones, which are consistent. The downsides are, I view as at duplicates the amount of texts and complexity that we're adding on these, even if they're treated consistently. And then even if it's outside the scope of our review removes the permit prioritization that the council only recently approved earlier this summer, I think taking those one at a time, again, I don't know if we're allowed to consider this, but the permit prioritization was the intent of that bill to expedite permitting for both adult and childcare services. I think it's a very important service and I'd hate for the city to walk back the progress we just recently and very difficultly made. I think second, if we're trying to align with state or other standards on this, I'd rather see us work towards a more concise, more simple version of it, rather than trying to align ourselves with the most complex version of it. And then as far as the benefits of reducing potential confusion as to whether direct the reader to or childcare by having a single use. I checked in with a couple providers who told me, not only have they never been confused on which one to look at at the state standards, they're not aware of anybody that ever has. So it seems like this is a solution in search of a problem. I think it adds, at best, it adds unnecessary complexity to it. It doesn't reduce any confusion. Although looking at the bill as a whole, it also removes the permit prioritization of this, which I think is an important progress we just made as a city. So I'm declined to vote against it here, although would welcome any thoughts to the contract of any of the other commissioners.

Thank you, Councilman. Any other discussion? Yeah, Commissioner Handley.

Thank you. I note the point that councilman reporting is making. And I think I'm curious as to, you know, our approval here on its basis, is there still opportunity at the council level, especially with the expressed concern that was just presented here for there to be some type of context in which we can share our recommendation. I mean, I too am inclined to approve the staff recommendation, but even if it's just, you know, matter of fact, so that they understand that the intention of our approval is not to create some disadvantageous approach to the, to the permitting expedited permit that was just approved.

Lisa, can you walk through the technical complexity around text amendments and when the commission sort of provides language, if that changes, I think what I'm hearing and commissioner, Correct, jump in if I misstate it. It sounds like you're interested in sort of presenting some intention, what we would like to do. I think once that gets up to council, there are some rules that constrain how that body sort of processes and works through what we've said. And so I just wanna make sure you're really clear before you vote tonight on what it means for the language to change, et cetera, or how to protect your intention. Sure.

Um, legislation that covers multiple titles is, is a little bit more complicated, although it's not something that we haven't done before. Um, I can think of short term rentals. I hate to bring those up, but, um, I can think of short term rentals where, legislation covered both title six and title 17. And we are always very clear that our authority lies with title 17. And so we are always only making recommendations to title 17. The, um, if the goal was to, um, let the council know that, by separating the uses, the planning commission certainly isn't interested in delaying processing of permitting for adult care services. I think staff could express that council could still amend that title too. And that would not have bearing on your recommendation because yours is only on tile 17. Is that, yeah.

Thank you for that, Lisa. I just feel like having that expressed clearly is important. There's no reason for that to be misconstrued. And I think, obviously, the work that the staff has done to this point has expressed the rationale. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other discussion?

Commissioner Leslie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to be clear. Now, what is the permanent priority, what you were speaking about, Commissioner? What is that, if you just make it plain what that is, to find that or whatever?

I guess I can speak to that. Earlier this summer, Council Member Capp sponsored legislation that the council approved unanimously, which requires, and staff, I guess it's not Title 17, but correct me if I'm wrong, requires permit applications for daycare uses, which currently includes both childcare and adult daycare, to be prioritized for approval consistent with affordable housing. This bill would undo that for adult daycare services.

And, and commissioner, does our attorney have anything to add to what was it? I think Lisa covered it. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. It was, it was a change to title two as council member Horton noted, um, to prioritize review of projects relating to affordable housing. And it sort of defined what those were. And then for, um, daycare centers. So it is only sort of one. There's a lot of different levels of daycare, daycare home, large daycare home, small, and then there's daycare center. And so it prioritized the review of the, the one category daycare center for permitting.

Commissioner Leslie, we just want to get that on the record.

No, I'm just, I'm, I'm a little curious. What was the rationale by taking that out when it was already in there?

