Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to uh welcome everybody to the November 6, 2025 municipal planning commission for the town of Smyrna. And with that, I will call the meeting to order. And if you'll stand with us, Mark's going to lead us in prayer. And Ken's got the pledge tonight.

You would bow with me. Father in heaven, we just come to you this evening, Father, and just asking for your wisdom and your guidance as we do the business of our town. Lord, we also ask you to continue to watch over those that serve our town, our first responders, fire, police, all the employees, the ones that do the the hard work, Father, that just make our town a better place to live. Continue to bless us as you always have, Father, and continue to try to heal our country. Our country needs so much healing right now. We just pray that you will continue to have your hands on everything about our our country. Go with us now. Forgive us where we fail you. It's in these things we ask. Amen.

Please 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. Thanks Mark and Ken. Uh our next agenda item is uh public hearing. Uh Kevin, uh item A has been withdrawn. Yes.

Okay. Then we will move on to item B of uh public hearing. This is plan of service for Sunny Patel U 8216 Florence Road. Kevin, give us brief description.

Yeah, this is just the plan of services for the annexation request which is later on in your agenda. Um this would be um putting in in writing the services that the town would be providing uh if the town chooses to annex this property. Um if in in this case it would be all services as this is does lie within our water boundary and obviously all other services as well. Okay. And with that I will [clears throat] open up uh the public hearing for anyone that's here that would like to come forward and comment. Uh if you are coming forward, just to remind everybody, you have three minutes in which to speak. And at the end of that time, if you have anything else that you'd like to get before us, you can submit it in writing. And when you do come up, if you would just give us your name, address, and whether or not with you're in within the town limits or not. Okay. It doesn't appear anyone wants to come up during uh this public hearing. So, I'll close the public hearing and we'll uh call the planning commission back in session. Uh and with that, we will move on to citizens comments.

We don't have any tonight. Okay. No citizens comments. So, we'll now move on to the next agenda item. Approval or corrections of the minutes of the October 2nd, 2025 regular meeting and the October 30th, 2025 quarterly joint meeting. Councelor, are the meeting minutes in order? in order as to form unless you have any amendments you'd like to make. Okay. Any questions or comments, discussion from the commission? I [clears throat] will entertain a motion. Move to approve the minutes. Have a motion to approve the minutes. So, I have a second. Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving uh the minutes, please signify by saying I.

Opposed. The minutes are approved. We are now on to our first item under old business. It's annexation zoning and plan of service request 452 [clears throat] properties LLC Mona Road and 840 annexation and PUB zoning. Yeah, this is a request that you all have already recommended once. Um, but it was the council did ask it to come back to you all uh for further uh further revisions and further review of it um and ask the developer to make some changes too. So, um I'll kind of go over this and highlight uh kind of the big picture then also look at the the changes that have been made. Now, this is a request for annexation with a a PUB zoning. Um, the surrounding zoning is RM and Rutherford County. U land use plan for this area is the 840 gateway character area, which would [snorts] support a mix of things such as hospitality, restaurant, retail, highdensity residential, and industrial/ warehousing uses. Uh, the major thoroughfare plan does designate Bill France Road as a principal arterial. Uh the plan also shows a future minor arterial which would connect Bill France road to Hickory Grove Road and eventually to Jefferson Pike and development of these spar properties would require dedication of rightway and construction of this improvement. Um this requested PUD um is a mixture of two things about 34.3 acres zone C2 uh and the remaining 190.95 acres to be developed as if it were zoned I2. uh for the area to be developed as C2 standards. These are some of the things that have been added that were not what what you looked at before. Um the all provisions of the C2 district would apply except for the specific prohibition of the following uses. Uh

specialized tobacco or smoke shop, including a vape shop or any business that devotes more than 25% of its floor space uh to the sale of tobacco products. self storage facilities, adultoriented establishments, auto towing services, mobile home park, and residential activity uses with the exception of those allowed by rider special exception. And that's primarily in the C2 district is things like uh nursing homes and assisted living facilities is primarily what that would be. Uh so those would not be prohibited. Um the maximum square footage allowed within this area area would be 350,000. Uh that's building square footage. Uh for the area area to be developed with I2 standards, all provisions would apply with the request that the height limit uh in those areas be 60 ft in lie of the 50ft limit uh as stated in the zoning ordinance and that the uses of airports, air cargo terminals, helports, and aircraft dealers not be allowed. Uh America the maximum building square footage in that area is 2 and a half million. Uh no pole signs would be allowed within the development. That was something that was in there previously as well. Um the uh this annexation there's two options non-ontiguous or contiguous. We would recommend if you choose to annex it you that it would be contiguous certainly uh that would require annexation of about approximately one mile of West Jefferson Pike from the current town limits which is a state highway and then 4.2 two miles of Mona Road, which is a county road. Um, that would basically be from Jefferson Pike northward to the northernmost point of the uh road frontage that this parcel has on Mona Road. Um, so that would if the annexation would include that the annexation of those rideways as well. uh sewer um it basically will not exist until the the

trunk line gets extended um which is approximately two years at minimum. U we are working through an agreement uh with the developer uh for that as well as the water line or water improvements that would be uh handled and overseen by consolidate utility district as they are the water provider. Uh that agreement has not been signed and finalized yet, but that is in process uh and in in discussion. Currently, we're waiting on the uh final approval from the consolidate utility district for the water portion of that. Uh now we're going to get into a couple other comments that we had that were to the to the revised plan. Um the there is a phasing plan uh within your packet of information you have in front of you there. that phasing plan as part of the and I'll see if I can if we got the phasing plan on here or not, but we do have um yeah um the um the the roadway which is kind of this is kind of looking at it kind of west to north on the left hand side instead of north at the top of the page. Um the roadway that's proposed there's there's existing county road which was u kind of a remnant of what used to be Mona Road uh called Coulter Court. U that would be extended through the site. Um the phasing plan basically buildings uh the four southernmost buildings would be phase one and two built in phase one and two and there would not be that connection back to Bill France Road and Culture Court until phase three. Um, we have a concern about that that you could have it list four and maybe depending on when it got built as they

start building the buildings that would be in phase three that Mona Road would be the only uh ingress and egress from those buildings um and for again potentially up to phase three. So we did have a concern about that from the phasing perspective. Um, one thing that has, um, I guess we don't have that one on there. Um, it is here that has changed, uh, there was been discussion about donation of land for a fire station. Um, and that was shown already on the plans. It has moved. Uh, the proposal has location that is moved. Uh, the fire department still needs to evaluate that based on previous discussions. I think it is in a better location than now than what we had before. s force that that for the operations of the fire department um once it's built. Um number 10 was kind of anformational comment regarding because this is such a large site that the storm water department did recommend you know no more than 50 acres at a time. Um that was something basically for their T deck permitting per purposes. I'll get that in a minute. Um we we had asked for since it is a pud uh this does the signed ordinance requires within a pud that the developer create a signage plan and so um they have done that. We did have some comments there u regarding the maximum square footage for monument signs. Again no pole signs in the development. These would all be monuments. um the square footage of the wall signs and we did recommend uh a max or a minimum 10 foot setback from the public rideways for those monument signs. All those uh comments have been addressed. The plans have been revised to reflect

all that. U number 15 was anformational comment and they did not make any changes and so uh I think they're okay with it I guess. Uh but uh the commercial area would also only be allowed monument signs and compliance with the sign ordinance and no interstate signs or pylon signs and wall signage would be allowed as allowed by the sign ordinance. Um so they did not request anything different from that. So that's how that's going to fall. Um number comment 16 there u the traffic study did recommend uh twoft their traffic study that they did recommended twoft shoulders be added to Mona road uh the second uh phase or sentence in that comment we can remove that it is just for that area north of the creek uh going back to Bill France um we we staffed did recommend 4ft shoulders be constructed, not two feet. So, um that is something that's they still do show two foot shoulders and we would recommend four. Um the rest of the comments are uh from Consolidated Utility District and relate to the water improvements and [snorts] so that's something that certainly again that agreement is being worked through now. So, um I guess the the primary comments at least from a staff standpoint that still need to be uh we feel like need to be looked at be the or discussed at least is the phasing plan and then the comment regarding the u traffic study and traffic shoulders [clears throat] on Mona Road. Um some other things that were talked about at at our last when we had the joint meeting just uh just to talk about this back in September. Uh

there has been some additional um uh buffering shown. Um I'm trying to I get to the page. Yeah. toward the last couple of pages there in your packet kind of show that um there some some exhibits there that show the buffering that's being proposed now for the buildings in this phase that are near property um zoned residential um and the the elevations that show that they're looking to even though the buildings might be 50 or potentially 60 feet tall um the the excavation and all would being such that there would be kind of a retaining wall and and so not necessarily 60 ft of the building would be visible because of that because the floor elevation would be below uh where the existing surrounding ground would be. So that's something that is um I think it's additional um there was a lot of discussion about that. So I wanted to point that out. Um and then they've um they've got a little bit more detail on their storm water at least the concept on their storm water plans as well which is on the page just before those landscape sheets I believe I get there those are the roadway improvements I'm sorry but there are there there are some additional details there um and then there's the utility layouts and then and the roadway improvements that they are proposing Um and then the architectural elevations which are are a little bit more robust I guess you would say as far as the details on them as well. All that's again is within the stack information you have there in front of you.

I believe that's all that I have. Okay. Uh, questions for Kevin or staff u for this? So, um, so my only questions, Kevin, part of the stuff that we talked about in council, um, I think you've already hit on all of those. Um, I'm trying to get to the map here. Where on their map on the screen here? Where's the fireh hall now? Um what would be on the Mona Road near the intersection of Mona and the new road that they would be building? Um it is on page in front of you there. Let me see if I can find it. So how does that affect, you know, we were talking about restricting the right turn on Mona Road uh for truck traffic. How does that affect that? If a fireh hall's there, would they have to make left and right turns out of there?

And I don't know if the restrictions on it's on page I don't know what page it's 2.05 sheet 3.01 is what I found.

Yeah, it has it there as well. Yeah, I think as far as within [clears throat] I don't think it's going to affect the ability to to make that restriction and within the construction that they do there. I think we need to look at whe regardless of where the fire hall ends up, if it ends up on this property, we need to make sure that the fire truck will be able to turn left and right. Um, so I think that's something. So I don't know if the restriction there's a if the fire truck is short enough that it wouldn't be a problem for them or not. That's something we have to look at though for sure.

Long as we're considering or thinking about that going forward, I think it's fine. Um, you had two comments. The shoulder. Um, I had actually a for a conversation with uh some of the folks out there and uh Commissioner Ricky Hall. Um, they were concerned about the 4ft shoulder means that there would just be more room for truck parking along that section, north section of Mona Road, which apparently already occurs uh when they're waiting for businesses to open or waiting to deliver or whatever. Uh could that be something that no truck parking is allowed? You know, obviously it should be.

I think for sure, you know, of course that the issue I a little bit of an issue is really it's the portion north of their entrance is where we're talking about which is not the area we're looking to annex. That's the other it was still at this point at least would still be a county road. Um so it's something that we Yeah. something our police department couldn't enforce. They can't control and our police department can't force us. That's right. Yeah. So, you know, I mean, if you're parking now or even with a 4ft shoulder and you're a tractor trailer, you're you're taking up half the lane of the road minimum. Um, I mean,

I just didn't know what we could do if they're going to be if they're if they were on the hook to make the improvements, what kind of leverage we could use there to make sure that it doesn't just become truck parking, right? Since the improvements are being made by the developer. Yeah. And again, I think to me that's that's an enforcement issue. Sounds like and at this time that would be the sheriff's department [clears throat] to enforce it. And even in the future, council, I'm assuming that means there's not much we can do here. Can't really make the sheriff's department do something. I get that. But

that's right. But I'm sure that they would, but as far without the county, we obviously we wouldn't be able to enforce that. Okay. I mean, at some point it could become a city street certainly. And yeah, if it became our street then there comes a new point. We could certainly enforce that and put up signage and those type. So it would basically be on us or the developer or the citizen somebody to request the county to put up signs and enforce it. Right.

