Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the August 6, 2026 Smyrna Municipal Planning Commission meeting. I'll call the meeting to order. And with that, if you'll stand with us, we're going to have a prayer and then the pledge. Father, thank you for today. Thank you for our great town and all that you do and how richly you have blessed us tonight. Be with us tonight as we consider the town's business Grant us wisdom, discernment, so that we may make the right and just decisions. Father, we ask a special blessing on our town employees, especially our firefighters, policemen, first responders. Please give an extra hedge of protection to them. Be with us in all that we do. For it's in your name we pray. Amen. Okay, next up, citizens' comments, Kevin. They're not tonight. Okay, we'll move on to agenda item three, approval of corrections of the minutes for the July 9, 2026 regular meeting and the July 30, 2026 quarterly joint meeting. Counselor, are the meeting minutes in order?

They are in order subject to any revisions or subtractions from the council.

Okay, I know the commission's had a chance to review this. Do we have any corrections or amendments to it? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I have a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the July 9, 2026 and the July 30, 2026 meetings, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Meeting minutes are approved. We are now on to old business. The first is a site plan, Stone Trace Common, corner of Jeanne Lane and Old Nashville Highway. Owner, developer, Walder Vestron Family Limited Partnership.

This is a site plan that was reviewed last month. There were some questions about the traffic study at that time, and that still remains true to this time. We have not received any revised plans and are still in discussion with the applicant about updated traffic studies and what the results of those studies should be showing and what it should be including. So at this time, we do not have anything updated from last month, but we are still in discussions with the applicant as far as that traffic study is concerned. So at this time, staff would recommend deferral of this item.

Okay, you've heard from Mitch concerning this, that we do have an outstanding item, an important one at that. Staff is recommending deferral, and I'll entertain any discussion or a motion on this.

Just a quick question, I guess. From talking to some people that are involved with that, I know traffic studies are highly important to us. We've got to make sure those get done and done right. Are we at the risk of losing... potential business over there because of the continued deferrals and delays, is that causing a problem? Or do you know, I know there's some LOIs for some businesses that want to come in over there. And, uh, I don't, I'd hate to see the applicant lose those businesses that I think the town would appreciate. Sure. I don't feel qualified to answer that question. Okay. Kevin, can you speak to that?

You know, I don't know. I haven't heard, talked with them at all about that specific issue. I know that, uh, Mr. Taylor has been talking with the engineers about, traffic study and including the there's an additional building that's proposed on the corner there it shows up on this plan as proposed building D to include to include that business into the traffic study those kind of things which one we received did not so I mean I think that's Certainly it's up to the commission how you all feel about it. If you want to wait on the traffic study and defer again, that's fine. If you would like to approve with conditions and let staff deal with the traffic study on our own, we can do that. That's really up to you how you all want to do that.

Since the last meeting last month where it got deferred yet again... Have we gained any more information in 30 days that we could move forward with, or are we still in the same place?

I think we're still kind of in the same place.

I certainly want to see a traffic study done and done appropriately on any project. I just want to be cognizant of continued deferrals, one after the other after the other, can create a havoc in the business district over there.

I understand that, yeah.

Yeah. Is there someone that can come up? I'll recognize you and let you speak to the vice mayor's question.

All right. Good afternoon. I'm Wendell Miller. broker, project manager, and work for the Waldron's on this project. I've been on it since 2017 or 18 or so, the full duration of developing this whole Stowe Christ commercial thing here.

Mr. Miller, you approached us last month, as I recall.

That's correct.

I'm trying to give you a little bit of the background. I appreciate that. I'm sorry to cut you off. I'm trying to get to the point of that deferral that you kind of disagreed with last month.

Well, have we made any improvements? Yes, we have. Okay. Uh, as a matter of fact, you know, after, after we had the meeting last time that your traffic engineer here had requested basically for us to complete, he put up, Completely different bunch of criteria on it. Our guys have completed that, sent it back to them, and we still hadn't, you know, I'm not sure where we are on comments on it, but basically the recommendation is kind of what we've known all along, that, you know, there was some question about at Genie Lane and how Genie Lane and Old National Highway were going to work together and everything, and we determined that with the... the QSR that's coming online that's in the corner, that that first intersection coming off of Genie Lane, coming off Old Nashville Highway, yeah, we need to put a right in right out there. because it's so close and people trying to make a left turn in there. But we still, the latest traffic recommendation says it's okay for having full access over there on Old Nashville Highway, which is what we need. There's plenty of room over there to do it. uh, left in coming down, going to the south on old Nashville highway. It's got that huge turn lane that goes into the back of Lowe's and most of those Lowe's trucks all deliver at night. Anyway, they'll, I have in my years, I have never seen three trucks or anybody ever stacked past that. And, and, You know, effectively, we had a complete traffic study done when we originally did this development. And we have developed along those guidelines the whole time. And then all of a sudden now, everybody wants to do something new. And so far, we've had three different changes.

It's like, okay, how many changes are we going to have? I get it. We get it. So in your opinion, you're kind of saying maybe... The town's responsible for the changes that you now have to make?

Is that what I'm hearing? Well, yes, because we were developing under the traffic study and guidelines. What changed? That's my question. What changed? Beats me. you know, somebody new comes in and says, Hey, we're going to do it different. Okay.

So that's your opinion, right? Yeah.

I mean, you know, that's all, that's all I'm asking.

I'm trying to get at the bottom of it. Yeah. That's all we know. Yeah. And so all we've done is defer and defer.

And I think this makes the fourth time here trying to get this thing done. And we, yes, we do have people in jeopardy of if we can't get closed by the end of the year. And now we're, we're sitting there facing it. Now we, we, If we get deferred again, we're probably going to have to start releasing some people. And the thing about it is it also hurts our reputation with our tenants when we can't deliver.

Well, you've answered my question, so I don't want to get into a big diatribe this evening. All right, thanks.

And I appreciate it. We'd just like to get it approved and get it moving on. Yeah. All right, thanks. Thank you, sir.

Well, I know that the traffic study, it was over five years old.

Things have changed over this.

And the members of the commission that asked for the new study. So that's how we got started. And yes, we do. Mr. Taylor is new to the community. He's been here a few months now because Mr. King retired. So yeah, every individual is different and may look at things differently, certainly. But the reason for the study really came from the commission, this commission asking for it.

So how long have we had the updated or the new study?

I'll let Jason answer that. He's the one that's been dealing with them directly on that. So he can answer that question better than I can.

Last correspondence I had with their engineers was that they were going to include the chicken joint that's going to be in there, the Culver's, in there with their traffic study, and I have not seen it. If they've sent it, I haven't seen it.

Well, can I ask anybody back there, has it been sent? Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

I feel like Judge Judy right now. And to add on top of this, not that this is this developer's problem, to add on top of this, there's a 700-place apartment complex going about 1,000 feet north of it in La Verde.

Has that been approved? Do you know? I don't know. I've heard that's not been approved. Oh, good. This is why I'm asking all these questions.

I just want to get to the bottom of it. The problem that I'm facing here, and I don't know if you want to hear this, but the problem that I'm facing here is we just got Old Nashville Highway and Sam Ridley. We're just getting it to the point where it's going to be a good intersection. And of course we're going to have development. Of course it's great. I like the development myself. I'm just wanting to know what their impact is going to be. Tell me what your impact is going to be, and we can come to an agreement. Because Genie Lane is probably going to need an extra lane. And the road is probably going to need to be widened back. Old Nashville is probably going to need to be widened back a little bit to accommodate everything that they're doing. But I don't know that without...

Real numbers. That explains a lot. It helps me a lot. I kind of wanted to know some answers today, if you will, because this seems to continue. I don't want to see some of these good businesses that are planning to come into town necessarily.

I can generally review these things in two days. Send it in.

We're putting it on you guys. Send it in.

Let's clarify further. Your major concern is this new restaurant and what impact it will have in addition to what's planned there now. And you're looking for, I guess, this amended traffic study. And with that, you'll be at a point in which you can make a decision.

Where I could recommend. Yes. There were some problems with the original traffic study. They did some things that are against TDOT's rules. But they're going to do a new traffic study, and I look forward to seeing it. I just want to know how to... how to come to a conclusion on this, and I can't unless the traffic study is done properly.

Okay, that explains it.

I appreciate that explanation. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again. Give me a traffic study that is compliant with TDOT standards. That's all I'm asking.

And to Kevin's point, too, I mean, you know, we've got different people doing different things, and the growth has certainly grown in the last five years over there. So I get where you're coming from. I don't mind a deferral. I honestly don't. But in the next one, I'd like to have some finalization.

That's where I'm at. We would, too. Me, too. We're happy to move. We're not wanting to put off projects. Well, I'm not insinuating that. No, you're not.