That was not a staff proposal. So the bill was drafted and filed and made modifications to title two and title 17. Maybe one other title. also six and seven title two, six and 17. We only review and recommend and make changes to title 17 per hour charge from both state law and the charter. And so the title two changes about around the priority that was not proposed by staff that was in the bill as we received it.

Thank you.

And commissioner, that was, um, so council member styles, it was her proposal, not, not a, not a planning proposal. Commissioner Dundon.

So I just want to make sure I understand. When you say the bill, maybe this is a question for you. When you say this bill would undo the prioritization, you mean Title II would undo it.

Is that right? Yeah, this bill would...

The changes to Title II.

Yeah, this would amend that title and remove the prioritization for adult...

This being the changes to Title II, which are not before us.

Yeah, this legislation, I guess we're only considering a portion of the legislation here.

So I think then... My understanding is we are just looking at title 17, which itself, this text is not making that is not undoing that. And so I'm, I'm inclined to vote in favor of this. And I agree with commissioner Henley. If, if there's a way to send a message saying just to make the intention clear in case, in case it would be interpreted as a message about what to do about tape title two, which is not in our, Go ahead. Sorry.

I want to take another stab at the question that I was asking to Lisa, but this, I want to direct it to council. Um, so when the commission votes for approval, there are certain vote counts associated with that. Can you talk about the vote count, um, for disapproval and how that would relate when you have multiple titles that are engaged? Like does the commission's, action approval or disapproval, what does that convey for titles for which we're not assigned review and state law on the charter and fix all the questions, all the lack of clarity in my question.

Let me know if I, if I'm answering correctly. Um, so generally when all ordinances at council required 21 votes, uh, affirmative votes to pass. So if it's an approval from the commission that it does not change the vote threshold, it's a 21 vote threshold. if the commission disapproves an item, it raises the vote threshold at council to 27. So that recommendation would apply to the bill as a whole. So even if you're disapproving the Title 17 portion, there's not really, they take one vote on the bill as a whole. So the vote threshold would be increased regardless.

So what would your advice be if, if you were to pose to the commission sort of priorities that it cares about, and even though we're not opining on, um, title two, if the prioritization were an important policy goal, say, then how would you advise the commission about its, its understanding of this package of, of proposals for these different titles? Uh, like if they care about the prioritization, which I've heard several commissioners say that,

Um, uh, I'm not sure that I understand the question. Um, but let me, let me take a stab and see if I'm, uh, if I'm answering, uh, in a way that makes sense. Uh, if there is a desire to, um, I would say, you know, above all review based on, you know, what this commission's role is, which is, title 17 generally. However, there are implications potentially elsewhere. And if that is something that, that, uh, influences your title 17 determination, uh, you can, you can take that into consideration. If that, if that makes sense, if, if there are implications, if the title 17 change has other implications, I think that you can still vote based on the title 17 recommendation. Does that make sense?

Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman? I appreciate that clarification from council. And I think in that one, viewing the implications that the title scene, title 17 aspect has on title two and vice versa, the implications of removing the permit prioritization have on the effect of actual ability to bring daycare services online, which is squarely in title 17. I think adult daycares are very important service. And we've just made some very painful progress to, to increase access to those. And, I don't want to see this body walk back any of the progress we recently made. So I'll, I think based on council's feedback and the effect that that has on title 17 and vice versa, we'll be voting no on this today.

Thank you. Any other discussion? We'll make sure we get everybody. So we will need a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion? It's time for motion.

I move to disapprove.

That's a proper motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of disapproval, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no? No. All right, let's do this. All in favor of disapproval, raise your hand.

One, two, three, four.

And all, anyone oppose of the disapproval?

Maybe clarify, supporting staff's recommendation, or is that? Yeah, it's clear. Perfect.

All right, so there's been a motion to disapprove. All in favor of the motion to disapprove staff's recommendation, raise your hand. That's four. All of those who oppose, who agree with staff's recommendation, raise your hand. Four, three, it's disapproved. As clear as mud, but that's not bad. All right.

Sorry.

No, you're fine, director. We always have to get through the messy stuff. All right. So we are now on to, thank you, Dustin. We're on item number four.

