Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Yeah, I think

good evening. Welcome to the February 5th, 2026 municipal planning uh commission meeting for the town of Smyrna. With that, I will call the meeting to order. And if you'll stand with me, um we'll have a prayer and pledge. Father, thank you for today. Thank you for blessing us as richly as you do in this town. Be with us tonight as we deliberate. Grant us wisdom, discernment as we go about the town's business. Father, we thank you for our planning staff and all the departments that assist with preparing the packets for us and getting the information in front of us. Father, thank you for our first responders. Bless them, protect them, and Father, thank you for all our employees who give so much of themselves to this town to help it make it to be such a wonderful place it is. Be with us tonight. Bless us. Guide us. For it's in your name we pray. Amen. Amen.

You face the flag with me, please. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. First up tonight, we have a public hearing. Plan of services for Catalyst Design Group, 7025 Delomas Road. Kevin,

yeah, this is just the plan of services. This uh the annexation is on your agenda later. Uh state law does require you all to hold a public hearing on the plan of services before you make a recommendation uh to to the council for the annexation and plan of services. But so this uh puts in writing the services the town would be providing uh if we choose to annex the property uh including the the parcels that were requested as well as the rightway of Rocky Forkville Road and Del Thomas Road that are also recommended for annexation. The town would be providing all services to this uh area uh except for water which would be provided by Consolidated Utility District. And that's all that I got.

Okay. And with that, I will open the public hearing for anyone that would like to come forward and to to provide comments concerning this. Uh, just as a reminder, comments are limited to three minutes. I was going to say Katherine, but it looks like Mitch will keep uh time. So, if you would like to come forward, if you could give us your name, address, and whether you live within the town limits or not. No one. Okay, then we will close the public hearing and I will call the planning uh commission back in session. Okay. And with that, uh next on our item is, uh a public hearing. Uh I'm sorry, citizens comments. I think we have one gentleman here that would like to uh be heard. Um, Enoch, Gerald, Enoch, if you'd come forward. Um, and just to remind everybody that uh the citizens comment period uh is reserved for those that have signed up to address a border committee. Uh we need at least 24 hours of advanced notice and speakers are limited to uh three minutes. If you get to the end of the three minutes and you haven't gotten everything out, we're happy to have you submit in writing uh anything else you'd like to get in front of us. And with that, thank you. I can make this in three minutes. I'm Eno Gerald. Uh live at 8468 Dell Thomas for the last 30ome years. Uh I am in the county. Um I am in favor of this development. A couple things I'd like for the planning commission staff to consider as it comes in. Uh the their access on Del Thomas is only 250 300 ft from the intersection with Rocky Fort Amville. Um and I'd like to see that I know that there's been a

traffic study and staff has indicated they're going to do some some intersection improvements with alignment, but I'd like to see them widen that road really three lanes all the way to their drive with construction. Traffic's going to be coming in and out of there and um trying to make you're coming down Del Thomas trying to make a left onto Rocky for Amville. That's a sharp turn. So if they could do that wide to three lanes and I'd like to see that done on the front end just you that's a construction plan thing but as they go through the annexation I'd like to see them do that. Also uh on Rocky Fort Amville coming down where the EPCON is reflection drive. There's uh a stripe for like a a left turn into um Kedron Church, but it's wide enough to add a left turn in the reflection. I like staff to look at that as it comes through as well. Uh but like I say, I am in favor of the development. We first moved out there years ago. My wife said, "You're crazy. we're out in the middle of nowhere. I said we won't be some of these days. You just wait and here it comes. So, we're we're not opposed to the development out through there. So, that's all of my comments and thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you, Anna. Okay. Uh we are now on to our next agenda item, which is approval or corrections of the minutes of the January 8, 2026 regular meeting and the January 29th, 2026 quarterly joint meeting. And that's held with us and the council. Uh councelor, are the meeting minutes in order? No risk to form unless the commission has any amendments you'd like to make. Are there any amendments, changes, or discussions in relation to the minutes? I make a motion to approve the January 8th and January 29th minutes. I have a motion to approve the January 8th and January 29th minutes. Do I have a second?

Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes of the January 28th and January 29th, 2026 uh meetings minutes, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Minutes are approved. We are now on to old business. Our first uh item is a resoning request. Vintage Harborbrook LLC. Vintage Smyrna Block One Owner LLC. Waldron Veester Family Limited Partnerships LLC 5000 Needm Drive 4000 White Birch Avenue and Needam Drive PRD amendment to a PUB. Kevin.

Yeah. This is a request to amend an existing approved uh PRD. Um it was a four-phase uh multifamily development on Old Asheville Highway and Guinea Lane. Uh but with obviously some some new roadways extended into it as well. Um phase one is is completed. They're getting ready to to get started on phase two right now. Um the surrounding zoning is is a mix of R4, R six, uh C2 and PRD in town and RT R2 in agriculture in Leverne as this does border Lever as well. Uh the land use plan for this area is the Sam Ridley character area which would support a combination of retail uses and services uh that kind of for local and and regional scale uh uses and services. Um major thoroughfare plan does designate old national highways and minor arterial and needed drive and carriage house drive as collectors adequate rightway uh either exists or will exist when plants are recorded uh for those streets. um the uh proposed uh amendments that are proposed and within this PRD to create a planned unit development for a mixture of uses. Uh there's really four uh one allowing up to 10 office suites in each phase. Again, there's four phases. Uh the minimum building separation would be 20 ft instead of 30 ft. uh each phase uh is responsible for the maintenance of the common areas and common space in lie of an owner's association and that the common parkland uh was proposed to be given to the town in lie of a common space owned and maintained by all the phases that has actually been uh approved by council already uh to uh the agreement and the acceptance of that the paperwork and all still needs to be executed but it has

been approved by council to do to do that already. Um, we had a few some comments that we had regarding this and essentially what this is is there's some some spaces on on each floor of these buildings that are um relatively small. They're not large enough for as to be an apartment unit or anything like that. They're anywhere from 100, some of them are larger to two or 300 square feet. Um, and basically these are uh what they're wanting to do is rent those out um as for non-residential uses. Um, and so this is what why this has primarily been requested. And so we had some comments uh largely fire code related as far as upgrades to those spaces uh the existing as well as any future spaces uh to meet life safety standards. uh and that there would be an occupancy inspection required before renting out the units so they before they're occupied just to verify and this is primarily you know the exit lights and u extinguishers and things like that that might be necessary. Um we did have some concerns uh regarding some of the businesses that sharing and closed residential hallways uh that would have customers or clients coming into the building. Um, since that time we there's been a little bit more information provided us, including that the hallways are key card accessed. Uh, so no one can enter unless they have a key card, uh, meaning they live there. Uh, or they're allowed by someone with a key card. So if someone is does have a business, um, they would have to allow say a client or a customer in. uh it wouldn't just be people wandering that into there that looking for the place that they're the business that they're looking for or whatever. Um the uses that are proposed um have been further limited. They were pretty wide open the

last time and the uses are much more limited now. Um and so some of those concerns have been alleviated. Um but we would this recommend these these are already kind of built obviously again phase one is completed but we would recommend that non-residential uses be limited kind of to the first floor and the common areas in the future phases where you have you know the mail rooms and the the gyms and things of that nature. We already have some some mixing of of folks already and it's more open to the public anyway. um feel better about in those locations versus again sharing in the hallways uh even even with the key card access limitations. Um phase one again as as I stated earlier has been constructed uh staff's understanding and this is this is from the fire department there that the state fire marshall's office uh the buildings were only approved for residential. Um, so we'd ask for a written statement of approval uh from the fire marshall's office for non-residential uses in phase one. They did give us a letter regarding phase two and the fire marshall has approved that if they would we really just want one for phase one just so that they're make sure that the fire marshall's office is aware of it and is okay with it since these plans because of their more than three three more stories do have to go to the fire marshall for review as well. Um, number nine is really kind of outside of the scope of the PUD amendment, but it was just something I wanted to to bring to their attention and to everyone else's attention. The original PUD uh required um that there's some landscaping within the public rideways within this pud, primarily on White Birch Avenue, but um and you know, medians, landscape medians and things of that nature. And so, uh, within that original PRD approval, it was to be maintained by the homeowners, not the pro homeowners, but the property owners association. Each phase would of

the development would have its aner. So, you'd have four different owners potentially. Um, and so, as this association is essentially not going to be created now because there's not going to be the common open space that they're maintaining. They're just going to maintain each individual space. Um obviously we need to that's going to have to be worked through as to who is going to maintain that rightway landscaping moving forward. Um they recommended or phase of that each each phase would be maintaining the the portion of the road that they abut and that sort of thing. Um that might can work out. We'll need it'll each one of those phases will then have to have a separate agreement with our council to to to put in writing what they're responsible for and who's responsible and that sort of thing. So, there's still some paperwork. Again, that's kind of outside the scope of the putt amendment, but I did want to at least bring that to everyone's attention because it came up with with these changes. So, um, again, we we have this is something we looked at, um, last month and it was deferred u with some additional information that's in the on your desk there. Um, again, what is there's some some plans that show kind of what the the floor plans that kind of show what what they the size and and locations of these these spaces. um as well as uh the the original PUD document but just amended to include some of those um non-residential uses that they are proposing. And let me get to the page that shows those. It's kind of on each phase, but there's a list of about a dozen or so um that they're proposing as uses. So, I think that's all that I have at this time.

Questions for um Kevin concerning this? Kevin, do you have a list of the changes that they've made for the uses allowable in those units that are in the ones that are already built?