I'd just like to see the ball roll a little bit faster, that's all.

If I missed an email, I don't care.

This traffic study. Oh, sorry. So we don't... I ended up having to backpedal include building D and lot six, eight.

It did not include building D the last time Culver's has done their application. It is the same owner of the property. As far as I know, may not be the same developer, but the same owner owns a property. So in my opinion, it needs to be all included in that.

Right, because if it doesn't include D, then we're going to have to do it again. Yes, sir. And what's going to change? And if it doesn't include 6A, it's going to have to be done a third time. So if it's done at one time, then it's all swooped through everything.

It's done and they've mitigated everything they need to mitigate. I don't know why you'd want to pay $30,000 a pop each time.

Yeah. Lot six say we does, there's no, at least to my knowledge, there's no user or anything like on that lot yet. So we don't really know what's going in there yet. Um, um, so I don't see too, it could be that they could, they could include, uh, like a typical type building or something that could go there and include some typical traffic that include that in their study. Um, So at least there is a number accounting for something there. Right.

If the study references it and says we're accounting for that to be something like this and this is what we would need, then we're golden the rest of the way forward.

Right. Jason, thank you for that explanation. It cleared up a lot from my point of view.

Thank you all. Anything else from the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to defer until the next meeting.

A motion to defer to the next meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the deferral until the next meeting, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, this motion is deferred. I think, gentlemen, you're all in the area here. There's a room outside. I think you can probably get your heads together so that we can get this to fruition and to a vote. Okay, we're on the new business versus a rezoning request. This is from Arsani Gabriel, 519 Noel Lane, rezoning R3 to PO2.

Yeah, this is a rezoning request. This piece of property has been before the commission before with a different zoning district. It was actually C4, I believe. And so this is for a PNO2 request. This is a piece of property that's a corner of Noel Lane and Old Nashville Highway. Zoning is, surrounding zoning is R1, R3, and PCD, which is across the street, across Noel Lane from this property. which is basically a C4 type uses are allowed there with the additional, the PCD was done to allow for beer and tobacco sales there, which is not allowed in C4 typically. The land use plan would support medium density residential in this area. And the major thoroughfare plan does designate old national highways or minor arterial, no oil lane as a collector. And there is a shack right away there for those streets. So this is one, again, we, we had looked at several months ago, uh, and was recommended by this commission for denial when it was, uh, C4 request. And so they have come back, uh, with the P and O two requests, which is more limited, uh, than C four. It's really just professional office uses and, um, maybe a couple other, you know, take care of thing maybe or something like that type uses, but pretty limited in the uses that are allowed. And we did just for everyone's information with the, uh, the, the, they'd have a neighbor, uh, do express some concerns about noise. Um, and then, you know, what, you know, parking lot, where's the parking lot going to be and what's it going to look like, um, has some concerns about some other uses or non-residential already going on there. Code has looked at that and have found no evidence of that, but there was a complaint that was part of the complaint as well. So. Again, we've looked at that and I found anything to be going on other than the residential use is approved. I think that's all I got.

Kevin, what buffering differences of any would be with a PO2 versus a C4?

It would still be pretty similar. I think because it's still non-residential to residential because those two, two sides, it would still be buffering or boarding residential. So it'd be pretty similar to a, as far as the same type of buffer, really as far as the would be required there.

Kevin, you mentioned parking.

depending on what they if it hypothetically this were approved doesn't necessarily mean there be any required additional parking depending on what it was really depends on what the use is yeah I mean it's a lot of office uses I mean it's one space for like 400 square feet or whatever and for things like that so you depending on the size of the building you know you you may have enough driveway area already to, to at least allow for some of that, um, enough parking, but you would have to have an ADA space and things like that potentially, again, depending on the use. So that would, would certainly affect, um, maybe in fact, and in reality, if you look at the property that where the house sits on the property, your, your driveway or your parking area is really going to be a probably more on the old Nashville highway side of the building. Anyway, it's just, that's where the room is. So,

um because you brought it up for the public's perception i'd like to ask this question that you can answer so everybody that's here maybe on behalf of it i talked to a young lady before the meeting hypothetically again speaking if it were to receive it zoning becomes private office type of property and then the owners decide that they can step forward and do maybe a little bit more with it how is that handled from our coach department? I just want you to explain it to the people that asked the question.

I mean, if they, if they violated the P and O and did something for C2, you know, if they put a use in there that's not allowed under that zoning district and it's a violation, we would, we would take them to first, we just let them know what they're doing is violation and stop and give them an opportunity to stop it. If they didn't, then it's ultimately a court action through city court.

That was a question that was posed to me, and I wanted that young lady to know what that was about.

Other questions for Kevin on this? What is the most intense use that would be allowed?

Yeah, I'm trying to get my zoning ordinance pulled up here so I can get to that page. Take care of it. So I can.

Maybe.

Yeah, those are probably which are, I mean, a personal service could be a hair salon, could be a, you know, a dry cleaner or something like that would fall under that general business. uh, their personal services. I think, yeah, that's, I said daycare, daycare. I don't believe we have misspoke on that. Um, you know, finance, you know, insurance, real estate office type thing. That certainly would be allowed. Uh, any type of doctor's offices, you know, other professional services that are not necessarily medical, like an attorney's office, something like that could go there, but not allow any type of retail. Um,

Can you give me examples of what's allowed in C4 that's not allowed in P&O?

Sure.

Because we already denied C4 here.

Yes, C4 would allow retail. C4 would allow a restaurant that could not have a drive-through, but you could have a restaurant in C4. Again, the retail, those are probably the two biggest uses allowed in C4 that would not be allowed in the P&O. We did also allow a tourist home, you know, now that's limited there is allowed in C4. You could have a florist, you know, some of those kind of things.

So more retail and restaurant non-driver type.

Right.

C4.

It's allowed in C4, right.

Yeah. And that got denied.

Correct.

Right. Do we have very many similar properties around town?

They're in this zone? No, it's pretty limited. They're in that P&O zone. There's some on Enon Springs. There's some on, a few on Nissan Drive.

I think the ones on Nissan are, they're C4, are they not? Or are they P&O?

There's some, there's both. I mean, the P&O is on the on the east side of Nissan Drive. There was a company there, there was actually a couple office buildings where the homes were actually renewed and office buildings were built.

But it's pretty much that row of former homes there that

all fall within that on nissan drive and then there's a few like i said there's a few on enon springs which are still primarily still residential but they were did have that zoning and then there's a few on uh well really there is the one office kind of office park that was built on in the pno district that's still there and they're across from the walmart okay

other questions for staff or comments from the commission have we received any indication as to the intended use no for for me there's not a whole lot of difference we've already denied c4 here

The retail is key. The restaurant, obviously, piece is kind of big. So taking that out does soften it quite a bit. But I think we denied it because I think Mark, you even said, where does it stop? Where does residential and commercial stop? And the way this house faces Noel and doesn't face Old Nashville Highway kind of pulls it more into the subdivision instead of the commercial.

And that's the person I spoke with before the meeting, exactly the point made. It enters into our neighborhood, right? So, you know, you've got all the, is that Clear Spring Court that is this cul-de-sac in behind it? Mm-hmm. There's one, two, three of those property owners as well. They all back up to it. I don't know that they could ever rezone and try to do something there. If they came in with the same request, how would it be much different?

Because they'd have access through the court.

They'd probably have to sell them combined and take it down and do something commercial there.

Well, I think that's a key difference because I think the ones on Nissan actually face Nissan.

And they're not part of the subdivision?

Correct.

Okay, I'll make a motion that we deny the request due to the proximity of the residential and that this house is better suited in that residential subdivision. And I'll second that.

I have a motion and a second to deny any further discussion. All those in favor of this denial, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is denied. We're now down to preliminary plants, the first being Collins Grove. 8673 Briley Road, owner and developer, S. Collins, 2 Properties, LLC.

