Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Good evening.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the July 9th, 2026 Smyrna Municipal Planning Commission meeting. And with that, I'll call the meeting to order. If you'll stand, Steve's going to lead us in prayer and mark with a pledge.

We bow your heads. Dear Lord, thank you for today. We ask that you bless this town and continue to bless our country. Lord, be with these proceedings and with all the items on the agenda tonight that we will represent you and the town in their best interest, Lord. We ask that you continue to bless the workers and the staff that we have here at the town and the great job that they do. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Okay. Next up citizens comments.

We have none tonight.

All right, moving on. We have the approval or correction of the minutes for the June 4th, 2026 regular meeting. Counselor are the meeting minutes in order?

The minutes are in order subject to any revisions or additions from the commission.

Okay. Anything from the commission concerning the meeting minutes? I move to approve the minutes from the June 4th meeting. I have a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second?

Second. Second.

Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The minutes are approved. We're now on to old business. Our first item is a site plan stone trace commons corner of Jenny lane and old Nashville highway owner developer, Walter Vester family limited partnership.

This is a site plan that you all have seen before and was deferred due to some discussion that was had regarding entrances to the sites, particularly off of Old Nashville Highways. One of the discussion points that was had a couple months ago at the last meeting that you heard this request at. So just to recap that, we'll go back into the development here. So this is Stone Trace Commons. proposing to develop a vacant track north of Jeanne Lane Old Nashville Highway intersection. Included with the development would be three commercial use multi-tenant buildings. All three buildings would have a drive-through. Access points are shown on Old Nashville Highway aligned from across from the street from the entrance to Lowe's and two locations off of Jeanne Lane. The first entrance on Genie Lane is shown halfway between the access points to Racetrack and Raising Cane's, with the second access point across from Chickensaw Chick. There's approximately 1.18 acre parcel remaining on the opposite side of the TVA easement that is about northwest of this development. It's shown to be reserved for future development. Vehicular use area on the site, just over two acres, which would require 8,816 square feet of landscaping. Applicant is proposing for 15,360 square feet. Total parking requirement of 121 spaces, and they're showing for 175, which would also require six ADA spaces, which are being shown. Landscape plan shows a variety of street trees planted along Old Nashville Highway and Jeanne Lane, with shrubbery shown along a majority of the rideway boundaries. Trees are shown within the site in Landscape Islands, throughout the parking lot with shrubs at the base of all the buildings. Additional landscaping is shown in future development area to the northeast as well as streetscaping, trees, and shrubbery. Architectural renovations, there's three buildings here, A, B, and C, which are all labeled. They're different sizes, basically all stepping down from I think the smallest is three units all the way up to the largest, which has, I believe, about seven or eight units in it. The materials are all the same. The only thing that differs with these buildings is the size of the overall building. They're using two variations of brick color to be used as the primary material on those wall elevations. Materials shown to be used are brick glass glazing and there is also a metal cap around the top of all the buildings. As submitted, all these buildings do meet design review. Standard comments one through eight will all remain at this time. Staff comment one was more of a informational comment from our utilities department that will remain as well. If a building is to be used for food service, serving food to the public, minimum of 1500 gallon grease trap will be required. So it's just making sure that whoever goes in later, there will be one that's required on behalf of the tenant at that time. So this comment will remain. Number two, water easement shown in the utility plan sheet does not exist at the time, will need to be dedicated with an updated final plat. So there was a final plat submitted and approved a couple months ago by the commission, so that plat will be recorded at a future point, just has not been recorded at this time. So as a result, this comment will remain. Comment number three was from our fire department. They did ask for a complete set of the parking and auto turn information that shows consistency throughout the development. Fire department did not have a chance to review this at this time today as plans were recently submitted. So we'd like to have that comment remain at this time. It does appear that most of the site maneuverability does appear to be fine at this time, but just for sake of making sure fire department's okay with what's being proposed, we'd like to leave this comment. Comment number four is from our stormwater department. More so informational and would have to be changed and reflected on a later construction document plan. So comment number four will remain as well. Comment number five was regarding that traffic study that was mentioned earlier. Commoner 5 reads the new access to Old Nashville Highway should be evaluated for traffic impacts. Left turn lane within Old Nashville Highway should be considered as part of this evaluation. The submitted traffic impact study is under review. After discussing with our traffic engineer today, they would like a little more time to review this and ensure that there is basically everything being shown is done safely enough for this site and accommodating anything else going forward. With that recommendation, staff does recommend deferral of this at this time, just due to allowing staff and the applicant time to sort through any kind of conflicts that they may see with the traffic study or recommendations that were made as a result of the traffic study. The applicant is also here tonight if you have any questions on this, and that is all that I have.

Okay. Questions for Mitch while he's up here?

Okay, Mitch, on C2.3, it shows the garbage truck, and then above that is the fire truck. When they come around behind the back of the buildings, they're going to go in across the pads of the trash enclosures?

The trash enclosure is not going to be driven through, if that's your question.

No, the trash enclosure is set back, but the concrete pad that comes out.

Yeah. It's a heavier duty, heavier duty material. They're okay.

All right.

Um, Mitch, I know one of the questions on this the last time too, was, um, the fire department wanted to do a run through to see about their turnaround and everything have, have they done that? I know that they haven't looked at this for today, but were they able to do some of the other.

Not necessarily, but it's came a long way since the first iteration of it. We had quite a bit of concerns the first time it came through and it's been improved since then, but from the last time the comments went out to the time tonight, they have not had a chance to review this iteration of the plans. It seems all really close for what it's worth in my eye, but fire department itself has not at least had a chance to review it and give me the okay on it.

But some of those adjustments have been made though?

It appears as so.

Anything else for Mitch?

On the portion that fronts the unnamed road, is there a buffer there?

Are we talking on the north end? Yes. So that is the access to the cemetery up there? I don't know what the zoning on that property is.

I believe it's C2. There's also a fairly significant bluff there.

Yeah, it is.

It's a pretty significant bluff. This would be quite a bit below. It would be quite a bit below that roadway.

Anything else? Does anybody have any questions for the applicants? Sir, were you here on behalf of that? I'll allow you to come forward if you have something to say. You give us your name and address, please.

My name is Wendell Miller. I'm a Roseburg County resident. I live in 2520 River Road in Murfreesboro. I was wanting to just kind of add a little color to this thing before we get deferred again, if we don't mind, because we're really asking that we go ahead and move forward with the approval on this. And I would like the Planning Commission to know that I've brought this project along for the last eight years, was in the original design of the whole stone trace project, I've been I've been through every meeting and anyway, it's it's kind of been my baby over the years. But this traffic study that we're talking about, we did all the traffic studies and everything for the original development. And and in the original development, there was to be no access into any of the lots from Old Nashville Highway. And when we did the racetrack down there, We wound up letting you guys approve an entry into the racetrack off of O Nashville Highway. And then about two years ago, I came in and had a meeting with Kevin and Charles King because I had another tenant to go on that lot six that was a sizable tenant. You know, it was about 20,000 feet of about what we're doing here, plus, you know, what the other quick service restaurant is going to be. They'll probably be in there next month. And, and when we originally did the plan here, I had our engineers to actually extend the widening of what we were supposed to do on stone trace to get it back past that cemetery entrance. Because I knew that in the traffic study that we had, everything would have had to come out on the genie lane and then go back through that intersection there. at Genie and Old Nashville Highway. The traffic study said it was okay, but, you know, I live in the real world, and I knew at the time that that's not going to be sufficient. And especially if we get a large tenant and you get a lot of traffic in there, trucks have got to circulate, you've got to be able to move people around. So I came in and talked with Kevin and Charles King at the time, and we sat down there and we looked at the plan, and it says, You know, we really need to put an entry that lines up with the lows because when we did all of this, I made sure that we put enough extension on because we widened that road further back than what we were required to do originally because I knew we would need to get another left turn lane into that big lot. So I'm way ahead of you on that. And as it's come to fruition and what we need, is that it really makes the plan work a lot better. I don't know why we need another traffic study to tell us what we already know and what's going to work. And if when we had that meeting with Kevin and Charles, if they had said, well, you need to update your traffic study, well, I would have done it then. How many years ago was that? Well, it was about two years ago. because I was dealing with one of the grocers.