Okay. And then I think your other concern was um the phasing that that entrance. Um so you kind of identified the issue. So what would you recommend? You know, I think at some point you before probably those four buildings are done or whatever, I think we would need to look at that road. At least the minimum kind of Are the phases identified on this map somewhere? They are. I'm trying to find which sheet it is. Red is phase one, correct?

Yes. From what I'm seeing. So I guess where I'm confused that if red is phase one building seven and eight are they not in phase one build? Yes. Yes. Seven and eight really are are really the first two buildings. So it looks like industrial buildings that would be built. So would that intersection not be built as part of that? The intersection for Mona Road. Yes. I'm I'm more concerned about the the extension of Culture Court. The road that's going to parallel 840. Um it's called oh the blue and the yellow

it becomes right. So phase the phase three is the blue phase there and that's really what they're saying it would be done. So [clears throat] you would have you know four buildings over a million square feet built. So I guess what you're saying ideally ideally we would have them extend the road all the way to kind of the T there and then basically create the L. They could do the part that's in front of building five later, but basically create the connection.

Exactly. Yeah. I'm not so much worried about the part that goes further south in that phase necessarily. It's really more making that connection to provide another way for trucks in and out to these buildings besides Mona Road. Right. Yeah. It looks like most most of that road basically is either it's part of phase two or phase three. Correct. But yeah, there would be one, two, three, four, five, six, potentially seven buildings before that was necessarily constructed. So, we could do uh could we put in our motion something like it has to be constructed before phase three can begin or something like that? I think at minimum it ought to be a part of phase two. Yeah.

Yeah. because that becomes if it's built as part of phase two, then when buildings five and six get built, it'll be there, you know. So, that's where I'm looking at it. Yeah.

So, I guess the last piece for PL, this is really for the commission. You guys probably remember us talking about this the CUD agreement before and we've talked about it in council. Um, I've talked to council several times about it that the agreement is part of it's the it's the council's agreement. It's not really the planning agreement. So, it really has no bearing on the PRD. It has bearing on whether or not the council approves the PRD and the annexation going forward, but it doesn't have anything to do with planning's approval of the PRD. So, we could approve it, which then sends it off to council. Council still has two readings. Um, and it would be on council to make sure that CUD agreement is in place before they approve it, which they have been very adamant that that has to be done before they will approve it. Um, matter of fact, Paul's in the room. I know he's been told several times, don't even bring it back until you have that agreement. So, um, that's the the conversation from plan from the council generally that's been shared, but it really doesn't have any bearing on planning's movements tonight. Did I say anything wrong there? Council good?

No. And and the reason that you even were aware of of that agreement was you've already approved the plan of services. Those plans have not changed. So So that's already been approved with the plan of services. It's more of the logistics just well you just and agreements. You just had to know how was it going to happen? Are we going to be able to serve it? And so that's why that the outline of that agreement gave you the uh the tenants of how that was going to work. the basis of planning that or approving the plan of services when you did two months ago whenever it was right.

It's also my understanding there were about six items I think on the community's list and I think four or five of those have been addressed. I think the last one is still being worked out but they had some concerns like bay doors not facing the residential property um which the builder has agreed not to do um buffering the the bigger buildings not closer to the residential property. some of those kind of issues and I think he's agreed to all of those um as well. Did they get the buffering portion of that worked out because that was kind of the sore point initially the the it shows on here it's a 50-ft landscape buffer. That's what I'm seeing here.

Yeah. And I think a lot of it they're going to leave. There's some wooded areas already. I think they're Yeah, it is a 50ft buffer. They also have but but my question is whether there's extra trees there or not. Does that satisfy the the people that Yeah. that I I I don't know if Paul and them work that out or not. That's my say that for sure. I don't I don't I think that's pretty important part of what uh we were looking at initially on this

uh looking at this. I mean, there's quite a distance from these and the the homes, but I know I've received emails about that and talked to some of the people that live out that way in previous meetings after the meetings and they were sort of pretty adamant about trying to get a 100 foot buffer. I don't know if that went to Paul and your group or not or if that got discussed or not, but uh I know one of the homeowners is here and I know Paul's here. I don't know if we want to that's up to him. Let them speak or not. I want to make sure we just do the right thing by them. That's the main thing. So, let's have uh all of you want to come up and let's let's address that. I think it's important to do so. Give us your name and address, please.

Paul Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee, not res yet.

Yet, thank you for your time. Yeah. So, so much to address there and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address these points and I guess I'll I'll work backwards from what I heard just now. So, the revisions that we've made to this plan since the last time you've seen it are culmination of comments we received from this body the last time, town council's comments from the workshop session as well as additional community meetings that we've had. The most recent one was the middle of October. All of those have been really productive and very helpful for us and has shaped this plan into what you see before you now. Um, specifically, Councilman Atkins, to your question about the buffers. So, two things on those that we did based on the last community meeting. One is we added we self-imposed building height restrictions which is in this packet. Um, basically the first 100 ft within our property line, buildings are restricted to 40 ft height of height, which is less than Smyrna's maximum building height allowed. The next 100 ft, we're allowed to go to 50 foot overall height. And then beyond that is the 60 ft that we ultimately are asking for. And so by stepping down or I guess stepping up right the building heights the further you go get away from the property line that [clears throat] helps alleviate the sighteline concerns that that some of the community had. Secondly the landscape buffers if I understood correctly the intent of that was to say hey when we're within a thousand feet of a home they would like to see a 100 foot buffer. I'm gonna look over my shoulder. Yep. Right. Okay. I have that right. Yep. So, um, [clears throat] when I left that meeting and I heard that clearly, we we've studied that in the cases where we know houses are currently. The only place that that

really comes into play that we're aware of is on the eastern tract. Um, there there might be one home here. Bottom line, we're fine with that 100 foot additional landscape. Is that the lot six property? Lot six. Is that the one that's closest to your product? Is that next to the commercial? Yes. Piece. Well, no. Lot seven. Lot seven would border the commercial. Yeah. I'm just looking for a dwelling that would be close to this. It looks like on lot six there's one that backs up to track one.

I think I think building two is likely the one that will be closest to any home in this scenario. So, we'll be happy to commit to doing a 100 foot landscape buffer next to that building. Um, everywhere else though, I think we're we're well in excess of I heard you say or heard heard Kevin say that you're going to uh move the bay doors away from the neighboring residences. Will that help alleviate some of their concern for trucks, noise, loading, and loading, all that kind of stuff? or is the buffer going to be ample to do that anyway? I I think it's a combination of both. Okay.

Yeah. And so it's our intent like I've just committed to the 100 foot buffer where we are in proximity of 1,000 ft to a home. We're committing to that. Uh that was a late ad so I don't know that it's necessarily memorialized in our packet. So if you'd like to make that a condition of approval tonight, happy to happy to accept that. As far as turning truck courts, orienting truck courts so that they're not facing homes, I I think again my interpretation of that request was that again when they're within a certain proximity to homes, not necessarily every building that could be a mile away from the nearest home potentially. I'm exaggerating by that, but

So you had a meeting with the neighborhoods back in October, correct? Correct. Did you receive feedback on this from them and are they [laughter] are they seeming to be amicable to what you presented or not? Because we're going to hear from one of them at least in a minute I say. Sure. So I feel like we've made a lot of progress from where we started in these conversations. Um there's the mid-occtober meeting there were commitments made on our part and those all seem to be wellreceived. Sure, there's still some work to be done, but primarily that seems to all be focused on the eastern tract, which we know we've still got some work to do over there, but we've made plenty of commitments over there as far as removing an entire building. And I know you worked on hard you have. Oh, yes, sir.

So, and we appreciate that. Yeah. I don't want to take up all the time speaking up here, but those were two questions I had. So,

okay. If I could just address a couple more points, that's okay, while I'm up here. So the fire station, yes, it is to the east of building 8, between building 8 and Mona Road. Our civil engineers here with us tonight. He can speak more intelligently about traffic implications of that, as well as addressing the comment about the phasing plan and when the interior roads get built, the timing of all that. He has that data with that traffic study. So I'd like him to come up here when I'm finished and address that comment for you. Yeah, I I was going to say I mean we he doesn't have to. If you could just answer if you're you're if you're okay with the completion of that road before phase three starts. Can you do that?

I I would feel better with if he could address that because he just knows that better than I do. If you don't mind. Yeah. Okay.

I I guess the short answer to that is we're going to do traffic studies with each building applica building site plan application that we bring forward. And so at each point that traffic study will be updated to show what the demands will look like, what the needs are going to be. And at some point that traffic studies are going to say, "Hey, you need to finish this road." Right? So, but he can speak to that a little bit more intelligently than I can. We I will say to the signage package that that was uh we're pretty proud of that one. like there's a lot of high standards in there that exceeds even Smyrna's guidelines. So those are again self-imposed conditions that we've put on ourselves because we have a high quality of what our product needs to look like. So happy to answer any questions about that specifically and as well as the uses. Kevin mentioned all the different uses. Those again were a product of hearing concerns from the neighbors as well as as town council. Um, as far as the shoulders on Mona Road, again, I'd like to ask Jason to speak to that because we've we've gotten some feedback on it. It's been somewhat discussed here today, but um, he can speak a lot to that. So, I think I I'll I'll stop there, ask Jason to come up, and then if you guys have any additional follow-up questions for us, happy to address it.

Thank you. All right. And good evening, please.

Yeah. Jason Weaver 2559 Southwest Grapevine Parkway in Grapevine, Texas. I'm with GM Civil. So, um yeah, so I first uh touch base on um the phasing and y'all's discussion there. So, when we started coordinating with Rutherford County, uh we actually had a traffic scoping meeting with them and u coordinated with their uh consultant, Neil Schaefer, and basically identified how we wanted to start doing a TIA for this whole development, the whole 1400 acres. Um so when we did that the west phase which actually what is all within Smyrna that we had that was basically our first phase of development that we really did a detailed dive on. The rest of it was kind of just some bigger larger uh you know kind of overall general themes. Um but with that we you know we went through did level of service analysis for all the major intersections you know based on a buildout of this whole development. That's all the commercial all the industrial buildings as you see here today. So the trip generation for this whole western side 75% of the traffic is generated by the commercial retail. So 25% is for the industrial development. When we did the traffic distribution, um, we assumed that as we do full buildout on this thing, the north south minor arterial that parallels 840, uh, and connects to Coulter at Bill France, we assumed about 75% of the traffic would probably ultimately use that pathway and the other 25% would go east west and use Mona uh, up to Bill, France. So with that the first three phases of our buildings that would be you know buildings three through eight um that represents 20% of the industrial traffic. So if we assume that 25% of the buildout traffic would use Mona and at that buildout stage the level of service

or Mona Road averaged an A or a B. It triggered a couple of uh signal warrants but it was based on a Q length. So really, you know, it it didn't necessarily say we needed to put a signal at the buildout, but it was one of those things that needed to be evaluated probably by the time all the commercial gets built out at that time. But bottom line from our standpoint, we're looking at it saying we're only having about 20% of the traffic from this whole development for the first three phases, but 25% of the overall traffic can use Mona Road without an adverse impact on uh the current roadway system. So with that and we think the current roadway with Mona and all that can support up to phase three with only that single point of connection. So obviously as Paul said we're going to submit a traffic impact analysis update every time we do another building site plan application. So it'll be an ongoing process that we work with staff and you know the county whoever may be as we look for the future phases to the east of this and if there if it merits something more than that connection then at that point then obviously that's something we'll address and and handle with the city. So that's that's kind of our philosophy on it. uh and we feel like, you know, if we if we do the continuous analysis on it and work with the city that we're going to provide the the adequate transportation system that we need to to support this development. Uh then I'll just jump over to the shoulders. Uh so as councilman Sullivan mentioned yeah part of the feedback we had received was the concern about trucks you know parking you know either waiting for opportunities to go to the buildings you know sleeping whatever the the drivers may be doing. The uh average width of Mona um north of Bill France and through there up to the intersection is about 22 to 23 feet of existing

paving as it sits today. Uh so adding two feet of paving shoulders on either side actually supplies a typical north south lane and then has a little bit of extra room to accommodate just from a safety standpoint if a bus and a truck you know happens to be passing each other that gives that a little bit of extra room you know a 13t wide lane pretty much on each direction. Uh but also it doesn't invite you know trucks to be parking further and further down you know south of Mona Road that some of the residents have complained about. So that's where we were trying to be cognizant of that and some of their concerns. Um and that was the reason for the why we left that condition uh as part of our package. So

questions. Yes sir. Closer road comes down comes down the depth of the project and then it it's not name but there's a road that goes between building four and then out and then out to Mona Road. Sir, what's the width of that road? That one is a 30. It's a three-lane road, too. It's a 37 uh foot back to back. So, in the event there was trucks waiting to offload, that could be there. So, not putting them on Boner Road, but putting on that road, right? There there would still be ample room for any queuing or somebody just Yeah. waiting at that condition. Okay. Yes, sir.

