Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Good evening. Uh, welcome to the April 7th, 2026 Smyrna Municipal Planning, uh, Commission meeting. Uh, I will now call the meeting to order. Mark uh will lead us in pledge and Steve in the prayer. So, if you'll stand with me,

bow your heads, please. Dear Lord, thank you for today. We ask that you uh be with these proceedings, Lord, and that everything here would be pleasing in your sight. We ask that you continue to bless the town of Smyrna, the staff, and the hardworking uh members of our town, Lord. uh be with the uh uh commission here tonight that uh we would have wisdom and uh cons discernment uh that your uh will would be done in Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen. Place the flag please.

I pledge allegiance 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. Before we get started tonight, I do want to welcome Scott Deumbrium. Scott, thank you for uh agreeing to serve with us. Look forward to it and u please dig dig in and and uh grant us all that wisdom you bring over, I believe, from BCA. Yes, sir. Yeah. Okay, good. All right. Uh next, uh we have citizens comments.

We do not have any tonight. Okay, we'll move on to the elections of officers for this year. And Jeff, with this, I'm going to turn this portion over to you to conduct the election. Sure. I'm glad to. So, the uh first position that we will do is the chairman position. So, I will take nominations for chairman of the plan commission, Tim Morell. Yep. We have a nomination for uh Tim Morell. Are there any other nominations? Make a motion. Nomination cease. Well, we won't need to if nobody else files anything or says anything. No further nominations. And uh by acclamation, if you'll vote in favor of Chairman Morurell, say I. I. I.

The against say nay. All right. Congratulations. The uh the second position that we have is for um the vice chair of the planning commission. I'll take nominations for vice chair. I'll nominate Mark Atkins. Nominating Mark Atkins or Vice Mayor Atkins. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no further. Those in favor of Vice Mayor Atkins as the vice chair say I. I. Those opposed and passes back to you.

All right. Thank you. Well done. Uh we're now on to our next item which is approval or corrections of the minutes of the March 5th, 2026 regular meeting. Councelor, are the meeting minutes in order? They're in order as to form. Unless you have any subtractions or additions. Are there any subtractions, additions, or comments from the commission? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve the minutes as presented. I have a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving the March 5th, 2026 regular meeting minutes, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Minutes are approved. We are now on to new business. The first is resoning requests. CSC Properties LLC Lee Victory Parkway reszoning C2 to PCD.

Yes, this is a resoning request for about 2.2 acres of property currently zone C2 along Lee Victory Parkway requested to be reszoned to a BCD. Uh surrounding zoning is all C2. Uh the land use plan for this area is the 24 gateway character area. Uh would support a mix of uses and services uh kind of both local and regional in scale such as hospitality, retail, restaurant, multif family uses. Uh major thoroughare plan does designate le victory parkway or state route 102 as a principal arterial. Adequate rideway does exist for this street. This requested PCD is to allow for quick service oil and lube business in addition to other all other uses allowed in the C2 district. Uh the concept plan shows the second use as a bank. So a bank there two two proposed uses here at this time with this PCD. Uh as anformational comment the required minimum fire flow is 1500 gallons per minute at 20 PSI. um the elevations um that we had comment on the elevations uh asked them to label the percentages label the materials with the percentages shown and to meet design review. Um it appears that the valvalene building meets our design review requirements pretty easily. Uh the bank building does need some additional brick or stone to be added to be in order to meet design review. So those would need to be revised. Um there there is a plat has been done for this property um has um for two lots to create two lots. Uh those are has not been recorded. Um the this proposed PCD plan um is a slightly different as far as the lot sizes. Uh there's a sewer easement that would need to be extended um to to serve the second lot as well

from where it was shown on the original plat just because the property boundary is changing. So um so that will have to be revised if this is approved would have to be revised with the plat would have to be revised before it's recorded. Um comment number eight the streetscaping along Lee Victory Parkway doesn't meet designer view as shown. um they have uh revised uh we received them today so you all do not have that in front of you but we did get revisions primarily it was in the area on that lot um closest to the private drive there um which is where the bank would be located um and they have corrected that and taken care of that so that that we can remove that comment that's been addressed now uh number nine regarding the minimum side building setback that is shown at five. That's not been corrected to show a 15. So, we can remove that comment. Um, this private drive is a private drive. It's owned actually by the adjoining uh church, Parkway Baptist Church. Um, it from an addressing perspective, if and just from 911 perspective, it does need to have a name of some kind. Uh we had suggested Herald Lee Drive because Herald Lee Drive is what was is the road name directly across the street. Um they have shown that on the plans that will need to go through. We did ask them to contact the church as they are the owner of that road is a private road to coordinate that with them. So I don't know if that's occurred yet or not but whatever that was just really a a suggested that's something that needs to be happen. It's not a big deal with as far as the zoning is concerned. We just wanted to to bring it up. Um, this entire piece of property is in the 100red-year flood plane. Uh, so a flood plane development permit would be required to be submitted as a part of the grading permit application. There's they will be working with there's some adjoining property that they also own,

but there would be some some cut and fill balancing and and and this area would be raised up out of the flood plane and created some additional flood storage on the adjoined property that they also own. So it would not affect any upstream or downstream property owners. Um a traffic study was done for a previously proposed development on this site uh which showed that the intersection of the private road and lead victory parkway uh would be at level service F uh with the development necessitating construction of a traffic signal and we asked them has that been revised? They has been revised. We have received that that signal warrant analysis. We've looked at it. Uh we concur with the analysis. They have submitted that to T do DOT because that is a state highway. So the signal would be on their rightway. So it would have to be approved by them. Um so they have submitted that to T DOT. So certainly still waiting on on that response from them. Um but the signal as a part of this the signal would be installed at that location. Uh we did look at the distance. It's about 3/10en of a mile to the nearest signal there at Alville Road. So, it is it is well above the the typical 1,000 ft that T dot tries to look at for separation for the signals. So, um and then number 13, it was just anformational comment just so that they're aware of they're they're going to have to there's actually some offsite uh water sewer improvements that they're going to have to make. Um, we just want to be sure they were aware that the fire hydrant is required to be within 400 ft of both buildings. That's something we look at at the site plan if the reszoning is approved more diligently, but as anformational comment for them as well. Comment 14 that was just anformational for them. They had actually paid gave us too much money in the review fee. We we let them know that we'd be refunded and so that was nothing

to do with the site itself. So, um really again this is um this has been looked at a couple different times for different things this property has and um this is a um kind of semi a repeat of something that was looked at approve and approved before uh for a similar type of use uh a different it was a national uh chain of company of automotive repair business that was approved here um and never built for for for whatever reason. And then they came in, the property owner did and returned it back to C2 uh just so they could have that anything within C2 uh possibilities. And so they're coming back now to to but just ask for this to be added back for again a different user but a similar use. One thing that I would did want to point out that was a little different than before is they did rotate the building 90 degrees so that the the doors entrance and exit doors into the the valve lane will actually not face Lee Victory Parkway. It will face to the side. So the side of the building facing Sam really or I'm sorry Lee Victory Parkway will be kind of a solid you know brick wall type building part of the building. So, um I think that's it. Primary the main issue I guess for us is at this point is the the bank the building elevations for the bank will need to be

um corrected. Question Kevin, I know that I think it was Pep Boys back that came in there. Uh was there also a Valvaline that made an effort to come there before them? I don't recall val at this location, but there may have been some discussion. I don't think they ever I don't think they ever came forward with an actual request. Maybe I I think I recall one on Sam Ridley and I think was one on Sam Ridley. That's what I'm thinking.

And I think the discussion there was uh the aesthetics as far as uh the bays facing uh the roadway on Sam Ridley being a gateway and uh I would feel similar here. So I think with the building rotation uh and not having the bays forward facing to leave victory is is a good improvement that I'm seeing

right now. I think I also like this design as far as a a stacking because uh it looks like we have the uh drive aisle that services both buildings plus what uh you have on the actual um I guess that's the Valvoline building valine lot. So that doesn't appear to be an issue. Yeah, you have plenty of room to stack vehicles for for sure. Uh go ahead. Did the Christian brothers go away? Evidently, I haven't heard anything from them over quite some time. I was on the other side for about the So, we have uh Strickland over on Seven Oaks. Is there any more over there? I'm trying to think if there's any more oil places.

I think so, cuz I don't think there's anything on the west side of the interstate that I can recall. Um, so yeah, this Yeah, the Strickland Brothers is the only one in this area. the signalization if approved by T do DOT would affect both uh I guess that's close to east west right it would be

yeah and and there would be um you already have turn lanes within the Lee Victory left turn lanes on going both directions so those those left turn lanes are already there um you probably would we would want to look at the striping on the the exit on from on this side two lead victory. Uh just because you have a straight through and a right turn lane. So we probably want to strike one of those as a left turn, left and a right turn with a somebody one of them with a straight through I guess. But um but yeah, I think it's pretty well set up other than the actual construction of the signal itself. Yeah.

Yeah. I know sometimes even when you're coming from the Herald Lee drive and you're trying to go across either way, it can be it can be a bit dicey at times with traffic, especially at 45 miles an hour. So signalization would definitely be an improvement. So through various methods, I guess detention is about work. They're going to have to keep the water issue under wraps. Correct. I mean, they're it's all flood plane.

It's all flood plane. So, yeah, they'll have to they'll have to look at a have to submit a a flood study to show what they're doing. It's not going to it's not going to affect upstream and downstream neighbors uh with regards to and that these buildings themselves will be elevated. They have to be at least one foot above the finished floor is at least one foot above the flood plane for non-residential structures. So, um, so they'll have to go through all of that. Uh, if if it's approved, the zoning is approved, we'd have to look at that would be a part of the site plan review and and the subsequent review past that. So, with Parkway, that's a private road. So, with park, does parkway have to give permission or have they given permission? There was

I know before they had to meet with Parkway to get that the this this owner um which I think these folks are buying looking at buying the property from the current owner but the current owner uh and Parkway had when Pep Boys I believe came through I think there were some they met and I think they worked through those whatever those issues were I think there was some basically kind of a handshake agreement between the original owner and and the church um and So, I mean, I don't they they formalized that in some way.

