Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Nata. Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Yeah. Good evening. Uh, welcome to the December 4th, 2025 uh, Smyrna Municipal uh, Planning Commission. I will call the meeting to order and with that we'll stand. Ken's going to lead us in prayer and Charles has a pledge tonight. Let's pray. Dear heavenly father, thank you for this evening. Thank you for the nice cool, brisk weather that you've given us tonight. And uh we pray for safety for everybody's on the road

tonight. Ask Lord for this evening as we're going about the town's business that you would guide us in our decision making thought process and conversation. Ask tonight that you would uh be proud of everything that we decided on tonight. These things in your precious name. Amen. Please raise the flag. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, gentlemen. Before we get started, uh Vanessa, welcome. Thank you,

everyone. We have Vanessa Haley with us tonight. She's joined the planning commission. We appreciate appreciate your willingness to serve. Pleasure. Thank you. Great. Citizens comments. We have none tonight. Okay. Approval or correction of the November 6, 2025 regular meeting in order. What's what's what's my question? Are the meeting minutes in order? Okay. Uh is anything from the commission concerning uh any changes or corrections or discussions concerning the minutes? Move to approve the minutes. Have a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. The November 6, 2025 meeting minutes are approved. We're now on to old business. Our first annexation zoning and plan of service request. Sunny Patel, 8216 Florence Road. Annexation and P zoning.

This is one we looked at last month. Uh and you all did defer it to this month. Um and so uh this is an annexation request along Florence Road. Um about 3.54 acres. It's a portion of a parcel. Um part of this parcel is already within the town limits. Uh zone C2 developed there uh with a convenience store gasoline station there. Um this property is currently zoned RM in Rutherford County. Requested zoning with the annexation is a P planned industrial development. Um so that surrounding zoning on this is C2 uh in town and RM and Rutherford County. It is surrounded on on three sides uh by Rutherford County zoning in the county. Uh two sides by Corvisioner property and one one privately held piece of property. Um land use plan would support medium density single family in this area. Um the major thorough affair plan does designate Florence Road as a minor arterial. This portion of the property has no frontage on this road as as the core owns the property uh in between this parcel and the road. Um, this requested P is for 34,771 square ft of conventional self storage and covered outdoor storage and nine buildings and for an existing house on the property to be converted into an office for the storage business as well as some additional rental spaces. Uh, the required minimum fireflow here for their information was we gave them that was 1500 gpm at 20 PSI. We did ask them to contact um Mr. Lawrence with the fire department regarding the auto turn. It was proposed. Um nothing has nothing's been changed on they did submit a new auto turn. I don't know if Mr. Lawrence had was contacted or not. Um I don't know if he Yeah. So

they have not contacted him. So still have some concerns with that. Um we did for have not shown this yet. They did acknowledge it and had no issues with it. But there are there is a a requirement that they would extend a a fire hydrant is required within 400 ft of all buildings and they would have to extend a water man across Florence Road in order to provide that for for fire suppression. Uh certainly that could be looked at on site plan if this is approved. But is something we let them know about that. We did ask them to show their all the proposed utility locations on site. Uh there's nothing on their site shown. I did show the the existing mains along Florence Road. Um last month when we looked at this, you all had a concern the 24T drive aisles uh the that they may not be adequate width. Um and so they have shown or revised the revised plans do show a 28T drive aisles there. Um, so that that is one change that was made. Um, which certainly could help with the auto turn as well if they ran the auto turn using that 28T aisles. Um, a 20ft uh setback. We did that was again something that was discussed last month would be showing a 20- foot setback uh on that the east side uh bordering the the privately held land that's currently zoned RM in the county uh to allow for a future landscape buffer to be constructed. Uh they did not change that. They're still showing that at 15 and and the comment that they sent back was uh shouldn't the adjoining property owner be building the buffer? So if they if that develops. So um that was the comments we had. Again, the overall layout hasn't really changed from what you all looked at last month.

They did show the 28T other than the 28T dimensions uh between the buildings there. Um, just for a refresher for everyone, the the the buildings that are kind of highlighted in red are the uh the fully enclosed storage buildings. The other the yellow ones are open air uh carport type buildings that would be uh where you could park boats and campers and those type of things underneath. Uh so protect them from from hail damage and things of that nature, but not would not be in closed storage. Um, again, other than that one change that it's basically the same plan you all saw last month.

Any questions for Kevin concerning this? Did I hear you right back on this? Right. Was it that they have they received or have they been able have they received the plans to review for auto turn? Um, we got these yesterday. Okay. So, I do not know if they've had if they've had a chance to look at them or not. I don't believe they were contacted though by the developer or the engineer on the project. Okay. What is the required buffer? Just refresh my memory. going from industrial to residential,

it would be what we would call a type D. Um, which would be a 20 foot buffer, but with and various trees. It's basically the same vegetation as a type C, but the type D has a burm required. So, it would have a burm uh four feet at least four feet tall uh with the trees and shrubs and whatnot planted on top of it. And proposed is 15. So it's not meeting our regs. That's correct.

Okay. Is there any difference as far as I know that you know part of our discussion uh concerning fire apparatus was you know with the storage building. Is there the ability to access the buildings the way this is this plan is presented? Um, is there a difference, and I'll just make this a two-part, and is there a difference from an open uh structure uh that's used for parking versus a closed structure that would be more conducive for storage?

Um, as far as from the fire department standpoint, I have to defer to them. Yeah. On that. Yeah. I apologize because I have not seen I know that assistant chief said that he had requested an updated auto turn and that because he had not gotten a response or any contact with them he specifically was going to explain where there were deficiencies which were at the back of the buildings. And then secondly in reference to your question about open versus closed. No sir there there is no difference for us as far as what's required for distances or anything else. Um, again, the only real concern for him was that the initial auto turn drawing, I believe, did not have the correct length of the apparatus that would be responding and also that there was nothing updated in reference to the dimensions from where whether they've opened the the roadway up. We just haven't seen an auto turn.

Okay. And concerning access, do you need access to the front and back as far as drivability goes or based only it's dependent upon a 150 foot reach from the apparatus. So if if a building is only 300 ft long and we are able to then reach the back without being able to drive back there, but once we exceed that 300 ft length of a building, we would need at least partial access behind it to reach that 150 ft maximum distance. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Yeah, there's three buildings that they could only breach one side. Um the two furthest to the west and the one furthest to the east. Um so the length of those Yeah. There's there's no dimensions shown not on these on on the plans. So because they're adjacent to the I guess tree lines, correct? Yeah. They can't drive around the backside, right?

You can't drive. There's no asphalt being shown to get around. I probably the one that's labeled B7 just looking at in scale is probably okay, but the B1 and B6 I would be concerned probably may be reaching that 300T threshold especially that B1 I can't have that's just a looking at the scaling it off. It's it's really there's no the drawing isn't to scale necessarily and there's no dimensions shown. So, and their auto turn, just looking at their auto turn, they're still showing 24 foot dimensions on those drive aisles. So, I don't know if the auto turn has been revised yet or not based on that.

Even though they're showing the Oh, you're showing on the drive aisles 2. They're showing 28 ft on page 14 between buildings, but page 15 is the auto turn and it still shows 24 feet. So, And page 13 also shows page 14 kind of shows the phasing of it, but 13's a little cleaner and easier to see the the plan. So right now as it stands they're not meeting our regulations as far as uh setbacks from industrial to residential and we're unsure of the autoturn requirements are being met. Correct.

And there may be some question as far as accessibility from the fire department's perspective too depending on the length of the buildings which we don't know. Correct. And this has come before us from from an annexation and P zoning uh both both. So we need to know those at this point because if we approve this we're approving this layout basically.

Right. Correct. Chairman, I don't I really don't see how we can factor any decision making in until the fire department has spoken about it. I mean, to me, that makes the most sense. We wait make sure that fits what the fire department fire department requirements are. Secondly, that 15 foot um 20 foot is the is the uh requirement in type D which would require a BM if it doesn't sound like they wanted to do that initially and we asked for that last time. So, uh, if you want to have more discussion, fine. But I'm of the opinion that this is not ready

and and I would just I would make the motion to defer it again until the next meeting where they have time to get all their homework done. Okay. I guess my only question is do we do we believe they're going to still make changes between now or it's up to them. Well, that's either that or just Okay, go ahead. Well, let's do this. We've got a motion on the floor to defer Let's figure Do I have a second on the defer? I got a motion and defer. Now, let's have discussion. So, well, my thought was, do we just deny it? Because we kind of asked for changes last time, which they didn't do either way. So, do we have any reason to believe they're going to make changes before next month? Yeah.