This is the preliminary plan for the Collins Grove development. This is six lots on 3.59 acres, zone PRD. It is on Briley Road. We had several comments, most of which were standard comments. really one through seven or all standard comments that would need to remain. Uh, we had a few other comments. Uh, we did ask them to submit the 911 approval for the road name. We did receive that today. So that's, that can be removed. Uh, comment number nine, extending the sewer main to barley road that has been done. So that comment can be removed. Uh, there was an area kind of shown adjacent track that is actually shown as a separate track and it's really all part of one track. And so, uh, area North area, area North of lot six, we'd asked them to correct that and that's been done. So it can be removed. Uh, this pod did require 35 foot garage setbacks. Um, so we asked them to show all those on the lots and they have done that. Um, We did ask them to extend the sidewalk on Bradley road for the extent of the development that has been shown now. Uh, they did have an area on lot four where the building envelope did not meet the minimum setback side setback. So that's been corrected. So, uh, that comment can be removed. um comment 14 we'd ask them to show the overhead electric and the easements there for the overhead electric on lots one and six um they have shown that easements uh they're showing them as public uh public utility easements um we would prefer that be labeled as a well since the electric easement so it's not a it's not something that the town would have any so we would want to reword comment 14 to just reword that regarding the label on that easement. Comments 15 through 19 were all comments that came to us from Consolidated Utility District and so I would like to just leave those, let them look at all those comments. So essentially reword number 14 and then remove comments 8 through 13 and those remaining comments we would recommend approval Question questions for Kevin on this Looks like the track the lands fairly flat now not much earthwork has to be done Yeah, it's relatively flat. You got the detention area. They gotta add in the back there, but yeah, it's relatively flat I

Other questions or comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. We are now on to final plaques, the first being the second revision to Lot 1, Elk Avenue. Elk Avenue, Sam Davis Road. Owner, developer, Phillip and Susan Byer.

Yeah, this is a, uh, final plan. It's five lots, um, on, I had frontage, like you said, on Elk Avenue and Sam Davis road, it's five lots, 5.7 acres, um, in the R2 zone. Um, and we had several standard comments, um, that all, uh, remain, uh, one through seven. Um, comment number eight was really an informational comment that we um we came from public works with this development we'll be required to capture and treat storm water even though it's only four new homes they will have to to do that there is an existing power line that they're going to have to move just again informational comments that they'll have to coordinate that with you know middle tennessee electric because it is their their line There is the existing home that is on lot one, and their meter is near Sam Davis Road there, and so we just wanted them to be sure and map that service line so that it doesn't encroach on lot nine. And then comment number 11 was regarding a drainage structure there at Sam Davis and Elk that needs to be added. So really there's 11 comments total. We would recommend this to you with those remaining comments.

And staff is recommending approval? Yes. Okay, so make sure I heard that. Okay. Heard from staff. Any questions or comments from the Commission?

It has looked like that they've been doing some type of drainage work out to the road. Do y'all have any idea if that has any connection to this or if it's for the house next to it?

It looks like a water line or a sewer line being dug.

Could be.

Following the driveway.

Yeah, that's most likely. I assume that's probably just a sewer, like a service line to the house existing home would be my assumption on that. We've not received any kind of plans, construction plans or any type of grading plans yet for the site. Okay.

Other questions or comments? Does this consist of the previous approval?

Yeah, you had the two lots that are kind of lots two and three there that have been there for a while. this is kind of on the west side of the property that we looked at on the east side of the property a couple months ago, uh, where they were looking to add, uh, another lot with the private road, which was required to be public. So, um, and so, or would be required to develop to do additional lots rather, uh, this is on the other side of the property and it's not affected by that development at all, but it's, it's certainly consistent with the R2 zoning, which is what they are in. So, Okay.

Anything else? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve the staff comments. I have a motion to approve the staff comments from Steve. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second, Vanessa. Further discussion? All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Next is Fox Meadows, section two, south of Lee Road. Owner and developer Suri Holmes, LLC, and John Mitchell Burns.

This is section two of Fox Meadows. It's 48 lots, 19.29 acres. It is part of the Fox Meadows PRD. Had a few comments one and two really standard comments comment number three we just asked them to when the long-term maintenance agreement on the detention areas gets put in place that's that book and page number be added to the flat so they're recorded for posterity the comment four came from cud regarding the main water construction p complete part of approval and signature on the flat Number five is a standard comment regarding fire flow. Number six was a comment from Mr. Taylor regarding a trip gen report. I can't speak to whether or not that's happened yet or not, but that is a comment from him, so we want to keep that at this time. Comment seven, we'd ask them to add some minimum floor elevations and pad elevations for some of the lots where some of the floodplain area has been cut and filled down there, and so they have done that, so we can remove comment seven. Comment number eight was regarding some additional dimensions. There's some easements that are on the plat that aren't standard distance from property lines and things of that nature. So we asked them to add some additional dimensions. Everything's been done on that. There's one easement that kind of crosses lots 52 and 53 that there still needs some additional dimensions added there. So comment number eight can be basically amended to the slots 52 and 53. And the last two sentences on that regarding the training teachers being labeled as public, if they're intended to be so, that's been done, so it can be removed. And then comment nine, again, is a CUD comment, so we would want to keep comment nine to let them to review that. So with those remaining comments, we would recommend approval.

Okay, questions for Kevin on this?

Hey Kevin, how does that work on 52 and 53, the easements going through their front driveway?

Yeah, that one, that lot 52 especially, I mean it's really, unless they could access the other street since it's a corner lot, that's most likely what they'll end up doing. But yeah, cause it's, that's a overhead TVA easement that's on that side. So that's not an issue there.

And the way that could be pulled closer to the street.

So it's, yeah, I don't know if there's, there may be a storm pipe that's actually maybe the pipe itself was in the right away, but they need the additional easement just to be sure they have 20, a total of 20 feet if they need to work on it. I think that's probably what the situation is on that one.

Well, it's not ideal.

Other questions or comments from the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve with staff comments.

I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? I'll second. This motion is seconded. Further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Was that a late aye? Sorry, yes. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a no.

No, it was a late aye.

You almost voted no. Okay, next we have Hidden Springs Subdivision Phase 2, Napa Valley Drive. Owner, developer, David Weakley-Holmes.

this is the final flat phase two of hidden springs it's 47 lots 12.88 acres and the hidden springs prd again some some comment some standard comments really one through four are all standard comments would need to remain comment five again this is similar to what the previous discussion we had on the last one, the public storm pipes are required to be in a public, even at least 10 foot on either side of why on each side of the pipe, um, we had, um, we had kind of had a standard P U D E on all the lots. Basically every setback area was, was a public utility and drainage easement, which was not necessary and, uh, limits what people can do on their property. Cause if it's, you can't put a fence in an easement and things like that. So, We did ask them to remove that and they've done that. Um, we, there was a couple of the, some of the easements that they are showing the easements, um, but they're not showing, we asked them to kind of label them. They're showing just a utility easement or whatever, just ask them to label those correctly and then provide the, some additional dimensions on some of those easements. They're primarily on the, where their streets are intersecting and there's a little kind of area in the corner. that's gonna be a public easement just to provide some dimensions there. So we still need to keep that kind of reworded comment number five. Comment number six has been addressed. They've added that additional, again, that setback to the 35 feet from the garage. And then comments against seven and eight are from CUD, so we will need to keep those too. So with number five reworded and number six removed, those remaining comments, we would recommend approval. Consistent with what we previously... It's consistent with the preliminary plan and the approved PRD.

Questions for Kevin on this? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Chairman, I'm going to abstain. I've been abstaining on this one from the get-go.

So noted. Okay. Motion to approve with staff comments. Motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? With one abstention. Next, we're on to the re-subdivision of Lot 1 Team Chevrolet Subdivision, 600 Sam Ridley Drive. Owner and developer, GM 600 Sam Ridley, LLC.

Yeah, this is a commercial piece of property, Zone C2. It's 2.09 acres. It has been submitted to be divided into two lots. Of course, there is an existing building on this property that would have to be removed as a part of this before this plaque could ever be recorded, which was one of our comments. But this is looking to redevelop this site from where it is currently. Um, But the first couple comments are standard comments. We did note, again, Sam Ridley is a major, our principal, our chair, Al Chaney, and Team Boulevard are collectors, and there is adequate right-of-way there for those streets. A shared access agreement will be required between the two lots and to be shown on the flat when it's submitted for recording. And again, that existing building has to be removed, otherwise we'd be putting a property line through the middle of the building. Minimum fire flow is 1500 gallons at 20 psi, so that's a standard comment there. Comments seven and eight have both been addressed. We did receive a proposed development plan. This is something that's not anything submitted for approval, just we wanted to at least have a look at what they're proposing to do with proposing to route traffic and things of that nature. We did receive that and so there would be a separate commercial buildings on each of these new lots. So it would be created. With those comments, basically remaining comments one through six, we would recommend approval.

With the resubdivision, both lots will meet the C2 requirements? Yes.

does there need to be and I don't know since this is already zoned but it's obviously a different use than what it used to be conversations about traffic I mean obviously there's this particular piece of property is a little challenging to get in and out of especially with the problems we were the changes we were talking about making to fix problems at Stonecrest and we've already made Chaney one way there or right in, right, right in only. Um, uh, I don't know if this is more or less traffic to commercial buildings versus the one that was there before, you know, and really till we know for certain what the commercial buildings are.

We're not going to know.

I think they submitted us. They had two proposals. That's just proposed.