I don't think Charles was here. Yeah, Charles was here. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm thinking of somebody. I'm thinking of David right now.

Yeah. And, you know, it's like, yeah, this is going to work. This makes everything work a lot better. And we've submitted the traffic study in plenty of time for them to review it for tonight. We've submitted the fire lanes and everything. way last month in plenty of time for them to root review this for the night. So with all due respect, I'm asking that we go ahead and approve this thing so we can move on. I have tenants that are eager and ready to go here, but I can't sign them up until we get through planning commission. And so I'd, I'd appreciate it if you guys could just give us a little give and go here, because we've already addressed all of this is gonna work. And so anyway, Thank you, sir.

All right. Kevin or Mitch, please respond and let's see where we're at with this.

I fully believe Mr. Miller. We probably did meet and talk. Honestly, I can't remember. I don't remember exactly when or anything like that. I know that part of the issue with the prior traffic study was that it was done eight years ago or so with the original traffic study, and that's when Mr. Sullivan asked the traffic study to be updated because that was done eight years ago. And so that was the planning commission asked for that study, and so they did submit that study. I know Mr. Taylor has reviewed that study and had some questions, and that's why he asked for some more time to be sure we had to get it right. And he's here. Mr. Taylor can answer those questions. If you have anything specific on that, obviously he can answer those better than I can.

so just so i'm understanding the traffic study they've submitted doesn't include the old national highway cut is that the concern or we just haven't had time to review it it did not no that's right that's that's what it sounded like you were saying good jason um

The traffic study does include a cut. The problem with the cut is it's a left-in where we've expanded the access at Old Nashville Highway and Sam Ridley. That's bringing more cars that way on a single-lane road. Their own traffic study says that it's going to back up all the way through to that, which is going to cause some more friction there. If you've got a left turner trying to turn out of their property, it's going to impact the traffic going the other way because they're not going to have anywhere to go. So we've got that problem. We've also got the problem of that they've made Genie Lane worse according to their own traffic study without any mitigation. So I think that we have some stuff to talk about. Yeah, it'll work. It's going to suck, but yeah, it'll work. Yeah.

So, um, sorry for that. So on the, on the old national highway cut portion. So you're thinking right in, right out is the right way to go.

I think that's the right way. This way we did it for racetrack.

Yeah. Okay. Keep traffic flowing.

I worry about what the fire department's going to say to that, but, um, I don't exactly know how they're going to come in, but that would be my recommendation on that. I also would recommend, and I need to really, really look at this. I, I, I just got the traffic study today, and that's my fault. I will admit that's my fault. I've had a pretty rough week with Tom out, so I'm sorry about that. If I can review the traffic study a little more, look at it, we can come to an agreement on this. I'm sorry to make it another month. Okay.

Thank you. So what's our options, Kevin and Kyle? I mean, so obviously we approve now. It goes to council.

No, this is just a site plan, so it doesn't go to council.

So there's no second review?

There would not be a second review. You all can certainly approve it with the conditions and let staff work through the issues, or if you all want to see what the final resolution is, certainly you would need to defer. Yeah, gotcha. Okay.

That answers my question. Thank you, Jason. Okay.

Other questions or comments from the commission?

Yeah, the only comment I've got is, I mean, you can probably tell by my questions, right, is it sounds like some of the delay is on our side and that's our fault, right? It is what it is. But also, I don't want to rush something through and then find there's a problem a week after we've approved it or two weeks after we approve it. So although I recognize Mr. Miller's, the con the, the impact to a third, another 30 day delay, uh, without staff giving us confirmation that they are comfortable with the traffic study. I don't think the commission has an option. It would be on us to, to make the mistake. Right. And, and maybe it isn't a mistake. Maybe it all worked out fine, but we don't know that. And it seems like a gamble. to approve it and not allow that additional 30 days.

But to your point, Mr. Mitch, the first thing he said was recommending the deferral. The fire department really needs to take a good look at this as well. And then I think Jason's comments kind of give me pause on trying to move it forward. Now, Mr. Miller, we understand time is value in all these things, but we've had three recommendations from people on our staff here that feel like the best thing for us to do is to get it right. So that's, I know it's another weight, but I kind of feel the same thing Steve does.

Well, there's been a lot of investment into this intersection in and of itself to help with traffic, so I don't want to send us back in the wrong direction there.

I trust them to do it all the right way, but recommendations from our staff is something we have to rely on pretty heavily because we're not out there doing it.

Okay.

Any other questions? Comments? Not all entertain a motion.

I make a motion that we defer for 30 days to give staff and fire department a time to additionally review.

I have a motion to defer until the next meeting. Until the next meeting? Yeah. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Further discussion? All those in favor of deferring this site plan into the next Planning Commission meeting, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This site plan has been deferred. We're now on to new business. The first item is a rezoning request. Wood Properties 10510 Old Nashville Highway rezoning R1 to C2.

Yes, this is a rezoning request on Old Nashville Highway, 10-5-10 Old Nashville Highway. It's about two acres of property, currently zoned R1, requested rezoning to C2. Surrounding zoning is a mix of R1, C2, and PRD, which is the Villas of Stewartboro PRD, which is immediately to the west or northwest there. The land use plan would support medium density residential in this area, this immediate area with nearby areas being located within the Old Nashville corridor character area, which would support a mix of neighborhood scale retail uses, personal services for local customers. Townhomes, attached residential and other multifamily are also appropriate in that corridor area. The major thoroughfare plan does designate Old Nashville Highway as a minor arterial and adequate right-of-way does exist for that street at this time. This does lie within Consolidated Utility District's service area for water. They did have a few comments there regarding the water services in that area. Maximum fire flow at this time is They're saying is a thousand. They verbally said above a thousand. But so at this time, that will have to be worked out depending on the use and what the bill that it would actually be built here would have to look at that. Then they did also ask that the or the developer would have to abandon. There is an existing two inch water main that once the site develops that they would abandon. So so because they would be extending it from the eight inch main that's on the northwest side of the property there that's again that's outside of our service area they would work through that with consolidated utility district so i believe that's all the comments that i have at this time okay any questions for kevin concerning this rezoning request

Look, Kevin, obviously about half of this property is bordered by R1. I know the answer, but I'm just going to say it for the record. If this was rezoned to C2, there would be specific buffering that would be required along those property lines to protect those R1 properties.

Can you talk about that a little bit? Yeah, you actually have really all of one side, the rear and probably 60% of the other side of the border R1 are residential zoning. We do have the town homes that are under development on the one side and then the residential uses in the rear. The R1 zoning on the one side is actually not an R1. It is owned R1, but it's actually a church there. So it's not a residential use, so that's something. that once a site plan comes in, I guess the Planning Commission could look at that one a little bit. You know, but as currently, that's not a residential use. But so, yes, you would have to have, again, C2 to a it's typically like a type C buffer, which is our not our most extensive buffer. We would not require a berm. That's it would just be what it would be the the 15 feet deep, you know, trees and shrubs mix, evergreen shrubs and that sort of thing.

