Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. [music]

[music]

Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat.

[music]

Good evening. Welcome to the May 7th Smyrna Municipal Planning Commission meeting. And with it, I'll call the meeting to order. Uh tonight, Ken is going to lead us in the prayer and Charles in the pledge. So, if you'd stand. Dear heavenly father, thank you so much for this day and this beautiful weather that you've given us. Pray that this evening as we come about the town's business that you would uh bless the conversation, bless the interaction, and ask that you would guide us in the way that you want us to uh proceed for the town. Pray that you would uh protect everybody here in this room tonight on the way home. And ask these things in your precious name. Amen.

Amen. Please raise the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Thanks, Ken. Charles. Uh Kevin. Yes. Agenda items a public hearing.

Yeah. The first item is a public hearing for the plan of services for the annexation. It's on your agenda later on in in the meeting. This is for the property um located at 8200 Safari Drive. Smrna River of Life Assembly of God is the current property owner. Okay. And with that, I'll open the public uh hearing for anyone that would like to come forward uh to provide comments concerning this uh plan of service. So, is there anyone here? Seeing no one, we'll close at public hearing and we'll go back into our session uh with planning. And our next item is citizen comments. We don't have any tonight.

Okay. No citizen. Uh next, approval or correction of the minutes? So, councelor, have you looked at this? Are the meeting minutes in order? They appear to be in order. Yes. Okay. Is there do I have any comments or questions or uh changes that uh the commission would like to make? I was not at the last meeting. What is our protocol? Do I abstain? Uh technically under the rules uh have no proper thing to abstain. You can unless you know that it's incorrect. Uh it would be an eye vote. Okay. With that, do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve both meetings.

I have a motion to approve both meeting minutes. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All [snorts] those in favor of approving the April 7, 2026 and April 30th, 2026 quarterly joint meeting. Please signify by saying I. Opposed. The minutes are approved. Uh we're next [clears throat] on to old business. And the first is annexation zoning and plan of service request. Smyrna River Life Assembly of God 8200 Safari Drive annexation and I2 zoning request.

Yeah, this is the request that we looked at a couple months ago and staff asked some concerns at the time regarding the existing development on the property um and the fact that it was proposed that it would be leaving moved off of the property by uh June 1st. Um, and so it was deferred to to help with the timing of the annexation and that and that actually taking place. So I'll go go back over it again so refresh everyone's memory. Um, this property is is in our urban growth boundary, but it is outside our town limits. They have requested it to be annexed into the town limits with an I2 zoning. The current zoning in the county is institutional. Uh it's the surrounding zoning is C2 and I2 in town and RM in Rutherford County. Um the land use plan for this area is the 24 gateway character area which would support a mix of uses and services both local and regional and scale such as hospitality, retail, restaurant and multif family uses. Uh there are no streets on the major thoroughfare plan that are affected with this development. Um, a large portion of this property does lie within the floodway, the 100red-year flood plane or 500year flood plane. So, any development would require submitt of a flood plane development permit application. Um, we do have a one of our maps does show a kind of the conceptual plan. This is not something that's just not a pud. This is not u putting anything in stone as to what the development plan would be, but this is a concept plan that is proposed. the flood plane area is the creek is on kind of on all three sides here and the creek is is the area where the flood plane is. Uh this area that they're looking to develop is largely outside of that flood plane area. Um a traffic study will be required prior to approval of a site

plan for the development and any improvements recommended by that study will be required to be installed by the developer. Uh there is an existing 6-in water line on Safari Drive which would need to be upsized to a 12 in to meet fireflow requirements. And the fire flow minimum is 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 PSI uh assuming a sprinkler system uh with uh in inside the buildings. Um our last comment um is uh the one that kind of alluded to earlier. Um, again, we did have concern there is an existing um uh church that was meeting in a tent on this property as well as uh they had a a a school that's on the property. It's our understanding that the church is no longer meeting there. The school is in place still. They're using temporary buildings. Um it's um we received a communication earlier today. I did um it was a forwarded email from the the owner of the property that uh they are uh it is still their intent is still to they're ceasing operation of the school there on May 23rd. Um and they're in the process of trying to sell the buildings that are in use uh to move them off the property and they would still be it is still the they're planned to be vacated by June 1st. And so, um, with that, I think we're, uh, in the council meeting, uh, second reading would be on June 9th. So, we would know certainly before second reading, uh, whether that's actually taking place or not. But, um, so with that, I think we're we're we're comfortable moving forward uh, with the annexation with the idea still that we would again don't want to annex. Uh there's some code code concerns we have with that property and fire code

concerns as well. So u want to be sure we're not annexing an issue that we have to address. So I think that is all that I have. So this is what's changed from the last uh meeting when we discussed this. there was maybe not as a clear of a direction as to or or an end date uh as far as the uh school goes. Is that

that's correct as far as a definitive end date. It was it was their intent. It was in the contract I believe on the the sales contract that they would be vacated by by June 1st, but there was not a definitive end date on the operations of the school. Um and again this gets us we're closer to that time frame now. Uh whereas if we had acted two months ago the annexation vote would have already occurred for second reading. So um that was was our concern about at that time. So the two-month delay uh helped to address that issue as well as the additional information we received today. Okay. [clears throat] U from a plan of services standpoint, the town would be providing all services here. This does a lot within our water uh service area uh even as an outside customer currently. So um all services would be provided and it's obviously adjacent to the town on on two sides already. So um it's from a service standpoint, it would not be a a major stretch for us.

I I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um, you did mention that the church was not actually meeting in the tent area anymore. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes. And I was just going to ask, uh, is it your recommendation, uh, or staff's recommendation that if we were considering to move forward, it would be contingent upon the uh, land being or the church and school being vacated by June 1. or are you at are you comfortable enough that that doesn't need to be part?

Well, I think that I think that would be part of our recommendation, but I think with the timing on it once we get to second reading at council, we'll know and council would have the ability to, you know, defer at that time if need be. Um, action until it's happened or or we'll know it's happened and they can move forward if they choose to to annex the property. Kevin, is it the school that made notification to the What was the property owner? And the property owner is telling us that the schools made notification. Do we have any evidence of that?

I think that the property owner, the church was running the school. I mean, I think it's it's all one operation. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Anything else for staff on this? Do I have a motion?

I'm going to make a motion to get it out on the table and I'll make a motion to approve the staff comments. Okay. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? A second. All right. Further discussion? So, I think if I understand correctly, Kevin, you're suggesting that if we were to approve this and they did not, we would know before second reading if it was vacated and would have the option of stopping it at that point at the council.

That's correct. because that in in doing that that would still satisfy uh the staff's recommendations as far as the June one. Correct. Right. Correct. I think it would just kind of puts it on Mark and I to make sure council understands that that first reading. Sure. Okay. So, motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

This motion is approved. Our next item under old business is a site plan stone trace commons and they're requesting to defer immediately. And and this is the u indefinitely. Oh yeah. Did I say immediately? Yeah, immediately and immediately. Immediately and indefinitely. [laughter] Gives it a little more oomph. Yeah, it does, doesn't it? Man of action. All right. All right. So, let's let's do this. Stone Trace Commons, owner of Genie Lane and at the corner of Genie Lane and Old Nashville Highway, owner developer Waldron Veester Family Limited Partnership, requesting to be deferred indefinitely.