Those are proposed at this time. I think one of them is a little bit more firm than the other, but, Um, you know, this was a sit down restaurant. So if it becomes two quick service restaurants, that's obviously a bigger traffic impact than what was there already. Um, you know, the submittal that we had was one retail building and one bank. So. you know i think we just have to take a look at that really when we know for certain or they know for certain we'll probably have to have some sort of traffic study of some kind to know exactly what's what drives that if we approve this tonight what drives that it really is when the site plans come in okay for those sites okay so we're just basically our focus is just on the resub division at this point we're just dividing one lot into two lots tonight and i think certainly i think Absolutely. This is an area that we'll have to be very cognizant of what the traffic impacts could be. And again, depending on the use, it may end up being a reduction in the traffic from what's already been there. We don't know for sure yet.

Okay. All right. I'm good. Just obviously for the commission, we need to keep an eye out for this when it comes back.

Same with design review questions, I guess. Absolutely. Yeah.

Okay. Anything else from the commission? Not. Do I have a motion? Make a motion to approve with staff comments. A motion to approve with staff comments from Steve. Do I have a second?

Second. Ken?

Yeah, Ken. Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. We are now on to Sims Ridge, Section 1, Tamlin Avenue, developer, Old South Properties, Inc.

Yeah, this is the final plat for section one of Sims Ridge. It's 38 lots on 13.41 acres within the Sims Ridge PRD. Again, we had several standard comments, really one through four were all standard comments, which would need to be remaining. Comment five, they had shown the certification for cud and all their details which is not required here because this is does allow them in our service area for water so they they have removed that so comment number five can be removed uh comment six remains they still do still need to add the signature and stamp of the land surveyor before it gets submitted for recording Comment seven, we did ask for some additional dimensions for any public easement. It's not a uniform distance from a proposed property line. And to label any easements that are intended to be public as public easements, there's still some easements here they need to clean that up on. So we do need to keep comment seven. And then comment A was really just a full build out. Mr. Taylor had asked for a traffic impact study. This is for phase one. There was not a traffic study done when this development came in originally. So with basically all comments remaining except for comment five can be removed, we would recommend approval.

Consistent with previous submittals.

It's consistent with the approved PRD and the preliminary plan, yes.

and everything continues to meet the regs and ordinances that were in place at the time of the approval?

Yes.

Other questions for Kevin? There are no questions. I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve with staff comments.

I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. We're now on to item six. Tucker's point phase one, a 86, 13 and 86, 75 Rocky fork, Alamo road. owner developer, MRP, HSDB, LLC.

This is a first final slide we've seen from Tucker's point. This is phase one, a it's 31 lots, 15.29 acres. Um, and the Tucker's point PRD, um, we had again, Really five standard comments, one through five, which would all still need to remain. They are showing the right-of-way dedication along Rockford-Fork-Onville Road as it is a minor arterial, and they are showing that dedication with this plant. We did ask them to extend the 36-foot pavement width on West Holmes Drive, which is the main entry street into the development. Asked them to extend that pavement width a little back further so they would provide adequate stacking. The word in your comments there says staking. That is my typo. It is stacking. To provide adequate stacking within the development after the road is widened. So that was one that we asked for that, and so they have shown that now. and then so that can be removed and in comments seven would need to remain again that's from cud so with those comments one through five and seven remaining staff would recommend approval okay you've heard from uh kevin concerning this do you have any questions for him

Sorry, Kevin, did I hear you say this is first application for PRD?

No, this is not the first application for the PRD. It's the first time we've seen a final plat for this. The PRD has already been approved for a while, and the preliminary plat, this is just the first phase for the final plat. So it's consistent with the approved PRD and preliminary plat.

Other questions or comments? Will you get any calls from any neighbors on this?

No.

Other questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion 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 of approving this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Item number seven is Villas at Stuartsboro, phase two, Longfellow Lane, owner, developer, Finyara Homes Company.

This is the plat for Phase 2 of Villas of Stuartsboro. It's 31 units, 3.03 acres. This is a townhome development in the PRD there that was approved several years ago. The site plan's already been approved. This is just the plat to establish the... the common areas and easements and those type of things. Against a few standard comments, one through four are all standard comments that would need to remain. Comment five, just to add the stamp and signature of the survey or record, still need to do that. And then comments six and seven were CUD comments that we'll need to review. So with those seven remaining comments, staff would recommend approval.

Okay. Questions for Kevin or comments from the Commission?

Kevin, how long ago was this one?

Of course, Phase 1 was approved, probably originally approved from a zoning standpoint, gosh, 15 or 20 years ago. Phase 2 has been much more recent than that, but it's still been If time gets away, probably four or five years.

It is consistent with everything that was approved, I'm assuming? Yes. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve then.

I have a motion to approve from Mark. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Steve. Further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. We're now on to site plans, the first being the Lake Mead Commons, Lot 3, Rocky Cork Animal Road, Broadleaf Lane, owner and developer Collins Corner Ventures, LLC.

This is a site plan for lot three in the Blakeney Commons subdivision, which would be a 7,500 square foot multi-attended commercial building. Approximately five tenants would be able to fill this building. Following development of this parcel, there are two remaining parcels on the south side of Morton Lane, which would be included as part of the Blakeney Commons PUD proposed for commercial development. Access to this parcel proposed development would be provided off of Broadleaf Lane, which is a private roadway and would have two access points. Vehicular use area is 0.6 of an acre, and that does require 2,620 square feet of landscaping. The applicant is proposing for 4,250 square feet. Park requirement of 38 spaces, showing for 44, and that does require two 88 spaces, which are being shown. The landscape plan shows red maple trees planted along the frontage of Rocky Fork All-Mobile Road with shrubbery supplemented between those trees. Additional shrubbery and trees are shown around the site and at the base of the building in landscape islands. A five foot wide landscape buffer is shown at the rear of the property line adjacent to the residential townhomes supplemented with a six foot privacy fence. The landscape buffer at the rear of the property does not meet the requirements of a type C landscape buffer. However, a sewer main does exist in the area proposed for the buffer to be installed. Utilities department does not want any trees planted within 10 feet of any underground utility lines. In addition, since plans were revised, since packets went out, we have received updated landscape plans as part of that. A modified Type C landscape buffer is shown along the northern property line. This buffer does not meet the Type C landscape buffer in that a portion of this buffer is only 10 feet in width with shrubs in that area. There is a sewer main in this area as well. It kind of narrows as it gets back towards the back corner and that's the area where the sewer main is located at, so the shrubbery is. kind of as wide as it can be in relation to where the parking lot's being shown, and then widens up to that 15-foot requirement for a Type C landscape buffer as it gets closer towards Rockford-Homeville Road. Architectural character. The architectural elevations show the building to be finished with primary materials consisting of glass glazing and brick with a secondary material of fiber cement siding. Once again, we have received updated plans. So the update elevations show that all wall faces do have a minimum of 81% primary materials. There are HVAC units which are proposed to be mounted on the rooftop of the build rooftop and are proposed to be screened with an aluminum product. Staff would recommend that this product be concealed with a parapet wall or something that is less obvious and blends in more with the building and the area. Based on what we were looking at when we were reviewing plans earlier, they seem to stick out quite obviously. Probably is a really nice product to look at earlier. It looks really nice I just don't think this is the setting for this type of material So we staff would recommend concealing it in some other shape or fashion Standard comments one through seven all remain at this time staff count was regarding the architecture elevations needs to break down those percentages which are now being shown so count one can be removed and Number two, regarding the HVAC equipment on the rooftop, we just need that material to be modified in some fashion. And so comment number two is gonna remain. Number three, a Type C landscape buffer is required on the northern and eastern side of the property, but in the residential zone properties. Due to the utilities in this area, the applicant is requesting approval of landscaping as presented. Once again, the rear of the property does have a six foot vinyl privacy fence in addition to the five foot wide landscape buffer that is being shown. The property, the commercial property that lived at the gas station in Broadleaf Lane did have a similar type approval on the back of the site due to similar challenges that were present on that as well. So that is comment number three. Number four is regarding the fence details. They did detail that it is going to be a six-foot PVC vinyl privacy fence. So comment number four can be removed. Number five is from our utilities department who have reviewed it and said that comment can be removed at this time. And then come the summer six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, and 12, we're all from CUD. So those will remain, but, uh, staff comes one, four and five will remain. And with that staff would recommend approval.

Okay. Questions for Mitch concerning this.

Is that a recall? Are we doing a quarter traffic study in this area?

There were already improvements planned for this area for widening.

And there's sufficient right-of-way for widening.

I think it's about a one-mile stretch, actually.