Have you heard from anybody? Talked to anybody? I have not. Um, we did not get any revised plans since last month till yesterday. So the first bringing it in, you know, so I I I agree with you, Steve. I think one or the other does the same thing really. Denial is just denial, but it's a river. But uh you know, deferral would just um next month to see if they bring it back. Yeah, I my only comment would be I guess if we still weren't happy next month, I think we probably denial that get it off the agenda. Okay, I have a uh motion

motion and a second to defer. Any other discussion? All those in favor of deferring until next month's meeting, please signify by saying I. I. Oppose. All right. This motion is deferred. Next, we're on to a uh resoning request. Highgate HH Development, Blair Road, Portico Placezoning C2 to add H2 overlay. Kevin, my notes indicate we've had a deferral requested. They have requested the deferral again. Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Make a motion to defer. Have a motion to defer. Do I have till next month's meeting? Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion.

All those in favor of defer deferring this motion until next month meeting, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. This uh motion has been deferred. We're now on to site plans. Under our last item for old business, we have Bailey Equipment and Inner Logistics, Trident Drive, owner developer, Caravan Ventures LLC. This is another item we saw last month. And uh not too much on this has changed. Uh staff did meet with the architects uh in between the previous meeting and this meeting. Uh everything is essentially the same on the site plan. There's a couple differences here, but it is a 48,200 ft total warehouse and office building. Um, still the same one access point off of Trident Drive. The landscaping concerns that staff had last time about the locations and species and such still have not been addressed. Uh, really the only modifications that have been done to these plans here is an addition of a pallet storage area. Uh, on what you can see on the picture is the there's a hatched area on the left side towards the back of the property. That's a storage area of where they plan to keep their products so they're not sitting out, which is always a good thing. And they have modified the elevations since the packets went out. We did receive these yesterday. The elevations now show the building to be finished with materials ranging from metal, which would be various forms of metal, fiber, smment board, glass glazing, and brick. The property is zoned industrial which does allow 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 Almondville Road. Per designer view, this building will be required to meet designer view of 75% minimum primary materials on all wall elevations. The primary materials may consist of brick, stone, glass glazing, or till panel concrete. Uh due to the limited visibility fromville roads and in general staff is okay with

the front elevations which is northeast. This is the elevation that faces Trident Drive estimated. It does have 42.7% metal, 16.6% fiber cement siding and 40.7% combination of brick and glass glazing. the side elevation on the if you're looking at the picture again was going to be the if you're I guess looking at it from the road it's going to be on the right hand side of the building this elevation has 60.9% metal 5.1% fiber cement and 34% combination of brick glass glazing the rear of the building which faces I24 has 23% metal 77% brick which does meet designer view and the side elevation if you're looking at from Trident Drive on on the left hand side has a mixture of 62.3% metal 37.7% brick and glass glazing as presented the elevations do not meet designer review as per those material percentage requirements. It is a increase in benefit from what we saw last month but still as a whole does not meet what designer review says should be met. Um standard comments one through seven all remain. Uh staff comment one regarding the uh retaining walls over four feet requiring building permits is more of anformational comment. Comment two, the architectural ovations do not meet design review. Comment number three, the sediment for bay, this is a public works comment, shouldn't be downgraded for head walls feeding water into pond to be effective. Uh that will remain. Comment number four is also a public works comment that will remain at this time. Another issue that still has not been addressed is the fire department concerns regarding the 150 ft reach on all points of the building. The Kevin, could you back the site plan real quick?

The on the right hand side that wall is 300t long. So we would need a entrance at least from each corner of the building which we have on the rear but we don't have up front. So they are going to need to somehow create an access for the fire department to access all sides of the building at least 150 ft. So that is also a concern that still has not been addressed. And number six comment regarding landscaping as I mentioned earlier still does not meet design review. Uh none of it has been modified since last month. Comment number seven, we did receive dumpster enclosure elevation. So that comment can be removed. Comment number eight is utilities comment regarding the sewer cleanouts which will remain. Number nine, the outdoor storage shall be screened per design per zoning ordinance, which is assuming what the pallet storage area is for. And then we added an extra comment on there to provide elevations for the pallet storage as it is a fairly decent size. I believe it's over 2,000 ft² worth of a structure. So, we would need some kind of elevations for that structure as well. Um just to recap here, we had comment number seven that was addressed uh with the additional comment to provide extra elevations for the pallet shed. Elevations don't meet design review landscaping concerns still as well as the fire department. So um with that staff would recommend uh deferral or uh denial whichever you see fit due to the remaining concerns that are still present as a result of the comments. Was there any conversation with uh the U architect engineer as far as working toward meeting design review? I know they've done some, but they're still not there. Go following back on Steve on the last deal. Um if we think there's some an opportunity that you know they're going

to look at our comments and make the needed changes, that's one thing. It's

this was the first time we've seen revised plans since staff met with the applicant on it. I've not had any separate conversations with them since that. So, um best of my knowledge, unless Kevin has something else to add to it, this is the first iteration after staff met with them to present to you for review. Yeah, we we've met with the the architects and and talked about it and whatnot and and after the last meeting and so uh but and then talked with them and kind of went over some things, tried to answer their questions and then um yesterday we got the revised plans that you have in front of you right now. And that's the only conversations we've had. Have you guys sent comments back to them yet?

Oh yeah, we sent comments back since yesterday. Not since yesterday. No. Yeah, cuz what they so what they've sent where it still doesn't meet, you haven't communicated that back yet. No. Except for through this meeting, right? Okay. To provide that 150 foot access though is going to require some type of adjustment to the building or or movement on the property if that's at all possible. Probably shifting the building a little bit. Probably have to shift the building and add kind of a turn or fire lane in the back of the side. Yeah. One from the front or back. one of the two. How far off the line is that now? Do you know? Because it's really hard to tell on that drawing. I think there's a dimension in the plans.

Oh, I probably don't see a little 282 ft, but the dimension is shown on the plans is 22.6. So, what would they have to go to make that a drive line? Like 28 like the other 26? What's your minimum? It's a third. The fire code has I got you options for for folks to do. A normal lane is 24 ft. Honestly, the concern becomes though that the collapse zone is so narrow at that point that we would much prefer to have a lot more than that. But but to meet the the requirement to get the truck to drive through is 24 ft. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. So, technically they're close even though we need more. We would like more. Well, I think we addressed this the last time they were in with Well, I think you're right. I think we did have a discussion about that the last time. Um, is there anyone here that's representing uh if you can come before and give us your name and address, please? Air Cox 615 Design Group 1517 Hung Club Boulevard Gallatin, Tennessee.

Uh my question to you is is you know you've heard uh where we're not up to regulations uh concerning design review and our concern considering the fire lane. Is this something you feel like you can work on and have ready for us next month or is this something that you don't want to move forward with? No, no, we we believe we can work with staff to address those issues. We had the as I said a previous our architects had a previous meeting with staff and then the plans that were turned in yesterday were the first iteration from that meeting where we are moving forward trying to come up with a solution to meet the architectural design review. So is it something you think you could accomplish before the next meeting next month's meeting? Yes sir.

Okay. Like Steve keep beating this beating this thing to death until they meet it. Yeah. Uh a denial would be the way I would look at it. But um if they can get it done, I mean, we've been pretty consistent on design review, I think. And anybody that proposes otherwise, you know, we're just going to keep asking for it. So, it's consistency we're looking for. It's not just your product, it's everybody's, you know. So, Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so are you thinking denial or diverse? Well, his question, I won't speak for him. He didn't. I don't know if you heard it or not, but

Yeah. I'm thinking based on what he's saying he can accomplish, do a deferral. I think that's worth giving him that option. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if they'd said that, you know, hey, this is it. Yeah. Yeah. That's in the spirit of working with us if they think they can get there and have it ready by next month. Yeah. And I mean, you know, I'm glad to see some changes from last month, right? So, it's not like this is the second month with nothing changing. Right. So, they're Well, the holiday probably threw a wrench in some of that scheduling, too. I'm good with deferral as long as we're working towards a solution. I just don't want to keep deferring if we're not seeing movement. Right. Well, given the holidays, I wonder if we should go for a two-month def.

No, let's keep it at a month. Yeah, I agree with that. I'll make a motion to defer till next month's meeting. I'll second. I have a motion and a second to defer till next month's meeting. Any further discussion? All those in favor of deferring until next month, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Okay. We defer this until next month's meeting. Next month's Yeah, it is. Yeah. We're not meeting on New Year's Day, right? No. There's some people up here that may not be able to make it if that were the case. Hey, I'm there.

Okay. Next reszoning request. Uh Tracy Mayola, 1191 Rock Springs Road, reszoning R3 to C4.

