Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] I [Music] Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everybody to the September 4th, 2025 Smyrna Municipal Planning Commission meeting. I will call the meeting to order. And if you'll stand with us, Steve is going to lead us in prayer and Selena in the pledge.

We bow your heads. Dear Lord, thank you for today. Thank you for the town of Smyrna. Thank you for uh all of the u leaders and the staff that are here tonight. Lord, we ask that you be with these proceedings that everything that would be discussed and uh uh contemplated would be pleasing in your sight. Lord, we ask that you continue to bless the town and uh bless us as we move forward in Jesus name. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Thank you, Steve and Selena. We'll now move to our next agenda item, which is public hearing. The first one being subdivision regulation amendment for section 7-101.2 and addition of appendix A. Kevin.

Yeah, this is a an amendment that we talked about last month uh at the last month's meeting. U need to have the public hearing and then vote on it later on in your agenda tonight. Uh this would just add some wording to our subdivision regulations to provide a a third option for shity. Uh which would basically would be for the uh either still be required to have a letter of credit or a cashier's check or other form as approved by the town attorney just to give them a third option uh for developers and for shar to be provided. Um, and then we did add or recommended adding the an appendix, which is the appendix is simply a um just a sample form of a letter of credit just so that we've had some folks ask what are you looking for in a letter of credit? What do we need to include? That sort of thing. And this just puts that in writing for them so they can everyone can see that. And that's all it is.

Okay. And with that, I'll open the public hearing for anyone that would like to come forward and provide comments. I'd like to remind everybody the comments are limited to three minutes and Katherine will keep time. So, is there anyone here that would like to come forward and comment on this agenda item? Okay. Uh seeing uh no one's coming forward, uh we'll close the public hearing and we'll go back into session for the planning commission. And Kevin, our next item is plan of services for 452 properties LLC.

Yeah, this is uh just state law does require the planning commission to hold a public hearing on the plan of services uh when an annexation takes place uh in addition to the public hearing that is held at the council meeting for a plan of services. Um and so that's a fairly recent change. Um but so this public hearing is for the uh request for annexation. It is on your agenda later on tonight uh for 452 Properties LLC. Um the uh plan of services is uh has an appendix to it. I guess uh we did the standard plan of services is included. Uh this would include um it's one parcel of land about 226.3 acres as well as the ride of way of uh about um about about a mile of Jeff State Route 266 Jefferson Pike to the Mona Road intersection and then about 22,300 ft of Mona Road northward from Jefferson Pike um would be all that would be included within the plan of services. Um the services the town would be providing would be uh all services except for water. This does lie within consolidate utility districts boundary for for water service. Um and then we did include uh which we can talk about now or we can talk about it later whichever commission wishes. We did include some additional information just that we looked at for revenues and cost to provide services uh in and to this area. Um, so that's as well as as was included into the plan of services as well uh with the appendix. So that's all I've got at this time.

Okay. Okay. So I'll now open the uh public hearing for anyone that would like to come forward again and provide us comments uh concerning this uh plan of services for 452 properties. Uh and if you do want to come forward, I just remind everybody you'll give us your name, address, and whether you live within the uh town limits or not. Okay, doesn't look like anyone uh is coming forward. So, we'll close the public hearing on this item and I will call the planning uh commission back in session. So, next we have citizens comments and understanding that we have two people that would like to speak tonight. Um, just a reminder that uh this uh portion the citizens comment uh reserved for those citizens that have signed up to address the board uh and they must do this at least 24 hours in advance. Uh this is pursuant to the town's public comment. Policy speakers are limited to three minutes. Additional comments may be submitted in writing. Once again, Katherine will uh keep our time. Uh first, I have Patrick Buchain. If you'd come up, give us your uh name, address, and whether or not you live within the town limits or not. And um Katherine will let you know when we're ready to go. We're ready.

Okay. My name is Patrick Po Shane. I live at 6614 Lee Road in Smyrna outside the uh city limits. I'm here this evening on behalf of myself, my wife, as well as and Terry Fitz Charles and Chuck and Melissa Taylor. As you all know, we're the three neighboring homeowners to the Hidden Springs subdivision on Lee Road. The final plat is on the agenda for approval tonight. I want to thank Kevin Riggsby for continuing to keep the communications open with us, answering questions and explaining details surrounding the final plat. And thanks to Steve Sullivan. You've been a part of this since October of 2023. lots of discussions, lots of meeting meetings, and I think we've both learned a lot through this process. Mr. Hill, thank you very much for showing an interest in this matter as well. We've received a final signed agreement from David Weekly Homes regarding the shared easement, landscape buffer, and several other items. All of us homeowners believe it is complete and will be executed tonight following the outcome and discussions of the meeting. We had reviewed the final plat through open records request as late as this morning. It also appears to be correct and meets all of our needs in alignment with the agreement. I'm here tonight to listen listen to the discussion and see that if the final plaid is approved in its current state. If all goes through as presented and planned, we will give David Weekley's representative here tonight, Wes McIll, the fully signed and executed agreement. We're incredibly relieved to have reached this agreement. It's been 14 months since they began excavation. It's been a very lengthy and complex process. And now we look forward to the smooth and uneventful execution of the items as prescribed by the agreement with David Weekley Homes and hopefully a return to a calmer, more peaceful living time living out on our acreages on Lee Road.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. I didn't think we would ever hear the word, so I appreciate that. Yeah, you're welcome. Okay, next, uh, Teresa Fitz Charles, if you'd come up, please. And again, your name and address and whether or not you live within the town limits. Is she Is Teresa here? She must. Okay. Okay. All right. Then we'll move on to our next item, which is approval or corrections of the minutes for the August 7th, 2025 regular meeting. Councelor, are the meeting minutes in order? They're in order unless the commission has any amendments they'd like to make. Any uh questions uh concerns or changes that the commission one addition, Mr. Chair?

Sure. Under section 9, I just wanted to add that I had requested a report uh on the development on Sam Ridley just west of the YMCA. Okay. So noted. Anything else? If not, I will entertain a motion. I move to approve the minutes with the addition given by Charles. Have a motion to approve with the addition. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving the minutes, please signify by saying I.

Opposed. The minutes are approved. Uh we are now on to old business. Our first item is annexation zoning and plan of service request 452 properties LLC Monaron and I840 annexation and PUB zoning request. Yeah, this is an annexation request. This is a little different than what we had saw last month or the last time this was on your agenda. Uh as far as they did amend it a little bit. Um the uh this request is for annexation. um with a zoning of a pud zoning with a kind of a C2 and I2 split uh with the really the main uh PUD I guess item in there is is for requesting a 60oot height limit for the industrial buildings where 50 foot is the limit allowed in the I2 zone. Um the um again this is on Mona Road uh is also borders uh 840 uh surrounding zoning is RM and Rutherford County. U the land use plan for this area is the 840 gateway character area which would support hospitality, restaurant, retail, high density residential and industrial and warehousing uses. Um the major thoroughfare plan does designate Bill France roads principal arterial. Uh the plan also shows a future minor RTOR connecting Bill France Road to Hickory Grove Road and eventually to Jefferson Pike. Development of these properties would require dedication of Broadway and construction of this improvement. Uh again, the requested put is essentially it's about 34.3 acres to be zoned C2 and the remaining 190.95 to be zoned I2. Again, with that request that the height limit be 60 feet on the in the I2 areas versus 50. Uh the maximum square footage allowed in the C2 area is 350,000.

Maximum square footage and the I2 area is 2.5 million. Um no pole signs would be allowed. There is the other uh caveat in that pud. There would not be any pole signs allowed. Um anformational comment. The required minimum fire flow is is 2,00 gpm at 20 PSI with a sprinkler reduction. Um we did this area is not contiguous to our current town limits. U so we would require either a non-ontiguous annexation uh or the annexation of several miles of existing county and state road right away which is what we as a staff would recommend you do if you choose to to go forward with this annexation. Uh again it's about a mile of West Jefferson Pike which is a state highway and then 4.2 miles of Mona Road. Um um again a non-ontiguous annexation would require an interlocal agreement between the town and Rutherford County with regards to emergency response and road maintenance for that area between the existing town limits and that new newly annexed area. So most likely we will be taking over emergency response and road maintenance anyway. So we might as well go ahead and do the annexation make it contiguous. Uh obviously annexation of those roads would bring would require the town to begin maintenance of those roads uh on the effective date of annexation as well as provide emergency services including uh accident response and traffic control. U sewer um and Mr. Peach can can chime in at some point with this. There's been a discussion quite a bit of discussion regarding sewer uh to serve this properties. Um this is something that's an agreement has been discussed at the staff level um and has been a been a lot of work put in on both sides with that agreement. So uh we did state that the town would not

provide sewer service to any property outside of Rutherford County boundaries. some of the properties that are under consideration not with this request tonight but in the any future if this is annexed the future portion uh there is some question as to where the actual county boundary is and so um we would not extend any sewer or ser anything outside of our county boundary. Um, again, there is no agreement that's signed at this point. Uh, but there is a draft that's been discussed extensively there. Um, and any potential new alignment beyond where that discussion is might require a easement to be obtained um from the Army Corps of Engineers as well depending on how things work out with with easement acquisition. Um they the one of the things they have shown on the plan is is is a donation of land for a fire station. That is something that would could certainly come into play that we might need to look at in that area. Um we did ask they be responsible for that initial grading of that site. actual location may need to be evaluated or will need to be evaluate evaluated by the fire department and may need to move from the currently shown location. Um and then there's been quite a bit of work with CUD on some pretty extensive off-site improvements required for water as well to get service to that area. Um so um a lot of that kind of falls into the plan of services as mentioned earlier. U again we did do some some a look at a little bit deeper dive on the plan of services um with regards to costs uh and revenue. Um I did within there I did kind of this current request as well as the potential request because there's there's an additional

um track tracks of land that may be in play um if the council chooses to do this annexation some additional property that they own. Um and so we did look at both this initial cost as well as a future cost. Um, and so we detail the the cost for additional police personnel and equipment. Um, the fire personnel as well as construction of a station and apparatus. Again, that would come uh with the eastern parcels, not initi with this initial request. um street maintenance. We kind of looked at that based on our current milling and resurfacing uh cost per foot and and put plug some numbers in there. Uh there will also be obviously if we that's just maintenance and milling and resurfacing that's not any upgrades of anything. Uh obviously that if we add a we did look at the cost if we did upgrade those existing roads uh just to add shoulders uh it would be about 14 million was the estimate. Um there is a bridge on Pona Road across Fall Creek that is already not noticed or is a substandard bridge um with regards to the weight rating. And so there is a a grant from T DOT to the Rutherford County Highway Department to replace that bridge. Um we have through discussions they have said that if the town chooses to annex the road then it would be transferred to us as well. So that that bridge that grant will still remain in place. It is at this time it is slated that construction would begin in the fall of 2028. So it's about three years out before that would be done.

That's what the county is planning. No, that's what T dot is planning

with through the grant. Yeah. Um we we did est provide estimates for street lighting um lower $17,000 a year kind of annual cost once we put those in for to provide the streets on the lighting on the streets that would be annexed. Um and then not anticipate any expenditures for parks since this is there's no residences here um or proposed. Um we did I did include the just for everyone's information what the kind of projected costs are from CUD. Um it's pretty substantial amount of dollars u over north of $30 million uh of water man installation and tanks and that that sort of stuff for improvements there. And then uh the approximately about $10 million in construction cost to extend the necessary sewer mains and lift station for the sewer cost as well as about little $400,000 in easement acquisition cost. Um the in the discussion of the agreement, the town would uh acquire the easements, but the developer would be uh have all costs for construction of the main and everything. So um we did look at revenues and the revenues I I basically at current tax values is what that is at this point. Um as far as property tax values obviously if they develop they the values would go up at the current tax values they did include that. It also did provide an estimate on the uh impact fees based on the the proposed maximum square footages that were included. So, which translates to um about $8.5 million roughly in road

impact fees and about $2 million in public safety impact fees um at full buildout, which at current rates. So that would obviously that would many year those would be realized over a several year period. Obviously this is a multi-year project. So that's not something that would happen immediately. Um a lot of the local or the state shared revenues and things like that are per capita and so there's obviously no new people. So there would not be any increase in some of those revenues. So I think we had a few more. This is kind of oriented everything kind of in a north south way. Again, the current town limits are Jefferson Pike and 840. And so you have the streets highlighted there that we would be annexing and then the partial there at the top and then the portion that's zones C2 versus an I2 being in yellow and orange there. feel like there's I'm missing something. I think that's everything. Mr. Peach may want to jump in on the sewer agreement if you're all ready for that or if you have your questions.