Um, I don't have the the the original list in front of me. No. Uh, I know it had there were some construction offices and things of that nature that we were concerned about equipment being parked on site and different things and that's they still have that use but only as a no outdoor storage and only just as an office only. Um, there's no I think they had some retail maybe even on it some of this and that that has been removed. I know I do recall that one for sure is one that has been removed. It's it's largely office type uses um you know insurance or or things of that nature. A little bit of personal services, nail techs and things of that nature. Um and you know business accounting type uses. That's that's primarily what they're talking about or just the back office type for as a support for other types of uses.

Okay. Yeah, let me follow up on that. Um because I was looking to see what the I was trying to find and maybe I've overlooked at what the exact um proposed uses are now. Is it I think page 11 is that it's it's kind of on page nine. It's actually 9 through 12 kind of each phase. And I was looking at the same list on all the same list on all. Okay. So that's it. Yeah, those 12. This is the updated, right? This these are the updated. Yes,

this they've cut this way back from what the initial proposal was. There's a lot of biguse. I think that left a lot of gray areas and and I think some of the concerns we had before were maintaining it all indoors. you know, could could we be opening that up to something otherwise? And it looks like they've taken that out.

Yeah. I met with um Ross and and the team a few weeks ago and we kind of talked about this list and I'm just count just now found it because you said the page number. Um and this is consistent with kind of the conversations I had with them. Uh there were some generalizations um like they would just say you know

yeah general services or something they really have narrowed that down more specific to include you know where it says personal services they're actually talking about which type of personal services so um I think this limits it much more consistently with the conversation and then the other thing that we talked about was uh one of the things that staff mentioned was this being on the future phases this being in the first floor only kind of in the common area that's already there generally instead of residential halls which um and the reason it's future phases is because it's already kind of in place in the first phase, right? So, and they they already started leasing and then realized that there was a miscommunication between us and them over what was allowed. So, they stopped leasing until we had times to to re to revisit this. So, they've been a good partner at trying to make sure they get it right. They're not trying to I don't feel like they've been trying to get away with something right. They were trying to actually do the right thing and make sure that we were all on the same page.

Yeah. I think initially they didn't realize that they didn't have permission to do that and came back in and started uh trying to find the correct pathway to make it right. Yeah. I think they have a I don't remember. I don't I don't know if he's here, but they Yeah, they had I see him now. They had a couple of units that are empty that they've just left empty while they've been trying to work through this. So, you know, they they've been good partners about this. Kevin, tell me a little bit about it said I think you said staff had a little concern about the first level versus the second or other levels with key card access. Did they when they talked about the key card, did that eliminate some of the concerns from staff?

Right. because it's not just because again I the the my our concern was safety

safety of especially with some of the uses that were proposed originally and you know you had potentially have just random who anybody coming down a hallway with uh right in front of people's front door um that didn't have any reason to be there other than to be at the business and and and just a concern from the safety of of the residents is is our main concern there. The key card uh does provide a little bit more safety there because again you have to have a key card. You have to have access because you have to live there or maybe you can be the obviously the business owner would have one. But if you are a client of of an accountant who has a office there, you're going to have to accountant's going to have to come out and get you. You can't just go in there and talk to them. Um so that that provides a little bit better that at least the person they're going to have some relationship and knowledge of who's coming to see them or whatever and that sort of thing. And so um it limits it and again for the rest of the phases having it in I think the last page of these the separate the kind of the floor plans shows it's the first page of the or first floor rather of the clubhouse building and the in this second phase. They're all clustered together in one area. There's like six of them that are shown next to the fitness room across from the, you know, the mail room and all this kind of stuff. And so it's it's more in in a public space. It's not

where people are living. So, um, I felt better about those locations certainly as well. So, um, I mean, I feel like we're at a much better much more comfortable level with it. Again, we we do still have because these are commercial uses, even though the they are allowed based on the square footage and that sort of thing from an architectural standpoint, fire safety

and fire safety, but still want to be concerned about be sure any of those life safety things are are met. And so it would require an occupancy inspection and that sort of thing. So, um, in whatever phase it's in, this phase, phase one or two or whatever. I guess, you know, just looking at at the list, there was only two concerns and maybe you can help me through this. Uh, small electrical repair services. Do we are we talking things that are low voltage, low low fire hazard type things or is there a definition around that?

Back door services for that mostly. Yeah, I think this the smaller I think that's primarily been like the the cell phone repair or that kind of thing is what I think is my understanding of it is what that means. But I Okay. Yeah. If you can give us your name and address, this would be a good time to talk to you. Sir, my name is John Blinkenship. Address is 1610 South Church Street, Sweet C, Burbersboro, Tennessee. Uh our intention there is for a cell phone repair service. Uh as stated earlier, we had started leasing at phase 1. Uh and discovered we weren't allowed to do this, so we stopped. One of our current tenants repairs cell phones. Uh, and that's the intent of keeping that use there. Okay. And while you're up here, the other thing that only other thing I really had a concern with is uh nail techs, nail technicians.

Yes, sir. Same same thing. One of our current Lisa's on phase one is a nail tech and uh several of our residents actually go and see her. Um, is there any additional ventilation that's required? Because usually when you see the services like that, you'll see the texts with mask on or anything like that. As far as I'm aware, no sir, there's not. Those rooms are ventilated the same as an apartment unit. Okay. There's not any additional um ventilation required for it as long as they have a nice fan. Um they can leave, you know, leave the door cracked or whatever, but it usually dissipates pretty quickly. Something that wouldn't bleed over to surrounding apartments or anything like that. No, not at all. That was my only two concerns.

Okay, good ones. Um, you know, after talking to uh some of the gentlemen that are are here tonight, I'm like Steve, I think some of the services that they provide are actually going to be beneficial to the the people that dwell there. I mean, they don't have to go out and drive around town and do some of these things. They have the services right there in the buildings. But I I appreciate you guys uh taking our feedback and cutting this list way back. Yes, sir. From what the initial allowances look like they were supposed to be. This uh this is a lot more user friendly for me. Yes, sir. We weren't trying to sneak anything by you guys. No, no, I understood that. Yeah.

Okay. Anything else for John while we have him up here? All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Uh, anything else from the commission? Any, uh, questions for Kevin or any comments or things that we need to consider? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Motion that we approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments from Steve. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Mark. All right. So, I have a motion and a second to approve uh with staff comments. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

I.

Opposed. This motion is approved. We are now on to our next item under old business, which is a site plan. Bailey Equipment and Inter Logistics, Trident Drive, owner, developer, Caravan Ventures LLC. This is the pipeline that was looked at last meeting and was ultimately deferred uh due to the elevations not being consistent with designer view and with discussion amongst the members. Uh would like to see it be closer in line with what designer view states. So we have a slight modification from when the plans were reviewed last month on this. Uh all the numbers on your development standards for the site data table stay the same. As far as the land use or the vehicle vehicle use area, the open space, landscaping, parking, and handicap, all that's meeting our regulations. Uh landscaping still consistent with what we looked at last month on that. They aren't meeting streetscaping on uh I24, but we do need them to meet on Trident Drive. Still the architectural elevations is the uh one that we were dealing with at last the last meeting. The numbers that you have in your packet all remain the same. There are two changes to this. Uh notably the northwest elevation. Those previously showed an overall percent of 50 for metal, 5.1% fiber cement, and 44.4% brick. What has changed in that? They've reduced the amount of overall metal on that side of the building down to 39.1% and increased the brick and glass percentage up to 55.8%. Um they've also further broken this down in the boxed areas for what they deem as visible reasonably visible from I24 and those are the areas where they focused a lot of the efforts on putting those

primary materials at. Uh there was a site distance study performed on this as well that showed mo most of that on the left side of the page on the bottom part that elevation was entirely visible albe it for maybe a brief second but uh it's still all visible based on the study that they did for the vision areas on the building. So at this time though it still not mean what designer review states should be met for aesthetics for a building of this nature. Standard comments all remain at this time and staff comment number one, we have the architectural elevations, not me designer view. So that will remain. Comment number two, uh first sentence on that about the fire department gain access to all sides of the building. The applicant has provided a full way for the vehicle to get around the building. So the first sentence on that comment can be removed. The second part about the gate being ANC approved is more of anformational comment at this point in time, but will remain. Uh staff come number three. We asked them to see what fire truck dimensions were used while creating the outturn through the site. It looks like it's adequate, but we just want to make sure the correct truck was used. So comment remain. Comment number four, we asked them to submit a landscape plan that does meet design review. Comment number five, moreformational. Any outdoor storage if used would need to be screened per the zoning ordinance requirements. And comment number six from our public works department that storm out outfall must connect to the existing structure on site. Um, so with that, we are more or less in the similar position as we were last month. The there is an applicant here that would like to speak and has expressed desire to speak to you tonight. So, um, other than that, staff would either a recommend deferral or b a decision one way or another here tonight. So, with that, that's all I have.

Were there any changes uh of the percentages from the last meeting? Yeah, only the one wall face on page A5 and that lower left side there. There's two additional slots outside of the boxed area that are brick now that were metal the past time and uh that is what has been increased since but we still don't need design review. Correct. Okay. Yeah. there's someone that would like to uh come forward and speak to us about it. You give us

how much% we're still 20 20ish% on that side elevation where A5 is on the bottom. Um the front as well is part of that and I believe the side and the rear are all good. So we're looking at just those two elevations, the side and the uh front. A5. Yep. Basically both on A5. I'm sorry. Say that again. Both of them on A5. The front and back side. All right. Yes, sir. If you give us your name and address, please.

