Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

everybody coming down so we'll go ahead and get started and the first order of business is the adoption of the agenda and commissioners that was sent out earlier is there a motion to adopt there's a motion and a second any discussion seeing none all in favor say aye as no eyes have it and the agenda is adopted next uh we are ready for item c which is the approval of the august 13th 20, 26 minutes, and that was also sent out prior to the meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? There's a motion. Second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it, and the minutes are adopted, which leads us to item D, which is the public comment period, which is a relatively still new, so Lisa, take us through that, and then we'll...

Sure. So the Tennessee state legislature paid past a state law regarding public comment periods at any border commission meetings. And so essentially we have to provide for an opportunity for folks to speak on items that are even that are either on the agenda or relevant to the border commission. That is generally not an issue for the planning commission because you mostly have public hearings for every items, but sometimes, There are items that don't have a rule required public hearing or when a public hearing is closed. And so this time is an opportunity for that.

Thank you, Lisa. And so we have the trustee clipboard. I know it's very high technology, uh, vice chair, but nobody had signed up for that. So seeing no one, uh, wishing to do a public comment period for things not on the, uh, items to be considered, uh, seeing no one, we'll move on to item E, which is the recognition of the council members. And I didn't see any council members here. So if any, uh, Any council members walk in, we will recognize them. So now commissioners, we are on item F, which is items for deferral withdrawal. And go ahead.

I will now read the items for deferral withdrawal. Starting on page three, item number one, 2026, CP 01001, Green Hills Midtown Community Plan Amendment. Staff recommendation is to defer to the September 24th, 2026 planning commission meeting. On page four, item number two, 2020 SP037003, 1414 Third Avenue North Amendment, staff recommendations to withdraw. Item number three, 2026 SP023001, Courtyards at Battle Grove. Staff recommendation is to defer to the September 10th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Item number four, 2026 SP028001, 4301 Hillsboro Pike SP, Staff recommendation is to defer indefinitely. Item number five, 2026S1050014686, Licton Pike. Staff recommendation is to defer to the September 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item number six, 2003UD003012, Ridgeview UDO sections six and seven amendment. Staff recommendation is to defer to the September 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting. And then on page six, item number 13, 2026 S138001, 115 Cottage Lane staff recommendations to defer to the September 24th Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you and so commissioners and also And when I go through the list, let's make sure it's correct. So these are the following items for deferral withdrawal, and that is items number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 13. Is that correct? That is correct. All right, commissioners, you've heard the items for deferral withdrawal. Is there a motion? There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And those items are deferred or withdrawn. Next is item G, the consent agenda. Go ahead.

Sure. I'll read through the items in the tentative consent agenda and ask if anyone is here in opposition. If so, please raise your hand and the item will be presented in the order they appear on the agenda. If no one is in opposition to the item, it will be on the consent agenda. Please note that items on the consent agenda will be voted on at a single time. And as notice to the public items on the consent agenda will be voted on in a single time. No public hearing will be held or 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. So starting on page five, item number seven, a 2026 CP 0 0 3 0 0 1 Young's lane community plan amendment. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 7B, 2026, CP003002, Young's Lane MCSP Amendment. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 8, 2026, CP005002, East Nashville Community Plan Amendment. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 10, 2026, SP037001, Clifton Cottages SP. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. On page six, item number 11, 2026, SP041001, 2007, Hickory Hill Lane. Is anyone in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 12, 2026S119001, 127 Archwood Drive. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 14, 2026S142001, 6103 Mount View Road. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 15, 2026Z059PR001, Is anyone here in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 16, 2026C062PR001. Is anyone here in opposition to this item? Okay, this item will be on the consent agenda. Item number 17, 2026C063PR001. Is anyone in opposition to this item? This item will be on the consent agenda. And item number 18, 2026Z0660PR001, is anyone here in opposition to this item? Okay, that will be on the agenda to be heard. Okay, and I'm gonna go ahead and read through, right, okay, just making sure, read through the items that are on the consent agenda with their partial captions. And before I do that, let me read the legal notice. 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 the 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. So starting on page five again, item 7A, 2026 CP003001, Young's Lane Community Plan amendment, a request to amend the Bordeaux-Whites Creek-Haines Trinity Community Plan and the Haines Trinity Small Area Plan by changing community character policies for various properties along Young's Lane. Staff's recommendation is to approve. Item number 7B, 2026, CP003002, Young's Lane MCSP amendment, a request to amend the major and collector street plan by removing a planned collector avenue between Young's Lane and Baptist World Center Drive. Staff's recommendation is to approve. Item number eight, 2026 CP-005-002, East Nashville Community Plan Amendment. I request to amend the East Nashville Community Plan by changing the community character policy from suburban neighborhood evolving to suburban mixed-use corridor policy for various properties located along Hart Lane. Staff's recommendation is to approve. Item number 10, 2026 CPSP037001 Clifton Cottages SP, a request to rezone from RS5 to SP zoning for properties located at 3000, 3002, 3008, 3012, and 3016 Clifton Avenue. Stacks recommendations to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. On page six, item number 11, 2026, SP 041001, 2007 Hickory Hill Lane, a request to rezone from RS 10 to SP on property located at 2007 Hickory Hill Lane. SAS recommendation is to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. Item number 12, 2026 S 119001, 127 Archwood Drive, a request for final plot approval to create two lots on property located at 127 Archwood Drive. Staff's recommendation is to approve with conditions, including an exception to section 352 for lot orientation. Item number 14, 2026S142001, 6103 Mountview Road, a request for final plot to create 92 lots on property located at 6103 Mountview Road. Staff's recommendation is to approve with conditions. Item number 15, 2026C059PR001, a request to rezone from RS5, RS 7.5 to R8. Zoning for properties located at Hidesbury Road, unnumbered. Staff's recommendation is to approve on page seven. Item number 16, 2026C062PR001, a request to rezone from RM 20 to RN 2. Zoning for property located at 105 North 9th Street. Staff's recommendation is to approve. And item number 17, 2026C-063PR-001, a request to rezone from IR to MUN-ANS on property located at 1326 Third Avenue North. Staff's recommendation is to approve. And then under other business, item number 23, to accept the director's report and approve administrative items.