I'll immediately make that motion to defer it indefinitely. [laughter] You sure you don't want to discuss? No immediately, indefinitely. Seconded. All right. Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

This motion is approved. We're now on to new business. First item is a final plat buyer subdivision lot five, Redbird Farm Lane, owner, developer, Philip and Susan Byer. Yeah, this is a a subdivision Redbird Farm Lane, which is off of Walton Avenue, uh near Elk Avenue and Sam Davis Road, uh near not far from the Sam Davis home, that area of town. U is R2 zone. U the request is for it's for one lot. Uh this is a project that you all we did look at it uh last uh last month um and was turned down. Um this is a resubmittal of the plan. They would were not here last month and and they they are here tonight. Would like to uh uh kind of [clears throat] explain kind of what they're asking for and that sort of thing. Uh since they were not here last month to do so. Um [clears throat] this is a a somewhat unique situation. Uh this is a uh a piece of property that um there has been uh there was an existing public road that was stubbed deadended into the property. Um it was uh had never been extended, had been built for many years and it never been extended. And so, um, the, uh, the buyers did extend, um, as a private road, a private easement, um, and was approved through planning commission to do so. Uh, they came back later and added a second lot on the what would be the west side of the road. The first lot was to the kind of the end of the road and to the east. Um and so that was approved and then now they're asking for a third lot. Um the subdivision regulations uh do limit the use of private access

easements within subdivisions to no more than one lot unless it is part of a planned unit development or a pud. Uh this is not. This is just a straight R2 zoning. Uh the planning commission did approve to have that second lot off of the private easement in October of 23. And so now they're asking for that third lot to utilize that same private easement. There was some discussion about um dedicating the road the private road as a public road. U however it doesn't meet our requirements because it doesn't have a culde-sac. It has the the hammerhead at the end of it and that doesn't meet what our road design would require. Um, it was built um I don't the owner I know has told me that he built it to meet our standards, but we I don't know that our public works department inspected it or anything. So, this would keep it as a private road. They're not looking to to make it a public road. So they they would be uh maintained long-term by the uh by the owners there uh not not the town. Um so anyway, that's that's what they are asking for and they submitted to you all to again to have the variance to to have a third lot off of this private road. So

So if I'm understanding correctly, nothing's changed. Yeah. Nothing has changed from what you all looked at on the plat itself since you all looked at it last month. No. And we've not had any other uh requests like this for more than one lot other than when two were granted.

Yeah. When the on this particular location we had the the second lot was approved in October of 23. Um um we do have we've had a one or two puds that have been approved with private roadways. Um they're much larger developments than this, much more involved. Um but as far as more than one lot off of a private easement, um yeah, we've it's not typically something we've had. It's just it's a unique request. We just not have it's not typically something we see. Okay. Very often at all.

What mechanism would be in in place that would require them to maintain the roadway?

Uh we have uh which was required before. This was something that was done before. Um we have there was a it was a some deed like a deed restriction so to speak. It was it was that they put together. They recorded it. We have a copy of that in the file already. um as far as the long-term maintenance of the roadway who's which cuz we set this up. This is all kind of a family members right now. It's not obviously may not always be family members and so that's why we wanted to set it up long term and so there's that was set up as to how the road who is responsible and how it would be maintained moving forward. So is that is that by is that is responsibility assigned to one of the lots or all of the lots or how would that be

govern or was it individual yeah yeah I believe it was one of the lots is my my recollection I haven't read it recently but I believe was my recollection it was assigned to one of the lots which would be kind of the lot that's kind of at the end of the road to to the right, I believe. Okay. Mr. Byer is here now. I think he's wanting to speak, but speak. All right, Mr. Byer, I'm going to allow you to come up and and speak. Okay. If you could come up and just give us your name, please. Sorry I wasn't here last month. I for some reason I didn't realize that I could be. I thought it was a private uh session. All right. Well, we'll hit reset real quick and you just give us your name and address.

Philip Buyer. Okay. 1202 Sam Davis Road, Smyrna, Tennessee. Go ahead, sir.

Okay. Um, concerning the road maintenance from public to private, when we first started developing that, I uh my son had one lot and uh my son-in-law and daughter had got the second lot. And while we were doing the infrastructure, we we realized it was costing, you can imagine, a lot of money. And uh we had the opportunity because we had to put two manholes, extension of the water, extension of the gas, all the sewer. It just ran way over budget. And so they said we could have that infrastructure would uh be enough for three lots that my that third lot we had there. Now the concerns that I watched the video and the concerns that the council had uh last on the video was the road maintenance. My son is here Bon and my son-in-law uh Tim Bledo and me and my wife Susan. we are going to guarantee that road is maintained. And what Kevin was talking about when we built that, I said, you know what, we need to go ahead and build this as a almost a public. So, we went the extra mile, spent extra money making sure that road was I mean, it's it's thicker than Walton and Brandon Trail. I mean, it's it's really built well. We've had dump trucks and stuff cuz uh uh they're my my son-in-law and daughter are already building their house. It's getting near completion and it's going to really up the community. And we did a lot of things for the community for our neighbors like running underground utilities so we wouldn't be putting

poles keeping that area pristine and it's really pristine right there. And another concern of the council was that would we do additional lots? There's no plans for additional lots. In fact, the infrastructure will only only take care of these three lots. There's no additional plans and and the rest of the remaining property really is around the creek in the flood zone. Now, there is an old barn, but that's really part of uh 1202 Sam Davis, my my road. That's my old barn. We put stuff in there. Um, oh, the public road. When when we decided to put in the road and what type of road, we chose the hammerhead. And let me let me tell you why. The reason we chose the hammerhead, it was had less impact on the property around us and our neighbors instead of having that big culde-sac. Well, I got this from I'm not sure if Kevin gave it to us or who gave it to us from the planning commission. And when I got it, they said these were the options that we had to build the road. Uh and so I looked at it and me and my son looked at it, my wife, I said, you know, that hammerhead looks really good. So we put in the hammerhead. Had I have known then that a public road had to be uh called the sac, we may have gone and you know budgeted for that. But we it's all in now to put in a uh a circle now a 96 uh ft culde-sac would be folks. It's it's out of our out of our budget right now. We're way over budget. My wife and I are semiretired. We've been there. My uh son-in-law and

his wife have a business here in uh Simrna. All of our neighbors, I spent the whole summer out there doing the infrastructure to make make sure that everything was good and our neighbors weren't impacted. I was visiting my neighbors and making sure, hey, everything okay, the grass, everything was perfect. Uh, so that was the reason for the hammerhead versus the culde-sac. Mr. Ber, while you're looking up, I've got a question. Okay, go ahead. You mentioned that you'd spoken to some of your neighbors, have you spoken to them about this idea and what was their feedback? Oh, I Nobody has any problem.

Have you spoken to them or Yes, I have. Every one of them. Le Barnett, uh, everyone around there. Matter of fact, Lee was very good uh with us when we did the underground because we were first going to put in the po the poles because it's a lot cheaper.

But then I said they would had to put a pole in Lee's yard. I said that's not good. I wouldn't want a pole in my yard, Lee. I said I'm going to look at doing an underground. So I I purposely did the underground electricity so we wouldn't impact the neighbors. It looks really nice. You can't even you know who wants those pole with guide wires all over the place. So this is the third lot and it's for family and hardly nobody comes down that well the only the only reason I asked that question the only reason I asked that question I had spoken to one of the neighbors about this. Oh okay what' they say

and they they didn't say they were against it but they didn't sound very favorable for it. Let me just say that I think they want to be neighborly. Yeah. But um uh the peace and quiet in that little area right there is something they enjoy. So well, I mean that's why I asked you if you talked to all of them. Apparently you haven't talked to that one. Apparently not. I'm just bringing that up for for the purposes of uh when we see these kinds of things that are unique, we try to place calls and do some of our own due diligence to find out what's the temperature of the people that thought this pristine quiet. I know at one time you guys wanted to put some sort of a event center or something. Yeah, one that was before we ever started.

We were all some of us were still in planning then so we remember it but uh so that's why I asked the question. I just want to make sure uh the road thing is awfully unique. We we need the guidance of staff on this to be honest with you but

uh I appreciate the underground utilities and trying to keep the temperature over there looking nice. I appreciate that. But I personally would like to probably hear from some of those people, myself, more of them just from the standpoint if if you're going to do something that this body and then the council agrees to let you do. I don't know the answer to that yet, but if they did, I think where you are in that quiet piece of paradise there off of the off Sam Davis Road, I think it's fair for the neighbors to feel like this won't intrude on what they've lived with for a long long time. That's my point. So, okay.

Does anybody have anything else for Mr. Byer? Anybody have any comment? No. No. We'll take care of that up here. It's okay. Hey, to make a comment if I could. All right. I'm I'm going to allow this. This is not usually what we do, but I'll let you come up and give us your name and address, please. And Okay. And we're going to keep this to uh 3 minutes or less, please. Oh, this is the maintenance agreement of the lots for all three parties.

Hi, my name's Leverne Barton. My husband and I live at 230 Spirit Hill Circle in Smyrna. And I'm I've been involved with their sub with Susan and Philip subdividing for a long time. I sold their the lots they developed along uh Elk Street. You're probably familiar with that, Mark. And um so I think if the neighbors could see the type of homes they they've seen one of the three homes and we're thinking positive that y'all will approve the third lot. The what they're the homes that are going to be built there will raise the property value of the other homes. It's really first class. [snorts] And uh the other thing I'd like to mention is when that third lot is developed, again, thinking positive, it's going to bring in tax revenue. And if it's just sitting there being peaceful, it's not generating anything for anyone. And that was just what I wanted to comment. All right.