Good evening. Trent Sullivan, uh, Lines Interior and Architecture. I'm the project architect for this project representing the landowner and Bailey Equipment Company. Um, they they have sent me with a few things to address to you this evening. The first is that they're a third third generation company. They're um been been in the middle Tennessee area for a long time. They they're coming to Simrna. Um they're excited about making this their new headquarters and their new home. Uh they're they're raising children up. They're probably going to have fourth generation that's going to reside in this building. So, they retained me because they wanted to put out a product that they could be proud of uh and carry on their their family heritage. um they're going to be bringing a lot lot of jobs down here. They're going to have they're going to be selling parts and equipment that all are going to generate tax revenues. And so they wanted me to make sure that you understood that uh we've made a lot of accommodations to to meet um the criteria uh and we've worked with the planning department. Um what you see here was directly reflected from comments that were provided to us by staff. So, we're a little bit unclear why we still not we still don't meet the requirement. I think there is some gray area in in um 3.4 architectural character. There's some real gray areas in there that could be cleaned up in the language that would help clear this up for anybody that comes uh to you guys in the future. Um, I review a lot of uh requirements from a lot of other counties and other jurisdictions and and they have some stipulations and some things that make it very clear what is allowed and what is not allowed. But there's there's a few words that could be changed that would help. Um, but it's unclear when it says if the building is visible, does that mean the entire building if that building is visible

that this entire building has to have certain materials on it? The primary materials are brick, stone, glass, and glazing. None of those are really appropriate for a for an industrial building. I don't think anyone would want to see this building all in glass where you can see all the contents on the inside. But by right, we could do that. Also, by right, we could do this as just a gray flush panel concrete building. The requirements, one of your requirements is to allow for for us to do that. But do you understand that when you say tiltup panel, that's a certain particular structure type to support that panel. Okay? It drives you to build buildings like that are all up and down this corridor. They're prologous, big white box, no articulation and no definition. So what we try to do is have some articulation in here, have some different materials, have an an appealing building. The fourth thing that others allow is screening because screening it defines visibility. There is no provision in here for screening, but our client is willing to put in large mature vegetation to screen this building if that is required. But in some regards, it doesn't make sense to have big brick lentils to support big openings where overhead doors are and that kind of thing. So that's why brick isn't a really great material to use here. and when you have 30-ft tall buildings without any delineation or differentiation. So, um we we've made our best efforts. The last thing I want to say is the planning in in that um part of the design review, it says the planning commission may vary from the materials listed above on a case-byase basis as long as the decisions do not contradict the goals set forth in this manual. So, we're we're asking that you guys consider this and understand what we're trying to do here. Thank you.

Quick question for you. Yes, sir. As far as not meeting design review, is this because of there's issues with engineering or is it a cost factor?

Well, the the the materials that we've added since we've started working with the planning commission have added over uh $1.2 million just in skins uh brick material. Okay. So, what's showing here is already a $1.2 million ad to this building. All right. Um, and what in the blue shaded areas, we did a sight line of sight study and and these are sight lines. They're coming from the interstate that you're driving 70 miles an hour on in Rutherford County. So, what we've tried to do is where where it's blue is what we think is visible. And in those areas, we're trying to meet the requirement of 70% brick.

Okay. Anything else for TR elevations? All the changes that have been made. I don't think it's color. We remember the first one I saw it was pretty much all black. Yes. And this brick will be black as well. Okay. So the color is going to be roughly the same. Yes, sir.

He has done a lot of work to change from what it was origin. It wasn't an ugly building. It was it was attractive. Um I think the the main thing that we were trying to always stick to was staying consistent with what we've done for others in the past that since our ordinances have passed, right? There's probably some older buildings out there that if we went back today, we'd change them, but they're there. You know, they've been there for a while. But so you talked about a little over a million dollars that skins from what was described and what it is now. I'm going to kind of challenge you on that a little bit. Yeah. Because had you followed design review initially, this would not be an additional 1.2 million.

It would have been done with those skins on it, right? So I I hear you. It's a money thing and I get it. I mean, I totally get it. But adding 1.2 to to what you're proposing now. It should have been there to begin with. That's my point. Well, the the the architectural review allows for metal panel as long as it's not visible. It's as long as the building that's where we're that's where we're dissecting the word of visibility. Right. That's what I'm saying. It's gray. Yeah. What from where is it visible? In what visibility? From a helicopter, from a semi-truck, from a pedestrian?

I don't I mean, seriously, let's go down the helicopter path. Okay. I I'm just saying but you know so I I I would ask that these areas that are shaded in blue or what are visible and those portions of the building that are visible meet the 70% requirement. Mitch, didn't you say that you guys did a visibility study on this? I think there it is. And that's a that's a long interstate. So you you get an opportunity to look over and see that for a few minutes. It feels like it's not

on the exit ramp. You see it more than certainly heading toward Nashville. I'm playing kind of the devil's advocate. I understand. But there's a billboard right there, too. Yeah. Isn't there a new building going up right between and where the Greco is? There is currently under construction. Yes. So you won't have this kind F and E you won't see because going to be a building right there locking it to some extent. Yes. Trying to remember the design review on the one being built. It met design. It met our design review.

So to Ken's point, when that building is finished, how will that affect this uh this view study? I really it's only going to be on that one face if you're driving into Nashville. It's going to be the only spot that's going to change as a result of it. Those pieces that building is pushed back a little bit more on that property. There's a small drive aisle and such behind the building. So when you say pushed back, you talking about towards Trident towards Trident? No, towards Towards 24,

which is going to block the view of that building even more. on this uh drawing that you have on the this map you have on the screen. It's hard to see on the screen, but if you zoom up there, the blue boxes, which is the visibility boxes, for lack of a better description, that that he was speaking about. I think those are visible as well on that drawing. And um you're saying that inside of those boxes that meets design review. Is that right? Are you referring to the blue on here? Yeah. On this one is from um is the view shed from either side of that gas station? No, no, no. That's not what I'm talking about. There's blue boxes on

on the elevations. Yeah. You just can't see them. It's Yes, sir. Those are the those are defining the visible areas. Well, it's on the other map, too. You just couldn't see it. Okay. Um but yeah, that basically there's And you're saying that everything in that blue box meets design review. Is that right, Mitch? Yes, that's right. Yes, and then you said something about the front. The front does or does not

does not. And what's wrong with the front? Mostly glass. Yes, we do have a lot a lot of metal up there, too. It's about 40.7% brick and glass. Yeah. And that front is not It has some visibility kind of kind of corner. Yeah. Yeah. Um, you know, if it wasn't for the visibility, which is quite a bit ways off of Lee Victory, but if it wasn't for that visibility, that's the the visibility is from a collector level street. So, Tridenton is not. So, it's we're not worried about the visibility from Trident. It's really just that small window of time that is visible from Lee Victory.

So, his to his point related to screening, um, could there not be some significant pine trees or something right there along that side? Certainly if that's what the commission would like to see as an alternative to to to changing the architecture certainly that is within your preview is to do.

Yeah. The only reason I mean so the heartburn that I have obviously is keeping consistent staying consistent with design review in in this case though it's a little bit unique because none of the roads that this that's actually this building is on actually matters. It's distance away. If this was on Sam Ridley or on Lee Victory, it's a little different.

But because it's literally a thousand feet away from Lee Victory, I think it's a 10 and1 ft. Um, that's why I was I'm thinking maybe screening does still provide us what we need, but I I don't know. That's just my thought. If where the blue arrows are the the visibility on each side of that gas station, there was a row of evergreens behind the gas station there. It would pretty much eliminate that view from Lee Victory. And then to your point that the other building that's already coming in pretty much eliminates most of F and E. And honestly, the part that it doesn't eliminate already meets design.

Is it 75% of the area that's visible or 75% of the elevation? It's Yeah. So, the way that it's worded here exactly is it says 75% of any building facade. Yep. Building facade visible from a public street. visible from a public street. Building facade visible from public street,

but that's for Okay, but down lower it says tilt panel concrete may be allowed for industrial zone. Metal siding may be allowed as a primary utility in industrial zones where the building is not bu visible from an interior street. So this zoning is I2. Yes. And the visibility at the arterials obviously is I24 and Le Victory is where they're visible from currently. So except for the visibility from those two roads, does it meet design review if it wasn't visible from those roads? Yes. Are you talking about the two blue boxes and the FND boxes? I'm talking about the building as a whole.

Okay. So if if there was screening to this arterials, it meets design requirement.

If this were on the opposite side of Tridon Drive, especially if it was further back, whether there's some buildings already built there, it would be a completely different scenario. But it's the visibility from I24 and then and the victory is where where it becomes an issue for from a designer view standpoint. Well, just a thought, but as I understand the motive behind these design review criteria on the major arterials, it was the purpose of it was to have good-looking buildings on the main thoroughares where you could see them. Um, you know, and this does not mean they're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. They're a thousand feet away from an arterial. They're next to an interstate where even if you could see the building, it would be for a second or two. You know, you're traveling at 70 miles an hour. So, you know, it seems to

Are you a second? If you're out there yesterday morning, you couldn't be on. But it seems to me that we've got a square peg and a round hole here. Yeah, I don't disagree. And I think to you and Steve's point, I I agree with both of them. Um uh Steve's sort of making a recommendation for screening, especially on I'd say it's the northwest side of the building, I guess, right? There's a burn there as I recall. There is a burn there.

Uh instead of 1.2 million in skins, right? Um And with the building that's coming in next to it, can you can you tell us a little bit about the height of that building and how that's going to block or not? Do you know? I put you on the spot. Yeah, we'd have to go back. I don't know. It's It is a Do you think it's going to block the side of this one? That's my question.