Let's do any questions for Kevin on what we've heard thus far. Yeah. Um you mentioned street lights. Is Moner Road then going to get street lights from Jefferson Pike all the way in? That's what we that's what we have planned. Yes. as well as well as Jefferson Pike and did I speaking of the non-ontiguous nature of the annexation the the area that would be between 840 and Jefferson and the newly annexed area did you did you say that we would would be responsible for for police and fire under agreement with the county

under agreement with the county if we did a non-ontiguous yes we would be that would have to be an agreement negotiated between the town and the county as to emergency response in that area as well as street maintenance within that area. Um, we're not doing that, but that's not what we're recommending. So, that's uh I feel

we feel like most likely if we were to go that route that they would the negotiation would lead to us being responsible for the maintenance and response anyway. So, um so that's that's why we we did not use it. We're not choosing to recommend that to you. Uh just to make it contiguous was is is the cleanest way to go. And the annexation of Mona Road portion would not affect the T dot timeline on the bridge buildup. That's they have indicated would not affect that. Yeah.

Kevin, you mentioned um and I'm you were kind of reading so I'm not sure if I follow heard you correctly, but Okay. Can you talk about the easement acquisition and the cost associated to that one more time? Yeah, it's about little over the estimate is about $435,000. Uh the timeline is is usually Mr. Beach usually says it usually takes about 9 months to go through that process. So, and the cost of that how is that is that all on the town? How does that get split? What's it's it would be on the town. It would be split between sewer and natural gas because that's natural gas easements as well. So it would be kind of split between the two funds as far as that goes, but it would and then if CUD is involved, CUD has a piece as well, right?

But they would be paying for those. Yeah. So essentially acquiring the easements, paying for the easements, the the cost of that is all town cost. That's what has been negotiated in the agreement. Yes. To this point. So the cost sorry the cost from the developer is the cost of the running the actual utilities the construction of the sewer main water main all those things and any alignment would have to go through the army corps any new alignment if potentially if for some reason this doesn't work and it's that's primarily affecting the parcels on the east side more so than the this particular piece of it in your opinion is that oh that's easily done that's not easily done it's never easily done

that's that'll take quite a bit of time Yeah, you mentioned several times this this east property that may be a matter in the future. Where is that at on this map? Let me see if I can think. Don't have it. Um, it would be what my It'll work here. Here we go. This is Palace Chapel Road. There's Bill France. It's It's that area right in here. They're kind of on both sides of Bill France and north northwest of Pal Chapel Road. So between that location and this current request that is not that's all still county. Yes. And okay.

Yeah. And to annex that piece that's why there's we kind of separate costed that out separately. um to annex that area you would have to annex from Mona Road down Allen Ballard Road and then up Pal Chapel to to get to that area because we couldn't the simple way would be to come down Bill France Boulevard but it crosses the county line so we can't do that is this or is this not a part of our growth boundary

it is a part of our urban growth boundary the portion of it that is in within Rutherford county at least. So, some of this partial parcel, couple things. Some of these parcels extend over that county boundary or where everyone believes the county boundary to be. And then part of it is outside of our open growth boundary and actually in Murphy'sboro's open growth boundary. Um the extreme kind of eastern portion of this that's not included in any of these letters, but they've I think they've pretty much stated they have no intentions of serving this area. That is correct. Yes. as same as Wilson County, Lebanon as well, right?

I don't know about we've had some contact from folks in Wilson County. I know they've there's been some discussion. I think there is there already that industrial development there. I think Lebanon and Wilson County is trying to push at least Wilson County I shouldn't speak for Lebanon I guess but Wilson County folks have told me is they are trying to push the industrial development to this area because that's where they want they've had some issues in other parts of their county with some requests that became pretty controversial and whatnot and they they're trying to push most of the industrial development at least in Wilson County to this area. Hey Kevin, from Jefferson Pike up to the proposed I2 on Mona Road, what's that currently zoned?

It's um most of that is zoned RM in the county. Um I think some of the area along at the interchange the county has some additional I think on I know on the south side of Jefferson Pike there's some different zoning there. Some sort of industrial type zoning I believe. I don't know that anything on the north side of Jefferson is has anything other than RM. And that's a good point because I think leaving it non-ontigu contiguous would leave that open to the county to still do something there. So to their recommendation, if you're going to annex this in, you'd want to take it all in and make it

contiguous. That way at least uh it belongs to the town for their approval of things that would come following. Yeah. Does it look like there's some residential in the mix somewhere within there? There there's definitely some houses in that area. Um, for sure. Would it be prudent if this gets approved for this I2? You're getting a lot of heavy equipment traffic that they need to exit out through Bill France rather than come down. I think that's been discussed, has it not?

Yeah, that's that's certainly been discussed. I mean, we've in fact they the last page I think it's the last page of the what's in front of you there what they' submitted they kind of had a kind of at least a concept of how they would essentially make it really really difficult to make a right turn. Uh because the uh see if we got that. Yeah. Yeah. I think they were going to engineer it to where you could hardly even make a right with a tractor because this is let's see if I can get my this is Mona Road. is kind of at the bottom on this map. And so there there's there be this roadway here that comes north.

Um here's here's kind of the roadway I mentioned that kind of that north south roadway. But so yeah, that they've looked at that to try to make it at least as difficult as it can be for people to make to not make a right turn out of there. um you know so it's they're they're doing I guess what they can do at this point to to keep people from from using that road for that bridge that's on Mona Road substandard bridge now is T dot planning to make it strong enough for yeah my understanding is it's not even strong enough now to to carry take your life in your own hands crossing over the car now yeah maybe five to 10 I it's a pretty low low weight right now. Okay.

So, it's not substandard. It's not unsafe from the standpoint of you're going to was worried about it collapsing or anything like that. It's just substandard as far as the amount of weight you could carry. So, so that would also keep it redirected away from Pal Chapel Road. Well, that's Yeah, for this course this would if you're using Yeah. the non-turn anyway, right? It would it would not be directed primarily. It would be for this track the future tracks. We'd have to look at they would have to do something

if that ever comes in. We'd have to look at that separately to keep them utilizing Bill France. Um the concern we have had because we've seen it other places in town is sometimes if a driver has not been here before, he tells he goes wherever GPS tells him to go and we've had issues there in the past on in other locations. Florence Road. Lawrence Road is exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah.

So, that's the only concern I have is is I think once they're there, I think they can probably they can talk to the people there. They again, they're going to make it hard to turn right anyway. Um getting out, they would go back. My concern would be coming in. But that's I don't know if there's anything that us or the developer could do to prevent that really. So this is about 40% of what was before us before. Um roughly maybe a little less than 40 because the other tracks almost 600 acres is what's left. So this is about 225 or so.

And is this a financially viable project? I guess financially viable for the town or the develop for both. Yeah. Um, I think it's it's it's it's it's a stretch for sure. Le let's do this. Um, Dave, I hate to put you on the spot. Would you I think you could probably address Charles's question um concerning the town's position on viability. Sure.

Good evening. Excuse me. Good evening. Dave Sanuchi, town manager. Um, yeah, we've been trying to work with the developer on trying to make this as financially viable for the town as possible. Now, there may be some things that uh this commission and the town council have in terms of ideas that we haven't thought of yet. We're happy to uh review those as you look through the utility agreement because at at the core, the utility agreement really is the main crux of this. If you don't have sewer, you don't have a project, right? So, um, we've worked through, um, to how we can make this, um, at least get this in the best position possible, uh, for consideration, uh, by this by this body. And the way that it works and and Kevin has talked a little bit about it is that the annexation request before you as of right now is just the western portion. But if you really look at the utility agreement, it is contemplating annexation of that eastern portion at a point in time. It was made clear to the developer uh through our our discussions over the past six months and and up to this point that at this point that eastern portion, we're not ready to annex that yet. It's a far stretch for us. you can see the roadway issues that we have. It would trigger probably some additional resources related to public safety um because it's not going to be contiguous with that western portion that you see there. So, the way that it's structured is is that the utilities would be um ran up Mona Road um and over to both parcels. Um however the eastern portion would uh be charged at the outside town limit uh rate until such time as the town requires or requests that they annex that eastern portion and at that point they would have 90 days to come before uh before the town for for that

annexation request. So, we would control the annexation of of that eastern portion, which which allows us to kind of start where we're at with what you see here. And but I want to make I don't want to make any bones about it that the ultimate, you know, goal of the developer is to annex both the eastern portion and the western portion. So from a financial viability standpoint, I'll let the developer speak on his behalf as it relates to the financial vi viability of the project for him. But for the town, we've tried to put this in the the the least um cost inensive position for us from a service from a service perspective. And so we we believe that at least what we have here uh Mona Road is in in decent shape. You talked a little bit about what those improvements would be on that road. Um, so we are looking at doing what we would normally do if we need to go out there and fix potholes and and put up lighting and and street signs and those sorts of things. The lowhanging fruit we would do as we would do any annexation of an additional road. U major improvements are not contemplated at this time. I would also say that we are looking to as we have started our our pavement assessment project and that at least at the town council level we have talked about and funded that is starting to go underway and I've asked Mr. Rose would it be possible to do a pavement assessment of this area uh just to kind of get a feel for you know what the roadway looks like. So we're going to we're going to look at that over the next couple weeks. Um, we've just kicked off that project, so it'll take a little while for us to to figure that out to get the the pavement grading of of that road, but want to make sure we have that data. Uh, if and when this does come before town council. Um, I hope I've addressed your questions and if there's anything else that I can answer, I'd be happy to do so.

Yeah, Mr. Sanuji, thank I know you probably want to stay away from numbers as much as possible, but in an order of magnitude, right, what's the return on the capital outlay that the this the town is going to be putting out for a period of time? And when and I guess that's what you were probably getting at, Charles, right? Uh does it make sense for us to put that money out here when we have other priorities in the town elsewhere? And is there going to be an adequate cost recovery in the short term or near-term? Is it 5 years? Is it 20 years kind of? I think it's a long-term investment for both the town and the developer. Uh what we're hearing from the developer is this is probably a full buildout over 15 years, maybe give or take out to 20. Um so

just this portion? No, that would that include the entire development as well.

Uh so so that this the town would not see that tax revenue obviously for quite some time now. Um, we're not building out the utilities and we've made that clear. And we would also recoup the impact fees that uh Mr. Riggsby discussed as well as any tap fees. We've talked about that. Now, there'll be offsets if the tap fees if we need to run like a just as an example. I don't know the numbers here. We needed to run a 12-in line for the growth of that area, but the requirement of that development is a 6-in line. we would offset those those tap fees as we have done in the past for other developments as well. So, I don't have any real hard numbers for you. What I can tell you is that the um the capital infrastructure uh burden is on the developer um and it certainly allows for um future growth within this area um at any time in which the town council and planning commission decided that it was appropriate. Uh the other thing that I will mention is that um we have we've looked at you know the costs and done a pretty significant plan of services document for you. I think a little bit more robust a lot more robust than what we've done in the past uh based on the magnitude of this project. Well, the developer is going to have to invest a significant amount for the utility construction.

That's correct. So, the developer is willing to frontload this project, keep the town's burdens at a lower amount initially until phase two comes in. Then we're gonna then we're we've already got the infrastructure in. Now, we're going to switch over to the other side of the road.

That's correct. And and you may or may not know, but I think this is why they were seeking um almost a parallel process with the county. I'm hoping to get that annexation uh from the county as kind of a base zoning until they could annex into the town. They have um at least verbally committed that they fully intend to annex uh in into the town if if so approved. Obviously something that they can discuss in more detail and verify to you. So if this were to make approval through us, we can have some assurity that the west side will be coming through the town as well.

Yeah. Like Mr. Peach to appine on that one, but I I think we've shored that up in utility agreement. Yeah. They they covenant that upon becoming contiguous that they will consent to annexation. Okay. There was discussion initially when this first came out, obviously the fire station, and I think you mentioned something about maybe a substation for PD. Is that still necessary? Uh substation for PD? Probably not, only because there's a substation uh place there at the new fire station out there on Jefferson right now.

Okay. So, the building of the fire station is on the town. Building of the fire station would be on the town. Donation of the land and potentially uh site approval by the town subject to site approval by the town. Of course, I mean the topography and so forth, right? Yes. They had to move to another site. Are there additional options? There may be some additional options. I think we'd probably want to keep it on a main road. Um and I'd work with the fire chief on and and the developer of course on where we could put that. Traditionally though, we see costs for the build of the of a of a fire station funded through impact fees.

So that would be something that one count fees the other. Yeah. Yeah. The the one that we just built was all funded through impact fees and part of the sales from the land there sewage land. So was not, you know, out of our budget or out of our cash reserves really.