This is a resoning request R3 to C4 on Rock Springs Road. It's about 7100s of an acre. Um this is directly adjacent to a piece of property that was recommended for reszoning and has passed first reading at council is up for second reading um next week on directly to the west of this property. Uh same request there R3 to C4. So this zoning is a mix of R3, C2 and C4. Land use plan for this area is our Sam Ridley character area uh which support a combination of retail uses and services uh both local and regional in scale major thoroughfare plan does designate Rock Springs Road as a collector and adequate rideway does is already existing for that street. So, uh, again, we would, um, we would recommend this to you. It's consistent with what is to the east of it and will be consistent with most likely based on the last two votes to the west as well. And there is a creek in the back there that kind of provides some a natural buffer to the neighbors that would be to the rear of it in the residential area there. So,

this is adjacent to the property that the planning commission recommended to reszone to um C4, correct? last month. Thank you. It's already been the first reading and it was approved there through first. Okay. Questions for Kevin concerning this? If nothing, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff. Have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I.

Opposed. This motion is approved. Our next item under new uh business is Vintage Harbor Brook Owner LLC, Vintage System Block Owner LLC, Walden Veester Family Limited Partnership LLC, 5,000 Needm Drive, 4,000 White Birch Avenue and Nem Drive, PRD amendment to a PUD. Yeah, this is an existing uh approved BRD. Uh the vintage uh they are it's under development. They have completed phase one. They're uh will soon trying to get started soon on phase two. Um u all multif family approved uh developments all multif family. Um surrounding zoning in here is is R4 uh R six, C2 and PRD in town. Uh and then R2 and agriculture in Leverne. Uh landage plan again is the same as the previous request is that same really character area. So it's certainly consistent with what we would look at uh in that in that area with it was our six zoning prior to the to the PRD being approved. Um the the major thoroughfare plan does designate old national highways and minor arterial and need drive and carriage house drive as collectors and a rideway does exist for those streets. Uh the amendments they are proposing to this PRD and it would really convert it to a PUD a planned unit development as it would be a mixture of uses uh allowing up to 10 office suites for each phase. So there's four phases in this PRD. So uh so 10 per phase uh the the minimum building separation would be 20 instead of 30. That's something that was how the phase one was developed and phase two has been approved at that

already as well. So we have no issue with that. Um each phase is responsible for the maintenance of the common areas and common space in lie of an owner's association and then the common parkland which is a part of this uh the kind of the northwestern portion of the property. Um it was set up that would be owned and maintained by each by all four phases. uh they are now proposing and that's do you have an agenda item later on uh regarding the uh donation of that land um as a park to the town. So that's a separate issue but we'll get to that later on. But that is that those are the four changes that are proposed within this this change within this BRD. Um we had some some concerns about the office suites portion of this. Um, so we have a few comments there. Upgrades uh will need to be made to those existing office spaces and the future office spaces uh to meet life safety standards. An occupancy inspection is required before renting out the units and prior to offices being occupied. Uh we did ask for a list of uses for these suites rather than just saying office suites. What are you proposing? Um and that is now within um the booklet

page eight page eight uh does show um the uses that are in there. That's that's pretty much um from our zoning ordinance um for that's actually the list is pretty close to C2, but they left several of them out. Um uh there are several things that we're looking no food services, there's no animal care services, you know, things of that nature. There's other uses not not allowed, but the those are types of uses with um some of those in there are not allowed in C4. The convenience retail sales, consumer repair,

the consumer repair. Um we certainly allow retail in C4. Not if you look in our ordinance what's allowed under general retail trades a little bit broader building materials and farm equipment sales u some of those to us didn't really make up make sense but um but that is what they were are proposing um so we do have that list now that we can you know if this is approved we could administer it as business licenses are submitted and applied for um and then as I stated said earlier, phase one of this project has been constructed. Um, there was nothing on any of the plans that showed these being anything beyond residential uses or that they were almost like look like almost like amenity spaces for the for the for the buildings. Like they're a community uh, you know, a community room or a room that could be released for parties or for um uh, you know, like study rooms or things like that for students or things of that nature that you could kind of use. um they weren't set up really at least didn't appear to be set up to be uh leased to people to draw a business out of. So there's they're basically on each floor of those buildings. Um, so I guess I mean our concerns if it was all on the first floor kind of you know common areas where you had um quite a bit of of traffic and things of that nature uh that we wouldn't have as much of a concern I think but on multiple levels you have internal hallways um clients customers in and out of a business potentially um on residential, you know, hallway, you know, so to

speak. So, I guess that was our kind of our concern. I think there's um, you know, I think that there's certainly some fire code issues and things of that nature that can probably be be addressed with this with regards to, you know, exit lights and strobes and things of that nature that um, we don't know. There was some indication that there was some of that already there. Um, again, we haven't been there and done any inspections on it, so we can't confirm that. But, um, so that's that is what they are requesting tonight. Uh, again, it's already there. Phase one is was these were built and they are proposing to build them in the other three phases. So, they're not large spaces. They're like 300 square feet or so. They're not multi, you know, large uh areas, but there are again uh the use being something not residential or as an amenity to the to the building. So, I guess that's all I've got.

Would the parking be sufficient to add to business uses? Um they they've got their proposal had they had more parking that was than would have been required for residential uses. Um I'm not too worried about the parking. I think there's there's adequate parking there um with the extra parking above the residential parking already. So, I'm kind of looking at the amendments and kind of thinking through what do I think council questions would be? Um, and so first thing is uh the original PRD was the 16.9 acres part of that was is that additional that's a net new the park. No, that was all part of the original PRD,

but it was not a park in the original PRD or it was it was a park, but it was going to be owned basically. It was going to be developed. It was going to be kind of a for lack of a better word term, like an assoc homeowners association, but it's going to be amongst the four phases. They were all going to jointly own it and maintain it. That was the the plan. Um, of course, currently those are all going it's all one owner. it's going to be parcelled off and it may or may not be all one long term. And so I think that's why the applicant came forward with the idea of donating it to the town and donating the park to the town basically. So in other words, donate the land to the town and let us maintain it.

Let us maintain it a completed park, but let us maintain it. Yes, sir. Instead of an association of But they're are they are they building the park? Yes, sir. So they're building it. We just have to maintain it. Yes, sir. Okay. And then the uh the second item there, minimum building separation 20 ft instead of 30 feet. Obviously to put buildings closer together. Is that adding units or just reshuffling existing units? It's not adding anything. There's no change in the number of units whatsoever on this. G squeeze them a little bit. They said it was already there.

Yeah, the park land this that's really they had as it's developed out there. Some of these buildings are are still are over 30 feet, but some of the some of uh mainly in phase two, there's a couple buildings that got a little less than 30. Um, and in the future phases, I think you I mean all probably from the beginning they were looking at probably less than 30, but they're the You said phase two, you mean three? No, phase two. Phase two looks Okay.

Yeah, phase two. A couple there's a couple of the buildings on toward the front or the most northern piece. Phase three certainly and then probably in phase four you probably have some that are less. It's that common number. If you look at page eight, the development standards number 11, it said all buildings shall be a minimum of 30 ft apart. They're just want to change that to 20. They're not really compacting it anymore. There's no additional units. There's nothing like that. It's really just to give them a little bit more flexibility in the placement of the buildings in each phase. When you said they'll build the park, what does that mean? What is that? That's the walking trails.

That's the concept plan. It's it's a disc golf actually for the mo is the biggest part of it. There is a walking trail within it. Is it hard surfaced?

Um that's the part we're kind of working on negotiating that piece of it. Um, but yeah, it will be it will be hard surface, but that might be something we have to pitch in a little bit on the money to get the asphalt in. But cuz they were just going to do a mulch because they're trying to keep it kind of similar. Basically, the the the idea is they're basically giving us the land and then m instead of paying us impact fees, they're spending what they would have paid in impact fees to build this park and then giving us the park is is what they're financially what they're wanting to do. And so, um,

I think that'll be a hard sale to council, but that's my opinion. So, anyway, that's what they're Yeah, I'm frowning on that one already. It's Mhm. So, I guess that the other piece of this is what I'm hearing you understand is there was originally going to be a shared homeowners association, not really homeowners, but property owners. And that's not going to exist now. Right. Item three of number four. I was going to ask that. So what happens to the other common areas that aren't part of the park? Who's maintaining those now?

The individual parcels will still be they'll the owners will own and maintain them just as any other apartment complex would. So those amenities are within each each phase, the swimming pools, etc. Those will be maintained by the owner of that property, whoever that is. The roads the roads are public and none of the amenities are changing. They're not reducing amenities. They're not reducing any of their amenities on their sites. No, nothing is changing on the the number of units, the layout. None of that is changing. It's just the the park being public and then the the setback 20 instead of 30. Um and then these these office suites.

So, they're wanting commercial on the same floors as residential. Yes. Do we have any other property like that in this moment? No, not on the same floor. We have some proposed at Sewage Landing where you'll have some first floor commercial with with residential above, second and third floor. Um, but not what we approved at Alta Depot, too. They just ended up not developing the commercial or renting out the commercial. They have like their workout room on the bottom floor. Yeah. Yeah, there's no real commercial space, but that's not what this is, though. But how do we maintain some type of control for those residents to have some type of peace?