Okay. I didn't want to get the cart before the horse here because we reszone something. It's reszoned. Parkway hasn't agreed to that. And why would we reszone ahead of all that, you know? So, um, the other issue that they had back then, and I don't see it here, was concerned with, you know, working on vehicles, parking in the street, the, uh, visibility from the highway, all those kinds of things. I remember putting some landscaping strips in front of it and all that kind of stuff to protect it. Is there any need for any of that here at all? I mean there's there's this use there wouldn't be any wouldn't be any vehicles being stored. This is an auto auto body shop or anything like that where they would have may have wrecked vehicles stored there for a time while they're being waiting to be to be repaired or anything like that. Um

staff's comfortable with it. I'm comfortable with that part of it. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's a good point because I think there was some uh maybe more general mechanical repair with the other where this will be a lot more in and out you know type traffic here wouldn't be anything is that I could imagine it would be involving any overnight uh storage of vehicles. I just confirmed we did as with any reasonzoning we've sent letters to surrounding property owners. So the church did we were sent they were sent a letter at least. So hopefully they were they were aware of the zoning. Okay.

I wouldn't think it would affect their traffic too terribly either with the bank not typically being open on Sunday. The oil change place might be open maybe after church hours. Kevin, how comfortable are you that um and you mentioned the bank was uh didn't meet design review?

I think we would I would be comfortable just as a condition of the approval. if you choose to approve it that that the bank when the site plan submitted that the the existing plans would not be consistent with design review and they'll have to present plans that meet designer review the site plan comes in. Anything else from the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments. A motion to approve with staff comments from Steve. Do I have a second? Second.

Second from Vanessa. Further discussion. All those in favor of uh approving this motion subject to staff recommendations. Please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. This motion is approved. Our next item is a uh sketch plat 116 Foxland Drive subdivision. uh 116 drive owner developer Timtope and Jordan Peters Eric Nolles. Yeah, this is a a prop piece of property on 116 Foxland Drive which is it's about 4.55 acres in the R1 zone. Um the property has is obviously addressed at Foxland Drive. There is an existing home on the property. Uh it has frontage as well on Popular Wood Road which is on the north side. Um the some of our comments really reflect what the original plan was and we received plans uh really received them today. Um that changed those plans and and correct a lot of the concerns that the staff had uh with the original layout of the plans of the plan. Uh we had several comments uh really one through one through five are very standard comments. Uh and really once number six is as well regarding the fire flow and and depending on the square footage the fire flow could could increase. So those are pretty standard comments. We would want to keep those. Um number seven, um the original plan this has now is uh is three lots still with one lot facing with the existing house facing Fox Drive and then two lots side by side facing Popular Wood Road. Uh the previously submitted plan uh had those two lots created uh with one lot at roughly like there's about a little over 200 ft of road frontage there and they had about a 150 foot wide lot and then a 50 foot or so wide lot and it kind of create and then they would had a house

kind of stacked one in front of one another instead of next to one another. And so you have you were going to have a driveway of over 500 ft long uh back to one of the houses. Um and it just created a lot of concerns from a fire fighting standpoint, fire protection standpoint. Um and it didn't meet the zoning ordinance requirement. In R1, you have 100 foot lot width requirement at the building setback line. And um obviously that lot didn't meet that requirement. So they would have had would have actually required a review by more zoning appeals because it um in order to do what they were wanting to do. That's been eliminated now. Uh so you have two proposed lots um a little over an acre each u facing popularwood road. Um so you would have um and they're actually they're showing uh greater side setbacks than they need to. They're showing 30 ft. It's actually only 15 is required but um anyway so so it's actually a little bit bigger building bigger building envelope than what they've got shown a little bit. Um so anyway that the reason or the need for a variance from the board of zoning appeals has disappeared with the with the change. Um the so number seven can be removed. Comment eight um a fire hydrant is is required within 500 ft. Um this is on consolidated utility district system. We we don't have we we weren't able to to not or find exactly where the nearest hydron is. So there may have to be a hydrant added depending on where the nearest hydrant is. So they're aware of that. Again number nine goes away because the flag lot went away. Um they're so we can remove comment nine and comment 10 as well. Um

so um and then they are proposing as part of this they're showing a sewer an easement from the rear of these lots uh across the existing next to the existing house to to tie into the sewer that is in Foxland Drive. Um and so that's that's again that easement is shown through there and there is gravity sewer available there in Foxland Drive. So that's where they would connect there. um CUD is that's again it's in their service area so they'll have to review the plat as well um at the preliminary plat stage is really where they start reviewing it. So um we can basically essentially with comments seven 9 and 10 removed um staff would recommend approval.

Okay you've heard from Kevin on this. Do we have any uh questions or or comments on this? So Kevin, by this are they going to be required to connect to sewer? Yeah, they would be. Uh they they looked at soils before they ever even talked to us. I think there was enough soils for like one house like a two-bedroom system and that was it. So um that's why they wanted to to go the sewer route. Other questions or comments?

I guess I just have a little concern that if we're not careful here, we're going to see this become a pattern and everybody over there is going to start breaking their lots up. And there's a couple that have already I think were that way before we even annexed the area. There were some that have had had done that in before it was ever even annexed. Um, but I mean it's there was one on Popularwood we we did a while back on the corner I think a dental office or something that came out. There was on for a little commercial zoning. Yeah. On that one. It wasn't this big though.

No, it wasn't this big. Um, and of course they're not asking for reszoning. as to there's using the existing R1 zone and creating essentially two new lots in the R1 zone. Um, and both lots meet R1. Yeah, so they're they're well over an acre a piece. Um, so they're they're much larger than what we typically see certainly. And this is kind of the only thing they could do with without, you know, building a road or whatever, which would be not really wouldn't make a lot of sense for that size of a piece of property. Um so I mean yeah certainly it it could happen at the same time it is it's R1 so it's

right it's my right that you can develop 1500 foot lots. Yeah. So, we're not we're not we're not ask they're not asking and I certainly I think if they were coming in and asking, hey, we want to do a pud with 6,000 foot lots or whatever, that would be a completely different scenario that I think we'd have a lot more issues with as staff at least. So, okay. Anything else? Excuse me. discussion when they put in here building package.

I think they really mean building footprint or potential building or building envelope. Actually, building envelope, not even footprint. Yeah, that that's a massive Yeah. 40 foot by Well, yeah, that's the thing. It would it really be 70 ft because they only have to have 15 foot side. They they're showing 30 foot side setbacks for for whatever reason. They only have to be a 15. So their envelopes twice as twice as wide as what they're showing. Yeah. My first impression was it could have put more storage outdoor. Yeah. The way it looks it looks like one long building, but that's not the plan. Yeah. It's you would have 75 like on the one lot you'd have well 74t or 75 ft. Yeah.

In width. Um to build on it could be as wide as 75 ft. And they do have to have they got to be within the distance of the fire hydrant on Poperwood. So they're going to have the home itself and all is going to have to be close enough to the road to to meet those requirements or they're going to have to put a fire hydrant in.

Yeah. And they may have to put a fire hydrant in anyway depending on where the nearest one is along the road. We don't know exactly where the nearest hydrant is, but Okay. Anything else? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I

opposed. I

motion passes. Uh we are now on to preliminary plats. The first one is the Enclave at Lee Road 5198 Lee Road. Owner developer at Chowwin Dong KMC Land LLC. Yeah, this is uh the preliminary plat for the Enclave at Lee Road. It's 43 lots uh 19.8 8 acres in the R3 zone there on Lee Road. Um several standard comments with regards to development agreements, etc., but all remain one through five. Uh number six, uh major thoroughfare plan does designate Lee Road as a collector and adequate rideway is shown being dedicated with for this street part of the thoroughfare plan. Um the standard comment regarding the the uh fireflow requirements. Uh they did indicate that some of the or the bu developer had indicated to the uh to the engineer that they're some of the building footprints are are 3600 ft or bigger. So uh the increased fire flow might be something that's necessary or the sprinkling of the building is one of the two. So, we'll have to look at that when the permits start to come in. But, um, there are several retaining walls uh shown. So, any just anformational comment, anything over 4T is required of permit under the building code. Um, the sewer they are connecting to the Olive Branch sewer main. Uh there are that is offsite to this property and so they u have obtained an easement uh from an adjoining property owner um but um that we don't have the document they have provided the actually the school board owns the property and so they had they

provided a easement from the school the board had approved had approved granting the easement but they don't have the actual recorded documentation yet for that offsite easement. that needs to be provided to us um still. So we want to keep comment number nine. Uh number 10 is just something we look at on the construction plans. The water service lines must be at least 1 in. Again, that's just to accommodate any sprinkler systems that that might be needed in the future um or the initial building depending on the size. Um there's some existing utilities in that new rideway on Lee Road. Those will need to be relocated. Um we didn't want the the town would not be relocating those. They would need to relocate those. Um this development because of some some pretty in uh steep grading on some of the lots um or most or all the lots are actually labeled as critical lots. And so that that number 12 has been addressed. They've shown that now. So we can remove comment 12. Um some of the grading on some of the lots pretty steep. Um, and so again, we're we're actually concerned with some of the rear of the building envelopes. Um, especially surrounding the detention pond that's kind of in the center part of the area there. So, that's something we wanted to that's something that public works as part of the reviews and all we'll need to look at pretty close, but um that's something we had which wanted to raise that concern to them. Uh, we asked for a a roadway lighting plan. And that's something I'll work through with Mil Tennessee Electric. That still need to submit that. Um, we'd ask them to label the rideways for all the roads. They're showing the rideway boundary lines, but they're not showing the widths. So, that still needs to be addressed. Uh, we'd ask them, and this is something that that may have been addressed. Um, but as far as the pond slopes, asked them to not exceed 30% on those pond slopes. Uh, they did show number 17's been

addressed. It did show the ADA crossing ramps and crosswalk at King Croft Lane and Lee Road. That's one of the streets that will be tying into Lee Road there. And they did show that number 18 through 21. All those were um all comments from CUD. This is not they do have a water man along the Lee Road there. It's not this is in our service area for water, but they do have some infrastructure in that area that needs to be uh addressed with regards to the development as well. Uh, so they're they're working and the developer is working with CUD on those those items. So we want to keep those um because again I don't know if where they're at with addressing those with CUD. Um so you know we can remove comments 12 and 17. Um I think with the rest of those comments are things we would work through with the um at the construction plan level but and we would recommend approval with those remaining comments.