So Dave, with this on the I think you and I might have talked about this already and for public consumption, I guess with this going on as well as us looking out the west side corridor for sewer system at some point in the not too distant future. Um, how do you feel about all that coming in together sort of combined with the ex the expenses of all that I guess? Sure. Well, from an expense standpoint, obviously it's relatively minimal for for the acquisition of the easements that are necessary for the for to get the sewer out there. Um, of course, Army Corps could could change that, but um you you've heard the estimates. Um, however, from a resource perspective, um, we've got, I think about 120 easements to acquire out there on the, uh, is it about 120 that we have going out to for the Lynwood project?

I think that's right. Lynwood. Yes. Yeah. Like not on this one, but So, it's about 120. So, we've got our work cut out for us and the workload is is is pretty pretty intense for that project. um less of an ease of an acquisition out here, but um but it is it is going to uh put additional workload obviously on us. Um we'd want to evaluate that if if so approved and if we needed to bring in temporary resources to assist us through this project, CI or whatever it may be, um we probably want to look at that.

We're already in uh acquisition phase or at least playing out down the roadway. Um, do we have you have rough timeline? I I've heard a couple things, right? 2 years, 15 years. I've heard several things about the buildout, but what is the timeline for the town's effort of is is that going to how is it going to dovetail with what we're doing at Al Road from a timeline perspective? I'm thinking about more the staff's workload. Yep. Yeah, that's I think we got about a two-year project. I have utilities here, right? Right here. Okay. So, if I could, I'd like Mark to address that. I think he'd probably be more appropriate to talk about the timeline with the two projects going on.

Hey, Mark. Mark Partner, assistant utilities director. Uh, are you Steve? Are you are you asking about the easement acquisition timeline for? Well, I'm just asking if with that ongoing and starting already, if this were to get approved and continue on down its path, obviously there's going to be some overlap of you're going to have a lot of your staff focused on the Lynwood project and then this one right behind it or running at the same time. How is that going to impact your staff and your workload?

It's going to be significant that because right now we're just beginning the initial stages of easement acquisition for Lynwood right now and that count is now up around 130 easements where we're at. Um now on this job with with um the Mona Road, we'll we've got to restart the design. So the design's going to going to delay the timeline a little bit. Once we get that figured out with us and CUD on the water, sewer, and gas, then we'll start down the path of of easement acquisition. Uh so probably about I would guess about halfway through the process of getting the easements for Lynwood the Mona the Mona Road job is going to kick off as far as easement acquisition goes.

Do you feel like you guys can handle it or like he said do you think we'll have to bring in additional CI or assistance? Uh we're we're as far as CI, yes. With as far as construction inspection, um we're we're gonna probably use CI on Lynwood since it's the bigger job. Um I think my staff can handle this one. Um of course, there's a couple lift stations in this one uh that will use some of the staff from the sewer plant as well to inspect that. Uh so I guess it will kind of be flipped. CI will be Lindwood and organic staff will be for Mona Road. Okay.

How we getting the sewer line from across 840? There's there's already two dry casings underneath 840 that are just north of the intersection. One casing will be used for the sewer force man. The other casing will be used for the high pressure gas. Fortunately, the foresight to sleeve it was there. That's okay. Okay. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Um, go ahead, David. You have any Are you good? Does anybody Let's move on to Jeff if you'll talk to us a little bit about the agreements. Well, between Dave, Kevin, and Mark, it's about all covered. Are you good?

They're all attorneys. So, yeah. Uh unless you have any questions, you know, for the purpose of planning commission, it's obviously going to be a lot more questions with in council session because they're the ones actually signing the agreement. Um but for plan of services, I believe they've kind of covered the h how and uh how and when and or what. But if you have any questions on that, I can I can answer that. But I think uh Kevin did a good job summarizing uh what we're annexing and how we're getting the services out there. Um and so and you're comfortable with the agreement that you've been involved with, the town's been involved with as far as the sewer agreement?

Yes, we we've got an agreement that we're going to present. Well, you've had there before you obviously. And then we'll see how council feels about it. obviously my my client uh how they how they feel uh but uh we've worked on a negoti negotiated for about I don't know six months something like that and so we believe we've got a something that the council can at least consider so you're not anticipating any changes to this except for if there's a council request no further changes until council reviews that's correct okay and I'm assuming Hillwood would is feels the same way which we'll ask them properly. So short like that.

Okay. All right. Um we do have a I'm assuming we have representatives or a representative from Hillwood here. We think the council council I'm sorry old life commission may have some questions. So if I can have somebody come up and give us your name and address please.

Good evening. Paul Ranky with Hillwood, 6410 Popular Avenue. Appreciate your time this evening. I think you guys have done a great job covering everything. Um really this is picking up where we left off in May when we were here before you and there were a lot of really good discussion then about the project, this being the right area for this type of use and so forth. And the two main takeaways that we walked out of the room with that night in in May really was, hey, get this utility agreement done and the town needed some time to figure out plan of services. Both of those things are there, which is why we're confident to be in front of you here again tonight. But as Kevin mentioned, really the plan has not changed. The context of the plan has not changed. We've just simplified it uh and reduced it to focus on contiguous annexation which is our intent. We have no intent of non-ontiguous annexation. There's a lot of red tape that goes into that referendum and etc. So we're focused on contiguous annexation. I I did a great job of explaining the purpose of that earlier. So for us tonight really I just wanted to reiterate that back in May we had a lot of conversations too about our level of commitment and that is unchanged. If anything it's probably strengthened because of the time and resources that we've put into this since then. So I'm going to keep it short and sweet like that. We have many members of our team here tonight that can probably better answer maybe any technical questions you have from the economic impact analysis to engineering or legal, but we're here to answer any questions you might have. I'll leave it at that.

Well, I think there were some questions up here concerning the economics behind it because there was, you know, what the town potentially um would invest versus what's the return. So, I'm interested to hear someone speak to the economic impact that that uh you're suggesting for this project. Absolutely. Lana, could you give us your name and address, please?

Sure. My name is Lana Suit. The address is 97 Director's Row, Jackson, Tennessee. Is there any specific questions that you have about the analysis? I think it would be I mean we're looking at it but you've got a lot of folks here and and people at home that are looking at that. So I think if you could just walk us through that. Sure. Um a question. They have the full analysis. Do they have it or should we should we provide that or

I'll ask I didn't know how much of the information that you had received about the analysis. I know you had the onepage summary because that was a part of the packet. I think that that's all we had. All we had all we were given was the onepage summary.

Well, you'll be happy to know that you have the most important numbers before you, but uh because it is a several pages of numbers. So, it is a little dense to get through. So, let's just talk about the impact and we'll look at the um the summary, but there's a few key things that I would like to talk about as well. Um, we looked at this as a buildout over that 15-year period, but we looked at a 25- year period so that we could see what it looked like after everything was fully built out over after 10 years of operation. So, the numbers here don't necessarily line up exactly with the way the property is annex and what you're talking about tonight because you have to think about it. We were looking about it as an entire project. So, the numbers that I give you are at full buildout, what that looks like annually, but we can go back uh after I saw the changes that had come about as far as the way that the property was going to be annexed. I I dug in today and got a couple of other numbers that I would like to share with you this evening. But, um the first number that you see there on the annual impact is $1.3 billion. And when you see that number, you go, "Wow, that's a really big number. What does that mean?" But really that number is just the total dollars that flow through the local economy over the course of a year. So this is the output from the industry that are located there. This is the spending of wages. This is the supplier activity. So there's a lot of things that go into that number. So just wanted to mention what that meant because a lot of people go, "Wow, that's a big number." The next thing that you see are the jobs supported, the direct and the indirect. Again, that looks like a huge amount of employees, but you have to remember the size of this complex when it's fully built out. It'll have somewhere between 2500 and 3,000 employees on that campus. The rest of

those will be indirect jobs that are supported not just in Smyrna, but in all of Rutherford County. And so those are suppliers and uh could be contractors that operate um you know uh trucking uh all different types of activity that support the operations and the downstream spending from the activity that goes on at the campus. So that number looks large but it is confined to Rutherford County. indirect sales and property tax. That's a number that we know that we look at based on all the activity and the spending basically of the wages. Those are generated. Those are a little harder to track because those don't come into you directly from this property or from an activity that you can track. But we do know historically in Rutherford County how much other local tax uh you receive based on how much sales tax is generated. So that number is just a placeholder there for some indirect one that's uh important that I'd like to look at is the direct sales tax. Now in the first part of this there's not any uh commercial activity there. No retail or hotel development that's down the road. But in this first phase you really wouldn't realize that directly. But after year 10, when some of the other commercial activity is introduced, then the city will actually be capturing sales tax revenue from those operations. And so that number of 2 million is what it looks like when it's fully built out and everything is fully operational. The city would realize roughly $2 million annually in sales tax. So that's money, you know, how that's spent and where that goes into the general fund. So just a little information there. So, are you suggesting that's going to be from the C2 component of this? Is that where you're you're I guess the

Thank you. the sales tax, but the brunt of it or the majority of it is going to come from once the C2 is developed. Yes, that's correct. Yeah, because you wouldn't think that industrial would historically generate That's right. That's why I said it would be after year 10. It would be in what I would be now calling phase two of the development, year 10 and beyond. And that leads into a question I had too, Tim. the uh he mentions the commercial part would come later. Can you guess how much later? Because that's a tax revenue for us. I'm going to let Paul address, right? Paul, can you tell them probably get letting the cat out of the bag here?

No, no, you're fine. Good question, Mark. So, the timing of the commercial piece is really going to be triggered by the utility extensions, right? Getting utilities up into that area will trigger the demand for that to be developed for commercial uses. So, we're conservatively projecting, like Lana said, 10 years from now from from project start, but utilities will be brought there much quicker than that. And so, there's a chance that that could come online much faster than 10 years. Thank you. Yes, sir.

So, so that I understand. So, when we're looking at this one-page summary, we've got annual impact, which is qualified by at full operation. Is is that full operation starting year 10 or is that because because obviously if you just do the math uh for example the indirect sales tax right it's only at 12.4 4 million annually. It only takes eight years to get to 107 million. So what about the other 17 years, right? So that what what's the logic behind that? There is actually a buildout phase over that as well. It wouldn't all come in in year 10. It would be phased in over another, I believe, six years, some five years. I think it's 15 till everything is fully built out. Gotcha. Okay.

Um really I'll mention the hotel, but that's not really a hotel tax. It's not really something that's of great interest tonight. Again, that's down the road after year 10, but those are actually direct dollars that come to the city or excuse me, the town of Smyrna. But one that's most important is at the bottom of the page and maybe I should have started at the bottom and work my way to the top, but the property tax is the one that's really important because those are really the ones that offset the services that have been talked about tonight. And annually when it's fully built out, it will produce roughly 70374 mil uh,000 in taxes annually. Right now that property of course for the city of excuse me, town of Smyrna is is is non-existent because it's not a part of the city. But when it is annexed and everything is fully developed, you're looking at roughly 700,000, a little more um each year in property tax. So that goes a long way in providing and offsetting those costs of services. And when you couple that with the direct sales tax, you can see that now those numbers are getting pretty significant and what the city would realize when this is fully built out. So I'll stop there. I've talked a lot. You can see that the next one looks over the 20-year period of time, the 25-year period. And one thing that I'll mention about the 25-y year impact that actually is not taking one year at full buildout and multiplying by 25. This actually starts from year one when the first building is constructed and it's a cumulative total over that 25-y year period. So it is a conservative number based on the 15-year buildout.

So really that annual impact is really kind of the number at year 15. That's correct. Okay. Anything else on the second phase, the larger phase? I forget how much of that was industrial. How much is that commercial percentages? You're referencing the eastern future eastern portion. That's all industrial. That's all. Okay. So, that and that's what's factored into these numbers here. Yes, sir. Okay. Other questions? Any other questions concerning economics? Thank you.

So, one of the benefits, correlary benefits of this is it opens up the east side of West Jefferson in 840. Um, is there any interest that's been indicated in I mean, we've had a there's a couple other uh developers looking at the kind of that northern in this immediate area. Um, or more of an industrial type development. Um, as far as along Jefferson Pike along Mona Road, we've not had anyone approach us in that area at this time. in our vision for that area is industrial primarily.

Um I think certainly more commercial near the interchanges. Um the the retail and the hotels and things like that. Um and I think in some areas you may end up with some uh could potentially um depending on how things build out you could have some some residential in that area but I think the majority of that would be non-residential I think in some nature. Do you feel that industrials uh as drawn here and as what we're looking at is appropriate?