Thank you, ma'am. All right. Kevin, if this were an R2 is if I and you can correct me if I'm wrong from a zoning perspective, R2 is not the appropriate zoning if we were if this were brought in and presented to you and said, "Hey, we want to do this in R2." Your response would be Well, the the I mean the R2 the zoning is fine as far as what they're wanting to do. built on the 12,000 foot lots. I mean, that's not an issue. But as far as the private road, Yes. Yeah. That's what I'm

in any basically the only time that private roads um such as this are allowed is within a pud like a planned unit development, which So, if this were brought to you as a plan unit development, what would go into the approval process of that? Well, I mean, it would be a zoning change and it would obviously be the same as any other FUD. I mean, it' be involved as far as you all would have to review it. Two readings of council. We'd have to have a some sort of a booklet of information that shows what they're wanting to build, what they're wanting to do, how many lots, how many, all those things. Um, would the road be part of it as far as

And the road could certainly be part of it to utilize as private. We most of the buds we have are public streets are developed as typical residential developments and and the streets are public. Um I can think of one or two off the top of my head that I can think of right now that were approved with some private streets. I don't think either of them have been developed yet. One of them I think is getting ready to get started. Um but so that's how they would that's the only way under the subdivision regulations without a waiver from this commission. That's under the subdivision regulations. That's the only time that private roads are allowed. I guess we're [clears throat] the concern that I'm hearing over more than one lot. Sorry.

Yeah. I guess the concern that I'm hearing is that it sounds like we don't believe a deed endorsement stating that the road is responsible of one particular property owner out of the three is sufficient to maintain the road. Is that the issue? Because I I'm a little confused. why why we're concerned about it if we have that guarantee written onto the deed. And I realize not

I I realize this is all family now. It's not going to always be family. Um eventually these lots will turn over whether hopefully that's a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And when it does, there's going to be one property owner, and I think it's probably uh Barton's lot, he that will be responsible for maintaining that road for potentially two neighbors that they don't have any familiar connection to. I I guess is that the concern is that that's not enough to to enforce that or if we have that guarantee, I don't I'm not really understanding the concern. Well, I mean, that's I I mean, that's a concern just from the standpoint of you have one property owner has to bear the whole cost, but that's if that's how they want to set it up, that's that's their business.

I mean, that Yeah, that to me that seems like that's Barton and whoever buys that property issue. That's right. I think a private agreement essentially, we wouldn't be a party to that agreement. That's what I was getting at. Is it is it something we can't enforce? If if that property were to sell and they [clears throat] refused, the new owner refused to maintain the road or just said, "I can't afford it. I'm not going to do it." Is the issue that we have, we would have no way to keep that road up for the other two property owners or no way to enforce it or it would become a civil matter right now. It becomes a civil matter between the property owners really at that point. Um, so yeah, Steve, I just kind of went through one of these last summer in Beach Grove area

and they all had stock in the driveway. has pretty long driveway. So, all the land owners did. But that's a disclosure item. So, if and when they ever did decide to sell that property, that's a disclosure. They must disclose that and that buyer is then made aware. Or if they don't disclose it and they get to the closing table, they're going to find out at the closing table there's a did a deed requirement that they didn't know about before they purchase it. Yeah. And I guess, you know, for me, what I'm the person that has that on the deed, I'm not as concerned about because that's their it's the one that gets it next. No, no, no, not even that. It's the lots without the deed restriction that are on that road and they're not sharing in it,

right? They're not sharing in it. And if they have, if the road crumbles in front of their house, they're going to look to the town to fix it. They're going to call us and say, "This is a road. Why aren't you maintaining it?" And when we tell them it's private and it's a civil problem, it's going to we're putting the problem off on two potential property owners that we don't even know who they are in the future. And that that's I I think that's my biggest concern is I would be I don't know if there's an agreement in if there's some sort of agreement the town could make that that would give us the ability to link put leans on the property if they didn't maintain it. Something like that or or not. If it if it's only going to become a civil matter, then that's I see the concern that there's two people in the future or current that are essentially taking a risk that we can't help them enforce. I mean, I think that's that's the concern. I this is some a provision that's been in our subdivision regulations. You know, it predates me and I think the concern was just the at the time I I can't speak to who was who all was in charge at the time, but that there was just a concern. I think probably from a service delivery, emergency response, those kind of things. If you have multiple homes on a driveway, this one's not very long. In theory, you could have one really long. Um there's no is the concern about maintenance, the concern about uh you know if a firet truck can't get somewhere because it's a private road and somebody has parked something in the road or whatever and there's no way for police department to make sure they get it moved or whatever. I mean so I mean that that's I think that's the was why it was put in place originally. Um, and I guess within a pud, it's not it can be done in a pud because there's typically in a pud you have potential for hundreds of owners, you

know, in a in a development that has and there's an HOA set up and there's some mechanisms for for those things that the roads get maintained the same way the the common open space and the pool or whatever is in that bud, you know, can be maintained. And so so the only reason that we wouldn't I'm making assumptions, right? Mr. Buyer says they built this with manholes and to standard and you've said that they told you the same thing, right? So, B, if that's all accurate, and we assume I'm going to assume it is, then the issue with us taking this road over once it's built, we don't is that it's not a culde-sac, right? Because we we do that for other developments. They build the road and then we make it a public road once they turn it over,

right? And so that's what I'm saying. If they shouldered the cost, the What's the issue with us taking it over like we do other subdivisions? Well, would we be taking over a private drive? We do that all the time. The the developers Well, this is it's a private road. Well, is it a road or is it a drive? Well, this this was built as a private it's a private road, but it was but but it was

number one, we've we've had construction plans and we've had inspections and those kind of things on typical on a typical situation that we didn't have here. I mean, we we we certainly did on the public water and sewer that you would we did that those were all public. Those are plans were submitted. Utilities department inspected them all that certainly uh but the rope was not a part of that. Has the fire department reviewed the hammerhead? And

that that I think Mr. Byer I think that's most likely I think Mr. Lawrence is probably who provided that information to and that's probably from the uh from the fire code fire. Yeah, there's there's options within a fire code to have the the the appropriate turnarounds. Codal sack is one of them. The hammerhead is the other and there's others beyond that. Um so it's been inspected and it's good to go there. Yeah, there's not an issue there. Okay. So, so I guess so you said we didn't do some level of inspection that we would normally for the for the road portion and there's no way to do that now and determine whether it's up to stuff. I I just I'm not understanding. It seems like to me it's a it's a we're kind of splitting hairs a little bit.

Yeah. I think the the maintenance would default back to the title owner of whatever that roadway would be. And if there's a side agreement in a deed, it would be be between those parties. So ultimately, yeah, I understand that. But we we allow developers, builders to build roads and turn them over to the town, which we then take ownership of all the time. That's through a dedication. No, that's through apply right away dedication. We are inspecting during the process.

I understand that. So I'm asking if the only thing we didn't do was inspect it, is there no way to do that inspection now to confirm that it's up to standard? And if it's not, they have to fix it. I'm not saying the town takes on any responsibility for building it up, fixing it, or making it better. I'm saying we're just saying if this isn't up to the standard that you said it is, that you've got to fix it to get it there before we would consider taking it over. I don't understand why we would not take over this road versus when we do others.

Well, it's a couple things. Again, know that yes, you could do core drilling or something like that and and and get thickness of the base and the binder and all those things. We could check all that that and and those kind of things. Yes, we could do that. The main thing is our our road standard does not have a hammerhead as as an Okay. So, that was back to my original question. The primary issue is that it's not a culde-sac. It's not a culde-sac. And and that and the fact that I mean we would have to go I mean it' be up to the the public works director how he feels about taking on a road that his his people didn't inspect and core drilling and all those things. But but that would be the the other part of it. That's the two main issues.

Okay. I don't know. I I I kind of feel like we're kind of maybe I'm just the only guy here, but what I heard Mr. Byer say was that when he came the first time, we told him that this would support three lots. I don't know who told him that. I don't know if that's in writing, but that's what he said he was told. He went to the fire department and they gave him options for building that. And we've approved two lot, two of the three. And now it's time for the third and we're bulking. I don't really understand why now we have an issue with it. Why didn't we have an issue when the first two were approved two years ago?