Okay, we've heard from Kevin. You have any questions for Kevin concerning this?

Kevin, how far is that sewer extension from the olive branch over to this? I don't see any calculations. Um see if I can measure it. Okay. It goes across the road um to and the creek kind of goes across the property that and the sewer where the sewer is located. Yeah. Sheet 5.1 shows shows the plan.

That's the one 50 scale.

That's all gravity, right? It all Yes. It would all be gravity flow to to the olive branch man. Yep. like a system. No, just regular. It's about,80 ft roughly. Not very far. Okay.

From from where the manhole that they would tie into that they would what they would tie into from the manhole they tie into at the main to their property is about,80 ft. That goes right through the property though that right in the middle basically of the school property, right? That's correct. But again, they did the school board has approved that. So

again, we we've seen the they provided us the minutes where that happened. We haven't seen anything any actual in the recorded easement yet or anything, but Kevin, you mentioned the critical lots are and just kind of looking at the topo here. Are you I'm not seeing concerns and unless you're going to tell me differently as far as fire apparatus or or whatnot as far as access to. Yeah, it's more I think it's just the slope the some of the slopes of some of the lots are pretty have some steepness to them. So, we're primarily concerned with

the the great certainly the driveway grades um for people to get in into and out of their homes, but also the that they're the drainage and everything around it that would would work. Um there's not any sink holes or flood plane or anything of those type of critical lots. It's really just more the gravess concerns. Yeah. Okay. And that's something again individual plans are submitted for each lot for engineering to look to review and look at to be sure they're meeting the max slope on the driveways and all those kind of things which we would address at u at the building permit stage. Right.

This property is currently zoned R3. So they're not asking for reszoning. Right. This is correct. Stays within the exact consistent zone. No PRD. No PRD. It's consist. We had seen the sketch plat a month or two ago and this is the layout and everything's consistent with what we looked at at the sketch plat. And with that we've got a a 10,000 foot minimum lot with R3. Correct. Okay. Anything else from the commission on this?

Not hearing anything. So, um, I'll ask for a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. So, I have a second motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of this motion uh subject to staff comments, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

This motion is approved. Uh next under preliminary plat Greystone phase 3D Cuba Road owner developer Meritage Homes of Tennessee Inc. Yeah, this is the next phase of Greystone, which is the PRD there on off of Rocky Fork Road west of the interstate. This phase is 15.63 acres, 57 lots. Um, again, several standard comments, one through 1 through 7, uh, are all standard comments and would would all just need to remain. Um, we did have one comment from our utilities department. um that regarding there's a lift station in Woodmont and there might be a possibility that with extension of the sewer main near the end of this the one of the culde-sacs in this part of the development here um that there might be a possibility that we could remove that lift station and so I think there was going to be some discussion between the utilities department and the engineer about that possibility I don't know if that's occurred or not so that common aid is really kind of one that we've it's not something they could really address. We something we would address with them. Um it would be something we would look at. Uh a little bit of sewer man might could eliminate a lift station. So that would be a positive thing for our sewer system. So um we we that may not be the case, but it might be the case. So we just wanted to approach that with them. So that may mean that within the construction plan review prior to the process, the final plat may show a sewer easement. There's not one now, but other than that, it would be any any major changes. So with those remaining comments, um, we would recommend approval. It's consistent with the the the PRD approval of Greystone. So

this does meet all rules and regulations that were in effect were in effect when it was approved. Yes.

Other questions from uh the commission? Do I have a motion? Move to approve the staff comments. A motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve with staff comments. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I

opposed. This motion is approved. Uh we are now moving on to final plats. The first is Gwen Farm, section 4, phase 2, Robert Gwyn Drive, owner developer, Milrose Properties, Tennessee LLC. This is the final PL for Gwen Farm section 4 phase 2. It's uh in within the Gwen Farms PRD. It's 23.54 acres. It's 87 lots proposed. Um couple standard comments kind of one and really one through three uh retain some retaining walls in this phase that we would be just a reminder that those do require permits if they're over 4T tall and minimum fireflow requirement. Also, um we comment number six was just um there there was a concern I think on some of the lots that I came for utilities or public works about some structures in the range or utility easements. They just wanted to be sure that that was comment was added there. Um there's still some easements on lots 326 to 329 and maybe just some additional dimensions need to be added just so that they can be u with a surveyor can easily kind of find them in the field if they needed to. um with regards to structures being built and that sort of thing. So, we want to keep comment seven. Um we' asked them to show all the critical lots per the approved preliminary plat. Um I think they they've shown the asterisk as we they're supposed to do, but they didn't there's nothing there's no note denoting what that means. So, they need to add that piece of it. Um uh number number 10 or sorry number nine has been addressed regarding the the common parcels being shown as an easement. Uh number 10 has been addressed. Uh we can remove it. Uh again com number 11 I think they've addressed but they just need to had some some the

the legend on those what those mean need to be re revised. So we want to keep that note. comment sorry comment 11 uh comment 12 has been addressed regarding the hydrant being shown that's been done uh number 13 um there's a pretty large 60t wide drainage easement um and in looking at the plans it seems like it's a lot wider than it needs to be uh and it would really limit the backyards from all those lots as far as for use by anybody they couldn't build anything in their backyard at all so we'd ask them to at that I think and as and I think comment 14 as well there there there's some additional work that needs to be looked at on some of those easements um regarding what's going to be public and what's going to be private and and things like that. So, we want to keep those as well. But comments uh 9, 10, and 12 can all be removed. And with those remaining comments, we would recommend approval.

Kevin, is this uh consistent with what was saw in preliminary? Yes, it's consistent with the preliminary and and the PRD approvals. Questions from the commission comment. Excuse me. Sure. Phase five, has that been discussed? that's going to be connecting on to Lee.

Um I know I don't know if we've I don't know if we've seen that plat yet or not. I can't recall. Um I know it's been from the PRD has been we've seen that part of it. As far as the the actual construction plans or plat, I don't know that we've seen that yet. We may have. That's I don't recall it, but I can't keep them all straight, but yeah. So, I guess what I'm getting at is Robert Gwen and Misty Leaf Drive, they're going to stop here. Nothing's going to come out on this side to Lee.

Is that um I think the ether Misty Lee. I think there is going to be I think it's the uh the one that's shown is kind of dead end is a culdeac there. Um Harris

Harvest. No. Um like Holt Harris Way. Uh Mr. Harris is actually who phase five is going to be. He actually was the owner of that property and so that they that name is really kind of in his memory. Um it will it will come out to to Lee Road. I don't recall if it had more than one access to Lee Road or not. Misty Leaf I can't remember if Pisty Leaf comes out to Lee or just comes around and ties into whole Harris. So I was getting at is for currently all of this traffic and and this whole development is going to come out on the Rock Springs. Correct.

Everything's going to come back out on Lee. Yeah. At this point, yes. But eventually, yeah, there will be there will be access to Lee Road. I don't know what the timing is, but there will be at some point access to Lee Road as well. Other questions or comments? And you said, of course, they with the staff comments that are on here, they wouldn't be able to begin any construction at all until all of that comes through and goes through full approval. Is that correct?

Right. Right. Yeah. They'll have to submit revised drawings to us before they can move forward with construction plans and then the of course final play at some point. But you did say that this was consistent with what was originally submitted. Yes. Okay. Okay. Other questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments. Have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? One second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion with staff comments, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. This plaid is approved. We are now on to our second uh final plat which is buyer subdivision lot 5, Redbird Farm Lane. Owner developer Philip and Susan Byer.