I think yeah this proposal it matches our land use plan for that area and I mean it's you're near a NASCAR track and a lot of industrial area on the Wilson County side of the line. I mean I think it it makes sense from the the land use plan standpoint for sure. And it's just kind of out of the the frame here where what you're referring to as far as the industrial that's already out there. I think several of of us at one point in time have gone out there and Sure. and looked at the industrial that's already out there. It's it's it's a big complex. Yeah. And I mean honestly what Wilson County has done all the way down to Highway 109 pretty much

pretty much with the traffic. It's this same exact design for the A40 corridor for many miles. The A40 corridor is primarily an industrial corridor. Yeah. Charles, and to your point, with those sleeves under 840 and with utilities going in. I would be surprised if it didn't develop, you know, sooner rather than later. Yes. Yeah. I mean, honestly, the the expense that this developer is looking to lay out to get sewer and utilities to their property, there's probably not a lot of developers that would be willing to take that on.

Um, so there's probably quite a few folks watching this to see when it's going to be there so they can take advantage of it as well, I'm assuming. May I ask Paul another question? I I understand that another voice in the room obviously are the county citizens that live in and around the area here in regards to this specific west area. H have how have the conversations been with the community out there and have there been agreements made outside of anything that we're seeing today um in regards to the development?

Sure. Yeah, appreciate the question. So, as was mentioned, I think Dave mentioned earlier, our pursuit of zoning in the county and and like we would normally do with any project of this size is a a good level of community engagement and involvement. So, up to this point, we've hosted three neighborhood meetings, had a number of individual conversations with folks um in this area. As it relates specifically to this western tract, I we haven't gotten any com we haven't received any comments or concerns specifically to this tract. Now, the eastern track, there's still some work to be done there to make sure that we're being good neighbors uh as far as layout of buildings and setbacks and buffers, and we'll continue to work on that. But for this western piece, we haven't received any concerns yet.

Okay. Well, and I I I think Matt to your point uh and Paul you touched on it, what's going to be important is making sure that we have uh buffers that are as we have you know regs in place and uh for the buffers when you're going from industrial uh to a residential then I think the second one is traffic and if I'm understanding correctly uh the heavy traffic that would be associated with this is going to be routed uh to Bill France not Mona Yes, correct. That's correct.

I will say just one other thing because we haven't specifically talked about traffic too much yet, but um traffic studies would be required at site plan stage and so there certainly we would expect at some point there's going to be improvements required signals whatnot along Bill France things like that and so there's they're well aware they we talked to them about that already. I just want to bring that to the to the commission's attention. Certainly, we would anticipate if this is approved, u there would be those studies would be done and there would be some improvements made within within Mona Road or I mentioned the the road the new roadway, the parallel kind of a frontage road type concept along 840 as well as within Bill France as well. So,

I did uh have a conversation with our county commissioner, Rick Call, who represents this area, and I think he had heard from quite a few of the neighbors, and I think uh what Paul has has stated is is pretty much in line with what I heard from Rick. Um the eastern piece, there's some discussion about where buildings are going to be located and property contiguously, how close to their property it's going to be, that kind of thing. But on this western side, there wasn't a lot of discussion. Um, I did look at the concept that was in the packet and obviously it's a concept. It's not the site plan, but you know, it does initially they've got 50oot buffers. They've got, you know, a lot of the things that we would expect to see in a site plan. So, um, that all of those kind of issues, buffering and, you know, things like, you know, uh, open space and aesthetics, that'll all be site plan conversations that will

they will be site plan conversations and and I wanted to bring that up because, uh, we don't normally do any approvals on concepts, right? So, we we've got a uh, a site plan to look at if and when this goes through, right?

That'll come later. But, uh, to Steve's point, I've heard some from some folks. I know that Rick has Rick and I saw Rick a while ago. He told me he had. You've obviously talked to Rick and so specifically the Anglers Retreat subdivision. You guys have talked to them. I know there's been some dialogue and um I think I'd like to make sure that we are if we do anything here that we make sure that we're good neighbors to them. I don't know about having a a warehouse 50 ft from me or the the noise pollution, the light pollution, all those things that come with shipping and containing and so forth. So, I'd really like for when you guys do a site plan to consider that uh more so than what you might expect us to look at and approve. In other words, is 50 feet enough? I don't know. You know, if it's 100 feet, if it's a pocket park. Uh we just finished one over there off Jefferson Pike and they were kind enough to come back in and give us a walking trail to connect to our greenway and so forth. So ideas we haven't done before.

And I do know that we we get to look at it and decide. Sure. In a few days. I know that we did uh procure a uh aerial apparatus at the new fire station pike to be able to handle that higher elevation. And I believe I don't know if Chief's here. I think that we got some representative. I think you're you're definitely capable of handling 60 ft out of that fire station, right? Yes, sir. Yeah. Anything else for Paul? Thank you.

Okay. Lots of discussion. Good discussion. Uh any other questions, comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Jeff, one question on the motion. Does our motion need to include any um discussion around the agreement? No, you're just the agreement gives you the basis of how you realize that this is why we can annex because it's part of the plan of services for planning commission. Be totally different ballgame account. Yep. Understood. I just didn't know. All right. I'll make a motion that we approve the request as presented with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second?

Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. I think it's an opportunity for the council to look at this as well. By doing this, I think the council gets to have some input and I think that'll be valuable as well. So, well, they they've had the benefit of listening to a lot of good discussion tonight and I think there could be some additional certainly discussion and questions from this. Right. Okay. Motion in a second. Uh, anyone else?

All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I opposed. This motion is approved. Next, under annexation, zoning and plan of service request, Hamilton Development LLC, West Jefferson Pike and Hickory Grove Road annexation and C2 and I1 zoning.

Yeah, this is a request that the this commission has already acted on in a different form. Um it was uh it's an annexation request uh for several tracks of land um that total about 179 over 179 acres. Um I think it's about 10 tracks total. Uh proposed zoning is C2 and I1. Um and so I kind of go through my comments and then kind of relay why it's in front of you. Again, uh surrounding zoning is the PUD which is the cornerstone of Smyrna PUD which is across the street uh in town and then RM and CS in Rutherford County. Um the uh land use plan um for the portion of this request along Jefferson Pike is the A40 gateway character area which is similar to what we just looked at which is hospitality, retail, restaurant uh high high density residential and industrial warehousing uses. Uh this extends from about 400 feet to about 1,200 feet off of West Jefferson Pike. Uh depending on the location for the portion of these properties that are south and west of that designation, low density residential development would be supported. Uh major thoroughare plan does designate Jeff Pike 266 as a principal arterial. Um one their con one most recent concept plan. there is there's a parcel that's not in part of this request that they kind of do show a little bit of development on so and kind of crossing that so they'll have to amend their plan uh to take that out but this is that's just a concept plan it does not in there this is not a pud this is just a C2 and I1 request um so they'll need to tweak that obviously when it comes back to us but um this is the one that was just mentioned that they are proposing um agree greenway to be included as a part of their development. Uh primarily on

core property that completely surrounds this pro project. U but somewhat as well on their their site as well on a little bit part of it. Um again this is still an annexation as well. Um and this would be all services would be provided by the town on this one. um that you've already had the public hearing and and voted on that already, but nothing's changed with that since you looked at it before. I think that's that's all I got. Yeah, as I recall at the uh commission meeting, Steve asked for additional

commercial and and then from viewing the the council meeting, I saw that was expanded. It was beyond what was and from a council uh perspective it it was what you guys asked for. Correct. Yeah. We just added commercial and that's what this is doing. Okay. Just accepted. Questions for Kevin or staff on this. I move to approve staff comments. Have a motion.

52 lots 21.04 acres. It is part of the Hidden Springs PRD. Um, we had a few comments. Most of these are standard comments regarding signage. Um, 52 lots, 21 point. Um, and number seven is a comment from CUD. At comment number six, u regarding the addition of a temporary turnaround at the northern end of Belton Way, they have shown that. So, that has been taken care of and can be removed. So, with those remaining is a comment from CUD. com comment number six regarding the addition of a temporary turnaround at the northern end of Belton Way. They have shown that so that has been taken care of and can be removed. So with those remaining comments um been a long arduous process. I'm glad to see it coming to a final plat. Uh I I do want to um applaud the developer as well as the homeowners uh for staying with it and continuing to work through issues. At times it was easy and at times it was not. But uh

all those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I opposed. This motion is approved.

Uh next uh we are on to site plans. um cracked on the corner of Old Nashville Highway and Rocky Fork Road. Uh proposed for development with a retail and convenience store with fuel station, one retail suite. Uh numbers are a little bit different from what you received in your packets last week. Uh the numbers received this week is 1,150. So an increase of 10 square ft for the convenience store uh for the retail center rather and then the convenience store went up to 4,1572 ft of landscaping. Applicant is proposing for about 10,000 square ft. So meeting that requirement. Park required of 45 spaces and they're showing for 47. That does require two handicap parking spaces which they are showing for. The landscape plan shows maple trees lining the perimeter of the property along primary materials and the metal does not exceed 10% of the entire building in order to meet our design requirements. Additionally, the elevations will need to be revised tweaked a little bit in order to meet the Union Springs overlay architecture requirements. U standard comments one through enough which it can be handled at the grading and drainage plan after goes through planning commission. So, as a result of that, staff did feel confident enough to remove comment number one. Uh, comment numbers uh two and three are both utilities comments that will remain at this time. Let utilities revise those as needed. Number four, electric transformers, utility pads, water meters, gas meters, and electric meters are required to be screened for public.

It's It's in that It's in that right here.

It's in that right there. right there. Okay. So, as a result, that comment will remain. Comment number five, the sidewalks adjacent to the parking stalls are required to be 7 ft wide to accommodate a vehicle overhang. A developer has requested this requirement to be wel 2t off the 5ft sidewalk so that the cars will not overhang onto the 5ft sidewalk. Um, this property for reference is about 130 to 140 ft in depth. So it is rather narrow site by the time you factor in additional parking drive aisles and the building itself starts to fill up the space. The submitted plan does not meet those requirements with regards to the requirement of landscaping on the foundation of the building. The developer has requested this requirement to be waved. The reason is this property causes a geometric hardship because it is so shallow in depth. The building being shown is 40 foot in depth with no room to spare. Cutting down 3-foot to allow for a three-foot foundation planting strip will cause severe hardship on the interior layout of the building. For a solution to this issue, we are showing in number seven. They were missing out on some the capping around the rear of the building. It was shown on the other three sides. They have shown that accordingly. So, comment number seven can be removed. Building number eight, the building architectural elevations do not meet requirements of the Union Springs overlay with regards to the rear facade. The facade of the building is required to be divided into distinct sections, no more than 40 ft in width and each section taller than it is shown on the other to dress it up a little bit so it doesn't look as much like the rear of a building. Um, so that is behind common number eight. And then comment number nine, the uh materials didn't match what was materials shown on the building on the canopy. Uh, they have revised that accordingly. So comment number nine can be removed as well at this time. Uh so with that we had staff comments 1 7 and

nine all removed and staff does questions for Mitch on this uh the rear um buffering. I realized that this technically uh butts C2 correct but it is a campground with people camping almost right up to the property line. Um they're showing a five foot landscape strip is all they're showing and about six or eight trees along the back there. Um does does that meet our buffering requirements because it's C2? It is C2 abing C2. In theory, you wouldn't necessarily need a buffer for say the order. It just goes down the hill from the old Nashville Highway.

The picture on the screen there, you can see how close the campers are to the property. Are they proposing a fence in addition to landscape? No. No, they're not proposing a fence. No. Well, if you put a fence up, if you did, they're going to want a gate, you know, not used there. Okay. So, the reason behind the request uh for the sidewalk and the uh what was the other? The landscaping was be basically because it's going to reduce the square footage of the store. Correct. Correct.

I don't know that I have a problem with it, but I just got to ask the question. The upper left corner of the property has an left and right turn going across a five lane. I know they can go out to the median and continue up the hill, but that's all sidewalks put in and everything that that curb cut was put in. This is actually a relocation of that to be further away. We were trying to get it as far away from the intersection as possible and that's why it's where it's at. Um, so we I think Mr. King looked at it as kind of the best option

with that. I guess he he was okay with it as zone. Yes. Hey Mitch, what's the landscape plan the back of the building going along there? All that just white is that concrete or gravel or you're you're looking at the site plan page, not the landscape plan page up here. So in your plans up there, you do have landscape plan that does show the fifth sheet. Yeah. Of the site does show it is it is that Mr. Sullivan said there's several trees there, but they are they're not evergreen trees. You get any calls from the campground owners? No.