Thank you, Selena. And so here are the following items commissioners on to approve it one time on the consent agenda. Items number 7A, 7B, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 23. Is that correct?

That is correct.

All right, commissioners, you've heard the items to adopt on the consent agenda. Is there a motion? So motion and a second. A second. Any other discussions? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And those items are adopted, which leads us to items number nine and 18 will be considered tonight. And several of... of the audience have been here before, some have not. And so the way we do the public hearings is we'll first have the presentation. We'll open the public hearing. The staff team will do the presentation. We'll open the public hearing. The applicant has eight minutes and can save two minutes of the eight for rebuttal. Then we'll take anyone wishing to speak. Everyone has two minutes. We have a timer right there. And then the applicant will have a rebuttal. Then the council member. And then we'll close the public hearing. And then we'll deliberate amongst the commissioners. So we do appreciate everybody coming down. But I just wanted to explain the process. We're all volunteers here. We appreciate it. We'll go slow. We won't rush. And we welcome everybody for being here. We believe in good government. So here we are. All right. So item number nine.

All right, Dustin Shane, staff planner. This is a text amendment related to the definition of boarding house. So this text amendment was initiated by the zoning administrator who is here tonight. It revises the definition of boarding house in title 17 of the code. It removes language that describes occupants as needing shared lodging, personal services, supervision, or rehabilitative services. So it refocuses the definition on temporary accommodation of persons or families in a To summarize, it attempts to align the definition of boarding house with the intended role of being a facility or a portion of a dwelling unit where rooms are rented temporarily. So codes has noted that renting by the room has been treated as a boarding house since the zoning codes adoption in 1998. The current definition, however, includes references to shared lodging services, supervision, and rehabilitation. The proposed definition removes these references defining boarding house simply as a temporary accommodation for persons or families in a room unit. Um, so removing this language, linking the use to personal services or rehabilitative needs, um, helps resolve enforcement challenges caused by needing evidence of occupants, personal circumstances. Uh, it does not change the zoning districts where boarding houses are permitted, which are multifamily residential mixed use office, residential core frame and downtown districts. Um, In our analysis, boarding houses are primarily defined by providing rooms for temporary accommodation regardless of services. They differ from owner-occupied short-term rental properties in that they can be for longer durations and that multiple rooming units in a home are rentable at the same time. Also, the zoning code already includes a separate land use called rehabilitative services for providing treatment or supervision. Um, some concerns we have, which we, we want to do more research on, um, removing references to need or services should be considered as it relates to STRPs. Um, we want to make sure any adjustment avoids creating any loopholes, allowing STRPs outside their permitting process. Um, also, Removing the service-based language may necessitate reconsidering the zoning districts for boarding houses versus rehabilitative services. So staff wants to use the next four weeks to research pure city practices, Nashville-Davidson County history, and we may propose a substitute to address any concerns that are raised. So our recommendation per the rules and procedures is to defer two meetings to September 24th. This text amendment passed on first reading at council August 18th and is scheduled for its public hearing at council on October 6th. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And so appreciate the presentation and we'll open this item for public hearing and council lady, you arrived right on time. Good timing. Welcome. Thank you.

I've been all over town, um, and traffic. Good afternoon commissioners. It's good to see you all. Um, thank you as always for your service.

Can you hear me? How about now?