And uh relative to the fire station too, let me address that. So obviously we moved it up to the frontage of Mona. Um and as Kevin mentioned, I mean obviously we would need to coordinate with the fire department and see what their thoughts on that site are. I mean ultimately long term we think that the fire station site will probably actually move further east with the future development. But for right now, this is obviously the case that's in front of us today. So uh we're trying to work within the confines of our application as we are today. So, we think with that facing there, I mean, the the fire station could have the opportunity to have a direct driveway access to Mona, you know, back and forth instead of actually, you know, internal to the development itself.

So, I that's something again we can work with the staff on uh and make sure that we still have that restrictive movement for trucks, make sure everybody all the trucks go north. Uh, but I think that's something that we could work at and if if if the fire department says that they like that site. So, Kevin, for the audience's sake, do you have your laser? No, no, no, no. Just for the audience sake, we we all know where where it's going, but I thought for people watching to point it out up there might be helpful, but that's okay. Don't go get it, Mitch. You'd be gone today. But I got you one if you need it. There you go. Look, you can't come.

Quick question for you. So that same road we're talking about when it goes to what we're calling the east project, it's going to cross Mona Road, right? Or is this just going to stop here? That depends. I mean, obviously we don't control what's on the east side of Mona Road. I mean, we're we're putting in a public collector road east west, you know, to help support the truck traffic that's in there. M um but yeah I mean there's an opportunity for that collector road to you know be extended if the developer or the property owner to the east feels feels it's beneficial to them. Yeah. Isn't it am I mistaken the 700 acre parcel? Isn't it right on the other side of Mona Road or is it okay? Never mind. There's a track of land in between. Never mind. Yeah.

Don't hit the bear spray over there Kevin. That's the wrong That's the wrong thing on that laser thing. [laughter] Yeah, this is the prop. There's properties of property here in between their tracks over here and then so this new road that on Motor is it going to require a stoplight [clears throat] ultimately um at some point uh maybe outside of the full buildout of this if when more development continues to the east. Yes, at some point there will be a traffic signal at Mona Road. Most definitely. So

the racetrack which is across from it has a lot of uh industrial development and so the fits it fits the zone. I'm glad they're doing commercial but uh there's eventually going to be probably a need for a signal. I would think my current thought is just all the homeowners that are south of this and if Paul's met with all of them and they're all on board and understand what's coming. Is there Kevin? Would you point out where the fire potential fire hall would be? Yeah, it's right here. Right. Have it own driveway in and out. [cough] It would.

So, let me um since you you got the lasers, you can follow me. But I I'm kind of looking at your phasing map and I I've kind of heard what you said and I appreciate all that but I I'm going to respectfully just disagree a little bit. Um so Coulter is going to come down off of Bill France, right? And that's that first 350,000 square feet of commercial in the front there is phase one. Um and then you immediately pass building one and building three which is part of phase three. Then you hit the ex you hit that intersection and go out to Mona Road which crosses in front of build building 8 which is phase one again. Yes sir.

So I'm not sure I understand the reservation to committing to building that road just like I just went. Understood. Since one and three are pretty much the two phases. I'm just saying

before you could go past phase three that road has to be completed. So part of the clarification on that, Hillwood has no intention of developing the commercial track. So they they don't control that. If somebody comes in once they start bringing utilities here and they start marketing this property and those folks, you know, someone comes in says, "Yeah, I want to I want to jump on board phase one when y'all are doing your phase one of the industrial." We just had to put a phase on the commercial because it was asked for. So um but with our um conditions that we stated in there, if a commercial developer comes in on in phase one, they have to make that connection to Coulter Court and extend it into the development. So if if the commercial starts to develop, that may change, you know, honestly phase I mean not to mess up with our deal, I mean the phasing plan is our best guess right now, right? We're locking in the site plan. I mean that's part of the condition too that we did we came back with. You know, originally this was a conceptual layout that had some flexibility, but obviously just talking with the residents and and the city council, you know, that was part of the condition. So now we're locking this plan in. Any changes that we do to it, um, we have to come back with an amendment. So that that's part of what we've we've agreed to. But market conditions could say that you know what buildings one and three somebody says I want those instead of building eight you know and wouldn't make that decision like okay well if we do that then those improvements may start happening quicker than you know what we're forecasting right now. I mean if they obviously start with a lot of speculative development.

I understand that it could also be later and that's my concern. Right. So I I I mean here's my problem. It it seems like I'm giving all of the control to the to you guys, but the impact could be to the community just as much. Yes, sir. If if that connection isn't made and you end up just like you said, if the if it ends up not being needed until all eight buildings are done, then everything is coming out on Mona Road until then. And I just don't like that variant, right? it. Um, we need to be able to control that better.

Yeah. And so I think that's where we're coming back with every time we turn a site plan in, we want to monitor that with staff. And if if we come back with a condition and we've done updated traffic counts on Bill France and on Mona and, you know, with our next round of comments and it says, hey, we need to make that connection. Then obviously with the site plan approval process, I mean, the city has the right to hold our feet to the fire to make those improvements right at that stage. So all we're asking for is to be able to prove that flexibility up until such time that it's necessary. I mean obviously you know there's a lot of infrastructure that's going on to feed this first phase that feeds everything else. So you know it just it's just part of you know the request you know and again we've backed it up you know with with with an analysis uh that shows those conditions and again we're we're happy to keep coordinating with staff to that point. So, yep.

Okay. Councilman Sullivan, would you mind just repeating what you what your suggestion was again about when the completion of that road should be done by? U by the end of by the end of phase two phase two phase that not the whole road just that L before starting phase three. When you start phase three, you got to have that road done done. And and I I really didn't. That's not a problem. Okay. Good. Because three and four is in phase three. You got to have the road to get to them by that time. Yeah. Right. Okay. Yep. Sorry. I I I think we were maybe saying the same thing but not. So, got it. Apologies. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Is everybody good as far as questions? One question. Kevin, in the early part of your um description, Mona Road down to Jefferson Pike and all of that land or just the road is being annexed in just the road.

Okay. And in the previous submission, the sewer is going to come up Mona Road. So all of Mona Road is going to be tore up, sewer put in. I don't know that some of us I don't know that the entire sewers I more I don't think the design's finished yet but I don't think I don't think we're looking at to put it directly down the middle of Mona Road. I think part of it is going to be offsite as well. I think there's some easements that have to be purchased and different things like that too. So okay.

Um the neighbors part of that they know what's coming disruption. Sorry, you asked that again. So from Jefferson Pike coming up Mona Road is where this this sewer is going to point of connection is it's going to come into this development here. So the easiest path would just take Mona Road right on up into that development. Has that been dialogue with all the community of what's the impact will be? I I think outside of your development, what's going to be fed to their development? Do they know what's coming?

Right. Um certainly residents that are within the required notice radius of this application are aware of this coming and I'm sure several others because of the world of social media we live in these days, right? Word spreads easily. Um so I'm sure a lot of the word has gotten out. Uh certainly at the last neighborhood meeting that we had [cough] in mid-occtober, [clears throat] more more residents that live much further south on Mona Road showed up at that meeting, which was great. um some of them for the first time. So, we got that great engagement. Um they're aware of what's being proposed. Um as far as whether they have been engaged on the official easement acquisition process or not, we have not. Right. That process to our knowledge hasn't started yet. as part of the utility agreement that's being currently negotiated. That would be the town and CUD's obligation to go procure the easements. So, um, but I don't think that process has started yet. Okay.

But you have had discussions with most of the community there and they understand what's coming as far as the development goes.

I I believe so. Um, we we've been clear about it. Um, and I think that early on there were some concerns or maybe some confusion about the annexation of Mona Road, including their properties. And so we made sure quickly to make that clear that no, that's it's just for the road itself. Any annexation on their properties would be at their consent. And to Ken's point, uh I know he asked about the land south of here, and I know Ken already knows this, but for the audience portion, we cannot annex anything. The town cannot annex anything. It has to be requested. And that changed several years ago, but the confusion might circle around where some people might think, well, they're just going to take our land in. They'd have to be the ones to request that. That's right. Okay. All right. Uh, let me let me do this out of

Well, are there anything more questions on the development side? Yeah, one one more question. Um, Kevin on the 4 foot versus two foot. So, I guess can you talk a little bit about why you think it should be 4 feet? Cuz Well, it was something Mr. Uh Charles King had had mentioned and we had looked at it when we were doing our plan of services kind of a cost that that the 4oot shoulders was part of our recommendation all along and so we were being consistent with that recommendation. I think Charles may can speak to that the specifics on that. You want to speak to that? Yeah, Charles just so you kind of know where my my thought process is like I said with the parking trucks

and basically what I've heard is we have no leverage to enforce that at this point. Right. So if we put a 4ft shoulder there, are we going to be inviting something we can't control versus two foot now and 4 foot later when we annex that road, we we look at it in the future when it's when somebody

I was just looking at it, you know, just like here on weekly lane, you have so much truck traffic running off the edge of the road and you're breaking it down. Uh like said, you only got 22 feet out there. Normal, you know, truck lane is 12t wide. So you at least want to get that. So that's two foot right there to kind of get we just want that extra just so you don't have trucks dropping off then breaking that edge off the road or and dropping into the ditch cuz that's something that we're working now to work on weekly lane to correct. So that's my feeling behind it. Uh between a twoft or 4 foot the truck's going to be in the road. I mean that's just going to be an enforcement issue.

Yeah. I just my concern is we're making that determination, but we can't enforce it. And that's right. We we might be creating a problem for the homeowners that that would be more on the county. Like I said, if the county comes back under theirs and they feel comfortable with the two foot uh I mean that's something we can definitely talk to them about. But yeah, I just that didn't come in about parking. Didn't consider that part of it. But yeah, that's something we could, you know, talk with them about.

Okay. Okay. And we mentioned earlier uh if there was someone here that was at the meeting uh that's uh you know in the community. Okay. And if you could come up and we'll let you speak and you can give us your thoughts on it. Sure. Name address and uh Kelly Butler 2111 Trout Trail in Murphy'sboro.

Okay. Um, we have met with Paul several times. Um, and he has been very helpful working with the community, but we do still have a few things on our list. Um, I want to speak on the curbing. There is parking there now. Um, they don't stay on the road, so the width of the road doesn't really matter. They go off into the grass. Um, so one of the things that we did mention was possibly some curve curbing um I that really wasn't mentioned um in this discussion that would prevent the parking overnight parking um problems that we're having now. Um the dock orientation was something else. Uh we didn't really come to an agreement on that yet, but um that in combination with um the buffers, a 50- foot was agreed upon. We asked um any homes that were within 1,000 ft. So anyone that was notified um of the development. So within 1,000 ft of the development, if they're within 1,000 ft of the parking lot or a building is what we were asking for the additional buffer to 100 ft. Um

and they've agreed to that. Yeah, it's on this plan that they agreed to that.

