Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

years I've been a history professor at Lipkcom University. One of the classes I teach is a Civil War course and I often get my students out of the classroom and take them to visit a Civil War related site. This area is rich in those sites, but we don't do it in Nashville because Nashville has lost all of its historically pertinent uh Civil War related site or most of them. And so what I generally do, and I did this just last month with my Civil War uh students, we come to Nolanville and we come down Nolanville Road to Triune and beyond. Nolanville Road is a corridor of Civil War history. We know uh that on the hill just adjacent to the proposed building site for this uh new project. On top of that hill, there was a Union fortification. We know that from LAR um uh laser uh um uh photography. We know that there were about 15 battles fought in and around Triune. Were there any battles fought on this proposed construction ground? Probably. Are there any burial sites there? We don't know. But this area is rich in history and it's just disappointing to see land continually gobbled up and for what? For a few more dollars. Thank you.

Thank you. That closes the public comment period. Um appreciate those. Um moving on consideration of the minutes. Are there any comments or questions? Do I have a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor say I. All those opposed. The motion passes. Moving on to consideration of the consent agenda. I believe we have a couple that need to abstain. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm recusing myself of the consent agenda.

Okay. Thank you. So, uh, anybody need to pull another item off for discussion? So, do I have any any questions or or take it as a whole? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor say I.

All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to the uh agenda. We are moving on to old business. We're um first item is item 23, Terra Vista roads drainage and erosion control update. Brent Thaney with True Land Consulting here on behalf of Jones Company. Um current update, the trees got planted roughly 10 days ago um on the BM. The road construction will start possibly tomorrow, probably Monday. Equipment's being dropped and paving is set up right now for the 25th that week and then they'll roll into phase one items um and start repairing those. So, and we're still waiting for the core report out of phase one from the geotech. That work's been completed. We just don't have the report back yet

on the asphalt thickness. Okay. Correct. Any any questions from the commission or or staff?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on. Item 24 was on the consent agenda. Um, moving on to item 25, concept plan review for Wilson Branch Farm subdivision, aka 336 Old Murphy'sboro Road, containing 28 lots on 34.15 acres located off Old Murphy'sboro Road in the fifth voting district. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here's an aerial. We'll zoom in and get a closer look at the property. The property has been evaluated for compliance with the natural resource protection plan. Property does have some moderate and very steep slopes, some substantial woodlands, a pond with a waterway natural area. 45% of the of the property will remain an open space and 91% of the existing trees will be retained. Now look at the concept plan. The propertyy's located off Old Mur Old Mercy Murphy'sboro Road and that's shown in the red. The property total is 34.145 acres shown the property boundary shown in the pink. This will be a 28 lot major traditional major traditional subdivision zone TCA2 and the lots are shown in the blue. Lots are between half an acre and 3/4 of an acres in size. The density is 84 units per 1 acre. There'll be 15.12 acres of open space shown in the green. The roads will be public and no turn lanes were are required. The roads are shown in the yellow. A greenway trail shown in the brown has been provided and also a trail easement for a future trail has been provided at the north perimeter shown in the dark green. The water will be provided by the Noltonville College Grove Utility District. Uh sewer is provided by the Tran Sewer facility and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you. Any questions from staff? Was there a traffic study as far as the Is it a traffic study wasn't warranted in this case?

Would you would you mind walking us through the public notice requirements for a um major traditional subdivision? We publish the the agenda is published online. Since this concept plan is less than 50 lots, it's not subject to public hearing, but the agenda is published on online when we when we complete it.

Yes, ma'am. So I noticed there are no I mean the road is public so therefore it will not be gated and that's not in the future as well. That's correct. Yes. As our understanding applicant can answer. Yes ma'am. This is Chase Kerr with Kunk Engineering representing uh the developer for this project. Um this road these roadways will be public and there's no intention of them being private or gated. Okay. Thank you. have a question.

Um, I think it also might be helpful based on the comments we received earlier for staff to talk us through that triune special area plan um, and the densities that were provided for because it appears that this is complying with that zoning and that special area plan. The special area plan, and Mike can can respond if I miss anything, was done several years ago, which resulted in the creation of the four triune character area districts. Those were adopted in November of 2020 and added to the zoning ordinance at the time. The density is um two units per acre and this does comply with that with that zoning district. Now, the the we held numerous public meetings in the creation of the triune special area plan. Mike or Chrissy can indicate how many we did, but we did numerous numerous um public meetings for that.

On that, what about um what's the minimum lot size in that TCA too? It's a half an acre. Half acre. Okay. Thank you, Keith. Did you have another question? I think it came out in the comments on um the um u that zoning and the this subdivision does fit inside that inside the zoning, right? That is correct. It does meet the requirements. Yes.