I don't think it's as tall as this building. Um, it is, as Mitch said, it is further back. They got quite a bit of parking. It's more of a that property is actually was reszoned to commercial and it's it's more of a commercial type of use indoor shooting range, gun range. Um, so they got quite a bit of parking on the front and then their building was pushed further back. Um, I don't think again I don't think it's quite as tall as this building a blockade in front of. It will it will have some line of sight blocking but it may not be as tall as this building and completely block it. I guess is

well I'm like the rest everybody up here our consistency matters to us but to your point you know the visibility of this is kind of a little ambiguous right and I don't think that uh a thousand feet from Lee victory is really a big big thing

especially if there's a little bit of screening and if everything else that's visible is meeting design review I was of course forgive me math is not necessarily my strong suit But I was trying to look at some of these numbers and even the places where it was a little off, it's not way off. It's a very small percentage. But if that can be eliminated by the other building going up and well whether you're driving 70 on the freeway too or 35 on tri um Lee Victory 1,000 ft away. Are you going to be able to tell what the finishes are?

You're going to see you're going to see a dark structure looking at it. Yeah. You're not maybe see a a reflection off the glass possibly. I think he actually I think you brought up a very good point which you know I hadn't previously considered and I was kind of thinking about you know we had a restaurant in Sam Ridley we denied for not meeting design review and I was thinking you know if they were in the same situation and they were willing to put up uh cedar or pine trees or evergreens all the way around their lot to hide their building would we have approved it or would we have considered it and in that location probably not because it's directly on those arterial roads and it wasn't industrial

and it wasn't industrial it regular commercial and so I'm not sure that we're not still being consistent. This building be meets design review except for the visibility from the arterial areas and we don't have anything in our code related to screening and I think that may be something we want to bring up at the next planning commission for some of these commercial type uses because it's a we haven't got to a tree ordinance yet.

I know that's one that's the last one we didn't get last time, right? Um but that might be a good conversation because I think there's a it's a reasonable It's a it's a reasonable request I think to if it if you put up screening it's no longer visible therefore it meets design rule right it's kind of a catch 22 right um now you know we run into this all the time we we have that visibil that that greenery has to be maintained and 20 years from now when an ice storm comes through and trees fall down who's going to put them back and you know I get it but that's part of the that's part of it

so that's that's kind of my thought if if this film didn't meet design review except for the view that I would not even be entertaining. It's got to meet design review which technically it does if it didn't have the visibility. But as the plan is submitted right now, do we have an effective screening plan as part of the landscape? No, we would have to I think we would have to you would have to make add a condition to the approval if you choose to approve it that and what property line or something along those lines that you what you're looking I mean I know it might it's just more work for them and probably cost but um what are they what are they even allowed to do along the interstate there is there

seven oaks is an example if if it's outside the interstate rightway you can plant whatever you want to plant as long as there's no power lines or something there. Yeah, billboard. I mean, there is. Yeah, you probably have to maintain some sort of visibility to the billboard. I'm sure there's probably some sort of easement the billboard coming up so can see. Well, they're going to be parked trucks out here and you're going to see parked equipment. I mean, screening is actually a really good solution. Yeah. Careful. We might make the trucks meet design. They have to be camouflaged. That's funny. If they're permanent,

for what it's worth, uh, marking back to your question, that building next door is about 22 foot in height. And this one's 30. Yeah. Architect may know that one better. It's not necessarily on plans. Yes. Not 50. It's 30. Yeah, it's not 50. I say if it was a 60footer, we'd be having another conversation, but there is no big deal. How about all your systems? Are they all on the roof?

Uh, no. They are on the back side of the building u between the gun range and they're ground they're mounted on the ground screened. So, nothing exposed on the roof like wall or something for This looks to have a pretty significant pitch on it, too. Yeah. Okay. You may sit down.

Okay. Thank you. I guess my question is if we were to consider screening as part of this, do we have enough in front of us or can staff work with these folks to develop a screening plan or does staff want to? Or yeah, does staff want to? And I that's a great point because I mean right now we have what's proposed and they're talking about screening but we don't have anything ironclad here to look at it because right now I don't know what type of trees, what size trees, you know.

Yeah. I mean at this point with what we have we would have to make some sort of general screening requirement which would probably be overreaching because we don't know. So, it might be better to defer and let them come back with put in the screening they think they can work out and maybe send it back to us next month with I think we want something that would eventually be as tall as the building or something. Right. That's what I'm thinking. I mean, I'm kind I I was envisioning when I was talking about it, you know, large pine trees or something, right? Of course, it takes a while for them to get large, but uh 30 feet is a reasonable tree. Yeah. Well, we don't uh really know if there's any power lines, right, in the way or not. You know, we just had to learn some some municipalities have had to learn about how their trees get their power.

Yeah. That that's part of why I would hate to make a general generalization at this point and then, you know, now we can't meet that because we're not real sure about some of it. But I do think that the screening is probably a good solution at this point. If we are going to ask them to come back though, I think we also need to convey that we very much appreciate the family and the company relocating their headquarters here.

Oh, yeah. You're right. I mean, that's never in question. I mean, it's a good company and it's somebody that we would like to see in Smyrna. I just think we want to be fair and consistent as far as design review. All of those that have gone before us are consist counting on our consistency that Mark's always speaking so eloquently about. Well, and fair and consistent. Mhm. Have you guys had something like this in the past? cuz not since I've been on obviously have we seen anything where it's like this where there's it's really

we've had some industrial projects that are visible from Weekly Lane and and others and and they've you know they've kind of provided that they're kind of the frontage and the size of the building that's visible. But they weren't they weren't this big. They weren't near this big but or anything like that. But honestly they also didn't look this nice. I mean, I'm thinking about like some property we had on Jefferson Pike. It's just all tilt wall. It's It's nice tilt wall, but it's still just tilt wall, right? So, it meets design review, but it still doesn't have the architectural visibility or view that this building has. That's the part I'm having. It's a good-look building. They've put a lot of time and money into the design, and it looks like it'll be a nice fit out there,

but technically it's got this issue. And I think this one does, too. It beats that same criteria. It's a nice looking building. It really is. Um, and to Charles's point, if we did, hypothetically, if we did either defer this or what have you, and they have to come back next month, I'd like to know that they can come back knowing the only thing we're really trying to do at this point is solve the the screening issue. I don't I don't want to beat this up over and over again. We need to resolute that. So, at least you're good with the architecture and all that. It's just a matter of the landscaping plan at that point. Yeah. And I think that's fair to them if we're going to do that. So,

well, is there I guess is there a motion we can make that gives staff that control or would we rather see it come back? Personally, I'd like to see it come back. I was going to say I the only thing if you do make a recommendation, the only thing I ask is you are specific because when it comes time to permitting, it's I was just going to say whatever Mitch wants. Wouldn't go that far. Okay. Any further discussion? No, I think I'll make a motion to defer until the next uh planning meet meeting in uh I guess March now. Um with March. Yeah.

Um and of course, you know, not part of my motion, but just really looking at the screening piece. Second. I have a motion and a second to defer to the next council meeting in March. Not council, I'm sorry. Commission meeting until March. Man, I'm thinking way back. Uh further discussion and in that submission on the next is going to have clarity as to where screening would be placed. Trees type of trees I think and elevation of the trees when they're planted.

Yeah. Where where what type of tree? It be like a you know like a landscaping plan. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we'd be looking for. Yeah. So we can evaluate what Yeah. Obviously species and height and those we're trying to focus on that visibility from those arterials, right? So that's where you need to focus if possible. What I would like to see on this is something very similar to what they have up here overlaying with the site plan on there showing where the trees are planted showing how it's obstructed full maturity if if not. So perfect. Clear. Trent. Yeah. Yeah, he said yeah, he m he he nodded his head. You're you're good. You're you're understanding what we're looking for, right? If Okay, if it is deferred

help, I can also send some some of these same languages from other No, I'm just worried about Smyrna. They define what the screening is achieved. No, I'm I'm I'm good with staff working with you on that. Okay. All right. I've got a motion in a second. We have discussion. Any other discussion? All those in favor of deferring this uh until next planning commission meeting in March, please signify by saying I.

I oppose. This motion is deferred. We are now on to new business annexation zoning and plan of service request catalyst design 7025 Thomas Road. And we get to the next page and I guess that's it. This is a uh annexation request for three parcels of land that total 102 acres currently zoned RM in Rutherford County and requested reszoning with the annexation request uh is a PRD surrounding zoning is PRD in town which is the courtyard of Stewart's Creek development which is um directly to the east and then the uh RM in Rutherford County land use plan would support medium density single family residential in this area. Uh the major thoroughfare plan uh does designate Rocky for Fork Al Road as a minor arterial. This property does have uh this has no frontage on that road. It is very near that road, but it has no frontage on that road. Uh the request of PRD is for 162 single family lots and 40 town homes, which would translate to an overall density of 1.98 dwellings per acre. Uh if the common open spaces of 45 45 1/2 acres is removed, uh it's 202 units on 56 and 1/2 acres. That's about three and a half 3.58 dwellings per acre. Uh annexation of this track would require the annexation of approximately 660 ft of the existing rightway of Rocky Fork Ammoville Road and approximately 450 ft of the existing rightway of Del Thomas Road. Um it is contiguous to the town limits through the courtyards of Stewart Creek development to the east there. Uh but this would provide um that the roadways access in this site would be within the town and we could control the the improvements and those type of

things. Um a second entrance um I'm sorry let's get to one required minimum fire flow is 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 PSI. So any house construction over 3600 square feet would require additional flow. Um we have there was a letter they had provided from the Rutherford County Fire Marshall for the non-residential buildings here the cabana and those kind of things. It's still going to have the same fire flow. They did get correspondence from the fire SMA fire department as well. Um since that would be what would be required uh not Rutherford County if it's annexed. Uh number seven is anformational comment just to let they aware of this. The second entrance must be in place before the 100th house house is built. They will be connecting to the courtyards at Stewart's Creek development. Uh and so that would would provide a secondary uh access, not just the Dell Thomas road access. Um so they do have the opportunity for that and they would be required to do that if this is approved before that 100th building permit could be issued. Um there are significant upgrades required to provide sewer for this project. Uh it's required and it is shown to be extended from bankside along Rocky Fort Creek to the site. Uh the town would participate in the cost difference if the line is required to be upsized, but otherwise it would be up to the developer. Uh the necessary offsite easements will be required to be obtained and a line installed uh prior to issuance of any building permits. Um there are some uh streams on this property. So an API will be required for each road, trail and utility crossing over any of those streams. Um there are there was a traffic study done um and so u the improvements as recommended by that study must be completed uh by the developer uh that included some uh some improvements to Dell Thomas Road. Um I believe and I think there may be something on Rocky for Comville too, but