So, the the waiverss they requested is the sidewalk, the foundation, foliage or planting. Um, what else? That was too thought there was something related to the canopy. No, elevations are all good at this time. Well, for staff level at least. Um, okay. Yeah, we can still work on some of like rear elevation, but it was not a waiver per se. Yeah, the canopy elevations and the main building elevations, they had they were using different fillers of brick and whatever, and we asked them to match it, and that's what they they've got that fixed that kind of issue. So, all elevations meet design review.

It meets design review. The rear of the elevations are we felt like there could be some work done because they're supposed to kind of to kind of break it up. add some awnings or windows or something to kind of break up just so they just have a blank wall. And that stats recommendation as far as the design goes, right? Yes. Correct. Okay. If you don't like what they've done now, what would you be asking them to do? That's what I said just I mean we looked at some basically they kind just put the thin kind of columns in. Um again kind of breaking it up more. So w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w those columns out. Add some awnings over your back doors. Add create some depth.

Create some depth. You know, maybe some with some windows or some things like that. There's we've looked at there's some good examples in other communities around us that have that kind of what we were thinking in our heads if they we would be happy to meet with them to talk about directly if they have some questions. I'm sorry to repeat all that.

Yeah, there are some good examples of what we're talking about and some of the other communities around us that have had overlays longer than we have. you know, that sort of thing that we would be happy to to to meet with and the developer, the engineer, kind of go over that with them, kind of give them some some pictures of what we're talking about, not just a verbal. And this falls with within the overlay. Right. Correct.

I'm just concerned about doing a lot of waiverss in lie of especially if it's in a in an overlay area. Could you go through the sidewalk one more time?

Yeah. So, the sidewalk, the overlay requires 7 ft to help with that due to the width depth of the site. They show are showing wheel stops. So prevents that vehicle from overhanging onto that sidewalk that extra distance to get it back off the sidewalk so you don't have pedestrians walking in the middle. So we're staying at 5T or 7 ft on the sidewalk. It's 5T still. I believe

it would be a 5ft sidewalk. The idea behind it is you want to have at least 5 foot. You're if you don't have the wheel stops, you have the vehicles overhanging the sidewalk a couple feet. You want to have at least 5T for ADA purposes, ADA access along the sidewalk. You're not shrinking the ride of void for vehicles by adding those wheel stops and pushing the vehicles out into the still because your bumper you still have a little bit of space to add wheelheads in anyways. Yeah. It really to me it doesn't seem a lot different. Yeah. Right. You might as well just extend the sidewalk out to where the stops would have been and you're still in the same spot. But whichever

it does, what it does though is it it pushes your your 19 foot sidewalk, two foot into the drive aisle and that sort of thing. So it does affect that and that's why they've asked for it. Got it. And then three foot the last

with the topo this property has and it kind of slants back towards the campground as we talked. Would they have to raise this uh this elevation up dirt? Would they have to haul dirt in or what? is if you're pulling out onto that highway and you're sitting at a slant like this, is that automobile going to be level in order to pull out onto the highway? Are they going to be coming off of a slope? I mean, the grading what they're showing is is relatively within the parking lot is relatively level. does. It slopes back towards the back and it slopes towards Rocky Fork Road as far as but it's um it looks like they would be bringing in I don't know existing grades if I can find yeah roughly it looks like about a foot or so existing grades are like at 582 at or so at the road they're going to be So flat enough to make

to make an exit. Flat enough to make a safe exit. Yes. Okay. Yeah. There's not there's not an issue there as far as a real slope in an exit or anything like that. Yeah. They're showing the sidewalk at Old Nashville Highwayly 583 and the front of the building is 581 and a half. So it's only a foot and a half from Old National Highway to the front of the building. That drops six or seven more feet to the back. Yeah. Yeah. Once you get behind the building, it drops about five or six feet depending on the location from the back of the building to the property line.

Also, I guess where the canopy is looks like it's somewhat sloped as well. It's twoft drop from one side of the canopy to the other. Yeah. And can you can you describe the the drain the drainage again? And I mean with the the slope and the slant that's being described here, it seems as though all that water is going to go right into the campground. Is is that not what you guys saw when you went out there? They are showing pvious pavers out there underground detention. Um

based on what they're showing with their slopes, they're all that or most of it rather should be directed toward those pvious pavers to be contained underground. Um, as far as the actual terminology of flow and such, how that works, that's probably better question for public works to answer on that one. But, um, based on discussions with them today, they felt like what is remaining out there still today is a quite marginal as far as something that can definitely be worked through. Okay.

I think a lot of that canopy area that does slope towards Rocky Fork Road there is obviously they're looking to catch that. There's a pipe there that they would have a couple grates. They would catch that and and kind of go underneath and head back towards the drainage system at El National Highway. It's part of that canopy. engineers here if you have any questions please you think they may have I don't know if I know his engineers here u if you want to ask him anything the commission have anything for the agenda All right. Um, any other questions then for staff? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve. staff comments. Okay. And I think I think within the motion, uh, Mitch is asking specifically for directions in waivers. With or without the waivers. Yeah. Yeah. With or without the waivers. Yeah.

I would recommend without. Well, okay. You make that in your motion if that's how you feel. Could you review the waivers one more time? Yeah. So, there's two waivers that are being requested. The first one being the sidewalk widths from 7 ft as stay in the overlay to 5 ft and then the other one being the landscaping foundation planting around the building. Ken, is your motion still uh to approve with staff comments without the waiverss? Yeah.

Okay. I have a motion to approve with staff comments without the waiverss. Do I have a second? Uh second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving opposed. This motion is approved. Under site plans, we have In-N-Out Burger 999 Industrial Boulevard. Owner developer In-N-Out Burger Industrial Boulevard. This is the existing site of Hickory Falls. The proposed building uh existing building rather would be proposed to be demolished and site reconfigured with a drive-thru. Uh two drive-through lanes are shown with the ability to queue approximately 33 vehicles. The site layout shows a utilization of the existing access points with one off of Industrial Boulevard and one off of Team Boulevard. Uh both of these locations today are full ingress and egress points with no limited turning motions. Staff does have concerns regarding the overall traffic flow to access this site and in the immediate vicinity. The recently approved SS4A plan identified this location as an area to require further study for safety and pedestrian improvements. Vehicular use here in the site just over one acre is proposed and that would require 4,456 ft of landscaping. applicant is proposing for 15,62 square feet. Total parking required of 49 spaces and they're showing for 68. Uh last packets went out there were 63. So we have 68 now as part of this plan. Handicap parking requirement is three spaces and they're showing for those three spaces as well. The landscape plan shows a variety of shrubbery and trees lining both road frontages of Industrial Boulevard and Team Boulevard. Additional trees and shrubs are shown lining the western and southwestern property lines. Notable

trees on the landscape plan include two variations of palm trees. Staff does have concerns of the palm trees and their ability to survive in this climate zone found here in Mil Tennessee region. Architecture elevations show the building to be finished with mixture of ephus, brick and glazing. Overall elevations for the building show a finish percentage of 54.74% ephus, 33.48% brick, and 6.52% glazing. Design review does require a minimum of 50% of the entire building to be finished with primary materials. As design, this building is approximately 40% primary materials. Additionally, design review requires at least 75% primary materials for any wall facade visible from a public street and none of the elevations shown meet that requirement as presented tonight. Standard comments 1 through 7 all remain at this time. Staff comment one uh we asked them to coordinate the construction of the to of the modifications to the access to team boulevard with the adjoining property owner. Um come number two, a plat will be required to dedicate public rightway along Industrial Boulevard to show a sidewalk completely within the public rightway. They have shown that on the plans uh more or less that's going to remain as a comment letting them know that a plat will still be required if this is approved here tonight. Comment number three, uh four, three, four, and five have all been addressed sufficiently and can be removed. Comments six and seven are both waiver requests by the applicants. Comment number six, the architectural elevations do not meet design review. We did ask them please revise that as noted above with the uh primary materials not meeting our design review requirements. Their waiver request is to leave it as it is presented here tonight. In come number seven, we asked them to

revise the dumpster enclosure to use only primary materials which would match the building. Stuckco is not a primary material. Uh they are requesting to leave it as it is presented here tonight as well. Uh using a mixture of both stucco and uh brick. Comment number eight. Staff has concerns regarding the recommended traffic improvements as the proposed improvements seem to work to benefit this property but not the area in its entirety. At a minimum, staff recommends relocating the access to Industrial Boulevard to be directly across from Movie Row. The town will be undertaking a study for the area along Industrial Boulevard from the intersection with Sam Ridley Parkway to the town limit consistent with the recommendation of the safe streets for all plan. This study would evaluate all access points on the corridor and make recommendations for improvements. Comment number nine. Uh please verify that the varieties of palm trees shown on landscape plan will survive in Miltas plant hardiness zone. uh staff does not believe that these trees will survive. The applicant did respond to that comment. They said they believe it will survive and they will replace whatever tree species that do die as a result being planted. Uh so with that, we would like that comment to remain. Number 10, the zoning ordinance and recorded plat show two different minimum se building setback lines. The most restrictive shall apply in that instance. The required minimum front building setback line in the C2 district is 35 feet. So the required setback along Industrial Boulevard is 35 feet. We do ask them to show that correctly. As shown, the building is in violation of the zoning ordinance for the setback. The applicant is proposing to request a variance from the board of zoning appeals after approval of the site plan by the planning commission. Um those variances, we're looking at a overhang for the driveway along Industrial Boulevard uh

about 10 ft off of the rightway. Proposed rightway is what they're showing for that uh drive-thru. And the building itself sitting about 27 foot off of the proposed rideway line. So just to give you an idea of what the setback variance request they would be seeking looks like. So, uh, all that to be said, comments 3, four, five have all been addressed and the remainder of the comments will remain. Staff does recommend denial, uh, due to the list of those outstanding comments and then the concerns that we do have about those comments.

Uh, questions for Mitch on this. Mitch, do you know why they do not wish to meet design review on I would I'm going to defer to the applicant on that to speak on that and uh let them let you know why. I mean I can tell you what they told us is this is this is a little bit of an upgrade from from what they had they typically what their initial plan was. Uh but that this is the building they build and this is their standard and this is what they want to build. So that they, you know, okay,

uh, that's what they told us. I mean, that their owner, this is her, she loves the building. She loves the design of the building and she doesn't want to change it. So that's again, it is it is more brick than what they initially showed us, but it still does not meet designer review.

Well, I understand branding, you know, I do. I mean, I understand branding all across the country. people have a certain look that they they're more of a west coast business and um they're relocating here. I think the owners reloaded in relocated in the Franklin area and they they want to make a go of it here. Um my my issue with the design review is there's anything that's fallen under design review in the past, we've made every entity that came into that area

meet it. And it's not that I don't understand branding here, but I do understand that we've been very consistent making every other business work with our design review. So that's kind of the issue personally that I have. And uh I I will say, you know, there's been a lot of comments on on this from every angle you can look at anymore. I mean, social media, media, and so forth. the the fact is that Hickory Falls I I don't know uh I don't think they plan to stay in business. Let me just say that. I don't know when that looks like for them and I don't want to speak for them. And I believe uh this company has bought that property.

Am I correct? So, they're now leasing the property back from the In-N-Out ownership and at some point they're going to leave. At some point they're going to and so I think as a Smyrna resident I can speak for a lot of Smyrna residents that is not a that to them it's not a great idea. We all love Hickory Falls and always have. That said, Hickory Falls is making the decision to probably close shop and uh retire and I don't blame anybody for want to do that. Um, another issue I have is we have seen in that uh pocket a traffic quagmire and that's got to be fixed in some way. I don't care who takes that building over or who builds a new building there. And as a town, we have a responsibility to answer some of that as well. I mean, it's not just whoever that's going to put a building on that lot. It's not just their issue, it's our issue. And so, aligning that across from Movie Row seems to make sense. My question would be, is that something we could potentially see a signal at?

Potentially. Well, I mean, I think that that potentially I guess yes. Um, what we would recommend is and and Mr. Rose is here and he can speak to this a little bit, but we're looking at basically from Sam Ridley to the town limits along Industrial Boulevard looking at everything what needs to be done. Obviously, it's going to focus primarily on from Sam Ridley to roughly the the main signal that goes into the the town park development there. That's where the majority of the issues are. Access management, signalization, all those things come into play. They have to be looked at. Yeah. You try to take a left coming out of uh try to take a left coming out of Movie Road today.

It's not going to happen. Team I think Team Boulevard's worse. Both of them right behind Starbucks there is one of the worst intersections in the town. We have to be cognizant of that whether this happens or not. We've got to do something over there. Right. And that's and that's what Yeah. We're looking again, we're looking to have someone come on bringing someone on board.

