Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Welcome to the September 3rd, 2026 Smyrna Municipal Planning Commission meeting. I will now call the meeting to order. And with that, if you'll stand with us, Mark's going to lead us in prayer and Steve in the pledge.

I'm going to bow with you, please. Father in heaven, once again, we come to you with grateful hearts, and we thank you for everything that you do for us each and every day. We take so many things for granted, Lord, and we know it's a blessing from you. Father, included with that, we are needing some rain really bad, Father. It's so hot here. Father, we just ask your blessings upon a wet weather day. Go with us now as we do the deliberations of the town. Lead, guide, and direct us in all the decisions that we make. May it be the benefit of our citizens. We ask all these things in your name. Amen.

Face flag.

Okay. Our next item is citizens' comments. Kevin?

Not tonight.

Okay. Next up then, approval or corrections of the minutes of the August 6, 2026 regular meeting.

The minutes are in order subject to the commission's... You knew I was going to ask that. Yes, sir.

Any questions, discussion, or corrections from the commission?

Make a motion to approve. I'll second his motion.

A motion to approve from Steve, a second from Mark. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the motion for the minutes of the August 6th, 2026 meeting, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion and the minutes are approved. We're now on to old business. The first item is a site plan, Stone Trace Commons, corner of Jeanne Lane and Old Nashville Highway, owner and developer Waldron, Bester Family Limited Partnership.

This is the same site plan that you all have seen here a couple times here in the past couple months. Nothing has changed as far as the site plan layout and configuration is concerned or building sizes, but We'll just give a quick location analysis on this. The Stone Trace Commons is proposing to develop the vacant track north of Genie Lane and Old Nashville Highway intersection. Included with the development would be three commercially used multi-tenant buildings. All three buildings are shown to have a drive-through lane. Access points are shown on Old Nashville Highway, aligning across the street from the entrance to Lowe's, and two locations on Genie Lane. the first entrance on genie lane is shown halfway between the access points to racetrack and raising canes with the second access across from the chicken salad chick there's approximately 1.18 acre remaining of this parcel located northeast of the proposed development area on the opposite side of what is a tva easement and that is reserved for future development all the landscaping architectural characters remain the same from the past couple months and all is within designer new specs So all the standard comments, one through eight at this time, will remain. We had a handful of staff comments. Number one, the building is to be used for serving food to the public. A minimum of 1,500-gallon grease chapel will be required. Two, the water easement, as shown on the utility plan sheet, does not mean that this time will need to be dedicated with an updated final plan. Number three, we asked them to provide a complete set of parking and auto turn information that shows consistency all through the development. Number four is from our public works department, and that will remain at this time. And number five, when packets went out, staff had not received the updated traffic study at this time. So we did receive it last night in discussions with the public works department and the engineer itself. that note comment number five is going to be revised to say the submitted traffic study on september 2nd shows the entrance off of old nashville highway as a full access with a left turn lane off of old nashville highway access points off of genie show the western entrance which is the one that is closest to the old nashville highway intersection that would be a right in right out And the second, which is the eastern, would be a full access point. Staff would recommend two left turn lanes on Genie onto Old Nashville Highway be added, which would alleviate traffic when the site is fully built out. Currently, there are three lanes. You have a left turn, straight through, and right turn, we would be requesting that a fourth be added for two left turn lanes. So with staff's recommendation, following review of the submitted traffic study, in addition to the traffic study recommendations as presented, staff still believes that two left turn lanes from Jeanne Lane onto Old Nashville Highway are warranted based on the proposed development impact of this property following the full build-out. This would be in addition to the staff comments as listed above. And with that, that's all that staff has. The applicant is here if you'd like to have any further discussion or comments or concerns regarding that traffic study.

Okay. Thanks, Mitch. Let's start with Mitch. Any questions for Mitch? I know that we did discuss the traffic study in some detail last time or maybe not exactly the study, but the need for the study. So

No, I think it's my only question is you said a left turn lane into the development on Old Nashville Highway. Is that what you said?

Yes, that is correct. There's currently one. We believe two of them would be warranted, though. No, that's Jeannie. I'm talking about Old Nashville Highway. Yes, there is. There's one left turn into the site. Okay.

When did you say you received the traffic study?

Last night.

Has anybody had a chance to even review it? That's ridiculous.

Mr. Taylor has reviewed it quite a bit and has talked about it with the traffic engineer that prepared it and that sort of thing, yes. We were able to review it.

So you feel like it's been adequately reviewed at this time?

Well, I know Mr. Taylor has reviewed it. I don't want to say I can speak for him necessarily, but I know he has reviewed it and talked about it with them, and this is kind of where there were some other things talked about, but this was kind of where we landed on as far as the recommended improvements. Go ahead, Jason.

They've done everything I've asked for for from them. There was a couple of there's a couple of minor errors in it. And there's no way I'm going to make someone go back through an entire traffic study. It's like 300 pages for what what is essentially a synchro error. It's a program that we use for that. So and I that the traffic engineer has been more than upfront. We've been talking two, three times a week. It's been a, it's been a good, a good conversation. So they have, they've done their trip generations. They've done everything I've asked them to do. Um, and, uh, I would have liked a little more time, but I know this was pressing on y'all. You, you specifically asked me to please make sure that this is done and ready. I spent all morning going over this and, um, Uh, we had some discussions afterwards. I think, I think, um, I think that the dual left turn is, is warranted. I don't know if they do, but I think it's more. Have you spoken to the, uh,

engineer on the other side. I did.

I talked to Oz about about this and he he wanted to make sure that the developer was okay with it. He thought it would be he thought the developer amenable to it at the time. I don't know if they are now. I don't think they are.

So I appreciate you diving into it so quickly. With short notice. I know that's a lot to take on. in a 24, 36-hour period. I am glad that you feel comfortable enough with it if you include the dual left from Jeanne.

It's the last chance we'll get to do that because once the Culver's comes in and that racetrack being right there, we're now landlocked unless we want to buy a fast food place or a racetrack. So I think there's a need. Yeah.

know this one we've had on our table now for quite some time and we've asked for that expedition to take place and not to rush anything but just to get the process on track and i know that you spent a lot of time this past month back and forth with that engineer we asked you to do that and you did so i'm grateful for that did you say you did get trip counts yes sir i'm assuming we have them in something somewhere but can you happen to know those

I can't. How much is this development generating?

I can't tell you. I'm sorry. I can't tell you.

I'm going to be honest. What it sounds like to me, it doesn't really sound completely, I hate to use this word, but fair for this developer to incur the expense of a double left turn with all the other developments that we've approved on Genie Lane already. It's hard for me to believe this one development is generating enough traffic for that left turn. It's obviously all of them that's doing it. And it sounds like just because he happens to be the last one developing, he's the one getting stuck with the lane.

I understand that. He also owns the right-of-way for that. Yeah. If he develops it as it is shown, it will be infeasible to do that later. So he could dedicate the right-of-way? That could happen, yes. Of course, that's up to you all. I think the dual left turn will be warranted at build-out.

Um, I mean, it may be warranted today. That's not arguing whether or not it's warranted, but it just seems like with several thousand apartments that we've approved there, all of the other restaurants, it's hard for me to imagine that this one development is the one putting it over the top.

It's kind of a chicken or an egg thing. It's a large development. They have more development that's coming behind them that they may or may not develop that I know it's part of stone trace. However, if, if we, the same thing will happen if we put it on, on that development, whether the last one here, where do you draw the line? That's up to y'all.

I'm not saying that, obviously I think developers should pay for anything we can, but in this case, I don't think it should fall on any one developer. If all of them are contributing, if we hadn't accounted for it throughout all of these other products that we've approved over the year.

for the last few years then it should be on the town so all of the development the sewers uh sewers landing and i believe it's carriage house the apartments are that they're up right there they have um they have as far as i can tell um contributed their mitigations to the area it did not include genie lane as far as i can tell i know racetrack I think had to add a left turn lane there and a signal modification. So it does happen that one developer will have to do things like this. A lot of them want it because it enhances entrances, it enhances movement through the area. Some don't.

I still think we're kind of arguing semantics. I'm not suggesting the lane's not needed or that it's not wanted. I'm simply saying that when we developed this property, we had the developer help us build Jeanne Lane through this property. It was part of the conversation.

Yes, sir.

It seems to me like we missed something if we never thought about a second turnaround there. The land hasn't changed. All of this was always going to develop. That was the plan. And so the fact that there's development coming now shouldn't be a surprise to us. We knew it was coming. So I don't know. I think we should have required that second lane from the very beginning, knowing all of this development. And if we didn't, that's on us. I don't think it's fair to make this one developer pay for that lane completely now when all of these others or the developer that developed the whole piece didn't have any input or to have any part of it. That's all I'm saying. Yes, sir.

