Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg Musil, Vice Chair Greg

Yeah, he asked one. We're good. We're good.

Okay, first item on the agenda will be the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting held on July the 2nd, 2026. It's been emailed to everyone. Any questions or comments?

Make a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion to approve. Duly seconded. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. All right, Ms. Carroll, do we have any public comments recorded? okay then we'll get right into the business at hand new business 2.0 with first item has been withdrawn 2.2 is discussing possibly take action on request for approval and acceptance of maintenance bond for rise of states we need a motion to discuss motion second did you ever research that

I just recalled that I did not, but I am making another note.

Let me say what that is all about. My question is regarding if it's in the agenda, it's a posted agenda, then why are we making the motions to put it on the floor? The only motion we should have be either to approve or deny. And it's not a Robert's Rules or whatever thing.

I've always wondered about that.

And I think the answer I got is, well, that's just because that's the way we do it. But it takes time in order to do that. So if it's not necessary, I would strongly ask that we look at just doing away with it. It's on the agenda.

It used to be that way.

and there's no reason. Okay, go ahead.

The only new business item that needs to be discussed tonight is a request from Reyes Construction for approval of a maintenance bond. Reyes has completed the required public infrastructure improvements associated with Reyes Estates and has now submitted the maintenance bond required by our subdivision regulations. This is different from the original performance bond. The performance bond secured completion of the infrastructure The maintenance bond serves as a one-year warranty after construction and provides financial protection if defects in materials or workmanship become apparent during that period. The proposed bond is for $90,000 and is issued by Merchants National Bonding Incorporated, which is authorized to conduct business in Tennessee. Staff calculated the amount in accordance with Section 3-3 of the subdivision regulations. If a qualifying defect is identified during the maintenance period, the developer will be responsible for correcting it. If the developer fails to make the required repairs, the city may declare the bond in default and use the proceeds to complete that work. The Planning Commission's role tonight is to approve the $90,000 surety amount and recommend that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen accept the maintenance bond. The one-year maintenance period will begin following acceptance by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. This item will not go to next week's meeting, but instead will be moved to September because of the alignment of meeting dates and the shift in this meeting from last week. Staff recommends approval, and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.

So the one year would start next month after the board approved?

Yes.

And you did get that executed?

I did. I got that on Monday. And I discussed the change in date with the developer. And I talked to the bonding company and confirmed, because they did the dates based on this meeting, but talked to the bonding company about what will need to be done. And I have it in my calendar. They have it in their calendar to make sure we communicate after the board meeting so that those dates will be set.

If not, any motions?

Make a motion to approve or recommend approval.

Motion made to recommend approval and recommend to the full city alderman. I'll second. Any discussion on the motion? None being wrote. Call the roll, please.

Schott. Yes. Bibb. Yes. Fowle. Yes. Townsend. Yes. Morland?

Yes.

Holt?

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0. Okay.

Ms. Jerry?

What's going on with our Jerry? Oh, there we go. Never mind.

All right.

He's having technical difficulties. Okay. Several brief updates for the Commission. First, the Board of Zoning Appeals is expected to consider a request at next month's meeting. Cannon Kirk Ford has made a variance request regarding a flag and a flag pole. The Planning Commission September meeting, we currently anticipate three items. The annual organizational meeting, we need to confirm whether a new chairperson needs to be elected or if the current chairperson will remain. A rezoning request for property on Highway 76 East that's within the urban growth boundary, this would be a recommendation to Robertson County Planning Commission when they consider that same rezoning request. And then the Jasper Fields Phase 1 performance bond that was supposed to be ready for tonight, I hope we'll be ready for next month. Since our last report, two projects have received approval. Springview Village, which is associated with the Kumar property, was approved for the single family development portion. I believe they are currently installing erosion control devices and expect to have a pre-construction meeting here in the near future. And then the Wawa project has been approved by staff and I know that site is already being graded and hopefully at some point we'll see a building permit being pulled and they will start construction on that physical building. We're still reviewing Lookout Crossing Phase 2. Magnolia Farms is a little bit on hold. That is across the street from Lookout Crossing Phase 2. Spring Creek, which was formerly known as Highland Reserve, that is the property behind the college, that is under review right now. And then we have received a formal submittal on the Vesper Village Boulevard. So we are working through a staff review of that. In terms of commercial projects, fire station number three is close to being finalized, and then we're still waiting on comments to be addressed from the engineer on Fifth Third Bank. I've had a citizen request the planning commission consider a zoning ordinance amendment. Specifically, this citizen has asked for this commission to consider changing the side setbacks in the mro district the multiple residential and office district to match the side setbacks in the r7 district which are the side setbacks in the mro are 12 and typically would apply Not always, but a lot of developers will treat it as one lot, and then you're building internal to that one lot. When you put single family detached lots, traditional subdivision lots, your lots can vary in size. They can be as small as 4,000 square feet if you are including a commercial component. If you're not including a commercial component, the MRO would require a 7,000 square foot lot. That 12 foot side setback, the way it was explained to me makes that a difficult lot to build on. but there is nothing that dictates what size those lots have to be. Rather, it just gives a minimum. The side setback in an R7, which would also be a 7,000 square foot lot, is an eight foot side. So a lot of times what we're seeing is the lots that are defined by zoning in the R7 are being recreated in the MRO zone or MRO district. So this particular citizen or developer has asked, would the board consider a zoning amendment to match the side setbacks? Not asking for an answer tonight. Just wanted you to know something to think about and send me your thoughts and your feedback on would that be something this board would even consider recommending to the board for change?