I've talked to Dave a little bit about it and I know that's the plan, but uh I just think that's paramount the that road and that backup uh anymore when you get it. Maybe that'll change a little bit. You control that lighting signaling a little bit at the at the main intersection, but right now it's just it's a big mess. And so that's not a knock on In and Out in their application here. That's not what I'm trying to say. But what I'm saying is it's time to look at that little pocket right there. And I'm glad we're getting ready to do that. The the U me the memorandum that we have um this packet that this is some traffic design

traffic design to Charles that the town is looking at doing. That's what this is representing. This is that is um we and we talked with In-N-Out about and asked them to bring forth some ideas on some solutions and my battery is going a little um about and that was some of the recommendations that they made. Uh we reviewed those and we feel like it would be best if we look at it globally because we think those improvements probably do help them but not necessarily everybody. And so we want to be sure it affects we look at something that helps everyone.

And so that's why we wanted to get kind of an independent look. Yeah. Okay, when I looked through that, I just saw there were quite a few different options and some of them were right turns only, some of them were medians, uh, some of them were not many changes at all. Um, so I wasn't real sure what the several ideas. Yeah. There. Yeah. I was like, some of these might help and some of these might not do a thing. Right.

Right. And that's again, we wanted to make sure that we looked at it. We want to make sure and and naturally they're looking at their site and we want to look at the whole area and make sure we've looked at the whole area and make it work for the whole area. Safety for everyone in that area, not just their site. So So we we um passed the current design review about two years ago. Is that right, Kevin? Actually, I went back and looked because I couldn't remember myself. It was about a little over four years ago. June of 21. Since we've passed that, I know specifically along the Sam Davis corridor, but we have not Sam Ridley,

I mean Samley Sam Davis, Sam Ridley corridor, we have not wavered on the requirements. No, we've we've required 75%. So all of those restaurants, McDonald's and uh Redstone Financial and Canes and Waterburger and Andes Sprouts just approved last Sewards Landing Design all of those meet to meet that. That's correct. Not trying to be argumentative, but they have branding as well. So yeah. No, good point. But I understand where they're coming from as well. That's their I went by It doesn't hurt to ask us. I I went by the uh the one in Murphy'sboro.

The one in Murphy'sboro. Um and they're using I think uh kind of the white brick

brick. I don't know what it's called. Coronado stone wire cut brick maybe. Um they're using that and their design and that building looks very similar to I think what they're proposing for Smyrna. Um I did reach out to Murphy'sboro planning and to Mayor McFarland and ask about their percentages and um they did grant them a waiver. Um they were a little below their design for the avenues. Um but the percentages that Murphy'sboro said they received versus the percentage what we're seeing are a little different. Ours are a little lower. Um but um just so you know that the building is very similar um to brick content and design to what they're designing here. But

Mitch, remind me how short they are in percentages. Um quite significantly. Um about 35%. Yeah, they're 35% short or they're at 35. Well, I guess it's 70. So they're about 40% They're 40% brick and glass. And we require 75% brick, stone, and glass. because this all four sides of this are going to be visible from a public street. So that's it. The 50% rule of the whole building really doesn't apply here because everything's visible from the public street. So

you know we were out at IC actually went to their restaurant in the link district in Las Vegas and it's it's not ephus so I don't know what it is. It's painted brick block something. But uh and it's a sort it's sort of a storefront. It's not a freestanding restaurant. But uh I know they can do it. I hope they can do it because I'd love to see them come. But personally, I think when we wave one, we are setting a precedent for anybody else that comes in here wanting a waiver of any kind on the next building and the next building and the next building. So I hope they understand my stance on this is the same as staff's. I would not recommend approval until they can meet our design review. That's just me.

I I've had some very pointed conversations with other developers about this same conversation. And uh honestly, if I supported this, I would probably get some phone calls in the next 24 hours because I was so adamant with some other developers. So I I agree with you, Mark, and I I think it has to meet design. Yeah. Well, then from a safety standpoint, Mark, your comments were really good. Um, you all know what Chick-fil-A is for traffic. 10 times that for what we're going to have here. I've seen it many of times. Well, you know, so you've lived there. I have. And we just want to get it right.

It it's it's going to be intense. And in that location, there's going to have to be traffic study. There's going to have to be traffic lights cuz it's um you I've seen many of times cars 40 deep waiting in the drive-thru. It's good food and the people are going to like it, but from a safety standpoint, it's going to be a difficult to handle that location. Yeah.

In terms of the global traffic study, that's something that we've initiated. We have not initiated the study yet. We've initiated bringing someone on board. I believe Mr. Rose is going to have that before council at the October agenda is the plan. A contract with someone. We've got someone we're talking with and working through and that sort of thing to be on their work workshop agenda for September and a council meeting agenda for in October.

Well, I would think that In and Out would prefer to have that global study done. it could benefit their property. Whereas, if we were to approve something before that was done, we could have a number of unintended consequences that could defeat the overall plan. In

my conversations with them, I think they would would not prefer that, but they're here and they might speak to that, but um you may want to hear from them, but they would like to speak to you. Um I I believe they would prefer an approval with some of the options that were that they submitted that you have in front of you, but okay. Well, I'll do this. If if uh there is a representative from In and Out that would like to come speak to the council, you've heard our concerns. If you give us your name and address, please.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeff Bryant. I'm the senior development manager for In-N-Out Burger, who's responsible for all of our Tennessee projects and expansions out here. Um, our address is 3401 Mallerie Lane, Franklin, Tennessee. Um, I hear there's a lot of a lot of points I'd like to go through. Um, so just to to start things off, um, there's a project description and design information to start with. I know I think that's in your packet. I've got some extra copies that I'd like to run through. Ju just a couple of items on it. So the proposed building is a prototypical In-N-Out Burger floor plan. It's a singlestory building with exterior ephus, flat roof towers, and a typical exterior architectural core structure. Our prototypical core building structure has been intentionally designed to generate a lot of architectural interest through articulation across multiple planes, massing of different elements and overall proportions at a human scale for our customers experience. For the exterior elevation design, we have a prototypical white masonry waist waines coat that was initially proposed for this location and that will be consistent with the vast majority of our projects not only within the region but across our national brand. And you know this I'm coming to you at the end of two plus years of discussions through staff and um staff's been amazing to work with, very communicative across multiple departments. Uh we've had a lot of you know quality discussions going through and so we understand you know the importance of the request to meet design guidelines and criteria and having a higher percentage of brick detail. That's really atypical for us. But we went through and spent a lot of time internally discussing. we've gone through with our management and back and forth and you know despite these strict guidelines on our elevations and percentages we've made a rare m a rare exception here in order to better meet the city's development code and blend in with the surrounding area design to that end we've supplemented and modified our

typical building architectural design elevations and appearance with numerous non-protottypical design elements to create a unique design specifically for this location we've got 3D renderings that are that are in the packet that are pointing out a lot of these special accommodations that have been included for for the reference. If you don't have those, I have some extra copies I can provide. Um, so you're basically, and let me just stop. You're you're basically saying this is what you want to do and you don't want to do any further. Correct. As far as meeting our design review,

we're we're here to partner within all of our communities. And so in our 76 year history, we we've only relocated one restaurant. We've never closed any. Um, as far as the surrounding area, are you going to talk about the I I have the restaurants that are surrounding that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can probably answer that for you real quick. Yeah. You know, some of the a lot of the buildings that you're going to reference came in before there was a zoning ordinance and design review change. And that's the reason there was one. Yeah.

Yeah. And so I I I don't think it's going to be to your benefit to discuss what's surrounding it because as Mark said, that's that led to us reooking at design review and and wanting to do something better for the community. I I understand per per code. Um while architectural style may vary, buildings of proposed development shall be compatible with surrounding buildings with regards to to massing, scale, proportion of openings, roof types, types, glaze of openings, and degree of detail.

And so, you know, I understand that, you know, the surrounding businesses may not be reflective of of the current code, but as far as matching and being contiguous with them, I've got a list of 13 different restaurants within less than a half a mile and a map showing all their locations in relation to here. So, we're we're not trying to be argumentative. Um, like I said, we we've made some kind. Yeah, we're we're trying to justify. We're not we're not we're not coming in here and and you know,

I mean, anybody that brings 13 restaurants before us is arguing with us that we're that we're wrong about our design design review. And so, I'm I'm funny with you. Honestly, I am. But Jeff, look, as I said, we changed our ordinance four to five, six years ago now, and those surrounding buildings were there prior, but everything we've done since then has been consistent. Yep. I can also assure you if those buildings had to be rebuilt, they would have to meet design review. So, the fact that they were there is the only reason they're there. So, we can't give you or I'm I'm not saying this for the all the other panel. I don't feel like we can give you a pass because we haven't given anybody else since the design review has changed a pass. Does that make sense?

Y and I don't want to argue about it. So you're you're reading things to us that we've already actually read. So yeah. And Jeff, did did you meet with me a year or two ago? We did. And what what did I say? Uh we we talked through the you know very very few variances have been provided and it's got to meet design review, right? Yep. Yeah, I'm still kind of there. Yep. I I understand. Yeah. You have a beautiful building. You really do. I mean I like it. It's a beautiful building. But we appreciate that. And I know there's been other references to other restaurants that have been built differently in the past. We're in the the exact same,

you know. So I I can certainly relate and I'm here to try and thread the needle and find something that works for you, but I can tell you we have not approved or built a building with 75% masonry requirements. What did you do on the Las Vegas strip with the the uh design there? The the link that was mentioned. I think there's another one that's proposed that may even be on the strip. I was looking at something that was twotory primary glass the boulevard. Yeah. It's a thirdstory building. Yeah. that it's an existing core structure that's already been built and then we're coming in later on and doing TI's and and it doesn't look like that, does it? It it does not have a a drive-thru. It's a very unique standalone.

Does it does it have the ephas on it? Um in Vegas it wouldn't have it wouldn't have ephus, but traditional stucco I I'd have to go back and confirm it. It's not my project.

I can pull a picture up if you want to look at it. I I mean, honestly, in my opinion, I I just kind of went and looked at the Murphy'sboro store. I actually got out and walked around the site. Um I tried to tried to be objective and say, you know, um is there enough brick? Does it look okay? And I mean, the building looks fine, but to me, it doesn't look like much of a difference to just run the brick all the way to the roof or make it a brick building. It's all white. It still would be all white. It doesn't change your awning, your brand, your logo. We I've heard that it's a branding, but that's really not part of your logo and your stripes and you know the look of the building really doesn't change significantly whether it's Ephas or brick.

It it it's not only the look, it's also the maintenance. So more harder to maintain than ephus.

Yes. Compared to the stucco for our our painting, we go through and do every as much in-house as possible. So we have a painting team. We have our maintenance team, repair team and everything along those lines. If we do any patches, pairs repairs or otherwise, we go through and we paint corner to corner so that you'll never see a patch in any of our buildings. Stuckco is something that you know that the maintenance is something that's very important to us. You know, you can go to any any in-n-out and it it stands above the rest for how well it's maintained. Whether the curb appeal, the aesthetics, the landscaping, that's significantly more. Kevin mentioned, I think we're four or five times the minimum requirements for landscaping. It's really important for us to have a beautiful building and facility and, you know, overall customer experience. And so, we go through and repaint our buildings every 3 to 5 years. And we we know from our experience, you know, we're we're proposing ephus as opposed to three coat stucco because of the the temperature and the weather over here. In, you know, freeze thaw conditions, uh, three coat stucco would not be appropriate compared compared to ephus.

So, what about just brick? Uh it's just it's not an aesthetic that that we do for our buildings for our branding. Paint them white as well as the same process, right? Just paint brick. Okay. Is this a site build? I mean, you're not bringing this in in uh in walls in walls or or are you? It it's No, I don't want to say kit, but we're building from from uh from the ground up.

Okay. And believe me, we we I've probably spent most of my time on most of my projects talking about Ephus and some of the differences. I know especially here in the region, there's, you know, back in the late '9s, there's been a lot of poor stucco, port ephus that was installed, not appropriately maintained. Um, you know, we put this in Colorado in our cold regions. We know how to maintain it. We bring in contractors that are able to install it and ensure all of the quality on that. And it's it's the actual ephist texture itself is applied in the field. I know there's concerns with pre pre-ephest panels that go up. None none of that is applicable here for our quality of construction in our buildings.

I know that we met with your group uh Tim, you were probably there at the international shop center convention in Vegas and uh since then I met with you I think probably about the same time that Tim did and I think we all voiced the same concern. Right. Yeah. And that was a big part of of our support and being able to go back up to management and and discuss every one of our buildings and elevations is is designed by our owner. This is a funny question. This is a fun one. Okay. What palm trees is going to live here?