I don't know that uh initially they may have thought this was a private drive the whole way and now we're talking about making it the public road with a a hammerhead. I think that's the difference. I think initially three lots would be held up with a private road, but I think now we're talking about the hammerhead not being part of something we look at taking in I'm not cul I'm forgetting about talking taking it in. I'm just talking about they came to us two years ago. We agreed to allow them to build a road and two or driveway whatever you want to call it in two lots and we told him it would support three lots

and he met the standards of the fire department and codes at that time. What's our concern now? What what requirement changed from the initial process that we're now saying we don't like? Well, I don't know that this commission told them three would be okay. Um, and I think the condition as far as a third lot, it might be the the utilities that were extended could support a third lot. That could have been where the discussion was. I when my conversations with Mr. Byron was about having this as a public dedicating this as a public street. Um when he went to record it, that would have required a bond because he hadn't built it yet.

Mhm. Um and that was an issue financially and so he said we'll just go ahead and build it as a as a private street. This was for the one for the second line. We're just going to keep move moving forward as a as a private street and so that's how it got built. So because we would have required a bond on the front end. So private is okay for two lots but not three is what you're saying on this one. Private's okay for two because the planning commission approved a variance in October 23. Uh typically it's not under our subdivision regulations as they are written currently. Wait, so so they did get an approved variance for two lots in October of 23. Yes.

And Okay. Um I I think that's the first time we've heard that that there was a specific variance granted. I think I s on item or number four under the at least what I'm looking at. Yeah, that's right. So on this map, the lots that were approved, the one we're looking at now is lot five, right? Which is Philip Buyers. It's the one that's kind of completely this lot right here. Right. The original plan was for this lot right here. Mhm. They came back later and built the lot here. That was that's when the waiver was granted in October of 23, right? Okay. So, we approved the far the one at the far end where the hammerhead is. Yes. And the one on the left side. Yes, that's correct.

And now the one between the hammerhead and the existing neighbor is the one we're having concerns about. Right. Oh, this one. Okay. Okay. I don't know. I to me it seems like we're I I guess I'll defer to the commission. I I No, I mean if you feel strongly Well, my my my point is we've already approved the lot to the end of the Hammerhead, including the Hammerhead. This lot is between the hammerhead and the and the road. That existing road is already there in front of it. I just don't really see that whatever damage or issues were are there have already been created by the previous approvals. Well, I I disagree with that.

Well, then you got one lot's got to maintain the road for two lots. Well, no. If you're saying that what was approved before has already done damage and and not but when it was originally approved, it was two. It wasn't three. No, I I understand, but I'm just trying to figure out why the third lot creates additional concern or risk. Well, when do we get lot four? When we do get or when do when when do when do we have other subdivisions that get brought in like this and and then we add lots to it? Well, I think we we have to look at each one on their own and we have to learn from this one. I think we probably made a mistake when we approved a road, private drive, whatever for two lots. That variance opened the door for this. So,

and if we hadn't approved that variance, then we'd still be back at our regular standards that says one lot, one drive. That's it. But we've already opened the door for that. So, the next one could be four. Since we approved three with your logic, we would consider that one at that time. I'm saying each one stands on it own. We're not considering a fourth or a fifth right now. We're considering a third one. And the third one is sandwiched by this road already. There's no way to get to this property without that drive. I don't think they have room for any additional lots anyway. Well, that's true. That was my next question. Are there any other lots that would be developed at all?

But to the point that he's making, I mean, when you when you say we may have made a mistake when we did the second one, past sins don't necessarily mean a forward sin. So that you know that's what I'm saying that that I agree. So

my problem is not so I hear you and I I'm not disagreeing with probably 80% of what you're saying but I still go back where I come is that and I know they're going to build a nice home. I I feel assured the family wants to make that a nice place for the family to be and I don't have a problem with that at all. My my whole thing is what I started off with. I want to make sure those people that lived in this neighborhood for 40 and 50 years uh are understanding what they're wanting to do and are okay with it. That's that's kind of where I'm coming in at. Uh but the road part, I want to defer back to uh Kevin as our planning director and our legal department to understand that I don't hear him recommending it. I'm not an authority on this, but I want to go with the guidance of the planning director here. If they make the recommendation to approve something or it's approvable, okay, if Kevin has issues with that, we have to rely on people who do this every day, not for those who are going to sit up here and make a decision to add a lot or not add a lot, I want to hear from them.

Well, if that's the case, then we don't need this commission. We just let them tell us what they're I usually trust our planning director. I'm not saying I don't trust him. What I'm saying is the road is already built and already approved. I know what you're saying. I said I agreed with about 80% of what you said. Okay. So, the road's already there and we're holding this up because we don't like the road, but the road really isn't what we're considering. We're just considering adding the lot. The road has a hammerhead. Whether we add the road lot or not, the road's already there. Would you would anybody feel comfortable, and I know it's budget-wise, it's probably not realistic, but to go in there and make that hammerhead a culde-sac we fix the problem. I'm sorry I didn't get to that was what I asked originally is the issue the

and I know costwise they they say they can't afford to do that but how bad do they want this lot I mean Kevin what's what's the answer to that how much would it cost to put a gold sack in it's I'm not asking you what it would cost to put a culde-sac in I'm saying they can't afford it probably anyway according to what they said earlier that's probably not budget friendly to them I don't but if they change that hammerhead to a culde-sac does that fix your concern. That's what I'm asking. I mean, if they that would that would create the issue or that would correct the issue rather of accepting a public street that's not in and that's my question, right? That's there's there's where I'm going with. We would still want to check because public streets would not have hammerheads, right?

Okay. That's that's what I want to clarify. May I make one more comment? No. No. No. I'm I'm sorry. No, I I public hearing. This isn't a public hearing and I allowed that what y'all are. Yeah, I know. But no, no, we're we're done with we're done with that. Okay. We we understand what's in front of us. Hey, Kevin, was the road built with permits and inspected?

It was. I mean, it was built um obviously with there was a grading permit for the project. Uh there were permits for the water, sewer, main extensions, all those, but there was not any construction plans that I'm aware of for the road or any inspections of the road construction. It was just erosion control and all those typical things like that from the inspector did inspect and pass it saying that they was built properly. Not not the road. No, nobody inspected it. I I'm not aware of it. What I was told by the inspector was they did not inspect the road. No,

the road the um a town inspector at least. Yes. They may have had somebody they may have had somebody come out and take a look at it on their own. Make sure that you a private which we haven't seen those reports or whatever. That could have helped alleviate some concerns certainly if we wanted to take that. I think I mean the ability to take this in as a public road I don't I I don't think I could recommend that to you because it doesn't meet our requirements. This doesn't from a design standpoint. The issue is do you and maybe if it's really up to the commission how you feel about it, but having a third lot on a private road, are you concerned about a precedent there? And also I think it probably would be worthwhile to at least have some sort of maybe those reports or something to know what's there now and having maybe amending the maintenance so that all the lots are involved instead of just the one. Um creating some sort of association maybe so that it's not all the responsibility of one property owner in the future that might be worthwhile. That's typically what I in my field of business that's typically what I find.

Yeah. They all share in the cost. So I know that's family and they may be trying to keep some financial uh off the family's back maybe right now, but going forward I think that would be something. Well, if it was built the way they they're saying it was built, it's going to be a while before they do anything to it anyway. Yeah. It's not like you're going to have tremendous amount of traffic on it. You're probably not going to have a lot of heavy traffic on it. It's just going to be them and their personal vehicles. And it's pretty flat. It's not hilly or anything. It's not, you know. So, I mean, it could be 15, 20 years before they have to even think about. I guess my my only other question is

the way we've approved the first two lots, we've landlocked this third lot. So, if we're saying they can't use this lot to build on because we don't like the private drive and we're not willing to take the private drive in as a public road, then aren't we creating a situation where this lot cannot be used? Not beyond Yeah. beyond being someone's yard.

And in a normal situation, there would be a rightaway, an an access easement that would be granted to every property owner. I'm still not seeing that much difference there. A private drive giving them access to this lot is essentially an access easement. So, I I just I'm trying to figure out I'm looking at this from their perspective. If I own this lot and I was trying to figure out a way to develop it, I feel like we're telling them what they can't do and we're not giving them any options for solutions. Well, and if the solution is you got to build a culde-sac, then let's say that. If the solution is that we you got to get you got to pay for samples to prove that it's up to public standard, then let's give them that. I'm not saying we do it for free or tell them that we're not we're just going to take it on, but we're not giving them a solution.