Um that's not something that we had talked about in person, but um about it agreeing upon it. So, I hadn't hadn't seen that. But a lot of that had to do with again more of the east side. We uh haven't really spoken to a lot of the people that are, you know, um right here in this section. Uh we have spoken to several of the neighbors that are on the south side of Mona Road um that they have just kind of shown up to the meetings for this. they were participants in um earlier with Panon Panonia Panonia

um back in 2022 um that they've been uh approached regarding this sewer issue since then. So, a lot of those families um this been going on for a really long time and they um had a lot of their family farms kind of separated and taken and cut in half when 840 came through. So, um [clears throat] those folks really I think they've kind of given up. Um but they were not really they were not notified because they're not within the thousand ft of the development. So, they've just kind of jumped on M [clears throat]

from your perspective, Kelly, do you feel like there's been a lot of ground closed up? I mean, do you feel like there's been a lot of agreement? Yes. Taking place between the developer and you Absolutely. That was the reason I asked the question earlier. Absolutely. They have every time we have uh proposed something to them, we have gone back and forth. They have um had several community meetings and have been very open to hearing our concerns throughout. Is that Thank you.

And I think I need to to say this to to be clear. Whichever way the recommendation goes tonight to council, the things that we have in front of us is what would be agreed upon. There's not going to there would not be any other involvement as far as buffering or anything uh in that matter in which there would have to be a separate side agreement between neighbors and the developer. We've gotten into situations before where that's kind of been um ambiguous uh and has led to lots of issues. So, I want to make sure that from a commission standpoint, you know, when we're making the approval, we're covering what it's approved to or not approved to send to council for the final vote.

Questions? Yep. Go ahead. All right. I I'll make a motion um make a motion to approve with staff comments excluding number 16, which is the comments related to the shoulder. Um but I would also like to add that [clears throat] no truck traffic could be would be allowed south of the complex on road. Um that the uh interior road uh will be completed as part of the phase three buildout. and that uh 100 ft buffer from from for any home that is within 1,000 ft of the complex. [clears throat]

Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? I want to ask uh council, have they signed Do we have a signed agreement yet? I don't think we do, do we? No, we're still waiting on CED. And when would that happen to take place? Well, would they meet on the But I've not seen an agreement yet, but for the actual items related to the town, those have been in agreement, but we just waiting on CUD.

Okay, motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I oppose. I oppose because the agreement is not signed yet. Okay. So, one on one note. Okay. All right. Uh that concludes old business. We'll move on to new business. We have an annexation zoning and plan of service request. Kevin, uh item number one under that Hamilton Development LLC has been withdrawn. Number one has been withdrawn. Yes.

Okay. So, we'll move on to Tell you what. Let's let anybody wants to leave if you want to go ahead. Okay. Uh, under new business, uh, agenda item number two, Sunny Patel, 8216 Florence Road, uh, annexation and P zoning.

This is a request for annexation. Uh, a portion of this parcel is already within the town limits. Was annexed several years ago. Uh, when the uh gas station bait shop Ed's bait shop was torn down and and a new gas station was built. Um this is to request annex the remaining uh portion of the property. Uh the the and zone it to to Pine Industrial District. Um surrounding zoning in town is C2 which is the the the remainder of this property. Uh it's RM and Rutherford County is the the other zoning. Uh the rest of the property around it is not within the town limits. Um the UA at Laney's plan would support medium density single family residential in this area. Uh the major thoroughfare plan uh does designate Florence Road as a minor arterial. Uh this portion of the property actually has no frontage on that road uh as the core owns the area between this parcel uh and the road core of engineers. Uh the requested P is for 34,771 square ft of conventional self storage and covered outdoor storage in nine buildings. Uh and for an existing house on the property to be converted to the storage office with also some additional spaces in there for rent as well. uh kind of some standard comments regarding the fire flow minimums of 1500 gpm at 20 pc psi. Um we had a few comments. Um the submitt the previous submitt had a the um buildings were proposed to be built with metal and like some sort of masonry siding. We did recommend it be constructed consistent with the materials that were on the convenience

store. Um they have revised the the the plans that are in front of you have been revised to reflect a um kind of a mixture of brick on the conventional self storage brick on the three sides and then metal on the the side where the rollup doors would be located. Um the metal the covered just parking would just be the metal type cardboard kind of canopy building. Um so that that has been been somewhat addressed as far as at least from the visibility sides of that building that these buildings that would be visible. Um the um fire department has some pretty serious concerns with regarding the uh auto turn for this project and the ability for them to to traverse this area if there was a need to. Uh that's comment number seven. So that still needs to be addressed. Um, comment number eight, a fire hydrant is required within 400 ft of all buildings. And they would to do that, they would need to extend a water man across Florence Road. Currently, the nearest hydrant is directly across the street on but on the opposite side of Florence Road. Um, so that one still needs to be addressed. We did ask them to show all the proposed utility locations on site as well. Um, one of the they had the previous um plan had it shown a front setback. This portion of the property really doesn't have a front setback because it doesn't have any road frontage. Um, so they've kind of clarified that. They've just removed that. Um, this set the each side has a 15t set back within the rear with a I think it was 17 or something like that on the back portion which would be the northern portion. Um so those were

the kind of our comments really we can um number six has has for the most part been addressed and then number 10 has been addressed. Um we would have the remaining comments still would be a part of it. Um so I think that's all that I've got at this time. Kevin to be clear core property is on the west side parallel with Florence. Is that correct? Yeah, the core property is on both sides here and here on the north and west side. This is a private piece of property zoned RM in Rutherford County. How is that accessed? Where would it be accessed from?

It's it has it would be accessed to the south. Um there there's a development south of here and that's how it would be accessed here. [clears throat] Yeah. So yeah, the access to this would be through the it's again it's all the same parcel. It would be access through the the parking lot of of the gas station using the same access points that they have here and then access to the north. You said it's all the same parcel so that it wouldn't have to be a um there wouldn't have to be any kind of easement. Correct. It's all owned by the same people. Yeah.

Where specifically is the auto turn concerns? Is it or in the storage within? It's within Let me see if I can get to that sheet.

Um I know there was some locations where it was crossing um kind of going over some curbs and and getting really close to some of the buildings. Um I don't know exactly which one of those it was, but Okay. Good point. Weird piece right here.

Um, as far as uh fire department access, are we concerned with I guess these are building numbers, correct? 82 and 86. 82 would be or I'm sorry 81 would be or let me just ask a question. Is 81 a closed building? Is that what I'm seeing? Yeah. Closed storage. The and yellow is

the red buildings are the red buildings are are closed. The yellow buildings are open. Yeah. Are there different uh rules as far as fire suppression and and uh response as far as an open versus closed building? I guess is this something where they need access on both sides or is it can it be achieved aerial or or what is you know are we concerned with the auto turn within here? Yeah, I don't know that I know for sure the answer to that question. I think certainly the I think the main concern with those open buildings would be if there was a fire. We're going to get an expert up here. One of the one of the vehicles themselves. Yeah. Or something like that.

In answer to the question, sir, there's no difference as far as the the minimum requirements for closed or open, but it is 150 ft reach for any point of the building from wherever we would have to place an apparatus. Okay. So, and I did not specifically see this. I know that assistant chief Lawrence looked at it. The concern with the auto turn was just that there were inches rather than feet of distance in the way it was designed, but he did not indicate that there was any building that was less than the 150 or excuse me in excess of 150 ft. So I don't think that part of it was an issue. Okay. Thank you. So the auto turn is workable.

As as it was drawn, as I understand it, it's showing literally like an inch of a building. So it is a definite concern. It's that that's really not an allowable amount of gray area for us to make because the lines to be able to turn a rig through that. Correct. Sir, it would be super difficult and that is assuming that there's not one obstacle at anywhere on the property at the time that a truck was trying to operate in that area. It is a requirement of the condition anyway, right? So, right. [clears throat]

Um since that property between Florence Road and this property is is core land, I know there's high likelihood that it may never develop. Um but what is normally the the buffering requirements for industrial

buffering between industrial to residential um is typically u a type D which is a burm and with basically a type C buffer on top of a BM is basically what would be required typically. So that's what I'm worried about is, you know, the the property to the I guess southwest, whatever that is, the Hollings Head property. I [clears throat] think it's all RM currently. I mean, it seems logical that someday it would develop as residential right here for sure. I think so. Yeah. Um and then the core property is all between it and Florence and behind it, right? Right. Right. That's all core, right?

This is all core. Yes. So, we wouldn't need to require a buffer there because it's not technically zoned commercial or residential. It's I don't know what if it has a zoning assigned by the county or not. It's actually not within the town. Um, is there any precedence for that land ever developing? It would be up to the core of engineers to sell it. I mean, good luck with that. Have they ever [clears throat] I don't know. I don't know that we've ever seen that. No. any since in the 50 plus years now that I know a lot of people like to buy some lakeside property but they won't ever do it here. Yeah. Right. Okay. [clears throat]

What is the height of the building? Um 20 I think is the maximum the hedgeho that would be the maximum height. So, the ones fronting Florence, are they one story or two? They're all It's all single story. Yes. I'd say 20 ft is probably some of those canopies would probably be the taller if they want to get something high enough for someone to park, you know, a large motor home underneath or something like that. It's got a fifth wheel parked under one and it's a 16 ft.

So, still less than 20, but it would be right up there. Well, you're not going to have too many long vehicles if you've only got a 24 foot wide driveway trying to back or drive into these stalls. That's a little tight. Yeah. And not to mention, if the fire trucks can't even turn around there, I think this whole thing would need to be adjusted to fit. I think that's our our thinking as well. I mean, I think the for layout of the buildings is going to have to be adjusted some. Maybe a building goes gets eliminated or something like that too

potentially. [clears throat] So, I'm hearing that with what we have in front of us right now, we've got issues with auto turn and then there's also future considerations as far as a landscape buffer on the east side of this. Correct. Yeah, I mean I think you know putting a buffer there now I don't know how you're buffering trees you well I mean that's my question I mean that's my you know how how do you do that if you know it's already there it's already there well kind yeah for now for now right

for now is it maintain that is it just maintaining the tree line that's there up to the required uh footage or well but you you mentioned birming it so if if it's not done and I get why it's not done on the front end, but let's just say that does develop. Then what happens, right? I think that's something we'd have to look at for sure just because it doesn't make sense to put a burm there now that that that property could they could come in next week with a plan to develop it or it may be 20 years, you know, or something before it ever develops. You never know. So,

I guess we could put some language in a in there that in the event that property develops, they would add the appropriate buffer at that time. But I I don't know. Be ready to catch that. Yeah. Well, if we don't make if we don't make this developer do it, then it's going to fall on the residential developer to have to do it, right? That's my point. And that's So, how do you how do you achieve that? Yeah. you know, and we could I mean, typically I mean it it's kind of who's who's there first, but at the same time, you know, Birming Well, the other problem is it's currently RM, but it may not stay that way, right?

It could come in as industrial, too, and the BM wouldn't be required, you know, and I would say the developer later might be okay with it, but when you drive out there, there are homes, their porch is back up to steel technologies, and nobody buffered any of that, right? So, but that's been a sore spot right right there. Right there next to that. We had one come through that was to die basically because of that. Well, it's a little clear when you're looking at the aerial that there are some, you know, significant I mean, it's the same amount of trees or types of trees that are on there. It just didn't end with that nice colored green area. You do have trees there. So,

there there are some trees on this property. It appears to be on on that area. And the drawing does show what appears to be some, you know, a pretty good setback too. At least I think the minimum they had shown was 15 ft. And that may be something we, you know, maybe we have on that east side. Maybe we want a 20ft set back, not 15 ft. Just from the standpoint of that gives you enough area to put a buffer there if you want to in the future. just I didn't draw you glasses.

So to that point though, have they committed to keep the existing tree canopy on east that shown is not part of the site plan? Um there's nothing about there's nothing in here about that maintaining that area. The trees they're showing as green area. So, it could certainly be landscaped or buffer and kept. Um, but there's nothing in here that would indicate that they are requiring that of this. Um, and again, most of that is most of that existing canopy I think is on the adjoined parcel. There is a little bit on there certainly, but most of it is on that adjoining track.

Oh, don't say now. So is one of the solutions we could consider is requiring a did you mention a 20 foot side set? I think minimum of like a 20ft side setbacks that's what the buffer requirement would be. Yeah.