I think it's a fair question and and I mean some of the proposed uses like for instance, I'm not sure what cultural and recreational services are. I mean, was that a dodgeball right there? Uh building materials and farm equipment sales. Uh, let's see. Uh, convenience, retail services, consumer repair, entertainment, and amusement services. I mean, pool arcade. Arcade, whatever. Entertainment and amusement. I mean, that Steve, you know, singing nightly. I I don't know. That would be the amusement park, Steve. Steve's karaoke bar. General personal services. I'm assuming

that's hair nail salon type stuff. Massage. Yeah, the general retail trade. That's pretty much any type of retail, professional services, medical. I'm not sure that folks would want a medical office in the same building. Um, religious facilities, educational, healthc care facilities. I mean, that's a that's a real broad brush there. And I mean, and what mechanism keeps each section from policing themselves? I mean, what mechanism is in place if you don't have an HOA or a professional HOA if you will. Yeah. What's the mechanis? Is it fall on our codes department?

Yeah. They we basically and that's how we found out about it in the first place because like I said these were constructed in phase one like they don't have anything to do and and our someone came in to get a business license. Yeah. And we that's how we caught it. So in phase one which is already built are all of these offices in the common area on the first floor? No, they're not. No, they're on each floor. So, they're already doing that basically. You just didn't know until there was a business license, right? They weren't they weren't called out as there's only 10 and there's four floors in each of these buildings. So, they have like one on each floor. I mean,

something like that. And I think it's some somewhat kind of how it was explained to me as in like where there's at the corners so to speak within the building there was some space that was it didn't really work wasn't big enough to be an apartment and it didn't really work I guess to be added on to an adjoining apartment or whatever and had this space that was there and so they created it as a a separate space um and are are wanting to lease them out. So, they'd be better off leasing them out as storage units. Has this been done anywhere else within Middle Tennessee?

I I don't know. I can't I don't know. It's certainly not in Smyrna I'm aware of. Uh it's these folks build all around Middle Tennessee. So, they may have built done this somewhere else. uh the separation from commercial or retail and residential for both fire. How do they get get away with that? They don't have a floor in between them. The the their response letter basically says that their architect says that these are small enough that per code they're considered accessory to the residential use.

So they found an angle. So that's how they uh are that's how they're stating it that it's now again we and again they kind of indicated they had no issues at all doing occupancy inspections and doing the you know the the the exit site lights and ADA accessibility all those kind of things they had to do for commercial space. Um, there's there's a lot of these allowable uses on here that I'm not confident with at all. I mean, well, it's a residential area. I mean, let's just keep it residential. I mean, lively got to put 300 square foot of anything commercial on a residential floor.

You walk out your front door into what you think is going to be a hallway and there's a line of people waiting for who knows what service across the hall from you. That makes zero sense to me. We've seen live work before and in the places we've seen it, it didn't necessarily work. They came back and changed it. Now, that may have that was a long time ago. Linux Village was one of those places, but um I'm going to let the engineer speak. Name and address, please.

Good evening. Ryan Olson, SEC on behalf of TDK. Uh John David Blankenship is here with me tonight in regards to TDK. um kind of go through each of these points in regards to the different different the four things we've listed on this book in regards to amendments to this. Um the 20 foot versus the 30foot was more or less we realized it was a typo after the fact. Uh but the original book the graphics in the book do show those buildings being 20 foot apart. But as we went through phase one and then now we're in phase two under the design of the phase two section we realized that the buildings that we had designed were at 20 foot based on what the original concept plan was at but the book list is 30. So staff and ourselves kind of realized that there was an issue in regards to the book mandated that was 30 but the design actually showed it being 20. So that was the difference on the 20 versus 30 foot on that side. So we're just trying to bring that more into compliance with what we're designing on the property itself in that side. Um, regards to the uses, um, we definitely, um, would like to go back, um, and make a deferral request tonight in regards to these uses and kind of whittle those out a little bit more with staff in regards to the allowable uses for these spaces. These spaces aren't 300 foot, they're actually 10 by 10 spaces. They're about 100 foot. So, they're very ancillary in regards to those types of uses that would be in there. um some of the uses that are listed in here do seem a little extreme in regards to 100 foot square space on that side. So we definitely want to go back and look at that list a little more thoroughly and talk with staff about certain aspects about what things would be appropriate considering this is a residential you know apartment structure on that side of things and just kind of want to whittle that down to make it more very much more ancillary type of uses that would be indicative. We kind of see these envision these things as being little spaces that would be more for like small business opportunities on that side of things. So if you have somebody living inside that space that doesn't want to work out of their apartment suite, they could use this as more or less an office suite or something like that on that side. So I

definitely want to go we want to kind of go back in and kind of whittle down that list to be a little more detailed to kind of outline what we feel are the most appropriate uses that are beneficial for the residents within each of those structures on that side. And yes, there are different each level the building does have a uh a suite, you know, or two on each level on that side. So that's kind of where we're trying to just kind of whittle that back down. So So we would like to request deferral. That's an option for you guys tonight. My um my only feedback, Rob, would be anything in my opinion, anything that's public facing with expectction of expecting foot traffic in and out of those facilities

would be a hard press, right? Because you've got public folks visiting an office in a retail hallway. I mean in a residential hallway. Understood. And if I had kids or even my college kids that lived in that apartment, I wouldn't want strangers who have no responsibility to the property walking right outside their door every day. Right. Correct. Um, so look, when you're looking at that list, consider, you know, uses that limit or restrict public access like that would probably be better. Yes.

Or would it even be more even more limited to a resident only? I mean, you mentioned someone that wanted an office space that lived there. Um, I I don't know. I'm limit the amount of buildings that offer that. Yeah, it sounds like we've got 100 square feet on on each floor that you're trying to find something to do with, right? Yeah, there's but a couple about 10 by 10 spaces kind of on each of the floors and the floor plates on that side. So, we're just trying to look at accommodating opportunities for residences of the spaces inside the units themselves to have someplace to go, study hall kind of space, that kind of stuff on that side. So

yeah, I remember talking about this when this originally came through and I think even when I toured the facility, I saw one of those kind of ideas. Um, but I think we always had the impression that it was like available for the tenants to rent or lease as an amenity almost, right? And not necessarily open to just anyone outside the complex to rent or lease. And I think that's really the the biggest change that we didn't understand if that was always the intent because that's not the way I understood it would work. And I think that's kind of what Tim is saying is if this was limited to people that had a vested interest in the property, they were either existing renters, not necessarily in that building, but at least in a building on the property that might be more palatable to

exercise. Obviously that limits your rental pool, right, of who you could get to get in there because now you've only got residents and I get that. Yeah. And so, yeah, we definitely would like to take a little more time to talk to staff and kind of work through a couple of these items that you've all brought up tonight on that side. So, is the first floor all commercial or is it No, sir. There's it's residential on each of the four floors and each of the four floor plates has a couple of these spaces on each of those floor plates. So, there is an off there's little ancillary spaces on each floor. So it's not like we're doing the first story is commercial commercial component and then three stories of residential. It's four stories of residential with little nooks on each floor that are built in the four plate.

Anything else? Was was was this like intentionally in the design initially or was this kind of like oh we've got this little bit that came up and now we need to find a place something to do with that space.

Good evening. I'm John Blankenship with TDK 2006 Windsor Street, Murphersboro, Tennessee. Uh these were always planned to be office suites on each of these floors. Um, we found out just through kind of building these across the across the southeast, that our residents usually really like these. Um, and then throughout the vintage stone trace project, which is phase one here, we've had a lot of interest from outside people to come in as well. Um, these are small little private offices more or less for people originally who worked from home uh during COVID to have a place to work out of. So, they weren't always locked inside of their space. Um, and these have slowly become more and more popular in in our developments that we've been doing. Where else have you done this, John?

Uh, we've got one in Murphy'sboro right now, one in Nolanville, uh, a couple in South Carolina, a couple in Florida. Um, I can get you guys a full list if you want. Curious. I just surrounding area. Kind of wondered if you'd already done it somewhere. Yes, sir. We we're developing one in Murphy'sboro right now. Uh, the Vintage Edge project in Nolanville or Antioch has those. Vintage 1857 has those and Vintage Century Farms has those as well. I believe we might have a few more, but that's just what I'm able to come up with. And what are they finding the usage of those spaces for in those spaces? Uh, it's typically office suites for people who are on the phone a lot, people who work do computer work, things like that. We're not intending a true retail store, somebody selling something out of this. This is a space for somebody to sit down and work. So, why is this entire list allowing so many things?