I mean, I think we gave them the solution, but they couldn't. the solution of a culde-sac is not something that's financially viable for them. So that's why they're coming as asking for the waiver to have the private road. Okay. So that goes back to if it was a culde-sac, we'd be okay with it. If it was and we could confirm construction meeting our requirements as far as the construction of the road. I mean I think then we could consider having it as a public road.

Okay. So, could this not be approved with those conditions? That way, this lot, they move forward, they can either choose to build it or not, but if they don't, they can't develop the lot. That's that's and certainly that would be an option for you all to consider if you want to place those conditions on the approval. I don't know that that really approves it from their standpoint because of the financial issues. I I get that, but financial issues aren't a reason that we consider these things, right? And that's why I'm not concerned about I understand I'm not saying I'm not concerned about the cost, but that's not why I'm making the arguments I'm making. I'm trying to give them a solution to move forward. Whether they choose to do it or not is up to them. Yeah. And I asked that question a minute ago. Yeah. Certainly that would be a potential solution.

The commission has discretion to put those conditions on on the approval. um it just need to be you know as clearly articulated as possible so that if someone ever looks at the minutes then you tell exactly what is required. Okay. And Kevin by requiring a culde-sac so to speak if that were the case hypothetically speaking of course does staff feel better about that would they then be able to feel comfortable about recommending that or not? I think we would still want to confirm the integrity. Yeah. The integrity of the road, all that. You know, we if they've had some private

inspection reports they could provide us and and you know, Mr. Rose was not able to be here tonight. Um it's he would be the one his department would be the one to fix the problems if there are problems if we take it over. Uh but from a precedent standpoint because you brought up precedence uh we try to stay consistent that that the president goes away. there's not a president at that point. Okay. So, that that's why I think we're getting somewhere with our thought process of

what could or could not be. I'm not I'm not making a decision for everybody, but um I think it makes sense for like Steve said for the buyers to at least understand this is the precedence that we've set in the city. It's consistent if in fact they can do A, B, or C.

Yeah. I mean, if if they were to correct the issue with the end of the road, make it a culde-sac, we obviously we could inspect that now. Um, and then had some sort of the the intervening piece of it. [clears throat] Excuse me. That was they had some inspection reports, core drill, whatever we need to do on that to confirm that it's got the correct base, correct finder, all those things. Then I think that will go a long way to us feeling because then it's a public road with three three coals and you build a culde-sac if there's enough room you can build another house or two on the end of it at that point. It's public road.

Well, I still want to talk to this these neighbors. He I know Mr. Ber you can't speak back. I'm sorry. I know you said you've spoken to all the neighbors. I thought I did. Okay. So, I'd like to hear more about how if if you were the neighbor and this was happening behind your house, we'd feel the same way. We'd want to make sure that we're talking to everybody that lives in this established very old long-standing neighborhood. Yeah, that is

I'm I'm not asking you to speak and sorry, it's not a public hearing. I'm just kind of making a case uh for some of the discussion we've had and I think it's important that you know that. I [snorts] I have a quick question and this is more for just my mental clarification. Um so the regulation from the town as far as the culde-sac being the standard for a public road that hasn't changed since the approval of the hammerhead that they got in 23. That hasn't changed since then. Correct. We haven't updated anything. No, we no that [snorts] that's been the standard probably since they since we adopted subdivision regulation probably. Okay.

I just wanted to I just wanted to make sure in my mind what got us kind of in a mess here is we gave them the approval to put the second lot on a private drive. Yeah. If our standard is we don't allow that, we shouldn't have done that then. Yeah. And that's what's created this consternation because we've landlocked this one lot by doing that. And that's the part I was getting at is I think we might have made a mistake then because if we had stayed consistent then we wouldn't be having the conversation now. Consistent versus being nice or try to be Exactly. Right. Yeah. Exactly right. I no doubt that we were trying to give them a way forward then. Right. Which but I think unfortunately it's created this hole.

Well, you hit upon something. There is a way to give them a path forward. Mhm. Uh and that would, you know, that would have to be presented in the form of a motion and then voted upon by the commission. Okay. I'm willing to make a motion if there's not any more discussion. I don't want to cut off anybody. I would motion that we would approve this with staff comments and the caveat that uh this road be uh confirmed or brought up to public road standards uh including uh if necessary the building of the culdeac. Okay. So I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second it.

Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

I Okay. Next item under uh new business is Spring Spring Branch phases two and three Rock Springs Road and Bronte Drive. Owner developer Green Treads. Yeah, this is um the the plaque uh dedicating um within this within this PRD, Spring Branch PRD. Um the uh it's 31.49 acres. It's it's only one lot. This is uh dedicating um ironically the private private access easements as well as the uh all the water, sewer, public utility easements and storm meters and all that. also uh shows the uh in addition to that the the rideway for the the future extension of Imperial Boulevard actually crosses the corner of this property and they're showing that right away as well that dedication there. So, um had a just a few minor comments left. Uh the one on the bottom they did we asked for a 20 foot public utility easement from the dead end of Gascal Drive south to the property line. That's just to uh to be able to connect to the joining property when it comes in and develops. They have shown that easement. They didn't label it. So, they still need to label it so it it's clear what it is, but they did show an easement there. So, want to amend that comment number four just to label that easement. But with those uh comments, staff would recommend this to you.

Questions for this one? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion or did I jump the gun? Is there some other questions that or concerns you guys had? I'm still catching up. Okay.

Trying to figure out So this is this was previously approved and these are revisions right and this is in line with what was what specifically changed and maybe you said that I missed it. Yeah, there's really nothing has changed. This is the only thing is well, there's one minor thing change. What's this is just the the sub the uh site plan has already been improved. This is the town home and single family mixed development. Um, and this is just for the rest of it basically to to dedicate all the easements uh for access as well as water, sewer and storm easements, all the public easements and private easements um to record that for. And so and the only other thing is the change that we asked for that they did show was that that 20 foot utility easement um the dead end of of Gaskill Drive south of the property line. That's the only thing that's different than what you had seen this when this site plan came through.

Okay. That's what was confusing me is you used the word revision and I was like I don't see what changes. I'm not following. So okay, I'm good. I'll make a motion that we approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. Opposed. This motion is approved. We are now on to Stone Trace lot six subdivision Old Nashville Highway at Genie Lane. Owner developer Walder Investor Family Limited Partnership.

Yeah, this is a subdivision pl 7.3 acres, C2 zoning, two lots. This is the area where there was the sub or the site plan that you deferred earlier indefinitely. They did want to go ahead and move forward with this subdivision. Um the the sub the site plan that you all were had on your agenda earlier is for basically lot 6A and this so this was obviously still have a future subdivision or site plan to come in for 6B. Um we did have um some standard comments one one through three comment four um they're they are showing the adequate rideway there for old Nashville highway as it exists already and number five is a standard comment regarding signage and six regarding storm water control measure uh long-term maintenance agreement. We did ask them to provide a signature and stamp of the surveyor. Um they did provide the stamp but not the signature. So they still need to show that uh they comments number eight regarding the uh one of the notes at the bottom that's been corrected and can be removed. And then comment number nine is really more of a site plan comment. Um so we probably can remove that one as well regarding the stormwater pond. That's really more of a site plan comment. Um this one just for um just so where the reason part of the reason the site plan was requested to be deferred indefinitely. they are revising their traffic impact study as was discussed last time. Um so that's really for the site plan itself. This didn't really affect the plat part of this. U and so that's they will be coming back once that that traffic study gets revised and and and we can know exactly what needs to be done or doesn't need to be done there. So just for clarification on the site plan since we did talk about it then but this but with the remaining basically comments 1 through 7 uh we

would recommend this subdivision flat to you. Okay questions for Kevin on this one.

Do we have any idea what's going to be going in there? Well, the site plan for lot what is basically lot 6A uh was three or four three build three uh uh buildings that were different sizes but primarily retail restaurant type buildings. Uh the one lot 6B is probably can't say but it's it's a quick service restaurant is what's looking at that lot right currently. We'll see what actually shows up. That's what they're looking at. [clears throat] Okay, other questions.