Yeah, this is a plat and it's in the R2 zone. as it's one lot 67 acre. Um the um couple two or three standard comments there and this is a a somewhat unique situation. Um Mr. Byer has has he owns several acres there on Sam Davis Road, Malton Avenue, Elk Avenue. Um and um he has over the last few years he's he's created uh one lot with a private off the private drive for for one family member and then he came back and created a second lot off the private drive. Um and and that was approved by planning commission and then then he um now he wants to create a third lot. Um, and originally he was going to dedicate that as a public street. Um, it was built um, but it wasn't inspected. So, we have no way of knowing whether or not it meets town regulations or not as far as he said he built it to meet town requirements, but there was no town inspections of that. Um and the also the fire department had worked with him on his fire department turnaround on the private street there as you can kind of see put you know the hammerhead in and when he came in and decided he wants to build a public street and build a third house. um that was necessitated from the fire department standpoint and necessitated um felt like that that it would need to be built as a a true public street with a culde-sac on the end of it which would mean a complete rebuild for his road. So he has dropped the idea of building dedicating it as a public street and has

asked for approval of a third lot off of a private road. Our subdivision regulations limit that to one lot unless you're within a putt. Um so he's obviously he's not in a putt, he's in an R2 zone. So um to have it was approved to have the second lot already. He's asking for a third. Um so essentially comments four and five would be removed. Um because he's not wanting to do that as a public street now. is just asking for approval to have a third lot. Uh it is a public road. What was built originally within the joining development um is public, but at that point from that point forward where those new lots are, it's all just a private drive. So So that's that's what's in front of you tonight. So a little bit unusual, certainly very unusual to have This is the first time I'm aware of anyway we've had this this type of request. So with this number of lots off of a private easement like this not in a pud. We've had one or two puds like that but where you have multiple users and the maintenance of that roadway is going to be spread amongst several people and that sort of thing. The way this is set up, um, one of the lot owners is responsible to maintain the road. That's how they set set it up origin. So, it's all pretty much all family members at this point. Obviously, it won't always necessarily be family members. It could could not always be family members. So we wanted to set up is who what so it's the owner um of one of these three lots which is the the first lot that was created is who would be responsible for the

long-term maintenance of that private roadway. So how is that enforceable? Is it something that's attached to one of the deeds? I mean, you know, normally you might see something on an on an HOA or something like that as far as, you know, the upkeep of a public or a private roadway within an HOA development. But, right, it's recorded in the deed. So, it is recorded.

It would be recorded in the deed. Yeah. So, it would be passed if that property sells, it would be passed to the new owner um within their deed. And then how how is it um I don't want to say enforce but uh I guess inspect it would be another word would something along the lines that I'm thinking as far as what mechanism is in place to ensure that the road is in good repair. Is it something that the town would visit and for an inspection or I mean is it just up to the individuals on the street there or

you know I mean that's the main concern is if it's not maintained and there's an issue that the emergency services are needed and a fire truck can't get to it because it's not maintained correctly or there it's blocked because there's it's not it's not a public street so there they got cars parked all over it or that sort of thing. Um that would that would be the concern. Now it may never be a concern but that's the the concern we have to think about. So is it the one new dwelling that would be responsible in the deed recording or are they going to share it?

It it would be the the parcel that's I think that's Barton Dyer is shown as the owner. Just one just that one. So that's that too can present a problem when you don't have three or four property owners that are using that road share in the cost and expense because if one person doesn't want to do it, you've got two or three others over there that are going, "What about our what about our ingress and egress?" You're supposed to be taking care of that, right? It can create a big problem. It could. You mentioned the fire department uh worked, I believe, with Mr. Byer to do the the hammerhead. Uh, is that correct?

What they were fine with what he was doing because they were treating it as a private street as almost like a private within any like type of private developments like you have maybe in a town home development or something like that. They've done those and they'll have um but if it was going to be a public street that that's really not a public street design, you know, that's right because it would be a c a culdeac. Typically be a culde-sac, right? But a hammerhead is acceptable on a private drive and and again I guess what I'm getting at fire department. Did they go look at it and say, "Okay, we're good with this." Or was it something where they just looked at the plans?

Well, I don't know if they've been out there or not. I haven't spoken, but I know that they were fine with it on the plans. There's nothing out there yet. Okay. So, the hammerhead has not been built. Is that what we're saying? According to the street view, do you know, Kevin? I I believe it's been built. Um, so again, I don't know how much town because again, it wasn't a public street. Sorry, like our street department inspectors were not out wouldn't have gone out there and inspected or anything like that. But I mean certainly there's some public utilities that were extended and and utilities department certainly inspected those. Um hydrant was added things of that nature. I mean, but um

yeah, the hydrant has is in good proximity to the Yeah. So, that's not an issue at all. The actual lot or lot and residence again I we've already have a situation where we have two lots. So in some case, okay, if you if there was a sharing of the cost to maintain the road amongst three, that's better than two, but that's not how they got it set up. So right, um, Kevin, are these the same owners that a few years ago wanted some sort of event center in there? That that was correct. And that got denied as I recall,

right? Yeah. And they did they developed a couple of lots as well off of Elk Avenue which they had frontage on Elk Avenue and that was not an issue whatsoever. It was really just this these back lots there where we had the the issues a little bit. Any other questions, comments?

I guess my only comment is that the issue is already created. We're not making it different or worse by approving another lot. You already have one lot responsible for road that goes all the way back to his lot. So, I'm not sure there's we're not we're not really adding more danger or more issues at this point except for another lot. Is there an ability to add another lot on this private drive?

I mean, you've got some potentially on the as you're looking at the plat the left side of the road. There might be a potential for one there. And I guess if they wanted to extend this private road at some point, I mean, at some point it has to be a public street, you know, uh, to me. But I don't think that's their plans right now. But this lot wasn't part of their plans when the second one came in. So I don't know. But the previous approval, he was in agreement to do the road, right? The public road.

I I know we've talked about it about the potential for making it a public street. He he didn't want to build the public street because of the additional cost of dealing a public street. So that's why he didn't. but he also liked the idea of not having to worry about maintenance. So, he's kind of coming back and now talking about having a public street. Now, he's kind of backed off of that because he didn't want to have to rebuild it as a culde-sac. So, which I understand, but it just feels like it's a cost thing here, you know, to me kind of what it feels like. I'm looking for a way to put the least amount of cost on me and not do what I had planned to do with the previous block approval. Okay, other questions or comments? Okay. Is there a motion? I'm going to make a motion to deny this approval or this request based on private road versus public road concerns.

Okay. I have a motion to deny. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of denying this request, please signal uh signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Opposed. Okay. All right. This motion fails or is approved. We're going to approve.

The uh request is denied. Okay. We are now on to site plans. Browley Downs Amenity Center uh 1998 Timothy Lane. Owner developer Dreamfinder Homes.

This is a amenity center for the Brley Downs substitution. This is going to be located within section one phase one of the development. This amenity area would include a walking path, playground, dog park, pool, and an amenity building with bathrooms, and additional mail kiosks. Access would be provided off of Timothy Lane, and the building would be just under 1500 ft in size. Uh plans were a little bit revised since the uh staff report was written, so there's going to be some couple changes in here. The square footage of vehicular use area on site is 5,483 ft which would require 548 square ft of landscaping. Applicant is showing for 2,766 ft. Parking proposed of 21 spaces and that does require one handicap space and they're showing for two. Landscape plan was namely the one that was changed as a result of the recent middle here. The plan shows maple trees used as street trees fronting Timothy Lane with a variety of shrubbery between those trees. Throughout the site uh and surrounding parking lot, amenity building and pool are a variety of shrubs. Uh previously the last plan showed trees buffering the northern and southern property lines where the uh single family lots are being shown but they have been removed with this iteration. Architectural character. The elevations show the amenity building to have a base layer on all sides of the building to be finished with brick. Remainder of the building is to be finished with fiber cement board siding with cedar shutters incorporated and to part of the architectural variation. The elevations are consistent with the materials to be used on other homes within this development. Standard comments one through seven all are made at this time. Com number one, the access to this site is not actually

created via public road at this time. Um based on parcel lines in the image that you have uh the public rightway actually stops before the entrance to this site. So we will need the public access to be created to serve this development and they have noted that this would be recorded as part of section one phase 3. So at this point it's more of a standard comment than anything else but it is to be uh done before permits are issued. Common number two, we asked them to uh incorporate some additional landscaping that they were showing on the on the landscape plan into their site data table and they have done so accordingly. So comment number two can be removed. Number three, we asked them to show a cross-section of the proposed parking lot paving. They have shown details but that will be something that the public works department will review at a later time but at this point that comment will remain. Uh number four, we asked them to remove the storm structures from the pool area as the pool water must be treated before going into the storm water system. The way the plans are laid out, it appeared as though there's going to be a pipe that starts near the pool and then drains out into the overall drainage area on the site. Um they have noted that it looks like that, but there won't be any drainage from the pool going into that structure. Um I'd like to leave that comment at this time. just let public works department review that make sure that is accurate before removing the comment. So uh would like to leave comment number four as well and this site is within CUD service area. So comments number five, 6, 7, and 8 are all CUD. Staff did have an extra comment as part of this due to what I mentioned earlier with the removal of landscaping. If feasible, staff would recommend that the applicant install landscaping along the northern property line adjacent to what is lot 170. Uh there does appear to be a drainage flow in this area, so it may not be possible to plant landscape in this area. Staff would also recommend landscaping be installed on the southern

property line adjacent to lot 132 to provide a buffer from the amenity area to those residential lots. So in summary with that one to on the northern side near the pool area, if they're able to do it, great. If not, not a big deal. It's going to be something up for public works to make that determination on. And then on the south side, we would like to see that uh landscaping shown again as it was on the previous iteration to create a buffer between those that residential lot and the amenity area. With that staff would recommend approval of those comments. Questions for Mitch or any comments? So Mitch, along 170 the drawing looks like there's a a hatch line.

Yeah, that's be a retaining wall. It's about 2 feet in height. Okay. So you're it's 170 is higher than the pool area. Is that so about a couple feet? Yeah. So to put landscaping there, it would have to go up on 170, right? Well, not necessarily. It would have to since the retaining wall looks like it's on the property line, it would have to come on the opposite side of it. on the drainage plans, it shows contours that would in infer that there's going to be drainage going right through that area. So, typically storm water does not want landscaping within their areas of drainage. Got Okay.

And then the last thing is uh initially I was not counting 21 sites or parking spots. I see the four that are actually on Timothy Lane. Correct. I'm assuming that those would still be standard, you know, 9 foot wide or whatever. A little bit longer just to meet parallel. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Other questions or comments? Chairman, I'm not going to discuss this one because I've got a little history with that. Okay. Product. So noted. Other questions, comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments.