We didn't want it to be super restricted. So, we went through the C2 and C4. That's why I'm asking the question, right? So, that's the catch 22. You don't want to restrict it, but what you're saying is small office space primarily. Yes, sir. But he did say, how about farm equipment? A salesman for farm equipment. Somebody who sits at their computer and sells something. Retail sales and services. Same thing, sir.

Um the only true um I guess retail stop and shop would have been a hair salon or a nail salon, something like that. And if that's something you guys are opposed to doing, we would definitely be willing to pull that off. I think Steve challenged Rob already. You heard the conversation about taking a look at the uses. Uh it sounds like he's requesting a deferral already anyway and maybe thinking about his comment. Now I agree with him. I I don't want to open it up too much to too many commercial. I understand you not want to be restricted. You have to turn that space. It's valuable to you all. But I want to be careful about what we allow to put in there. Yes, sir. Kevin, do you recall the person that came for a business license and what type of business it was?

I know Mitch actually talked to him. He was out of he was out of the county. He wasn't even in Rutherford County, but I don't remember the type of business he asked for. I don't remember off top of my head what it was. I just remember he was either a resident of Leverne or Antioch and trying to obtain obviously an office space within this development. So, he didn't live in the He did not live in the space. No, he did not live here. That would be another concern I have is a non resident coming into a residential area. Could it be made for just residents? Robert, John, one of you guys, could you speak to what's the what's the price point on these? I'm going to have to get back with you on that. I am not 100% sure

cuz I could also see if it's low enough people using these just to have an address in the town. It is not that low. Uh, I don't want to be held to this number, but I believe it's $600 plus dollars a month for one of these spaces. Okay. Thank you, sir. During the original uh approval of the PRD, were these spaces listed? Well, well, I mean, I mean, I just don't recall this.

Um, it wasn't certainly wasn't from a zoning when the zoning came in. And there was never discussion of this type of as part of their project at all. That's why again that's why they're having to amend it now. Um and it went through all the building code reviews and all of that. And these were never called out as like any type of like commercial use or whatever. Like it was just they were these they're there. I mean, they're I mean, I kind of get they're on the plans, but they're not necessarily it not designated

not designated as office space or what, you know, or anything like that. I mean, I I kind of understand that this being born out of COVID where maybe somebody needed a place to go sit with their computer and work just to get out of their apartment and things like this, but it seems like we've taken that concept now we expanded it so that we've got people from um Antioch or Lever or somewhere wanting to come and open up an office uh in these. Okay.

I I guess I got one more question on the park. So, looking at kind of the design, I mean, it's pretty much accessible through the apartment complex only. Um, is the is the idea that that park would be private to the residents only or is it open to the public? If we're going to maintain it, it will be open. It'll be open to any It would be open to anybody. I mean, it would be just like any other town park. Okay. Yeah. And would so they wouldn't be able to restrict access to it even in the future. No, those are public streets. Okay. Within here. I mean, but you would need some parking. Yeah, there is a there's a drawing of 27 that's got kind of a parking lot

and we've got certainly a um that concept plan has been revised as well from from that. I mean, that was what was in the pud. So, I mean, we've got the revised concept of what's actually So, being talked about this question, it needs parking, and I think you answered a while ago, but I'm asking for clarification. Who's responsible for that part of the development of that park? Would that be on us or would that be on the developer? Yeah. The the land that would be given to us, it once it's ours, we would park our hard surface walkways and stuff like that, right? That would be ours to maintain from then on. and and we can to construct or just to maintain to maintain.

Okay. Yeah. So, the park that we're talking about in question is completely separate from the dog park that I've seen on here as well. Is that correct? Yeah. There's dog parks and and pools and different things and all each phase has its amenities. Yes. Yeah. That that would be separate from Thank you. Okay. Any other Can I ask the question? Sure. If you'll come up and I'll allow that and you'll give us your name and address, please.

Uh David, still we on the property adjacent to the park there and wondering, like I said, what's going to be there on our property line from that? It's in Leverne. And it's the property. You're talking about this right next to this project on the back side. On the back side. This is your This is where the park is going to be. And this is our property here. Okay. Wondering what's going to be across through here. And even if you're going to have an access here because of the road, it pulls back into the back side of that park. Is that technically Lever there? That's all Lever area right there.

I don't believe there was an act as far as using that access. I don't believe that was part of the the concept at all. So if you're going to be, you know, if you're going to do the Sparta Park, what you have another access to it, but that's coming in from the subdivision, the backside that directly to the property with just shows walking trails and trees. I don't think Yeah, we're not we're not taking a road in in there. Okay. Like I said, I didn't Well, the other thing is there back over there. The other thing is that they're going to try to put a fence all the way down the side of the property line or what it would be. I normally don't think so. No. So, it just beation, right? It's a park. So,

yeah. So, it just be open to the property on the other side. You have a fence boarding the property there where you live. Uh 50 year old. Yeah. Do you want to replace it? It's a It's a 50-y old fence. You know, like I said, I don't know what, you know, because if we ever develop that, whether we'd have access to the park walking or not, you know, because I don't, you know, how how they would access to that. I don't think I'm I may be speaking out attorney. I don't think we have any fences around any parks, do we? Maybe the wreck part, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I said that's thought. I just like said trying to figure out how it impact us.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Steel. All right. So, obviously a lot of questions. I think uh Rob Molen asked for a deferral. So, I'll make a motion that we defer for 30 days next meeting. Next month. Second. I have a motion and a second to defer to next month. Any any further questions or discussion? I'm going to be out sick next month. I'm feeling bad. We should have just delayed this meeting to next month.

Um, so I think we're no further questions and discussion. So all in favor of deferring until next month's meeting, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. We have deferred this till next month. Okay, we're on to preliminary plans. The first one is Grey Greystone phase 3B Long Drive owner developer Meritage Homes. Yeah, this is the next phase of the Greystone development. Uh it's 56 lots, 10.39 acres, part of the Greystone PRD. Uh we had a few comments. They're all standard comments. Uh um this is uh only thing kind of a little bit different. There are a couple sink holes we're going to have to give us some repaired details on. Um, so that's comment seven, but really this with the seven remaining comments, um, again, it's consistent with our the approved PRD and and meets our subdivision regulations, we would recommend this approval to you.

All right. Uh, questions for Kevin or staff on this one? Hearing nothing. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with staff comments. Have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second to approve with staff comments. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I.

Oppose. This motion is approved. Next, preliminary plants, Hollings Head Industrial, West Jefferson Pike and Hickory Grove Road. Owner developer Hollings Head Land LLC, Hamilton Development Company.

Yeah, this is the preliminary plat um for the development that was annexed a few months ago on West Jefferson Pike near Hickory Grove Road. Uh it's about 180.83 acres. Um there's 12 lots proposed. This is a C partially C2 and the rest I1 zoning. Um the we had again several comments here that were um really the first seven are really just all standard comments. Um comments number eight and nine uh as a part of this overall development. The ones who were on commission at the time may remember this uh there was a proposed greenway basically all around this project and um so that's we comments eight and nine are just asking for more detailed drawings because we're going have to go to the corp as part of that is they're green would be built on core property um and any eastments may be required where because it will some places it's going to be on these slots. So, um, so comments eight and nine would still need to remain. Comment number 10, um, we there is some roadways proposed here that do need names still, so we're still waiting on that. So, we need to keep comment. Uh, comment number 11, uh, the the traffic studies has been completed. There are some recommended improvements. I know Mr. King um has been meeting with these folks as well as uh T DOT as well and a couple other developments in that area uh working through uh and kind of all kind of putting all their heads together for all those developments so that we they're all everything all the recommendations and improvements are all going to be consistent. And so uh they're kind of I I'll defer to him if you have any questions on that traffic those traffic study but there are again just let you know that we did

receive one for this project uh as as it was required. Um number 12 uh we asked for a separate uh utility sheet. They did show the lift station. So the last part of that uh comment can be removed. Uh number 13 uh our subdivision regulations require preliminary plast be stamped by an engineer. This one's been stamped by a surveyor. So, they do still need to show that seal for the for the engineer that worked on the splat. Uh, number 14 is really a standard comment regarding the roadway lighting plan. Um, and number 15 was from our utilities department and this was I do want to keep this one just uh there was some uh appeared to be some private uh utility mains that were shown in public right away. Everything anything in the public rideway needs to be public. So um and so we need to keep comment comment 16 regarding the details on that access on lot six that's been addressed can be removed. Uh comment number 17 they did show the location of the master fire booster pump so that's been shown can be removed. Uh 18 they did show the location of the sewer lift station so that can be removed. 19 show the size of the gravity sewer size of the force man. uh that's been done so it can be removed and then we asked a question about the 12-in water man after the booster pump. Uh the 12-in water man basically is for going to be for domestic and irrigation and there's going to be a separate main for the fire suppression purposes. So when after that booster pump so that's that was the the reasoning for that so we can remove uh that comment. So um basically in the end uh a lot of standard comments and just would uh comments 16 through 21 can all be removed. Um with those remaining comments we would recommend approval.