Would that apply to all three sides? Yeah, that's what he said.

It would apply to all three sides. I always said when a site plan comes in, because that one side is a church on that one side there.

It's a 15-foot deep buffer basically on 75% of the property lines.

Yeah, that would be the strict application.

One of the concerns that we always see with these is C2 directly against R1 is not ideal. We like to see softer zonings, but Old Nashville Highway and pretty much all the way down on Nashville Highway is C2. And unfortunately, you know, years and years ago when Pioneer Subdivision was built, it was kind of built in an area that at the time, I don't think we had the foresight, but I mean, some of that commercial was already there. I know there was an ice cream shop and the gas station was already there, I think. Was it county originally?

This area was annexed in the early to mid-90s, I think. So I think the existing development, most of that was done. There's been a few things, certainly like the ice cream shop was redeveloped and that sort of thing there. But majority of that developed has developed was developed in the county and so it was when it was annexed the town inherited what was there.

I think my point is Old Nashville Highway this corridor has pretty much always been mostly commercial. At least right there in front of Pioneer and for 30 years plus. So even though we're changing this one lot it's consistent with what's along Old Nashville Highway there.

Kevin, for the Commission and folks out there, what is allowable in a C2?

C2 is a general commercial district. It would allow most retail users, certainly office type users, that sort of thing. Certainly you could have the development that's there along Old Nashville Highway in that area, everything except the mini storage use. That would not be allowed in C2. That was zone C2 when it was annexed. So they could not do the mini storage use. But a gasoline station certainly could go there. There would not be warehousing. No, you couldn't have a warehouse or, like I say, any type of industrial use. It would really just be retail, restaurant, office-type uses, service uses. your daycares, your hair salons, those kind of things certainly would be allowed in C2 as well.

Since we're talking about what can go there, let's talk about real quick what wouldn't. C5 automotive, storage, mini storage... They hate stores, liquor stores.

Yeah, anything like that. No vape shops, no automotive sales, no automotive services. Any type of work, like we said, industrial-type uses at all would be allowed in that district.

Well, and I think the concern is you're either right in the middle of the school zone or right past it. So, you know, in rezoning, we'd want to make sure that we are not adding any heavy vehicle traffic there such as the 18 wheelers and maybe some of the larger box trucks or things like that that would be more appropriately zoned industrial. Right.

Yeah, you're talking about like major shipping or whatever. Right. Delivery trucks and that kind of thing are acceptable. Yes. Yeah. I agree. I'm glad you brought it up because I think that is a point I had a question about. We don't know the intended use here, do we?

I know I've talked with the applicant about some different options. I don't know if he has 100% decided what he wants to do there yet.

But they fit what we're looking for in the C2 district? Yes. Okay.

All right. Anything else from the Commission?

Would it not be prudent to wait until we have some indication from the developer? The issue seems to be not only partially the old Nashville frontage, but how far back into the parcel would there be intensive development What would the impact of that be on the adjacent residential?

And I think that's Steve's question from a while ago, the buffer that we require. And that's why I asked the question about the three sides as well. It sort of protects all the border neighbors.

I mean, to do that, you would have to look at some sort of a PUD. I think at this time, again, he doesn't... I think he would like to have the ability, I think, to have... whatever is allowed in Z2 be an option for him. I know he's got some ideas and thoughts of what he wants to do. The main thing he was talking about, and he's here and he can speak for himself, but the main idea he was talking about would be a pretty low impact use from a traffic standpoint and all that kind of stuff. So, sure it would have an impact, but not a zero impact.

I think in the perfect world we would all kind of like to know what's planned. Yeah, sure. But the zoning is the zoning. Right. Well, I think within our purview it's, you know, is it consistent and does it meet the zone?

so certainly if there were and to my question and to my point you know if we're going to rule out any type of industrial type use that would involve the heavier vehicles like tractor trailers and such like that then you know from my perspective I'm satisfied at that and you know also looking at this road and knowing Just down past this, there's a commercial frontage in front of the towns there. You've got commercial usage going in the opposite direction. So it fits, and again, my concern was to make sure that

from the school's perspective we're not introducing anything that would lead to the heavier vehicles yeah safety and i'm not hearing that yeah i think i think honestly and this is kind of a testament to several of the guys up here we've done a really good job of of what i'd say cleaning up our zoning um you know a year or two ago vape stores car lots lots of stuff was in c2 and we started realizing we really didn't want this wide open zoning that allowed kind of so much options and so we've kind of carved that out so i think at this point we've got c2 kind of designed and set up right where we want it and c2 fits this area so as long as these within the the allowed uses of c2 i don't have an issue

Other comments or questions?

I guess the last thing I'll say to that is if we come across something else in C2 we don't like, then I think it's on us to fix it. It's not really, that's kind of how the process works, right?

That's why I voted for you. There you go.

I appreciate that.

And Mark.

Okay, anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

make a motion that we approve the request from R1 to C2.

Okay. I have a motion to approve the rezoning request. Do I have a second and a second for more further discussion? All those in favor of this approving this rezoning request, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Rezoning request is approved. We're now on to our next item under a new business, which is also a rezoning request. And this comes from several folks here. So we'll go through this. Mitesh Patel, Pawpaw Enterprises, LLC, J&M Equity, Kerry Abdelmasih, Ibram Shalabi, Ola Mancarious, Ian Toss, Shams Ari, Rezan Musavi, and Faro Properties, LLC, Old Nashville Highway, northwest of Enid Springs Road, west of rezoning C4 to C2 and R2 to C2. And gentlemen, if I've mispronounced any of your name, please accept my apologies.

So this is a request from seven different property owners, or seven different properties rather. Six of them are currently zoned C4 and have been requested to be zoned C2. One of them is currently zoned R2 and has been requested to be zoned C2. The surrounding zoning is a mix of R2, R3, R6, C2, and C4. So it's a mix of various things here. The land use plan for this area is the old Nashville corridor character area, similar to the last one. Again, support a mix of neighborhood scale, retail uses, personal services, as well as townhomes, attached residential and other multifamily uses would also be appropriate. The major thoroughfare plan does designate Old Nashville Highway as a minor arterial, and that right away does exist for this street there. One thing I did want to point out, again, there are seven tracts of land. The three of the seven do not meet the minimum lot size requirement in C2, which is 20,000 square feet. it's the three let's see if I can get my my pointer to work here yeah it's the the kind of this oddly shaped one here yeah this one in this one yes those are the three that are below below 20,000 square feet. Obviously, if they're amalgamated together in some way, you could address that issue, but at the time, currently, those three individual lots do not meet that minimum lot size requirement. The other four do, but those three do not. I guess that is all the comments I had.

How large is the lot that's separate to the east

Um, that is, uh, about six, about two thirds of an acre. And I'm sorry, that's half an acre. Yeah. That's the first one. Partial 2601 is a partial that's separate.

So on its own, it could be a rezone if it was approved. Yes. But the others mostly require the three center lots you pointed out. I think the two to the west would be okay, but one's the only ones on the road front.

Yeah, the three most, I guess, northwestern most, those three, those three are all individually over 20,000 square feet.

Once again, I'll ask, do we know the intended use? I do not, no. Is there a developer here that might be able to tell us?