Have a motion to approve with staff comments. Steve, do I have a second? I'll second. Second from Scott. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion for the site plan, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed and one abstension. Approved. We are now on to our next site plan which is Giant Garages Flex Space Lot 2 111 Threat Industrial Road. Owner developer S. Wayne Waldron. This is a building that would be on three industrial. The existing addresses are 107 and 109 and 111 Industrial. There's currently two buildings on this property with the proposal as part of the site plan to construct a third building. It would be a 5,850 ft building and divided into two separate spaces with a mixture of warehouse and office space. There's an existing access point off of three industrial which would remain as the only access point to this property. Vehicular use area 2500 ft² which would require 200 square ft of landscaping and they're showing for 500. Park required of six spaces are showing for eight and that does require one handicap parking space which is being shown. The landscape plan shows evergreen shrubbery planted at the base of the rear of the building and along the southeastern property line following the limits of construction. Two trees are shown within landscape islands placed in front of the building. Architecture elevations show the building to be finished with variations of brick on all four sides. The front elevation, which faces southwest, show aluminum accents around the entry doorways. Uh both side elevations, which are the northwest and the southeast sides show 14T overhead doors to provide access into the rear of these buildings. The building does meet design review as submitted. Standard comments one through seven all remain. Uh staff count was a standard comment more anything elseformational. Well, if work on motorized vehicles is proposed, uh, minimum 1500 gallon oil water separator is required. Applicant did note that that is not an intended use at this

time, but staff would like to leave that comment. Number two, the there's a head wall shown on the plans draining into the drainage area which is parallel to three industrial. There are some contour grades on the slope of 524 and the head wall showed 523.86 located on grade higher than that. So, uh, the elevations didn't necessarily match up. This might be something of a misinterpretation the way the plans are being read on this as the applicant state that they've added some additional spot measurements to note that it is acceptable. So, might not be that big of a deal, but it's something that we want to leave just to let once again public works and is involving drainage just to verify that, make sure everything's good on their end. Uh, so we'll leave that comment. Number three is from our fire department. The auto turn is not accepted as submitted and but the fire department did note that the truck cannot be driven through parking spots. I believe there might have been some curbing that was uh being traversed over whether it be with the tires or overhang and that's something that fire department will not allow. So comment number three will remain as well and number four we asked them to provide the material percentages for all wall faces and the building as a whole which they have done so. So comment number four can be removed. Uh with all the standard comments and staff comments one, two, three, we would recommend approval. So we have a fully enclosed uh storage

correct facility. That meets design already. That meets design already. Thank you. Okay. Anything from the commission uh for Mitch staff hearing? None. I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve with staff comments. A motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those uh in favor of approving this motion with staff comments, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed site plan and motion is approved. We're now on to Kroger Shops, Bulldog Drive. Owner developer Seckk Simrna LLC. This is a site plan uh that was reviewed here recently um for the there's an out building for some extra shops within the uh Kroger parking lot area. The previously reviewed site plan for Kroger which was reviewed back last year in April. Um this proposed building is 10,000 square feet in size with the with six potential tenants. Uh as I mentioned this site plan was previously approved back in January of this year. Um, the applicant is bringing back the site plan with a request to modify the conditions of approval. Everything on the plans are basically staying the same from the last time it was looked at and reviewed back in January. The uh I have a one change here as part of the landscape within the staff report. Made mention that the landscape plan was not submitted. uh landscape plan was resmitted with this iteration of the plans and it does meet design review based on what was previously approved as well as a additional landscaping being shown around the dumpster enclosure area. Uh architectural character stayed the same. The uh standard comments one through five all stayed the same. Staff comment one from our fire department regarding the FDC location that has been addressed can be removed. Uh number two, the landscape plan to be revised and resubmitted and that was done so accordingly. So that can be removed as well. Go number three, the backflow pre must by the road. We're going to leave that comment here. Number four was the reason that this is being brought back. The site plan was previously approved in January of 2026 with the requirement that the dumpsters and dumpster enclosures be relocated north of the roadway and closer to the building. This plan shows the dumpsters

remaining south of the roadway but moved further away from the intersection. U if you can showing your with your cursor over on the map. So um the dumpsters were previously located up on the corner of There we go. So,

last month or last time we looked at this back in January, it was the dumpster locations were closer up to the intersection.

Yep. They have been shifted down slightly to, you know, location right around there. The applicant did add crosswalks uh crossing from the front of the building over to the that dumpster location. Um really was a safety concern from staff that the dumpsters be relocated. We didn't want employees walking across this drive aisle, if you will. That in theory after it's fully built will be probably pretty decently busy area of traffic. So trying to minimize any areas that you could have some pedestrian vehicle conflict areas. So as a result since it is not relocated the opposite side closer behind the building um that is why it is being brought back here to you tonight uh for review again. Staff recommends approval if the commission does find that the location of the proposed dumpsters that is in front of you tonight is acceptable. Ideally, the dumpster enclosures and dumpsters are relocated behind the building to a location with less pedestrian vehicle conflict points with lower traffic in the area. So, that is what we have.

There's lot six come up yet. So, we don't know where the front of that building is going to be then where these could be in the front of the building. Six should face Bulldog. I think it's I think they would face Bulldog, but we really don't know. we know what's going to be there because we don't know at this point. Last five or six, neither one but have have submitted yet. Maybe they know.

Yeah. The only thing that has been submitted thus far is the highlighted block which is the request in front of you, Kroger. And then down near the intersection, Lee Victory and Bulldog, you have the McDonald's, the next track over to the um the it's going to be the east if you will. That's going to be the fifth bank. And then next to that is going to be the fuel center for Kroger. So, at this time though, that's all we have. So this is a uh spec building, correct?

Correct. So is it configured in such a way uh that there could be a restaurant included within here? I believe that's going to be situated ideally on the east side of this building. They have an outdoor seating area. That's what that looks like. Yeah. Yeah. Restaurant towards the outdoor seating there. Yeah.

Are they right at the limit with parking spaces? No. Mix house. Yeah. Not an issue at all. Is it is it a shared parking with the Kroger parking that's all calculated in there? It's not even close. There's they got a good number over what's Okay. Yeah. Typically, you know, the the shops are attached to the building, the main building, and this one, they're not

because the way the they situated, the probably the property is situated, whatever. It's um the the shops that typically go in a shopping center are detached in a separate building and so they put it here. So the area behind the east end I guess which would be east of this building I guess is some type of drive aisle as well maybe not as pronounced as on the west. Yeah I'm talking Yeah. There. Yeah. There's it looks like it it's not a drive-thru but it but it's a some sort of drive aisle. Yeah. Yeah. Drive aisle.

Yeah. There's a drive aisle behind the building. Two a two-way drive aisle behind the building. And then you have the drive to the west side. And then you have parking with the drive aisle next to the parking on the south and east side. In essence, it's surrounded by drive aisles. Some may be more busy than others. Is there any reason why they couldn't lose on that corner the east that little out and then one of the parking stalls.

They were mentioning it was due to the proximity to the restaurant and having dumpsters nearby. They didn't want to have the dumpsters next to the outdoor seating basically. Yeah, probably smart on their part. I get that. I think that's probably a good idea. Will it just not fit behind the building at all? So the reasoning for that what they noted here

the uh enclosure is if it's oriented at a 45 degree angle from the road which would require a 20ft depth from the face of curb the island strip that is behind the building is about 14 ft in width and there's also utilities back in that area so that was so it would block the truck to get in there to get it. Okay.

Yeah. You would almost have to go to a single lane drive a back if you did that. So staff recommended approval if if the planning commission is in agreement with the location of the dumpster. We see the justification for it. It is shifted. They did bring it away from that intersection. Try to create more visibility for it. Um anything?

Yeah. And I think it's probably probably what happened and and this may sound harsher than I'm meaning it to sound, but I think they planned for the Kroger and they didn't necessarily plan for the shops when with regards to the dumpster locations. I think this is what we're dealing with now is trying to figure out what to do beside the crosswalk. Is there signage there or could there be signage there? There would have Yeah, we would there would we would want to have certainly pedestrian crossing type signage and that's a couple of things would need to be there. Yeah,

it's all fully enclosed and it meets our design review as well. Right. So, got the metal gates on it. Typically, they're used what? at night time. Yeah. I mean too, our main concern wasn't nec the the emptying. It's the the employees having to cross a busy road. It's not a road, but it's a driveway drive aisle to back and forth every time, especially from the restaurants. It's going to be on the opposite end. We have to walk all the way across. Um that was just main at night or whatever just having a a concern there. But

and there's no I know there's not a simplistic answer to relocate the restaurant to the other end. I mean, I mean, I think we've talked about that a little bit, but I don't I think that's certainly that would be an option, I guess. But then I I don't know. It would make sense. And I mean, I I guess here's what the sweet sizes are roughly the same. So,

yeah. And I guess this is what I'm kind of weighing out. A lot of fast food restaurants, they will have the dumpster enclosure behind the building, but oftent times you've got two lanes of drive-thru and a lane of drive around to traverse. So, is this un uh not similar or unlike this uh or is this one a little more hazardous in your opinion or

I think it's a little bit more because this is going to be potentially traffic to not just the fast food price, it's the you get several lots plus Kroger that would potentially have traffic going through that area. It would be going both directions, right? instead of a one way typically. Do you do we know what's planned for lot six currently? No. No. You could probably guess. Mhm.

I mean it's probably I mean just typically on something like that it might be the last one to get built on just because it's the furthest away from the lead victory visibility and that sort of thing. Um, but you know, I I haven't talked with anyone on that.