Um, just to tag on something, Steve mentioned, uh, thousands of apartments. We had no choice in most of those. They were zoned appropriately. It wasn't a combination of apartments. The developer then went and turned a lot of that zoning into the commercial product that you see on the front of those complexes. But I think we as a planning commission and a council, for the most part, We're not in favor of all that so much, but when the zoning is there, we have our hands tied. We can only ask them to build them nicely. We can't tell them they can't. They have legal authority to do it. So I just want to make sure the public's aware of some of that growth over there and why it's there. It makes sense to make sure they understand that.

So if we put this fourth lane and we're encroaching, are we going to impact easement setbacks and so forth in doing so?

I mean, you're going to have to, it would certainly impact the property. There's nothing, there's some utilities there now, some underground utilities, sewer lines and different things in that area, certainly. But, um, I mean, you, I think as far as the right, the right-of-way dedication alone is not going to be, I don't think it's going to completely have such an impact on the development that it would prohibit it from happening or anything like that, just to have that right of way there.

So it's not going to be a negative impact for the development of this for the developer itself?

They're going to have to reconfigure the site a little bit, primarily as it affects that corner building. from a standpoint, they got probably 50 more parking spaces than what is required. So, I mean, they could, if they had to lose a little bit of park and they still would be well in excess of what our requirements are for that sort of thing. So building D may have to shift and you might have to shift building D northward north and maybe potentially Eastward a little bit. Okay. Yeah.

I think I take a little bit of an opposite approach. I understand Steve's argument about the timing of it all, but I also don't really want to try to throw that burden now onto the taxpayer. So my take is just the opposite about the timing. I'd rather see us make sure that this gets done at the hands of that developer. They've put a lot in there. I know they've also put a lot of infrastructure in there. I've talked to that person a little bit along the way. Hence the efforts to try to get this thing across the board. I'm on the other side, not to argue with the point, I'm just on the other side.

So some of you just said, so when you say they've put a lot in there, is the developer of this property the same developer that's developed all of the other property? I have no idea.

Because that's what I think you're saying. As far as the overall development, yes. I mean, some of the properties have been sold to other people or whatever, but yes, they were the original developer.

Okay, well then that completely changes things. If it's the same developer that's developed all of this, then I don't have a concern. I thought this was one corner.

I got you. Yeah, it's not. It's all a part of the bigger piece.

A lot of the development, they sold some lots and different things. But yeah, they were the original overall developer of this part of this development.

I can understand where you're coming from not knowing that. I think it's important that we try to do this through the developer and not our citizens' money. That's just me.

I was just going to put out there, too, there was some question about the trip counts. And it looks like with this that it's going to triple the amount of trips going back and forth.

Once we received it, we did put that. I know that it was late into your packet because we put it in there when we could, but the traffic study is in there.

It is my understanding the engineer is probably okay with this. I don't know if the developer is or not. I have not spoken to that developer in a while, but... That's my guess that the engineer's okay with it. Of course, they're there just to engineer it.

It's not, not their pocketbook, so to speak, but, uh, I, I don't want to, I don't want to speak for that engineer. Um, we were amenable to it on the phone pending him talking to his developer.

That's that's the way I understand it.

Yeah.

Let's do this as the engineer of record here. If you could come up, sir, and give us your name, we're going to just ask you this directly name and address, please.

Good evening. My name is with SEC 850 Middle Tennessee Boulevard. So yes, we had worked with Mr. Taylor for the past month. We've changed the study three times. It went from 300 pages, 300 and so pages to 580, so almost 600 pages. It's doubled the number of pages, the study. It's eight intersections. We included two developments into it with a trip generation from these developments. Also, we took into account many things that Mr. Jason wanted us to include. The double right turn lane on Jeanne Lane, and I spoke with Jason about it, it's not going to fit on the development in Culverside. We have to get onto racetrack. That's the problem. And we have to acquire right-of-way just because there's only three foot between the back of sidewalk and the existing right-of-way. If we add an additional left turn lane, it's going to mess up the geometry of the intersection. So it's not just about adding a left turn lane and add that on the development side. It's going to involve going into racetrack in order to make the intersection work. The other three recommendations caused directly by this development. My client doesn't have any problem with doing it. It's just the double left turn. It is not warranted due to this project. It's an overall impact, and I hope Mr. Taylor agrees with me. It's the overall traffic generation that caused this addition. So yes, the project has impact into this, but it's not the main reason for this warrant. Uh, and I think my client is here that the developer, I think he's willing to participate into this, uh, maybe donate right away for the future. So I can let him speak for this and, uh, and maybe, uh, we can make this deal work.

Can you speak to the, uh, impact on the traffic count?

So I'm the civil engineer. We have a traffic engineer that did the study and sealed it. We would have to look in depth on the counts and see what's the percentage of this development impact and basically know what's the fair share of this development into the double left turn. The three major improvements for this development is the left turn and right turn lane onto the full access on old Nash highway and the left turn on the second axis. This is directly impacted by the development. We don't have a problem with it. It's just the double left. We would have to look at the numbers and see what's the percentage of the traffic for this development that warranted this double left.

Well, I heard you right. He said that the developer may be interested in even dedicating that back to the town. But if you say it won't work, why would the town want to take that?

So we will need, in order to add a second lift, right-of-way is needed from racetrack and from strong trace lot six. So I think there is enough room to dedicate right-of-way on lot six to make this work. I'm not sure about racetrack. They don't have control over this land anymore.

Hot 6 is on the other side of the street from racetrack 12. Yes.

It's just the through lanes currently line up on Genie Lane. There is very minimal way of room to move, so we would have to keep the through lane in the same location and add an additional left turn in order to make the movement work.

Any questions here? Thank you, sir.

Yeah, I do. And, Taylor, thanks for working so hard to get this before us. Could you explain Building D, how that flow is going to work? They've obviously designed it for a very high-capacity, Chick-fil-A-type drive-through. And I'm just wondering where the queuing is going to occur. It's one thing to make a left turn or a right turn, but I'm not understanding how you're going to get to the drive through and where the queuing is going to occur. Cause you guys have all the town and staff have worked so hard on this particular section. We drive it every day, go into the Y and it's working. So we want to make sure that we don't do something that would take a fully functional intersection. series of intersections and make them no longer functional.

Absolutely. So the first access on junior lane will be a ride in ride out. Uh, there is no left turn entrance on this axis.

This is changing lane into the project. There's not a left turn.

So the first access, which is access a, I'm going to call it, uh, it's the first one from the intersection. That one is a ride in ride out. Okay. So there is no entrance here. The second entrance will it's a, it's a full access. It will have a dedicated left turn lane. Mm-hmm. The access of Old Nash Highway, it will have a left turn and a right turn lane for the traffic study. And for cars to go inside, they would have to take the entire drive and then back and loop into... Building D which is still in concept planning. They weren't allowed to submit their site to plan until the TIS is approved but the queue for the Drive-thru would be fully contained within their side within the development No backing into the city right-of-way.

Isn't that what Chick-fil-a always says?

Chick-fil-a is just a different story No, but I mean this is set up.

This is a prime location. So yeah be very attracted to a very Absolutely. Well, can we place a restriction that whatever the final ingress egress is that it would be as we do with schools on occasion that the queuing would be contained on site?

Yeah. And you'll see building D at some point in the future, that building, that's not part of this site plan. It's just a, B and C that's shown on there for conceptual purposes only really. So we're not approving. You're not approving building D at this time. No. A, B, and C. The traffic impact is, but not the actual site plan. That will come back at some point in the future. A, B, and C is really the site plan for what's on your agenda tonight.

Jason, for the public watching and the people watching the television, would you show where the double left, in your opinion, is needed on this map?

I believe there's a double left needed here.

so i can minimize the time that is needed to come off of genie and allow old nashville highway to get more time thank you and kevin i think i'm gonna ask you this because i know you were here so it's my remember recollection i hope i'm remembering right that this portion of genie lane from old nashville highway to the y um all the way up to model actually that was that was a requirement of the developer

It's been a couple of different developers, but yes. It was not something the town was going to have. No, the developers built it as part of the development as it develops. Two different developers really worked on that, but yes, it was a requirement. Of course, the port from east of here that goes over to Motlow being the most recently built part of it, but yes.

I'm still back to my original or my second point that The Waldron family, or the Waldron Trust, built this portion of Jeanne Lane to what we requested originally. Now as it's developing, we're recognizing we need this second turn lane. I think the developer should purchase that turn lane. Anything else? Because it should have been there to start. Maybe if we had exactly what was going to go on these lots, we would have been able to figure that out. But obviously we didn't know that when the road was built, right? Insight is always 20-20. Well, we didn't know what restaurants and what traffic counts would be, we could estimate, but we had no idea.

But aren't there two issues here? One is whether we require the setting aside of the right-of-way so that it could be built. And then the second question is, do we require the developer to build it or just the town?