I think you've already kind of hit my concerns with the way this building kind of faces Rocky Fork. the AC units exposed really directly back towards the homes. And with a six-foot fence, it's not going to have anything related to that. So a parapet wall or something up there to make those look a little less intrusive is going to have to be there. With those comments, I would recommend approval with the rest of the staff's comments. What about the landscaping comment?

All of staff's comments. They would like to request landscaping approved as presented. We have the staff remember that they need the types of landscape that waiver was granted on the other side due to similar issues. I thought you were recommending that.

If you see fit to approve or not that. So my intention was that we would match the waiver that was given to the other property. I thought that's what you were recommending. So that's why I was saying that. Yeah. So yeah. So approval, staff comments, as far as the landscaping, matching the waiver that we've given the previous property.

Yes. Okay. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Next under site plans, Dr. Automotive addition, 1205 Hazelwood drive owner developer, Dr. Automotive Inc.

This is a proposed addition onto the existing Dr. Automotive auto repair facility, which is located at 1205 Hazelwood drive. That's additional will be located near the rear of the current building. The proposed addition would be 848 square feet, which is approximately 35% of the existing structure, which is just over 2,400 square feet in size. For the site, we didn't have a number for the square footage of the vehicle use area being, or sorry, of the open space landscaping being proposed at this time. There would not be any additional vehicle use area as a result due to the addition being placed on top of a spot that is currently already paved at this time. So total parking requirement of eight spaces based on the use, and they're showing for 13. That does require one ADA space, which is not being shown and I do not believe there's one present today. So we do have a comment regarding that here a little bit later. Landscape plan has been submitted since the comments went, since plans were sent out last week, comments were sent out. So the landscape plan now shows that five trees are to be planted in landscape islands. This submitted plan is sufficient for staff at this time. Architectural character, elevations were not submitted last week and they have now been smoothed. The elevations show the proposed addition to mirror the height of the existing building. The addition does show a finished product of metal. The existing building is finished in a split of concrete block and metal. The addition will not be required to meet designer view due to the proposed addition not exceeding 50% of the existing building size. Standard comments, one through five remain at this time. We have a couple staff comments. Comment one, we asked them to show the existing water and syrups, so we're gonna leave that comment. Number two, asked them to submit architectural evasions, which they have done, so we can remove that comment. Comment number three is regarding the landscaping to be shown, and they are not doing that sufficiently, so three can be removed. And we asked to, comment number four, an additional comment, since we're doing the plans, we asked them to probably be wise to add a ADA parking space at this time just to meet ADA standards and ADA requirements just to avoid any kind of potential conflict in the future where one would be needed and it's not there. So that would be step count number four, and we can remove comments number two and three, but we do recommend approval.

Questions for Mitch concerning this? So just two questions, Mitch. So because it doesn't have to go to Designer U, it could be finished in all metal. That's fine, right? Correct. And then this may be more for you, Danny. Is additional bay doors going to be included in this?

Yes. Yeah, there will be two bay doors. And so it may happen.

Dan, excuse me. Yeah, sorry. That's all right. Let's get you to come up front.

Just let everybody see Dan. Just kind of give them an address real quick, and we'll let you answer Steve's question. So if you notice, what's not shown is there's an additional parking lot, but the parking lots are connected. So the bay doors will be there. You can see how they are. So you'll actually enter from the additional parking lot, and you'll be able to pull straight in. That way we won't have to worry about any kind of – you know coming down the side of the building and turning in there so they make it they easily very very easy they're not going to be facing the residential behind you no no no no not at all they'll be facing our parking lot that we've got a side entry going into that parking lot okay yeah that's it thank you thank you for coming forward okay other questions with a modification to an existing structure like this that backs up to residential does that trigger a buffer

Not anymore. I don't think that what's already there.

I mean, there's a pretty big gap. There's a fairly good landscape area in the back already, kind of abutting that residential area. We didn't look at a proper requirement there.

I can speak on that if I need to.

There's quite a bit of vegetation back there, as I recall. Yeah.

So we're good as is, correct, Mitch? Okay. We didn't see any concern or any reason to ask for anything additional.

Any other questions? Not to entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. I'll second. Further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Next, under site plans, Genesis, 1975 Almaville Road, owner, developer, Axios Holdings, LLC.

This is a site plan for a proposal to develop a 6,500-square-foot building on the vacant track at 1975 Almaville Road. Development would have one access point off of Allmanville Road, which is located directly across from the Tower Wave car wash facility. But this entrance does not align with the access road to serve the car wash and the other businesses back in that area. There's an industrial park back there as well that this access road serves. Adjacent to the development, our single family is a single family home that is zone C2, but is currently being used for residential use. Development is located in the 500-year floodplain and the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the floodway is present in the rear approximately third of the property along Stewart Creek. The building will be required to meet floodplain development standards as a result. Vehicular use area for the site is a quarter of an acre, and that does require 1,106 square feet of landscaping. The applicant is proposing for 1,250 square feet. Total park requirement of 26 spaces, which they are showing for, and that does require two ADA spaces, which are now being shown. Landscape plan shows different types of shrubbery along the base of the front side of the building. Trees are located on curb extensions, which border the parking lot. Additional shrubbery is shown in the northeast corner of the development around the dumpster enclosure. A row of shrubs is shown for streetscaping along Omanville Road due to underground utility infrastructure. Design review does require at least one street tree space no more than 40 feet on center supplemented with shrubbery between those trees. While the property to the north is zone C2, it is being used as a residence. A zoning ordinance does require a buffer along property zone commercial abutting residential. We have asked the applicant if they could include some kind of buffer up there to supplement the buffer between the residence and the commercial use. They have done so, so they have added a row of red cedars in this area from the entrance back to the dumpster enclosure to help create that little bit of a buffer in that space. Architectural elevations showed the building using two variations of brick color and glass glazing to be used as primary materials on all wall elevations. Materials shown to be used as secondary material is stucco and metal is shown as an accent. As submitted, the development architectural do meet design review as all wall faces have at least 80% primary materials. Standard comments one through seven will remain at this time. Staff count one, Olmaville Road will be required to be boarded for extension of the utilities. Work within TDOT right-of-way does require permission from TDOT to do so. So more so an informational comment. Number two, as the property does lie within the 100-year floodplain and floodway, a floodplain development permit will be required, and we ask them to submit this permit application prior to getting a grading permit application. Number three is regarding the fire flow, which would be 1,750 gallons permitted at 20 PSI. Comment number four, we asked them to show landscaping sufficient to meet the requirements. Previously, there was no streetscaping shown when comments were done and the plans have been revised to show a row of shrubs in the front. As previously mentioned in the landscaping section, there are no trees shown in this area due to the underground utilities. There is sufficient space on this site to shift the building further back on the property in order to meet designer view for streetscape requirements. It's our assumption that the building is shifted front as far as they can get it just to minimize what cut and fill requirements are required due to it being okay with an 100-year floodplain. But there is plenty of space on this property to shift that building back in order to meet our landscaping requirements. Would the floodplain then be in effect? I'll give you back one picture. So... the blue is the 100-year floodplain you can develop within that not a problem you just have to come fill and elevate a little bit not a problem that's the right in the back that's the issue you can't build that so planning space shift that back a little bit to meet those streetscape requirements get out of utilities so that is common number four number five is a public works time regarding impervious drainage area not exceeding ratio one to one for the criminal pavers we're going to leave that comment for public works to review at a later time Number six, there was a second floor being shown with a mezzanine area in the area upstairs. So that has been removed though. So comment number six has been addressed. We did, there was a second part of that comment also regarding three front doors. The applicant mentioned it was just for aesthetics and provide easier access for anyone getting into the building was their response to that. So comment number six can be removed. Number seven, regarding the handicapped parking spaces that have been now added, so we can remove that comment. Number eight, the property in the north zone commercial, we did ask them at this time to add some kind of landscaping or other buffer to kind of be courteous to that neighbor who still lives to the north of this commercial development. They have added that landscaping as previously mentioned, so we can remove that comment. Number 9, we wanted to ensure that the fire apparatus entering the site wouldn't drag as we've had issues with some other commercial developments in this property with entrance steepness. The applicant has noted that there would not be any kind of steep concerns regarding this entrance, so number 9 can be removed as well. Numbers 10 and 11 were comments from CUD, which will remain, so Staff comments 1 through 5 and 10 and 11 will all remain. But with revisions that have been made by the applicant, staff would now recommend approval with those listed comments.

I've got a question, if it's okay. Sure. May I answer? From the perspective of this being what appears to be a potential grocery store, Are there any tractor trailer rigs that need to get in here and unload or load or Coca-Cola trucks or Budweiser trucks or whatever? I mean, that's... They've got a roll-up door on the side of the building. I see that, but I'm just wondering about ingress and egress for them. Do they need to pull in, back in? Looks like it'd be pretty tight up there.