So, uh as a representing the developer, what can you tell us about the the water line? Is that a water line you are upgrading or is that a water line another project is upgrading? Uh yes sir. So we've been in coordination with Nolanville College Grove Utility District and in those conversations the developer has agreed to provide a waterline extension down Old Murphy'sboro Road that will serve this development along with improving water for any surrounding lots that are applicable for that. Okay. So there's water today but you're adding upgrading that line within old Yes sir.

Mer road. Okay. Any other questions? There was also a reference to, you know, archaeological study or artifacts. What is the threshold? Remind us what's the threshold for the county on when that's required for if we if we're made aware of it, then we'll require a study to be done. Chase, do you want to

uh as of right now, I do not recall if there is I don't believe there has been an archaeological study that's been performed on the site. If there's anything that comes up uh throughout the construction or process of developing this neighborhood, then obviously we would go through the correct steps of notifying the county and going on from there.

Any further questions? what I've read here, eight out of the lots have to have engineering footings are required because what the steep slopes they're on. Uh yes, sir, that's correct. Um there are I believe you said the correct number, eight, eight uh eight lots that are deemed critical based on the uh slopes that are on those lots. And so those are critical and require specific lot plans for the home construction on those lots. Thank you. Anything else?

Just one more question. Um, so it did not trip the threshold required for a traffic study. Does that also mean that there wouldn't be any improvements required on Old Murphy'sboro Road? That is correct. So I consulted with our traffic consultant and she agreed there there would not be improvements required. Okay. At what point do we have to have uh the water lines upgrade done before we go ahead?

So when they submit the preliminary plan, there are requirements that were just added to the zoning ordinance for water lines and for sewer availability that they'll have to provide to us and inside those letters will outline the specifics of the water improvements for it. And so those will be and who's responsible for placing those into the ground. And so that will come as we move toward final plaque. Okay. So the preliminary plaque can be done without that. Yes, it could be done without the without the improvements. Yes, sir. Thank you. But to get final plat and sell the lots, they've got to have the water line. That is correct. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I apologize. I cannot take questions from the

audience. an email that I have from college. I I we can't we can't just I appreciate it. I I don't want to I don't want to have to ask you to leave. Predicts what was just said. And there's other development going on that's Thank you. So, any further questions from staff or from the commission? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve per staff recommendation. Do I have a second? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed.

Motion passes. Move. Moving on to item number 26, preliminary plat review for Chestnut Hill Farms large lot easement subdivision containing five lots on 28.5 acres located off Whipperwheel Drive in the first voting district staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The property is located off of Whipperwood Drive shown in red at the top of the screen. The development total is 28 and a half acres in size. The total development is shown outlined in pink. It contains five lots which are going to be shown in the dark blue. It is accessed via a shared access easement which is shown in the yellow. Water is provided by individual on-site wells and waste water is going to be handled via individual on-site septic systems which the department of sew disposal management has approved. and staff recommends uh staff recommends approval of the standard conditions outlined the staff report.

Thank you. Any questions remaining commissioners hearing? None. Do I have a motion? Thank you. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 27. Preliminary plat review for Joy Bell Estates subdivision contain 12 lots on 110.1 acres located off daily covington road in the second voting district staff.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Property is located off daily coington road shown in red at the top of the screen. The development total is 110.1 acres in size. The development shown outlined in pink. It contains 12 lots which is going to be shown in the dark blue. It contains 14.21 21 acres of open space shown in the light green. Roads are to be private and gated. The roadway is shown in the yellow. Waters provided by Milcraftoft utility district and lots are served by individual on-site septic systems which the department of sewage disposal management has approved. This is consistent with the revised concept plan and staff recommends approval of the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Any questions on item 27?

I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 28. I believe um Mr. Bailey need to recuse myself from item 28, please. All right. Thank you. Preliminary plat review for Creek Ben Manor large lot easement subdivision aka 8828 Horton Highway containing five lots on 28.01 101 acres located off of Horton Highway in the second voting district. Staff.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this project is located up Horton Highway. You can see Horton Highway on the lefthand side of the screen in red. Uh the development totals 28.01 acres. Uh consists of five lots. You can see the five lots in the uh blue gray color. Um there will be a shared access easement to provide access to all the lots. It is shown in yellow on your screen. Uh water will be provided by the Nolanville College Grove Utility District and waste water will be handled via individual on-site septic systems. Uh we've gone to the next screen. You can see an inset of the front of the property. Um a variance is actually needed for flood plane flood plane development permit to allow for construction of bridge a bridge crossing in the flood plane. Um and staff is in support of this variance. You can see the flood plane in blue and the bridge crossing in pink. Uh there is also an easement. The easement is less than 5t from the property line to the north. It is required that it that the setback off that property line be a minimum of 5 ft uh from property property lines of properties that don't access the easement. Uh the applicant is requesting a variance to not be required to revise the easement to include the 5-ft setback. Um the easement has been in existence since 2025. As this easement was created when the five- foot setback was required, staff is not in support of the variance. And uh so long as the variances are granted, staff recommends approval with standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Okay, thank you. So are we who is are we taking up the variance? Sorry. Yes. Yeah. You will need to approve both variances or or two or include that in the approval. Yes. Okay. Sam, I've got a question on the bridge there. Yeah. Um that looks to be a How long is that bridge? Is it a couple hundred feet? Can we get the applicant uh to address that please?