I think it's, I think it's either, or yeah, it, it, the only way, the only reason it needs to be set aside is if the town's going to build it, if the developer builds it, then there's no, we got that.

But one option would be set aside and the town build it at some future point. I guess that's what you need. You need to protect the right of way where you won't be able to do it.

Yeah. So it's either, or you either set it aside or you build it now. Right.

And just to add, my client, the developer, they don't have control over the racetrack property. So there is no way for them to acquire right-of-way to make the intersection work. When I talked with Mr. Taylor, he said the town may help with this too. But again, the double lift is not a direct impact by the development. Yes, they built Genie Lane, but the study that we have completed took into account many developments, not just stone trace, uh, Stewart's Creek, I believe, and, uh, and, and something else. Uh, so it is the overall impact, uh, on this inter inter intersection.

How many of those other properties did the same developer develop?

Uh, I'm not sure to be honest with you.

That's my point is right. They are not just developing this one, the piece of property, this one corner, they developed some of the other properties as well and built the road in that section.

Yeah, so I can't speak for this. I don't know how many others they developed around that were included in this study. Right. I understand.

All right. Thank you, sir. Let's see. I'm going to recognize, are you the developer on the project? Yes. All right. Give us your name and address, please.

I'm Wendell Miller. I live at 2520 River Road. Yes, I've been involved in this project from the get-go. And, you know, we've done a lot of work on the traffic studies and trying to accommodate everything through working through. Yes, we did all the work on old Nashville highway. And we even extended old Nashville highway past where we were required, because we knew at the time, that there really needed to be another entry, and we needed more room, and that was the whole purpose of even coming back in here to start with, is that we needed to do the traffic study for the left end there at that other entry on Old Nashville Highway. And then we opened that can of worms, and then we get into all the stuff on Jeanne and Old Nashville Highway, the Jeanne Lane Old Nashville Highway Bruja here. And we don't feel good about the double left-hand turn. And here's why. I've been in the development business. I've been doing this for 40 years. I've been before planning commissions from Ohio Oh, Florida. I can appreciate that. Skip through this and get to your point, please. You know, and from Memphis to Charleston, South Carolina. I mean, I've been and I've done a lot of developments, seen a lot of traffic studies. Here's the one thing that we can't get in traffic studies. And think about this just a minute. Here's the one thing you cannot model. You cannot model human behavior. And what a double left-hand turn does here, I have sat out there at that intersection, at that racetrack, and I have watched when that light turns now, that's a short cue from Jeanne Lane to the old Nashville Highway. Old Nashville Highway light will change, cars will start moving, the next thing you know, the light turns red at the old Nashville Highway, And they start backing up a little bit. People are trying to come out of Genie Lane. And the next thing you know, you have two cars sitting in the northbound lane of the old Nashville Highway because they didn't make it through the light. Now, you can't model that. You can't do all the math. All the math in the world is not going to model that. And that's what happens. And then what you have sometimes is you've got some guy coming around Sam Ridley Parkway. He makes a right-hand turn into the northbound lane of Old Nashville Highway. He hits his gas. He's headed up the hill. And the next thing you know, the guy coming out of Jeannie Lane, everybody stops, leaves him hanging, and you've got a T-bone. And now what you're wanting to do is, I would rather the cars go ahead and back up Jeanne Lane because traffic flows like water and human behavior goes like water. It's going to take the least resistant path. And if you're sitting on Jeanne Lane and you're backed up back there by the chicken salad chick, then you're going to look at all that traffic and say, well, I'm trying to head to the interstate. Well, I'll just turn to the left and then chickens have a chicken, come out over on Needham Drive, and that's where we really want them to come out anyway. That's the simplest thing to do. But putting another lane of traffic turning to the left that further dumps people into that short queue between Jeanne Lane and Old Nashville Highway, to me, is insanity. That's crazy.

I understand where you're coming from with this. I can see it from both sides. I have a question for you based on what you just said. Do you have any intention of putting some type of a marker or a left turn pushing them to go need them, to go out down and then take a right directly on to Sam Ridley rather than utilizing... Well, I think that's something that, like I said, traffic...

Traffic always flows least resistant. And it's a learned deal that the locals will learn. Because it's mostly the locals that either use Jeanne Lane or Rock Springs Road anyway. You know, if you're not from here, you're on San Bernardino Parkway. And you just, you learn. That's learned behavior that you do. And that's what you want them to do. You want them to go back down to Needham Drive and do a ride out down there. That's the safest way to go.

That's what I normally do, but that doesn't mean other people are going to do that.

Why do you want to dump more people down there into that hodgepodge between Jeanne Lane and Old Nashville Highway? They're down there improving it now. And when they get done with it, they're not making it much better down there because they took out the, I haven't seen anything else about the phase two plan of Sam Riley Parkway where they're supposed to add the other lanes from Sam Riley back to Murfreesboro Road. And so, and none of that is mentioned in any of these traffic studies that we've done. But when we did the traffic study for Stone Trace, when we did the initial traffic study, we had to account for phase one and phase two of that traffic stage when we were anticipating that that was coming down the road. But that hasn't happened. And so, you know, we're over here left with this, but the bottom line is what's happening here, especially with the left end, that left lane, I mean, we're against it anyway because basically it just muddles everything up, another lane there. All it does is muddle everything up, whether you're willing to admit it or not. It's going to muddle it up. But what we would be willing to do is, well, number one, we don't control the racetrack property anymore. And if you guys need that... We can't get it, and if we have to go get that and everything, you know, these projects have a certain amount of risk and reward to them, and you have that balance. You know, we've already tipped the scale on the risk and reward, and adding that additional cost to it We'll just have to throw up our hands or go back and get legal counsel, come back and do something else or whatever. We just reached that point. Here's what we're willing to do.

I think we're finished. We're done. Once you bring that up, we're done. Thank you.

I appreciate you. Thank you. I was going to make an offer. That's okay. I think we're good. Okay. All right.

I'm ready for a motion if you are. Is there any other discussion? Is it staff's position that two lefts are required in order to take care of traffic in this area as far as what this is going to impact?

Yes, sir.

I have one more question. The left turn out on the old Nashville Highway that's unsignalized. I don't really see that as a good idea either. It seems like that's going to, to the point we just heard, it's going to go the least path of resistance. If Jeannie Lane's backed up and you're in that development, you're going to go out the other end, which means you're going to make a left turn across the four-lane highway.

It's going to be difficult at peak hours. Yes, sir. Okay.

Anything else? Okay. I'll make a motion that we approve this request with the conditions, the staff comments that have been added, including the second left turn lane at Jeannie Lane, and I'd also like to add a condition that the exit at Old National Highway be right in, right out only. Okay. I'll second that.

Motion and second. Any further discussion? Just a question to your motion. Does that include the developer doing the second lane? Yes. Okay.

Okay, anybody else? Okay, motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Okay, next we're on the new business. The first is rezoning request. Alicia Burkett, 279 Rock Springs Road, PUD Amendments.

Yeah, this is a request for an amendment to the existing approved FUD, 729 Rock Springs Road. It's about 23 acres of property total. It is surrounded by R3 and R6 zoning. Land use plan would support medium density residential in this area. The major thoroughfare plan does designate Rock Springs Road as a collector and adequate right of way. May be required to be dedicated for this street. We'll just have to look at that when the project comes in. The existing approved PUD has been through two or three iterations, but the most recent approval would allow for a single family dwelling. There is an existing single family dwelling on the property. Would allow for that, a photographic studio, a church, would allow for agricultural use, There is an existing barn on the property that was approved to have an event center in it, and as well as an airsoft course. The requested amendment would keep all that, but would add bed and breakfast use of the existing house, as well as construction of a small wedding chapel for wedding events as a wedding venue. That's kind of a future use to kind of the initial desired use at this time really is to convert the house to a bed and breakfast. We as a fire department looked at this and this is obviously a large piece of property. A majority of it is actually within the floodplain but there is a stream on the property and there is a bridge over that stream and so there was concerns about that bridge and fire access. The house and barn are on the the south side of that bridge. The proposed Wedding Chapel will be on the north side, on the Rock Springs Road side of the bridge, but the existing buildings are on the south side of the bridge. Since the comments went out, we did receive, they did have an engineer come out and take a look at the bridge. It has, it is in good shape, in really good condition, actually, but it is also, and it is, wait, they did test it, or they evaluated it, and it will support the weight of an emergency vehicle. However, it's not wide enough and then there is a kind of an arch and it's kind of a covered bridge kind of design. And because of that, a fire truck could not go across it. So it should be, it needs to be at least 12 feet wide, and it's like 11 feet 4 inches, so it's pretty close, but it's not quite wide enough. So there is the concern about access to the house and barn, which exists today, obviously, but this would... add any additional use to that of bed and breakfast. Potentially there's concern about that. Number six is really just an informational comment because again the Harts Branch goes through the property there would have to be a water quality buffer zone. if this comes back to the site plan. The chapel itself, again, may be required to be sprinkled. That's not a concern about that, I guess. It would be built, or as the report's proposed, would be within 400 feet of a fire hydrant. So that part is not a concern any longer. We did ask for a kind of a concept plan they did provide provide one just kind of show where the proposed building would be in that existing hydrant and the parking that they would were proposing to have would be adding some parking obviously when the chapel would be built at that time. There's some existing parking area near the house itself that would probably just be modified for use with the bed and breakfast part of this. I think that's all that I have on that. Okay.