Yeah, if you'd like to come up and give us your name and address. You didn't want to do that tonight, did you?

We have a couple of questions for you. My name is Angela Hoover and I live in the county at 8717 Pawpaw Springs Road. And we own my husband. And I'm married to him. So we have the three on the north on the north part of that photo. And we've had that property under contract under contract a few times, and everyone says the cost basis under C2 is just not and we're selling it as a together. It's just not financially, but they have to bring the water over. There has to be a fire hydrant installed. The water line that goes out there is only two inches. We need to tap into an eight inch line. Just just one hurdle after another. And basically at C2, It's just sitting there and those buildings and my neighbors, we all have buildings on those lots that have are at the end of their lives, which I think everybody here will agree when you drive by them. And they, I think, are on board also with selling, but they have a problem, too. They can't get it to see they have the same problem with C4. No one's going to buy that with those costs, with the businesses they can kind of bring in under seats for. So I kind of got everybody together to see, hey, and the reason why we didn't include the karate studio, the one that's in between, he's at C4 and he's fine, he's established. There's really no reason to ask him to rezone.

Unless he ever wanted to resell or something like that. Exactly.

But there was just no reason for him to, you know, and I've talked to the lady on the north, that's our neighbor, And she has no, she's resident and she said that she's not going to pose it, but she didn't want to be included because if her house did burn down, she couldn't build it back residential. And she has no plans on living. She's living, moving. She's been living there for a long time and she's, she knows it's coming. She just said, I'm fine. where I'm at, and I don't want to rezone.

So that neighbor is the one in the R2 district right there.

Yeah, it's the one between the R6, the townhomes. She kind of backs up there. But the plan I went and met with Mark Parker and we kind of sat down and we kind of figured out how we can bring the water to the property to so that it could be sprinkled correctly for these buildings that they want to put there. But the two inch line is not going to make it. It's just not going to work. And for us to bring it under the road would be not feasible. But if we can get it from the backside of the townhomes, which we've kind of talked to that owner a little bit, they're open to that of just getting an easement to tap in. There's a eight inch line right in that back corner. And Mark and I were talking that if we got into there, we could bring the water that way and abandon that line, the two inch line. And then we can get water to these properties and maybe get it, you know, with the new corridor coming in on Old Nashville Highway or where it is in Old Nashville and Enon Springs. I mean, I know that C2 on the corner, which maybe a gas station will come there, which I think is the plan. I don't know for sure. But, you know, Mr. Patel, he's right next to it. So that does make sense for C2. But that whole stretch there. It's kind of at the end of its life with all those buildings and it's time to maybe move forward with some development. But we've tried under C2 for two years and every developer that's come in has just said and we've tried to we've my husband actually has an approval to was to put his business there. But the cost to bring that fire to hydrant over and everything for a small business just didn't make sense. We couldn't do it. So that's why we bought the land to begin with. So and it was approved by you guys, the site plan, but we could never move forward with it because it just didn't make sense. So I'm trying to get it to a point where we could get something in there to benefit everybody, bring businesses, bring jobs, tax money, make it look better. Those buildings are not, do not look good. We all agree on that. So, but yeah, so that's why we made the request.

Any questions? You just told me your intended use. Thank you.

So the one thing that I don't think we've talked about at all is the three lots that are too small. What I would like to see here is a PUD or a PCD that includes all of those lots. And that way, at the end of the day, it is all tied together and we don't have these smaller lots that are now zone C2 that become a problem in the future if somebody tries to do something weird on them. It would still meet, I think, all of your needs as far as still being able to get water. It would essentially tie the development all together, saying if you're going to develop this, it's going to develop as one giant piece of property. They can put multiple buildings on it. They can do multiple solutions, but it's just one big piece. The other piece is that kind of spot zoning or that one piece that's kind of by itself. I don't know if you include that in the PCD or you just handle that. as a one-off, I'm not sure, but that one's kind of odd.

Can I say one thing too when you're done?

Yeah, I think the one that

itself that joins C2 on the side and has C4 all around it. That to me makes sense probably on its own.

That's kind of what I was thinking.

And it's C2 across the street, Old Nashville Highway there, whereas you have residential across the street for everyone else. I think that to me has a little different feel to it. Just to address that specifically.

Just down from Cedar Hills right there. Isn't all that a PCD as well? That was a PCD, yes.

It's right across the road. You can see it at the top of the map. It's at the top of this map there with the offices. That one, again, a budded residential on three sides and has the offices on the outer rim of it and then the daycare or commercial. There's still one vacant lot up there still to be built on that was approved within that PCD to be Commercial uses, I don't think it was quite C2 level. I think it was more C4 uses on that one. Again, with residential on all three sides there. This one you do have residential on two sides, largely other than the one neighbor to the north there. And then you have the townhomes behind it and then really undeveloped, largely undeveloped on the R2 there. That probably will, if it develops, I doubt it will develop an R2. It'll be something else that will come before you all, I'm sure.

I'm trying to remember if the R2 that's north of this came in as an R6 request at some point. There was an R6 request a few years ago, yes. That did not.

So with a PCD, you're in essence, you can combine the lots and... Site plan it. Site plan it so that in essence we would end up with one lot, correct?

You end up with one overall development plan for it, yeah.

But it is a commercial plan. I mean, it just gives a little oversight to the planning and the council to...

Well, I think it, to me, what it solves is those three small lots. You know, if we approve this zoning, the way it is, we now have essentially three lots that don't meet our zoning requirements for C2. Right. And who knows what someone down the line might try to do with that and it create to create a problem. So if all six of these are, we're all at least 20,000 square feet, I probably wouldn't have near as much concern. Those three smaller ones are the ones that make me nervous. And, um, that's why I thought about the PCD.

To the applicant's point, though, I think it's worthy of having something built there that looks commercially nice. No doubt. Glad to see it develop.

It definitely needs to be redeveloped. So I'm not opposed in any way to development here. I think we've just got to be careful about...

There's a lot of locks here.

Yeah, and it could be broken up. I'm thinking like that triangle right there at the end of R2. It's kind of off on its own. It's kind of separated. Developer comes in and starts looking at this I could see them leaving that alone because it doesn't really Mesh in well and then later trying to sell that one little c2 lot to get rid of it and now we've got a 15,000 square foot c2 lot that's kind of isolated that we got to deal with by putting it all together.

It keeps that from happening I Mean I'd like to I'd like to help them get through their issues and I But we still, I think we still have a couple here, to your point, the three lots that don't fit C2 zone are a challenge for us, unless it all came in as one piece. Now that's another option, I guess, if they wanted to go out and piece all this as one parcel, replat it, reset, you know, and bring it in as one lot, one unit. The PCD route might be a better fit and easier for you guys to sell it in chunks or however you're doing it. And then it just gives us a little oversight on the lot sizes and how to maneuver and manipulate them. And it always gives us a little peace of mind, too, to be able to say a PCD gives us... oversight on what the product's going to be. Right now, we don't know. We have some challenging lots here, but to your point, it needs to be done. It needs to be cleaned up.

Well, what does that mean if it does go?

You'll have to come back to the podium. He has to give you permission. I'm speaking out of turn. You have permission. Okay.

What does that mean if we... If we have somebody that wants to buy our top three lots, they can't buy them separately. They have to come to a plan with all five of those. Is that what you're saying?