Is the dumpster uh enclosure so oriented that it could be shared by lot six where it's located? It's It's on that property. Yeah. I mean, possibly. I mean, that could get interesting as far as I mean, maybe when lot six develops, there's some sort of things make change, get redeveloped or whatever, but I mean, I mean, that's probably between the the landlord and the tenants and whatever probably on that. But is there a representative here? Why don't you come up and give us your name and address, please?

Yes. Hi, my name is Eli Shelton. I'm with GMC. We're the engineers on this project. Um, so to rapid fire answer a couple of those. Um, yes, the dumpsters are um on lot six and it is already a part of the um lot six lease agreement. one that those can be there and that, you know, um the remainder of lot six can develop around it and ideally would um make use of that dumpster enclosure orientation for their own dumpsters. Um and and like you pointed out, the the front of whatever develops on lot six would very ideally be oriented towards Bulldog. Um so you're not going to have two um businesses facing the uh dumpster enclosure there. Um and we have um investigated like you talked about sort of mirroring the shops um you know putting the restaurant on the other side and you really just wind up in the the exact same problem of um it's it's for one not wanting the dumpsters to be close to the outdoor seating area, but it's also the um the utilities that are also located in that area. both the transformer and the um uh fire line backflow pre those both have you know certain offsets from um the roadway and just clear areas around them so you you just wind up right in the same situation

I'm just wondering for anybody who comes to lot six in the future they're going to park in the parking lot in the back so they're going to walk right past these dumpsters well lot six would it would um be developed similar to the the fifth third or the bank or it would have its own internal um parking lot and parking spaces. So, it would be a self-sufficient um out parcel. And I think Kevin and I think Kevin kind of helped me to understand that normally you see a Kroger development, this section here would probably be on one side or the other of the Kroger.

And the way that this lot is oriented, it's not possible. So that's your um that's your retail, restaurant, um auxiliary, supplementary, whatever. Yes. Within lot six, you're going to have additional parking places. Yes. And the structure which that can be laid out to go around. I would anticipate just based on our regs and ordinances that lot six from a parking perspective would have to support all the traffic that is there to do business on lot six your requirements would have to meet that business's yeah parking requirement

and I I'll also add not that it's necessarily a concern but um lot six will also have to have um you know surrounding landscaping that would sort of break it up, shield and break it up. But you can see our concern that we don't want to have, you know, a young person walking over,

of course. Yeah. And and like I said, and and so one of the I know one of the questions was about um additional signage. We we that's on the plans currently. Um the the crossing will be striped. Um there will be protective ballards on the the shops side. Um, so, uh, to be honest, it it will be safer than a a standard pedestrian crosswalk, um, just on your typical street. Um, and it will be used very infrequently. You know, it it will just the only reason to cross there is to go to the dumpsters. So, you know, it will not be a a busy um sufficient lighting there.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Um the Kroger already meets lighting and then obviously you'll get some additional lighting once lot six develops. Yeah. You mentioned that it was already written into the leasing agreement for lot six that the um refuse would be at the back of it and that they would be able to use it too. Um, is it written into the agreement already too that they would need to orient themselves to be facing bulldog? That part, I'm not sure. But, um, I can't see any situation in which they wouldn't do that anyway. Um, just based on, you know, visibility from the road.

Itself is a not going to be something they're going to want to face. No, definitely. Anything else? Yeah, they put the parking lot towards lot five and then the entrances would be this would be on the side as far as the dumpsters go. You could actually incorporate those because it is and the building would be up towards the top of the lot. It's just the inconvenience of walking across the road is going to be the bad part.

No matter. Yeah. Really, no matter where you put it on suit, it's going to be the same problem. This just gives you some distance from the uh corner. Yeah. I'm not sure that's that actually has a name other than it's a drive aisle. That's just a drive aisle. Yeah. It's kind of the main drive aisle really. The you're going to get deliveries to the back or Kroger, whatever. We're going to come out this drive aisle or the drive to the south, one of the two, that sort of thing. So, so to the north. Anyway, this drive aisle will be primarily just be traffic crossing the parking lot going to whatever businesses are there.

Anything else? Thank you, sir. Thank you, gentlemen. and Adam. Okay. Are there any other questions for staff on this or any other discussion um on the commission?

If not, I will entertain a motion. Uh motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion from Steve to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. It's a motion and a second. Okay. Is there any further discussion at this point? All right. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

I oppose. This motion is approved. Okay, we are now on to Stone Trace Commons, corner of Genie Lane and Old Nashville Highway. Owner, developer, Waldron Investor Family Limit Partnership. Yep. This is a currently vacant lot um located near the intersection of Genie and Old Nashville Highway. The they're proposing to develop the north track at that intersection. Uh included with the development would be four commercial use buildings. Um it previously was four, now is three. Um three of them are multi-tenant buildings on the previous plans. I'll preface this. There's a lot of changes in the staff report. So uh when the plans went out or the uh staff report went out with the packet last week, uh we had four buildings on this site. uh the building that is currently uh kind of grayed out in the lower left corner that was part of this plan. So there's some notes in the staff report that refer to that site as being building D. Um just know going forward that that is not part of this anymore. We're just looking at the three buildings, building A, B, and C. And basically every think about that building D area as a separate tract as well. Um I believe it is with the intention that that is going to be subdivided off at a future point, but at this time right now we're just looking at the center part of this overall parcel with those drive aisles and uh those three buildings here. So I'll preface that here. All three of the buildings would have a drive-thru as part of it on the ends. The access points are shown onto Old Nashville Highway aligning across the street from the entrance to Lowe's and two locations on Genie Lane. The first entrance on Genie Lane is shown halfway

between the access points to Racetrack and Raising Canes with the second access across from Chicken Sound Chick. There is an approximately 1.18 acre remaining parcel or site on the uh opposite side of the uh TVA easement that would be reserved for future development. Square footage of the acre use area is 2.02 02 acres which does require 8,816 square feet of landscaping. Applicant is showing for 15,643 square ft meeting our requirements. Park required of 121 spaces and they are showing for 175. That does require six handicap parking spaces which are being shown. The landscape plan shows variety of street trees planted along Old Nashville Highway and Genie Lane with shrubbery shown along majority of the rideway boundaries. Trees are shown within the site in landscape islands throughout the parking lot with shrubs at the base of the buildings. Additional land landscaping is shown in the future development area uh on along on the opposite side of the TVA easement uh as well as streetscaping and shrubbery. Architectural elevations show buildings A, B, and C utilizing two variations of brick color to be used as the primary material on both the sides and rear elevations. The front elevations have a mixture of both brick uh both brick glass glazing and fiber cement board siding. Maximum amount of secondary material for the front elevations of these three buildings would be 19.2%. Uh the next chunk in here in the staff report refers to building D. Um skipping through that as submitted though buildings A, B and C do meet design review standard comments uh one through eight all remain and we do we do have a slew of staff comments here to go through for

this staff coming one. We asked them to ensure ADA compliance by showing additional spot shots and providing accessible pathways from the sidewalks on Old Nashville Highway and Genie Lane. uh to provide entrance to the front of the buildings. At this time, they're showing access access to buildings B and C. Building A is still not being shown as part of this, so we do need them to provide access uh from the sidewalk up to building A. Uh we would also like to enhance cross connectivity throughout the site as well. the way it's being shown, you have one axis being uh shown from Old Nashville Highway up to building B and then kind of dies there without any kind of cross access to either of the other adjacent buildings on the site. Uh so we'd like to uh promote that cross connectivity as mentioned throughout the property if possible. There was when we since we did get a chance to look at the potential for what the out parcel if you will on the south uh western portion of this plan is shown near the intersection of Genial Nashville. We would like to have some sort of access from the sidewalk to that site as well. Um so see if they can work that out with that tenant uh going forward and see if that's a possibility. But at the minimum providing that cross access across the site is our main priority with this comment. Uh count number two was talking to the fire department today. Quite honestly a major concern for them. There were areas in which the fire department noted based on the outturn submitted that the truck either a went over a curb or b part of the apparatus went over a curbing. Both of which is not allowed for the fire department. Uh both are concerns. So that is something that uh they deemed to be quite significant as needing to be changed before they felt comfortable with the way the site is laid out and designed. Um that does include the

future for building B D as well. Um so that will that's count number two. Number three regards uh building number D and so that can be removed since that is no longer part of this plan. Um we asked them to provide dumpster enclosures for all the dumpsters on site that has been addressed accordingly. So common fork can be removed. Number five, if a building is to be used for a food service uh to the public, then minimum 1500-gallon grease trap will be required and each food service building business will be required to have minimum 1500gallon grease trap. More soformational at this time, but uh we will leave that comment. Number six, they asked the to ensure landscaping around all the utility boxes meet the district requirements and the applicant has confirmed that they do. So count number six can remove. Number seven, we asked them to provide the overall building material percentages for building A, B, and C and that has been done. So count number seven can remove. Number eight, there was a different material labels. Uh we just wanted them to clarify what they were intending to use and the Hardy board siding is what was intended has been clarified. So we can remove com number eight. Number nine, we asked to what the material indicate on the south elevation of building C where the dumpsters were are located. They did indicate that it's going to be a brick material can be. So comment number nine can be removed. Uh number 10 was regarding building D since that is part of the future Smiddle. We can remove that comment. Uh count number 11 was regarding the driveway that is closest to the intersection of Genie Lane and Old Nashville Highway. The plans that showed when the packets went out, there was a 13% grade leading up into the site which exceeds the 10% slope that is allowed by our ordinance. So we did ask them to revise that. It is now being shown 3 to 4%. So somehow

