Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And good evening, everybody. I'd like to call to order the June 4th, 2026 Municipal Planning Commission meeting tonight. We're we're shorthanded tonight, as you can tell. So hopefully we'll get through this and have some votes and make the process go smoothly for you tonight. Before we start, I'd like to ask Vanessa to stand and do the prayer. And then following that, we'll remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, if you would.

Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us all here together safely. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to serve our town and take up what needs to be looked at and dealt with on behalf of our citizens. Please give us guidance and discernment in making the best decision possible for both and take us home safely this evening. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Thanks, Vanessa, and thank you, Scott. All right, next on our agenda, item number two is a public hearing. So I'm going to turn this over to Kevin on plan of services for Hollingshead land use.

Yeah, this is a plan of services for the agenda item. It's a little bit later on. The annexation and zoning request on Jefferson Pike. This is the plan of services. The planning commission is required to hold a public hearing on the plan of services before you make a recommendation. And so plan of services for this is fairly standard. This does lie within Consolidated Utility District's water service area. But other than that, the town would be providing all services. It would also include, as part of the annexation discussion, and so it would also include it in the plan of services, is the annexation of almost 2,300 linear feet of the right-of-way of West Jefferson Pike, as well as 475 linear feet of the right-of-way of a county road labeled McCormick Court. And so... That's all that I've got.

Do we need to open this for public comment? So because this is a public hearing, I'd like to invite anybody from the audience who would like to speak for or against this item currently to come to the podium. We'll ask you to give your name, address, and whether you live in the town of Smyrna or not. So here's your opportunity to do so. All right, and seeing none, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll move this down to new business. We'll be voting on this in just a short bit, correct?

That's correct.

All right. So on the next item is Trent Hughes, 524 Amable Road, Project at 526. Is this also a public hearing for that? It's the Citizen Commons. Okay, Citizen Commons. We had somebody register to speak. Am I right?

Yeah, Trent Hughes.

Okay, we're going to have you come to the microphone, give your name, address, Trent, and apparently you do live in the town of Smyrna?

I live at 524 Anvil Road outside.

Okay, and you have three minutes to speak.

Yes, sir. Again, my name is Trent Hughes. I live at 524 Anvil Road here in Smyrna. I've lived there for almost 20 years now. Previous neighbor there, little old lady, lived there for years and years and years. Things fine. In the past year, year and a half or so, it was purchased. It was rented out. They excavated the backyard. They put gravel over the backyard. It all drains to my house. It's coming up out of my driveway now. Constant trash everywhere. They ran over my mailbox twice. I did police reports on both. The pool fences broke down. The pool has mosquitoes. I was kept getting bugs and I kept spraying my lawn, spraying my lawn. I couldn't get that stuff. I ended up having to spray half the property next door. to get the bugs to stop and whatnot. The lawn's been cut once this entire year. They are constantly having trash fall on mine and then for the first six or eight months they were there, there was trash stacked up on the side of the house up about eight feet tall. They'd only take out trash once or twice that I know they've been there and they'd fill an entire truck with it. Basically, all these things, I went from a nice neighbor. I know all my neighbors around me. We do things together. We're always similar to each other, and it's been great or whatnot. But since the new ownership with the renters, It has not been good and clearly under the new owners, I don't see it being going commercial a good idea if they can't maintain a simple residential R1. Especially when the renters are in there, we had up to on average six to seven vehicles in the back lawn all time, equipment, trailers, trucks everywhere at all time and Multiple, multiple people stand there, different people all the time, different cars there all the time. I came home before they were all lined up in my driveway, blocked my entire driveway, parked in my driveway. I tried multiple times to be civil. And honestly, I wish I went forward with more of this previous, but I try not to stir things up if I can help it. But unfortunately, when I saw the rezoning and whatnot, I felt that it was time for me to speak up. And I think going forward would be a mistake under the current ownership. And let's see, I guess that's about it for now, but there's a, there's a lot of, a lot of items there that, uh, I'm going to pursue to get addressed going forward and other, other avenues. I just wanted to speak on this before we make a decision on making it C2.

So, so clearly you're in opposition of that.

Absolutely.

I'm an opposition currently.

It's been a rough, uh, a little over a year or whatnot. And like I said, I've been there almost 20 years. Never had any issue.

Are you to the right of the property facing if you're facing it? Yes. Right. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Anything else? You had a few more seconds left.

I wish I'd known about this sooner. I'd be more prepared. Unfortunately, I had to leave work early and race here.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Next, we have Walter Cook at 7294 Florence Road. Mr. Cook, if you would, we have your name and your address. Let us know if you live in the town or not. Apparently, you do not. I do not.

I live adjacent to the city limits. The city limits is on my northern and my western boundary of my property.

You've got three minutes to speak, sir. Thank you.

It's my understanding that the corner there at Rebel Road is the request to rezone for commercial. I've talked to Mitchell the day before yesterday. Very kind, very informative, very courteous. Managed to give me the instructions how to be here and do this properly. But the problem facing it is the traffic. And of course, half of Florence Road down through there is actually in the county. And myself and at least the next two landowners there owned to the middle of the road. And that was one of the reasons the three lane that comes up to steel technology ends where it ends. So there is that that would have to be contend with and as well as drainage in that, I don't know, probably not familiar, but the corner of that lot fills up, runs over Florence road and trying to mitigate that and the traffic problems and dealing with putting a commercial operation in a very, uh, it's not a, it's not a good fit for that particular location due to road drainage. And right now, and, um, Mr. Reesby could tell me it's R2. Is that correct? Actually R1. So it's single dwellings, family dwellings. And, uh, we would like to hope that it would remain that for just continuity And, you know, we have a good neighborhood. So, anyway, I thank you very much, and I also thank you all very much for all the times past that you all have worked with me. In 30 years, you all developing have been exceptional. And I can say you all are absolutely an excellent model for a municipality. We appreciate that comment.

Thank you, Mr. Cook. Thank you. All right, we'll move on to approval and correction of the minutes. Council, is everything to be in order?

It appears to be.

All right, take a motion on the minutes from someone.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

I have a motion.

Second.

Second from Charles. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving the minutes, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And motion carries. New business. Annexation zoning and plan of service request. Back to Kip.

Yeah, this is obviously the request that we just talked about with the plan of services. This is a request to annex two separate parcels of land that total 70.08 acres. Currently, they are zoned RM in Rutherford County. The surrounding zoning in this area is RMCM, which is commercial neighborhood zoning, and then LI, or light industrial, in Rutherford County. The nearest town property is on PUD, and that's the SRM headquarters and that whole PUD in that area there. The land use plan for this area is the 840 Gateway character area, which would support a mix of uses and services both local and regional in scale, such as hospitality, retail, restaurant, high density residential and industrial warehousing uses. The major thoroughfare plan does designate West Jefferson Pike as a principal arterial and adequate railway does exist in this area for that street. Annexation of these tracks would require the annexation of approximately 2,298 feet of the existing right-of-way of Jefferson Pike or State Route 266 from the existing town limits to the intersection with McCormick Court. Annexation of the existing right-of-way of McCormick Court should also be considered, as it is proposed for access to this property. It is approximately 475 linear feet, including the coal sack at the end of it. Annexation of the Jefferson Pike or State Route 266 right-of-way would also include the annexation of the existing traffic signals at the two interstate entrance and exit ramps. The town has an agreement with Rutherford County for the maintenance of these signals already in place. We would not be taking on any additional maintenance responsibilities there. We would just no longer be receiving any funding from the county maintaining them. A sewer lift station on the east side of 840 north of West Jefferson Pike would be required. That would be to provide sewer to this area. So that would involve as well as extending sewer underneath 840 as well. The fire department advised that this development would require two entrances. Staff did recommend the existing driveway. There is an existing driveway at the easternmost end edge of the property as far away from the interstate exit as possible. The second entrance there would need to meet your fire code requirement for separation there. The references there in the comments, um, uh, then the two that are shown would be too close to each other. And so there need to be some discussion. This, this is not a PUD request or any type of thing like that. This is we, but we did have a concept plan that was submitted, um, which would be yeah, here. So the access, again, that I was talking about is this area here. That's where it's shown. There is an existing access to the state highway at that location that was created, I assume, when the road improvements were made. There will also be an access to McCormick Court. That does cross an adjoining property. that has not been requested to be annexed, so that driveway would, that portion out of the access would be outside of the town limits. There is an existing 50-foot wide easement there within that development for this property to utilize. We didn't make the comment just because it would be outside of the town limits that they would have to coordinate with Rutherford County for construction of that easement or that access.