Okay. questions uh for Kevin on this. The initial request for bringing this in, I thought there was a greenway they were talking about a walking trail. Was there a walking trail part of that? That's right. Is that what this is? Is this considered a walking trail? What they're showing there?

Um Oh, this is future greenway. I mean, it's it's it's essentially a greenway. It's going to be built as a greenway 12 ft wide. It's going to kind of start well on the west side of the project, go all the way around it, and then could eventually come back to Jefferson Pike on the east side. What's their involvement in that? Because this is showing it all outside of their property lines, the greenway. I mean, I think it it does cross their property in a couple of locations. Um,

I guess I'm Well, that's my understanding was they're going to help with constructing that. Is that right? That's correct. I mean, we're going to be involved certainly because getting permission through the core and all that probably be easier for us as easy as dealing with core can be, I guess. Okay. So it is de it's show it's shown on here. It's not just a placeholder. It's part of the development. Correct. It's going to be developed with the development. Yes. Okay. Cuz it basically all of it looks like it's outside of their property land which I guess makes it all Army Corp of Engineer land. It'll be largely like there is going to be like on Yeah. I see there's like page three or two of three.

Yeah. It's going to cross. Yeah. Right. It's going to cross in a couple of places. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I think on the east side when it comes back around, I think there's a couple spots that's going to hit. Um, they they certainly see it as an amenity. I think their project um just for future tenants. It looks like over here it's so far away from their property line in most places that it doesn't look like their their complex will have access. And that's what was kind of looking a little confusing to me.

Yeah. I think there's probably on the east side was really where there was even some discussion about a potential it could be a I can't remember exactly which quarry day is but on one of it gets a little closer on the east side I think to their property. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, maybe for lot six right in that area I think. Maybe right six and nine I guess. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Got a motion to approve with staff comments from Mark. Do you have a second? Second. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. This uh motion is approved. Uh next is final plat Sam Ridley West Sam Ridley Parkway Genie Lane Mlo College Boulevard Jack Doll Drive owner developer Wild Building Construction Inc.

Yeah, this is the final flat. Um this is just to that to dedicate the ride ofways um as as well as all the public utility easements and uh private some private utilities and private uh access easement things of that nature. Um we had a few comments um really one through uh four but all need to remain. They're all standard comments. Um number five regarding the showing the correct size on the existing public water manu on Genie. Uh they've got that done so we can remove that. Show the offsite sewer that's now shown. So we can remove that one. They did label the private water lines cuz some of these lines are private. So they've labeled those. And then um they had shown just some sanitary sewer and drainage easements and we had just asked them the ones that are intended to be public to label them as such. And if and so and if they share this some places sanitary sewer and access are in the same easement and so we just ask them to label them again public or private. So they anyway they've addressed all that so we can remove that comment as well. So really just comments one through four are all that are left and uh with those comments we would recommend this approval to you. questions for Kevin.

Is this consistent with? Yes. Consistent with the the PRD approval and the preliminary plan. Anything else? Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve with staff comments. I have a motion to approve with staff comments. Do I have a second? motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving this motion, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? This uh final plat is approved. Uh Kevin, we're next on to a concept plan. Nissan gas station, 561 Nissan Drive. Owner developer MAC ESHAC.

Yeah, this is just for me. I let Mitch we either one of us can say we we actually don't have any plans in front of you tonight. They didn't bring us anything. Uh they had submitted for the agenda and then never gave us any copies. Um so really don't I would probably just recommend either deferral or deny all of this at this time because you really don't have plans to look at. You know we don't have any idea when we might see any plans at this point. You have deferrals already. So we'll make a motion to deny it. I have a motion to deny from Mark. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of denying this motion, please signify by saying I.

Opposed. This motion is denied. They had something to look at. It'd be different, but they didn't. There's nothing to even review. Okay. Um and we've not heard back from Mr. Eshack. Uh have not. His engineer called yesterday and said they were trying to get the plans to us, but then they didn't. So, okay. All right. Site plans. Holling said Industrial Phase 1A, West Jefferson Pike and Hickory Grove Road. Owner, developer, Hamilton Development Company.

This is the first site plan for the plat that you just reviewed. This is phase one of the Hollings Industrial Project. This will be for four industrial buildings totaling just under a half million square ft of building. Access to these buildings will be provided off of West Jefferson Pike via two new access points. One located across from Hickory Grove Road and one near the western edge of the property. Both these access points would be uh new public roadways with 60 ft rideways and eight additional industrial buildings would be proposed for future phases. The acular use area for the site 13.82 82 acres which does require 1.1 acres of landscaping and the applicant is showing for 1.26 acres accumulatively. Total parking for the entire site of this phase is 492 spaces. They are showing for 557 spaces. Handicap parking space requirement of 11 and they're showing for 24. There' be uh six at each building. Landscape plan shows a variety of street trees and shrubbery lining the new public rideways. Additional trees and shrubbery are shown on each property located along public parking areas and at the base of the buildings. Each future parcel will need to have a landscape plan details since each site will need to stand on its own after the subdivision plat is recorded. The overall site does meet the own landscaping requirements. However, we just need to make sure all the fine-tuned details of each landscaping plan is met for each of these new parcels. architectural character. The elevations for all buildings are to be finished with in similar design manner with matching materials. Uh we have received revised elevations since the pack went out. So I do have a little bit of tweaking here to the comment list from when it went out. All the buildings are to have a mixture of uh concrete tilt panel and masonry appearance which is

done through forms that when concrete is poured into these forms gives a appearance of a masonry finish but uh is primarily just concrete till panel and glass glazing as presented. The architectural elevations do meet design review. Standard comments one through six all remain. Comment number one from util utilities department has been received and can be removed. Count number two isformational. The building permits will not be issued until the final PL is recorded. Number three,formational as well. The second entrance must be built before the building permits can be issued. Number four, any improvements recommended by the traffic study must be completed by the developer. Number five, once again,formational. We ask them to submit road name and E91 approval for the road names. Number six, the architectural elevations. There was some confusion on the materials and that has been addressed. So comment number six can be removed. Number seven is from our public works stormwater department. The stormwater would recommend limiting the disturbed area to less than 50 acres for TAC requirements. Comment number eight was from our fire department. There was some concern about discussion with the fire pumps shown on site. We asked them to reach out to our fire department for that. Uh several of these comments in here a mixture of fire department and utilities department. So a lot of these still do need to be addressed and fine-tuned details. Um I'll outline these as we go along, but uh spoke speaking to our utilities department who did get on a call with the developer yesterday on this. Most of the heavyhitting pressing details have been sorted out regarding the sewer availability and the water pressure availability on site. Um, so that is not a concern. That was primarily a concern before that discussion yesterday occurred. Um, more so now it's just the fine-tuned details that need to be sorted out between fire department, utilities, and the developer at this

time. So, comment number nine falls in that category or comment number eight rather. Comment number nine is regarding the landscape. We need uh additional landscape details for each site specifically to make sure it does meet our design review requirements. So, comment number nine will remain. Uh number 10, the number of ornamental trees shown exceeded 25% which is a design review requirement has been addressed can be removed. Comment number 11, 12, 13 fall in that same category, the utilities and uh fire department concerns. So all three of those will remain. Comment number 12, there was some dimensional issues with plans and what was actually shown uh has been addressed can be removed. Come number 15. We asked if that if there are dumpsters to be utilized for the businesses to show the locations of the dumpsters and provide elevations. The applicant has noted that they are still working on determining the final design and locations of whether these will be internal or external. If they're going to be external, they happy to comply with their requirement. Uh as a result though, we would like to keep this comment in case they are external. They are no at this time. That is to meet all design review comments. So uh number 15 will remain and then number 16 as well as same with the utilities and fire department concerns that will remain more so as a uh working through process comment more anything else. So as a result of uh really the discussion yesterday between utilities and the developer, staff does now recommend approval with the remaining comments which is all the standard comments. Staff comment 2 through 5, 7 through 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15 and 16.

Mitch, entrance number two that has to be constructed. Which one is that? Is that the one at Hickory Grove Road or is that the one closest to the town of Sern Lake? I believe it would be either or. Okay, they have to have both of them. They have to have both. Yes, probably the second way in and out. Yeah, it just said it had to be constructed with four building permits. That's one I was trying to figure out. Basing both. Yeah. Yeah, cuz both are kind of shown in this face.

Yeah. These first four issues will talk about having bigger commercial space as a buffer from Jefferson. Yeah, that's the white area on the map. Yeah, we don't have any buildings in there to see, but there's not going to be vegetation in there either. Not initially. Yeah. So, initially you'll be able to see these buildings from Jefferson until the commercial side gets put in.