they've manipulated the grading to meet requirements now. So com number 11 has is being satisfied as part of that. So com number 11 can be removed. Number 12, there is a water easement shown on the utility plan which does not exist at this time and will need to be dedicated with a final plat in the future. Count number 12 remain uh for count number 13. Uh the remainder of the parcel on the east side of the TVA easement, we asked if it was going to be reserved for future development or what the idea for it was. uh it is going to be set aside for future development and they are now showing that on the site plan. So 13 can be removed. There were trees behind buildings B and C. We asked them to shift those away from the TVA easement just due to cleaning clip that Milens Electric would do or TVA would do on any kind of easements. We're going to be basically mopping those trees. We want to make sure those trees have maximum uh lifespan if possible. So they have shifted those away accordingly. We remove common 14. Our fifth 15. There were trees shown behind building C in close proximity to the building. We asked them to swap those out for shrubs and they have done so. Come 15 can be removed. 16. We asked them to relocate the trees within utility easements that were being shown within utility ements outside of the ements and all shrubs to maintain at least 5 foot clearance from the underground utilities. That was primarily along the roadways where those easements are located and they have done so accordingly. So count number 16 can be removed as well. Number 17, we asked that additional street trees be shown to meet design requirements and there were some difficulty with location of the utilities um in this area. Uh they have done their best to uh locate those trees around where those easements are located and they now have adequate number of street trees. So count number 17 17 can be removed as well. Number 18 is regarding building D. Uh since building B once again is not part of this, that

comment can be removed. Number 18, uh we asked them to show the sidewalk extending the entire length of the parcel along Genie Lane to connect to the sidewalk that is already existing. That chunk on the opposite side of the TVA easement. They were not showing the sidewalk connecting that area. So that would have left a small portion of the sidewalk unimproved. That would basically pre prevent the full connection from Genie Lane, the entire length. uh they are now showing that sidewalk connection accordingly. So we have full connectivity on the sidewalks. So count number 19 can be removed and uh number 20 was regarding the building D as well and so that comment could be removed. So just to go back over those, the only comments outstanding at this time are staff comments 1, 2, 5, and 12. Everything else has been addressed or removed as part of building D being taken off this plan. Due to the concerns from the fire department regarding the layout and maneuverability of the site with the fire apparatus, um it was fire department's request that this project be requested for deferral as part of them to make sure that they are fully satisfied with the layout of the site. And this is a trend just looking at it from a staff perspective after these projects are approved and we're we are looking at them prior to issuing building permits. Make sure our sites laid out accordingly where everything needs to be for finished before it gets built. Um a lot of these sites are getting to the point where we're maximizing the buildings on the property rather than taking in consideration landscaping locations, the drive locations, safety maneuver throughout the site. So, this might be one of those locations in in which uh buildings might need to shrink in size to make sure fire department's okay with the way that they're going throughout the site. Um, and potentially work around some of these other utilities for landscaping concerns. I know building D was a major

concern with a lot of these utility locations as well and make sure it met design review as well. So something going forward, something that we might want to make sure that um as part of this recommendation is just deferral to make sure that everyone is satisfied before we get to a point where it's being approved conditionally. So that is all that I have. Okay. Anything for Mitch? Mitch, did I hear you right? Where the quantity of parking spaces is much greater than what would be required by the town.

That is correct. Mitch, I didn't hear anything about um any kind of improvements on Old Nashville Highway. I I would assume that a left turn lane coming from Leverne would be required. There's a hatch there's hatch marks there now. The pavement already exists. It's not a median. It would just have to be striped, I think. But it seems like there should be a left turn lane to get cars out of that out of Old Nashville Highway traffic. I don't I don't think we had a traffic study. Um maybe we maybe we we don't know if we looked at whether it would be one required or not, but

looked at the we've seen this for a little bit now and Charles will still here. I asked him about the locations at least of the access points. Make sure he was at the access points. He acknowledged he was okay with that. So Charles is not here anymore. So um that is as far as we got with that portion at least. And there was a traffic study submitted over I guess it's 2019 maybe now for the overall development for the site. Yeah. Which showed the access coming on to Old Nashville in this exact location and what they're showing. So would we require an updated traffic study since it's seven years old?

It might not be a bad idea just for this overall development. This development as well as the obviously building D. I mean that's what is proposed there is a a quick service restaurant that has a lot of turnover and that sort of thing. Um well and probably 15,000 more citizens since and that whole intersection is getting ready to be Yeah. reworked. So

yeah, Sam Ridley and Old Nashville is under construction already, right? Yeah. And I know based on the RTP the NPO has adopted, I think Lever's looking at some Old Nashville highway improvements on their side. that doesn't really affect this, but certainly on moving forward, I think on the as you go out of town here, there's going to be some some improvements in the air area, too. But I was just when I was looking at it, I mean, I can see cars coming from Lever to turn into this this and just stopping right there in the drive aisle waiting to turn right in the drive lane. That's certainly something that can require require an updated traffic study.

I'd like to see it too, Steve. I think, you know, we're already dealing with that down there where the old Dollar Generals that that corridor too. I mean, so we've got a lot more traffic there now than we used to have. And so, let's not address it while we're here. Well, this one seems kind of easy, right? The pavement's there. It's just striping. Good boy. Okay. Anything else? So, did I hear right Mitch? Fire department recommending deferral.

Fire department asked spoke to them earlier say they asked that we recommend deferral on this at least. I think with all the things they've crossed off a lot of these, but there's still a lot of important unanswered questions. I don't think hurting it much waiting, deferring it to another meeting is a bad thing necessarily so we can get some of these things addressed, especially with the fire department concerns. So, I'll make a motion to defer until our next meeting. Okay. I have a motion to defer until our next meeting. Uh, do I have a second? I'll second it. Got a motion and second to defer. to the next meeting. Any further questions or comments?

So to clarify, the deferral is because of traffic study and fire.

Yeah. Uh fire department uh concerns as far as maneuverability around the buildings. Okay. Anything else? A motion and a second. All those in favor of this deferral, please signify by saying I. I. opposed. This motion is approved and this is deferred until the next meeting. Okay. Uh Kevin, uh we have a zoning ordinance amendment article 4 section 4.010.2B regarding parking requirements for elementary and middle schools.

Yeah, this is an amendment, zoning ordinance amendment. Uh I've been um discussing uh there's a potential for a charter school location. Uh one that we haven't seen or planning commission hasn't seen yet. Um and they they just had in meeting with them and discussing with them they they asked us if we could take a look asked me to take a look at um our parking requirements for schools specifically elementary schools. This is a K5 charter school that's that's looking to locate here in town. Um, and basically what they brought to my attention was that our requirements are considerably higher, excuse me, considerably higher uh than surrounding communities. Um, and they essentially did my research for me and provided information from all the surrounding communities. Um, and I did some additional research on my own. I didn't just depend on what they gave me. Um, and so based on that information, I did I would recommend consideration of changing some of our requirements. Uh, I listed all of the various requirements from the communities uh, surrounding us. I won't go through all those, but you can see what those were. Uh, some similarities to us, some quite a bit less than us, which I think is too much less than us. I don't think some communities I don't think probably have enough shown for parking requirements. Um but what I did then is kind of with a kind of in a theoretical um kind of set up a theoretical K5 school with some certain different parameters there and what would be required for parking. Smrna would be 128 spaces. Um, the other communities would range from anywhere from 23, which I think is quite a bit too is too few, but 23 spaces up to 79 spaces. So, we're

we're 50 spaces more than anyone else. Um, for a high school, uh, we're we're quite a bit higher than everyone else. However, uh, and again, that is some additional re research. Um, I looked at what Stewart's Creek Elementary, middle, and high school has on on site. Um, and really from an elementary parking standpoint, they pretty close to what the would be. It's a larger school obviously, but if you look at the ratios, it's pretty close to what we what the what we have have recommended here with the change. um as well with with the middle school. The high school at Smyrna at Swiss Creek rather um has almost 1,200 spaces. Um and so um I feel like basically our requirements for the high school parking might be a little bit high but I think it's in a pretty good place. I wouldn't recommend changing that. I do think the elementary middle school parking is high based on what has been built in our community. And because of that, um, I have, uh, recommended changing some requirements for K through eight schools, also with some cleanups that for some reason our parking, this is something that's bothered me ever since I've been here, and I just never cleaned it up. Um, we have a kindergarten parking requirement, a one grades 1 through seven parking requirement, and then an 8 through 12 parking requirement, which doesn't really make sense to me. So, um, basically clean it up to have a K8 requirement and and then a high school requirement of 9 through 12. Um, I did kind of go with, um, a basing, you know, on the number of classrooms and a certain number of spaces per classroom instead of per student or per employee just because there's so much fluctuation in the number of employees and students constantly. if we have we have a certain number of classrooms um plus some additional spaces a minimum

of 10 additional spaces just for visitor spaces. So, um that if I did with that scenario, um our numbers would be at about 70 spaces for that again that K5 theoretical room class or school, which is pretty close to what Brent, that's exactly what Brentwood would have required. Um 10 more than what Nashville would require, 18 more than what Murphy'sboro would require. So still more still similar or additional to what most of the communities around us would require but not twice what they require which is what some of these for some of the communities. So I think it's more in line so you don't have a bunch of parking that's not being utilized. Um and maybe you have more room for for some playground areas and things of that nature as well. um because that was their concern is that if they to meet our requirements, they would pretty much not have any room for the kids to play because it would be all parking. So, um on this particular site they were looking at. So, anyway, so that's I would recommend those changes um as in the kind of the back page or so of the the memorandum I prepared um to be considered. I and I also uh just I did speak with her well had an email conversation with Trey Lee at the school board got got some information from him and

he gave me what they kind of look at um and so kind of what they kind of go by just on the the elementary, middle and high schools that they build and and that sort of thing. And he said our principles will tell you they don't have enough. I think they do have enough for every day except the first day of school and Thanksgiving lunch day and all those kind of things. They football games

you know some of those things they get a little tight but the other 165 days of the school year they're fine. You know it's really just those and you said we can't build enough parking to accommodate it's like building a shopping area to accommodate good you know the Black Friday shopping you know you don't do that. you you build it to to be what every other day of the year, you know. So, um so anyway, that's that's what again we looked at that and I feel like it was a a good based on what they presented to me and my own research. I feel like it was a good u a good change to to recommend to you for consideration. So

do you feel confident when you're looking at the three spaces for classrooms that you I mean historically you think about you know a teacher but you do have teaching assistants you've got you know your janitorial maintenance staff your your cafeteria food services and admin. So is that part of the calculation that you're you know assuming maybe one teacher for the classroom and maybe an assistant uh or andor a percentage of a person that makes up the rest of the staff. Does that kind of get us where we need to be?