All right, this is item number four in your agenda. This request is to rezone to SP to permit a multifamily and single family residential development. Staff recommends to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. The approximately 55.6 acre site is located on the south side of Barnes Road, just north of Mill Creek Park. The subject site has frontage on Barnes Road, which is classified as a collector avenue in the MCSP. Surrounding zoning districts include single family residential, AR2A, multifamily residential, one and two family residential, and SP, with the surrounding land uses including residential and vacant. The plan proposes a total of 110 multifamily residential units to the north of the site and 77 single family lots on the southern portion of the site. Vehicle access to the northern portion of the site, the multifamily portion, is through a private road labeled as Road A on the site plan. The southern portion of the site with the single family lots contains multiple road, public road connections. Along the eastern portion of the site are planned connections to Sunnywood Drive and Brockman Lane. The plan proposes to extend Boddington Lane into the site and terminate into a cul-de-sac that connects to Road F as shown on the plan. The plan also shows Turfway Lane extending east through the site, ending in a stub out for a future connection. The plan shows Sweetberry Drive extending into the site and terminating into a cul-de-sac. This site is located in the T3NE policy and the conservation policy. T3NE is intended to create and enhance suburban residential neighborhoods and more housing choice, improve pedestrian and bicycle and vehicle connectivity and moderate-intensity development patterns with a moderate setback in spacing between buildings. And the conservation policy is intended to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive features. The proposed development is consistent with the goals of the T3 any policy by introducing a mix of housing types while improving street connectivity and enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the development. The pedestrian network is especially important in a development where environmentally sensitive features, including slopes and streams influence the site design. The conservation policy area primarily consists of steep slopes and streams located along the Eastern portion of the site. The development preserves these environmental features through the retention of stream buffer and approximately 9.68 acres of preservation area, including existing tree canopy and steep slopes. Therefore staff recommends to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And so commissioners will open the silent for public hearing and is the applicant in the room. All right. So you have eight minutes and you can save two of the eight minutes for a bottle.

Okay, great. My name is Jennifer spike. I am with land solutions company and I am the applicant for this project. We've worked closely with staff on all the items that have come up during the process. And we are agreeable to all the conditions that are in the staff report. We did have one item come up this week that came up after the staff report came out. A homeowner reached out to us and we've been trying to work through that this week. We just weren't able to work through it before we arrived here tonight. But it was in regard... to lot number 76 that we have proposed, which is at the end of Sweetberry Drive. And Sweetberry Drive is an existing dead-end road that's 270 feet long. And we will be required to put a cul-de-sac in per Metro, or sorry, not Public Works, but per NDOT, because the road is longer than the 150-foot termination and is something they typically require. I think the request from the homeowner was for us to try to save the trees next to his lot. And unfortunately we have a situation where the grade is 14 to 15 foot lower than the existing road. So we're gonna have to do some extensive grading there that will not allow me to save those trees. And so I didn't wanna make a promise that we couldn't keep on saving those trees. I know he's here tonight and I wanna let him come up to the floor and explain what's going on. But I just wanna let you know that We didn't know about it. We have been trying to work through it this week. So, okay.

Thank you. And we'll reserve two minutes for a battle. All right. Is there anyone here wishing to speak? Come on up. Well, appreciate you coming down.

Thank you. My name's Andrew McCain. I'm at 4037 Sweetberry Drive and I'm the homeowner. I want to first of all want to thank the applicant for so quickly replying to my questions regarding the design of the cul-de-sac and tree preservation in my area. And my main concern is just is preserving as many trees as possible around our shared boundary. There are some beautiful mature trees there. And the original plan before the cul-de-sac was added preserved most of those. And I understand why the cul-de-sac was required by NDOT and the two lots that they've added. And so my ask is that we if we can build something into the plan that prioritizes the preservation of as many mature trees as possible where grading allows, and where that's not possible, if we can build into the plan a landscape buffer or something to compensate for the loss of those trees. And I'm not sure, I'm new to this process, so I'm not sure the mechanism that we would use to do that, but that's my interest in... And I do appreciate both the planning commission and the applicant for being so quick to reply and working with me on this. And I hope that we can continue to work together to preserve as many trees on that boundary as possible.

Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. We'll address that when we get to our discussion. Anyone else? Come on up.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Rick Kennedy. I live on Turf Way Lane there in the Barnes Bend neighborhood, which is immediately to the west of this development. And we've got just, and I also, as a secondary, I also represent the Homeowners Association in Barnes Bend. And we really just have kind of three main things. Two of them go together. One is the kind of overall density. So moving from, which is 56 acres is today along with the surrounding area is broadly what I think most people would consider rural or kind of rural, at least going to 110 homes on a bit less than half of that is pretty dense. And so I think as a corollary to that, the traffic that would be, probably on Sunnywood is a bit wider. So we would be less of a problem. Turfway Lane, which is my street, Boddington and the other, I can't recall off the top of my head, Those are relatively narrow lanes and are simply not built for this level of development. And if Barnes Bend Drive is any indication, people are going to simply use this as a cut through and come through at 70 miles an hour, which is what they do on Barnes Bend. And also to this other gentleman, I'll tack on to his point regarding trees. The site plan as currently configured calls for a reduction of 72% of the canopy. I get it, development happens and you know, I think some sort of commitment from the commission and the city to leave tree lines for privacy and mature trees for beauty. There's a pod of deer that live out there, which is beautiful for us to watch at night. They'll all be gone. And so I think having some sort of commitment to leave tree lines where possible in between the existing neighborhoods that already live there with those trees would be really great.

Appreciate you coming down. Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none, two minute rebuttal.

I think I would like to just speak on the trees. I know there's a lot of topography on the site. We've spent a lot of time trying to be conscientious of that in the grading on the site and have heard from a few homeowners and we've tried to preserve trees along those areas where we can. generally not opposed to preservation of trees. You know, in the instance I mentioned before about lot 46 and that particular low area, the preservation of the existing trees, I think would be very difficult. I know there was a mention of possibly providing some new trees. I'm not opposed to the discussion of that. I'm not sure what's appropriate while standing up here. So if that's something that, will you talk about that or is that something that I need to?

Yes, as long as you, yeah, we can talk about it, but with your... We're not opposed to something like that.

That's a perfect statement, thank you. I think other than that, the plan we showed the tree preservation that we were able to do, we will meet any of the tree density requirements that are required by our plan.

Thank you, appreciate it. And I didn't see the council member here. And so seeing no one else wishing to speak, I declare the public hearing closed and we'll go ahead and get started. Commissioner Leslie, you want to start us off?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, listen, I heard there's no opposition. I heard what the applicant states and what the community wants. It seems like to me that there's a good time for the both to work together. It aligns with the policy. And so I'm inclined to, vote with the staff recommendation.

Thank you. And ma'am, you can sit down. Thank you. We'll, we'll call you up if we need you. No, thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Any, any other discussion? Commissioner Dundon. And then ladies first.

I just noticed there are actually four, three conditions related to trees.

I'm looking at the right one.

And condition six says that the existing tree canopy in areas located outside of areas identified for stormwater detention shall be preserved to the greatest extent practicable said I Think this may address that there is a condition in here to preserve the tree canopy Am I reading that correctly?

to the greatest extent practicable Yes, there there are areas of disturbance, areas of non-disturbance, there's open space. And essentially if it's non-disturbance, it's not stormwater, then it would be prioritizing tree preservation. Okay.

Yeah. And I mean, I share the desire to keep mature trees in particular. They can't be replaced quickly with a, with a new young tree. It takes time for them to grow, but trees do grow. And, and definitely I'm, I'm supportive of this condition that requires, requires, you know, as much as, as much as can be done, keeping the mature trees that we really, that will really benefit the homes that are built and provide shade for residents and improve quality of life. So I'm inclined to adopt a staff recommendation.

Thank you. Commissioner, commissioner Henley.