I needed to get a little closer. I should know that with microphones. I like them so much. So thank you again for your service. I appreciate you. I brought this forth working closely with Director... Director Hargis and he's gonna speak about this as well. I appreciate the staff's review and we have talked about this. I'm excited to hear what more review they find in the next few weeks in particular around benchmarking with other cities to see how boarding houses are used there. There have been some questions relative to rehabilitative services and making sure that you know, that we're providing housing, temporary housing for people who need it potentially for alcohol or drug rehab or uses like that. And as you'll hear from Mr. Hargis in a minute, those uses are already elsewhere in the zoning code. So this is not designed to take any of that away. This was designed as Mr. Shane described to clean up some language in the code that's not being used to enforce the way that, so codes has been enforcing this boarding house code, um, as it's newly written, as it's written in the new bill is what I'm trying to say. So the way I'm, what I'm trying to do with this language in the code is to make it match the way that codes has been enforcing the law today. There, that's what I was trying to get across. Took me a little while to get there. So I brought this forth in conjunction with codes. I do think that we're going to get some good feedback relative to benchmark to other cities. I am planning to defer this at this October 6th. Council meeting I probably will still have a public hearing there unless the bill has changed tremendously with a substitute But I am going to defer it until the first meeting in November For second reading passage so that we can make sure that we have massaged the language and have the best Legislation put forward as I always like to do so with that I look forward to your discussion per your rules You'll be deferring this I think And, um, but I am looking forward to more discussion and what your concerns are to again, make sure that we create the best law over at the courthouse. Thanks so much.

Thank you. And we do have the codes administrator here. Always good to have you here, sir. And thank you, Council Lady. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Appreciate it. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. As the Council Member stated, I brought forth this idea to her to clean up our language and code to match our enforcement in. And how this initially came to me recently, we had our short-term rental team brought to me multiple listings on short-term rental PLATFORMS THAT LISTED PEOPLE STRING THEIR BEDROOMS INSIDE THEIR HOME, WHICH, AS THE COUNCILMEMBER, AS THE PLAIN COMMISSIONERS MAY KNOW, STRs, WHEN YOU RENT THOSE, YOU RENT THE ENTIRETY OF THE HOME. YOU CAN'T SUBLET INDIVIDUAL BEDROOMS. SO IN LOOKING AT THIS, BRINGING FORWARD to go after this type of use in R and RS districts. We do permit them in RM, and as the staff talked about, these other zone districts where they're permitted. So really, no change in application to it, but the issue we were running into, especially in environmental court, was that these folks could use this current definition as a defense to the violation because they were not seeking rehabilitative service uses or seeking... any of those services that are currently already permitted by right under the definition of family. So those alcohol and drug group homes that we deal with, those are allowed under the Fair Housing Act as definition number two in the family definition. So unchanged there, but looking forward to hearing, uh, how other pure series, uh, do it. And, and, and, uh, you know, also open to, to the council, if the council wishes to open up boarding houses and new zone districts, happy to do so, but, uh, just trying to get some clarity in the code and clean it up. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Always a pleasure to have you down here. All right. So now anyone wishing to speak on this item? I'm seeing none. Uh, Council lady, do you want to wrap it up? Are you good? Thank you. So seeing no one else wish to speak, I declare the public hearing closed. Vice chair, you want to go first?

I don't think I have a lot to add. I mean, it seems to make sense to clean up and get these clarifications in place. I was just wanting to make sure I understood what the director of codes just said. So you cannot have a short, you can't, do a short term rental of a bedroom and a single family home. I thought people did that.

We'll get our codes. No, for the owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied STRPs, when you lease, you can designate portions of the home. What you can't do is I can't lease it to you and then turn around and lease it to Commissioner Dundon for a different bedroom at the same time. And that's what we've been seeing occur. In addition to other platforms where I'm renting out my swimming pool in the backyard or my exercise equipment and other parts.

So, but an owner, an owner occupied one room rental is still allowed. It is allowed.

Yes. So apologize for that. But, but that person, when they rent it, that's the only person that can rent at that one time.

Got it. Okay. Yeah. That was my only point of confusion, but I don't think that's within the legislation. I think that was just in the discussion. So it seems to make sense to me. And I think that the steps that you're planning to do to, Make sure we get this right. Sound good.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman. Thank you, Chair. This seems like a good piece of legislation, good to align our definition with existing practice, and glad it's being carried by the wonderful Councilmember Benedict. Not a concern with the legislation in any way, but I think I've seen in other cities some literature about, I think the right term is single room occupancies, like boarding houses being used to provide a very affordable housing type that can be used by our most in need residents who are potentially unhoused now or at risk of being unhoused. As long as we're looking at this, I wonder if it could be useful to evaluate whether there's other barriers to this housing type that could be used to combat our unhoused population, either those currently unhoused or at risk of becoming unhoused. I don't know if that is potentially within the scope of this legislation or if it would necessarily be a different piece. It might be useful to know that, but would be interested to know if staff has any thoughts on that now, or if not, if that's something that we could take up when this comes back to us.