How about the road integrity itself?

If it's a county road standard? That is a county road. I know I did speak with the public works director. He was going to take a look at that. I don't know. I did not hear back from him. I don't know if he was able to do that or not. It is a fairly new road. It's only been there six or eight years, something like that at most. So it has not had a tremendous amount of time for wear and tear. And it only has the one user on it. It is an industrial trucking company user, but that is the only user on it currently. We've seen what trucks can do to intersections around town. Sure, sure, absolutely. So I do not know if he was able to get that looked at or not. I did mention it to him. Traffic study, when the development, if this is approved, when the site plan come in, the traffic study would be required. Any improvements would be required to be completed by the developer. This does lie within CUD service area. They do have a 16-inch water main on the south side of Jefferson Pike to serve this area. And so they would have to work with that for radical fire flow and all just working with CUD. As the concept plan does show, Again, this is just a concept plan. There's no putt or anything holding them to anything like this, but just show the four industrial buildings and then about 5.2 acres of C2 zoning along Jefferson Pike. So the 70 acres, just under 65, 64.8, 64.9 would be... And it would be zoned I1 and then C2 on the front.

So the back portion would be the industrial?

Would be the industrial. Okay. Basically all around it on this side here, this side and the south, that is all core property. So they are basically surrounded on three sides by the core. Then you have the road and then the properties here on this side, which is two tracks basically. One vacant and one, the vacant tract actually has been approved for development, but it hasn't been built yet in the county.

So as a reminder, this is strictly a zoning request with a concept plan, right? That's correct. And so has staff or anybody figured out the remedy for the two ingress-egress locations? And how does that look if so? Yeah, we haven't yet, no. Is that doable, being that one of those is really close to the 840 rim?

Yeah, we would want any access to be as far away from the exit as possible, certainly, just because of... And that leg of it is commercial. Right. So you'll have cars. Yeah. Because we would like – obviously, I think the intent, I believe, is for the industrial traffic to utilize McCormick Court. I don't know that that's – it would be hard to maybe completely prohibit that, potentially, depending on how it's set up or whatever. But that is the intent, I believe, is to have it utilized by McCormick Court, which is the existing – Access point is being utilized already with the trucking company. That's already there But we as far as That's something that we would have to look at very closely and it would be look something we will look at its site plan certainly But and I doubt very seriously you might have spoken to it.

There's no There's no real idea of putting a signal there, but most of those trucks are going to be taking a left to go to 840

I mean, I think that's something that would have to be looked at. Again, at the McCormick Court, I think you would want to have it be as separated as far from the exit ramp signals as possible. Maybe at that McCormick Court intersection, that could be something that gets looked at, certainly. A traffic study would have to be done that would show that.

Yeah, and there's a rise just past that, too, on Jefferson Pike that makes it hard to see if you're trying to turn left. large vehicle. And McCormick Court is in county, correct? Yes. So we would, had they requested for that to be annexed or?

They have not. I mean, we have, this is something we as a staff did recommend it, but no. We did inform the county. We talked to the county about it. And there was no objections of any kind. Again, about the annexation.

Currently, the business to the north is a trucking company, as I recall, right? Yes. And so they seem to be maneuvering that well. But I agree with you. I think that if this were to grow legs and see some sort of approval, I think we'd have to put a caveat somewhere in there that we would ask them to direct all their traffic to McCormick out of the warehousing section. I don't know if we can mandate that or not, but we certainly don't need trucks doing anything different than what that business next to it is already doing. Doubling the amount of trucks coming out at both streets. I don't think that would work.

Right. I think that's something we could look at again if approved at the site plan. The applicants are here, and the representation is here.

I think they might be, and that's the big part of having this discussion. We're not calling on you to go and sit back down. That's a big part. We might in a minute. That's a big part of the discussion we want to have, though, is I think the traffic organization of it is the main thing. I think the zoning probably does make sense just because of where it's located at. and the core all wrapped around it. Nothing else is going in there. Questions, Charles?

Did they discuss the C2 piece or that's a to be determined?

I think that's just a to be determined. I think obviously we would want to preserve... By your orders, the warehouse. Yeah, I think that's their development plan with the C2 piece being sold or whatever. I think the... Obviously, being an interstate exit, we would want to preserve as much C2 property as possible. Immediately, the property that is to the to the east, actually. This is oriented a little differently if you look at it this way. The property, that parcel that is north of the trucking company, that is a commercial zoning in the county and has a commercial development plan that's been approved. It's not been built yet. So you would be in some ways kind of consistent with the zoning line there with what's already there in the county as far as commercial there.

Good question. Charles, any others? Does anybody potentially have any questions for the developers representative that's here?

Just pure curiosity.

Okay.

How could we frame the additional traffic access concern?

Would we do that at site plan?

We could. I mean, if you wanted to. I mean, I think they've heard it. Obviously, they're here. I mean, there could be some sort of condition that as part of the traffic discussion that you would recommend a restriction of truck traffic to McCormick Court or something like that. Is recommending a strong enough word? Certainly, you could require it. I like require better. Yeah.

Well, if we annex and change the zoning, fire would need to go out. Yeah, they would have to look at the site.

Well, it does give us the two ways in and out, kind of. It's kind of like you can get in and out two side streets, but they adjoin at one.

Yeah, and the access is shown across the commercial property. I mean, it's still, the industrial buildings still are kind of only have the, depending on if you have an incident or something happens on that driveway, say here, Then everybody there's no other way to get to them at least by this plan at least there's only place you get to it is Is you're still coming here. You're coming here You know if you had some sort of yeah issue there Doesn't mean you couldn't have something internally here to get access or something like that You're not gonna have another access to Jefferson Pike, right? So I

I will suspend the rules, and I'm going to ask you to come up because I have one question for you. Thanks for jumping up early on me.

You know I get excited. Name and address, please. Chris McGuire with Huddleston Steel Engineering, 2115 Northwest Broad Street in Murfreesboro.

My question is you heard the comments about the ingress, egress, and the flow of traffic. Yes, sir. I don't know if you have a suitor for this yet or not. If you do, okay. If you don't, okay. But in your opinion, if we put a requirement for that suitor, the industrial suitor, to use that lane over to McCormick, do you see that as being an issue for the party you may be talking to?

No, sir. In all reality, our intention is there's currently a driveway on Jefferson Pike along this frontage and an access road that goes down to the core. Our intention is to talk with TDOT about consolidating those two entrances into a single one that we have shown that will only be a right in, right out. So you will not have truck traffic trying to turn left out of there. The intent will be they go to McCormick to a light and turn left to get to the interstate.