Thank you, Chair. I'm glad we allowed Commissioner Dundon to go first because that was one of the points I was going to make, so saved a little bit of time there. I mean, I think it's an interesting site, I mean, largely because of its shape and placement. I do want to ask... one or two questions because I'm trying to interpret the, um, the site plan. And so I'm curious, I would say maybe on the cul-de-sac to plan north, is that actually connected to the interior street or is it meaningfully separated? And that's just like a sidewalk that is, that is there where there's like a roundabout, I guess it's maybe the cul-de-sac around the circular median. Um,

Are you asking if it's connected to the multifamily street?

Correct. Yes, it is. Okay. I was curious with the shading there. Yes. With that being said, I think, you know, we obviously heard some of the comments about the trees and the tree canopy, and I think that was already addressed. The other comment that I heard was kind of meaningful to the traffic flow. I think, you know, with the increased density, I see some pretty... along internal streets, which usually helps with that. It kind of mitigates an immediate dump onto some other corridors. But is there anything inside of this that calls for kind of internal traffic calming inside of the site? Or is that just something that a council member would need to advance external of this case?

Um, there's nothing around traffic calming in the current plan, but I think that that is something that you all could consider as part of your consideration.

Yeah. I mean, I just, I tried to double check reading through the end diet comments and they have some conditions in here. I think, you know, just with anything, it may be better to allow for there to be some responsiveness to new travel patterns, but I know, and I talked to community members a lot, they, they actually don't like that. They prefer that there's some concrete language in some of these agreements. I think if, if, you know, if there was some opportunities to, to do that, um, I would encourage it. I think it makes a lot of sense when you're creating, again, some new traffic patterns through some pretty established neighborhoods. They oftentimes are uncomfortable with the amount of traffic, one, but then two, some of the characteristics of that new traffic.

Thank you, Commissioner. Good discussion. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll need a motion. Commissioner?

And Lee, you're recognized. Absolutely. I make a motion to approve the staff recommendation to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. And without knowing an appropriate recommendation to make, I would like to make a request that there is a traffic calming focus on perhaps an additional condition in that manner.

I might suggest approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions, including an additional condition to work with staff at the final to implement traffic calming on the new streets.

That's a proper motion. Thank you, Chair. And there's a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And it's adopted. And we appreciate everybody coming down. All right. Commissioners, that leads us to finishing our public hearing items, but now we are on historic. Commissioner Smith. No major update, Chair. Our meeting is next week, but stay tuned. Thank you.

And Commissioner Hanley-Parks. Thank you chair. One update that I'm, I'm extremely proud of, um, where many hats and one of those hats allows me to sit on the parks board, but also on the greenways and open space commission. And recently we had a fantastic presentation that was delivered by Anna Grider, um, that gave an overview of the greenways and open space, network vision for the East Bank, which was great to see so much work that was done here at this body being carried forward at some of our other adjoining bodies of the city. And so just wanted to give an update there. If you want to check that out, it is online. It was Tuesday. So I guess that was the 11th. So you can check that out on YouTube, but great presentation, very well done, builds a lot of excitement for what's to come for our next great community of Nashville.

Thank you, Commissioner. That's a great comment that you see some of our work extending over to other agencies. That's a good feeling. It's good stuff. All right. So executive committee. So. we're out of the summer almost. Uh, and so we're having two meetings per month. I know just, I always try it personally. I try to, um, make time clear my schedule for these beautiful planning commission meetings. I know sometimes we have work conflicts, et cetera. Um, but we'll also probably have some upcoming workshops heading into fall director. And I, and I know that, but we'll let y'all know when those are. And if Kelly sends out email, just respond, we appreciate it. And I just want to say, thank you. for everybody making the time and effort to come to these meetings. It means a lot. It means a lot to the community. So I really appreciate y'all. All right. Director, a lot. That's why we provide snacks and free water here.

Nothing today.

Nothing today. All right. Councilman, legislative update.

No updates from the council.

Oh, well, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. We're adjourned.

This has been a service of the Metro Nashville Network. If you would like to see this presentation again or for more information on this and other programs, visit nashville.gov.

Thank you.