We can look into that more. I don't know that we have any additional information right now on it though.

Just to pile on a little bit more, because I like that. Could I suggest maybe looking into, and I don't know what our current standard is, but in a boarding house, if there is shared restroom or shared kitchen space, I know that has been an issue sometimes, where you can, like in this, or as that, allow it to be even more... Cost-efficient to rent there is your random bedroom. Everyone gets to share kind of dining or kitchen facilities. I'm not sure what our current zoning allows, but if we are trying to promote that, I don't know. I read that in a book somewhere, so I'm sure it's true. You still read books, Commissioner Smith?

No, I'm just kidding. Commissioner Dundon.

I agree with all the comments made so far. I just have a couple questions. What does temporary mean? And it's probably in another section there. And I was just thinking about students or graduate students. If somebody within the proper zoning area wants to rent out five bedrooms to five different people, is there a limit to the number? And what type of, um, you know, is, is there, I guess, is there a limit to the number of people and to the temporary status? Because maybe you want to live there for four years or five years.

Um, there is already, so there are different land uses and there are different ways that these things are handled. Um, the number, uh, for like roommates, let's say is likely more regulated by, um, the definition of family. And so the definition of family is says any number of related persons, but then there's also a certain number of unrelated persons, persons. And so if a group of roommates, for instance, are renting or renting a house together, that's not considered a boarding house because they fall within the definition of a family. And so it is just considered a single family home.

But if they're renting it from someone who lives there, who is an owner that is not any relation to them, who has independent contract leases with each room, then that is likely then that's joy.

Do you want to speak to that?

Commissioner, under the code now, that would be a boarding house. So the five roommates could have one lease with the landlord together, so they're all on the hook. If I leased individual bedrooms, the zoning code calls those rooming units. They're just sleeping quarters with common communal access, as you were talking about, Ms. Smith, to restrooms and kitchen. That kind of lease is a boarding house considered to us. So the five students each with a separate lease with the landlord would be considered a boarding house under our code.

Okay, and that's permissible where boarding houses are permissible? Where boarding houses are allowed.

It wouldn't be permissible in RS or R. Okay. The questions we've had and the times we've had people, when we cite them for that, the easy fix is they do one lease together with the landlord and we're fine with that. Okay.

I mean, I think that is something to consider because it's not always feasible to do one lease. People have different transient needs, whether it's short-term or whatever temporary means. That's something that's worth thinking about.

Thank you. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Any other discussion? We'll need a motion to defer until September 24th, two meetings. Is there a motion? Vice Chair, you want to lead a motion?

I will make a motion that we defer this item for two meetings until September 24th.

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

Aye.

Opposed, no. Ayes have it. It's deferred to September 24th. All right, we're ready for 18.

All right, good evening commissioners. Laszlo Martone presenting item number 18. And this is a request to rezone from AR2A and CS to RM20. And staff's recommendation is to approve RM20NS. The application consists of four parcels totaling 14.69 acres located between Mountview Road and Mountview Circle, just south of Murfreesboro Pike. The three southernmost parcels have been zoned AR2A since 1974, while the northernmost parcel has been zoned CS since 1998. Three of the parcels contain single family homes, while the southernmost parcel is vacant. And the entire site is within the Murfreesboro Pike UDO. Surrounding properties are zoned commercial service, CS, multifamily residential arm 20, and agricultural residential AR2A. The overall site is within two different land use policies. The portion of the site zone CS is located within the T3 suburban mixed use corridor policy area. The portion of the site zone AR2A is within the T3 suburban neighborhood maintenance policy area. T3 CM policy is intended to enhance suburban mixed use corridors by encouraging a greater mix of higher density residential and mixed use development along the corridor. And T3NM policy is intended to preserve the general character of suburban residential neighborhoods. Under the proposed RM20 zoning, the property could accommodate a maximum of 294 residential units. While the southernmost parcels are located within the T3 neighborhood maintenance policy area, RM20 in this location may be appropriate given the site's access to nearby arterial boulevards and the site's potential for infill development. The T3NM policy supports higher intensity development in proximity to corridors and also supports a broader mix of housing types where properties are vacant or underutilized. which is the case at this site. The site is existing access from Mount View Road and is under a quarter mile from Mount Murfreesboro Pike, which are both classified as arterial boulevards. Given the property is bordered by CSS zoning to the north, east and west, as well as existing multifamily development to the southeast, arm 20 at the subject site would match the surrounding intensity and character of nearby development. Additionally, the entire site is within the Murfreesboro Pike UDO, which will add additional architectural, landscaping, parking, and signage standards at the time of final site plan review. And staff is recommending the inclusion of the NS zoning be applied to the request, as NS would prohibit both owner-occupied and not owner-occupied short-term rentals in the district. And with that, staff's recommendation is to approve RM20NS.