A light at McCormick?

Yes, sir. At McCormick and Jefferson, it would have to be a future light, but it would have to be warranted by TDOT. Well, that's why I'm asking the question, because that's awfully close to the... the 840 light? In talks with TDOT in the past, a light has been considered there for other projects. It's just when the trips generated meet the threshold that it's warranted is the point which they will allow us to add one. So if it's not warranted, they won't let you put one even if you want one. And if that were not to occur due to TDOT's request? Well, any connection onto TDOT is going to trigger. Yeah, I understand that.

But if they said no,

What's your remedy? That's a good question. I can't imagine that they would say no. Given the history in the area, I've done a few projects right there, and it's been requested in the past. The trips just haven't warranted it.

Okay.

And as this northeast side develops, it's going to be more and more needed. People on Mona Road, where I live, are familiar with the issues with lights right there currently. So I can't imagine it wouldn't be supported. Any questions for Chris while he's up?

I do have one clarification question, Chris. Your site plan, your concept plan shows I-1, but the request was actually I-2, I guess, on the industrial zoning. But we'll be sure we get the right one, I guess.

I'll get that clarified. Yeah. Well, we need to know that.

We need to know that tonight, actually, because I believe it's I-1.

We're going with similar zoning to what was across 840, the industrial portion in the back. I believe it was I-1. Can you be sure about that? Yes, sir. I got the nod. I just wanted to make sure.

Somebody nod. Yes.

Did your nodder agree with some of our questions? Yes. Yeah. We have discussed this in the past. Okay. Because the reason we even have an easement over to McCormick was for access to this property when McCormick developed.

Okay.

And our office was a part of when it was developed.

All right. Any others for Chris? Thanks, sir. All right. You've heard the discussion. Any comment from the commission? If by chance there's going to be a motion to support this, make sure you phrase your motion correctly so that we cover some of the things that we discussed. And if there's no motion for it, we won't have to worry about it. But I'll take a motion from somebody.

I would move to approve with staff comments and the additional requirement. Requiring truck traffic to exit the facility on McCormick Road or Court. Keyword was required. Correct.

Did that meet?

It does.

All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All right. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. This is, by the way, this is I-1.

It is I-1, yes. Okay, and C-2, correct? We did verify that that is what was approved on the other side. Okay.

So we will add that to your motion, correct? Staff comments covers it. Yeah, absolutely, sir. All right. And a second. Agree? All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. On to our next item. Let me get there. Next item is rezoning requests. This is one from SEC Inc. on behalf of AMBA Builders Inc., 115 Rebel Road. The rezoning request is from R1 to PCD. Kevin.

Yeah, this is a request. It is at the corner of Rebel Road and Florence Road. It's about right at four acres, just a hair over four acres. Proposed request is R1 to be rezoned to a PCD planned commercial district. Proposal is for two buildings totaling 25,933 square feet. Surrounding zoning is R1, R3, and I3 in town, which is across Rebel Road is the steel technologies property there. And then RM in Rutherford County. Land use plan would support medium density residential in this area. The major thoroughfare plan does designate Florence Road as a minor arterial. Adequate right-of-way does exist on that street on this side. Rebel Road is designated a local street requiring a total of 50 feet right-of-way, and right-of-way is shown to be dedicated for this street at 25 feet from the center line as required. This requested PCD is to allow most of the uses allowed by right in C4, as well as the additional uses of some construction sales and service uses and food service takeout. Packaged liquor sales, beer stores, and vape and tobacco shops would be expressly prohibited. The minimum fire flow is indicated there, what they're required to have, and so just for their information. Auto turn, we did receive an auto turn for this. The fire department did review this and did not, they did get to revise one, but they still have some concerns there with that, so they still need to work through that with the fire department. We, as a staff, we did have a concern that there is a convenience market use. They're not a gasoline sales, but essentially anything else that you would have in a typical convenience market. That is not a use that's allowed in C4. So that is the additional use that was proposed, requested here, and we thought that might not be an appropriate use next to residential homes. Um, common array, we have made a comment about the metal not allowed as a secondary material. They have removed that. So, uh, the buildings as proposed would, uh, would appear to be designed review. Obviously if it's three zone, we would look at it more again at the site plan. Um, but it's proposed to do appear to be designed review now. We did ask them to show the proposed and existing water, sewer, and gas utilities on the plans. We did have an existing utility sheet that did show what the existing utilities were, but the proposed connections and all were not shown on the plan, so we still need to keep that comment. We have received, as I heard Mr. Cook spoke tonight, but we've had several other phone calls and other emails and things of that nature expressing opposition to this rezoning, which I believe everything we received I believe we provided to you all as well. So, but... So I did want to pass that along as well and just remind everyone about that. This is one we have seen in the past. It has been amended some. Since you saw it, some of the uses have been removed. And then the building, one of the buildings previously was shown on kind of backing up to the buffer area along the homes there in the adjoining neighborhood there. And it has been moved away from that and closer to the Rebel Road side. So that is one change in addition to some of the uses that were proposed before that have been removed. There are some road improvements they are proposing. One to Rebel Road. Essentially to widen it. It's only about 14 feet at this current time. So they're going to widen it to a complete two lane road with curbs sidewalk on the south side and then turn lane left turn. uh at the at the intersection and they're also proposing a widening of florence road as well with the left turn lane into rebel road as well as a turn lane into the site itself directly i think the only other thing within the putt itself that is somewhat unique is they are proposing all monument size no pole signs so other than that it would be a typical sign of you would see in a in a I think that's all I've got at this time.

Okay. I thought I heard you say C4 might not be a staff comfort.

No, C4, it was one of the uses that's proposed that is not in C4. It would be a C2 use. It would be the convenience market. That was our concern near residential areas. Most of the C4 uses that they're talking about, or would not be as much of an issue with.

So remind me, I think we've seen this twice before that I recall.

The first one, if I remember right, was a townhome request. We've had some discussion about, I don't know if the actual work requested town. I don't know. We had a C2. It never got that far. A C2 zoning was requested. Last time. Yeah, originally.

And we had a lot of opposition to that then. It did. And I doubt anybody's minds have been changed. the fact that this is C4. It's a lighter commercial product. It's not quite all the retail and stuff. But when I looked at this, the one thing, I try to look at everything from both angles. One thing that we did before, we had an issue pretty heavily about the buildings backing up to the residential and the noise level, the lighting, the shadowing, all that kind of stuff, plus ingress and egress. They've switched the buildings around. I don't know from the letters I've read that we've been sent that that makes a big difference to the people who live in the area. They're still worried about the traffic, the ingress, egress on that corner. Currently, it's a blank lot. Currently, they have Topre America in their backyard, really, with a distance. So I don't know that there's a remedy that would fit here other than what we discussed the last two times, and that was whether or not residential still made the most sense, because it's a residential product all around it other than Topre. So I would open it up for discussion. I know you all had a chance to look at this too and get your feeling and thought on it. Anybody?

This looks better than the last one. I do remember seeing this come before, even before I was here. But I'm never a huge fan of changing a residential

It's currently R1.

If you don't have to.

Currently R1, which is the default zoning of anything that was ever zoned in the beginning.

That goes back to this area was all annexed at the time that Nissan was built. It's been in the city that long.

Then Westport came along and it got rezoned. Rezoned R3 in there, yeah.

If we were to stay with residential zoning, would it be R4? Max...