That's what I was basing that on. Yes. Is trying to park the employees certainly. Um, and so that's why I said per classroom instead of necessarily one per employee because again we we're going to have 40 employees and they end up with 50 or you know that that could it's so just having three per classroom that gets you a teacher and maybe a helper for that teacher and then that's depending on the number of classrooms 20 or 30 additional spaces for your janitorial staff, your administrative staff, cafeteria staff, those caf which I mean so could total what another five 10 well 10 maybe 12 something like that yeah it depends yeah depending on

depend on how big the school is or whatever certainly but obviously the bigger school you're going have more classrooms and have more spaces and then thus the parking spaces increase so and then and then just some additional visitor spaces you know again on the first day of school or whatever is you you may not have enough space you But that's just one of those days you just don't, you know, you have to overflow sometimes, but for the majority of every other day, you're going to be fine. So, okay. Thoughts from the commission.

I think some of the lower grade schools, you know, the read to succeed campaigns and all that, those are busy days. Those parking lots are slammed, but they're not an everyday occurrence. employee.

Yeah. Did you say that you were keeping the high school? Yeah. Pretty much the same. Yeah. No change to the high school other than changing its grades 9 through 12 instead of 8 through 12. Um but no change to the high school requirement. I think we're in good shape there. Just just curious, does does this apply to the schools the county builds or only to private or charter type? It would really only apply to private or charter schools because the county I mean they would apply to the county schools. Um you know I mean we saw that when the high school addition was built.

Yeah. Um, we told them we probably not going to have enough parking and they said, "Yeah, we know maybe not, but this is what we're going to still going to build their building and take up some of our parking lot." Yeah. And now they know they need more parking, but um it's it's one of those things because they're the county government, they can they and they're they're charged with building and providing a school system. So right. So they they typically bring their plans to us. We review them, but we don't have a lot of say so really to to make them. Yeah. I just wanted to make I just wanted to kind of make that point for a couple reasons obviously, right?

New schools like they're talking about on road may or may not apply to this. They may may or may not meet this requirement. Um but private schools that and charter schools that come to our area will. So from the commission, you're looking for either a positive or a not so positive recommendation. Recommendation to to the council. Okay. All right. Anything else from the commission? Make a motion that we recommend for approval. Okay. Have a motion to recommend uh from Steve. Do I have a second? I'll second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. This motion is approved. Kevin, thanks for your work on this. Sure. All right. Bond review report.

All right. Here. Um, got several tonight. Hopefully some of them we'll be able to to release or reduced to maintenance. First one, Gwen Farms, uh, phase one, section two. Um, they have completed the final paving there. So, we would recommend a reduction to 13,400, which would be 25% of the original bond uh and extend it one year as the maintenance bond. Uh Oak Meadows section two, um we just recommend a six-month extension. That's the same amount there. Quinn Farm section or phase one section one, again, it's we can reduce that one uh to 21,100 and extend one year as the maintenance bond. Uh there's two separate phases of point uh de and point and point section two which is the commercial development there on Sam Ridley. Um they have I did talk with with Mr. Waldron since since the packet went out. They're having some trouble finding a contractors to do the work they've said. So we'll try to work with them on that. We recommend an extension. It's this is the end of the maintenance period. So if they can't get that done just a three-month extension there. We'll we'll see if we can work with them on on that those two. They need see if they can find help find a contractor maybe or whatever. Um Oaks subdivision. Um this one is um they haven't begun. This is one we've had several years now. Uh these folks are now they're looking to abandon this idea of of extending this culde-sac and creating three additional lots. Um, so I did talk to u their daughter who's now working through this with me. Um, and so I would recommend a six-month extension to allow them to work through that to replant that property which would eliminate the need for the bond. So

um, the lateny section 3 phase 2 u would recommend is just a six-month extension on that one. That one's about 91% built out. They do need to they still need to they need to get finished but they need they still have the final topping and strapping and everything still to do there. So recommend a six-month extension on that one. Stone trace uh they did um since the package went out I did speak with them. Um they did ask for an extension. Um they're they're basically going to finish up these items and everything when they build lot six, which I think they're looking to bring that in fairly soon um to finish the sidewalk and complete the punch list then. So we would recommend um I said three. Let's we let's go to six on that just because I know it may be a little time before they bring that in. Um, Buckingham section one. This is an end of the maintenance period. Everything's done. We can release that one. Uh, Hunter's Point Annex section 3 phase one. Uh, this is end of the maintenance period. Did confirm today. One of these, I know one of these items has been completed. So, if the other one is done, we can we can release that one hopefully. Um, if not extend 3 months. Um, West over 2B. um is into the maintenance period. If everything everything is done by May 10th, we can release. Otherwise, 3 month extension. Patterson property, they did ask for an extension. Well, they're they're waiting. They sold those lots. They're waiting on the builder to kind of finish up the homes there. They're about 62% built out. Um so, would recommend a six-month extension on that one. uh Cedar Hill section three phase two and um section four phase one. Both of those are at the end of the maintenance period. So if they can just there's some minor cleanup things there. So hopefully I know talking with them they're going try to get everything done

so they can get released. So hopefully we can release both of those. West over 2A again another one. It's the end of the maintenance period. So hopefully we can release that. Otherwise three-month extension. uh Cedar Hills phase section 4 phase 2 we can reduce that one uh to 18,200 and begin the one-year maintenance period and then Blakey section one phase one um the back page not on there what is that one something we had a printing error on that one so I apologize I think that one is the end of the maintenance period though so again it's one of those you said release if unless complete by 513

yeah that's that's what I thought it because it was end of the maintenance period. Um, so would recommend extension 3 months unless everything is done by by 13. So that's the end of the report. Okay, we've heard the report. Are there any questions or comments concerning the bond review report? I have in my packet I have two more. Well, maybe the printing area vintage block one it's extend 6 months to complete the one year maintenance period. Right. And Oak Meadows section one is extend 6 months. Yes. Nothing's changed on that. So, we need to add those two.

Yeah, we printed them out. Missed the page. Thanks, Steve. Okay, now we've heard it all. Yeah. Are there any questions or comments concerning the bond review report? Not. I'll take a motion. Make a motion to approve the bond review. I have a motion to approve the bond review report. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the bond review report. Please signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. The bond review report is approved. Uh let's see. Staffer comments and other business.

Um uh one or two things. the our next joint meeting with our the council is on April 29th at 3 p.m. So we will certainly get a packet of information out to you a week or so ahead of time for that. So just want to remind everybody of that and down for the 30th. Is that 29th is the actual It may be the 30th. You're right. That's what I I'm sorry. It's the It's the Thursday. It's workshop day, right?

Yeah, it's workshop day. I apologize. Yeah, it is the 20 the 30th, not the 29th. I apologize. Yeah, that that is correct. Um, the other thing, our comp plan, steering committee, and open house is we're getting we're finalizing everything. It looks like we're probably going to have our first open house. It's going to be on the 21st, which will be two weeks from tonight at the event center. So, um, I certainly would invite everyone to come to our open house just to provide input on our update to the comp plan. Um, and then one last thing, uh, this is Mr. Peach's last meeting with the planning commission, and I just want to I'm not going to be able to be at his party on May 1st. I got to be out of town that day. So, I just want to publicly say how much I appreciate him and all the work he's done and all the help he's been for me and my department over several years now. Uh, he's been a good friend and a good good co-orker and a good job for the town. I just want to say how much I appreciate it.

I sure will miss you. Any last words? Well, at least I will be there at the He will be at He will be at the joint meeting, but the last time being at planning commission. I've decided that every meeting that we announce you're leaving, I'm going to call you a traitor. So, this is my first one to call you a traitor.

Well, thank you. And I I would mirror with Kevin. Uh, I was just sitting there thinking while ago of how nice it's been, you know, when you work with somebody that, you know, knows what they're doing. And so that gives me some comfort, too. If there's areas that I may not be familiar with, I usually know that Kevin knows what he's talking about. And so, uh, I do appreciate him and Mitch sometimes, but and obviously I I appreciate not only, uh, uh, the council a lot. has done a lot for me with planning commission of working with y'all and and everybody's just always been great to me. But I'll I'll still be around. I'm still living in Smyrna. So, you'll see me. So, we can come knock on your door.

That's right. Come knock on the door. Uh hopefully before dark. No, on behalf of the planning commission, Jeff, I I personally want to thank you. You've always been that uh rock that I can look towards as far as, you know, is this something we can do or we can't do? How does it fit in? What's uh you know what's the legal precedent? Are we we doing something that you know is outside the bounds? You've always offered that steady uh lawyerly guidance and it has been much appreciated by me not only as on my time uh with the planning commission but even you know prior to that with the council and just being able to pick up the phone and say hey what do you think about this? And I've learned four or five new big words,

too. You know, yes, that Jeff has taught me. He's gonna have to He's gonna have to like send those in. I'll have to string them together, use them in a sentence. All right. Anything else from the commission? Anything else from staff out there? Tom looked like he wanted to say something, but he's good. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. We stand.