I will entertain a motion then. I move to approve staff comment. Have a motion to approve with staff comment. So I have a second. Second. Motion and second. Further discussion. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. I

oppose. This motion is approved. Next we have Veterans Landing HPR Plat59 Old Nashville [clears throat] Highway. Owner to developer Clayton Properties Group, Inc. Yeah, this is the horizontal property regime plat for the Veterans Landing Development, which is the town home development on Old Nashville Highway. Um it's it's one lot. It's 42 units, 4.38 acres. Uh is in the Veterans Landing PRD. um had a few standard comments one through three would all need to remain. Uh they took care of comment four that can be removed. Then comment five, they still need to to add the just to amend that signature block for the director of utilities. On the second page, it still says water and sewer system. And this is in consolidated uh service area. So it's just for the sewer system here. It's it's correct on the first page. I'm sorry, the second page, but not the first page. So, um, yeah. So, um, but with those remaining comments, staff would recommend approval.

Kevin, I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but I don't quite understand why is a hammerhead. Okay. In this case, it's a private drive. It's private roads and this is also in a pud. It's in a pud. So, if they had requested a pud, we would have approved it. We would have considered we would have had the the [clears throat] ability to. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm I'm just telling you what the subdivision regulations say and again what they have stated for Did we tell them they could submit this as a PUD and get approval or or consider it? It was mentioned while we were talking about I mean we Yeah, we we've talked about it.

All right. I just hear we throw the words like consistency around and this doesn't look like we're being consistent. That's all I can say. When we're allowing a private drive with multiple lots, mult 20 homes on a hammerhead and we just said we wouldn't approve three on a hammerhead for a private drive just because it's called a PRD versus zone. Well, that's that makes a big distinction, Steve. You can't just toss that out. I'm asking somebody to tell me what that distinction is. I don't understand the difference. brought in as a PUB and it's all reviewed on the front end and and everything's are everything is built to specs.

You're saying you would like to like to allow this all in an R2? No, in in this case it's not built to any specs. It's a private drive. I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise. Yeah, because I don't see I'm still not seeing the difference. Okay. Well, and I'm just going to explain it in layman's terms from my from my understanding of it is the main difference is is that when it comes in on the front end, all of this has to be done beforehand. They have to look at every single aspect of it. Whereas the private drive and the individual homeowners are not necessarily going through that and to do so wouldn't necessarily be cost-effective for them because these plans are so expensive to come up with. That's my understanding of it.

Okay. Um I can see the differentiation.

Okay. Any other questions or discussion? [snorts]

Do I have a motion?

One question. And this is phase two. Did I hear that right? No, this is this this it's all one phase. The entire entire it's the entire thing. It's all it's been has been zoned for a few years now. It's gone through two or three different developers, I think. But they're they are moving forward now. [clears throat]

And Kevin, I'm sorry I missed. Did you say that staff would recommend approval on this with the recommendations? Yeah, with but they took care of comment four, but with those remaining comments, we would recommend it. Yes, it's consistent with the approved PRD. Okay. Any other discussion, questions? All right. Um, and our next step is is it would anybody like to make a motion? A motion to approve with staff comments.

I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Chairman, the reason I'm not willing to second although this meets everything that came before us before is I didn't support this initially and from a consistency standpoint I don't want to support it now. So that's just my take. I think it's ready and I think everything's according to Kevin has has met their guidelines for approval, but I don't want to make a motion or a second if I'm going to vote it the way I always voted. Okay. But it's here. It's it's coming. That's just my point.

It meets all the rules, regulations, and ordinances. It's consistent with what's the guys in here want to make any seconds or that's the reason I can't. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. All right. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. I. Opposed? Okay. Wait, hang on. Was that three? We're going to need to roll. I think it was four to three, but we can do I think it was four to three, but I I heard a no from Steve, Mark, and Ken. Is that correct? Correct. That's right. And everybody else was an I. Do you Does that require a roll call at this point? I would I would recommend doing a roll call.

Let's do clarity sake. My god. All right. Um Scott in favor. Uh Vanessa I Charles I Ken no Steve no Mark no Tim I

that's three nos three all right next site plans lot 8C Srta Commons 940 Sergeant Asbury Holland way owner developer Veritoss Federal Credit Union Scabby Plaza. This is a site plan for lot 8C in common development. This is on Sergeant Asbury on Way, which is located north of Chem Poker Drive. Part of the development, this is a little over 12,000 foot general commercial building constructed with potential for up to five tenants to take up this entire building. There would be two points of access provided off of Sergeant Eisbury Hanway for this development. Vehicular use area on the site just under 9/10en of an acre at 089 of an acre and that does require 3,875 square feet of landscaping. App is proposing for 3900 meeting our requirements and parking requirement of 73 spaces is required and they're showing for 76. That does require four ADA spaces and they are showing for four as well. Uh previous plans when the packets went out last week was showing three. They have upped that now to four. So they are meeting requirements for ADA. The landscape plan shows maple trees planted along the frontage of Sergeant Asbury Han way with shrubbery planted between those trees. Additional trees are shown within landscape islands throughout the development with additional shrubbery proposed at the base of the building on the front and both sides as well as around the dumpster enclosures on both sides and the rear of the development. Architectural elevations have changed since packets went on as well. So this is going to be a little bit different from what you have in your packet. The elevations show the building to be finished with a variety of materials which would include brick, stone, glass, and stucco. Previous iterations showed wood siding in there as well, but that has been removed. The front elevation contains a combination of all the aformentioned materials. Both side elevations and rear elevations do meet

designer view with an entire mix of brick, stone, and glass glazing. The material percentages provided now show all wall faces to have at least 75% primary materials which does meet designer review standards. The standard comments one through seven all remain. Uh staff comment one is from our utilities department. We wanted to ensure that a 1500gallon grease trap was would be provided for each food service tenant. They are showing for two but would like to leave that for more of aformational standard comment than anything else. Com number two is regarding the ADA spaces. is they have shown those accordingly. So comment number two can be removed. Number three, we asked them to submit the architectural elevations for labels and material percentages and they have done so accordingly. So three can be removed. Number four isformational based on the parking provided maximum 4,000 square foot of building space may be occupied by restaurants. So that comment will remain as well. And number five, we asked them to show us where the HVAC units were were going to be located on the building. that were not shown on any of the renderings. So, uh have received word there's conflicting statements whether it's internal or on the roof. Uh whichever way is fine with staff. We just want to make sure that it is screened if it is on the rooftop mounted uh from anyone else around driving on any of the roads whether it be Kemp Pilkerton or Sergeant Asbury Hon. Uh it is a pretty highly visible area right here. So, uh C number five will remain. We just want to make sure that is screened and edited accordingly. So, uh, staff comments two and three have been removed and then edited staff comment number five. But with that, staff does recommend approval.

Okay. Questions for Mitch on this? Mitch, on page A12, it it says there's a footnote that the HVAC units are located in the interior attic. Is approval of this as submitted not enough to ensure it had to be interior? So, that was part of it. So noticed that when reviewing the plans today, the response letter received from the engineer on the plans noted it in the on the rooftop. So when I talked to the engineer, he wanted to talk to the architect. You got two separate people working on the project. So when you have the two separate people, sometimes there's miscommunication between. So that's the reason for number five. Okay. Correct. Okay. Yep. Easily solvable though. Yeah.

Hey Mitch, add to that if it's so if there's a unit in the attic that's called a split system. So, there's going to be an outside unit for the air conditioning portion. Would that be rooftop or would that be in the back? That would be my interpretation. Probably be rooftop. Okay. So, from a screening standpoint, you know, we're talking something 3 ft tall. If it's in the middle sight line, you're probably not going to see it. But if it was visible, would the screen be all the way around the building or just in the front and the sides? Mainly just screen so you can't see it from the public roadways. We're talking about like a parapit wall. Feel like a parapit wall.

Yeah, you probably would have to look at potentially not just the front. Sorry, wrong way. U side some of the side too cuz you're coming down. Yeah, there's a little bit of a parapit wall on the sides as well. They've already got so depending on where they locate them. So my only question then is that and we got this open space and then residential behind it. So they'll be able to see the back of the building. It's possible. We have without seeing what it's going to look like where they're located. It's difficult for us to make that determination. We're just making assumptions really. Yeah. I don't think there's residential. I think it's TCAT is what's behind right in front of TCAT.