I mean, I think, you know, the Rebel Road itself is, other than the steel technologies building, is all R1. R3 is what the neighborhood next to on the south side is. Yeah, West Fork's R3. West Fork is R3. There's a Rooker's Bend development on the east side of Florence Road is also R3. And so I think R3 or maybe, I mean you do have the industrial next to it, so I mean I think you could, I don't know if you would necessarily want to have high density residential, but higher density than R3 might be okay, which would be an R4. which would be some smaller lots, single family, some duplexes, that sort of thing, might be appropriate there just because you do have the industrial next to it. Kind of a transition to the larger lots. But I think that's probably as high as you would want to go.

And those of the ones listening or perhaps in the audience, we've read all your letters. that we've received, and we understand your concerns about all the things I mentioned when we opened about noise level and ingress, degress, and traffic and that kind of thing. I try to think, how can we make this work for everybody? It's tough because really the only thing I think that the neighbors would really want to have there is residential. And I'm not saying I disagree with that. I think it's the perfect site to do something like that in. On the flip side of that is I always say be careful kind of what you wish for because sometimes you may wind up with town homes or something in your backyard. We don't know that. We don't know that. We don't know what comes next. So I don't know that we can tell this landowner that they can't build on it. We just have to pick the right product to make everybody happy. That's the main thing. And so the letters I've read, I don't know if you all got a chance to see them yet or not, staunch opposition to it. And I had a conversation with somebody on the phone today to let them know that through via text messaging today that we had a lot of opposition to it again. I do appreciate the neighbors that have spoke up, the ones that have come and spoke up and shared their concerns too because Like Vanessa said, we want to be very sensitive to the fact that they've been there a while, and they just don't want to have this encroaching on their boundaries there. They don't own it. They don't get to pick what goes on it necessarily, but at the same token, we're in a weird spot here with a warehouse across from the backyards, large tracks on the opposite side of the road. and then R3 and behind it. The zoning is a mixed bag, so to speak, right there. I will be glad to listen to any offers of comment or motions that anybody might want to make. We've got to do something here tonight. Does anybody want to make a motion or have anything else they want to discuss?

I would move for denial on the basis that the requested zoning is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and land use.

Okay, so we have a motion for denial. Do we have a second?

I'm going to second.

Okay, so we have a motion to deny and a second. Any further discussion?

I just have a clarification question real quick. Kevin, what did you say probably the softest usage or rezoning would potentially be as a transition piece, so to speak? Like an R4?

Like an R3 or an R4, I think, would probably, if you do residential, I think. I mean, of course, you could do a PRD of some type as well that has some sort of... Whatever that would be.

It's a good question. I don't want to take your thought away.

No, no, no. You're fine. You go ahead.

Years ago, I know we did some P&Os over there on Nissan Boulevard. Professional office buildings. And that cuts way back on your retail and so forth. I'm just throwing it out there. I'm not saying that's what we should do at night. But if there's an idea of the neighbors being comfortable with an office complex, much like what you see In behind the Circle K, across from Walmart there, business professional offices, things like that. Maybe that's a better use if they want to try to get a better bang for their dollar. I don't know. I can't tell you what to do with it, but it would be a much, much softer use.

Yeah, like a P&O. Yeah, and we've done that in a few other places. We've had P&O. There's no retail at all in that. It's attorneys and office space. It's attorneys, insurance offices, things like that, which would also be allowed in what's proposed.

I don't know if that softens the mindsets of the people who have to look at it and live behind it. I don't know, but... And we're not talking about doing that here tonight anyway.

That would be something... No, I was just asking that for clarification.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a great question. That made me think about that.

I definitely like what you're saying because you're going to cut down on the widening. I think that's the big thing they're worried about. A few people I talked to, I actually did have a few people I talked to about it that... They're worried about the dump, the trash pickup, 5 a.m., the noise, the lighting. I mean, if you go with some kind of attorney office, they're going to hold regular hours. I don't imagine they're going to work at midnight unless they've got a DUI case, which I think that's not going to be something continuous. Yeah.

Well, it's good for thought, I think, that we can give to the owner-developer, because right now we have a motion and a second to deny it. And before we end discussion, I just kind of wanted to throw that out there as a concept. And I don't know, the neighbors would have to talk about how they feel about all that. But we're here to try to please everybody. Maybe there's a balance there somewhere, but right now it's awfully tough to do. All right, with a motion to deny and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any opposed? That motion's been denied. Okay, moving on. Item number two under new business. Reda Bushra. Yes. 526 Amable Road. Rezoning request R1 to C2. Okay.

Yeah, this is a request on 526 Alamo Road. It's about 0.95 of an acre, so just under one acre of property. Currently zoned R1, requested to be rezoned to C2. Surrounding zoning is R1 and C2, which is directly to the south of the property as well as across the street. The rest of the property around it is R1. A land use plan would support medium-density residential development in this immediate area and the 24 Gateway character area, which is across the street there, which would have support, you know, a mix of uses and services like hospitality, retail, restaurant, and multifamily. A major thoroughfare plan does designate Alamoville Road as a minor arterial, so adequate right-of-way would be required to be dedicated for this street if it is developed. There is a cemetery on this property called the Marable Cemetery, according to information from the Rutherford County Archives Office. This cemetery is required to be protected if the property is developed, so that's just an added information on the specific property. We don't always see, but we see quite a bit. Again, this is just a straight zoning to C2. It's not a PUD or anything like that, so we don't have a specific plan or use or anything like that for the property. That map shows the current and proposed zoning with what's surrounding it. You did, again, you heard from the gentleman earlier tonight. I think that's, there was one other neighbor I know that called me that had a question about what was proposed, but it had not, didn't express any opposition or favor, just asked what was going on. So, I think that's all I've got.

Okay, so. You've seen the zoning requests from R1 to C2. We also heard from Mr. Hughes at the beginning of our meeting tonight that lives next door to the property and some of the issues he's being faced with as he lives there. You know, one of the things when I look at this, we call this Old Imelville Road. If you lived in Smyrna long enough, this is, Imelville Road's the big one. This is the smaller old part. And we know that some of the commercial has crawled up the road from Lee Victory Parkway and Amable Road. A lot of commercial along through there. I guess if there's any concern on my part, it's do we continue up this road rezoning properties?

Where's the line?

Where's the line? We had one over there. This body will recall we had one over on New Amable Road off of one mile, past one mile. Kind of a similar situation, it butted up against the neighborhood. And then we had one on Old Nashville Highway over near Vanderford Lane and all that kind of stuff that wanted to bring in commercial on the highway front. If I have a concern, it's just setting a precedent of taking our residential that are on some of these roadways. turning them into commercial, and then we don't have our hands on them any longer, really. I mean, it's a commercial product. We don't know, will they leave it like it is? Will they rehab it? Will they rebuild it? What kind of noise levels and things that the neighbors may have to entail? There are neighbors not, we've heard from Mr. Hughes, who lives next door, there are also neighbors along the back that we have to be cognizant of as well, so... Comments or questions, I'm open for them.

Is this property right next to it already a commercial property?

Yes. That's the old, what was that? Sean Tinsley built that.

Yeah.

It was an HVAC company or something?

Yeah. That was the last time I haven't been on the property in a while, but it was like in about boiler company or something like that's in there now. He built that building several years ago, and then you had the recently, the car wash that got built pretty recently there, too, on the corner. It doesn't show up on this map because it was after the pictures were taken.

Well, and again, trying to be cognizant of everybody, the owner and the neighbor. We want everybody to try to hear us out and We always look for solutions. According to Mr. Hughes, he's had to deal with a lot of other issues. I don't know if those are codes-related issues or not. I can't tell you that. And if that's going on, I'd have a little bit of concern there, too. Any other comments or questions, or anybody want to make a motion? No, I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. You had your three minutes?