No. So if they just want the top three, those top three aren't the smaller ones, right? So that's a little bit different conversation. That's not in front of us, so I can't speak to what I would or wouldn't do. But those three lots really aren't the biggest concern that I have. It's the three smaller ones that you're kind of bundling with it. that creates my consternation because those are still individual lots that could be dealt with individually in the future. That don't meet the zoning requirements. That don't meet the zoning requirements, right? So, you know, the three lots you have, for example, someone could create a PCD out of that and put all those together and say, I want to put a gas station. A gas station doesn't fit on any one lot, but it fits on all three nicely, right? So that's the reason they would do that is because now you get the benefit of the total footprint and not just that one small piece. If you develop these individually, you have to deal with setbacks, and you have to deal with all of that. You put it all together, and your setbacks are now just the outside. So you get more usable land by putting it together.

Okay. What's to say you get all six here in a PCD, excluding the one on the outside? You've got a flag lot right now that's currently sharing a driveway to that one house that's going to be outside it, and that becomes landlocked now.

Yeah, that's what I said. I think that one needs to be included to be part of the the PCD because it's not it wouldn't stand alone by itself. It would be it would be completely isolated.

Yeah. Well, let's let's talk about the C2 and I'll just tell you from experience with economic development and planning and even council from that perspective, the back lot there on its own, uh, when I'm looking at the top three, I don't, you would have a really tough time having a commercial developer come in and say, I'm going to make this retail, or I'm going to make this something that fits to C2 because most of your C2, if not all your C2 applicants, they want road frontage, right? They want visibility. you know, either those three are combined and let's say you have a building or a couple of buildings there that are pushed back to allow for parking on the front side of it. It makes sense from that, that perspective. So, um, and this one lot that's, um, I think I like the flag lot. I like that. Um, you know, that's a, that's tough because you basically have a drive, uh, from what I see. here with something in the back. And again, there's not going to be any real visibility because of the topography. Plus, we've got a building that's going to cover part part of it. So, you know, from my perspective and I know you've brought a group together, I think it seems to me your options are if you own the top three, you know, you consider bringing back back in as either a C2 or a PCD. If you're talking about combining all of these still, with maybe the exception of the one that's furthest east, you bring that all in as a PCD. And again, I think this lot that kind of sits there by itself that's next to a C2, that may be something that that person considers rezoning to a C2, since it would be consistent with the lot, I guess at least on one side, The is the is the karate studio. That's C4 C4. Yeah. So I think that are the I think those are your options right now. And, you know, just from a planning perspective and then for your sake, from a development perspective, to make it viable, you've got to consider the the visibility and the way this is put together.

Just look at this picture, the flag lot and the one to the east by itself. the owner of that property that has the karate studio might be your player because if they wanted to expand or what have you, they could go in all directions pretty much. But I think your prime locations are the ones that front the road and they're already commercially sized. If you can bring the small one that does not commercially sized in together, a PCD like we said across the street with the office complex and the veterinary and all that kind of stuff, That's what that was. That's a planned commercial development, not a planned residential development. So their idea is, I mean, we want to help you. We really do.

You get some challenge to come back and reapply for the PCD.

If that's your choices, you might want to get with Kevin or Mitch and let them kind of give you some guidance on what that PCD might look like if for for the usage that you have sold it for plan to sell it for because you want it to work to Tim's point. The flag lot It's not attractive to too many commercial people on its own. Right.

Well, my thought process was that whole street going down. Yeah. Eventually become. So I just kind of put it all together.

Yeah. No. Kudos to you for doing what you've done. That's not easy.

Honestly, the five lots, your three and then the two smaller ones, those five could stand alone as a PCD by themselves. Yeah. And then to Mark's point, the flag lot and the other lot could either join the karate studio or the flag lot, join the karate studio. and give them more land there because I really don't. I mean, I don't know how developers, engineers and designers can do a lot of things, but taking those five lots and figuring out how to use that flag lot. I mean, beyond beyond a parking lot or a dumpster dumpster location. Yeah, I don't really see much use for it. Right.

Well, I think the owner when talking to that owner, she mentioned that was she works for, mentioned that he has a business. They wanted to put a business office there. Run their accounting out of there. That would probably work. Because it's residential now. So I said, well, if you want to get in on the application, we can see.

And to do a PCD, you can actually lay it out that way. when you bring it in, then that way everybody gets to see the intent and the purpose of it. Of course, if you bring a PCD in and it gets approved, you got to stick to those plans. That's what a PCD is.

But if it's any changes, you would have to come back again. So if you designed it with an office building on that flag lot or small office there and, you know, some sort of retail on the front and that changed, you'd have to come back again.

OK. Could I reapply to do C2 on R3 or no? You could.

Well, you can't tonight. Not tonight. Okay.

I'll get with Kevin.

Get with Kevin. I'll get with Kevin. Kevin and Mitch are a great resource. They'll help you, and we'd be glad to help you if we can get it to fit. Thank you. Thank you.

We have a request that you all need to. Yeah, I'll make.

Yeah, I'll make a motion that based on the conversation and primarily based on the three lots that don't meet the C2 requirement that we deny this request.

I have a motion to deny. So and a second for the discussion. All those in favor of denying this request, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. This request is denied. The motion to deny is approved. Okay. We're now on to final plats. First, Hollingshead Industrial, West Jefferson Pike, and Hickory Grove Road. Owner, developer, HDCAL, Jefferson Pike, LSE, Hamilton Development.

Yeah, this is the final plat.

You all have seen the site plan for these four lots and then, or for these lots as well as the preliminary plat. And so there are showing five lots here. The reason really it's the four lots that have been approved for development. The one that's labeled Lot 5 there, really a lot is getting created because they're putting in all of the public right of ways with this phase. So there is a road that goes down to the sewer lift station that's going to be at the end of that long cul-de-sac there. And so lot five with the overall master plan, lot five will be coming back to you all and be redivided at some point in the future as well as the site plan in the future. So just the road, the road and the lift station at the end of it is what's being shown really with this. And then the four lots that are in the front there, they get they get all four industrial lots for the buildings were approved. with site plan a few months ago, is zoned I-1. And so we had a few comments that there's basically six comments left. The first really three are early standard comments. Again, I will point out that the Jefferson Pike is a principal arterial, Hickory Grove is a collector and they are dedicating right of way or existing right of exist or being dedicated for those streets. We do still need 911 approval for the road name that they're showing for the one new roadway that did not have a name. They are showing a blanket kind of 20 foot public utility and drainage easement kind of between at the edge of the right of way on the front of all the lots. Those do not appear to be needed. There's no public utilities in those areas. We did ask them to remove those easements just because that's really going to affect the placement of landscaping and signage and those kind of things in those areas. So we did ask them to remove those easements. And then number six is just a comment from our fire department. Just wanted to point out the public fire hydrant. is required within 100 feet of the FTC. I think there was one location there was a concern about that. We would recommend approval with those six comments.

Kevin, concerning this, any questions or comments?

My only question, Kevin, is around the red lights and the intersections on Jefferson Pike. Obviously they've got to be working with TDOT for the cuts and stuff, but the timing of those lights going up versus this construction and stuff moving forward. Do we have any conversation there?

I don't know, Jason, if you had any conversations. I know there was a traffic study that was done kind of with this development and then some of the development on the other side of Jefferson Pike as well, and they were working through all those together with TDOT.

Yeah, I'm just mostly I'm concerned about the four-way at Hickory Grove, the three-way becoming a four-way, and with construction traffic coming in and out of there, if there's no red light yet, And that's kind of in that blind curve, just a little concerned about the safety of the construction traffic, getting that out there.