That's the what? That's TCAT. the the Tennessee College of Applied Technologies. Okay. The residential is on the other side on the other is on the south side of Camp Filton. This is on the north side of camp. Never mind. [laughter] [snorts] Anything else? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve with staff comments. A motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

This motion is approved. Next, we're on to Mabel Farms Amenity Center, Triana Lane, Owner, Developer, Century Communities of Tennessee LLC. This is center subdivision. It is located within the first phase of the development. Uh proposed with this amenity [snorts] area would be a pool pool house with restrooms and a mail kiosk as well as a paved walking trail around the pool area. Access to the site would be provided via one access point off of the main road which would is the same main road that connects off of Rock Springs as well as ties through the adjacent subdivision to the southwest, the Naran Hills subdivision. Uh so that road is all connecting through um is that's how you get to this area right here. Square footage of vehicular use area.36 of an acre and that does require 1,578 square ft of landscaping. Applicant is propo proposing for just under 3,000 square ft. Total parking proposing of 22 spaces and that would require for one handicap parking space per ADA and they are showing for two. Landscape plan shows variety of shade and canopy trees planted within development uh with oaks. Oak trees shown for street trees. Additional variety of shrubs and trees are abundantly shown throughout the parking lot areas, drive aisles, and at the base of the amenity building. [snorts] Vegetation is shown along the parking areas and drive aisles, which do act as a landscape buffer for the adjacent residential lots to the south of the site. Streetscaping will also be needed to be added along the public rightaways in accordance with design review. Architectural elevations do show the building be finished with a mixture of brick and fiberment board siding of varying designs. The brick will encompass the water table portion of the building which is about the bottom 2 ft of the building on all sides with the

exception of the south and this area is where they are showing for the mail kiosk to be located. The remainder of the building is to be fiber cement board and the materials presented would be consistent with homes to be built as part of the residential development. So it was to m it would match. Standard comments one through four would all remain at this time. Uh comment number one is aformational comment as a plat has not been recorded for this section of the development yet. So we do need a plat to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits so we know where the lot of record is located as well as providing access to that lot. Comment number two is a public works comment. The uh decllorin the pool needs to be decllorinated before it is placed into the drainage system. This is a standard comment that will remain as well. Number three goes along comment number one in a way that the easement should be provided around the sanitary sewer line which is being shown and this should this easement should also be shown on the plat that is to be recorded as part of staff comment number one. Uh comments number four and five are both utility comments that uh they appear to have shown but we're going to leave to let the utilities department review as part of their review process. Number six, uh parking spaces were not meeting our minimum dimensions. They are now meeting them. So number six can be removed as well. Uh comment number seven, the site data table that they provided on the landscape plan did not reflect our requirement minimums. So they have upped those and now do meet our requirements as shown. So kind R seven can be removed. Number eight, regarding the landscaping, uh we have a streetcaping requirement that the streetscaping should extend the entire length of the parcel along the public rideway. They're only showing it a portion of it, but since we also do not have that plat recorded for this area, we not sure how far that entire rideway actually is extending for this parcel. So uh we will keep coming number eight for them to extend that right ofway the landscaping inside that along the right

ofway where need number nine the road name was not being shown accordingly on all the plans they are not doing that so count number nine can be removed number 10 we asked them to submit the architectural elevations with the site plan as they're not shown those at this time and then there's another comment in here as well I forgot to mention here the rideway or landscaping is being shown within in the right ofway. So, we need that landscaping to be shifted outside of the rideway as well as part of the modifications to the landscaping plans. So, comments number uh six, seven, and nine are removed and the rest would remain. But with that, staff would recommend approval.

Okay. Comments from the commission. He mentioned the uh flat does come in and it's not what you all were expecting and we've already gone and approved this. Um what's the action taken at that point pertaining to what specifically? What would not be?

So we haven't seen the play yet. There hasn't been one submitted. So if it's greater than or lesser than in the amount of space that it is covering on these this space let's say it's less than then that's going to impact the location of this space I assume correct.

Mhm. Yeah. I mean it's been the same as part of the PRD they submitted this as well. It's consistent with the PRD that would be the standard that they would be held to as part of it as well. I mean, if something happens that the flag comes in and it's different than what the PRD shown and and this area has shrunk for some reason or something like that, they're probably means they have to re revise their plans and come back at that point as far as the the these specific site plans. I mean, yeah, but at this time, you feel comfortable enough to say go ahead and approve it based on information we got from the previous plats and information provided today.

Yes. Correct. We had a very similar one last month with Bradley Downs subdivision. That lot of record was not created at that time as well. It was to be recorded at some point in the future and similar situation. Okay. Anything else?

Okay. Hearing nothing. I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve staff comment. Have a motion to approve a staff comment. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. This motion is approved. Next up, we have Rutherford County Weekly Lane EMS, 267 Weekly Lane, owner, developer, Rutherford County. This is a uh this is the Rutherford County property on Weekly Lane. They are proposing to build out an EMS building just under 3,000 ft in size. A building would be located on the same parcel as the clerk's office, the recycling center, and the forensics lab that is currently under construction. Uh with as part of this EMS building would be two ambulance bays and additional room for bedrooms, a communal area as well as a kitchen for the employees. Vehicular use area on the site 4,68 ft and that does require 468 ft of landscaping. They are showing for the 468 ft meeting our requirements. Parking total, this is for the entire parcel as a whole. uh 98 spaces and they are showing for 112 uh total and they are showing for seven on site. Handicap parking on on site would be one space being required and they are showing for that one space. Landscape plan shows two trees planted within the parking area and additional shrubbery shown along the portion of the parking lot and near the entrance to the facility itself. As presented, landscape plan does not meet design review pertaining to streetscaping requirements. Architectural elevations have been revised as well since the plans since packets went out last week. So, I got some updated numbers here. There are quite a bit here. So, the architectural elevations show the building to be finished with a variety of materials which would include two variations of brick, glass glazing, and two styles of metal panels. Metal bait may be used as a primary material in industrial zones where the building is not visible from an arterial street. A weekly lane is a minor arterial roadway. So would that would not be allowed at this point in time for metal to be used as that

primary material. As a result of that material percentages which have been now provided to us show the front elevation consisting of 48% brick, 52% metal. South, which is a side elevation, has 64% brick and 36% metal. The north side has 7% brick and 93% metal. And the west, which is the rear of the building, would have 49% brick and 51% metal. Overall, there is 42% brick with 58% metal on the building. The building does not meet design review at this time based on the amount of metal shown, but it is consistent in appearance with the forensic building that is on site currently under construction. Standard comments one through four will remain from staff and we had a couple staff comments as well. We asked them to revise the landscape plan to meet design review. Uh comment number two, the architectural elevations would also be required to meet design review. We asked them to revise those as well. Number three, a minimum of 1500gallon oil water separator is required. This is a comment from our utilities department which would remain as well. And comment number four, correcting the address. Uh it was shown inconsistently on some pages. We would like it shown on the cover sheet of their civil sets. So with that, staff would recommend approval with those comments. Being a governmental entity, governmental uh building, is this much like uh the schools built built? Are they required to meet our design review?

They are not necessarily required to. It is a more of a courtesy thing that we're here presenting to show you what we are getting ready to build. Do it anyway. Um how does this you I heard you mention kind of lines up with the forensic center. Yeah, the materials and their appearance and overall design of the building is very similar to how that forensics building is shaping up to look. I you I'm going to put you on the spot. You probably won't remember what was the percentages on the forensic building. Do you recall? You're correct. I'm I'm not that good. I didn't put you on the spot, did I? So, I haven't seen any metal on the forensics building. Is it not? It's all brick. Maybe on the front glass. Might be the front. Yeah, there's

some glass. But they haven't put this ice cream up either. That's probably going to be metal. Yeah, there there's definitely metal on. I do recall. I can't remember the percentages. This is a formality to us. I mean, I know why chairman's asking the question because consistency matters to us, but being a governmental authority involved, I don't know that I don't know that we can dictate. Yeah. Our authority did not extend to the county. They're not under our jersey. You cleared that up real quick. [laughter] Thanks. But on the positive side, having a new facility is a benefit. Yes, sure.

Okay. Any other discussion?

Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve based on staff comments. Motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Our staff comments do recommend meeting design review and everything else as well. Yeah, I think I think being consistent in our recommendations is fine and they can buy it or not. Yeah. Okay. That's what we do all the time with the school board when they bring stuff to us. That's what we did with the forensic center. You know, Scott, you're good to maintain your motion. Yep. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second. Motion in the second. Further discussion.

So, just noting that on [clears throat] the uh showing on the plants, they are showing the HVAC units out exposed where everybody can see them. [snorts] But like you said, there's not much we can say about that. You said you don't like it. I I think it's not consistent from what we've been trying to as a town. I think it is consistent with what they're doing forensic center. There's two giant air conditioning units on the forensic center. So when that got semi trucks when that came through BZA I remember asking that question specifically is there going to be something there and they said yes

same with the guard when they built anything there we yes yes sir yes okay any other discussion all those in favor of approving this motion please signify by saying I opposed this motion is approved Uh next we have a uh zoning ordinance amendment article 3 section 3.180 fences.