Good thing, you know, no houses were torn down.

Yeah, yeah, okay. Sorry, we can't open it back up.

All right. I will say I was thinking when he was thinking about that, because I remember when they built the HVAC and, yeah, they didn't. tearing houses down for it. It was kind of there. Has codes gone out there? Have they ever looked at it?

I'm sure they've been by there. Christy's in the audience and Christy could probably tell us if she's been by there or not. But I see hands being raised. This is not a public hearing. We are in discussion now. That happened earlier. You had to be on the list to speak. And I'm not going to suspend the rules tonight for anybody else. So... We need to move forward with deciding on whether or not this should be approved or not.

Well, this seems to be very similar to the discussion we had on the last property. It's consistent. If commercial is not the correct transition, are there some other things that might be a better transition? But it's really, just like the other one, a question of where you draw the line. It appears that we want to stop the pure commercial progression going, I guess that would be west, east, west.

North. Down all the way. All the way. Yes.

You know, so I think it's the same discussion for the developers that are here. You know, this just does not seem to be the right fit as it was with the application we just looked at.

Not only that one, but the consistency on the ones we've done probably this past six months or so on over there near One Mile and the ones I mentioned. And Tim's not here tonight, but as a chairman, he would always remind us our consistency is the biggest thing we have to work with. But I agree with you, Charles. If there's other options for them, should this not go through tonight, I'm speaking as if I don't know, but should this be approved, you'd be good to go. But should it not, maybe there are alternatives to something besides C2 that would work. Do I have a motion?

I have a motion to deny.

I have a motion to deny. And do I have a second? I'll second. I have a motion and a second for denial. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion has been denied. Moving on. Site plans. We have the one in front of us on the desk for St. Luke's Catholic Church. Kevin?

Mitch, you got that?

This is a site plan for St. Luke's.

There's an existing building on the property in which the applicant would like to redevelop, if you will. The current building is about 3,600 square feet, and the proposed structure they would like to build is just under 8,600 square feet at 8,580 square feet. Intended use for the structure would be for an auxiliary space, storage, meeting space as needed, not necessarily intended at this point in time to be a regularly occupied space as the normal religious facility would be for weekly occurrences. Square footage of vehicular use area. Numbers have changed since PACS went out last week, so this time we're looking at 9,401 square feet, and that does require 940 square feet of landscaping. The applicant is proposing for 976 square feet, meeting the requirements. Total parking. Religious facilities are based on standard fixed seating. It would normally be one space per three seats, but due to the proposed intended uses of this being more of a secondary, auxiliary, more of an accessory space, we didn't really have a required space plus there's already additional hand. There's already additional spaces that are present on the property and this is increasing what is already existing on the property today as well. So what they're proposing though is an additional 22 spaces to be added to the property and without at least one handicap parking space would be required and they're showing for two. The landscape plan shows oak trees planted within landscape islands. Additional shrubbery is shown in front of the parking area and near the main entrance to the building from the parking lot. Architectural character. The elevations presented show a mixture of brick, glass glazing, and metal. The front, which faces southwest, is the prominent elevation, which would be seen from Old Nashville Highway. It contains about 91% primary materials, which is brick and glass glazing. The side, southeast elevation, would have 50% metal with the remainder divided between brick and glass glazing. The opposing side, being the northwest, would similarly mirror the southeast elevation of 51% metal and the remaining mixture of brick and glass glazing. The rear, northeast, shows 60% metal with 31% brick and 9% glass glazing. As presented, the architectural elevations do not meet design review on both sides and the front elevation. And the front elevation would be visible from Old Nashville Highway and would be required to have a minimum 75% primary materials. Overall, the building is shown to have 39% metal. Design review only allows for a maximum of 10% accent materials, so this far exceeds what our design review allows as well. Standard comments one through seven all remain at this time. A couple staff comments to go over with this. Comment number one is regarding the architectural elevations, which do not meet designer view. We've got the elevations facing on Nashville Highway does meet designer view, but the other three do not, based on the overall percentage of metal shown is also greater than what is allowed. The owner has requested approval of the plans as submitted here tonight. Comment number two, we asked them to show a dumpster enclosure elevation. They showed the front of it. We do need them to show all faces, showing that it is consistent with the primary materials shown on the building itself. So comment number two will be revised but will remain. Comments number three and four go hand in hand. These are both from the fire department. There was some questions regarding public and private hydrants that are present on the property. We have figured out internally that the closest hydrant which would service this building is a public hydrant and there's concerns though regarding the adequate pressure that is available at that hydrant. There needs to be some redo of the lines out there on the property in order to make it be up to code for adequate fire suppression purposes. So we're still, it's kind of up in the air as far as what that looks like at this time. We don't have up-to-date plans on what that is. So that is part of this comment. Another comment was regarding the previous plan set that went out showed a kind of a hook on the one side On the left side of the building, there's a little wraparound. They have removed that as that was a concern of the fire department. So the updated plans you have in front of you tonight have that removed. That is something that the fire department did request and have received as a result of this. So with that, comments three and four, partly, part of it may have been addressed, may not have been addressed. We are going to leave it here tonight. Worst case scenario, fire department says it's okay and they'll take care of it as if this gets approved as part of the site plan when they get building permits. So that is comments number three and four. Number five, six, and seven, and eight are all utilities comments. Number five is regarding a grease trap. They haven't done that accordingly, so comment number five can be removed. Number six, we asked them to provide a backflow preventer and this will have to be shown at the road side of the line. So that comment doesn't need to be addressed or updated to show that the backflow preventer will need to be shown at the road. So comment number six will remain. Number seven, that issue has been sorted out as well. So that comment can be removed. And number eight is just a generic that the utility plan are currently under review. So with that, we have an edited comment number two and six with a removed five and seven and the rest do remain at this time. Staff recommends deferral or denial due to the concerns from the fire department and utilities with unknown pressures and how those hydrants are going to be serviced at this time. In addition, the design review is not being met as far as the building elevations are concerned. So that is all that I have.

All right, thank you, Mitch. The question I have is, I haven't driven back up towards that church in a good long while, but is it not a brick building?

I believe it might be something along the lines of, I don't know if it's a mobile home or what kind of structure exactly. I'm talking about the church itself. Oh, the church itself, sorry.

I know it's not a mobile home.

The existing structure of this would be replaced.

This was an old barn, I think, the church rehabbing and doing. There is a house in front of it. The church itself, I don't know if it's all brick. There's quite a bit of brick.

Yeah. So the only reason I'm asking the question, the one on the curve there on new Almaville after you passed the interstate that we approved a year or two ago, we had to bring them up to some compliance on design review as well. Right. So I think it's important, again, that we look at this from a consistent perspective. What we couldn't do for that church, I don't know that we could do for another differently. That's my take on it. We try to make sure everybody plays by the same rules. You have a recommendation from staff to defer or deny based on one of those things being design review and the other being some fire department questions and hydrant pressures and things like that. Any discussion on that that any of you all have, we'll open it up for that now.

There was a comment earlier. Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm seeing it correctly. That they had requested for us to approve it even without any of the median design review.

Approve as presented. That was the request of the applicant.

Can you re-educate me a little bit on design review? Sure. The portion facing Old Nashville meets design review?