If we if that was residential develop behind it that's what they would be required to build. So at least the area would be there if it needed to be built and maybe it's if it's developed and that that whoever develops it becomes residential behind it. I'll ask question that it gets built on this property but by that developer or something that could be what happens in the future cuz he doesn't want to take up his lot area or something for a buffer and or you know something like that. So right now we're sort of site planning and annexation request. Exactly. That's true. Yeah, but it it is a P though, right? So, it is a pun.

Yeah. So, we'll get oversight, but I guess my concern is like the building placement. We've got some fire issues there. Yeah. Um, are we appro If we're if we were to approve tonight, we're approving building locations, right? No. I mean, I think you're approving at least. Yes, you're right. I I mean and that would be and maybe it's a you know maybe it's a deferral for a month. where my mind is right now having to come back with some revisions on the building layout and the and the auto turn and maybe some again taking back the the thoughts of a 20ft set back there not a 15 as well

and and to Ken's point earlier Steve you've got a you've got a fifth wheel is 24 ft between buildings okay to maneuver really tight it's really tight so mine's 37 just for the developer I might ask them to look 24 ft between buildings to for the uncovered portion. This is where you're going to park boats and campers and things of that nature. Somebody going to have to bring them in there and somebody going to have to park them. And I just don't know what the width is there. Be a challenge for a very experienced trailering individual. That would be Steve.

I experienced many of those [laughter] out there. Steve would just take it out. me I've hit some I've hit some before. You know, generally I'm not opposed to this and it's in a good spot. It's in a great spot. Yeah. I think because of the core property around it. This will never develop commercially. It just never will. I mean, you could have the best. It's hidden

store in the world there and people will never see it and they won't know it's there. So, it makes sense from that perspective, but I don't feel like we're there because uh with the fire department concerned about inches versus, you know, feet or maybe one building that's off or something like that. I have concerns that way. Um and also, you know, concerns as far as, you know, the distance in between the canopy buildings because of what would be required there. And I I think that's actually something the developer and owner should take a look at and consider uh as they do this because if they set something up where it's more prone to having somebody hit a building or hit another vehicle or something while they're trying to maneuver in there, it's it's a lot of pain from them financially in the long run.

Uh Jeff, a deferral request would have to come from the applicant. Is that right? Or can we defer? No, no, you can defer it. You can defer it for 30 days. That case, I'll make a motion to defer to 30 days or to the next meeting. Yeah. To the next meeting. Um Kevin, we'd ask that you look at the auto turn, look at the building placement and the 20 foot buffer. Um and then of course anything else that comes up to your discussions. Okay, I'll second the motion. Have a motion and a second to defer. Any further discussion? All those in favor of deferring until the next meeting, please signify by saying I. I

oppose. This motion has been deferred or approved and deferred. Okay. Uh now on to resoning requests. The first is from Arsani Griel 6 or sorry 519 Noel Lane reszoning R3 to C4. Yeah. This is a request for a piece of property at the corner of Noel Lane and Old Nashville Highway. Um it's about 2800s of an acre. Um requested to be reszone from R3 to C4. Um surrounding zoning is a mix of R1, R3, R six and TCD which is across Noel Lane from this property which is a basically a C4 uses um but with the additional use of alcohol sales there in that PCD. Uh the land use plan would support medium density single family in this area. uh major thorough affair plan does designate all Nashville highway as a minor arterial and Noel Lane as a collector and adequate rideway does exist for those two streets. Um I do not have do not know what a proposed use that was some of the questions we had received from some of the neighbors was regarding is there a proposed use for something like that at this time. I do not know a proposed use for this. Uh they just did request a C4 zoning for it which would be our our neighborhood commercial. So,

the lot's probably big enough even to do a I mean, C2 would not fit there, but it's probably a big enough lot to accommodate a C2 potentially. Um, yeah, it's good. C4 is a softer use, right? Um, I know last month we had the uh applicant to come in and try to do one over there by one mile lane and that was a C2 request, right? And I think that's probably a big part of the reason it didn't didn't grow legs. But, uh, I could see this being on a fivelane road as a C4 or a busy road for that matter. So,

well, surrounding zoning, that's a a PCD, uh, immediately to the north and I guess west of that. And as I recall, the the the uses there are fairly I not 100% consistent with uh C4, are they not? Or or am I thinking there's one C? The P the PCD that is across the street is basically I think it was originally zone C4. Yeah.

And they wanted to have the the store that's in there that does sell alcohol and beer and tobacco store there. And so they came in and amended that to and zoned it to a PCD to allow for that use basically instead of going for C2 zoning at that time. Um that's been many years ago. Um and then we're C4 past that. North of there is C4. Yes. And as you go further south on Old Nashville Highway when you get closer to Enan Springs Road, you got some properties there. There's C4 which would be the veterinarian. It's that well. Oh, I'm sorry. South. Yeah. Yeah. Karate plays karate plays

the karate that area there now across across the street that's actually a PCD as well but it was more of a C4 type uses as well let's do this since there was some interest let's talk about what some C4 uses okay it's not a vape shop it would not be a vape shop cannot be that cannot be a vape shop or a a convenience store can be a gas station gas station cannot be car lot

yeah cannot be a fast food restaurant, nothing like that. It could only be certainly any type of office type use could be there. You could have retail there. Um, more of the neighborhood type scale retail typically. Uh, again, no vape shops or anything like that. Uh, you could have a restaurant there, but it could not be one with a drive-thru with the noise from a drive-thru or anything like that. um you know your your services like a a nail salon, a hair salon, those kind of uses would certainly there dentist, doctor, attorney, real estate, you know, those kind of professional offices certainly could go there in a C4. Okay,

I think this pretty much fits that area. I mean C4 or R3 all up and down the road there. Um obviously like C4 a lot better than the C2 options, right? Or C5. So C4 is definitely the softer option. So I'll make a motion that we approve. I have a motion to approve with staff comments.

Uh the resoning request with staff comments. So I have a second a second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. I'm a little unclear [clears throat] on what the impact's going to be on the surrounding single family residences and and what the what the public utility would be of allowing the resoning. Well, if of course the residential use is grandfather and can continue, but if it develops into a commercial use, uh they would be have to be looking at a buffer between those those two adjoining residential uses. Um at this when it develops, they wouldn't have to do it today, but when it develops, they would have to do and use changes. Uh they would have to look at that buffer there. Um,

isn't our norm though when we do a resoning like this that we would ask for what the use is going to be? When you do a straight zone like this when you do a straight zone like this, you you really you you would be zoning it for any of those uses. I mean, certainly you could ask that question, but you really can't base your zoning. This is this isn't a pug. It's more does the zoning fit the location, right, than anything else. And being on the highway, you might even see additional properties eventually along the highway do something similar to to but right now on a fivelane road. So, but aren't we basically breaking up that residential neighborhood

if we were putting encouraging encouraging development to the uh I guess it would be southeast Well, then you could probably make the argument that the person across the street that has the commercial complex there did that earlier. Is that commercial behind there on the upper portion? It's apartment complex. Apartment

that that's an apartment complex here. Yeah. And then this is the commercial building. I think if we were certainly talking about this being three or four homes down null lane, I think that's a that's a different story. But being that this is on a five lane highway with similar zoning um and knowing that commercial, you know, C4 is going to allow um neighborhood friendly type uh development and knowing that we have buffers in in uh regulations in effect, then I don't see that it's I don't know that it necessarily encourages is anything else. Uh but you know certainly if we were looking at any lots that proceeded down Noel or even you know somewhere else I mean we can make a decision at that point but that's

well the houses directly south of this piece of property all actually back up to Old National Highway. Yeah. So their road frontage is on the court so it would not logically stretch south on that side anyway. And then Caddy Corner across is is also commercial. That's that's where that punt is. That's a whole office complex across the street. Well, I guess just the question is do you draw the line at Noel Lane or do you let it shift to the south? I think each one stands on their own. Yeah. So

I think it being Old Nashville Highway, it kind of lends itself to commercial C4 development along Old Nashville Highway. When it comes time for getting a building permit, would the access to this lot then be off of Old Nashville Highway or Noel? We would have to look at that when their site plan comes in. Yeah. Um the existing access is Noel. So Old Nashville Highway would be that's it's a state road. So for them to get that I think No, it's not. That's right. We took

it's not it's not a state road. That's right. So it would be something we would we would just have to review the site plan when it comes in. We want to be sure the distance from the Noel Lane intersection, you know, we may want to keep it on Noel Lane, you know, just from the standpoint of complex along Old Nashville there. Um, and the depending on what the use is, it might lend itself to just, you know, if it's a low traffic use, if it's an office of some type or something like that, it might might make sense. Police, their parking, all that would have to come in with a site plan. So if they turning it into a small office or something like that, handicap parking, things of that nature would have to be looked at.

On a C4, how tall could an office building be? What is it max? I want to say I think it's 25. I think it's two stories the max height I think in C4. I think um maybe it's 30. Uh I don't have it in my brain right quick. should mention looking it up. Looks like I was thinking future for the neighbor next door if they get a tall building up right next to Well, that's site plan. That's where you address it at site plan. Mitch, we're waiting. I'm just kidding. I'm just [laughter]

I saw your figures over there doing this. Interesting. Yeah, I should have thought about that before. I can't recall. I looked it up before I came in here. I think we have a motion. Yeah, we do have a motion in a second. And I'm not sure that we're waiting on Mitch at this point or not. Okay. So, we have a motion in a second. Uh, anything else? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? No. No.

Two nos. Okay. Next on the agenda under resoning request, Highgate HH development, Blair Road, Portico Place resoning C2 to add uh the H2 overlay. Kevin, it's my understanding that the developers asked for deferral on this. That is right. They have requested that you all defer this till the next meeting. Okay. Any discussion from the commission on this? Not. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to defer to the next meeting. I have a motion to defer until the next meeting. Do I have a second? [clears throat] Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of deferring this agenda item until the next meeting. Please send signify by saying I.

Opposed. This has been deferred to the next meeting. Next under resoning request, James and Angela Schmidt, 1205 Rock Springs Road, reszoning R3 to C4. This [clears throat] is a request uh to resone this piece of property from R3 to C4. It's about 7200 of an acre. Um surrounding zoning is a mix of R3, C2, and C4. Uh the land use plan for this area um on this side just this as the parcels at the front Rock Springs Road on this side of Rock Springs Road within our our Sam Ridley uh character area which would pro support a combination of retail uses and services u that kind of you know serve both local and regional customers. Uh the major thoroughfare plan does designate Rock Springs Road as a collector and there's approximately 88 ft of rideway there in front of this parcel. So it certainly has it meets our rideway requirements. Um just for for information uh the the rear uh about 70 ft or so of this property on the eastern boundary and it goes to about 120 ft on the western boundary does lie within the floodway and about 15 ft of that property beyond the floodway does lie within the 100red-year flood plane which does still leave about 150 ft in depth on the western boundary and 180 ft on the eastern boundary outside of that flood hazard area. So there's still add plenty of room there. uh for obviously the home that's already there as well as a future commercial uh any commercial building that could be built there as well. Certainly adequate area for to develop this property commercial, but I did want to bring that to everyone's attention. Um all the parcels basically of south of not all the parcels most of the parcels south of Rock Springs Road through that area uh have been reszoned primarily C4 at the intersection with

Old Nashville Highway. There's one or maybe two that have a C2 zoning. Um and so this would be consistent with that as well. So, yeah. At the uh corner of Spring Hill, I believe that's a I think it's more medical office. That's a medical office building. And then next to that, we have um is that the hair salon with there's a hair salon in that building and some other things as well, I think. And then if as you move up, there's a couple of I think there's an insurance agent's office and and some more things. And across the street, this is facing the back of uh it's Home Depot.

Home Depot. Uh then you've got the liveaway and storage and then Champy's and then on the corner uh of Spring Hill on the opposite side is a is a fast clinic. It's a health clinic. Yeah. Health. Yeah. Urgent care. And we're seeing more development along Rock Springs in this area, are we not? We're we're seeing medical office u some C2. Some C2. We've got a couple couple gas stations that were built further as you get closer to the uh on the home to the hospital down on the opposite side. Right. Yeah.