Questions for Kevin?

Kevin, so based on your comments, really I guess your biggest concern is the bridge. It can support the weight, but with the cover, and I guess it's slightly too narrow. So what would have to happen there for that to be resolved?

Um, certainly the easiest, I mean, it's really cool looking bridge. I hate to do this, but they would have to modify either take, take the cover off essentially. Um, and if they wanted to come back, you would have to be obviously much bigger, um, would be the first, but take care of this, that part of it, the width of the bridge. I mean, you really, you're, you're adding. eight inches to a foot on the other sides, but just widening that concrete deck, whatever supports that are needed underneath that concrete deck is there.

How much was it short?

It's like 11 feet, four inches. Minimum is 12. Yeah. Yeah. So it's really close. It's close. It's close, but obviously that's an additional,

eight inches minimum or more yeah does that does that include like the railing and everything i mean you're talking about the base really the concrete deck part yeah yeah okay yeah so i remember you know when this came through before there was a lot of conversation about um kind of the uses. I remember HG Council had some concern and I think didn't support it. I've talked to Cole and Burkett, I've talked to them a couple of times about this and specifically the one item that was on there that I think gave people quite a bit of concern was the airsoft or paintball course.

Is it there?

It is not.

I don't think any of this has ever, other than the single-family dwelling, since the photography studio moved out, I don't think any of the other uses have really

Yeah, so they communicated that they would be willing to vacate that or remove that from the PUD.

That was my next question, because it's not ever been there that I was aware of.

It's not, and it's not really. It was kind of an idea back then, but it's not something they're going to move forward with. i personally think a bed and breakfast fits the that that community better this piece of chart this piece of property i don't know i think it's 17 acres 11 acres when it's 23 she's saying 23 acres would be a lot of homes if it was to develop leaving this kind of in a historical view that it is it is an older historical home that's uh Been around Smarta for a couple of hundred years, I believe, 150, 60 years. And I think bed and breakfast fits it better. And a good wedding venue. And a good wedding venue, yeah.

And a lot less impactful than a paintball course.

And of course, I like the bed and breakfast idea because there's an owner operator. There's somebody there to help police and maintain. That's one of the reasons, one of the issues we have with Airbnbs is they're short-term rentals with no oversight. Bed and breakfast is not that. And that's what I like about this option. It's better as well.

Hey, Kevin, what's this require for buffer? for all the neighbors that are surrounding this. It's already there.

There's quite a bit of an existing buffer there, especially on the south, certainly into the west. They're they've actually planted it doesn't little tough, you can kind of see a little bit kind of in this area in here, they've actually planted some, there's a row of evergreens and all has been planted here. You know,

Okay, there's a buffer there, but is it the 20-foot buffer? Is it natural vegetation?

It was planted. It wasn't anything natural. That all was an open area.

I think it was a hay field or a cow field at one time. It's a pasture.

I think this area here where the actual bed and breakfast would be located... You've got quite a bit of existing natural vegetation and distance, pretty large distance from any of those neighbors. I think if the chapel comes in kind of over in this area here, we're probably going to want to look at some sort of buffering. on this side especially, and on this over in here, I think probably some additional buffering at that time, once the chapel gets built and the parking lot gets added, and that sort of thing, to kind of block some of the... There'd be a site plan if they brought it. And there certainly would be a site plan at that time. We would look at that at that time. Because just, you know, you have a wedding at night, everybody's lights are shining in people's back doors. I mean, we don't want that sort of stuff happening. So I think we would want to look at that, certainly with the chapel itself. with, with the existing house, um, and in the existing vegetation, it's already there really around that house between them and the surrounding houses. Um, I don't know that we really have to look too much.

I think it's a cool idea. I just want to look out for all the neighbors around there that, you know, somebody's having a heck of a wedding reception and lights and sounds and so forth like that or whatever.

Certainly. Yeah.

I think that's definitely something we want to look at at site plan and make sure that we have appropriate buffering talking about it now before approval. Yeah.

But that gets us back to, I mean, uh, I like the use, uh, that's proposed, especially removing the aerosol. But we're still at a point in which if it were approved as a bed and breakfast, fire apparatus can't safely access this as the bridge is now, correct?

Right. I think we would have to, if the zoning is approved, I think we'd have to look at. As a part of the approval. As part of the approval, they're going to have to look at some, might have to make some modifications to the bridge. Some type of improvement. Some widening to the bridge, yeah.

Okay.

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

I'll make the motion to approve the new requested PUD and also removing the portion of the paintball airsoft portion that was originally part of this PUD. along with the necessary improvements to the bridge as requested and required by the city and the fire department. Okay.

I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Okay, next up under New Businesses, Paul Pye Enterprises, LLC, J&M Equity, LLC, 13058, 13076, and 13106 Old National Highway. Rezoning request C4 to C2.

Yeah, this is three tracts of land, all essentially the same ownership. This is one that was a part of a larger request that you all saw a few months ago. So it's three tracts of land totaling about $2,000. almost between two and a half to three acres total, almost all three together. All currently zoned C4, all requested to be rezoned to C2. The surrounding zoning is kind of a mixed bag. You have R6 behind it. You also have R2 on two sides, R3 across the street, and then you have C4 as well, some existing other properties on C4. So it's kind of a mixture of several things. Not directly across the street, but not too far down Old Nashville Highway, there was a mixed-use PCD. There's largely an office and C4-type uses on the development there, which is, you know, some medical offices and daycare and a vet and different things over there the land use plan for this area is the old national corridor character area which would support a mix of kind of neighborhood scale retail personal services that provide markets to local customers also would support townhomes attached residential in in that corridor as well The major thoroughfare plan does designate old national highways and mountain arterial, and there is adequate right of way there for that street. So again, this is one we looked at. The previous request was to rezone all the tracks that were requested. There's three other additional ones that were included in that that were requested to be zoned C2. That was denied at that time. And so there was a lot of discussion that, you know, I'm sure most of you all remember the discussion that occurred at the time. But they did come back with just this one owner with their three tracks to come back and did request C2 zoning. So I guess that's all I've got this time.

Okay. Questions for Kevin concerning this?

Kevin, we talked about this a few months ago when the applicant was here before with, I think, six puzzle pieces instead of three, as I recall. That's right. And this was our suggestion was to go back and clean this up and, and, uh, try to make it one piece for commercial use. I've got, I've got one question. I don't know if it really pertains to this, but, uh, with the businesses kind of down and across from at the vet hospital and, and all those things that are, uh, kind of across the road, Are we looking for a kind of need at some point for a signal to break up traffic if we're going commercial in this section, maybe Noel Lane or somewhere in that area? I mean, does that make any sense at all? Am I thinking too far?

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I don't know that we've had any we've done any or had any development there to warranted or traffic study at this time on old national highway in that area.

I'm just thinking of the people ingress and egress on old national highways getting busier.

Sure. I mean, I think certainly, yeah, the Noel lane side is, um, you're closer to Sam Ridley there at rock Springs. That's, that's the busier area. Yes, certainly in the Springs develops out more. That could change certainly. Um,

We don't know right away what the C2 uses would be, do we?

We do not. This is speculative as far as I know. You know, so you would certainly, you could have a higher impact uses, certainly here with C2 than you do C4, certainly with You could have a gas station and things of that nature that you could have here that you wouldn't have in the C4 zone.

Yeah, and just on that map, just to the east, there's the karate studio and all that there.

Correct. Is the karate studio, and I think there's a restaurant in there and maybe some type of retail. Is that part of C4? Yes. So we have... I guess the lot further east. And then of course we have one lot that is C2. So I guess the one that further east is part of that C4 that I guess also fronts Enon Springs. Is that right?

Yeah, there's two or three or four lots here on Enon Springs that are C4. And then you've got this karate studio and other buildings here. This is a vacant track, the C4. And then you've got these two here that are C4 as well.

But go back and so the one on the other side, I just wanna make sure I'm that right there. Above the C two. That's C four, correct?

Yes.

Yeah, there but here and it's going back to the west. Yes, here. These are safe for that's all C four.

That's all C four. Yes. And part of the issue, you may remember last month, is some of these lots don't meet the minimum lot size of C2 on their own. So that was these three right here in the middle in particular.