Well, you know what I see happening is they pull up on Amarillo Road and throw it in reverse and just back in there and stop in Amarillo Road. That's exactly why I'm asking the question.

Yeah, I mean it's a very large piece of property in reality, but so much of it is limited usability because of the floodplain, the floodway. So they're trying to cram as much, to be as close to the road as possible to minimize that certainly, but which is we're seeing with this concern as well as the landscaping along the roadway.

And the driveway in front of the store, I don't know how many feet that would be between parking spaces. but I can see a rig trying to pull in there. And then backing the rig back up to the side loading door. But to Steve's point, that's an awful lot of work. And if they move the building back, according to what Mitch was kind of suggesting, I'd like to see them accommodate some space for that very issue.

They're showing a 24-foot drive aisle in between those two rows of parking.

And how deep are those parking places?

19.

Minimum required. So 42 feet from one end of the parking to the other.

What happens if two of those trucks shows up at the same time?

Good question. Once it's on the road? Yeah, right. That's exactly what happens once it's on the road. Well, it's not just big rigs for grocery. I mean, it's bread trucks and... Hey, you could have a smaller... Yeah, box trucks.

Yeah, I mean, when I'm looking at this drawing, there's... I don't see the space. There's no way. It's signed straight right there. That's what she just said, yeah.

That is not the place, nowhere's the place, but that is definitely not the place to have a rig parked on the road. It's right in that corner too. Yeah.

Or stopping traffic to get in or back again. What about the driver if he tried to park it and unload right there? He carried it across two lanes of the road? Might sit in the median and try it. Yeah.

The across wall. That's my concern for that. Thank you.

Okay. Other questions or comments?

I would agree with Mark on the safety side of things. That could be a big problem in the future.

As a grocery. As a grocery. There's a lot of delivering grocery, but, you know, if it's a subway or something like that it's not a small deal but yeah so the question is how to how does that resolve of course that's they've got to move the building back probably anyway and i don't know if it's resolving that or not it gives more depth to bring a rig in and park it but then they're going to have to have a turnaround it's kind of like our fire apparatuses it's like you need a hammerhead or something in there to

That's kind of where I'm heading. Would that then call for some type of hammerhead or an area large enough for trucks to have a turnaround area? I don't know moving it back 15 feet or something like that.

It's not a tremendous amount.

You can get it in, you just can't get it out.

Did fire look at this? I didn't see an auto turn. Is there an auto turn in there?

There's an auto turn in there, yes. I'm sorry, say that again.

There is an auto turn in there. Okay. Yeah, and technically with a fire truck, hopefully they're not visiting that site much of ever. But deliveries are going to be there a lot longer. I was just curious how they were thinking they would get in and out of the site. Yeah.

Let's tell you. Okay. Other questions or comments?

So even if they did move the building back a little ways to accommodate for the front, with it being in the floodplain, you said there would be some grading involved. Would they be able to potentially put a turnaround back there? Would there be enough room for that?

The applicant is here and might be able to better answer that from a design standpoint.

That gets into some theme of questions too, doesn't it, Kevin? I mean, moving dirt or bringing dirt in.

Yeah, they would have to, there would have to be a balance, a cut and fill balance so that they're not, they can, you can move floodplain boundaries, you can't, you just can't, you can't negatively impact anybody upstream or downstream and those kind of things. So you have to balance bringing in fill material, you have to remove some material so that you create more water storage somewhere else. on the property so the use of say a some sort of turnaround or something like that it's not a structure so you wouldn't have a minimum floor elevation and all like you would for the structure itself so you know you're not as worried about you know a structure getting flooded or breaking loose and floating downstream or whatever. That is also kind of that area where it could be though, is where they're showing the dumpster. So we would, we want to be, that would need to be elevated just so you don't, again, you don't have a dumpster floating downstream hitting somebody's house or something. Um, so, but I mean, a floodplain, certainly you can, you just have to go through the cost of doing the study and modifying it as something that can be done. It's not prohibition where they could not make it work by moving the building back and adding a turnaround or whatever is needed there.

Is the developer here? And if so, you could come up and give us your name and address.

Hi, Chris McGuire with Huddleston Steel Engineering, 2115 Northwest Broad Street. I appreciate you all hearing me out and I appreciate staff working with me on this project. We've had a lot of revisions back and forth trying to get it right. I guess the primary concern is how far forward we have it all built and how tight it is up front. What we did was we went to the furthest most limit of the floodway, which is that purple line between the purple and the blue. And we ran the minimum grade so that that would not hold water and calculate how much soil we could cut out and built up that much lot. So the town of Smyrna has a compensating cut and fill requirement. where if we fill the floodplain, say 10 cubic yards, we have to cut 10 cubic yards on our site. So this was the absolute maximum amount of buildable area we could develop while still meeting that cut fill requirement by the town of Smyrna. so the building's a little bit skin shallower than i like and ideally we could have moved it back another five feet and gotten those street trees in there and avoided the utilities but there's probably a good reason why this lot's not developed and it's because it's a it's a tricky lot uh given the floodplain constraints and i think what you're hearing from the commission is not so much you know not uh

opposed to having something going here but with a proposed use of a retail grocery store we're concerned about traffic impact should some of the larger vehicles have issues coming in and out and you know end up where maybe if they're parking on the roadway they're stopping and backing into the roadway you know it's a it's a congested area already and that's i believe what the vice mayor was referring to as far as you know his concerns and you know is there you know and of course is there a solution that alleviates this concern we have for that and i guess from my perspective i'm not seeing it for the plan as is

What we were able to do is to bring that large fire truck that Smyrna has us run, I believe it's 49 feet. We brought it in to the site and turned it southbound in between the parking stalls and then backed it into where the dumpsters are. That dumpster drive aisle is over 20 feet wide. It's done for that so we could provide the double dumpsters that's often requested. And also that helps it meet the fire truck's turnaround radius for a, It's not a T-shape or a hammerhead shape, but the fire code has a provision for a L-shape turnaround, and that's essentially what we've created. But I do understand your concerns.

Yeah, Chris, and I appreciate you making the statement. It's a tough piece. It really is. The usage is the most concerning thing because of the deliveries and so forth. I mean, you can take AutoCAD or whatever and put a truck in there, a 49-foot truck, but there's no patrons in there when you do it. And so, you know, if a truck gets stuck trying to get in there and then come along the driveway to then back in, I mean, we may have cars sitting there already. To me, it's just not a good working piece. I appreciate your effort here. I'm not going to be able to vote for it. But if there's some way to... Remedy, like Tim and some of the others, Steve, have said, if there's a way to remedy that, maybe bring it back and let us look at it again. But right now, that's a big safety concern for me.

I understand. Chris, I was wondering in my mind if you could do a drive around and line up the other side with that cross street. And maybe take care of that. I don't know if that was possible.

We'd have to get another 20 foot of fill and we'd have to find 24 more, 20 more cut 20 by eight foot tall of cut somewhere.

Yeah.

So, uh, it's, uh, so what makes that piece a hard piece? Yes. Yeah. And I, and, uh, my original concept did have it going around the building and it just didn't work. Gotcha.

Okay.

So what you're saying in and out couldn't go there either. You're looking for a Dutch Brothers or a coffee shop.

Okay. Thank you all.

All right. Anything else from the commission or any questions for staff?

I'm going to make the motion to deny based on safety concerns on the site.

Okay. Second. I have a motion and a second for a denial. Any further discussion? All those in favor of denying this motion or approving this denial motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is denied. I was going to get that right. I was sure what we were doing. Thank you. Just saying. Okay, next on site plan, Smyrna Senior Citizens Center, Banstead Drive, owner, developer of Town of Smyrna, Smyrna Senior Citizens Center.