Chairman, uh before you call for any kind of discussion, I'm going to stay out of this. These are good friends of mine. They've asked me to potentially help them do something with that property at a later time. Okay. So, I just feel like I need to abstain. Okay. So, if you'll mark uh mark Mark as not participating or voting. I think these the last two residential lots along that whole stretch right there. It is. Yeah. And I have been contacted by representatives from the property to the east and we're probably going to see that one pretty soon. Okay. Uh any other questions for uh Kevin or staff concerning this resoning request?

If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve R3 to C4 with staff comments. With staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. This motion uh is approved. Okay. We're now on to preliminary plats beginning with Gamble Oaks subdivision, [clears throat] Gamble Lane at Elway Court, owner, developer Odessa, Louise Settles, uh, and Hinsley Civil LLC.

Yeah, this is the preliminary plaque for the Gamble Oak subdivision. This is a PRD that was approved some time ago and then recently was revised. Uh and so this is just the plumeary plat for this PRD. Uh it's uh 23 lots uh 6.77 acres. Um they're on Gamble Lane. Um the several standard comments really one through seven uh would all remain. Uh, comment number eight regarding the road and road roadway names. Uh, we do have that 911 approval, so we can remove comment eight. Uh, comment nine was a it was a comment from the public works stormwater department. I want to keep that one. They haven't had a chance to review that yet. I think they're I think the developer and engineer certainly agreeable to it, but I want [clears throat] to keep that one. Uh, comment number 10 regarding the fire hydrant being shown across the road there. It does provide coverage to some of those lots do front gambling lane. Uh that has been addressed and can be removed. Uh we did ask for an additional 5ft side setback from the utility and drainage easements on those lots and those that has been addressed. In fact, one of I think one of the easements has been removed. So we've removed at least one of those. But uh anyway, the setbacks are there that are needed. And then the culde-sac at the end of Oakrove Circle, which I think that road name has ended up being changed or that road name wasn't approved. Uh but it's the culde-sac that's within the development. Uh the fire code requirements did change and so um with their last reg subreg approval and so this one they did have to revise that u to meet the new requirements that in that regard and so that's been done can be removed and then comment number 13 is really a standard comment regarding the water and sewer construction plans. We would need to keep that comment. So um we can remove uh 8 10 11 12 uh and with those

remaining comments we would recommend this to you. Okay. Uh questions for u staff concerning this. Is this consistent with our prior approvals? Yes. Other questions. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve with staff comments. Have a motion to approve with staff comments from Charles. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by say I. I.

Opposed. This motion is approved. We're now on to uh our second preliminary plat. This is Hidden Hills section 7 West uh Tini of Tamlin Avenue, Burgundy Drive and Bonaf Drive, owner developer open land community. [clears throat]

Yeah, this is the preliminary plat for Hidden Hill section 7. We saw a sketch plat of this a few months ago. Uh so this would be the preliminary plat. It's 59 lots, 23.2 acres in an R3 zone. Um several standard comments uh really one through one through uh nine all need to remain. Comment number 10 and and 11 kind of related to one another. There there's some significant uh topo changes on this property uh which is going to result in some some significant roadway cuts and and some sewer lines that are proposed to be fairly deep. Um, and so we those are some things we need to work through with the engineer. I did want to point those out. So we want to keep those comments, just point those out to you that that we'll be working with them as they work through the construction plans on this project to make those make them meet our make sure they meet all of our requirements. Uh, number 12 was a comment from the storm water department. Again, just there's there is some will be some existing storm discharge already on this property because of the too changes, but anything new that be sure that there's some existing storm infrastructure is adequate to meet those [clears throat] those that those discharges. So, I want to keep comment number 13 has been addressed. Uh the plat had shown there's some existing kind of some temporary turnarounds and actually existing rideway at the end of Bonaf that's going to be um it's essentially going away and can and becoming uh just a connector road through there. Um, and so some of those have been shown as still being owned by the previous owner of this property. And so that has been cleared up and so comment 13 can be removed. Uh, comment number 14 is a relatively standard

comment regarding the roadway lighting plan that typically comes in with the construction plan. So we want to be sure we get that as well. So basically with the removal of comment 13, um, staff would recommend this to you. questions uh for [clears throat] Kevin on this. Is this consistent with our prior approvals? Yes. Other questions or discussion? Do I have a motion? Motion to [snorts] approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Motion's approved. We're now on to final plats. First being Bradley Down, section one phase one, Rocky Fork, Amble Road, owner, developer, South Coast DFH, Nashville LLC.

Yes, this is uh the next three are all related um the same development, just different phases. This is one that the PRD was amended and um and then the plat was was reapproved the primary plant was reapproved last month and so now they're asking bringing the final plats in for these three phases. Um, so the first one, Barley Downs, section one, phase one. This is 33 lots, 11.77 acres. Um, in in the Brley Downs PRD. Um, the um first first five items really are kind of standard comments that we need to remain. Comment number six is something that that the utilities department need to take a look at regarding the gas line. it wasn't shown in the correct place and so they asked we asked them to to make sure that was placed or shown correctly. We'd asked for a minimum pad elevation for the mail kiosk and because it's close to the the flood plane area that's on this property. U and then comment number eight the parking spaces those are in some of the uh common areas those spaces are required to be 19 by 9 ft. Just ask them to show that. really needs to make sure they're labeled to that. So, they're meeting that. Ensure all drainage ements are at least 20 ft wide. And then number comment number 10 is with CUD U and they're reviewing that. That's that was our comments. We want to keep that one as well. So, really with the the remaining comments, uh staff would recommend approval.

Okay. [clears throat] Kevin on this questions. Once again, these were clients done some time ago. So each section of this one, two, and three I'm going to abstain from. Okay. Is this [snorts] previously approved PRD? Yeah, this was a previously approved PRD and then it was we did it didn't get amended because they incorporated a little bit of a joke the adjoining track into it. This is consistent with the the most recently approved PRD under the old PRD requirements.

Under the old requirements. That's correct. Yes. Because this was it was there and they were under construction and everything before we ever changed the requirements. They were vested. Okay. Other questions or comments? [clears throat] Move to approve the staff comments. A motion to approve the staff comment from that. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed and one abstension. Next uh we have Riley Down section 1 phase 3 Rocky for Gamble Road owner developer South Coast DFH Nashville LLC. Yeah, this phase, this is 29 lots, 6.48 acres. Again, several standard comments there. Kind of some whole similar to what the previous one had there. Um, really one through five. Again, the same comment regarding the gas line there and the drainage easements and then CD's comment as well. So, those remaining eight comments. U with those comments, staff would recommend approval. [clears throat]

Questions or comments? Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion in the second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I.

Opposed. This motion's approved. Uh next we're on to Bradley Down section one phase 4 Rocky Fork Amville Road owner developer South Coast DFH Nashville LLC. Yeah, this phase is 16 lots, 5.67 acres. Again, just it's all part of the same development there. Um, all the standard comments one through five need to remain. And then the other comments again, similar comment on the gas line. Uh, we'd ask for a dimension as this this phase does border Bradley Road and so we asked for a dimension for the rideway dedication there along that of at least 25 ft from the center line. And again the same comment regarding the drainage easements in the plant with CUD. So with those nine comments, staff would recommend approval.

Once again, consistent with consistent with the most recently approved PRD. Yes, sir. And met all the requirements as far as Reagan's and ordinances at that time. Correct. Okay. Do I have a motion? Move to approve with staff comments. Motion to approve with staff comments from Selena. Do I have a second? Motion and a 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 Fox Meadows phase one, Lee Road and Rocky Fork Road, owner, developer, Siri Homes LLC. This is the uh phase one final flat. That's uh 40 lots, 15.05 acres. Um this is for Fox Meadows development. Um the first uh five comments there are all standard comments and would need to remain. Uh comment number six, there were some easements that on some of these lots that are kind of oddly shaped or angled and that sort of thing. So, we just ask for some additional dimensions and labeling on those to be sure, you know, when the home's being built or when a homeowner is looking to build a a shed or something that we have good dimensions on those easements for them. Um, so so we still we can remove the last comment under that um or last sentence rather under that comment and they did correct I think lot 37 there. So, we still need 36, 38, 39, 75 and 79. still need some dimensions on there. So, just want to keep that with that foot as amended. Comment number seven uh can be removed. They've taken care of that issue. Um number eight, uh regarding the sewer line next to law 84, I want Mr. Parker or someone in utilities to take a look at that because that's they need to be sure that that's correct. That's who had made the comment. I want to be sure they take a look at it. So, we want to keep that. Uh comment number nine, uh the landscape buffer and the drainage easements have been separated now so we don't have them overlapping anymore. So we can uh remove comment nine. Comment number 10 u this one of the uh couple of the amenities had already been shown but part of that was also there was some a walking trail that was needed to be shown and that has

been taken care of. So we can remove comments in comment number 11. There is some a flood plane on this property and that boundary is being revised as per the grading plan and revised or the flip lane development permit. And so they asked them to show that new uh new flip lane boundary. And so that's been done. So we can remove comment 11. Comments 12 and 13 were CUD comments. So I want to keep them. So, we can remove uh 7 9 10 11 and then we'll tweak comment number six. And with that, staff would recommend approval. Questions for Kevin concerning [clears throat] this. Kevin, is there the two groves that go out on either side of the mail kios? Is there already a development underway on that side? I forget.

No, there's not. In fact, I think there's actually a future phase maybe of this project as well um eventually the property to the west of this property um is uh actually been purchased by the school board for the school. Right. Okay. And this was a previously approved PRD under the old rigs. That's correct.

Other questions or comments? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve the staff comments. I have a motion to approve the staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. This motion is approved. We're now on to site plans with the first being Bailey Equipment and Intra Logistics Trident Drive owner developer Caravan Ventures uh LLC. And Mitch, you're up. Yes. Uh before I start, the max height in C4 is 35 ft. I know some of you might have been wondering still. So 35 ft of receive.

Um do you uh we need to stretch or warm up any? No, we're done. We're good. So is that essentially three stories? Is that what that is? Basically. Could be. Yeah.

So uh on this item here, this is uh a site plan to develop a 48,250T warehouse and office building on Tri Drive. 45,000 square ft of that building would be devoted to warehouse space with the remaining 3,250 ft for office. The property was reszoned C from C2 to I1 in March 255 for the users occupancy on this property. A single access point would be provided off of Trident Drive. Vehicle use area provided is 1.25 acres. That does require 4350 ft of landscaping. Uh updated numbers have been provided since packets went out. So they are now providing for 10,500 square feet uh meeting and exceeding our requirements. Parking required is 30 spaces and they're showing for 40. That does require two handicap stalls which they are now showing. Landscape plan has been revised since packets went out last week. Again the landscape plan has been uh quite dramatically redesigned here. So the plan now does show London plain trees which are sycamore variety along I24 and oak trees shown within landscape islands in the parking lot. Magnolia trees are shown within the right ofway on Trident Drive and will have to be relocated as we do not allow any landscaping within the ride ofway. Shrubbery it does need to be kept away at least 10 ft away from any utility lines shrubbery and trees for that matter. And as is shown, the landscape plan does not meet designer view uh pertaining to streetscaping requirements. Mainly architectural elevations show the building be finished with various metals, wood siding, and glass. The property is zone industrial, which does allow for the use of metal as a primary material when it is not visible from an arterial street. However, this building will have visibility from I24 and Almaville Road. As a result, the building will be required to meet

designer view requirement of 75% minimum primary materials on all wall elevations. These primary materials may consist of brickstone, glass glazing or tilt panel concrete. Since this is a industrial district, tilt panel is a allowed as a primary material. As presented, the elevations do not meet designer view. Uh standard comments 1 through 7 all remain. and staff comment one regarding the architectural elevations not meeting designer review. We do need them to revise those elevations to meet designer review. Comment number two was the utilities comment asking them to show a 1500gallon oil water separator. Comment three and four are both storm water comments. That will remain and let Storm water review those at later date. Comment number five is from our fire department. They did have a requirement that they are to access within 150 ft from all points of the building. Uh as mentioned earlier in one of the other items for the storage units. So uh really the issue is the I guess the south side of the building which if you're looking at the picture is on the right side. Uh there is no apparatus way to get around that side of the building and it does exceed the 150 ft from each parking lot area. So fire department does need to have reach all points of the building at least 150 ft. We had another comment within that comment that a fire hydrant is required within 400 ft of all parts of the building. They have done that. So that part of the comment can be removed. And then the last part of it that a turnaround is required at the back of the building. Um that is the back part rear part of the building that is up against I24 as it's shown that exceeds 150 foot. 150 foot is the length in which the fire department does require a turnaround whether it be a hammerhead or culdeac. So they do need to show that at the rear of the building and thenformational part. The last part of that comment the there's a gate to get to the back part of the building. Uh

fire department just requires that to be an approved. So that part is moreformational. But um four comments in one more or less. The fire hydrant is the part that can be removed though at this time. Comment number six. The landscaping does not meet design review and we do ask them to show appropriate streetscaping along Trident Drive and I24. Last part of the comment, the percentage requirement was not being met but they are meeting that now. Comment number seven, grass was being counted towards the overall landscaping percentage which is not allowed for design review. So they have addressed that accordingly. So comment number seven can be removed. Uh number eight, the ADA parking spaces were not shown last week when packets went out. They are now being shown. So that could be removed. Comments number nine and 10 are both utility department's comments to be reviewed later and will remain. And then one additional comment on this is that uh we do ask that they provide architectural elevations for the dumpster enclosure. Um and with that staff does recommend deferral just to allow the applicant more time to address staff comments as needed. Um the applicant is here tonight and would like to address you if you do have any questions or concerns on this. address.