Most likely. I mean there is some the topography does kind of slope away from Jefferson some there. So but you yeah they'll be visible certainly. Anything else from the commission?

Just because there's so many unanswered questions as Mitch pointed out and the staff is recommending deferral. We're recommending approval. That's Oh, you are? I didn't hear you say. You said they worked through a majority of there's still some technical details to work through with our utilities and fire on some of the water supply for fire suppression and those kind of things. Um I think they made good progress yesterday, I believe. So I think that's we're okay with approval of this. Can you elaborate a little bit on 16 water quality?

Was that just the quantity or maybe Mr. Parker might be best to answer that. Uh sir, the comment about the quality is so there with the 12-in line coming down the the main road down there to the culde-sac. If the 12 in is a large enough size and there's not enough usage, domestic usage on that, that water potentially could go stagnant

and it won't rotate over. So we have we would have um uh taste and smell calls on that. So I work with the engineers. We're talking about figuring out where their fire line needs to come off and then downstream of that connection point we would reduce the size so that water would turn over more frequently in that line so that we could better maintain the water quality there. That's what that was about. That makes sense. Okay. Mark, and you you feel confident you can get this worked out if uh as you're continuing your discussions with the engineer on this?

Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. But my big concern is with with they had the one fire state the one fire pump there and then they had all these private lines crossing the public lines and they they were intermingling a lot. had a good call with them yesterday and uh they're going to go back and work at trying to segment these fire these fire zones per se so that we can better segregate where the public lines are versus where the private lines are and still maintain the proper fire protection that fire department's going to need for this site. Okay.

All right. Anything else? I will entertain a motion then. Move to adopt with staff comments. A motion to adopt with staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. Yes.

Motion in a second. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving this motion with staff comments, please signify by saying I. opposed. This motion is approved. Next, under site plans, platform station at I24 Tridon Drive and Safari Drive, owner developer platform real estate group LLC.

Yes, a site plan for across the street from Trident from the one we looked at earlier tonight. This is going to proposing to be a 119,379 ft warehouse building at the northern quadrant of the intersection at Trident Drive and Safari Drive. Access to the site is shown by four new access points with two off of Trident Drive and two off of Safari Drive. Northernmost entrance on Trident Drive closest to Le Victory Parkway would be utilized as a tractor trailer access point. the land square footage of vehicle use area on the site just over 3 acres and that does require 10,564 ft of landscaping. Applicant is showing for 10,73 square ft. So slightly adjusted from last week when the packets went out but still meeting our requirements. Total parking required of 120 spaces and they're showing for 120. That does also require five handicap parking spaces which they are showing. The landscape plan shows a mixture of London plane and red maples along Safari Drive and half of Trident Drive with shrubbery shown between those trees. Along the perimeter of the pond are a variety of red cedar and holly trees. Additional shrubbery is shown to be planted at the base of the building fronting roadways. As shown, the landscape plan does not meet designer view as additional street trees would be need to be added along Trident Drive at the top of the pond to meet streetscape requirements. Architectural elevations show the building be finished with glass glazing, metal canopy, and tilt panel concrete and textured concrete. Uh there was some questions from last week when comments went out that have been addressed. So, uh slight modification here to the report. Industrial zones are permitted to utilize tilt panel concrete as a primary material as shown. Material percentages have been shown now and do meet designer review requirements. As

shown, the loading docks would face Lee Victory Parkway. Standard comments 1 through 7 will remain and staff comment. One, we more so information. We do require them to submit a flood plane development permit application prior to submitt for a grading permit. Number two, we asked them to submit utility construction plans. So both those will remain. Comment number three, they did submit a traffic study. So we can remove that comment. Number four, there was some uh discrepancy with the labels on the cover sheet which they have straightened out. So accountant four can be removed. Number three or sorry five regarding the streetscaping not meet designer view. We asked them to modify some of those street trees and shrubbery to meet the designer view manual. Come number six uh can be removed as well. We asked them to show the dumpster enclosure elevations. They have noted that no outdoor dumpster will be utilized. So account number six can be removed. Number seven, we asked them to contact the fire department in regards to the auto turn. They have done so accordingly. So that comment can be removed as well. And kind of number eight, we asked them to label and show material percentages on the elevations which they have done so. So count number eight can be removed. Number nine, uh we did ask uh whether the building can be oriented in a fashion in which the loading docks would not be facing uh Lee Victory Almondville intersection. They noted that it is not possible due to the site topography naturally draining toward the north where the creek is and the building is designed to be lower on the north side. As a result, existing stream buffer and commercial development along Lee Victory Parkway will screen the truck area along with the new landscape proposed to be installed around the pond area. So that was the response to our uh question. But with that staff comments 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 can all be removed. But with that, staff does recommend approval.

Questions for Mitch on this? I assume since you're recommending approval, you were satisfied with their response to your question on number nine. It's more of a can you do it? If you can do it, great. If not, there's it's justifiable reason.

Does the land slope away from Nissan there? I'm trying to recall. Slopes towards the wall. I mean, you kind of got the creek. So, you kind of slope down to the creek and you So, both sides you slipping down kind of the west and east side of the creek there. That's where they got their detention pond shown and that's where there's some flood plane there. They're going to have to So, that vegetation work the flood plane. That vegetation area there is the creek. It's that's not going anywhere is my point. Right. Right. Right. So that's going to provide a lot of natural screening, right? That's all flood plane and flood way in that area. That's

in addition to what they do on the site, right? Are you convinced that we have enough considering those in the way of natural and required screening on the property that you don't see the loading docks as an issue? I mean, I think you're going to most likely you're going to have enough screening with you with the trees that are there plus what's coming. You you probably will be hidden um from Le Victory at least once you get on Trident. Obviously, it's a different thing, but that's an industrial area, right? Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's not there's not really any residential near there.

Yeah, there's no residential. It was really just even on the other side of Lee Victory. It's it's a good ways away. It's commercial too for the most part on that side. Other questions or comments?

Do I have a motion? Move to approve 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.

Opposed. This motion is approved. Next site plan, Wells Fargo, 557 West San Ridley Parkway, owner developer, Wells Fargo Bank, NA. This is a site plan for a new Wells Fargo location. They would demolish an existing commercial building previously used as a real estate office. located at 557 West Samurly Parkway. Proposed to be constructed would be a 4,167 square foot bank centrally located on the parcel. One drive-through lane is proposed on the east side of the building with Q links uh long enough for approximately four vehicles. The Ingress points would stay in the same locations as they are today. Square footage of vehicular use area on the site just under a half acre. That does require 2,135 square feet of landscaping. U Finan has adjusted the landscape plan since last week when the packets went out. So the proposed is now 2360 ft meeting our requirements. Park required is 24 spaces that are showing for 25 and required of one handcap space but they are showing for two. The landscape plan as I mentioned earlier has been adjusted. Though this report has been adjusted accordingly, the landscape plan shows the existing Bradford pairs remaining fronting present place with a variety of shrubs proposed to supplement the existing trees. A variety of shrubbery and trees are shown to be planted along PTOAC Place and within landscape islands. Streetscaping has also been added along Sanley Parkway uh with street trees and shrubbery. The landscape plan does meet designer view. There are overhead utilities in this area. So it is required of them to meet milass electric requirements or species and height requirements as well within that area. So there are some certain limitations with that to adhere to. The architectural elevations show the

building to be finished with brick, glass glazing and wood panel. The primary materials of brick and glass glazing make up at least 75% of all four wall elevations. And once again, the elevations have been revised since the packets went out, but the wood panel is actually a fiber cement material uh shown on the elevations to give the appearance the appearance of a wood panel. As presented, the elevations now meet designer review. Standard comments 1 through 7 will remain. Comment number one, the auto turn for the fire apparatus around the site still does not meet fire department's requirements. So that comment will remain. Number two, we asked them to show streetscaping along Sam Ridley which they are now showing so that comment can be removed. Number three, we asked them to show the appropriate street trees in accordance with designer view has been adjusted so that comment can be removed as well. Number 10, they were not meeting desire view requirement for the landscaping. They are now meeting it. So comment number four can removed as well. Number five, the dumpster enclosure details. We asked them to show those and must be masonry to match the building which have been shown and can be removed. Chem number six is being revised. They were previous showing wood panel which have they have clarified is now a fiber cement material. We just asked them to clarify that on all applicable pages to show fiberment not wood panel. Comment number seven submitting a utility plan which they have done so. And number eight has also been addressed was a utility comment. So, uh, staff comment one and a modified comment number six is all that remain for the staff comments. But with that, we would recommend approval.

Okay, you've heard from Mitch on this. Do we have any questions? Did you discuss the um sidewalk? Um, I've noticed in this area, and congrats to whoever did it, is they've filled in a lot of the gaps in the sidewalks. Um, has that been done uh along presidential Is there a sidewalk there? Okay. I didn't know if that was current or not. Wouldn't we typically require a sidewalk?