I'll have I may need to defer to Mr. Rose on that be sure. Um within the town home portion of this, the fire department is uh required to be able to reach within 150 ft of all portions of those with a hand line. Um there was a concern a couple of the buildings that might just on this concept plan it might be difficult. So want to be sure they're aware of that. Um comments 12 and 13 regard these are um some of our new requirements with regards to um corner lots and side entry garages and and those uh elevations when you have corner lots at the side facades are required to to have some architectural details um that not just a blank you know solid wall or whatever. Um, and so some of those things are are probably going to be things we have to look at as as things if this is approved as staff at a staff level when the permits anyway. Um, but they still do still need to some of those side elevations, they don't meet the current some of those requirements and or don't provide any of those options really. Um so uh you know and at the corner lots again just to they are required to have side entry garages just for as really moreformational comment than anything but um we did ask them on comment 14 ensure that all dwellings on corner lots are oriented to face the more prominent roadway. Uh the lot layout some of those lots appear to have so some of them facing culde-sac streets. I think they've made a few changes to that, but just wanted to keep that comment again just so it's clear. Uh HVAC units are required to be at the rear of the house. They're aware of that. They have no issues with that. Um the improvements to Del Thomas Road are going to require them to require some rideway um outside of their property. Um and so um we said that that rightway

must be obtained and ask them to provide documentation. this rideway has been obtained prior to submitt of the preliminary plat. So, so we know that they've can make the required road improvements. Um 17 is anformational comment. Town homes do require now the monument or pedestal service for the electrical service. That's just kind of anformational comment. Um the initial layout, if I get to Yeah, there's four lots that are near the entrance to Del Thomas. Um, and then there's a long stretch of road with no houses on it. There's some amenity space and then you have the rest of the neighborhood. Um, it they're they're putting those in because they want those to kind of be their um kind of model homes and kind of be so it makes sense from a marketing standpoint in the front end maybe, but in the end those houses are completely separated from the rest of the neighborhood. Um, and so we We had some we didn't really like the layout in that area in that regard. So, um anyway, we prefer they incorporate those lots within the the overall development have some sort of entrance feature or something there. Um comments 19 regarding the sewer alignment showing on the plan that's been done. We can remove that one. Comment 20 the stream buffer. they have um created a 30- foot wide stream buffer on each side of all the streams. So, that's been taken care of. So, um we can remove that comment. And number 21 was a concern the portion of this property 3.04 was a was acquired from an adjacent track. I mean, there was concern about field lines for that house being may have been on that property. Um and that's we've got clarity on that. That's not an issue. So, we can remove that comment as well.

Um, the last uh couple comments there came from CUD and they do have a will serve letter from CUD regarding some off-site improvements they're going to have to make there to get the the fire flow to the site. So, they're going to have to do some work on that. Um, think that's all I have. The the applicant is here certainly if you have any questions of them as well. questions for Kevin on this.

Kevin, the uh the four lots as you enter um for new development, that's not unfamiliar, right, to have staged homes there for for sales. I I'm not an engineer, so I don't know the differences here, but is there an opportunity to move the four lots and replace the mail kiosk to where you bring the lots closer to the development, but the mail kiosk closer to the front?

Well, I think that's what we were looking at. Yeah, just Yeah, certainly having Yeah. Every every neighborhood's got the model homes. I mean, that's not an issue at all. It's just that it's this layout and part of it. I know there's going to have a narrow narrowness to that front entrance and all that, but you know those you're going to have it's almost like a little its own little separate neighborhood with four houses out there. Um

that might make sense if that's a concern just to swap the two around. Yeah, I think there's an option there for them to maybe to incorporate them within, you know, again, from a marketing standpoint, I guess you you have your your your model homes very visible, but then once the model homes are sold and you're not building anymore, now they're just kind of, right? Um, does this meet our current ordinances for the percentages that I know that we've all sat down and does it looks like it probably meets that but sure be sure.

Yeah. Yeah. We like the the new requirements with the three different lot sizes um and the percentages those are all here 7 9s and 11,000 foot lot minimums. All the lots that have but um county RM are required to be at least 11,000 square feet and they are meeting that. There's a 20 foot buffer all the way around um the site. Some of that being keeping the existing tree canopy where it exists and some of it they will be having to plant because some of it some of this property doesn't have trees on it. They're going to have to plant some trees. um you know the like I said the architectural requirements I think we still need a few more details on some of those side those corner lots with the side elevations and things like that um to try and make sure we're meeting the requirements there. Um again the details on that is going to be as we if this is approved and as we issue those permits we're going to have to be reviewing each of those individually. Um,

so everything that the planning commission and the council met on this meets the that criteria, right? And they're meeting the the open space requirements, the the improved the improvements as far as that part of it as well. So the 40 4020 factor applies here, right? Okay. Um, yeah, the altering facades, all of that, right? Yeah, all those things are going to again those are things and there's multiple if you look in the this um packet here.

There's lots of different floor plans and elevations on there. There's there's we require 12 and there's more than 12. So, um our main concern really was just on those side elevations, making sure they they meet some of those. All the bufferings in place, the lot sizes are they meet our ordinance. Um to Mr. Gerald's question about the roadway, how far do we think that entrance is from Rocky Forkville? Eno might even know better than we do, but um let me see if I can get a scale on this drawing. I don't know if I It's not far. I've actually It's not that far. I visited this property at one time with Mr. Collins

um before this plan was even in the going and um actually I drove this property. So, um, it's it's not very far. It's about, um, I don't know, a couple hundred feet, maybe.

It's not far at all. There's some I don't know if we got them out on the desk or not. There was some digitally we had some the uh an exhibit that showed the road improvements they're proposed. I mean, it's not it's not more than a couple hundred feet at most from the road all the way to probably to the west end of this property. Um I think that's 65 70 ft of taper and a right turn lane is proposed uh from Dell Thomas onto to Rocky Fort. Um so how how are we talking about a right and a left or

yeah the yeah at the the improvements at Dell Thomas at Rocky Fork Al there would be a basically a left turn a right turn. It's a dead end. There's no straight through. It would just be a left and right turn. So there would be a left and a right turn lane. Um, and they're also So, so that's where I'm going with the question. And they're also going to curve correct the entrance to where it's more at a 90 degree. I think it's going to be at an 80°ree which I think was within the tolerance there of the intersection there. Um, and there's no straight through because there's no straight through. There's nothing there's there's nothing on the opposite side. Is anybody ever going to Does that ever have a plan to be remedied with the Rocky Fork Road and

M I mean, well, this does Yeah, this this this is kind of south of where we have, you know, the corridor that we had for Mchuan. The connection south. Yeah. So, to Mchuan and so where we were, so but as far as the property across the street, obviously it could be developed someday. Um, but so should that

there's nothing no plan right now. And I guess that's why that's another question I've gotten why I'm asking the questions to Enix's point about the three-lane. Does there need I mean it's some it's kind of like a dummy straight through right now. It doesn't make sense, but would we want that straight through there in the future if that land across the street developed? I mean, we'd have to look at that pro. I mean, it would make sense unless there's some improvements coming to that whole intersection. I mean I think Rocky Folk Armville we have not this portion of it but there is some we are in design for improvements to Rocky Forkville

and that was my next question. I'm glad you're touching on that. Yeah I know I got an email from somebody that was going to speak here tonight right and couldn't come. That was one of the questions they they asked about was the infrastructure on the main artery which is Rocky for Almobile and I knew we had it in engineering. It's about about a mile's worth of road. It is. Yes. And it's and it's really more the kind of from the Derby run up to Westover. Is that somewhere in there? I think is where the phase is right now. And Westover is not far from here. And then and then gradually I mean eventually it's going to go all the way to all the way through, but that's where we're at right now. It's kind of in phase one. Um

I think I think the development meets our ordinances. That's that was the main question. I mean, planning and council both agreed this is what we would look for, right? And it beats that. Um, I want to make sure the roadway's done right, and it sounds like it's pretty dog on close if it's not already with a right and a left coming out of there. U, it wouldn't be a three lane. It's not proposed to do three lane, right, back to the to the west side.

Do we know how how far those lanes would stack back? Is that something the traffic study would take care of? Yeah, the traffic study shows again I think it's about I don't I know the taper was like 65 for 70 ft of that right turn. There's some tightness in that rideway there, but I still Thomas would just use those two lanes.

If you're coming down tell Thomas once you get close enough to the intersection you're going to have a left and a right turn lane. Yeah. versus and it's going to be at a more a right angle closer to a right angle intersection to Rocky Fork as well. And then you've got, if I remember right, I think there's maybe something in that. He mentioned something about a restoration. I think there was some drawings in there as well that had some um some improvements there as well. The engineers are here that are working on this project. They might could could speak to that better than I could. Let's let's do that. Is there someone uh here representing this development that can speak to Mark's questions?