I wouldn't think that that would be in for another year and a half or two years. They they've just gotten that approved from TDOT and TDOT had sent back, um, more comments two weeks ago.

So, so how do we handle that? I guess they just, and we put up signs. It's let the people know construction traffic entering the highway. I mean, if they come out of there trying to make a left turn, there's no signal there, there's nothing stopping traffic for them. How do we handle that?

Um, I, I really haven't thought about that. Um, uh, TDOT has approved their plans. So, um, it was really up to TDOT how they were going to do that. Um, do they have a, uh, I don't know that, sorry, that's me. That's my trash. I gotta go take out my trash. Um, I don't really have an answer for you for that. Sorry. I mean, the signal is there at Hickory Grove. Yeah, it's not a four way, right? It's not a four way.

So actually, my point was, could we hang some temporary lighting or something there to give them a way out? We could.

We could make that a requirement, I guess. Kevin, can we make that?

Yeah, I think we could look at that. I mean, I think they're not, again, whatever's approved as part of their traffic study, all those improvements, they're well aware of all those improvements.

It's a span wire, so it shouldn't be an issue to make it permanent, actually. So they could put that in there early. I was thinking that this was the new signal that was going in, but this is further down. This is at the fire station. This is at the fire station. They could, they could put that in. Yes. Sorry. Okay. I've got three developments on that road. Okay. Cool. All right.

Anything else?

And on the, uh, stones river drive down at the very end of it in that cul-de-sac. What is that? I can't blow this up big enough to see.

There's a lift station there that also I think is proposed because as part of this development there is a greenway around it and we're working with them on all that. Some of it's going to be, most of it is actually going to be on the core property but as part of that there was going to be a trailhead there. So I think that parking is primarily for that trailhead.

I know we talked about it but I can't blow this up big enough to see what it is.

Can't blow that up. We've got issues.

It's just a bunch of lines, even if you blow it up. Doesn't say trail end.

OK. Other comments or questions? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve the request with the additional condition that at least a temporary access. I don't know. What do we say? Red light. I don't know. That has to be a signalization. It could grow temporary or permanent signalization at Hickory Grove Road for construction traffic. Okay.

Motion from Steve. Do I have a second to his motion? I'll second.

Second from Scott. And just for clarification, that does include the existing six comments the staff already had, I assume? Yes.

Including staff comments, yes.

Comments and the additional comments. Okay.

Excuse me, Kevin, can I speak about the motion?

If you can give us your name and address, please.

Good evening. My name is Jeff Koneczny with Hamilton Development Company. The address is 1 Music Circle, South Nashville. So right now the construction entrance is off Stones River Road. That name has been changed and accepted by 9-1-1. It's going to be like Granite River Parkway or something like that. And we'll get that final name to Kevin. The condition of the approval about the traffic center, that'll create a little bit of an issue. We're not planning to use that at Hickory Grove Road with the construction entrance. We're going to be going down further where it currently is. And we, that, that traffic light is going to be installed much quicker than a year and a half or two years. We need it for our first certificate of occupancy of that building. So it's going to be somewhat, you know, probably nine months or 10 months down the road.

So, so I guess from my perspective, it's either whatever the new road is. Yes. Use only that one for construction or put up a light.

Just use that one. That's we don't want to connect. We're not going to connect into Hickory Grove. road onto jefferson pike until that traffic signal is installed we don't want any traffic on it either so we'll use only what's on the screen as stone's river road as our construction entrance yeah okay thank you so my motion is the same i'm not really wanting to change it with the exception of um i guess we could say if construction traffic uses hickory road

I would still, if they, if they decided to use it, I'd still want to light there. If they're not going to use it, then it's not an issue.

Okay. Counselor, do we need to, how can we, can it be amended or where are we?

I think you need to, it wasn't seconded. So it was seconded.

So, uh, perhaps, uh, the best way is to let's vote on that and then do a second, uh, a second one.

Okay. So all those in favor of Steve's original motion, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay. So now.

Now my second motion is a motion to approve with staff comments and the condition that all construction traffic use Stones River Drive or Granite, whatever drive, whatever the new name is. If traffic uses Hickory Grove Road at all, it has to be signalized.

Just for clarification, did you include the six comments from the staff?

He did, yeah. Okay, are we good, Kevin? Yeah. Okay. All right, so we've got a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you again, Scott. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Okay, now we're on to resubdivision of Newberry Lot 2, 3545 Ambleville Road, owner-developer Blue Circle Ventures, LLC.

Yes, this is a final plan.

This is the resubdivision of existing Lot 2 of the Newberry development. This is the commercial portion of this PUD. There's one lot existing, proposed to be divided into three lots, 2.7 acres total for those three lots. We had a few comments. Most of these are standard comments. First two are. The third one I will point out, just Amable Road is a minor arterial and they are dedicating some right of way there to get there to meet that requirement. The fire flow will be determined per building. That's just an informational comment from the fire department. They are showing an access easement there from across lot 2B to access Maulbeck Drive. Staff did ask that they recommend that that be moved further away from Almaville Road just because it comes in right there at the entrance. And the fire department had some concerns about the ability to maneuver that site. The developer has requested to be approved as submitted. That is, it is shown, that access easement is shown where the access was approved on the site plan for lot 2B. So they have asked that the easement be shown and consistent with where the Planning Commission did approve the site plan access. But that was something Mr. Taylor brought up as a concern at that location, so we didn't want to bring it up. The last comment was just a standard comment from CUD that would need to remain.

So I'm getting my bearings. Is this the stone house that originally was excluded?

It's actually part of what's shown as lot 2A. There was a site plan approved for like an indoor pickleball building on lot 2C, and then lot 2B was just kind of a retail, multi-tenant retail building that was approved a few months ago.

But now that that's all included, A, B, and C are all together.

Yeah, this is just, yeah, this is all, they're kind of the site plans, and this is just going to divide the lots up into three commercial lots, basically. But all the access to it, and just, I think you may remember or may not, but there would be no access to animal eroding longer. They would all be accessing Malbec or the one to the back there, Bonemar Drive, I believe is how you say that. so the existing driveway at that 2a area would basically be vacated would be going away yeah we haven't seen a site plan yet for that but that's that's the plan yeah other questions or comments

Do I have a motion, then?

A motion to approve with staff comments.

I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion to second. Further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please see the comments saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Okay, we are now on to... Newberry, Phase 2, Amable Road, and is that supposed to be Malbec? It says Malbec. It should say, yeah. Owner, developer, Melrose Properties, LLC, Lenar Homes.

Yeah, this is the same area as what we were just looking at. This is just the residential portion, phase two of the residential portion of this PUD. This is 64 lots. It's 65 units because within this development, there was townhomes, some zero lot line homes. And so one of these lots has two units on it as a zero lot line home. The rest are single family lots. So a total of 64 lots on 29.44 acres. Again, had a few standard comments there. One through three, number four, that dimension has been added. So number four can be removed as this comment. And then the last two comments would remain. Those are kind of standard comments from Consolidated Utility District for water services there. So with those remaining five comments, staff would recommend approval.

Consistent with previous approvals and it meets all the rules and regs and ordinances at the time this was approved.

That's correct. Okay.

Other questions or comments? Do I have a motion? I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second from Scott. Further discussion?

How long was this approved prior?

It's been a few years ago now. It was a mixed-use bud with the commercial, the townhomes and the single family and all that. But it's consistent with the approved bud and the preliminary plan.

Okay.