And then we had that one lot that had the elongated entrance into it. Right.

C2 on the corner. There is C2 on the corner, yes. On both sides of Old Nashville Highway at Enid Springs is C2. It's not all that's shown on this map.

It's a little bit of a mixed bag in that whole area there. And then the Enid Springs roadside too. But I understand Enid Springs being more of a C4 corridor. but Old Nashville being five lanes, I can kind of see where the C2 product might fit.

And I guess that was, you know, some of my thoughts would, you know, is C2 consistent with the zoning on Old Nashville Highway? Is there a big leap from C2 to C4 that's immediately to the east of there? You know, it's kind of It's looking at it from maybe an overall versus maybe just more of a smaller scale. But we do have quite a bit of C2 on Old Nashville Highway.

We do, um, especially near the rock Springs and Sam really intersection as well as Hazelwood and old Nashville. There's quite a bit of C2 zoning in both of those intersections. Certainly. Uh, and then you have kind of between Noel going to rock Springs, there's several commercial lots, some of which are C2 and some of which are C4 kind of came in various times and had just some different zoning requested.

I've always kind of thought since we built in on Springs west, that that intersection would become the next big intersection. With more C2? With more C2, right. I was looking at R6 behind it. There's R2 right beside it, and we talked about that piece of property initially. I think the family that lives there is not interested in leaving or selling or moving. They're happy where they're at. The r6 there's a pretty large buffer between the r6 and the c2 property that's actually on the r6 property So there's really no way that buffer could be taken out the r6 property would have to remove it right for the apartments so I'm pretty comfortable with the The buffering there I guess the padding yeah, and if it did approve and a product came in for approval Certainly, you know, I know Ken likes to look at that a lot.

I the buffering could be examined then and make sure that if there's a necessary or need for it.

And more could be added certainly if needed.

Yeah, I think my whole thought was maybe on that R2 side, but other than that, I think it looks pretty good.

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

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

I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Second. Second. Was it Ken?

Mm-hmm.

Second from Ken. Further discussion? All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. Next under new business, the Encore at Rocky Fork, Bankside Drive, Kedron Church Road, rezoning PRD and R3 to PRD.

Yeah, this is a request. It's an existing approved PRD. Also would like to, or requesting to add some property that currently has an R3 zoning to the PRD as well, which would largely be open space area, but they did request to add that as well. Has access currently through Bankside Drive off of Morton Lane through Jericho Street as well as Several streets stepped into it as well as frontage on Kettering Church Road. It's several tracts of land all together. They total 100.25 acres. Surrounding zoning is a mix of things. There's some R3 zoning. in the town as well as the existing approved PRD Helmsley Place, which is kind of to the south side, as well as RM in Rutherford County. The land use plan would support medium density residential development in this area. No roadway shown on the major thoroughfare plan would be affected by this request directly. I mean, obviously, traffic generation will hit some of those tracks, but no, no specific right of ways or anything like that that we would need to acquire as part of this. The existing approved PRD was approved in October of 2019. It is for 249 single-family lots on 89.4 acres for density of 2.79 houses per acre. The plan that is approved would connect to and be an extension of the existing bank side development. The minimum lot size in that development is 6,500 square feet with an 1,800 square foot minimum house size. That existing PRD approval does require the improvements to Kedron Church Road to a 24 foot pavement width and a realignment of the intersection with Rocky Fork on Woodville Road. As a part of this request, the current owner did request that language be included that if this amendment is approved but construction hasn't started within two years, that the existing approved PRD be reinstated. So that is something that is part of this request as well. This could be revert back to this approval. The requested amended PRD would allow for 202 single-family lots that are restricted to age 55 plus, so it would be a reduction of 47 lots. The PRD request would also, again, as I stated earlier, would add a parcel that is currently zoned R3. You can see it on the map here. It's highlighted there with the R3 zoning. That parcel was the location of the step system which was used as a part of the bank side development, the use of which has been discontinued. So it's no longer in use, so it's part of this PUD request. The total acreage, again, since it would be increased to 100, would be increased to 100.25 acres. The density would be 2.02 houses per acre. The proposed minimum lot size is 6,650 square feet with the proposed minimum house size of 1,600 square feet on the 50-foot wide lots and 2,400 square feet on the 60-foot wide lots. In addition, it is proposed that the roads would be private. The gates would be installed at the main entrance off of Kedron Church Road with an emergency gate at the connection to Bankside Drive. There are three other streets that are stowed into the property would have cul-de-sacs built. Staff would recommend those be built and dedicated as public streets and would not have a private cul-de-sac off the existing public street. We would not recommend that. The developer did request two waivers to our current PRD requirements as a part of this amendment. One would vary. We have a requirement of the lot sizes in three tiers, the seven, nine, and 11 at certain percentages. They would request a waiver from that. They also would request that there not be a requirement that there would be side entry garages on the corner lots. So as we go through this, we can talk about that some more certainly. Comments seven, eight, nine are from our fire department. Those are kind of informational comments more than anything regarding minimum fire flow. The gates will be required to be ANSI approved so that they can function so that the fire department would have access if need be. And that no more than 100 homes can be built without a minimum of two entrances and exits. They are showing, their phasing plan does show that the second access would be constructed prior to the phasing where the 101st home would be built. Um, we did recommend construction traffic coming in off Kedron just because instead of through, uh, the existing development, the residential development there, that was something we did recommend that, um, And then 11, comment 11 is just regarding signage. That's our standard comment there. Comments 12 and 13 kind of address the gravity sewer main. There's an existing sewer main that needs to be upsized. And then also what the minimum, extend the 15 inch gravity main as well through the, to serve the entire site. I know they have met with Mr. Parker, utilities department about all that. They're agreeing to everything he's talked about on that. So. Number 14, staff did have a concern. Let me see, got this one. Where Cadron Church, or where the development road would access Cadron Church Road, we had just a curve in that roadway and that sort of thing. We had a concern about that. That's certainly something that would, council chooses to approve this we would look at much more closely when a site plan or the black comes in but we just did want to bring that up and then a traffic study will be required and any improvements would have to be completed by the developer we staff would call attention to a particular concern just regarding kedron church road from rocky fork olive road to that project entrance road That's certainly a concern that would need to be looked at for traffic improvements we feel like. Comment number 16 rather. They do provide 12 or 13 different house elevations and all which are required. We did point out that there are some variations are required such as you know the dormers over the garages and all those things and then on corner lots those are required to extend to the side of the house facing the side street so that's That's something that's really, if this is approved and we administer it, they'll have really more informational purposes for them, but those are something they'll have to consider and take care of as they go through the process of developing this if it's approved. Number 17 has been addressed. They do show the ML kiosk kind of at the main kind of pool area, clubhouse area. So that part's been taken care of. We asked them. They are proposing kind of, again, there are three tiers of lots, just not meeting our requirements. And we did ask them to... kind of show that graphically and so still think that's something that's I don't think maybe they didn't they misunderstood my comment but I kind of liked I guess the 11,000 square foot lots that are proposed etc show them where those are actually at on the development They show the 50 foot lots and the 60 foot wide lots, but they're not showing kind of where they go where they're at on the site itself. And so primarily I was concerned obviously with the 11,000 square foot lots next to the properties that are county, R1, RM, and there's a few lots that are, several lots that are county RM. That's where we asked for those 11,000 square foot lots to be concentrated. Some of those lots, just by looking at them, I tell they probably are some of those 11,000 square foot lots because you can tell they're larger. But there's nothing kind of spelling of that out. And so that was kind of what I had asked for. The sheet C2-00 kind of shows what they're proposing with the lot tiers. about seven lots at 11,000, 27 at nine, and the rest are below nine. Anywhere from 6650 to 9000. C2, which one is C2, what? C2-00. This kind of shows kind of where those tiers are. It's the sheet that shows the whole proposed development plan on one sheet. There's multiple sheets after that at a larger scale.

So the variance that I'm requesting is less of those lots, not completely vacating that?

Correct, correct. Not meeting the minimum percentage requirement. And I kind of understand where they're coming from a little bit, just from the standpoint of this is a 55 plus development. Most of the people that are going to be buying these lots don't want larger lots. And so that's kind of their, their thought process, I think partially. And so I kind of understand that part of it.

Did you have any conversations with them about raising the minimum lot size to, to the 7,000? I mean, it's only 350 more square feet. Um,

We did as part of the development, we talked a little bit about it. And we haven't talked extensively about it. They knew what our requirements were. And they requested the waiver. And so that's kind of that's kind of where the kind of that part of the conversation stopped. The other waiver With regards to the corner lots, I think they can make that work personally. I think we can do that. I'm not really super supportive of that waiver. They can take those corner lots. They got a lot of house plans. They can make that work, I think, so.