Yep. So, we have some wind windmill fan palms that we're looking at. Um and again, we we get this question all the time. We get a lot of incredulous looks. We have our in-house landscaping team that um we have different cold weather varietals. We've already installed our our four other projects under construction. We have palm trees. We have some additional area in our property down in Franklin where we installed palm trees a year ago and are still alive. Um, so we we are testing we are making sure that we're able to keep them alive. if we need to replace them. We'll probably replace them, but there is a lot more going on and once we get to actual construction drawings, hopefully through approvals, um we will go through and we're looking at alternative options of putting heat strips around the root balls and helping insulate some of the the palm trees in the worst of the weather to make sure that they survive.

I was looking just for a fun answer. You went scientific on me. There we spend so much time, effort, and energy in every element in every part of our business in what we do. We are incredibly intentional about it. I I can see that. I really can. Attention to detail is part of what your brand is. So, we're just trying to find a partnership. That's what we're trying to do. Yeah. Well, I I personally love In-N-Out. I get animal fries every time I go. Uh I can't wait for you guys to open in Smyrna, but it's got to be brick. Yeah.

I just can't do it. And and one of the things I'd like to point out is, you know, two plus years ago when we first met with with Kevin and some other members of staff and city management, one of the messages that came through was, you know, the town of Simrna does not want to be more restrictive than a lot of the areas surrounding us. And it's been brought up, you know, comparisons to Franklin. We were approved with a 0% masonry building down there. We proactively went through and added additional masonry at Ways Coat around our drive-thru columns in order to better match our corporate facility going in next door. You've mentioned Murphy'sboro. Murphy'sboro has one of the most restrictive GDO overlays of any project that that we've worked on, certainly in the region and across a lot of other regions that I used to work in. Um, and we we've come through and we've been able to to to work with them and come up with a building that's about 50%. That's the highest percentage of brick that that has ever been approved. I think, you know, given your comments, um, this is something that we can take back and I think we could match Murphy'sboro if that's something that that's acceptable. You know, our the store team, we would go go back and do that. It would be above the 50. So 50% brick masonry plus the 6 to 8% glazing would would get a lot closer to the 75%. But given the unique design of this or the shape of this parcel, we're at a bit of a disadvantage in terms of every every elevation being visible from public roads as as everything angles around. And so on on average, we we would be in better compliance if if one facade needed to be 75%, the rest are 50%. I'm confident at a 50% masonry material plus our glazing that we'd be a heck of a lot closer to that. We would be well above 50%. And that's something that I think we could commit to in terms of the partnership of what we're what we're looking for um to be able to come bring this together.

I'm laughing a little bit when you said Franklin and Murphusboro were very restrictive. I you may have a different opinion about Smyrna at this point because you know we're being pretty restrictive with you, but I think we've explained the reasons why we are. And so when you say we can get close, I'm like Steve. I mean close isn't done. And so I'm just asking you uh to come be a partner with us, but kind of help us do it the way we need to do it. Yeah. Well, um you know, we are certainly doing our best to partner. I mean, at this point, we we did go back and we provided some additional elevations. You know, I think that I'm comfortable committing that based on our other approvals that we can get much higher percentages and I think we could commit to a 50%.

You talk to that team right there and they're going to let you know if you made it or not. But but but a partnership is is is mutual and so you know we're hoping we can work together. Absolutely. And so I I I think you know we we've covered a lot of the elevations. The other point that I' I'd like to point out

is you know as as productive of conversations as we've had with staff. I I do disagree with the comment of the traffic improvements solely being for the benefit of in-n-out. So, as we've gone through and we've looked at all these intersections, the the data in the crash mitigation is is within those tables and um we've looked at, as you mentioned, multiple multiple options. There's five different ones that are listed in there. And at the end at the end of the day, this this has been identified through the city's report as being one of the more challenged intersections. There's a lot of different streets that are in there that cannot be changed, cannot be reoriented. It's it's difficult. We have spent a lot of hours and we have our traffic consultants here who have crunched a lot of information, a lot of data. We'd be happy to bring them up to to discuss, but at the end of the day, what we've proposed is what we feel is in the best interest of the overall area. Some of the improvements that we're we're talking about would would reduce an equal number of movements, lost movements on both side of the roads. There's existing businesses on the south side, there's existing businesses on the north side. We're proposing as what we feel is the most effective traffic mitigation measure to to lose those those three movements on either side while still maintaining appropriate circulation, appropriate appropriate connectivity to all of the businesses that are still going to be there, you know, and and use that. Surprisingly, we we didn't expect this. You know, staff gave us a lot of feedback in terms of how many crashes are over there. We've we've jumped into the data. The most dangerous movement in that area, I believe it's 18 crashes come from team south going north across industrial. 18 of them on that one movement. There's an additional crashes that are lost on the left turn. Um there's, you know, a couple of there's a few crashes across each one of the rest of the movements, but the vast majority

in in mitigating these these these these changes to the intersections of what we're proposing with option 2B mitigates 29 crashes across the area and that deals with the angles and the movements. Okay. So, all right. Thank you, Jeff. Yeah, we appreciate it. If there's if there's any other questions, you know, we're here. Okay. Appreciate your time.

Okay. We've heard from staff. Uh we've heard from our In-N-Out representative. Uh are there any other questions or discussion?

I'll make a motion. Bake based on staff's recommendation of denial and the lack of meeting our design review that we deny the request. Okay. I have a motion to deny. Second. And a second. A friendly amendment. Sure. Um and that uh the project should uh be on hold until the more global traffic study is completed for how long would that take Kevin? I don't know to Mr. Rose. He's the one who's talked to Tom. We want you to give us a date.

Yeah. Wait. Let's Yeah. Hang on just a second. So currently we're uh we're talking with an engineer consulting company to put together a proposal. Uh they said that they're going to try and get it to me this Friday. I'm going to get it on the next workshop and then approval at the October meeting. Uh it could take at least two months for them to at least start to get some initial information after that if they're able to start pretty quickly. Uh have if they have the staff available to start it. So might have some kind of preliminary information in about 3 to 4 months from now, but it's really kind of up to them on the amount of effort and and the staff that they have available to jump on right then.

I did talk to them about the moving forward pretty quickly with it. All right, so let's work back through this. Let's make sure we get it mechanically sound. Yeah, Jeff's looking at me with two square eyes like what did you say your motion was? And so well one we haven't gotten a second yet which is good on the friendly. Yes. No. That's what I'm talking about. The initial motion. So your initial motion was deny and then there was a motion about the motion to deny and then a second but the amendment was to amend the denial. That's that's not friendly. So that's not completely change. It's not if you said I approve it. We'd have to back up the

Yeah, we'd have to go. You do a deferral maybe or something like that. But um uh but we don't have a second on that unless somebody's going to second the the uh quasi friendly the unfriendly amendment. But uh well, if we did proper looking at 30 days from now, another deferral and another deferral until we got the traffic results back. I think I'd kind of like to leave my motion alone. M and then we'll take it when they come back to see where we are with the traffic portion of it. I mean, that's going to be a question anyway. So, um I don't think we have to make it part of the emotion. And you second that. Y

Okay. We'll still look at it, right? We'll still want to know that information. So, tell me where we're at, Jeff. Well, first, as long as you Is there a second to my motion? Even though I don't believe it's proper, but is there if there's not a second, then that that dies for lack of a second. And you're back on your You're asking if there's a second to amending it. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I did not hear it. Well, let me just ask. Is there I should ask. Correct. Is there a second to amending the original denial? So, that motion fails. So, we're back to the motion in the second. That's right. Okay. Okay.

I do have one question specific to the traffic study. Just a comment to make sure when they do this study they're factoring in this establishment's traffic histories. It's not a normal restaurant. It's to the scale of Chick-fil-A but greater than. So the traffic study needs to incorporate that specific. Certainly it it will it will have to take that into account as well as everything else that's around it.

There's further comments about the track study if you would like to hear what's good. We got a motion a second. Yeah, we got we got to do this. Okay, so a motion and a second. Any further discussion here? All those in favor of denying this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Oppose.

This motion is denied. Okay. Uh, new business. Uh, we have a site plan, Blakey Commons, lot 2, Rocky Fork, Elmable Road, Morton Lane, owner, developer, Polar Investment Group LLC. This is a site plan for Blakey Commons lot 2. It is proposed for a convenience commercial development with a fuel center. This is a 6,000t building with potential for two tenants in addition to a convenience store. 10 fuel pumps are proposed for with the gas station. The two access points are shown to access the site with one on Broadleaf Lane and one off Rockportville Road. Broadleaf Lane provides access to the uh rear of the Blakey Commons development consisting of town homes with a proposed future commercial parcel to the north of Broadleaf Lane. Vehicular use area on the site 76 of an acre and that is require 3,343 ft of landscaping. Applicants showing for 4,000 ft meeting our requirements. parking required of 60 spaces and they're showing for 63. And handicap parking required of three spaces, which they have amended the plan since y'all went got packets last week and they now have updated that to three park handicap parking spaces meeting ADA requirements. The landscape plan shows a variety of shrubbery and trees lining Rocky Forkville Road and Morton Lane. Landscaping is also shown around the base of the building and within landscape islands. Due to the residential town homes behind the proposed development, a type-c landscape buffer would be required per the zoning ordinance. The applicant is requesting a 5ft wide landscape buffer strip with a 6ft tall vinyl privacy fence in lie of the type-c landscape buffer due to the uh configuration of the site. Architectural elevations showed the building to be finished with a mixture

of brick, stone, and glass glazing on all wall faces. The gas canopy is shown to have primarily stone in combination with brick to match the commercial building. The architectural elevations do meet design review requirements as submitted. Standard comments 1 through 7 all remain at this time. Comment one, the more of a generic comment. As a gas station constitutes a storm water hotspot, a storm water runoff must be treated to remove oil and gas prior to leaving the site. So, uh, as a more of anformational comment, that will remain. Come number two, staff is concerned about the proposed dumpster area easement. Staff is concerned about the ability for it to be emptied without blocking the road and proximity to the adjoining residences. Staff is also concerned about the location of the dumpster for the commercial building and the proximity to the adjoining residences. Location on the opposite site side of the building would be further away from any residences. Um, so this is in reference to the for this site in the upper right, upper left, sorry, corner where the town homes are. The this dumpster pad and dumpster itself were installed and completed by the owner of currently both of these tracks, the town homes and this commercial track itself right here. Um, the town home owner believe they need another dumpster pad location. They currently only have one which is located at the front entry to the site and felt that there was no other site suitable on the this current property of the town homes to locate a dumpster. So as a result they have placed this dumpster pad on this tract um for the commercial visions to be used by this commercial tract. Um, as a result, the applicant has attempted to work around this dumpster and also located their dumpster adjacent to it. This plan shows um, as a

result of this comment, the applicant has relocated their dumpster to the opposite side of the parcel, which your plans do show the dumpster has been relocated now to the north. I guess it's not north south, but Morton Lane side,

correct? Morton Lane side in the rear of the site. So that is where they have relocated their dumpster. The dumpster that the town homes constructed is still in its current location. So just to give you a little bit of quick backstory on that, the applicants here can get a little bit more information on that, too. But spent majority of yesterday uh with the applicant and the town home owner kind of working back and forth to try to figure out some kind of a happy medium as it's caused a little bit of a disturbance, if you will, for the site design. And um as far as location of that dumpster in proximity to the residences and the uh nuisance of noise and potentially odor as a result of the dumpsters. So um we can come back to that if you want to but just give you a backtory on comment number two. Uh comments three and four both utility comments that have been addressed sufficiently. So those both can be removed. Uh, comment number five, the type-c landscape buffer is required between the proposed store and the adjoining residential development. Move this type-c landscape buffer. The applicant is proposing to install a fence with a 5ft wide landscape buffer consisting of evergreens and shrubs. The reasoning submitting that the applicant has noted a 15 foot wide buffer would be detrimental to the site's ability to have a gas station as the building would have to be reduced in depth that would be difficult to lease or occupy. Um, next part of that comment regarding the fence details to be supplied. The applicant has done that. It is a 6ft tall vinyl privacy fence is what they were shown. Uh to amend that comment, the five foot wide landscape buffer does not extend the entire length of the rear of the property line due to the dumpster and retaining walls that are also shown on site. Uh so we would ask that the applicant extend the fill in any gaps along the rear property line uh with the landscape buffer to create a full effect

along the rear line along those town homes. Comment number six, uh we asked them to include the fence details which they have done so. So that could be removed. Number seven, regarding the handicap parking stalls to meet 88 that has been addressed as well could be removed. Uh com number eight, the mechanical screen walls on the top of the building, we asked them to show what details what material that would be used. They have indicated that is a metal bronze panel. Uh so that has been addressed sufficiently and can be removed as well. Then comments 9 and 10 are both CD as this is within their service boundaries. So, uh, comments 3 4 6 7 8 have all been addressed sufficiently can be removed. Uh, with that, staff does recommend approval with those remaining comments. Mitch, can you speak to uh lighting specifically facing the back side of the building towards those town homes? Yeah, I mean lighting is not allowed to shine beyond the property boundaries. Um, in which case it will take effect. Also, I believe it looks like they probably have some down lighting in the back of the building just for safety purposes and security. So, um, it will not be allowed to shine beyond that property boundary though.