Yeah, this is something that staff has prepared and is proposed. This is not one that has been t discussed at our joint meetings. This is something that's u we're seeing an issue we want to try and address. Um, this would limit the type of fencing materials that are allowed in residential districts, uh, as well as prohibit installation of a fence on a vacant parcel of land. Um, currently the town does limit materials for decorative fences in front yards, but no other material requirements. Um, the amendment would prohibit barred wire, chicken wire, razor wire, concertina wire, or other similar security fencing in any residential district. Uh it would also prohibit installation of a fence on an undeveloped parcel of land. A fence on land used for agricultural uses is largely exempt from the town's fencing requirements already. So that would extend to those these provisions as well if the council chooses to adopt it. Um the the amendment we had added we we did include the definitions just for clarification just in case you had any questions there. And then the areas that are highlighted in yellow are the areas to to be added to the ordinance. And that's that's what we're recommending. If there was a concern, I think someone raised about potential for electric or security fencing if we wanted to add that or not, we could add that as well, I guess, into that on on E there. Um but the primary concern is we didn't feel like it was appropriate for those type of materials in residential areas certainly industrial areas or things that's a different thing but for indust for residential properties u didn't feel like that was an appropriate thing. Cool. And

okay, that's what we got. Questions concerning uh this amendment uh for Kevin? Kevin, our action would be either to recommend or not to recommend this to to the council. To the council. [clears throat] a motion that we recommend uh this to council favorably. Okay.

A second motion. And we're getting all kinds of seconds now. Okay. A motion and a second to uh make a favorable recommendation to council concerning this amendment to the zoning ordinance. Do I have a motion second? Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I opposed and this motion is approved. Okay. Uh [clears throat] we're now on to the May bond review reports. Good gracious. There's a lot.

Yeah, we got a lot tonight. So, we'll go through them. There is most are fairly routine. We do have one that's not. And that's the first one on the list there, the Brookers Ben uh section one phase one. Uh this is one we've had for a lot of years. I've been trying to work with the developer to get things done and it uh never never got completed and unfortunately he did pass away. Um and so um we are at the point we've had some homeowners there that hold homes for a while now without pay final topping on the road and those kind of things. So there's some other cleanup items that need to happen too before that's done. So we are as a staff are recommending that we would call that bond. Um so we probably need to vote on that one separately. Typically we it would be a recommendation the council to formally call the money uh out of the escrow account that we we actually already have in an escrow account. It would just remove it from that escrow account uh into the proper account to actually begin spending it. Um so we would recommend that one. Um, again, probably needs to have a separate motion on that. Uh, I'll go through the rest of these as well, so we can go and finish that part of it up. Sundale section 3, they're they're less than 50% built out there. Um, so I would recommend a six-month extension on that at the same amount. Burton Farm 6, this is the end of the maintenance period. Um, if they can get everything done by the May 22nd, we could release it. otherwise extend 3 months um on that one. I did not hear back from the developer on that one. Um Buckingham Hills, same situation. End of the maintenance period. They can get done that's fine. Otherwise, extend 3 months. That that's one they need to finish that one up. My opinion, that one's been a while as well. Gwen Farms off-site improvements. This is one um we

are we working with the developer on this. The town's actually got a project on the bridge as well and they're we are actually going to be doing the work rather than them do the work and us do the work in the same space. Um and so that we are have an agreement with them to pay us back once that's done. That should be finished by this summer. Um and so just I'm want to hang on to this bond to make sure until we get that payment in. That's really the only reason to keep that bond actually. They're pretty much finished up. Uh Saddle Grove, this is the end of their maintenance period. Um they had a couple items there. Uh they were working with them. Those are I think they're getting close to or may have finished those this week. So, um hopefully we'll be able to release that. If not, extend it three months. Gwen Farms phase three section one. Um they uh did not hear back from the developer there. They have uh paved out there. So this is we are recommending a reduction in that one to 15,000 and begin the one-year maintenance period. Uh blatanty section 4. Uh this is one that's they are built out now. Again did not hear back from the developer but would not recommend anything more than a six-month extension there since they are built out. they're to the point they could pave and and start the maintenance period if they would get to us. But um and we've got several blies. This is ones really these are all the end of their maintenance period and several of these and so would recommend release if they get done by June 2nd. I think they're all June 2nd dates. Um otherwise extend 3 months. Um, Greystone phase 1B1,

they have indicated they would, we've only had this one one year. Um, but they have indicated that they would, we should be able to get done with this done within 6 months. So, we recommend a six-month extension on that to then maybe hopefully at the end of that can begin their one-year maintenance period. Uh, Cedar Park. This the commercial development that kind of connects Rock Springs Road uh over to to Cedar Grove. Um, they um they're getting closer to being built out there. They have indicated they plan to have everything completed this year uh by late summer or early fall. So, would recommend a six-month extension there. Hopefully, they can get that one finished up this summer. Uh, another Blakeney, same situation. um 3-month extension uh if they're not done by June 7th. Uh Buckingham Place section 3 has three items left. So hopefully they can get that done, knocked out by June 10th. Again, another one we could release if they're done. Uh lot 7 Oaks. Uh this was a a utilities bond. Uh they had indicated they would have should be able to have those things done by this week. We would recommend a reduction in that one and begin the one-year maintenance period. And then Tommy's car wash. Um, this is really kind of a private area behaving bond that we have. He did ask us to extend. He's wanting to wait till the adjoining lot develops, which is on the market. Um, there's not been any issues out there that we're aware of. So, we would be okay with the six-month extension on that one as well. So, that's our recommendation. Again, probably need two motions. one for the recorders Ben specifically since we're are recommending calling that one and then the rest of it just to for as as we discussed so as we recommended that's all I got any questions or discussion on the bomber review report.

Hey Kevin on Clint Farms coming down Rock Springs I don't know if anybody's inspected it or not. Looks like they went just so far with the trees along the detention pond and stopped short. Just driving by. It looks like they need to finish. Okay. Line out towards uh the Razzle or Waldron Road. Okay, we'll take a look at that. Okay, that's all I got. Okay. All right. Then uh I'll entertain um S motion on the first one. Let's let's address the first one.

Okay. I'll I'll make a motion to per Kevin's suggestion call bond. Rooker's bin subdivision section one. Okay. I have a motion uh to call the bond on Rooker's Bin subdivision section one. Do I have a second? Second. Motion a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. This motion is approved. Now I'll make a motion for the bond review report to be accepted. Okay. I have a motion. You are on file to accept the bond review report. Do I have a second?

I'll second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving the remaining portion of the bon report, please signify by saying I. I. Bon report is approved. staff comments and other business. Um, couple things. Uh, Mr. Scurr asked me to pass these out. So, he he has had some some suggestions based on discussion a couple months ago. He said something about us anticipating things that could be trends. And so, he did a little research and wants to pass that out for everyone's information. Yeah. Uh, good. So,

could I help with that? So, I asked my best friend ChatGpt and Google AI, uh, what are new and unusual trends in zoning that cities need to be aware of, focusing on unusual uses that may be undesirable? And it came back with some interesting things. I think we've got many of these covered, but some of them like ghost kitchens, uh, dark retail phantom storefronts that become distribution pods. Um, one interesting is data centers, uh, starting to encroach into commercial areas bordering on residential areas. Um, and one that I found really interesting is apparently a number of YouTube influencers are turning their homes into production studios in residential neighborhoods. So, for whatever it's worth, I thought it was uh some things that I didn't know and and many things it looks like we've already taken care of.

Interesting. Thank you, Charles. Interested. Thank you very

uh the only other thing uh next Thursday night the uh the town is holding our second road show. It's on the campus there at Mlo State Community College. So we certainly invite everyone to attend. Uh and also uh we are have begun and many of you all came to our public meeting we had on April 21st. We we've begun the process of updating our comprehensive plan. There is a survey out there. It is available on the town. you can get to it very easily on the front page of the town website. Uh we would love obviously all this commission but also anyone in the public to go in there fill out that information that's in that survey. It won't take very long to help us uh provide some public input into the development of our plan. So uh and I believe that's all that I've got. Okay. Anything else?

Happy Mother's Day. Happy Mother's Day. Oh, you are on fire. [laughter] And with that, let's we'll stand ajourned on that.

So, the cool tech drop