Yes. So the bottom picture, try to put some numbers on here to correlate with which side of the building we're looking at. So the bottom picture is label number one. That is... Sorry. Go on. Here we go. What happened there? Okay. So picture one at the bottom is correlating to the picture in the upper right corner of the one that's closest to Old Nashville Highway. That one's meeting, designer view, it's primarily brick. You have a variety of brick tones in there and glass glazing. So I believe it's like 9% metal on that wall face. So designer view says anything, any facade visible from a public street has to be at least 75% brick, stone, glass glazing. So that... Elevation, that's closest to Old Nashville Highway, the long elevation, that does meet designer view. It's really, you can see facades two and three in the middle. Those ones would also be visible from Old Nashville Highway that are majority metal. and then the back is also the same metal. In addition, as mentioned in the staff report as well, the design review does not allow more than 10% of an accent material. Metal is considered an accent material based on the design review.

So you deem faces two and three to be visible from Old Nashville? Correct, yep. So if they were to orient the building 15 degrees... So that it would be a right corner to Old Nashville, the building would meet design review? No. Because two and three would not be visible?

They would still be visible. So it doesn't matter if it's facing or not. It's whether it's visible. You can have a wall face that's perpendicular to a street and still be visible from the road. We're just concerned about whether it's visible or not. And these, both sides and that... Elevation one would be usable.

And then the other issue is it's 39% metal and our ordinance limits it to 10%.

It goes back to the consistency part. So unless I hear anything different, does anybody want to make a motion on staff's recommendation? I don't hear a motion to move forward with it. I'll ask for that. Some sort of motion now would be good if you want to make one or if you decide to defer or deny. I'm just trying to decide if a deferral would be... Well, I don't know if people are represented here tonight or not. You're here, so you're getting to hear the conversation. And so whether that takes place or not, I think at least it gives some thought process back to... the people putting in the request as to what the Planning Commission and the Council ultimately will probably look for. And it's strictly from consistency. We're not wavering off what we've made other times.

I think we will be fine with a deferral. I mean, I think we certainly can... We get that you're wanting to do a building on your church site, and we want you to.

You know, churches are good. We like them. The main thing for us... is the consistency portion of how we make everybody else abide by the same process.

I think another big thing here as part of this is the utilities. It's been a major discussion point these past two weeks or so with utility, fire department, and COES as well to make sure we have adequate pressure to suppress a fire if needed. If you decide to defer it, that may also allow them time to get that sorted out as well if that's the route you want to go down.

Ben, if we went deferral, do we need to set a time? Or can they just come back in July? Do we need to say let's revisit six months from now?

You can. It's up to your prerogative. I mean, you can defer it indefinitely if you'd like or defer it to a certain.

Defer it to the next meeting or something like that.

It would be all prerogative. Both would be proper.

I mean, Mitch, you can probably tell me. I don't. Is it even feasible to be done by the next meeting with all the issues with the fire? I feel like that's a quick turn, especially you've got holidays thrown in, too. I doubt they're going to want to mess with the floor.

It seems we're dealing with two different kinds of issues. The fire issues, that has to be solved. The design review, there may be some options for berming. landscaping is it lines of sight visibility I don't know but there may be some things that could be explored along those lines I would think I don't want to speak on behalf of the applicant for what they think their timeline looks like sure well you can defer if that's where you're going you can defer to the next meeting and if they decide to bring it in in the next meeting sure definitely would cover

Either one would be proper, and I would just go wherever they want to come back.

Okay. I don't want to send a message that we don't want the church to expand. Correct.

We certainly want that. We drive by there all the time, and they're doing wonderful outreach work.

Yeah, we personally know a lot of your members over there, and so we hope that this comes to fruition for you. Please understand we're doing what we try to do for everybody the same way. So, consistency. Okay.

Well, if that's the case, I'm going to make a motion to defer indefinitely based on staff comments.

Deferred indefinitely. All right. That's really going to be up to the applicant to decide what indefinitely is. And do I have a second for a deferral?

I'll second.

I have a second. Motion is second for deferral. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. And any opposed? That motion has been deferred. Okay, moving on. Thank you, gentlemen. Let's see here. We are bouncing into zoning ordinance amendments. The first one we have is, I'm gonna let Kyle talk about this real quick, because Kyle, come to the podium and fill us in on this.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. We would respectfully request to take this from the agenda tonight and give us a little bit of time to come back and bring you something for consideration in the near future.

All right. Do you need a vote on that, or is it not necessary?

We're just asking. We'll pull it from tonight's agenda and bring it back probably next month.

All right. Thank you, Kyle. Thank you. Appreciate it. Second item, item B, Article 3, Section 3100 regarding accessory use regulations.

Kevin.

Yeah, this is one that has been discussed at the last joint Planning Commission Council meeting and so this is why this is before you. This would modify existing accessory use regulations within the zoning ordinance. Basically, what we would be doing, a couple things, and Mitch did most of the work on this, so I'll kind of give you the overview and any questions he can answer probably better than I can because he did most of the work on this one. Basically, currently we have square footage limitations based on the size of your lot. So 15,000 is 600, 15,000 up to an acre is 800, those kind of things. um and so this would change that and so we created a kind of take some of that out and it created a new a new setup a new table there and with also some additional regulations regarding like roof height and things of that nature and so this is a little bit different than what was discussed at the the joint meeting because we when we got to looking at it we wanted to be sure that we We wanted to be sure that we didn't over-approve, I guess, or over... With some of those smaller lots, we were concerned about the backyard being an entire backyard. It could be an accessory building or something like that with some of these smaller, like 6,000 square foot lots that we have in town. So that's kind of where we kind of looked at some different things. Obviously, we can go back to what was discussed at the joint meeting, but it's up to you all, certainly. But we wanted to be sure we looked at it, and we did have some kind of some samples just kind of those at that maximum size, kind of what that would look like on lots, some lots on some drawings, on some maps rather, uh, that we've looked at just so you can kind of take a look at and see what we were, what we were looking at and why we kind of proposed what we proposed. So, um, you know, you go ahead.

Um, as Kevin was pointing out here, there's several different changes to what we, currently have today mainly we're looking at a in addition to a height restriction for these accessory structures also changed up the lot size thresholds quite significantly and Moving up in lot size as we currently have today, the maximum square footage of detached structures on a lot could also increase as a result of that. So as part of it, when looking and running through some scenarios, examples here, as you see in the last couple pages in your packet there for this section, taking a look at what each of these tiers would be that you have in this table for the under 10,000 square foot, the 10,000 to 15,000, 15,000 and a half acre, half acre to two acres and two acres to five acres, no more than five acres. Based on the maximum lot coverage percentage we have, there's already 35% that's built into the zoning ordinance, but this would put 35% in as part of the total structures for the lots in this section of the ordinance as well. However, for the smaller lot size, that 110,000 square foot, 35% would have been too much. Running those models and scales with that 35% really just put a little bit too much over what would have been probably comfortable for a smaller lot. You know, those under, puts near 10,000 square foot. So really looking at in consideration with what we have with these PRDs, when you look at the smaller lots that are in that 7,000 square foot range, does it really make sense to have that 35% lot be covered with the house in addition? So for that reason, that smallest tier is sitting at that 30% number when compared to the rest being at 35%. In addition, we're taking into consideration that multiple stories as well would count toward this. So you can't maximize your square footage at the base and then just carry it straight up if you're so pleased to. So we have each floor be counting towards it, whether it's above or below ground, counting towards the overall detached square footage number. And then in addition to that, we have a maximum height. Sometimes you have a single story, older lots that will have a single story home. If your house is under, I believe it's 18 feet we have in here, you could increase the height a little bit above and beyond that for instances in which you desire a little bit higher of a footage for a detached structure for whatever it is, working space, whatever. You're not restricted to what the home height is due to that. So all that to say, those examples in there provide a little bit of visual for you for what a structure of this size may look like on each of these lofts. And this is something based on the joint meetings that staff has put together to hopefully come to a happy medium and some of it's a little bit different from what we previously discussed and some some of us knew some of its existing so really this is what we've came up with to present to you tonight as a potential for these detached accessory structures

What was discussed at the meeting was having a 1200 square foot kind of and we just looked at, you know, 1200 square feet on a 7000 square foot lot. That's that's that might be over and above what I kind of what we were thinking might be good. So that's why this still was it would increase the square footages. Just maybe not. And also at the higher end, if you have over five acres, Currently, it's 2,400 square feet. It would go to 3,500 square feet. So at the higher end, lots, bigger lots, I mean. you would increase probably more than what we were talking about at the joint meeting.