Good evening. Justin Bailey, 2023 Benjamin Street, Nashville, Tennessee. Taylor Slay, 462 Chinuk Drive, Annioch, Tennessee.

Keep this brief. I do have some images if helpful I could pass around. Um, I am the owner and president of Caravan Adventures in Bailey. Um, we are a forklift dealership headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. We've been around for 76 years now since my grandfather founded. Um, we're a forklift dealership in logistics engineering firm and u we are what we're doing is rolling up two existing locations and really betting the house on Smyrna. So, we're taking what we have in Leverne and a large part of our Nashville operation and moving it here and building a flagship. This will be the first building we've built in 30 years. Um, so for me, it's it's a legacy project. Um, the last one was built when I was about 9 years old. My son's now two. And so, I know now like he only cares about the the sounds, the fun sounds the forklift made, but someday he's going to care how this building looks. And so, I've spent a lot of time trying to get this just right. I looked at old drawings my grandfather had done. I spent a lot of time looking around the the region, taking photos, working with Taylor, the engineer, the architect to get it right. Um so this was an intentional choice to use the metal. It was an aesthetic choice and a functional choice. And our perspective is that um in reviewing the d the design review manual that this actually does meet the intent behind design review. Uh specifically what I noticed when I was reviewing it was that it it says the purpose is to enhance character, foster attractiveness and functionality and raise the level of design expectations. I I believe we have done that with this with this design. It also says buildings should be viewed in context of surrounding structures and materials compatible with adjacent buildings are required. And just down Trident Drive there is an all metal building across I24. There is an all metal building. So we feel this design is not only

appropriate, functional and I think very attractive but it also is consistent with context. Additionally the banual does allow the commission to vary materials when doing so supports its intent. There of course cost of functionality concerns. I feel this is an ownorous burden of cost that accomplishes nothing for the community, nothing for aesthetics and nothing for function. I'd rather invest that in making the landscaping even well beyond the the requirements I just heard about. um bringing in beautiful natural trees and so on and more importantly hiring people here in Smyrna. So in short, all comments are addressed except for we'll address the landscaping. Uh we are asking that this be approved as is. Um and I appreciate your support and your service to the community. Thank you.

Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. You were you weren't speaking here. I'm here to answer questions if you have any. All right. Um, any questions from the commission concerning to the applicant here in the comments of the metal? I don't think this is uh what we've seen in typical just basic industrial type metal. These are the new finish. I assume they're kind as far as the coatings that are on here.

Something like that. Yes. So the front part of the building would be a more upgraded architectural metal panel. So it is quite a bit nicer than your standard industrial metal sighting. So you're seeing this type of metal on a lot more commercial buildings, you know, that are going for that more modern higher end. But it's still metal. It's still metal. Yeah. [clears throat] Is it metal where the Bailey sign is at? Um, what we had planned for that was it would probably would be a metal, but it looks like wood.

Anything else? Thank you, Mitch. We we heard portions of u I guess from ordinances and regs but we're still missing the section concerning when facing art arterials are we not? Yes. U this building will be visible from I24 exit ramp and then we believe looking at street view it will be visible from road as well. So, hence those additional requirements.

And I would I agree that they just took a lot of time and effort and made the front of the building look really nice. I think it as as a metal building goes. I mean, it's probably one of the nicest ones I've seen. My I guess our main concern is really more that side and rear. If you look at the rear of the building, which is going to be facing directly to I24, it pretty much just a metal wall with a couple pedestrian doors on it. I mean, it's So, I mean, I think that's that's where our concern was more on that than on the side that faces tried on probably. So,

I guess this is my concern and maybe even a followup to something Ken kind of mentioned a little bit earlier. Uh, first of all, we've had several projects in here. um where uh we had we had requests to uh make exceptions to design review and and we were consistently saying no uh because we've worked really hard as far as design reo design review goes and I realize and this is kind of speaking to Ken that in than other instances and things that were previously built and approved it was under a different um set of regs and ordinances at at that time and and the things that were built did meet those. But as we're seeing with in uh not only commercial but within residential and whatnot, we've asked for um a better product and and materials that are going to stand the test of time. And I know you spoke about uh your 2-year-old. I think it's a fantastic design. I think it's in the right location. I'm just My concern is it doesn't meet design review number one. And I do have concerns as far as uh the comments from the fire department.

I think recently we've had to say no to some people. We really wanted to see them here. And the only reason we did is to remain consistent with what we set out as design review. I compliment compliment the building. It's very attractive building. But I think if we bend for one, we're setting a precedent when we start having to do that for everybody that comes in here. So I hope you understand, at least that's my take. sounds like it's the chairman's tape that as beautiful as it is, um, we've got requirements, we've got ordinances, and we try to hold true to those. We try to make sure we, much like you want to put together a nicel looking building, we want to put together a nicel looking view from our community. So, it's the same thing really. We all want the same thing, but we need to meet that design review in my opinion. Uh, I know staff recommended a deferral as well with some fire fire department issues and things like that. So, that's kind of where I stand. I I I do appreciate the history of it and the background with your family. I truly do. Um I'm a little older than you and I got kids older than you, but I try to do the same thing for my children. So, um I hope you respect that from my perspective anyway. We'll let the body decide. Yeah, I think [clears throat] you know we spent I I can't tell you how many hours now in PL in joint planning and council sessions to work out PUD requirements, design requirements, and um what the council and ultimately what the people of Smyrna want to see and what kind of feedback we've gotten from those um community meetings that we've had and and so a lot of these designs have been this design review has been built based on feed feedback directly from the community and from that council and um um you know one of the things that we've always tried to do to your point Mark is stay consistent.

As I recall we had the discussion about zoning this differently. We had a council member or so that wanted to keep it commercial. Yeah. They didn't even want to approve what you're going to try to do there.

Yep. [clears throat] That's right. Well, now, you know, it makes me think about, you know, the fast food restaurant that had some of the some similar type, I guess, arguments that you've presented. Uh, this was their brand. This is what they've done everywhere in the country. We were the only one that has had this requirement. You know, all of those kind of conversations. And, uh, again, for the sake of staying consistent, we've held them to that design standard, too. And I think that would be it would be it would be bad for us to make those changes. Now, now just to be clear for that one, I found out they also had issues in Mount Juliet, but that's a different conversation. So, apparently we're not the only ones.

Other qu um discussion. I if this is something that you feel like you could work with staff and come to an agreement, then I would be in favor of a deferral. Uh I mean, it's up to the commission uh to make that, you know, motion if if you were so inclined. The other option would be a denial. Uh so we think so we think. Well, or it could be well or it could be approval. Yeah. based on our discussions, it sounds like that's the direction we're trying to heading.

But if it's something where you think you can work with um staff and would like us to reconsider in a month regardless of if you felt a deferral was appropriate, we could we could consider that.

Yeah. Our obvious preference is approval, but in the absent of that, we would defer a deferral and work with staff and try to get and and again and to Mark's point, I don't have a motion out here yet, but just kind of taking the temperature of what's being said, I can kind of see where we're heading or think I can see where we're heading with this. Uh and if there were as an opportunity to work out some of the some of the items here, uh I'd certainly like to see the process continue to go forward.

And I do wish the metal was uh as proposed met our design review. It just simply does not. It may be a discussion in our next round table that we have to have discuss. Uh it's it looks great to Ken's point. I think it looks really good. The metal looks good, but it does not meet what we currently have. Question for you, Mitch. If the quantity of metal was changed not from the front, but the backs and the sides, would that then meet design review? 75%. 75%. Yeah, it's got to be 75%.

I think certainly the sides and rear is our biggest concern. I think the visibility from from Amable is probably still you have some visibility there. You do have the speedway and whatnot there too, depending on where you're at on Lee Victory Nissan Drive rather, whatever's name there. But so Amore Road, you forgot Amir Road. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Um anyway, so certainly the visibility from I24 is our biggest concern which is probably going to be primarily the back and sides for sure. But I think to your your question is there's there is a way to use metal as an accent. Sure.

Okay. If there's no further discussion, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to defer until our next meeting uh based on some of the staff comments and not being met. Okay. I have a motion to defer to the next meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Charles got it. Charles or Ken? Ken. Yeah, I just heard somebody down there down here somewhere. Yeah.

All right. Motion and second to defer. Any further discussion? All those in favor of deferring to the next meeting. Please signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion's been deferred. Next, we're on to Newberry Retail Lock 2, 3450 Road. Owner, developer, Circle Ventures LLC. This is a Second part of the Newberry PUD commercial track. This is a 10,725T retail restaurant commercial building. The development would be constructed on the same parcel as the previously approved indoor pickup courts. The site would have access points provided off of Malbeck Drive and Bonor Drive. The commercial track does allow for C4 uses and this development would permit for 4,500 ft of restaurant space with the remainder being used for retail uses. Vehicular use area on the site is 62 acre which does require 2,698 ft of landscaping. Applicant is proposing for 4,000 ft. Park required is 70 spaces. They are shown for 70 spaces and handicap requirement of three and then they are now showing for three as well. Landscape plan shows street trees along Gore Drive and Malbec Drive with a variety of shrubbery planted between the street trees. Trees are also shown within landscape islands and additional shrubbery is located at the base of the front of the building and surrounding the dumpster enclosure. Landscaping shown along road consists of shrubbery without street trees which are a requirement of designer review and architectural elevations show the building to be finished with all primary materials including brickstone, glass and glazing and an accent material metal which is to be used as cornice. These materials are used in all four wall elevations and it does meet design review as presented. Standard comments 1 through 7 all

remain. Uh staff comment one is regarding the storm water treatment on site. That comment will remain. Come number two regarding the landscaping. We asked them to provide streetscaping on all three road frontages as the submitted landscape plan does not meet designer view. They need to add street trees on all road and then the trees that are shown do need to be spaced no more than 40t on center apart from each other. Coming the handicap parking stalls has been addressed. Comments number four and five are CD as this is within CD service area. And then one additional staff coming on this. There is plans based on the site plan to subdivide these tracks off the way it is shown on the site plan parking space and a half is being cut off and on the adjacent tract. So after the proposed plat line is drawn, you would then have a deficiency of parking spaces as required for the zoning ordinance. So, we do ask that they somehow shift to make sure all 70 parking spaces are shown on this prospective parcel whenever they get to the point of subdividing it in the future. So, um that is the extra comment to be added with that and comment number three can be removed. With that, staff does recommend approval. Questions for Mitch on this? I just got a question to Jeff. Based on the amount of certain types of businesses that we can watch go into most of these retail, do we have any control over removing any of those as potential tenants?