They're showing a sidewalk on this on their plan. If you look at uh sheet C-200, okay, I mean, you can you can see where it terminates there at the other at the other bank. Well, okay, great. A lot of people may or may not remember this building being built right after the Catfish House. And now the Catfish House is gone. This was the parks real estate building and it's vacated. people have moved into different branches and locations and so it was a stately looking building. I really liked that the way that building was. Selena spent some years in that building as well. Didn't you say?

Yes, I did. So, uh we have a little bit of a hard to see this building not go, but a lot of years spent in the parks building myself, but uh progress. So, uh, the new building looks good and, uh, time to change, I guess. Okay. Anything else from the commission? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve the staff comments.

Okay. Motion to approve with staff comments. And a second. Okay, Selena, this is on you. This gets down. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I oppose. This motion is approved. Are you looking for this? Where'd you go? Uh, next, uh, mandatory referral vintage park land donation.

This is what we alluded to during the discussion regarding the the the POT amendment. Um this is being proposed uh to a land donation is is being proposed uh by the developers of the of that project. Um the uh again being proposed as a as for a public park. Um it's it's actually it was shown on the pot originally about 16.9 acres. They're actually proposing to donate 19.69 acres. Uh there's a little bit of extra because they're coming um including part of the there's some land area shown with the kind of on the the east side of the the Texas eastern easement there uh with some parking additional parking as well as um a pavilion and things of that nature there. Um again this would be in lie of impact fees. Um that would be a separate agreement that the council would would look at. Um, this is something similar to what we looked at last month with the donation from DrapC in the Lynwood area as well as far as the the what the same process and same same uh same reasoning. Um, but um again, the planning commission is is required to review uh the obtaining of this parcel, find whether or not it's in keeping with the adopted comprehensive plan of the town and make that recommendation to council and staff would recommend approval. So take this up even though the product's been deferred.

I mean certainly you can. I think this is kind of a separate issue. I think that's how we would look at it as a separate issue. Um again the plan is up there and and in your packet as well. This the the plan for the park has changed. Again, that's there's been um several meetings between uh staff and the developers over the last probably year or so and discussion about this. Um and so the plan again the plan did change. It is 18 holes of disc golf, dog park area, um as well as kind of a pavilion and and a playground area and and then the walking trail within the park as well. So,

and this doesn't affectuate anything. It just allows it to be to happen. Okay. So, that was my question. One thing I want to clarify from before the developer will build this out. Correct. Yes. Including the parking area. Yes. and we'll work with the town if the town so chooses to move forward with it as far as parking requirements, dimensions of spaces, the correct all of those things along those lines. Will that be included in the separate agreement related to dollar amount and value, Jeff?

Because where's we already have it? Yeah, it's one one about $1.5 million worth of improvements, but the development work we have impact fee agreement, right? We do. Mhm. We haven't brought it to you yet. It's it was it was discussed pre at the workshop a little bit. This would be on the agenda next week for for action one way or the other. Okay. that that I guess my the rest of my question the development of the park the buildout of the park is is included in the PRD or is it included in the agreement because

we've asked that a couple times but I don't really see it spelled out anywhere. So that's why I'm trying to figure out where is that commitment documented that that would be part of the agreement the agreement that you're talking about bringing that you had as a workshop then yeah okay

now that was part of the amended PRD one of the four things was that because it was within the PRD that this was going to be owned by all four phases and so um so it would be part of that amendment too in that regard but this is again it's a separate agreement as far as the impact fee offsets. So, and then a vote to accept the land as a donation to to become a town asset as well. So, anything else? So in the memorandum the second sentence make sure I understand where Steve's coming from is where it says in lie of but then it has a lot of verbage afterwards. So Jeff from a legal ease side of things this isn't 100% in lie of this is just up to the value of the land because the impact fees on a project of this size will be more than the land itself.

Well you're so you didn't have the agreement. No, no. It's just agreement just spells out it's the value of whatever it is is what they would get. So they don't get more than what the value would get. That's what your question is. Okay. Yeah, that was Yeah, I think he's suggesting if it's 3 million in impact fees and this is only worth 1.5 million, they're only getting 1.5. That's correct. That's correct. Yeah. Other questions or comments? Do I have a motion? Move to approve with staff comments. Have a motion to approve uh with staff comments from Charles. Do I have a second? Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? All of uh those in favor of approving this um mandatory referral to council, please signify by saying I. Opposed uh is approved. Uh let's see. bond review report. Yeah.

Uh got got a a little bit shorter one this month thankfully. So get through that. Uh the first one patents retreat phase 2 section two. There was one last remaining item on that. This is the end of the maintenance period. uh in between last week when the packets were delivered and this week that has been taken care of and so everything is done there now so we can release that one. Uh Shorts Crossing phase two talked to that developer. They're looking it's probably going to be spring 27 they think before they're going to be finished. Um would recommend a six-month extension on that one. Uh sewers landing phase two. This is the lots two through seven. es that frontage road and all that's been built there. Uh we would recommend a reduction of that. That's been done now except for the final topping and stropping and there's still some other things to clean up.

Kevin, before you go forward, why are we only extending short 6 months if they're saying it's going to be spring of 27? Why not just do it a year? I mean, you certainly could. It's generally what we once we've had one a couple years, that's when we usually start to shorten. That's when we've had for two and a half. Uh that's when we usually start we I guess trying to encourage action by short shortening the extensions but certainly you all could extend it to whatever you would want to. It just makes sense to me if there's if they've already responded it's going to be spring of 27 just so we don't have to extend it again just to go ahead and extend it a year.

That's that's certainly fine if that's what you would like to do. That's just can we generally if we've only had one like a year or so like a year extension we don't have an issue with but once we've had them a little bit of time we usually start to shorten our recommendations on that just to worried about them I guess partially we can you know recalculate and raise recommending that but at a shorter extensions that gives us a little more chances to do that if we need to but that would be fine if you want to do a year uh I still give them 6 months ahead of when they say they're going to be finished. So maybe still pushing them a little bit. Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead.

Okay. So on sewers landing uh with this one, we because basically they're majority of this work's done that was bonded. It was about almost 1.2 million. We'd recommend uh reduction reducing that to 300,000 at basically 25% of what was the original letter credit. Uh and do extend that one one year. That's one we've only had one year. Um, Oak Meadows 3 um would recommend um they're about well showing about 90% built out. Um but would recommend we won't have that one a year, so would recommend a year on that one. Um Talia Trace section one. Um they're only about 17% built out. Uh they did ask for a year. Um, so we would would recommend a year again. We've only had that one for one year as well. Um, Hemsley Place, this is the end of their maintenance period. They had three or four items left or only a couple items actually. Um, if they get that done by January 9th, um, we would recommend release, otherwise extend 3 months. And then Derby Run phase 1 A and 1B. Um, again, this is the end of their maintenance period as well. um if they're able to get done by January 13th release, otherwise extend 3 months. That's what we got.

Okay. Any other questions or discussion concerning the bond review reports? We'll move to approve of the staff comments. Okay. And that covers the change to from 6 months to a year. If you include that, that's fine with us. Sure. Okay. All right. Do I have a second? I'll second. Motion. Further discussion. All those in favor of approving the bond review report, please signify by saying I.

Opposed. Bond review report is approved. Staff comments. Other business. The only thing I do want to bring to everyone's attention. Uh we got a couple new members, so this is new for them. Some of you have been here a while know what we're doing. But um you're required by the state uh to file some paperwork and that's due by the 31st of January. Um, we will send you some an email on different things. You can do it online if you've done it online before. Um, you can do that again. Just send us an email or send Katherine an email letting you know you know you've done that. Uh, we can also do it by snail mail if you want us to do that for you. Just fill you can print it out, fill it out. If you get it to Katherine by the 16th of January, that gives us a couple weeks to get it to the state by snail mail. So, so just a reminder about that.

Can we get an email with the attachment? I mean, I think it was a link. Yes. Yes. I'll send an email out on Monday. Yeah. Perfect. We just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. Like I said, we got some new members, too, that haven't done that before. It is duplicated what we get from the council. Exactly. Exactly. It's the same thing. Yes. This conflict of interest. Yeah. Yes. It's the conflict of interest disclosure stuff. Yeah. that the state requires of coun elected bodies and planning commissions. So that's all I've got. Okay. Anything from the commission? Welcome, Vanessa. Yep. Welcome. Anything else? Happy holidays.

Happy holidays. Merry Christmas. Uh and happy new year. We won't see everybody uh back until next year. Said next month. And just just we mentioned it a little earlier just we will not be meeting the first Thursday is New Year's Day. We will not be meeting that day. We will be on the 8th of January the following week which will still be ahead of the January council meeting. All right with that we stand a journey.