Thank you, Laszlo. And we appreciate the presentation. So we'll open this item for public hearing.

And is the applicant in the room? I just wanted to point out that Council Lady Stiles is the applicant on this. But I believe some of the owners of the property are here, though.

So the owners are not the applicant?

That's correct.

So generally commissioners, when we have a situation where the council member is the requester of it, but the property owner is here and it's, they don't agree, I guess. Generally we let the property owner have a little more time than two minutes just because it affects their particular property. And so that's been a tradition of, we haven't had this situation happen in a while. But generally the affected property owner, so councilman, I'm just letting you all know that sometimes this happens. And so we may give the property owner, we generally like five minutes. And vice chair, we've done that in the past, as you might recall. But really the applicant is the council member. But the council member is not here. Has the council member sent a letter or communication or email? about this issue to the planning commission, to the planning commission. Hold on a second.

We'll get to you. I believe that, um, Brett, uh, who is our council liaison has spoken with her and there was some indication that she may, um, withdraw this. Um, but we have not gotten just official, official confirmation of that. Okay. Um, yeah.

Um,

Okay, thank you. All right, so seeing the applicant not here, anyone wishing to speak? And we would offer, we can suspend the rules as a commission and offer the applicant, not the applicant, but the owner. Are you the owner of the property, sir? All right, so without objection, we'll give the owner of the property five minutes. Is that okay with the commissioners? I'll make sure. Okay, without objection, you're recognized. We'll give you five minutes. And state your name, please. Steven Adams.

Property owner. And indicate you're the property owner on the microphone, please. I'm the property owner of all the property, including the 3501 Mercerboro Road. It's not in the tracker. I've had four meetings with Joy. She come to me about wanting to build townhouses, and I had no problem with it, but I told her I didn't want to touch the CS zoning. The other three pieces there, if she wanted to do RM20, I had no problem with that. I spoke with her. She called me in Panama City Friday, and I told her that, you know, CS was not an option because I come up here as soon as I seen it and seen what it was, that I didn't want the CS to be touched. And she said, well, that wasn't part of the deal. And I said, no, it's never been part of the deal. At one time, we was going to do the whole piece. We had a – I'm sorry. I'm a little nervous. But – We had a deal that was going to do a whole piece, and they didn't come nowhere close to what I needed for the property. By devaluing that CS zoning right there, Wawa had just come across the street. They looked at my property at 3501 and 5876, and zoning wouldn't let them do exactly what they wanted to do, so they moved across the street. I'd throw a rock and hit them. They paid $900,000 an acre for five acres. And them two parcels right there is a little less than five. I'm a four-point something. So that's why I didn't want to touch that because the value, it devalues it, you know. But, you know. I ain't got a lot to say, but we've had several discussions, but that was never part of it to turn into our M20. Thank you, sir.

We appreciate it. That's very helpful. Anyone else wishing to speak? And it'll be per the rules, it's two minutes. So come on up. And please state your name for the record. Thank you.

My name is Butch Harding. My dad owns the property across from me off your road there. across the street there. I'm not here to oppose it. I'm here just to try to find out what's going on, what the plan is. And I've got a few concerns, you know, trying to just find out what the plan is, basically. as far as with the sewers, the roads, there's a whole lot of traffic on that road. What I'm worried about is if they build all these apartments or whatever they're going to build in there, and then down the road, they're going to come over and won't take our property to widen the road. And so basically I'm trying to find out what the plan is here. Is it apartments or...

Hold on one second. Okay. Okay. We interrupted you. Go ahead. Keep going. We'll give you...

So anyway, that's what I want to know, you know, what the plan is, you know. Is it going to be entrance off of Mountview Road or is it going to be off of Mountview Circle? The road widening, you know, I wouldn't know about the tip down there if it was going to be included in it or not, which I see now it's not. And basically, I just want to know how it's going to impact our property across the street from this development. And if I don't know what the development is, that's why I came down here to try to find out. So who knows what it is?

Well, this is kind of a weird case, but we'll get into the discussion in a little bit. The current proposal amongst us is... to change just the zoning portion of it.

Well, you know, I'd say I'm not opposed to it as far as I know, but I don't know all the details.

Yes, sir. I know it's a little confusing.

You know, it's good for Steve and what's good for us also.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Uh, in a second, we'll come back to you in the rebuttal. We'll let you talk. Okay. I know this is kind of weird commissioners. I'm sorry. Anyone else wishing to speak? All right, two minutes. We'll give you just a minute.