Anything else, Kim? Just lessons learned from Gwen Farms. Did we ever have any kind of visual on how these things are going to look once they're built?

Yeah, we did with the pot approval, yes. Okay.

Okay, all those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Uh, we are now on the site plans. Uh, the first one reverie at music city amenity center, Kevin, I understand that they've requested a deferral.

They have. Yes.

Uh, have they indicated how long they'd like this to be deferred?

They did not indicate it. No. So I would recommend, uh, probably just an indefinite deferral at this time. Cause they did not indicate. Okay.

Any questions concerning this deferral?

I'm not going to vote on it anyway because that was my church property that I was involved with, so I'm going to stay out of it.

All right. So please indicate Mark not voting or taking part of the discussion. Okay. Back to the commission. I will now entertain a motion if there's no discussion.

Motion to defer. Sorry.

Okay. I have a motion to defer indefinitely. Indefinitely. A motion to defer indefinitely. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Ken. Further discussion? All those in favor of this motion to defer indefinitely, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? This motion has been approved and this has been deferred. Next under site plans, Rock Springs Business Park Phase 2. 230 and 260 Imperial Boulevard owner developer H&R Development Partners LLC slash BGS America LLC.

This is the second phase for Rock Springs Business Park, which would include four office warehouses. The site plan mirrors the product The project requested as part of phase one, which had two 4,000 square foot buildings and two 5,000 square foot buildings with a similar layout. Phase one's currently under construction with this phase located southeast, closer towards Rock Springs Road. As shown on the overall site plan, there's an additional 10 buildings that would be constructed if approved following phase two. square footage of vehicular use area 1.15 acres which would require 5008 square feet of open space and landscaping applicants proposing for 5750 square feet total parking requirement of 16 spaces the numbers of the square footage inside the buildings have changed since the plan since packets went out rather The applicant decreased the office space and increased warehouse storage space for those tenants. So that is the reason for the decrease in the required number of parking spaces. Regardless though, they are proposing for 57 spaces far exceeding the minimum requirement. Handicapped parking space requirement of three spaces, they're showing for four. The landscape plan shows street trees and a variety of shrubs lining the frontage of Imperial Boulevard. Trees are also shown to be planted in landscape islands around the parking lot with shrubbery at the foundation of the building fronts. Architectural elevations show four buildings designed with masonry products and glass glazing as well as fiber cement board siding and metal. Per design review, any building facade visible from a public street shall have at least 75% primary materials. The front and side elevations on both the 5,000 and 4,000 square foot buildings do meet the 75% primary material requirement. There is one roll-up door on the front and right or left side of the buildings, depending on which side the building is facing, to be finished in a faux wood composite cladding. The front of the building has a similar design to the side of the buildings, but with more hardy panel on the front due to the roof design on the front of the building. The rear of the buildings are shown to be entirely metal, which would exceed the 10% accent material allowance for buildings in commercial districts. Both buildings, excluding facial areas, would have approximately 20.26% metal. A site distance study was performed by the applicant as part of phase one, which showed no part of the rear of the buildings to be visible from North Lower Street. Between the rear of the buildings and the traveled roadway on Lower Street are the railroad tracks, which are elevated above the roadway. Commercial buildings and existing vegetation are also in this area. Phase one was approved as submitted with similar design as going back to once again, this is a more or less mirror image to what was approved as part of phase one for what's being presented here for phase two. Standard comments one through six all remain at this time. Staff comment one can be removed. They did submit a trip generation port and did note that there will be improvements that are made to Imperial Boulevard with as part of phase three of the development. So staff comment one can be removed. Number two can be removed as well regarding the location of landscaping in relation to the underground utility lines. Account number three goes over the architectural elevations. Note that was made earlier. The architectural elevations submitted do not meet design review in relation to the percentage of metal shown for the entire building in a commercial district. The entire rear of the buildings are shown to be finished metal. This is consistent with the first phase of the development and was approved by the Planning Commission. A site distance study was submitted as part of the first phase of the development, which showed no portion of the building rear to be visible from North Lowry Street. So that comment will remain just because it does not meet desire and view. It is up to you if you see fit to approve as is or if you'd like them to meet desire and view. But phase one was approved with the variance. So staff would recommend approval with the above list of comments.

Any questions for Mitch on this?

I know we had a lengthy discussion about this one and I think we all determined the reason we kind of gave it our blessing. The railroad tracks back up to this and the site line to the back of that building is nil. So I think that's the reason we decided to do that that way.

Well I think there have been a couple other projects where we've looked at that as well. I'm thinking the one on Tridon where we were looking at the visibility from an arterial there and concluded with landscaping and whatnot it wasn't visible there either. So to me this is consistent with phase one and It's as you say markets from visibility perspective. It's not visible to Lowry.

Mitch, how long ago do you have any idea how long ago phase one was approved?

I was going to say two years ago. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Close to two years.

They've had to wait on the town to get a water line project to really get the fire flow. And that's nearing completion now. So they're getting ready. Yeah.

Okay. Other questions, comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve with staff comments and the allowance of the same backside material they used in Phase 1. Okay.

I have a motion to approve with staff comments and allowance of the same rear elevations as Phase 1. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Motion to have a second. Any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Looks like we've got one more site plan, which is stone trace lot five, Jeanne lane and Needham drive owner developer grow and learn XI LLC cornerstone development.

This is a project for Lot 5 in the Stone Trace Commercial Subdivision which would be proposing to develop an educational facility located on the corner of Genie Lane and Needham Drive. An existing access utilized by Chicken Salad Chick would serve as one point of access to the development with a secondary point shown off of Needham Drive. The building is shown to be 14,438 square feet with three exterior play areas around the building. Vehicular use area in the site, 0.61 of an acre, and that would require 2,693 square feet, which is marginally different from when packets went out, about 40 square foot or so difference, so not too big of a change. That does require that 2,693 square feet, and they are showing for 3,427 square feet, so it's still meeting our requirements. Total parking required of 45 spaces, and they're showing for 46, and that does require two handicap parking spaces, which are being shown. Landscape plan shows a variety of street trees along Jeanne Lane and Needham Drive, with shrubbery shown between the trees. Additional trees are to be planted within landscaped islands throughout the parking lot. Shrubbery is shown to be planted at the foundation of the building, which does front public roadways. Architectural elevations show the building to be finished with primary materials of brick, stone, and glass glazing. Fabric cement board siding is shown as a secondary material. Per designer view, any facade visible from a public street is required to be clad in minimum of 75% primary materials. The west elevation is the only elevation that does meet this requirement, however. As presented, the elevations do not meet designer view. Standard comments, one through eight at this time will remain. And we had a couple of staff comments to go over. Most were addressed at this time though. So common ones regarding the auto turn navigating throughout the site for the fire department. They have reviewed that and are okay with the removal of comment number one. Number two, regarding the building elevations not meeting designer view. At this time, they still do not meet designer view with the exception of that one Western wall face meeting. We have the second sentence on this comment regarding the note regarding the city of Murfreesboro and that has been changed to Smyrna. The second part last sentence can be removed of this comment, but the first part regarding the elevations material percentage will remain. Comment number three regarding a traffic study that was discussed as part of one of the previous projects for the other stone trace lot. That comment can be removed as it was included as part of that traffic study. Comment number four, we asked them to show the canopy height on the site plan. It was shown on the elevations page. We wanted to make sure that the fire truck could safely maneuver throughout and it is shown to be 14 feet, which is adequate enough for the fire truck. So number four removed as well. Number five, we asked them to correct the site data table as there was a discrepancy with parking calculations and that has been addressed so that can be removed. Con number six, we asked them to relocate all trees at least 10 feet away from the underground public utility lines and the shrubbery to be at least five feet away from those utility lines as well. That may be the case, they might be within, but we want to make sure that we all have adequate time to make sure that is the case. So count number six will remain, but it may be addressed sufficiently. So in recommendation, this is quite different from when packets went out, but staff tonight does recommend approval with the above conditions. Once again, count number two, they're pretty close to meeting design review. For reference, the north elevation is sitting at 72% primary materials, the south elevation 68%, east at 73%, and the west at 87%, so we're all under 7% away from meeting designer view. If you feel comfortable approving with the condition that they meet designer view, I think that's something that the applicant noted that they'd be okay with, but applicant is here tonight if you'd like to ask them any further questions on that. but staff coming to meeting elevation percentage and then comment number six, we just want to make sure that all those landscaping materials are sufficiently away from underground utilities.