If so, can you come up and give us your name and address, please?

Hey, good evening. My name is Wesley Blizzard with Catalyst Design Group. The applicant on behalf of Good All Homes, uh 1524 Williams Drive, Murphy'sboro, Tennessee. Uh, regarding the rightaway improvements, um, as Kevin already mentioned, there's the proposed right and left turn lanes at the Dell Thomas and Rocky Fork Amavville intersection. Um, additionally, as as the traffic study, uh, warrants where uh, you know, Mr. Gerald also mentioned providing a it's striped for it, but there it's the left turn lane's not there uh, at the Restoration Drive entrance. Um, so it' be a left turn lane added at the uh courtyards of Steuart's Creek entrance as well, which would be the second access point for the

Kevin, you have your laser. I do. Somebody got a laser. I got one. Would you point up there as he speaks and kind of show everybody what we're talking about? So So this is Yeah, this is the Rocky Fork and Dell Thomas here. And this is Well, this this is not the easiest laser to use. All right. Um, so anyway, that's where you laser put a hole in that screen. It does. Um, it just changed color. Okay. Um, anyway, and so the other thing is where he's talking about the left turn lane is right here. This is the courtyard towers creek. That would be where the left turn lane would be added.

And then up here, there would not be a left turn from Del from Rocky Fork into Del Thomas. That wasn't warranted per the study. But there would be this is the access here again would be straight and kind of curved a better more 90 degree intersection and have a left and a right turn on Dell Thomas from Del Thomas onto Rocky 4. Question for you with the as close as we are to where this Mchuan interchange is going to come through that study had no knowledge of this project or a lot of these projects here. Are these studies capturing that as well? Because there's going to be a lot more traffic right in that turn right there.

Um, I think there will actually be less traffic because where Mchu and Connector was going to come in is quite a bit south of this and I think that connector will take traffic off of these roads. I thought it was coming right up here. Rocky Fork, right? It's a little kind of north and northwest from here. Yeah. when it gets to seminary and that area right there, it turns right and cuts across country. It doesn't follow the road all the way out.

Okay. Yeah, it kind of and then it kind of it does meet up with once it kind of makes the turn more direct west towards Nolan, it does hit and and is usually more of the existing rideway and it'll be widening through some of that existing rideway where it makes this turn just to the northwest of this area here. Um And then here where I'm sorry this here. Here there. Okay.

Yeah. Once it once it makes this the turn and goes that direction, you're going to have more um more within that road is going to have more or less the existing rideway not be as much cross country. And this is all in a quarter study form at this point. No rideway has been purchased or anything like that yet. So, um, but as far as that, so yeah, that we are any development that comes in, we've had one so far that that is near enough to that right away where we want to reserve, we are doing so. Uh, this one does not meet that that area. So, we would

and all the municipalities are doing the same thing. Mhm. I don't know that we'll see it in our lifetime, Ken. I don't know. They're starting at the other end. They're making a mess down there. I'm wondering if they're in Yeah, they're the Brentwood Franklin piece is they're they're moving forward moving eastward on their end because that's been something they've planned for a long time already. Um but let's join them. Where's Dave? Where's Todd and D? Hey Dave, let's just spend the money and join them. What do you think?

We Todd back pointing at Dave. We we did just so everyone's aware we did submit it and it has at least and the preliminary list has worked pretty well with the NPO for some money maybe fingers crossed. So um to begin that connection westward as well. So hopefully they'll get into their next long range plan. So hopefully we'll see some don't know that yet. We'll know in the next couple weeks but at least where it's at for sure. Well, I want to thank the developer at least for listening to our ordinances. Many times it's a tugof-war trying to get them to to understand what we've been looking for and this matches every bit of it. So, long as the traffic study does its job, that's the main thing for me right now. And I think it's looks like it's well under it. Do you have any suggestions as staff besides what the traffic study showed? If you were driving out that way, would you want to see anything different?

The only other thing that it talked about and it becomes it's there's a there just an engineering conflict more than anything. There's if you're coming from Nolanville, a right turn um onto Del Thomas onto Dell Thomas. there. It's a switch back almost

and and well, even with the the corrected geometry, I think that would take care of that. But, um, there's a bridge over the creek right there, and it would involve widening the bridge, so to get a turn lane there. So, that becomes a difficulty. We're not proposing annexing that bridge at this time at least. Um, so, um, it would be something that the county would have to look at if they wanted to make that requirement. I didn't get that impression that they were um that would be the only thing that the traffic study would support. It's not being proposed to be constructed at this time. Um

but you're cover you're you're comfortable with the proposed turn lanes off of the artery. The turn lanes from Dell Thomas onto the artery. You mean there's that? Then there's the turn length that you mentioned on restoration as well. I think that's a good Yeah, that's striping can be done there to take care of that as well. Okay. Anything else? So, it was said that consolidated utility would be taking care of the um utilities on this or the water on this, right?

Um, of course, personally, having driven this road many, many, many times, it hurts my heart just a little bit to see the R3 instead of R1 out there. But that's just a personal thing. Um, let's let's talk about that, Kevin. Uh, the PRD versus R3. How many homes would R3 allow here?

Well, 10,000 foot lot, 102 acres. I mean, you're probably I mean, in theory, roughly the same, probably 200 maybe, you know, depending on, of course, that's assuming you could develop the whole piece of property. There's some pretty steep topography here. Um there's there's an elevations that there I think the water service is going to become an issue. So you probably couldn't develop all of it. But um from a density standpoint, it's roughly an R3 density.

So no more homes. Uh relatively speaking, no more homes on this as proposed versus coming in as an R3. Right. based on a just a rough estimate of of and I think that's something you know that we look at quite a bit and and I think there's you know this tradeoff I mean when you look at this and you look at the amount of undisturbed area versus what would be disturbed if this were sprawled more across this agreed

I think that's something that you know you look into it so um I think that's one thing and I think from an infrastructure perspective you know if we've got to have more in the way of uh and longer distances in the way of lines to service uh and take care of. I think that's something else to consider. So, um if we were at a situation in which, you know, we're bringing in a PRD and we looked like we were getting, you know, four, four and a half, five homes per acre on here, that I'm kind of with you here. But when you're looking at it and you're looking at I know we look at density and then there's something called um I don't know what it's called is it actual density or what is the term

yeah I don't I don't know but I when you remove the green space yeah when you remove the green space um then I I don't see it from a traffic um perspective of impacting this anymore than it were R3 and actually see more in the way of green space and you know natural areas that are going to be left undisturbed.

So what was your question I guess Vanessa? Well, where where I was kind of going with that was do we know if consolidated utility has done any infrastructure improvement in this area enough to be able to work with all of this coming that direction. I think they have looked at it. Um, a comment 22, there was a will serve letter and I I have I think I've read it, but I have no recollection exactly what specifically requirements there. There are some requirements that there uh some off-site improvements are going to be required by the developer to to bring to meet those requirements. Um, Mr. Blissard may be able to answer exactly. I don't have on top of my head what those requirements are going to be, but they have looked at it and they're going to have to make some improvements. same way they're going to have to run sewer a pretty good distance to get there as well.

Do you have any information on that or or if you don't that's okay.

Yes. So just to provide clarity you know that's we do have the well serve letters which says they have the infrastructure there was the comment uh but it was specifically regarding the fire flow for the amenity and cabana area. Um and we've provided letters from both county and the town of Sarna fire department. um stating that the required fire flow considering the the the occupancy and use of the cabana, which is simply just restrooms and in a pool pump room. Anyways, it's it's only 1,000 gallons per minute instead of uh 1,500 uh for for gathering places. Um, so with those letters stating the fire flow uh of 1,000 gallons per minute is only needed. It kind of eliminated that

uh I guess comment that CD had. It was only if we needed additional fire flow for the commercial use which we thousand gallon flow just nothing sprinkled. No sir. Yeah. I think now that I think I I think they said they had about 1,400 here or something. Yeah. So, um, so if they've got port, yeah, they they'll be going won't be an issue from a fireflow standpoint.

Okay. Anything else uh from the commission? Thank you. All right. Good discussion. I'll ask, you know, again, is there anything else uh in the way of questions for Kevin on this? And if not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make the motion to approve with staff comments. Did uh you spoke about this is that

I think the staff Yeah. I mean, if they can't switch it due to maybe the fact that they don't have enough property, in essence that they don't have the right amount of property to switch the kiosk in the four homes. I'm not hung up on it. I just wanted to ask the question. Okay. Just want to make sure. Yeah. You know, staff brought it up and I've I've seen it done like that before, but it kind of makes sense what staff saying. I don't want to make that part of my motion, though. Okay. So, a motion to approve with staff comments. Okay. A second and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I.

I. Opposed. This motion is approved. Okay. Next, we have a resoning request. Additions at Olive Branch, Lee Hollow Road, PRD to R3 zoning.