We're paying urban taxes, and we don't have no server. We didn't get water until probably 30 years ago. We had well pumps. Well, I lived, this property, I bought it all in different sections. And I mean, I'm paying all these taxes, but we're not getting the services. I was told that once you paid, like, after five years, you're supposed to get all the services. We've never got services. There's no sewer running up Mountview Road, none running right in front of Mercerburg Road. They come in Hamilton Church from the back and hit Thorntons and Wawa put in. We don't have nothing on our side. So, I mean, that's why this property has never developed so far.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right. And seeing the council members not here and seeing no one else wish to speak, I declare the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hanley, you want to start us off? Thank you, chair.

I mean, I think there's some opportunity for, for clarification, hopefully alignment. It seems like there's been some conversations with the, property owner and the council member. And it seems like there's also been some discussion with the council member to potentially withdraw this item. I think we're past that now, but I understand staff's recommendation. I guess the approval would be based on it being appropriate for the area, but I think the What we've heard from the property owner is that it's inclusive of more property than is desired or maybe discussed as far as the intention. So, I mean, for that purposes, I would be inclined to, you know, go against staff's recommendation, not necessarily from it being appropriate from a policy standpoint, but just from the way that it's been administered to date. Thank you. Director?

Staff limited our analysis to the policy. The commission has practices that it would utilize that might be a little broader than the policy based on your views about, you know, a property owner and a council member kind of thought process to your point in development. But thank you. Yeah.

Chair, if I can, I'll finish that. Thank you. Thank you, Director Kemp. I think it's important from my perspective to note that not opposed to an RM20 zoning in this area, but this very specific case, including property that may not have been intended by the property owner.

Very well put, Commissioner. And I, personally, I've always, part of community discussion is with the community, but not only the community, but the property owner. And I just have never, and I've been consistent on this in my 20-some years on the council and on the commission, that if the property owner is not initiating their zoning request, that it's a high bar to overcome for me. And so I appreciate you bringing that up, Commissioner Henley. Any other discussion? Commissioner Dundon first, then Councilman.

Yeah, I completely agree. So I would vote to disapprove this for that reason, especially when it's one parcel or just a few parcels owned by a single landowner. But I do want to clarify that the documents here actually do say requested by and then list the owners. So if the owners didn't I just want to clarify because you did not request.

Here, sir, we just come up to the microphone. No, no, come up to the microphone. We got to get it on the record.

Just to clarify if you all requested this change.

No, ma'am, she was talking about doing development, and we met at Century Farms four times and, you know, kept waiting on the LOI. you know, the developer she bought was kept saying every meeting, we're going to give you a price. We'll give you a price and give you a price. It started out. He said he was thinking around 6 million. And then when he finally gave me a price, he was three. And then, you know, we, we, I, we had two, two developers wanting to do the commercial. There was a, it wasn't all a commercial with four point four point two, I believe.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood you all did not initiate this. So I think that that's a concern. And I don't know if we want, since this is not the first time this has come up, it might be helpful to think about if we should have some sort of policy so that we're, I mean, staff puts a lot of time into developing this analysis for us. And if it's, if, if the owner has not requested it and is against it, I think that's where it's knowing upfront, maybe having a rule or a policy or something.

And Commissioner Dundon, I don't disagree. It hasn't come up often. And generally, I mean, the council members, I mean, honestly, do great work and do a good job of that. And so this, I mean, it hasn't come up in a long, in several years, a lot of years. And so I just, since probably you've been on the commission, so it doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's a little confusing. So I agree. Okay.

So I just wanted to say too, so council members, I will say do have the legal authority to rezone property, rezone property against the property owner's wishes or without regard to their wishes. But this is maybe a little bit more unique. And I think that policy considerations about whether this is appropriate or okay to take into account for the planning commission's recommendation.

Thank you. Councilman.

I echo this thoughts of fellow commissioners. I think I don't understand what the council members motivations may be in trying to remove that economic value from the property owners on this, especially the CS property. So I'm inclined to disapprove as well. I'm disappointed to see this legislation brought forward.

And commissioners from a policy perspective, I mean, there's honestly, I mean, it's very appropriate to have CS near multifamily dwellings because you have to have different types of land use and services to service those particular dwellings. And so when we, as the commission look at that, that's also a policy consideration that we look at and having CS within a close walking distance or close distance to a multifamily or a single family neighborhood that provides whether it's a convenience store or there are several uses that we often look at from a planning perspective. So I appreciate that discussion. Any other discussion? Commissioner Smith and then Vice Chair.