To meeting it anyway, but leaving it on there, just make sure it gets done.

Well, I'm comfortable with it being that close that staff can administratively, uh, uh, you know, work with them to make sure they meet, uh, the, uh, design review elements. And the fire department. And the fire department. With that, I'll make the recommendation to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. You know, at one point in time, this parcel was included in R6. Can you see it not being? Yes.

Of course, it's going to take care of the rugrats from the R6. Well, I didn't hear you volunteer to do it.

Children are a blessing.

Yes.

We are now on to our bond review report before we totally get crazy here. So the July bond review report, Kevin.

Yeah, I have a few, not as many tonight as some months. We have the first two or two different phases of the same development, which is the commercial development on Sam Ridley there east of Stone Trace, Point Subdivision. Both of those are really at the maintenance phase. The developer more or less said he's having trouble finding a contractor to do the work.

So when I was looking at the obvious question, I think I could probably take care of some of these. But no, my question is your recommendation of extending six months. It sounds like Mr. Walters is not going to do any more to try to figure it out, so are we just kicking it down the road for six months?

Well, and he actually verbally said they would be okay paying us to do the work if that would be allowed. That's typically when we've done that, we've called the bonds. Bond coverage. So that's certainly, you know, I hate to... Bond coverage? If you call... Yeah, I mean, there's not much. It's not that much. The paving's done. It's just some cleanup stuff. You know, it's really not a lot. So I'm not worried about the bond covering the issues.

We're not a contractor.

We're not a contractor.

At some point, we're kind of a stalemate, right? He's done everything he can do to find somebody. He can't find anybody. We just keep extending it. It's still not getting fixed, and at some point, we've got to call the bond anyway. So that's all I'm getting is we're just kicking it down the road. If it looks like we're going to end up having to call the bond, do we just want to do that now or... Do we want to give him more time?

The only thing I haven't talked to him about, I told him that typically that's not how we do things. If we do that, typically we call the bond. We're not a contractor. He can't just hire us to do the work for him. I don't call on someone's bond dings or credit, I hate to do that too. Because he's not a developer who's walking away from a project and unwilling to do it. They've been a good partner for years. That's not my intent either.

I just want to get it resolved. Based on his comment, I'm not saying he's washing his hands of it, but if he can't get it done, our option is to call the bond. It's not to go be a contractor.

And maybe what we do is we extend it one month or three months or something.

Maybe extend it for three months and then take a hard look at it at that point.

Maybe if you haven't, communicate back to him that the option is we call the bond and

Yeah, that's what I'll do is I'll get with him and say, hey, really, these are your options. Find somebody to do the work or the town calls your bond. So that's the only way we can do the work. And he can then decide how he wants us to approach it, I guess.

So the recommendation is three months instead of six?

Three months instead of six on the first two there. Okay, thank you. The next one, Blakeney Section 3 Phase 1, this one's about 78% built out. I did hear from that developer today on this one and the other Blakeney as well. They're looking to pave that last quarter this year, first quarter next year, based on kind of the current pace of how the builder's finishing out. So I would recommend a six-month extension on that one. I guess kind of into that time frame we can kind of look at it then where we're at and see where they're at. Cedar Hills section three phase two, this is the end of the maintenance period on that one. The developer indicated to me they're looking to have that done within the next couple weeks, certainly by the end of July, which would be well ahead of the expiration date. So hopefully they'll be able to do that and release it, otherwise extend it three months if they're not. The other Blakeney, section one, phase one, they are meeting, did hear it again from the developer today on that one, they are meeting with their paving contractor tomorrow. The main thing holding that up is they've got some final topping repairs that need to be made and then before they can really finish out some of those other issues. And so they're meeting with their contractor tomorrow and they'll complete the rest of the items once that paving is done. I don't know if they'll be done by August 13th or not. So but they are we could release it otherwise extend three months on that one and then Last one. There's Mayfield townhomes. This is a project that's been on hold because of FEMA and map revision issues. There's a small area of floodplain on that property that has been going through the process with FEMA to revise the map. They're still waiting on that really before they can start construction on any of the homes in that area. They have requested an extension there. They're hopeful within the next 30 to 45 days that they'll have that the approval from FEMA, and then they're looking actually to sell this property to another builder, and so then they would start construction at that point, probably within 90 days or so. So I did recommend a six-month extension on this one at this time.

Just the one that put the slabs in already.

I don't think, I know all the roads, all the utilities are in, the roads in, no topping yet. Those are all private streets and everything in there, but Yeah, that one's been on hold for a while, and it's really waiting on FEMA approval on some map amendments or map revisions. So that's it.

Okay, we've heard the bond review report. Are there any more questions or comments concerning that?

I'll make the motion to approve the bond review report with staff comments and recommendations.

I have a motion to approve the bond review report with staff's comments and recommendations.

Enthusiastically second. Second.

There he is. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Next, staff comments and other business.

Um, only thing I want to bring up and just remind everyone, uh, in three weeks from tonight is a next joint meeting with the council, um, on the 30th of July at 3 PM. So before their council workshop at five. So, uh, we will be getting a packet of information to you all a week or so before that. So, um, so that's, that's, I just want to remind everyone of that meeting.

Okay.

And if there's nothing further, we stand adjourned.

I believe Mr. Skirr had something he wanted to bring up. I saw a news article about the Census Bureau has published the mid-decade update. And for our town of Smyrna, our population increased by 19.2% in the last five years. We went from 53,000 to 63,000 people. So a lot of the developments that have been approved are coming online. People are moving in. But the reason I wanted to bring it forward is that that puts our growth rate closer to 4%, whereas in our comp plan update, we had been projecting a 2.3% growth rate. So that changes a lot of the future assumptions and some of the future needs of the town. How far is that date back, do you know?

This study just came out. I'm just curious because the market has softened.

Yeah, and that's our comp plan, which we're working on now, right, is 2.3 from today forward, not from five years ago forward. So I'm not sure that... it's going to sustain 4% like we've seen.

I think it's as of 2020, like a year. Those are the numbers, I think, from last year.

We actually had this conversation, Charles, because we had, I don't remember the number, but thousands of homes that had been approved that are in our plan. They're already out there, but we're not seeing, just like this planning meeting at 630, and we're done, right? We're not seeing the same level of developments continuing to come in. So... Four percent, I'm not surprised. I'm honestly surprised it wasn't a much higher number because of what we knew was approved out there. It's interesting, though, to see the growth pattern. A lot of people like it here.

Okay. Thank you, Charles. Anything else? We stand adjourned.