So, this is a resoning request. It's currently zone PRD requested to be reszoned to R3. It's about 12.49 acres. Um it is um south of Lee Road. Um it's surrounding zoning is PRD and PUD in town uh and RM in Rutherford County. Uh the land use plan would support medium density uh residential in this area. Uh the major thoroughfare plan does designate Lee Road as a collector. Again, this property doesn't have any frontage on that road, but it is um that's the nearest road that is to it at this time. Um this property and the two properties zone PRD um that adjoin it were a part of the original PRD for Olive Branch, which uh was originally known as Tilly Farms in 2008. Um when that original development fell apart, the subsequent developer purchased part of but not all the properties that were in that original PRD and amended that approval. Um and so this track and a couple other tracks were were left alone, kind of left on their own and and we're not a part of that PRD amendment. And so, um, this property, um, but most likely there will be, uh, the the Olive Branch PRD, which is directly to the east, uh, will eventually have some roads stubbed into it, this property, um, that would be as part of that development, and they this would access be accessed that way. Um, so it will be at some point in the future. That's those roads do not exist today. Um, so this kind of shows you a little bit more of this map. The the orange kind of color there is the PUD. That's the Olive Branch PUD as it exists today. Um, and then which has they have begun development on the on the southern

end of this. They have started work on that and some grading. Um, this would be just this portion of this track. Again, there's a another track to the east which is not a part of this that would remain. I think there's a one house on it. And then there's um the the vacant track to the north which that owner has contacted me and I they're I think they're eventually going to do something with that too, but right now they're they're not um looking to do any development. They were kind of waiting on some of the surrounding property for for access, but I think they won't tie into. But anyway, so that's uh what this is. Again, it's just from a from that kind of that remnant PRD zoning to to go to to R3. So, that's all I got.

Questions for Kevin concerning this resoning request. So, the reason they're requesting a resoning at this time is to have an idea of what they can do when the other developments move forward, right? Yeah. just so they can have some I mean it's going to have to be changed anyway because this is the PRD that was originally approved is it's not going to it wouldn't function so they would have to do it in putt amendment or reszoning at some point in the future and they're just kind of get it set up today so it'll be ready to to bring plats in when whenever the roads get to them. Okay. Roads and utilities and all those things. Other questions?

Are we ready for a motion? Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments from Steve. A second. Was that Ken? Yeah. Thank second from Ken. Further discussion. All in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I oppose. This motion is approved. Connects to a sketch plant, Green Tree Cove subdivision, Skinner Drive. Owner developer Mic and Marian uh Danielle.

Yeah, this is a sketch plat. It's for um about 7.54 acres um zoned R3. Um it is um kind of developed on all around it. Uh you have um kind of the green tree development to the east, colonate green tree to the to the and east and north colony green tree to the west and then um believe it's and to the south as well. It's all colonate green tree now. Um anyway, so this is uh just a sketch plat uh they are proposing. Um this is several comments really one through five or justformational comments. Uh there are no roads shown on thoroughfare plan here that affect this plan. Um fire flow is their standard 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 PSI. Um we did ask for them to submit some water calculations. We haven't received those yet. We are are concerned about the fireflow here. Um but so that's something we can work through them with if you all approve this when they get to to the preliminary plan stage. Um but we want to keep that comment. Um we' asked them to show there's the development to the west there has been approved. Uh they are under construction have started working out there moving dirt. Um, we did ask them to show those proposed road, water, and sewer connections just so that they're we know all those connections are being met. Um, so we do need still need to keep comment eight. Comment number nine, they had shown sewer force mains kind of down both culde-sacs. Um, those were not allowed. They do need to did ask them to connect to the gravity sewer uh at Fortitude Trail. They have now shown that um and that they are lots one, two, and three, which are the northernmost lots. If you're

looking at the flat furthest to the right there, uh must have a dedicated force man to terminate at the manhole and those have all that has all been shown now and can be removed. Uh we'd also ask them to show the property lines for the properties to the north. That has been done so we can remove that. Uh and then there's a storm water outfall uh of the colony green tree which is to the west there near lot 13. We'd ask them to connect that to the proposed storm system of this development or convey it around the site to the existing storm infrastructure. Um they have shown that being tied together. So um so we can move that comment and the comment 12 needs to remain. They we do still need to see their road names and 911 approval of those names on the plat. So with those remaining comments, staff would recommend approval. Uh then I will entertain a motion.

I'll move to approve staff comment on table. Motion to approve with staff comment. So I have a second. Second motion and a second. Okay. Now, is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing no discussion. Um have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. I.

Opposed. This motion is approved. We are now on to preliminary plan. Greystone section 3C, Cuba Road and Travatine Trail, owner developer heritage homes. This is the next phase of Greystone. It's 13.62 acres. It's 62 lots uh in the Greystone PRD. Um again, a lot of standard comments one through five there. Again, no no major thoroughfare plan roads are affected here. Um and it's the standard uh requirements on fire flow with regards to the thousand gpm at 20 PSI. Um no water or sewer will be available on this phase until phase 3B is built. So that's that's anformational comment but we need to remain. Uh they did answer the question about the maximum square footage of the homes. It's about 2450. So there we're we're not going to have any issues with the fire flow. So we can remove that comment. Um, we'd ask them regarding the number 10 about the lot easement behind lot 620 to 629 to be centered on a storm structure. It's actually a drainage ditch there. Uh, but they've got that the easements in place there now correctly. So, we can remove that comment. Um, comment number 11, they were showing Cuba Road as a sub street which can still remain as a sub street because they do own the property to the north as well. Uh, they they would did require a culde-sac eventually. Uh because it is um there's no connection within Woodmont that they can connect to Woodmont there. Um then also would need a temporary turnaround here. They're showing a co stack. Probably a temporary turnaround is all they're going to need just because it could connect into the eventually into that property to the north that is still property that they own. So um so we want to keep comment 11 there. Um so with nine and 10 removed um we would recommend approval with

those remaining comments. consistent with previous consistent with the previous the approved PRD and and concept plan for this property. Yes. Met the rags and ordinances at the time still does. Yes. Okay. Other questions or comments concerning this uh preliminary plan? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve the staff comments. Have a motion to approve the staff comments. Do I have a second?

Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I I oppose. This preliminary plat is approved. We're now on to final plats. We have Stewart's Landing phase 2 Squadron Street and Matlo College Boulevard. Owner developer Sewart's Landing Partners LP.

This is the um final plat. This is for the portion of this development that in we've already seen the site plan for for one of the buildings here. They're on the corner. Uh this is one lot. 6.186 acres is in the sewage landing pod. Um includes the the extension of uh Squadron Street um rightway there. The pilot place already that rightway already exists as well as dedicating some easements for some sewer lines and things of that nature and abandoning some easements for some sewer lines that are going to be removed. Um we had um several standard comments there one through five. A major thoroughfare plan does designate Mlo College Boulevard as a collector and adequate rideway is shown there for that street. We comment seven's a standard comment about the signature of the owner prior to submittal for recording. Uh the required fireflow is going to be based kind of on each building what the uses are and that sort of thing. So that'll that'll be looked at on that site plan. Uh we did ask them to show the existing gas line along MLO College Boulevard. That's still not been shown. So we need to keep comment nine. Uh we'd asked them to add a small storm water easement for the pipe under Mlo College Boulevard near the intersection of Mllo College Boulevard and Squadron Street. That has been done can be removed. Uh they had shown the uh reclaimed water lines were labeled just with a W. We asked them to show RPW. So it's a repurified water line. So that's been done can be removed. Uh we did ask them to show the irrigation lines connecting to that reurified line and that has been done and can be removed. Uh there is a sewer line portion of the sewer line it is to remain. We'd ask them to add an easement. So I'm not exactly sure which sewer line that is. They're showing a sewer lines to be removed. But I want to be let our utilities department have to look at that when they submit for recording to be sure they've got the easements correct in that regard. But u so we want to keep that comment number 13. So with 10, 11, and 12 removed uh we

would recommend approval with those remaining conditions. Anything for Kevin concerning uh this plat final plat hearing. No questions or comments. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve uh with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I.

Opposed, it's final plat is approved. Next on the site plans, uh, cabinet, it's my understanding the 7 Oaks Business Center, 7 Oaks Boulevard owner developer Share Ibrahim is has requested a deferral. That is correct. Okay. So, we need we will need to get a motion for deferral. Sure, we will. Make a motion to defer to the next meeting. Have a motion to defer to the next meeting. Do I have a second? And a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of this motion to defer until the next meeting, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed? This motion has been deferred and approved. Okay. Okay, we are now on to our last item under site plans, Spring Branch, phase three, Bronte Drive, owner developer, Green Trails LLC.

This is the third phase of the Spring Branch development. This is also the final phase of this development. Consists of five single family dwellings and 59 town homes. The phase is located on north north of Lebury Drive where that connects into the subdivision and sidewalks are shown connecting the residences throughout the development. Seuss street is shown to terminate at the northern point of the property and Salinger Way ending in a culde-sac near the Imperial Boulevard rightway uh to provide a future connection when Imperial Drive does get extended at some point in the future. Square footage of vehicular use on the site, 1.23 acres. that does require 5,395 ft of landscaping. Applicant is proposing for 5,614 ft meeting our requirements. Parker required of 286 spaces which they are showing for and uh due to this being a town home style development uh no handicap parking spaces are required as part of it. Landscape plan shows a few areas of preserved vegetation around the perimeter of the site cont contained within phase three. Trees are shown within the front yards of single family dwellings with a mixture of shrubbery and trees shown along the private roadways which do serve this development. Architectural elevations show both the town homes and single family residences containing a variety of materials including fiber cement siding, brick and or stone on the front and side elevations. The rear elevations submitted show entirely fiber cement siding, but notes the show the rear elevations could also consist of a variety of either hardy board, brick or stone material. Elevations are consistent with previous phases and with the PRD requirements. Standard comments one through seven remain. And staff comment number one is regarding the fire department concern with the auto turn that has since been addressed and can be removed. Number two, the plans showed the Imperial Boulevard rightaway continuing onto this

track, which it does not currently do today. Uh, so we just noted to them that this will have to be shown on the plat when it is submitted at later time. So, comment number two will remain. Number three, as previously mentioned, a plat will need to be recorded prior to issuance of the permit in which that rideway might be shown on that. Number four was from our public works department regarding uh drainage easements and locations of that. After speaking with the public works department on this comment, they are not needed anymore due to it being a private development. Uh responsibility of maintenance of those easements would be on the homeowners association at that point. So uh comment number four can actually be removed. Number five, any retaining walls over four feet will require building permit. More of a standard comment. And then number six is also standard. Electric services must be on a monument or pedestal service for the town homes. Uh so with removal of staff comments one and four, staff would recommend approval.