Not sure about those vape shops. Th this particular PCD or PUD did not with C4 uses. So they they couldn't go in this one. Okay. Specifically at least. Okay. by per the bug. We'll put that in your pipe and smoke it for later because it's going to continue to come up as we have it right now. We could remove one. You know, if we put something in place, uh which I'd have to see what that what that is. I don't agree with what what I've seen some jurisdictions do so far that would which would would have muster in to a challenge, but but we we'll look at that. I know you need more work to do. You sit back there with your twittering your thumbs.

That's right. I'll ponder on this issue. Thank you. Tonight probably. That's right. Send an email for us coming. Yeah. So, um, obviously there's the two roads that provide access to this are part of the LA development. Um, so there is no direct access to Ammeral Road from this property. That's right. That's correct. Could you pronounce that road to the north? I was waiting for somebody to ask. Bonoir. Bonoir maybe. I guess bon depends if it's southern or not. It's good. It's good night. So is the reason for the entrance there to provide access to the pickle ball court? Is that the theory?

I mean there is. Yeah, that that would be the access there would be the one access there off the bone which would be the this f track and the pickle ball and then the future other track whatever ends up being on that track as well. So there be two accesses for all three parcels would be the eventual plan if it's divided the way they've got it shown

to confirm this was brought in as part of this overall development that was a was it a PRD it was a pud there's commercial there's town homes there's single family there's duplex was that proposed to C2 initial you recall it may have been potentially thought. It may have been, but we it was limited to C4. Any other questions or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with psych with staff comments. Motion to approve.

I'll second. I have a motion and a second to approve the staff. Any further discussion? All those in favor? of approving this motion. Please signify by saying I

oppose. This motion is approved. Uh next and I believe the last under site plans Steven Smyrna Airport hanger phase 2 1290 Thunderbird Drive owner developer Smyrna Rutherford County Airport Authority uh robot. Yeah, this is a site plan for an addition onto Stevens Aerospace building the second phase of the development at 129 1290 Thunderbird Drive. uh does have access to the airport. The phase is to be used as a maintenance hanger and will be 47,300 square ft. Included with this building addition will be addition to the existing parking lot and a second fire lane access. Vehicular use area on the site.35 of an acre to be added and that does require 1,219 ft of landscaping. Application for 2004 ft meeting our requirements. Total parking required is 47 new spaces and they're showing 47 and that does require five total handicapped parking stalls stalls for the entire uh development and they are showing for all five. The landscape plan shows uh three landscape islands with new parking addition to have oak trees and grasses with shrubs. At the front of the base of the building with in addition is shown to have shrubbery. Additional landscaping is shown along the new parking lot to match the existing landscape design. At this time, landscape plan does meet design review, contrary to when packets went out last week. Architecture elevations show the building to be finished with primarily metal and small portion of the base with block. Proposed elevations will match the existing building on site and meets designer review. Standard comments one through seven all remain. Uh comment number one is pertaining to the landscaping requirement of 8% not 5% as was previously shown. They are now meeting that. Uh so comment number one can be

removed. Comment number two is from our fire department regarding the auto turn. A portion of the site internal is not being met with the revised auto turn. Uh the truck cannot go over any kind of curbing or enter any parking stalls which it is currently being shown to do. So we just needed to widen spaces a little bit there to allow the fire fire truck to make the turn adequately. And common number three utilities department to provide sewer and water construction plans. Uh common one has been addressed from the staff and common 2 three is all that remain but with that staff does re recommend approval. up for this.

Got a more of a curiosity question being it's a hanger. Traditionally they're all metal. Um I believe out there most everything out there is already most [snorts] of it. So this is going to have some actual block at the base of it. It's not much but yes. Okay. It's going to match what's existing out there already today, too. So, going back to our previous structure we're talking about, this falls under a different category. Metal is allowed in industrial. It's not visual from an arterial. Okay. It's it's talked way way back. You see this from the sky? That's about it. The the property the previous property was zoned correctly, but it's visible from

24. Yep. Yep. Yeah. If it was back off the backside somewhere else, it wouldn't have been an issue for that building. Okay, other questions. [clears throat] Do I have a motion? Move to approve a staff comment. Have a motion to approve a staff comment. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. This motion is approved. Good to see the continued growth what we're seeing at our airport. Thank you both for your management and uh helping us to continue to grow something that is a real jewel for our family. Sil I asked uh Charles a while ago where his socks were. He didn't have socks on looked out there. I wonder if he could borrow those socks. [laughter] I I also noticed Paul left early just reminding me it almost affected my Okay. Uh next we have a mandatory referral proposed land donation from Drap.

Yeah, this is a proposed land donation. Drap who's the developer of the Limwood development. Um it's just been renamed Southlight is proposing to donate two separate tracks of land to the town. One track is about 3.35 acres would be used to build a fire station. The other track totals approximately 42.48 acres would be used as a park. Uh the land donation would be in lie of the payment of impact fees from this development up to that maximum dollar amount established as a part of a separate agreement between the town and Drap. I did include the maps. They're there on your screen as well. Um so the planning commission is required to review the obtaining of these parcels and find whether or not it is in keeping with the adopted comprehensive plan of the town and make a recommendation to council. Uh staff would recommend approval.

Any questions uh for Kevin concerning this? [clears throat] Yeah, that fire that firehouse or fire property location is just west of or east I guess of burnt road. Is that where that's at? Uh well kind of north well on the opposite side and just a little bit north of yeah positions are kind of the directions because of the turns there. Anything else aside from the property for the fire station is the other property just going to be green space usable or

um I think we we we don't know exactly um and talking with with department director Mike Moss. was looking the what's in that area now. There's kind of a there's a stream through there, kind of a weather stream and different things. It really kind of works well for like some sort of like a passive type park with some walking trails, hiking type trails, things of that nature that we really don't have in our system right now. Mhm.

So I mean now there's some area at at the frontage where the where the road would be eventually um that would have has an area there level enough area that you could have some maybe a little bit more uh an amenity that could be used by the by the people in this neighborhood in the other neighborhoods like a enough level area to be used developed in some sort of pavilions or a dog park or something like that. Um but the majority of this would really be more kind of a nature trail almost type of thing thinking right now. Yeah. So um that's again the exact plan of that is still to be determined certainly but that's kind of what he's look thinking right now.

Yeah. The beauty of it is by donating the land we can do what we need to do with it in the future. Don't have to try to figure that out right now. Yeah. My more concern was just is it actual usable piece of land, not just a hillside type of thing. They told us that Cedar Stone was a usable too. Remember that. [laughter] We had to make it usable in some of it. It wasn't usable either. And in the big picture, this is where we would want a fire station, I presume. Yeah, I think this this is certainly an area we need to think about. That's something we've been thinking about trying to find a place. So, this this works out well for us in that regard. Yeah. We've been talking about our urban growth boundary goes just a little bit past 840, right? Yes.

Yeah. So, we've talked about we'll need another one out there. There was even a conversation from the county at one point about putting some more schools out there in the future. So, we definitely won't want to close those schools, but this fits that for sure. Okay. I'm going to need a motion on this as far as motion to [clears throat] approve with staff comments. The motion to approve um with staff comments. I have a second motion and a second. Further discussion. All in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. Opposed. This motion is approved. We are now on to the November bond review report. [snorts]

Yeah, it was still a long one, so I'll try to go quickly as we can. Quit having long ones, Kevin. I know. I keep hoping some of these are we can we can we are recommending release of at least one tonight. So that's good.

At least one. um [clears throat] Cedar Hills uh phase or section 4 phase 2. Uh this one is um I did reach out to the developer on this one and actually he typically gets back to me pretty quickly and he didn't this time. So I'm need to follow up with him. Uh they do still need to pave this and it's they've got most of either homes built or permitted. So they do need to get that one done. So they do recommend a six-month extension on that one. So hopefully they get that done next spring. Um, we have heard from at least one owner in that area concerned about that as well. So, I'll reach out to them again. Uh, Blakey, uh, section one phase one. This is at the end of the maintenance period. Uh, did not hear from that developer. Hopefully, we can then get that done by next week, which probably won't happen. Uh,

I was going to say I don't know that they're going to get striping and all of this done in a week. So, um, would recommend a three-month extension on that one. Um, Buckingham Faith, uh, section one, phase two, that's the one we can release. That everything is done there. So, we can release that one. One on the list.

Uh, Burton Farms section six. I did hear from the developer today on that one. Uh, they got some things they got to do. I don't even know. He knows he's got some things to do and he's he's there some issues with the detention pond that he needs to work on and right now that's too wet to do any work. So, he did ask for and I do would recommend this is the end of the maintenance period on this one. So, I did recommend an extension on that one. Um, and talking with him, he thinks if we can give him six more months, he'll have everything done. So, I do recommend six month extension there instead of three just because again he talking with him, I think he'll he's going to get that done. Um, Buckingham Hills um would re again probably not going to get done by the 23rd at this point, but would recommend they are in talking with him on Buckingham Place. He said Buckingham Hills is his next one he's trying to focus on to get that one knocked out. So, we'll see. Otherwise, a three-month extension on that one for it's at the end of the maintenance period. Quinn Farms offsite. Um um he did say he would get back to me. Uh he he he recently taken this over from someone else at LAR. Um really only couple items there to finish up. So hopefully they get done. Um did recommend a three-month extension on that.

Gwen Farms phase three section one. Uh this is one we've only had a year. Uh they are almost built out already. Um, we would recommend a six-month extension on that one. Again, same same developer on that. Um, uh, Oak Meadow section one. Um, they did say they were working on those items. Again, that's one we've only we've had that one now about three years. We recommend a six-month extension on that one. Get that one finished up. Brooker's Ben section one. This is one we're still working through. This is one the developer actually passed away and so we're trying to work through that and so would recommend just the six-month extension on that one so we hopefully get that knocked out figured out by next spring. Um

so real real quick on that one just in this case obviously since something's changed can um at some point when do we just make the decision to use the bond and finish it? That's probably what we're going to do. We're trying to work with the developers on section one phase two and there was some discussion there about working with them that they would do part of the work when they pave maybe they pave and maybe we take the bond and do some of the other items things of that nature. Okay.

To have in a partnership there with them. Nothing finalized for sure yet. That's kind of what we're working on with that. Uh Bladey 4. Um, this is one has not been quite as they're still got topping all they're not at the maintenance period on this one yet. U would recommend six month extension on that one. Uh section two phase two and section two phase three and section two phase one are all at the end of their maintenance period. So three-month extension on all those if if they can't don't get done by uh early December. Um, and then Cedar Park, I did talk to them. They were expecting to finalize that. That's a commercial development there off kind of runs between Rock Springs Road and Cedar Grove Road. Um, they have those are commercial lots. There's two commercial lots still left out there. They're expecting to get that done by midsummer of next year. Um, I'm would recommend a six-month extension. So, we'll visit that again once once they get to the summer. It'll be May of next year. Maybe we'll figure something out closer to the time. Um, Bladey section one, phase two, it's another one. It's at the end of the maintenance. Would would recommend no more than 3 months on that one. Buckingham Place section three. Uh, again, end of the maintenance, no more than three months on that if they don't get done. December 10th. Uh 7 Oak Storage. Um that's one that they're really just kind of starting to get really getting started on there. Um they tend to they said did say they intend to have the underground utilities and paving completed by the end of the year. So this is one we've only had a year. That's again a commercial development there. So but that's primarily a real a a utilities bond. Um so we recommend a six-month extension on that one. Uh the

Tommy's car wash, that's basically some internal paving he needs to get done. Um his he said his adjoining parcels listed for sale and he they did ask to get an extension there that he would like to to not pave that until that second parcel gets built on. So u we'd recommend again that's all private deal there too. We'd recommend a six month extension on that. That's all I got. Okay, we've heard the bond review report. Is there are there any other questions concerning it? Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve the bond review report. A motion to approve the bond review report. Do I have a second? Second. [snorts]

Motion and a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving the November bond review report, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. The bond review [clears throat] report is approved. Staff comments and other business. I don't have anything else. Okay. anything from the commission. We stand adjourned on the dock.