So you would not be able to exceed the home size either as part of this. So, you know, so you have to be larger now.

Correct. Right.

It has to be subordinate to the homes. That would be your house. Right.

I know I talked to Kevin a little bit about this. Kevin, when we speak Tuesday, I think it was my days are running together. That's right. On the 15,000 to .049, I know in the back when we had our joint meeting, we talked about a 1,200-foot variance there for that. Actually, today I went to two sites that I know about that are 1,200. It doesn't look bad at all. As a matter of fact, it fits pretty nicely, so. um i actually talked to scott about one of these maybe three or four months ago you remember that one because we weren't sure where it was going if it would go to zoning board of zoning appeals or whatever but as i look at it and then i look at the next tier at a half acre up to two acres there's a 300 square foot difference for a 0.10 of an acre 0.010 of an acre so I kind of still think 1,200 makes sense.

For that particular, the 15,000? Oh, for that particular one, yes.

And so it still gives a variance between the one before it and the one that follows it, half acre and larger, after seeing the ones that I saw today. And granted, both of those, they're probably on...

almost the cap envelope of what you're allowing it for point it's probably a little under 0.49 that was also part of the problem is figuring out yeah where do you stop with these brakes because you can't you know have 10 different brakes so yeah um it might seem a little extreme on one but not the other so it's just finding those appropriate brakes for a lot of sizes well so between 800 and 1500

$1,200 seems to be kind of in the pocket there. You all may have input on this, too. I don't want to... drive the conversation.

But no, I agree with you saying on that one because of the, you know, jump 800 to 1000, you jump up 500 more. Right. I mean, the one man you discussed it. It's really. Yeah, it's nice. It looks good in there. And I think it's barely pushing the the point for now. Like he's right there on it.

Yeah, that there's one that both of them I know of two of them and and both of them are right at the same pretty much the lot size. So Yeah, I mean, I think that's... Any others that you guys up here think about, this will go to council. And I know Steve and Jerome, they love these. They love talking about these. So they may have some input on this as well when it gets to council. But I think coming from planning, just giving them a menu to look at and seeing if they're okay with it, I think we can all... I feel pretty comfortable about what we see here. For me, that one adjustment makes sense.

Did we discuss 20 feet height at the joint? The height, yes. I can't remember if we said 20 or 25.

Yes, so it was discussed. These caveats are built into, I guess what, that last triple asterisk here, that structure shall not exceed the maximum peak height of the roof of the principal structure or maximum height in this table, whichever is more restrictive. In the event the principal structure is a single story, the detached structure may exceed the height of the principal structure, but it shall not be 18 feet. We didn't want to get too carried away, have something in there still that 18 feet, in talking with Mr. Sullivan was partly what, working out what he had in it, it was just as an example to figure out where it was a good number to be at.

I couldn't remember. I was thinking back on that. So you definitely don't like a two-story house built behind a two-story house.

Or behind a one-story. That becomes your home again.

We've definitely seen a two-story house being built behind a two-story house, but we'll call it a shed.

Okay, that's a shed. Right. Okay, is everybody good with that? With the one adjustment? You got that, Mitch? We got it. Okay.

Item C, Article 4. We need a motion and a vote.

Oh, you need a motion on this one? Yes. Oh, that's right. The other one didn't come through. All right. The other one was pulled. All right.

Should we take a motion on this one? I'll make a motion to approve with the one change. We're going to the 1,200 on the third level.

So if we can try to articulate that, Mitch can help out.

Yeah, just as we're changing the ones, the one lot. Maximum square footage from 1,000 to 1,200. On the 15,000 to .49 acre lot size. Yep.

That's the only change. That's the only change. All right. Did we get a motion? We have a motion.

So do I need to motion again since we made a change to say staff comments?

You can say motion of what he said. No, I'm just kidding. Motion on what Mitch said. You were proper the first time.

Okay. So we need a second. Duly noted. All right, we need a second. Second. Second over here. All right, we've got a motion and a second. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Now, item C, Article 4, Section 4.03.G, regarding mobile food vendors. Who's got this one? Kevin? I'll let Mitch take this one. Y'all fight over it.

So, additionally, as part of the joint meetings, we've had discussion regarding mobile food vendors. and locations and regulations as far as those are concerned. So this amendment would make several different modifications from what we currently allow for today, which includes 40 day limits for, you can't be at one location for more than 40 days for a food vendor as it stands today. You're free to move throughout town, just no more than 40 days. You can be at C2 or C3 zone. I got a question on that.

Why is 90 days sticking in my head? Is that what we discussed? That's where we're going now. We're going there. Okay. Yeah, we're going there. That's what it is today.

40 days is what it is today. I'm just trying to steal my light. I'm sorry. Here we go. I'm going to fight you. Here we go. All right. So the 40 days is what it currently is today. As part of the potential changes we have here presented to you tonight, locations of the sales, we currently allow sales to be conducted in C2 and C3. The C3 would be removed as part of this due to all those lots being really narrow in size and additional food truck ground. Most of those lots probably isn't really appropriate, so getting rid of the C3 as part of that, making it only C2 permitting purposes. The annual permit, which they are currently allowed to get today, so a mobile food vendor, if they came in today to acquire a permit, it would be good until the end of the calendar year. As part of this change, it would be replaced with a 30-day permit. The mobile food vendors may operate all year, provided they maintain a valid permit and current permit. Permits are valid for, would be valid for one location. So they are, at this point, the way it is worded is today you have 40 days, you can move throughout town, but you don't have to necessarily tell staff where you're gonna be set up. This new, permit would then be restricting them to one location. So we are swapping it more so to the location of the sales being conducted rather than the vendor itself. Both would be required to get permits as part of this. Overnight discussion was had as well. The requirement of the vendor to leave the premises nightly would now be removed. As it stands today, they're required to leave the site at each night. As part of the proposed ordinance change, the vendors would be able to occupy one location during the extent of their 30-day permit, provided that all codes and safety requirements are being met. We had discussion during the joint meetings that difficult for some of these vendors was with oil and whatever else they have on the truck to cool adequate time for them to leave each night, so this would allow them to stay at each location overnight. The property owner permits, we did have a change here recently with transient vendors requiring the location of sale that property owner would be required to get a permit. This would just carry the consistency for the transient vendors over with the mobile food vendor permits as well. So the property owner would then carry the onus for any other code requirements, make sure lots being kept up orderly, clean. So property owner would be required to obtain a permit as well as part of this. No single property owner may host a mobile food vendor for more than 90 days per calendar year. This 90 days ties into the 30 days as part of it. So essentially you have three months that a property owner is allowed to host a mobile food truck. We don't care which month they are, but we'll be able to track them on our permit system for which months they've had it and keep track of how many months that they've had a vendor present on their site. Amendment enforcement action. Any violation of the zoning ordinance or municipal code by a vendor may be resulting in a citation issued to that property owner as they're now taking on responsibility for all the code violations, anything else that the... person conducting sales on their site may be conducting so as part of that also we do have the additional text modifying these changes with all the red struck through items that currently is present in the ordinance being removed and the yellow highlighted would be items that would be added to the ordinance to reflect those changes as mentioned

So if a food vendor decides to stay on a site for 90 days, am I to understand they still need to do a 30-day permit each 30 days?