Yeah, there's a couple of, I mean, this one's a little bit of a dichotomy, right? Because we're reducing lots. which means less density which i'm in favor of but we just passed these prd amendments in the last 12 18 months and planning and council were very clear on this is what we want so a waiver like this we kind of have to have a trade-off somewhere the less lots might be the trade-off i i really don't like the idea that it reverts back if this doesn't build

Have we done that before anytime?

Or can we? I don't know that we've ever done that. It's, I mean, I mean, it can be a condition of, I guess you can add any type of condition to a putt if you wanted to, I guess. I don't know that we've ever done it before, though.

Well, I guess where I'm going with this is, and I've talked to some people about this already, but my thought is if this didn't work, whatever reason it didn't pencil or pass engineering or studies or whatever it just goes back to what it was we've got people calling us today and emailing us today and I don't think they were aware necessarily that there's already a 2019 approval sitting there I don't think anybody really knew because nothing's been done to it Now the step field is gone. That's going to be totally green space, if you know what I mean. That's going to be a great spot. But I have a concern about that one thing. I don't know if there's a legal parameter for us to do anything like that.

As Kevin said, there's no precedent for that here, but also I think there's a lot of issues. For example, what is construction? What does that exactly mean? At what point does construction actually start? Who defines that? Do we define that, or do the landowner or the developer? There's a lot of those things that... when you look at sunsetting a zoning like this, uh, it'd be better if they just came back and requested that change again before, uh, before you all, rather than just have an automatic sunset.

I'm sorry. I agree. I think bringing it back for whatever they would like an approval for, but to Steve's point, 2019 and today are two different animals on what we've grown into as far as our ordinances and requirements. Um, I know that we have a lot of joint council meetings with planning commission members. I think some of you already know, this is near and dear to my heart is 55 plus. I've tried to ask for more and more of this from our developers. I know that most of the ones that we have are sold out. We have a growing population of people that are 55 and older. So the public, I hope they understand what this request is. one member has to be at least 50 one owner not member one one household owner must be 55 or older to live there and uh to me that takes your issue with high density normal traffic down a notch then we're talking about gating it and doing amenities inside so for the people that live around it i understand where they're coming from but they also need to understand if we do nothing you're going to have 247 homes that were approved in 2019 that can move forward so it's kind of like would it not make more sense to have 55 older crowd living in their negated community next to you or just revert back to the 200 and almost 50 homes that are already approved That's where I think the citizens that have emailed me might need some clarification because I don't think they really knew there was a 2019 approval in place. I did talk to one of them today. I don't know if she's here or not.

There she is. She was very nice. If you didn't live here in 2019, you wouldn't have gotten a lot of rumors or anything like that about a zoning or any of those kind of things.

So I guess it's like pick your poison a little bit here because... I know what I'd think, I know what I would feel, what I'd rather have there is the gated community with the nice amenities and people that are predominantly 55 years and older, which don't really bring, you know, all the...

Which is also a one-story product.

One-story product, right. And it's, you know, looking at the elevations, it's a good-looking elevation.

To your point, right, because that is already there and approved... If we deny the request tonight, that still applies. They can still build exactly what was approved in 2019, which was not 55 and over and was significantly more, 50 more. About 20% more lots. Yeah, 47 more lots. So that's why I said it's a little bit of an economy. There's some things about this proposal I don't really love. But I like it better than what we had. So that's kind of where I'm at. It's given us some things that we need and that would be more palatable in that area than what was approved previously.

That's what PRDs are designed for, to give us some oversight, to allow some variances. Kevin, did they meet most of our other standards, the setbacks and so forth?

Did they meet all those? We do have the other thing that we got. We stopped at one more comment, number 19. One of the other things that we do have is the 7 1⁄2 foot side setbacks. They're showing all of them at 7 1⁄2. Our new regs do require a maximum of 40% of the lots at 7 1⁄2 foot side setbacks, with the rest at 10. That technically, as it's drawn today, would be another problem. waiver to consider. Not a big one. Not a big one, but that is one. So I think, again, my main, probably my main issue on the waiver part of it was really more that the corner lots, I think they could probably meet that requirement. I think they can make that work.

I mean, I think they could probably make that work.

And the other thing I would like to at least, again, and what we don't have today is the lots that are near those existing rm lots where we which we do show and they are mean showing a 20 foot buffer which is the minimum required buffer that we have in our prd regs they're showing the buffer area but that's that was where the larger lots we'd ask them to show them again i think they've got some of that shown but it's not really spelled out so where's that kevin i'm not seeing that well it was not you know the only reason i'm saying i think they've got it shown is just because the lots just appear to be larger. I don't know if they're 11,000 or not, but they kind of near some of those.

They do have a note, which I noticed on the bottom of all of their drawings. It says lots of budding RM are required to be 11,000 square feet. So they're referencing that as a foot.

Yeah, but they've only got 11 lots or some, sorry, seven lots back in the car. that are meeting that 11,000, and I think there's more than seven abutting RM, I think, but maybe not. I mean, it's counted, but, yeah.

Question for you, Kevin. One of the RM locks, it's called out Karen Sofentino. When this goes in, she's gonna be landlocked. Has anybody called in as far as she's gonna only have access to that private road?

Um, yeah, she's landlocked currently. Um, but yeah, there's no private road. there's a product is yeah, but as far as she doesn't have any frontage on the Kettering church road, they'll have to provide her access to that road. There's no way that she'll have to be provided access as part of this. There's no way they could keep her from not having access. Cause that's the only access she has now is through these properties currently. Um, so they'll have to allow that to, to be maintained. It doesn't really show well on our maps here, but

I think we get on a slippery slope when we start approving waivers of this many. Especially after... Yeah, I don't... The PUDs, you know, the requirements have changed because of the outcry of the township. You know, people saying, you know, hey, we're building too many and they're too small.

Well, a lot of that was, you know, residential, normal product. This is gated and senior kind of housing. I can see a waiver or two making it work, but to get a better product, I don't mind that once in a while, to get a better product. And I think this gives a better product to the neighbors over there than what's currently able to be built in your backyard.

If it falls under the current PRD requirements, the whole thing, I think that would be better. But if it doesn't, then I have trouble with that.

I think when we had discussion as far as PRD requirements we our discussion was focused on family type PRD developments where you know we were looking at how many vehicles would be there what would be the impact on traffic what was the overall impact and this is not unlike a lot of the 55 plus developments that you're seeing, Murfreesboro, Spring Hill, Franklin, things like that where a group of people have a lot less impact, certainly on roads, they're not there at the same times as far as traffic patterns usually. These folks are retired. They're looking for lifestyles that have low maintenance, As far as yards go, they're looking for amenities within the project. This is gated. Again, I don't know that we had a specific discussion of how do we approach the 55 and up crowd. In my mind, we provide a product that meets this segment of our population or we don't. And I can tell you that from what I've seen that's been approved, that's 55 and plus, they don't stay on the market long. And there are folks there that are living in and quietly, yeah, quietly and not making a big impact. So I don't, I don't see this necessarily as something that is against what was discussed. I don't think this was ever discussed about how do we look at a 55 and older community? Should they be required to have the same thing? If that's the case, then just blow it up and let's finish out with the 249 units here.

Kevin, can you speak to a couple things that some of the people emailed us about today? That would be the streams, that would be the buffering, some of those concerns that come with every development we see, because I know there's people here that are part of that and have asked about that, and I know some of the emails asked about that. And they're probably not here tonight.

Can you speak to that? Sure, yeah. They would be required. Whether this development or the previously approved development happens, they'll have to provide the buffer zones along all the public streams, the weather conveyances, those kind of things. They all have to meet all of our stormwater requirements. Typically, depending on if it's an impaired stream or not, it's 30 feet or 60 feet minimums there. As far as the distance from the stream top of the bank, they're showing all that. There's some floodplain in those areas. They're largely leaving the floodplain alone, so they're not really modifying or filling in a bunch of areas or anything like that.

Um, so as far as, so yeah, all the, of course all of our stormwater requirements who would have to, to me reverse of that, which, which means, uh, that, that, that they cannot disperse more water off this property than what is currently dispersed. Right.

So I don't have to detain the increased amount. Yes. At the 25 year storm event and a route to a hundred year storm event. So,

I think the one thing you didn't mention, Tim, I think it was inferred, but with the 55 and over, it's also generally less children impact on our schools as well, right? Less kids in the development. Where if you had 246 family lots, you're going to have quite a bit of kids in there. So that's the other thing is it's less impact on the school system. Um, and I, I do remember when we were in planning commission, I think you and I had a spirited discussion over these lot sizes. Um, and, uh, when I remember the conversation being, I think you were at six, eight, 10, I was at seven, nine and 11. And what I remember the conversation and the compromise being that this is a guideline that this wasn't set in stone. And then when it comes to planning, we have the ability to make adjustments if it's a good product and it makes sense. We haven't seen any of those until this one. This is the first one I think that's actually asked for a variance. But I think that was the spirit of why we went to the larger lot sizes in that meeting was that we had that flexibility. And we were friends afterwards. Yeah, absolutely. Still friends.