Well, I was going to ask you what we do with it. I mean, is that something that the staff would look at first and sort of make a determination, a recommendation on whether or not it's a good idea? If I start looking at it, you know, there's a lot that I wouldn't know as far as getting into those nuances.

I've looked at it. The issue is, from a staff perspective, those lots are self-created in the MRO. So while the size is the same as what they're mirroring what is in the R7, that developer, that applicant, whoever is doing this is making the choice on what size lots. And I understand where they're coming from. They're coming from a density perspective. But there's nothing that says, these lots have to be this size.

that makes sense Carolyn can I just say in the MRO we don't talk about lots we talk about densities and areas and sizes to calculate the density within so in an MRO if you do I want to say 12% of the property going to be commercial and that includes the building the parking and the storm drainage you get a 4,000 square foot density per unit. So you would divide the remainder by 4,000 and that would tell you the number of units that you can do. If you don't do the commercial, the density calculation is at 7,000. At no point in the MRO does it say a 7,000 square foot lot. Okay? People are just assuming that it's a 7,000 square foot lot. It's not. It's a density calculated at 7,000 square foot. So if you want to do single, I'm interjecting my thought here. The purpose is to make it multi-residential. The purpose is not to do single family development. And when I say multifamily, I also mean townhouses, which are single-family units by definition of the zoning units, but it's attached units, not detached units, is a better way to say that. So it's attached development and not detached development on individual blocks.

So that would make the units larger? Is that what you're telling me?

No. I'm just saying there would be less units. Instead of being calculated 4,000 square feet to calculate the number of units you could do, it would be 7,000 to calculate the number of units you could do. So you would wind up with less units on whatever acreage you have there.

Theoretically, couldn't you just build single-family homes and not subdivide them? And we do see that.

And we do see that in the MRO. Then you're looking at having to create a master HOA, which that's beside the point.

If their intent is to subdivide, it would make more sense to rezone to an R7 than to rework the MRO to favor single-family subdivisions.

We may see that come forward.

That's my opinion. Rather than change the MRO to facilitate single family more, it would make more sense to force that option.

I'm interjecting way more than I should because we've got to get to training and I'll stop.

I will say the, I've had someone reach out today about a piece of property specifically asking, would it support multifamily? And so I was looking at what districts would allow by right. The only districts by right that allow multifamily are the MRO and true multifamily, like apartment style, condo style, MRO, and the core commercial core commercial. You can do mixed use and you can do an apartment style or attach townhome or or a single family, but then MRO is really the only one that you can do like stacked apartment style buildings. So, and the intent there is that it is just gonna be one lot and you would put that side setback truly on the side of the parcel as opposed to in between individual units, so. Just, it was brought to me by a citizen developer, so I said I would bring it and get the planning commission's feedback before we even addressed it too far with staff. But if you have other, you can email me and I will get those back to the developer. I do, if the change isn't recommended, that's fine. I do anticipate that that person will apply to change some zoning internal to a project. So the other thing we're looking at, unless anybody else has any thoughts, the other things we're looking at still is to continue, we're still looking at changing the sign ordinance. There's just a lot that goes into that, specifically the temporary regulations or regulations for temporary signage. And then looking at the design guidelines that we've talked about in the past, After tonight, depending on how many hours, we'll still have some training to do before the end of December. And then we are looking as a staff, not just my department, but all the departments at aspects of the subdivision regulations that need to be updated and amended. And we're trying to get all of that together at one time so that that can just be, because this is the only board that would review that so that we can be done with that at one time. That's all I have. Happy to answer any questions.

Carol, I noticed there are a couple of dwellings going up in Blackwood Farms. Is that a sales center apparently and maybe a model home or something?

They have requested permits essentially on, I want to say, five or six different styles of homes that will serve as kind of their model community. One of those structures will ultimately have a sales office in it. I'm not sure which one. At next week's Board of Mayor and Aldermen, I anticipate having that zoning amendment completed so I'll be able to issue them a permit to have that sales center in that model home.

Based on the asphalt that I see beside that building?

Yeah, they're putting a parking lot next to one of them, yeah. Exactly. Well, they need a place for people to park, so...

but that's the only permit so far.

So far. Um, and from talking to that builder, they typically will sell lots and then build homes. They won't, they'll have people come into their sales center, choose a house, and then they'll build them the home on the lot that they choose.

So you did go ahead and issue building permits for those five lots.

Yes.

Yes. Okay, so in another development, if they're using one of the units as an office, but there's nothing different as far as adding extra parking or anything, it's eventually going to be sold. That's okay right now?

Okay, I didn't bring anything up. Yes and no. Okay. It would depend somewhat on the zoning because in an MRO you can have office space and I figured it's just temporary.

It is temporary.

It wasn't, it wasn't in the code clearly. And that was the purpose behind amending the code to just spell it out and make it very clear that this temporary sales space was allowed in a home for the duration or a time period of sales. In an R, yes, in the R classification.

Anything else? All right, that's all we have on the agenda. I hear a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion made. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you.