Um, one quick one, uh, just echo what everyone said, which is very uncomfortable doing it against property owner's wishes. Um, but do want to echo what commissioner Henley said, which is when I looked at this and didn't realize kind of the tangled web, uh, of inside baseball. Um, I thought it was, was basically appropriate. Um, also am I, I didn't catch the first time, except when you said it is Mountview considered an arterial as well. Mountview and Murfreesboro. Well, that I think is a pretty strong case along those two arterial and surrounded or at least very adjacent to a good mixed use and commercial corridor. I thought it was appropriate. My only further point is that as a suggestion to maybe the owner or even the council person, I would also probably look favorably upon a change of the land use designation of those Southern parcels to the CM from the NM, from the, neighborhood maintenance to the suburban mixed use corridor, which I think would probably, uh, even further back up a further zoning change where one ironed out that contained the appropriate and agreed upon parcels. Um, that, that, that's just a thought if we wanted to, uh, uh, not today, but going forward, if there was a, uh, a way to, to approve that.

But, uh, that, that's it. Thanks. Thank you. And vice chair and then commissioner day.

I think I had the same concern. Um, well, somewhat of the same concern. I was concerned about RM 20 and the Southern portion of it overall. Um, and was thinking that was not really consistent with the neighborhood maintenance portion. So if a community plan might make more sense, I also just can't imagine, um, if there were 294 new units of housing going in here, that there wouldn't be some more discussion with the neighborhood if they really did know what was going on. So it just really, uh, opens the door to me for thinking, um, this has not been communicated well and, So I fully, I mean, at first I was going to say defer because if this is a council person is bringing this forward, I would rather hear from her as to why she's doing it. But, um, I'm okay with disapproval as well. Um, especially if it's likely to get withdrawn anyways.

Thank you. Vice chair, commissioner day.

Thank you. I think Vice Chair covered my question, which was, was our only option to reject the proposal or to defer it if there was still a discussion between the applicant and the council member?

What is the status of the bill? There's no council bill, so it could be deferred at this point.

it's up to the commission to, um, you know, this commission has generally, um, been, uh, tries to get along with everyone and tries to, um, I think, uh, have a good, so it's up to the commissioners on, on where y'all are feeling. And the councilman has a comment discussion. Councilman.

Um, um, would probably vote against deferral and in favor of disapproval in this instance. If we're going to defer it, I don't think there's any further analysis needed on staff's part. I think we have all the information at this point. We need to make an informed decision. So I'm comfortable at this point giving the commission's recommendation. Vice chair and then commissioner dang again.

No, I think vice chair.

I think that, um, if, if there, if this was purely a question of the appropriate, uh, land use designation and we had some questions about that, then I would suggest deferral. But given this is a broader issue, I think I'm in support of disapproval as well.

All right. Commissioner Hanley. Thank you, Chair. Again, I think in order to meet the desires of the landowner, at least as I believe they were presented to us, I think it is meaningfully a disapproval because it materially changes. It would be a different parcel allocation to the rezoning. Saying that, I want to directly encourage the landowner to not fold up shop, like continue to work with the council member because this is an opportunity for housing that I think we really want to have come back before us. And also, I think, you know, to point out, you know, our staff report usually lists the owners. Even, you know, typically the owner is supportive of that. So when it says requested by, I just wanted to make sure it's a clarification. It's just how our report is structured. It wasn't to misrepresent the landowner. I don't want that to disparage the council member either.

Any other discussion? Commissioner Henley, why don't you make a motion?

Thank you, Chair. Make a motion to disapprove the staff recommendation to approve RM20NS.

That's a proper motion to disapprove staff's recommendation. Second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Ayes have it.

And it is disapproved.

So that leads us... Thank you very much for coming down. We appreciate... Thank you. And so we are now onto that finishes our items to be heard on public hearings. So that leads us to other business. And the first thing on other business, um, sometimes we, we see these and, and so this is, um, actually, uh, dealing with our, uh, executive director. Um, and this is consistent with, um, uh, the increases in the rest of the staff. And I've talked to our very own George about this. And then the executive committee was talked to as well. So this is the recommendation. And is there any discussion? Well, and let me say this too. And I kind of said it last time when we renewed our director's contract, which is different than the raise. I think that not only has the director and the planning commission done more in the past year, taking on historical and a lot of other items, there's just a lot going on in the department. And I feel like... the one thing, um, that our director has is, um, a very, um, a way about her that has a lot of finesse on very complicated issues, um, and a way to solve complex, um, items that, that faces the city. And I just want to say, thank you, director, that, um, it takes a very, especially amongst planners. I don't want to disparage a planner in any way. Uh, but I think having the political, uh, finesse that our director has is really an added bonus. And, you know, I don't know if y'all remember this, but I know the vice chair does, but when we hired Lucy, we hired her internally. And I was extremely proud of that fact. And so we, to all of the staffers out there, there's... I know that you'll advance yourself, whether it's this department or another department or another job. I think that it shows that you can advance to the very top here. And I think that that's important for staff morale in the city. So I'll say that director, thank you for all that you do for us. And definitely, I think this is deserved. So is there a motion to approve? There's a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Oh, commissioner Henley. We're still on discussion. Thank you.