Well, I mean, and I'll tell you that there's a love fest going on. I would tell you this. I love you, Tim. Thanks. If I were looking at this right now and this was a PRD that was single family without being 55, I can tell you right now I'd be a no. I'd be a no.

I'm the same way. 2019 would be a no today.

The 2019 approval would be a no today. It wouldn't be approved. It wouldn't meet the requirements today.

That's correct. So that's why I like this better than what they could wind up with. That's the whole thing for me.

Yeah, if there was nothing already approved here, it might even be a different conversation. But the fact that there's something they could fall back on that we wouldn't approve today kind of spurs me into working and making this work.

But what I'm not in favor of is if nothing happens in two years, the existing PRD approval will be in the state. Yeah, I want the existing PRD gone.

The first one. Yeah, the first one.

I'm kind of of this opinion. I know some of the people that emailed me today or I talked to today mentioned a deferral process being something that might be some wisdom. I don't disagree with that, but this is a launch. here to council if it gets through here it has to go to council and then council is going to have to have two readings on it to begin with so even if it's not a deferral it still has to pass the next body and there'll be a lot more questions i can assure you so that's that's that's six weeks that's it yeah so there's time And I also think there's some people that would like to come in and speak on behalf of their feelings about it and get some questions answered regarding more details about this. That's going to allow them time to get on the agenda because I know who I spoke with today was too late to get on the agenda. I called anyway, and I'm glad we had that conversation. Sorry about messing up your dental appointment. But that's kind of where I am on that. I like this so much better as a result of what they didn't know they already had approved. Does that make sense?

Sir? Did you want to add something? I do, if I can. All right, I'll recognize you if you'll give us your name and address, please.

David Lowry, 206 Gothic Court. I'm with David Weekly Homes. First off, thank you for your consideration of this. I just wanted to speak very quickly to the sunset provision. I know it is odd, but the underlying property owner, the property owner right now is a builder, and he built out the first part of it. His concern is that he which is what you guys don't like. He wants to be able to come back, and if we do not close, he wants to come back and be able to build what he's already got approved currently, according to 2019. We have, and I would suggest maybe a modification to this and just throw this out there. If we shortened it to a year and he has to do it within the year, I wanted to see if that was acceptable. So after a year it would, it would lock in and the sunset would go away. Um, I know it's unusual, but I I'm, I'm concerned that we might get to council and then he would pull his support for us. And that would make this go away. That's my concern. And we have talked to council, and that's not a threat. I'm not saying we're, you know. But we talked to council just about the verbiage of a PRD. You're talking about legal counsel. Yeah, legal counsel, yeah. I didn't want you to tell me to take a seat. You haven't talked to that counsel. So we have talked to our council about this, and it is something that our understanding could be written into the PRD if it was approved, you know, that way with that language in it. So I just want to address that. That's the reason we know it's strange. I don't even want to ask, you know, really for this, but this is the reason why we're asking for that. Is it just, it's making the deal work, um, to where we can actually do what we need to do. So thank you.

And Mr. Lauer, I appreciate the comment. I think I've shared with you my position on that already, but, um, the, the concern I then have. is that we've got a 2019 sunsetted revision that goes back to what it was. And to me, this is why I would see this being approvable because I really don't prefer that. And so I hope that makes sense. I've shared that with you and understand the position you're probably in, but it's not anything we've ever done before. And I don't want to set that precedent to be honest with you. So, uh, I, I totally, I totally understand that.

Um, But if this doesn't move forward, then he still has a right to build that. He does. It's on you. I understand that. I just don't like what you're saying.

Just curious, do you know he's had approval since 2019? That's seven years. Why hasn't he built it already?

In my conversations with him, just at this point in the building cycle, when they had built that first phase, they really didn't have a whole lot of competition out here. And so now he would be competing with other builders that, quite frankly, can build a lot less expensive product per square foot than he can. And that's why he's kind of stepped back and said, Hey, maybe I'll sell it instead. Um, you see our concern. I do see your concern. I do. Uh, and again, I'd prefer not to have to ask for this, but it does on our side. Um, and this is not a concern of yours, but it does make the deal work where we can move forward with it. And again, the, somebody else could go in there and contract it. If we drop out and don't get our approval, it doesn't have to be him to build it. You can have anybody come in there and build it according to the existing standards.

And so that's, so he has to make the decision really, if he wants to hold what he's got or sell this to correct. Yes. And to us, that's, we're not in that. Yeah. I understand that. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you.

I know these guys to be good guys. I've always done what they said they do when they've met with us. But as I told David when I talked to him several weeks ago, that's just one thing I cannot feel comfortable about at the sunset. And for the reasons I just described. So I hope that can be worked out somehow because I'd love to see this come forward. This is a much better product. But we also have to protect the integrity of what we've normally do with consistency and I think legal would probably say the same thing and that's that's my personal opinion that's you know I'm all for you doing this but because I love the 55 product I love it and it's beautiful it's gated it's much better than the cookie cutter homes that could wind up there otherwise so that's just my opinion okay anything else from the Commission

Then I'll entertain a motion.

Move to adopt with staff comments.

Okay. And as far as the request for the two years that the existing PRD approval be reinstated, are you saying without that?

Staff comments. Was that a sunset or no?

We didn't make a recommendation one way or the other. We pointed it out until you were aware of it.

So I think we need to address that.

I think that and then basically the three waiver, the tiers, setbacks, and the side entry garages, I think with or without those, I think needs to be. And then the sunset provision as well. I think all that needs to be addressed in the motion in some way. So waiver of tiers.

So is the sunset provision in the staff comments? It's a paradox. It's not now.

It was informational. It wasn't a recommendation.

All right.

One way or the other.

Kevin, let's make sure we get this. So they've asked for a waiver of the tiers, the side garages.

The side entry garages, the lot tiers, And then the 7 1⁄2 foot, the maximum of 40% lots with 75% or 7 1⁄2 foot side setbacks. Those are the waivers. And then just the other thing is to address whether or not you would approve it with the two-year sunset provision in it.

Our motion does not include the sunset provision. But I suppose someone could offer a friendly amendment should the motion proceed.

No, the motion hasn't been seconded yet, so you can continue with your motion.

In other words, rephrase your motion so we all understand what you're saying.

I would move for approval with staff comments not including the two-year sunset. I would not add that to staff comments.

then each of the three and i would include the other three wafers that have been requested that's a proper motion okay so i have a motion and now do i have a second Okay, so I'm not hearing a second, so I would say this motion dies for lack of a second.

Correct. I'll make a motion that we approve without the two-year sunset clause, without the waiver for the side entry garages, but with the waiver for the lot variations and the seven and a half foot setbacks and the rest of staff comments. Okay. So essentially the same thing except I'm excluding the garages as well. Okay. Your requiring side of requiring that.

Okay. We're good. That's a proper motion. All right. Now do I have a second? Second. Okay. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye.

Okay.

We're now to final plans, the first being Marable Farms, Phase 1, Section 1.

Mr. Yes, this is final plan for the first phase of Naval Farms. If I can get to my staff report. It's 29 lots, 5.48 acres. It's in the Mabel Farms PRD. We had a few comments. There remain several which are standard comments. Certainly one and two are standard comments and would need to remain. Number three is an informational comment. They are dedicating right away along Rock Springs Road as a part of this project. per our major thoroughfare plan. Number four is the standard comment regarding minimum fire flow requirements and then number five the building permit requirements and the retaining walls over four feet. Comments six regarding the drainage structures and easements or open space that's been addressed can be removed. Comments seven labeling the existing ponds and stormwater control measures they've added a note on the flat as such so they can remove that comment. Comment number eight, there were some existing drainage features that did not show up in easements on this plat that they needed to add and so that has been corrected and can be removed. Comments nine and 10 were comments from Consolidated Utility District and those would need to be remade. So with removal of comments six, seven, and eight, we would recommend approval.

Kevin, is this consistent with the previously approved PRD?

Yes, it is consistent with the plan, the preliminary plan and the PRD.

Okay.

with regards to the lot layout and all that. I know there's been some discussion and a talk with Mr. Rose earlier today regarding not so much these lots, some of the lots on the western side of the development and some grading and some things like that. I know you're still working with the engineer on the property regarding some modifications to some of the grading there out with the elevations of the lots as they affect some of the adjoining property owners. I know that's still being discussed. I don't know where that's... At this time, he's still waiting on some information, I think, from the engineer on the project. This is an update on that.

Anything else for Kevin on this?

Kevin, does this trigger the improvements to Rock Springs Road through the

As far as the improvements this developer was required to make? Right. Okay. I would have to go back and look at their traffic study if there was a certain, if there was a lot threshold that they were required at the 50th lot or something like that that they had to have it done. I don't recall. I don't remember either. So we can still look at that.