Questions for uh Mitch concerning this? What was the final outcome of the buffer for the houses on Mason Tucker? So are you talking along Lebury or Mason Tucker?

Okay. was working with the applicant on that extensively and the applicant was also in contact with as many homeowners on that property as they could get in touch with and there was an agreement that was came between the homeowners and the developer and both parties agreed to that and that's what they're ended up doing. I believe off top of my head I believe it's a might be a 15ish 10 15 foot buffer and then you have a fence behind that as well. Well, when they had inadvertently taken down some of the natural, so they made good on the promise to put in appropriate landscaping in lie of

correct. Make make sure most importantly the neighbors were satisfied with as well. Yeah, they worked with the neighbors really well to get something that they all could agree on. It wasn't just that they went in and planted something without talking to the neighbors and that sort of thing. Has that been documented? So, it's pinw writing.

Yes. Other questions? I'll entertain a motion then Little tough to get a motion on the site plan.

I'll make the motion to approve staff comments. I have a motion to approve u with staff comments. So I have a second. Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. Opposed. Site plan is approved. Uh, now we have a mandatory referral. Old Nashville Highway rightway acquisition.

Yeah, this is a mandatory referral request from the public works department. They're they're preparing to obtain rightway and easements for the installation of a sidewalk along Old Nashville Highway between St. Michael's Lane and St. Luke's Lane. This would add a sidewalk on the west side of the road where one doesn't currently exist. This would fill an existing gap in the sidewalk and provide a continuous sidewalk from Chicken Pike to Sberly Parkway along Old Nashville Highway. Uh we did attach some drawings to show the proposed locations of those rightway easements to be acquired as a part of this project. uh planning commission is required to review the obtaining of this rideway and easements to find whether or not is in it is in keeping with the adopted comprehensive plan of the town and make a recommendation that the council staff would recommend approval.

Okay. Uh questions uh for Kevin concerning this rightway acquisition? Only question I have is right along that section of road isn't there um fencing currently uh privacy fence along through there? Mr. Rose is here. He's I know he's talked to those neighbors already, but

yes, there is a uh metal fence along there and some brick columns. I've talked to several of the property owners out there and I also had a surveyed a few years ago to see who exactly owns that uh fence and it is on private property. I've talked to like I said several of the property owners. They've asked about what would happen to that fence. And what we're going to do with this project is uh uh the rideway that we need to obtain for this is is will be enough room for the sidewalk as well as the retaining wall. And then uh just past the top of the retaining wall is going to remain as their property. There's going to be a slope easement through there for construction. And then the uh we're going to replace the existing fence with a new vinyl PVC vinyl fence that's continuous all throughout that section. And also there's going to be several trees that are removed. We're going to be replacing some of the trees for the for people who have lost those uh along the way.

Okay. So, we're essentially taking down the fence that's there and putting back something to replace it. Well, a lot of that fence, I think, is actually falling. Yeah, I was going to say that word. It'll also offer more privacy. Uh the fact that old metal fence. Well, several have had privacy fences behind the metal fence that was there. So, yeah. And they're falling too because they've been there for so long. Yeah. I had gotten an email from one of the homeowners asking me the same questions, which it sounds like you'd already talked to some. Yes. But I got an email asking the same question. So, appreciate you clarifying. A lot of those along through there were Bradford pairs, weren't they? I'm sorry. A lot of those were Bradford pairs if not all of them. Yeah. Yeah. So, which kind of get rid of come down,

right? Well, I mean that's uh I just think, you know, from a safety perspective, this has been much needed and long overdue because when you did, you know, walk Nashville highway, you had to cut through a subdivision that was not side has does not have sidewalks. So, I just think it makes it safer all the way around. I've had a lot of positive feedback. People keep calling me and asking me when when it's going to get started. They're pretty excited about having that sidewalk behind their property. Well, just to follow up on that, I think it's great that we're connecting the sidewalks and I noted that on Presidential Parkway, you filled in all the gaps.

Yes. And on the storm water drains there. I don't know if you're doing that or not, but they're replacing the ones that are quite hazardous with the ones at an angle. So, just good job. Thank you. Yeah, we've been doing those on I think St. Francis. We've done 29 of them, I think. Okay. Any other questions for Tom? Thank you, Tom. Thanks. So, we'll need to make a recommendation to council on this. So, I'll take a motion concerning a recommendation to recommend this to the council.

I have a motion to recommend this um to council. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion, all those in favor of a positive recommendation to council concerning the rightway acquisition on Old Nashville Highway, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. This motion and recommendation is approved. Now we're on to the February bond review reports. All right.

Yeah. And it's a long one tonight, so I apologize. Uh it's about 19, I think. Um so the first one, uh Mayfield Town Homes. This is one that we've had a couple years, approaching a couple years now. Um they they've been delayed. I did talk to the developer ear or heard from the developer earlier this week. They they've been delayed basically after the FEMA after basically they were done had all the infrastructure in FEMA amended the their flood maps and they've had to go through a process with FEMA to amend that map again. Uh that should be getting that taken care of soon. So they're hoping to get started soon on actually building the homes in this area. Um and then which will enable them to then finish you know finish the work you know placing the topping and that sort of thing. U so we want to extend that one six months. Uh Buckingham Hills. Um this is one that's at the end of the maintenance period. Um if they can get those things cleaned up, we could release otherwise extend 3 months. Um Quail Ridge, this is just a sewer line extension that's been is completed. Um so we can release that one. Um the Wind Farms off-site improvements. This is one we've been working with them on on some um some guardrail improvements and some things. They're actually going to we're going to do the improvements and they're actually going to then pay us back for that part of it uh on one of the guard rails there which is comment two on the punch list. So um we want to go ahead and extend that one. That's um that project is I think started work this week I believe. So, um, we can start we can extend that one for three months to kind of get that project hopefully get that one knocked out. Uh, Blakeney, uh, section 3 phase one. There's multiple phases of Blney here. Um, this this first phase of Blakey is about 73% built. Um, would

recommend a six-month extension on that one. Um, the uh, several of the bladies are at the end of the maintenance period. So um section two phase two section two phase three um and then I think the page here um yeah section two phase one and then section one phase two we're all at the end of the phase maintenance periods if they get done before their expiration dates we can release otherwise extend three months I'm meeting with that developer on a different issue tomorrow so I'm bringing that up because those have been hanging on a little too long I think they need to get those knocked out. Um, Buckingham Place three again, end of the maintenance period. Um, if we can get that done, they could, it's only a couple items left. Um, they could get those knocked out, that would be good. I would like hopefully they can by early March there when it expires. Otherwise, extend three months. Uh, Derby run 2C. They did ask for a six-month extension. They plan to put the final services on phases 2A, 2C, and 2D at the same time within the next six months. So, they did request a six-month extension there. So, would recommend that. Uh, Rooker's Ben section one phase 2 um did request a one-year extension on that. Um, and they are about 44% built out. So we did recommend 6 months because we typically after two years our regs do to one year at one year time frame to go to two years but beyond two years to do typically recommend a few shorter time frames. So we do recommend six months. Greystone 1A and 1C um would recommend um there are still some building in those phases. We recommend a six-month extension on both of those. Uh they are still building in

those phases. Uh Pinto Place Town Homes um would recommend a six-month extension there. I'm sorry, Portico Place Town Homes. Uh Burton Farms Annex. Um they're they're getting close to built out there. They did ask for a one-year extension. Um we only recommend 6 months on that. Um at this time because of the just because they are getting close to finished of home construction and then Derby run phase 2D same common as 2C there just a six-month extension there. They're going to faint and then 2A is the next one. U all both of those recommend 6 months and then Walnut Ridge um which is the last one again end of the maintenance period um would recommend a extens or release if they get done otherwise a three-month extension to get them into the spring hopefully get those knocked out. So that's that's the report.

Okay. Any questions concerning the bond review report? I'm sorry that was riveting. Glad you liked it. Charles is awake. Yeah. Do I have a motion? I would move to accept the report. Thank you. I have a motion to accept the report. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of acceptance and approval of the bond review report, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Bond review report is approved. staff comments.

Um, don't have a lot on. I would let the planning commission members and and audience, anyone watching know we are a week from tonight, we are having a call we're calling a town hall road show. We're going to be at Stewart Creek Middle School at 6 PM, I believe. Sorry. Um, and so we're going to have some presentations from several staff departments kind of presenting different projects, things that are going on in town. and we'd like to invite the public to come out. They wouldn't ask all come in to town hall to come. They can just go to the middle school kind of in their neighborhood and uh and we'd be happy to to answer questions and things that they have about projects or questions they have. Maybe something they want to do with their property or buildings or whatever. So, um so that's that's next Thursday night the 12th at 6 PM. So, just invite everyone to come.

All right. Very good. Anything else? Other business? Anything from the commission? Is it on the Facebook page, Kevin? Um, yes, it's been on the Facebook page multiple times. Yes. Ken, you'll be there. Very possible. Thank you. Anything else from the commission? Is it Stewart's Creek or Stewart Creek? Stewart Creek. It's Steuart. I think it's Stewart Creek. Yeah, it's going to last long. Is it Steward's Landing or Stewart's Landing? Okay. Anything else other than annunciation and we stand adjourned.