Each 30 days would require a new permit by the vendor, yes.

Questions or comments for Mitch? Because Mitch is the guy. I wouldn't go that far. Anybody? Y'all good with it? We talked about this as well, so Mitch and team, thank you for putting all this together for us to look at tonight. Remind me, Mark, what was it we talked about with the parking issue with it?

So the parking, as part of, sorry, I might not mention that. As part of this, the owner and or vendor would be required to submit a site plan to us showing where that food truck would be parking, make sure adequate parking is also available on site for the people who actually have the brick and mortars on site in addition to the food truck.

i think the question might evolve around if i'm hearing you scott was you know if they put a truck on a site use up parking spaces does that violate the approval of that commercial businesses usable parking spaces they get that right right yeah because that's what there's one currently on weekly that uh

I think it's got 11 parking spots, 10. I can't remember. Right there in front of the Sitco. You've got two or three cars by the food truck, plus about four U-Haul trucks that are trying to be rented. So we've kind of loaded up the parking lot. So I couldn't remember what we had discussed with...

Christy's back here making a note right now, I promise.

So this is going to be on the last page of this section of the document, the mobile food vendor number 8, the property owner permit. That's going to be item number 2B as part of that. Basically saying a site plan is going to be required to be submitted by the property owner showing they have adequate space.

Okay. Good job. It's one of those that there's only like maybe an hour each day people getting off work where they use every spot. Plus, they're trying to use the food truck. Other than that, it's kind of dead around there.

So I think that was part of the discussion, too, wasn't it? That if they couldn't properly provide the amount of parking for everyone else that the permit would actually be denied.

Correct. Right. That'd be part of the process to apply for it. And the others.

Charles, you're quiet. You good with it? I'm good. Okay. All right. We need a motion on this one. Somebody? Motion to approve. I have a motion to approve. I assume with staff comments. And do I have a second? I'll second. I'll second. Further discussion? If none, all in favor say aye. Aye. And any opposed? That motion carries.

We're doing pretty good with four people. We need to read about those other three.

I think we can establish who slows us down.

I warned them all before the meeting. I'm going to have to have some motions. Whether they're good or bad, I've got to have them. We can't move without them. All right, so on to the June bond review report.

Yes, I think eight tonight. So run through that right quick. Walnut Ridge section one. This is one that's actually at the end of the maintenance period. Still some items still to clean up there. So if they're like everything done by the 15th, just only about 11 days, we could release it otherwise extend three months. Shorts crossing phase two. This is one. It's only about 40% built out Did talk to the developer there? The things are moving a little slow over there for them. They said it may be the end of 27 Before they finish up so slow So would recommend a six month extension. We have had that one already for three years now and Stewart's Clan, did not hear back from that developer on that. They are about 100% built out now, so would not recommend more than a six-month extension on that one.

Yeah, I believe they're finished over there.

Yeah, so... Riley Downs, Section 1, Phase 2 is about 89% built out. We've actually only had that one one year, so I'm okay with a one-year extension on that one. Hemsley Place, this is the end of the maintenance period. They are trying to finish up. They've had some issues with the weather and trying to clean up some things that Public Works has asked them to do on their detention pond. But they are actively trying to get that finished up, so hopefully they'll be done by July 9th. If so, we could release that one. Otherwise, we would need to extend it three months. Derby Run 1A and 1B, there's some items there to clean up. They have been working on their punch list. They think those lots should be finished up this year, so would recommend a six-month extension on that one. Stewart's Creek Cottages, this is end of their maintenance period. So if they can finish up to the last, there's three items there to clean up. They can finish that up by the July 13th. So they've got over a month. Hopefully they can do that. If so, we could release it otherwise, extend three months. And Hidden Hills Section 6, Phase 1, they're about 89% built. They are, they did request, they would like to hold off on paving because of the adjoining development is utilizing their development to get access because that's the only way they can get to it. So they're afraid if they pave it that the trucks would kind of destroy it. So would recommend a six-month extension on that one.

And that's all I got. Like those short bond reviews. Short, we being eight. Usually it's 28. All right. Any questions for staff? If not, I'll take a motion on the bond review.

So moved.

We have a motion.

Oh, I thought you... I'm sorry. Is that a second? Yes, I'll second.

So moved is the general way of saying that. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Staff, anybody have anything? Staff?

I do have a couple things. Okay. One, I just want to remind everyone we are in the process of updating our comprehensive plan. So anyone who has not, we do have a survey out right now. And so anyone who has not participated in that, we would love for anyone and everyone to give us some input, some feedback. on what they would like to see, what they like, what they don't like, and how we want to see Smyrna continue to grow and develop. So it's available. There's a QR code. If you're here in the room, there's a QR code on the screen there. But you can also get to it from the town website, townofsmyrna.org, on the front page of the website. And the other thing I have is we have a new staff member in the audience tonight, Joshua Dawsey. He just started last week, so he will be, obviously, as he learns things, will be brought up to speed. We'll be participating with you all in meetings as well, but this is his first night, so he just got to observe tonight.

We're going to ask him to come to the podium and tell him to tell us a little bit about himself. Joshua? You don't get off that light. Tell us a little bit about yourself.

Hello, everyone.

I'm going to raise this up. There we go. My name is Josh Dawsey. I'm originally from Dothan, Alabama, which is in the southeast corner of the state. I went to undergrad at Troy University, where I studied history. Then I went to graduate school at Auburn University, so a war equal to that. And then I recently just got this position, just graduated about a month ago, and now I'm here. Welcome here. Glad to have you. Thank you, guys. Even over here.

I'm from Alabama. It's all good. Kevin, anything else? That's all I got. Me and anybody?

I left my slides in the truck again.

I'm going to wish happy birthday to my wife today. She is letting me be here tonight, and I'll have to do something greater tomorrow night for her.

This is a good start, though, making that announcement. You know where that came from.

I wanted to commend the town and public works. We talked about the comp plan earlier. About a year or so ago, we did our mobility plan. One of the big pieces of that was walkability, connectability. And for those that have seen what's going on around town, we're filling in gaps in sidewalks, we're building new sidewalks, and particularly at Old Nashville and Hazelwood, they have taken a very confused intersection and opened it up to the community, to the Food Lion, the CVS.

Yeah, they've done good work.

Yeah, so it's really excellent work, so job well done.

Well, to Kevin's point real quick, I'm sorry, are we done? Yes, sir. The vision, Smyrna, the 2035 comprehensive plan is something we really do want our citizens to chime in on. You know, we make decisions up here all the time, us and the council level, and we like to hear from our citizens. What is it you're looking for that maybe we don't have, or how can we serve you better? So take the opportunity to pull that up on our website or on the screen there and chime in, because it means something to us.

And if I'm not mistaken, it's up until tomorrow?

We have extended. I should have mentioned that. We have extended the time to one month to July 5th. We're actually going to be actively participating in several events over the next month or so with some staff to try to encourage more people to participate.

Oh, good. Okay, thanks.

Anything else?

All right, we are adjourned. Thank you all.