This is truly a moment of privilege, not necessarily to distract from our director, who is very deserving, but you mentioned this. And so I wanted to take the opportunity. You mentioned George, Mr. Rooker, and he is dealt with a lot of that dynamic growth in this department as well. So I wanted to, I've had a pleasure of working with him on a couple instances and, Just want to highlight him as well. I mean, there's a lot of things happening inside of the Planning Commission, and there's a lot of people who rely on George's work. So just wanted to take a chance to shout him out as well. But extremely supportive of our item number 19.

Thank you, Commissioner, and I totally agree, and I meant to say Mr. Rooker, but I know Mr. Rooker is George, so he's my dear friend. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we already have a motion and a second, and all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no, ayes have it, and congratulations, Director. So that leads us to historic. No major report, Chair. Okay, thank you, Mr. Smith.

Item 21, which is parks. Thank you, Chair. I'm bordering on thinking I'm talking too much now, but I'll be brief. I was extremely pleased to spend last Saturday at the rescheduled opening of Mariposa Park. If you have not had a chance to get out there, it is a fantastic space. It was really fantastic last weekend to see a very dynamic and quite honestly, I think, appreciative community celebrate the opening of that park. It was one of the best experiences I've had in the city, especially in the parks board role. So just want to compliment park staff and obviously all of the partners that came together for that. Council Member Sepulveda has championed that. And also with some of our redistricting from the time it started to where we are now. Also Council Member Lee for getting that across the finish line. So just wanted to say that. And then this Saturday, a big couple weeks for parks, the parks team will be opening the revitalization of the north side of Centennial Park and the new event pavilion, which will be special. That's taking place this Saturday at 9 a.m. And so, you know, encourage folks to get out and see it. I've driven by and kind of peeked around. It looks really nice, but looking forward to seeing it once it's open and being utilized.

Thank you, sir. Great report. All right. So that leads us to executive committee. And so commissioners, we've laid on the desk a letter from the mayor to, to, to you, to the commissioners. And I do want to point out that as speaking about our director in complicated issues, our, our director per the mayor said, And I had a great conversation with the mayor about this. And as you know, we've been working a lot on East Bank. We've been working on East Bank. Gosh, it's been more than four years. It's probably been what, Vice Chair? Eight years? We've started having meetings over there? Anyway. And so as we move from... our initial study right and our initial plan uh the mayor has asked that um our director be involved with with some of those particular projects and advancing those um because she has an expertise in in the planning piece um and so there's a lot of complex moving parts and so um a special advisor to um the mayor on this particular project now with that said when i talked to the mayor i was very clear that Lucy that the director remain here and I believe that as Commissioner Henley said we have a lot of great staff members and I think that we can do this and I think that it makes sense and and everybody has been in agreement to do this and I think it's I think that it's a really a testament to the depth of not only our director, but the team. And so I think that this is going to be really great. And as y'all know, Super Bowl's coming up. We have a lot of complex projects that we have to deal with. And I think that this is an important thing. And so that letter and email was sent to you and the hard copy on the desk. And I do want the director to kind of explain some of the things that she's going to be working on.

Thank you. And thank you for your support. Just a couple of things. The projects that the mayor has highlighted are really central to mobility and open space function on the East bank and they're enabling infrastructure, meaning that they unlock our ability to do good quality development over there. And so they are still in a planning and design phase. And some, in some ways the projects are just very large capital projects, but functionally very much fit within what the department, would typically do, but they're in a concentrated area, which is unusual in our city. But I'm really pleased and honored to do the work and to work with our partners to get it done well. And it's possible because of the strength of the team here. So I promise I will work with Deputy Director Lisa Milligan, the executive team, Rochelle, and everyone who's before you to make sure that if there are any sort of assignment adjustments or anything needed to ensure our work here continues well, that we'll do that and I'll communicate to you transparently. And we'll go from there. But I feel confident that we can make this work. And I'll bring you updates as we go along as well. So thank you again for your support.

Thank you, Director. Any discussions? We appreciate it. And I know that moving forward, we look forward to the updates. Oh, Vice Chair.

In the interest of the rest of the staff, just please do keep us updated, too, as to how they're managing with the additional distribution of duties. I don't know what we can do to help, but we should be aware. We'll support. Yeah. We'll support.

Thank you, Vice Chair. And we appreciate all the commissioners. It means a lot. And if you have questions, you can always... through that all right last on our list is legislative update councilman no updates from the council all right well seeing no other business is there a motion to adjourn 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.