This is a site plan for the Smyrna Senior Citizens Center and seeking to relocate from their existing facility on Wright Street to a new facility off of Banstead Drive. The property that is being proposed for development is owned by the Town with the Senior Citizens Center having a lease with the Town to locate their development on this parcel. The site has frontage along West Samaritan Parkway with a future connection lining across from Allen's River Way, but not shown as part of this plan. As proposed, the development of the main building would be 15,141 square feet with the ability for two future expansions on each wing of the building and the pavilion at the rear of the building. Access is shown via an extension of the existing stub of Banstead Drive. Square footage of vehicular use area is just under one and a half acres, which does require 6,443 square feet of landscaping. They're showing for 6,500 square feet. Total park requirement of 130 spaces, 150 are being shown with a minimum requirement of five ADA spaces with 12 being shown. Landscape plan shows street trees and shrubbery along a portion of the shown extended Banstead drive. Banston Drive should be shown extended to the eastern property line per the major thoroughfare plan and landscaping would be required along the entire length in accordance with designer view. Landscaping is shown in addition in landscape islands throughout the parking lot and shrubbery at the base of the building. Designer view does require streetscape along West Samaritan Parkway, which is not shown. Existing vegetation is to remain along West Samaritan Parkway, but vegetation would be supplemented in the areas where sufficient landscaping does not exist. Architectural elevations show the building to be finished with cultured stone, brick, glass glazing, and fiber cement board siding. All wall faces would have a minimum of 79% primary materials, which does meet designer view requirements. Standard comments one through seven all remain at this time. Comment number one, informational comment, a sprinkler system would be required for this development. Number two, based on 1,050 gallons per minute at 20 PSI calculation, there will not be a need for a connection to the 16-inch water line at Imperial Boulevard. An extension to the water main at the end of the proposed extension of Banson Drive will be required. Number three, utilities comment to submit water and sewer construction plans. Number four, ask them to extend Banstead Drive to the eastern property line per the major thoroughfare plan. This is a requirement of the subdivision regulations, section 5, 103.108. The Planning Commission does have the authority under this section to limit the length of temporary dead end public ways. Number five, ask them to provide a plat dedicating the right of way for the Banstead Drive extension per the major thoroughfare plan. Come number six, there is an existing road cut from San Bernardino Parkway West into the property located approximately 490 feet from the northwestern corner of the property. This access could be moved directly across from the new access to Seward's Landing at Allensburg Way, pending approval by TDOT. staff would recommend this as it is a much better option however this development it does extend approximately a thousand feet from the property corner and that the access to allan sturt way would be approximately 760 feet from the same from that same property corner neither access location this development would preclude access to stanford parkway west from this property based on staff's opinion as to how tdot would review access permit request The town has initiated a discussion with TDOT regarding moving this road cut, and the initial discussion was positive. And comment number seven, we asked them to show landscaping in accordance with designer view along West Samarith Parkway and Banff Drive in the area of development. If the existing tree line along Samarith Parkway is to remain, that may be adequate for the streetscaping in this area. All that to be said, in conclusion, staff does recommend deferral of this due to several issues regarding road alignment throughout this site and, as you can see from the site plan, and where that extension from Allensburg away is directly across from Sand Creek Parkway, it would directly clash with where parking is shown for this development. So there's going to need to be some kind of redesign of this site to accommodate for that. at some point based on potential alignments across grounds or away is the most logical point of access into this property so staff at this time cannot recommend approval due to that and potential redesign of the site as a result

So the original comment, as far as Banstead to be extended to the east, that was eventually so that it would connect with Imperial, take Imperial over to Rock Springs, correct?

Yeah. This map that's up there now shows kind of where our current thoroughfare plan is, which is the connection of Imperial to Banstead. And so that was why that comment was made.

I've talked to Kevin and I've talked to Steve Steele and when we made that thoroughfare plan, Sewer's Landing was not in our periphery. We had no idea and I think it makes a big change if you go back to the first road map you had up there, you can see the road coming in from Sewards right there, it just makes a whole lot more sense to bring Imperial directly into that three-way and make that a four-way. Now, obviously, you can see by the plat, that's going to affect their parking lot at a minimum. So that might mean they have to move some parking around or move the building over or do something. I don't know. I think Steve said that the building could stay, but parking could be reshuffled. I think we probably need to review that thoroughfare plan, not the whole thing, but this portion, and make a determination if we really want Banstead connecting over there now or not.

Yeah, and we did, you all haven't seen this, this was something we just did yesterday, really, late yesterday. This is just kind of just a... a quick and dirty kind of thing we put together just to kind of show what it might look like. Um, and maybe man said extension, no, it kind of goes away. And we looked at, uh, making Imperial, uh, somewhat where that blue dash line is. And we had shown there kind of with this one with the site plan showing one without it, but just to kind of, again, that's our first stab at it. But, um,

just from a traffic flow perspective that looks more efficient you're not routing through a neighborhood at that point and you're not putting you're kind of spreading traffic out a little bit too as far as you're not putting all the traffic on the mason tucker sam really intersection you're having to And would this not then eliminate the need for a bandstead to be extended through to the eastern then?

I mean, I think it certainly eliminates the need from our major thoroughfare plan perspective. I think having more connections can always spread traffic out. It could be a positive thing still to do. But I think it would be something where we would not necessarily be looking at it as a collector level type street that would make that connection and would not necessarily have to have a connection. You could potentially have create almost like a little cul-de-sac at the end of it and make it just that perhaps the senior center is the only user. Almost like a dead end. But it would be at the dead end and you would have obviously there's the apartments that are there and you have some vacant land there still that could be developed in some manner.

I guess the other question is could the senior center have Um, I guess their only entrance would be off bandstand or they could potentially exit onto the new road. I think certainly that would bring potentially bring them back out to the light or bring them back into town without even having to do.

That was my next question. And I apologize if this is already known information, but there is going to be a light right here. It's already hung up.

It's not, it's not operational yet.

So that would make perfect sense to bring, to have that access point there.

Yeah, it eliminates the conversation about, I don't know if it eliminates it, it makes it a lot easier to have the conversation about bandstead extended.

Well, the bandstead's not necessary if they're able to move that building accordingly to that intersection.

To the west. Definitely eliminates also with the, I guess it's the south side of the building. There's only really two rows of parking, one parking right there because they've got a 35 foot setback all along Banstead there. That gives them some more property they can use on that end if they can go to a regular setback and not a street side setback.

Anybody's cool? Depending on how you oriented it, you really ended up with probably a site set back at 15 instead of 35. So it gives you 20 more feet of room to maybe have another one parking or something.

So does the city own the land to the west?

No. We own the remainder of this parcel that's to the east and south of this site.

Towards Lowry?

Going towards Lowry, yes.

But not to the west?

Not to the west.

I think the alignment is crucial.

It saves a lot of trouble, really, to do a lot of other things. I don't know, but I assume the seniors would like to move forward with their plan. Generally, I like everything about it. The building is beautiful. I think it fits nicely. But I also think we need to get this road right. And because of that, I'll make a motion to defer to give us some more time to work through this conversation.

Is there a discussion period coming up? Yeah. I was going to ask if Steve could come up and address some of this. Or maybe that would help us. Is he here? Yeah, there he is. I mean, to get a general idea kind of what the thoughts are from the senior.

Where do we need to be, though, from a rules perspective? I've already made a motion. We've got a motion. You can rescind your motion if you'd like. I'll rescind it. All right, so the chair will recognize Steve. Steve, you can give us your name and address, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I am Steve Steele. I live at 408 Division Street here in Smyrna. I and Patsy Brown, we are co-chairs of the capital campaign and we're raising the money to build this senior center in Smyrna. We are so very thankful for the town providing this piece of property. We want to work with the town. We look at this as a joint venture, if you will. The town owns the land. We're going to build the building. We're providing a service. We are a nonprofit charitable organization. We're not developers per se. We don't own the property. So we appreciate you looking at this the way I think you are. That we're a little different than somebody that owns a property going to cut roads, sell lots, and hope to make a lot of money. We're not trying to do that. From what I heard, I think we're headed in a good direction. I heard that maybe Banstead Drive would not necessarily have to be extended. That would provide the senior center with access. I mean, it's there today, it'll be there tomorrow. So we would have access. Our site plan showed how we would extend the Banstead a little bit. And then I guess the town has made, I don't know that you've made application, Kevin, but the town has reached out to TDOT about this.

Yes, we've had conversations with them about it. The existing, which I think you might can see a little bit kind of on this area where that existing cut is, uh... that was put in when the road was widened or whatever with no plan for anything uh... necessarily and so they would not prove an additional access but moving an existing access they seem very positive about that with the development of sewers landing and made all the sense in the world to them I don't think there's been a formal application or formal approval yet, but we feel really good about it. It's just kind of gotta go through that process.

And I think since the town owns the property, it would be the town that would initiate that process to move that excess point.

Right.

Uh, it would be the town that would, I guess, dedicate the right away for that road. And then it would be the town that would build that road and make that connection to Sam Ridley Parkway. What I see the seniors doing is getting out of the way by changing the shape of the lot and shifting the building and the parking, getting out so that all that can happen whenever it happens. But the seniors could move ahead. Somebody mentioned, you're right, we're very anxious. We've got over 900 members in a building that's rated for two hundred not everybody's there at the same time but it's a limitation so we we would still be able to move ahead because our access would be from bandstead but we would again the town owns the property the town created the lot uh... that's part of our agreement our long-term lease agreement so the town would modify that lot so that the road could work through the way it needs to. That's, I guess, my understanding.

Kevin or Dave, Dave's here. Maybe one of them can speak to that.

I'm not asking for answers. I just wanted to get it all, just make sure we're all talking about the same thing.