So, not to be difficult, but how do we have lights on Eno Springs that shine facing the road that can't leave the property? I don't understand the difference. Well, it's basically that what he's talking about is primarily when it's buing residential. Yes. Shine res shine. They can't shine out off the on the residential. Okay.

So, let's go back to the dumpster here. Um, where's the dumpster? Where's the dumpster? Okay. Painted wall. It's the moving dumpster. Yeah. So, all right. So you you made a comment that you were concerned about blocking the road. Uh when they were dumping the dumpster. Uh was that part of the discussion and have you developed a workaround there or how where are we at? So we got two dumpsters going on here. So the first dumpster mainly the one that this comment is regarding is the one that is shown on their site that was installed by the town home developer.

Okay. So that one is facing broadleaf. Broadleaf after this all gets developed out is probably going to be a busier road. So um albeit is probably a minimal time in which dumpsters get unloaded. Albeit there should be times when it's probably going to be occupied by a dumpster truck doing offload and unload. So um really that is what that was in reference to. But you also have the proximity to the town homes, noise, odor, anything of that nature caused by a dumpster. So that is that part and then but that's the town home. That's that's the town homes

but it's still on their tract as well. This commercial tract is where it is located. So the applicant has relocated their dumpster as Steve not over towards so we're more here on this side. So they have relocated theirs at least over to the other side um to take care of that issue. So that relieves the stacking of dumpsters. Correct. And would and would therefore allow easier access. Correct. It would for for Yeah. And it's also further away from the residents that live in those town homes as far as the odor and the noise when they get emptied.

But it's the odor that the town homes will be delivering to that D. That's their own their own order. And they have another dumpster at the other end of the Right. They do. Yeah. Just for odor carryover. Yeah. Okay.

That's all I have. Is staff's good with the type C change for the fence? I do see the reasoning why they're making their request. We do ask if we do extend it the full length and take that privacy fence with the landscaping. Yeah, I think I've recalled that we've done that in in other instances with the substitution of a vinyl fence, not a wood, but a vinyl. And they detailed that. And they detailed it. Yeah. And they also would like to note here, they do not have a drive-thru proposed like a lot of these do. So we don't have any kind of drive-thru on the rear of the building. adjacent to those town homes or any kind of voice boxes or anything like that.

Okay. Parking's okay with proposed restaurant. Right. Okay. Is the sidewalk continuing on Rocky Fork? Yes, I believe it will be. It will be as part of the improvements. It would not be a part of built as a part of this project. It would be done as part of the improvements that the town is doing. But it's all being built at the same time as the road widening. Anything else from staff? Did somebody order pizza? Okay. I have nothing more than I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the staff comments. Have a motion to approve the staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I opposed. This motion is approved. We're now on to item seven, subdivision regulations amendment section 7-101.2 and addition of appendix A.

Yeah, this is what we discussed under the public uh hearing already. Uh again, we're just adding the the ability for a third form of security as an form as approved by the town attorney. And then we did add that form uh the appendix that provides a a letter of credit example for everyone. So we would recommend this to you. Questions for uh staff concerning this amendment. Move to approve staff comments. A motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I

oppose. This motion is approved. Uh next we have a zoning ordinance amendment article four article five regarding minimum building setbacks for accessory structures.

Yeah, this is an amendment that was discussed at the last joint uh council and planning commission meeting. Um, essentially this would it changes about six or seven different pieces of the zoning ordinance or locations in the zoning ordinance, but it's all the same thing. It's just in the various districts and within PRDS. Um, that detached accessory buildings uh currently they're required to be behind or to the side of rear uh of the main structure and at least 8 ft from any property line. this would change that distance to 5 ft um with any existing zoning districts as well as adding this requirement within PRD is currently the ordinance of silence within PUDS. So we wanted to add that so it clarifies that um and that uh also this would be consistent with what the requirements are in Murphy'sboro as well as Rutherford County for this type of structures. So there's some consistency there from around with our neighbors. So, um, again, the new those amendments are included in your packet. Uh, anything that's being removed will be struck through. The new language is highlighted in yellow in those those various amendments. Again, there's several several locations, but it's all the same amendment. So,

I can also offer from my time on the BZA, we approved this same exception many times. Um people would come in and ask for a three-foot variance on the side. Um yeah, as lots get smaller too, you know, they're they're squeezing everything down. So, okay. Anything else? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments. Have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second.

Motion in a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Oppose. This motion is approved. We're now on to the bond review report. We got we have one other zoning ordinance amendment. Yeah, you're right. Yeah. I'm sorry. Article five. Article. Yep. Thank you.

Yeah. This this is another uh amendment that was again discussed at the last joint meeting. Um this would uh make one change which would add the use of tourist homes uh as an allowed use within the C4 district. Certainly that currently uh this uh use is allowed um already in the C1 2 3 5 and A1 districts um kind of under the wider banner of transit habitation which would include you know typical hotels and things like that. Um, but I did include the the definition just so you have that as well. But essentially this would allow for smallcale um like Airbnb verbbo type uh tourist home uh use in within the uh property zone C4. Um again we did add have the amendment with the new language highlighted in yellow there for you. We would recommend this to you. Is

there a specific area or or district expecting? Um, it would just be those C4 areas. Just it's not a lot of SMRA that has that C4 district zoning. Um, there's some in the kind of the downtown area. There's a couple puds that have it as an allowed use. It's kind of C4 districts u commercial piece of it. Okay. Um if you take um it's on off Sam Davis Road in his example by behind Allen's is an example I think of one of the C4 areas. Correct. That's right. Talk about an old house that's been converted to an office. What's driving the addition of this change?

Um well it was um there's some discussion with property owners in the C4 district talked about it and and then we uh we felt like this was a good change from the standpoint of providing another. We don't allow that type of use in residential districts in Smyrna unless they existed prior unless they existed prior to 2015. So we thought this was providing another option where that use could be allowed.

I Yeah, I kind of want to circle back. So, I can think of of a couple of uh homes that we approved a C4 that may have a maybe a salon, beauty salon type thing or or something that you know met the definition of a C4, but it could be next to an R1 or an R4, an R3.

Is are we looking at that? Have we considered that as well as far as because I I know that when we were looking, you know, strictly in the residential zones, of course, there was a lot of concern about noise and numbers of folks there and and things along those lines. So, how does that fit with with what's being proposed here? Um, I mean, certainly I think it's it's something we would have to look at if somebody wanted to actually establish one of these. as far as buffering and things of that nature. Would this with this amendment would that automatically grant them the ability to do so? Because they could if they were zone C4, then they have

they would have the right to for the use. Yeah. They would still have to go through the approval process as far as would it include site plan if if the structure was already there? If the structure is already there, I mean, I think you would have we'd have to um we would have to look at it from the standpoint of yeah, is is additional parking required? How many rooms are we talking about? Up to five is the most you could have. Almost like a BCA reapproval in a way. In a way, it is. I mean, every C district we have except C4, right, is already it's already been allowed already. Yeah. Yeah, but as far as buffering goes,

I mean, we would have to look at it if somebody wanted to to establish this use in that in a piece of property zone C4. Um if they are a budding residential, it would be the same as if they had a if they if it's say it's a salon or some other an office or whatever is another use that's allowed in C4. It would be the same same buffering that we would require when you are abuing an R property. Right. Correct. This just adds this use as allowed use in that district. It doesn't change the buffering requirements that would be there. I just think that, you know, some of the concern in the past, especially in just all ours were was noise and numbers of folks that showed up and

yeah, things that are associated with that. But if we're talking about, you know, C4 that abuts an R and that we're going to look at buffering and do the typical things that we do anyway, I guess in theory, they should already have the proper buffers in place if the if the use has changed, right? If it was a residential property that had hasn't changed, I think we may have some of those stuff too they're see for the grandfather residential use. So um so there be no buffers there obviously but yeah if if the use changes to this use to office to hair salon or some other use that's allowed in a C4 district we would have to look at the buffering at that point.

So we'll look at at that point. Okay. So, using some of the examples there on Sam Davis, I'm familiar with them. I my concern here is that and I I love the name tourist home, right? It sounds fancy and um and whatnot um and and nice, but what it allow my interpretation is what it allows to have happen are these older homes are going to be subdivided into bedrooms and they're going to be rented out short-term rentals or super cheap. It's if you reszone them, see,

but there's already some existing in in this area that I'm talking about, right? So, by doing this, it therefore allows them to to go ahead and do that. Um, you get these older homes that are caught in this value quagmire where, you know, Mark, you can speak to this since you're in real estate, but some people want to buy these older homes and they need a lot of work and what's the value of them? Well, the only thing they can do to add value to them is to subdivide them and rent them out. And then you've got this whole home that gets rented out for the next 10, 20 years. And it it just keep continues getting more dilapidated. Unless there's something specific driving the addition of this into the code, then I I don't know if I can support support.

They've got a lot of residences already doing that. I mean, to be honest, there's a lot of people that rent their properties out uh in the in the proper zone. they're renting their properties out and uh allowing more than one family to live in it or more than one person to have a room in it. So, I don't know that this is any different than what's already taking place. But I understand we're talking about an existing C4, right? So, to Matt's point, if somebody came in and let's just say they had a home that was in one of the RS, they'd have to apply for a resoning, right? They're going if they're going commercial of any kind. Yeah.

Yeah. And so it would come before us and council to determine if something was going to be reszoned at that point. But I think Matthew's question was if it's already zoned C4 for example and then somebody bought it and just started renting out rooms. My point is it's no different than residential that that happens anyway. And I don't know if there's a whole lot of teeth we have. I mean, if it's if I think the idea would be with something like this, it would have to be a short term and this is not meant to be somebody rents a room for Yeah. months at a time. Yeah.

But there's there's I mean the definition of a tourist home is not it's it's one sentence. There's no there's no dictation of ter lengths or anything like that. There's boarding houses and all that other definitions, right? bed and breakfast, whatnot. But keep in mind, right now as it stands, they could be gift shops, florist, uh convenience market, as long as gas is not sold there, uh professional services for medical, food and beverage service, community assembly, uh general personal services, religious facilities,

but do any of those allow for continuous overnight stays? Although I'm just saying that's you talk about I guess what our thinking was as staff is those impacts of commercial uses versus someone spending the night with a VBO did not seem like a greater impact than those commercial use. Sure. That's where it came from. That

other questions or discussion? I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. So I have a second. Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I oppose. Nay. Okay. Okay. Now I believe we are ready for the September bond review report.

Yeah. Bond report. Um, go through this quickly. Um, Buckingham Place section three. They're, this is end of the maintenance period, so they got like four items left. They can get those uh they're they told us they're trying to finish those up. They get that done uh by next week. That's when it comes up. We can release it. Otherwise, extend three months. Sundell section two. This is one that we can reduce and start the maintenance period. They've got everything's been paved there. So we recommend reduction of that one to 25% which is $17,000 and extend that one year as the maintenance bond. Uh Greystone 1A and 1C um those are both we've had a couple years. Um they are still some items still including the paving. So we recommend extension of both of those at the current amounts at six months. uh Woodmont 8B uh they are um have have indicated they're they're trying to get the paving scheduled and everything on that. Uh we would recommend a six-month extension on that one as well at this time because again they have not paved that one. We have had it a couple years. Uh Burton Farms Annex, we've only had this one one year. U they did request an extension for 6 months. So we they said they think they can get finished in six months. So with the what's left to be built. So we recommend a six-month extension on that one. And then Woodrest 5, there are no issues. Everything's finished. It's the end of the maintenance period. So we recommend release of that one. That's what we got.

Questions for Kevin concerning the bond review report. Motion to approve bond report as presented. I have a motion to approve as presented. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving the September bond review report, please signify by saying I. I. Oppose. The bond review report is approved. Uh staff comments. Any other business? I don't have anything else from the commission. We stand adjourned.