Other questions?

Okay.

Do I have a motion? Move 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 the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. We're now on to the addition to Villages of Valley Green, Section 6, Phase 2, Indian Springs West and Wildwood Drive, owner-developer, JSD Holdings.

Yeah, this is Phase 2 of the addition to Villages of Valley Green, Section 6. This is 31 units. This is a townhome development here at the corner. This is a portion of the overall development, which was a single-family and townhome development. This is the last phase of the town homes. 31 units, 4.79 acres. That's within the addition to Villages Valley Green PUD. We had seven comments left. Most of them are informational type comments or standard comments. They do still need to, comment number seven, they do need to amend some of the signature blocks and that sort of thing, Nothing major to be changed, so we would, with those remaining seven comments, we would recommend approval.

Questions for Kevin on this final plan?

These are pretty old, aren't they?

Well, this development's been underway for several years. So this portion of it sat there. Long time approved. Yeah, it was approved a long time ago, and they finally decided a few years ago to actually develop it. And so they built the first ones there on actually fronting Broadwood Drive, and this was just the rest of the lots, those units over there. Yeah, they were, gosh, it's probably been approved. From a zoning standpoint, it's probably been approved 15 years or more. Yeah.

Well, that whole section is really moving. There's two developments that are now coming out of the ground.

Okay. Any other comments?

Do I have a motion? Motion to approve with staff comments.

A motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? all those in favor of this motion please signify by saying aye aye opposed this motion is approved uh we now have villagewood townhomes phase two wildwood drive owner developer infinity home builders

Yeah, this is phase two of Villagewood Townhomes. This is 36 units, 13.63 acres in the Villagewood PRD. Again, this is another one that's been approved from a zoning standpoint for many, many years, and they're just finally in the last year or two started developing it. Six comments left, largely standard comments. It's informational type comments. Again, with those six remaining comments, we would recommend approval.

Questions for Kevin on this? Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve with staff comments.

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, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion is approved. We're now on two site plans. The first is Lee Bowman, lot 6B, phase one, 1579, 1599, Jeannie Delane, owner, developer, Scott Butler, and Michelle Abdel-Saed.

So this is a site plan for lot 6B within the Lee Bowman Commercial Slow Division. Proposed to be developed with a just over 10,000 square foot building on a vacant tract at the corner of Genie Lane and Potomac Place. New point of access would be graded off of Genie Lane via a driveway through the property, which would continue from the intersection of Scooby Doo Drive and Top Gun Drive. Off what drive? Scooby Doo Drive. Or were you talking about Top Gun Drive? Say that one more time. Top Gun Drive. Two additional points are shown off of Scooby Doo Drive near Potomac Place. Surrounding uses would include a car wash bank, hotel, and a church. And I believe it's been a handful of years now, but we have previously seen this site plan come through. I think it was pre-2020 when this came through originally. But it seems like they're trying to move forward with progress again on this track here. Square footage of vehicular use area is just over a half acre, which does require 2,465 square feet. African is proposing for 4,750 square feet. Total parking required of 50 spaces, and they're showing for 53. Handicapped parking spaces requirement of three, which they are showing for. The landscape plan shows different types of shrubbery along the base of the northeastern and western side of the building. Trees are located on curb extensions and landscape islands, which border the parking lot. Additional shrubbery is shown in the southeastern corner of the development around the dumpster enclosure, which has been since relocated. A combination of trees and shrubbery are shown for streetscape along Gene Lane and Potomac Place. We did receive revised plans which now show the minimum landscape requirements being met along Jeanne Lane for the street tree requirements. Architecture elevations show the building to be finished using a combination of brick, stone, and glass glazing to be used as the primary materials on all wall elevations. The material shown to be used as secondary material is stucco. As submitted, the building does meet designer view with at least 75% primary materials on all wall faces. Standard comments one through seven, all remaining at this time, uh, kind of one of the smart fire department regarding the auto turn that has been addressed accordingly. So that can be removed kind of number two. We asked him to clarify the percentage of metal shown on the architectural elevations and the, the metal shown was far exceeding what our allowance is. Um, it was our assumption that they were including the glazing around the doors and windows as well as the roof, uh, which was the case. So, uh, those, you take that out and really it's just a corners cap which is metal at the top of the building so when you factor all that in accordingly they are now meeting our requirements so coming over suit can be removed as it is now good Coming number three, four, five are all from our utilities departments, which will all remain at this time. Uh, we'll have utilities review that at a later date and address those accordingly. So those will stay count number six, as mentioned earlier, the plans have been revised and the dumpster, uh, basically the dumpster previously showed one enclosure spot down in that bottom right corner. There's a little bump out right there. That has been since relocated and has been increased in size to now hold two dumpsters instead of one. So we are fine removing counter number six. and piggybacking off that was comment number seven staff didn't feel the location of that dumpster was good for the employees and anyone else that was would be traversing across the drive aisle to throw and discard of any waste so they have once again relocated that to the the bottom right portion of where that building is shown your plans in your packet do show the updated location where that dumpster has been relocated to We do like that much better than what was previously shown. So comment number seven has been addressed to staff satisfaction. And then number eight, as mentioned earlier, regarding the street tree requirement that has been added to, I believe they were previously showing about nine. So that's now up to 10 and that is now satisfaction. So comments number three, four, five were all utilities and those will remain. The remainder of those staff comments have all been addressed and can be removed. And with that staff does recommend approval.

Okay. Questions for Mitch on this?

Does that say Scooby-Doo Drive? Yes, it does.

Was that a motion? I'm very good at holding this. Just checking.

Again, we didn't name it. That was the car wash that named that little private road. It is a private drive. It is a private road, yes. It was named by the car wash owner.

I like it. It's got character.

Okay.

Do I have a motion? I move 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. Next we have Rocket Ship Smyrna Phase 2, 1053 Industrial, owner developer Thompson Property, Smyrna TN, LLC, Launchpad Development Company. Kevin.

Yes, this site plan has been requested to be deferred to the October meeting. We are working with them. We had some concerns regarding the traffic study as well as stacking within the site, being sure there's enough stacking so that there's no kids getting picked up and the cars backing out into 3 Industrial Road with the industrial traffic that utilizes that road and the airport traffic, things like that. We're working through that with them, so I did request that it be deferred until the October meeting.

Any questions to Kevin concerning this deferral request?

Motion to defer to the next meeting. Second.

There's a motion and a second to defer to our next meeting. Any further discussions? All those in favor of this motion to defer, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This motion has been deferred and approved. We're now on to the September bond review report.

Yes. Tonight, don't have too many tonight. The first one is Derby Run 2A. They have paved those streets there and they are ready to go to begin their maintenance period. So we would recommend reduction of that and begin their one year maintenance period. Walnut Ridge, Section 1. This is at the end of their maintenance period. That's when they hopefully will get that finished up soon. They're ready to the point they need to finish that one. We could release it if they get everything done by the 15th, otherwise a three-month extension on that one. Quinn Farms 2A, this is one. Again, they have paved the streets in that phase, and so we can begin the one-year maintenance period on that one. uh... kroger bulldog uh... this one is a was a very large bond because they basically recorded the flat with nothing done so would recommend a reduction on this one uh... which is twenty five percent of the current bond which is the lowest the bregs allow it to be reduced they're looking to have everything completed by the fourteenth of september that's our goal Uh, they're hoping to get a CO in hand by October 1st. And so they're, um, they're looking to have a grand opening sometime in October, I think. So we would recommend, um, reduction to that on that one an extended one year gwen farms phase three section two would recommend basically a six month extension on that one they haven't paved those streets yet we've had it two years but so no more than six months helmsley place this is the end of their maintenance period they are hoping they were going to have a contractor meeting a contractor last week and hope to have a completion schedule soon so they get that done by October 9th we can release that one otherwise a three-month extension and Villagewood phase one uh they're about 54 built out on that um I did hear back from Mr Butler in the time between the packets and in here and he did request an extension on that we've only had that one a year so I'll be okay with a one-year extension on that one and that's it

Questions for Kevin concerning the bond review report? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve the bond report. I have a motion to approve the bond review report. Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of this motion please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

motion is approved staff comments and other business the only other thing i do want to just mention uh hopefully it worked out well we have this month was the first time we added started adding all the plans into your packet i like it um in the past we had a google drive and i know some folks some people had trouble accessing the google drive so We tried this. This was new this time, so hopefully that went out well for everyone. If it did, certainly we'll continue doing that from here on out.

Okay. Great. Anything from the Commission? One thing.

We have a birthday girl in our presence. So happy birthday. Happy birthday.

Thank you, guys. I was hoping I could slip out without anybody saying anything.

Anything else? We stand adjourned.