I think generally that's where we're at, right, Dave? I think I've had it. Yeah.

Good evening. Um, yeah. So if, if we were able to, and again, that the conversation with TDOT have been positive, we have no indication to think that they would not approve that. Um, we've had the discussions already about bandstead and whether or not that really does need to come all the way across. If we do have the road across from Allen Stewart's way. So, um, we would need to do what we need to do in order to, you know, parcel or change the parcels and dedicate the right of way and all those, all those sorts of things. We are the landowners. So that would be our responsibility. Uh, we would just, uh, from there need them to go ahead and resubmit a site plan that fits within that, those new property lines. Is that Kevin? Is that correct?

I just want to make sure I'm listening to what we're saying is, you know, we would, uh, if T dot approves the cut, then we would engineer it. the roadway through that, we being the town of Smyrna, it becomes part of the major thoroughfare plan and goes through a budgeting process as to when it's actually completed. We're not saying subject to this site approval that this is a part of it, but what we're doing then is reserving potentially a right of way through here, again, contingent upon TDOT approval, But what it does do, it allows the seniors to shift their site and rework their site so that they have a private entrance or a private drive from Banstead into where they're going to be at, correct?

To allow for the future road is what you mean? Yes.

Okay. Sounds like a win-win.

Any other questions for me?

I can come up with some if you like. Okay.

I will go back to my motion. I'll make a motion that we defer with staff comments. I'm not going to put a timeline on it. Just defer until we're ready to, because we need to talk to TDOT, get that worked out, and then separate the plot. the land for them to know exactly where to shift things. So that may take more than one meeting, I don't know.

So from a site plan perspective, you'd just like to wait and defer until they can come back with the building moved and the potential TDOT approval.

I'll second. Okay, I have a motion and a second to defer. Do I have any further discussion?

I think it's a good remedy. It saves the seniors from building a road, really.

Yeah, I mean, there's definitely, that wasn't directly my, but that is a byproduct. It saves quite a bit of development cost for the seniors. They don't have to build a road. They don't have to do landscaping on that side as much as they would have to. So that's definitely another piece of it. Helps your capital campaign a little bit. You could put that down as a planning commission contribution.

But to be clear, during the deferral process, Steve and the seniors are, uh, we'll probably move forward with reworking the site in conjunction and coordination with staff, understanding what the town, uh, is looking to do as far as Allen Seward way, uh, and having the cut there from TDOT.

Right. Okay. And we'll have to, as Mr. Steel had mentioned, we'll obviously, we're going to have to modify the agreement that they have with us. the town because obviously the parcel is going to be a little different than what they would with the original agreement so okay we'll have to work through all that that's something yes we would be working with them on all of that

I know they're anxious to get this going, and we're anxious for them to get it going too. I think all the things we've just discussed makes it amenable to them being able to quickly move forward once they bring it back and meet the approval. So I'll give a shameless plug to the seniors right now while we're here. If you would like to donate, reach out to Fran Dunn or Patsy Brown. They're in the audience, and they would take your money in a heartbeat to help build this beautiful facility.

Okay, any further discussion? All those in favor of deferring, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is deferred. Okay, we are now on to the August bond review report.

all right so we got several tonight uh hopefully several that will lead to some release bonds being released but uh first one is uh burton farm section six uh this is the end of the maintenance period on this development um i did not hear back from the developer on this one there's like three or four items there left to be done um So if everything can get done by the 22nd of this month, we could release it. Otherwise extend three months to November, uh, Buckingham Hills and end of the maintenance period. Uh, did the developer did respond there. They're going to check. He had somebody hired to get the work done. So he's going to check with him. Um, and i haven't heard back since then but again same if they're able to get finished by august 23rd release otherwise extend three months gwen farms off-site improvements that one is complete and can be released Um, pots view. Um, this is the, we only had this one for one year. Now this was a large bond. They basically bonded pretty much everything. Um, all the improvements, um, the utilities are, are in, they still have some, some road work and, and grading things to clean up. Um, but we can reduce that, uh, significantly, um, and would recommend that. And then, um, Extend one year at that new amount. Blakeney, we have several from them. Section two phase three, section two phase two, and section two phase one, and section one phase two. Those are all on maintenance. I did hear from the developer today on that one. Same recommendation on all of them. Again, if they're done when they're completed by the expiration date release, otherwise extend for three months. They are working on, they have committed to trying to get all those done by the dates because they are wanting to release all those, which we would be happy to do so if they can get the work done. Gwynn subdivision, this is on the north side. This is not affiliated with Gwynn Farms. This is on the north side of Rock Springs Road. This is for a sewer line to extend. They did go ahead and record a plat, so we do have a bond on it. It's really just a sewer line to serve one lot. And so there I did talk to the developer. They had no definitive timeframe on this, so I would just recommend a one-year extension on that one. sundale section two everything is complete on that this is the end of their maintenance period so we can release that one buckingham place section three again end of the maintenance period a few items to clean up i think get that done release otherwise extend three months rickers bend section one phase two this one's only about 54 built out they did request an extension on that one for a year We've had this one two years, or actually two and a half years, so we'd only recommend a six-month extension on this one to be consistent with our sub-reg state on bonds.

I've got a question about this one, but if you want to keep going, we can come back to it at the end.

Okay. Derby Run, 2C, they're about 97, 98% built out. They're hoping to have the work completed by the September 1st. If they get that final topping and striping done by the date of September 11th, then we can reduce it to 20,000, extend one year as a maintenance bond, otherwise extend six months at the current amount. Greystone 1A and 1C. We recommend the same developer on both of those. Kind of again, on both of them, they say they've contracted with somebody to get that work started this month. If they're able to get that done, the final topping is trapped on both of those by the date of September 11th. Again, we can reduce, extend one year as a maintenance bond. Otherwise, extend six months as the current amount. Burton Farms Annex, they did request a six-month extension on that one. We have had that one two years, so we recommend a six-month extension on that. Portico Place, we can reduce that one. and then extend it one year as the maintenance bond is all they have left there. And then Derby Run Phase 2D, again, the same as the other phase of Derby Run, if they get everything done by the expiration date, which is September 13th, reduce and extend one year as the maintenance bond, otherwise six months at the current amount. So workers then.

Yeah, so my question is, we've had... quite a few different complaints and issues out there from homeowners, the existing homeowners on Rooker Road about the milling and surfacing that's been done and chip and tart it's been left and gravel that's been messed up or left down so obviously the development is moving at a much slower pace than I think they initially thought because we've had it for two and a half years and they're only 50% built at some point is there an option do we have to is there anything we can do to make them go ahead and just finish that final topping and striping on the road since they're slow walking i mean i think the bond clearly doesn't cover it so there's not really much point going with the bond but i guess is there anything else we can do i don't really want to go that level you just want them to get the road picked i think we can just have a conversation with them um about the i could give with our

Public Works, Mr. Taylor's here, Tom's now. We can certainly get with Public Works to see about working with them through them and our inspectors and talking to their contractors or whoever about getting something done or talking to the developer.

What I hear, and I've seen it a couple times, but I haven't been out there every time, but what we hear is every time there's a large rain, the road walks out and they have to come back and put more gravel and more chip and tar down. Every time we've reached out, they're planning on repaving when the development's done. but the development doesn't seem to be getting done.

Yeah, I think it certainly is moving slower than what they intended when they started. But I think We can hold the threat of the bond over them. I don't think we want to do that. No, definitely not. No, definitely not. That's exactly what I was doing. I think talking with them and saying, hey, can we express to them what the complaints we're getting from the existing, because there are several homeowners on Worker Road that are affected by it. They're not within their development. Right. I mean, they wouldn't necessarily have to completely finish it, even just if they get a good set of binder at their right width. Yeah, not even that.

They don't even have to finish their subdivision, just the worker road, which they're accessing, right? I think that would probably solve the complaints.

I mean, if they're having to go back and fix it. every time there's a hard rain anyway.

Seems like you can pave it and then fix it at the end if there's damage from your trucks, right?

Right, right. Might be easier and maybe even cheaper in the end, you know. So we'll reach out to them about that. Okay, thank you.

Hey, Kevin, on the Gwynn Farms, are they saying that those trees where they stopped on that detention pond, that's complete?

I mean, I think that this pond really didn't cover those trees. This pond was really the off-site road improvements and utility improvements is really what this was. So it's a different... Yeah, so they're still on the hook for anything like that that's not done on those trees.

Okay. Anything else concerning the bond review report? Make a motion to approve it. I have a motion to approve it. Second. I have a second. Further discussion? All those in favor of approving the August bond review report, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Bond review report is approved. Staff comments, other business?

Do I have anything else?

Anything from the commission? I stand adjourned.

Thank you.