Good evening. Uh Adam Krunk with Krunk Engineering. Uh yeah, that bridge is going to be approximately 110 ft long, I believe. Um try to pull it up and get an exact dimension, but it's over 100 ft long. That's okay. All right. So that's not going to impede any backup water or anything else on somebody else or anybody?

Yeah, good question. So our um so we have done an analysis of the flood plane in that location uh with that proposed bridge and it's been reviewed by the county already. Floyd has reviewed it and um and right now it's just pending the approval of this preliminary plat. Um it would not have any impact on surrounding properties. Okay. And I'll even go a little bit further to say that the the county actually viewed this crossing as a critical access, which means that in a hundred-year event, uh, the bridge is only allowed to be overt topped by 3 in. So, it's it's substantially above the of overall creek there. All right. Very well. Thank you.

I have a question related to the easement and the variance request there. Um, can you help us understand why you're requesting that? It sounds like 5T isn't much of a change. Agreed. And I have some evidence here I'd like to to share with you. Yeah. And I'll I'll wait till um this is Pablo from our office. He's um printed a couple documents that I'd like to go through and share with you. Thank you.

You want Christie? Yeah.

Do you mind giving one to Christie, please? Yeah, I apologize. I talked to I talked to Lincoln on uh Friday last week about getting some of this incorporated into the packet, but he had told me that it'd be best to bring it to the meeting. Um, so all that I wanted to share with you in on this uh first attachment is the deed in which the easement itself was first recorded uh which took place in 2023. So, just wanted to point out that it was not 2025, it was actually 2023 and it was done by an individual who's not been involved in this project from our side of things. Um then, uh the next attachment is um a plat that was recorded. Um and this plat shows the easement in question. And our understanding is that this this easement was negotiated by a different individual not understanding the 5-ft requirement for separation from the neighboring property owner. And so it was, you know, dedicated and um, you know, shown as it is. And um yeah, I think unfortunately at that point in 2023, the rule had only been in place for a little over 2 years. And whether or not that was communicated from the staff to this individual or not, I'm told that it was. Why it didn't get worked out, I'm not entirely sure. Um, okay then. Okay. If you'll flip to, um, let's see. My copy doesn't appear to have this in it. Oh, where's the

replace with this?

Okay. All right. Sorry. in in this packet was supposed to be an email from this southern property owner where the easement is located. Um, basically our client Red Helton who owns the balance of the property um had requested, you know, is there any amount of money that could be um, you know, put toward moving this easement 5T off the property line? and their response was essentially that no, they had plans for this property and they could not give up 5T. I have this email on my tablet if you'd like to um view it. Happy to share it. But then the next attachment is actually a land lot purchase that got negotiated just a few hours ago with the neighbor to the north. So, not the ne not our neighbor that owns the easement, but actually the property to the north, which on the screen here is um yeah, just just north of the yellow line. And uh a 5-ft strip of land has been negotiated for purchase. And I have the notorized agreement that um got picked up just an hour or two before this meeting to show you. So that uh ultimately there would be a 5-ft strip north of this easement owned by this developer, you know, that would prevent anyone else from attaching to this large lot easement drive. And so, um, what I ask of the planning commission, if you would, is to approve our variance. And if you'd like to add a condition that a 5-ft strip of land be, you know, deed to the north of of this, um, large lot easement private drive. Um, be happy to do that and improve that, you know, before final plat. So, I know that was a lot to go over. I'm sure there are questions, but um

anyway, I hope I hope that helps understand the situation we're in not being able to relocate the um easement any further south. Um and uh anyway, that'd be happy to take any questions you have, but appreciate your approval if possible. Question on the bridge you're putting in there. There's no place that that bridge will be in the flood plane. The attachment, it's 110 foot. So I'm just it's the full span across it. No, the full span is not across the full flood plane but in the area flow the flood way uh it it would be across that portion

and that's why the variance about the fill in the flood plane. The subreg say that there's not supposed to be any fill in the flood plane. So as part of that bridge construction, it would require some fill, but there's a balance of that cut fill uh in that area. So they have done the study and shown that it doesn't have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Thank you. So to restate what I think you stated, basically the easement that you the 50- foot easement goes across the property owned by last name Musa M O SA.

That's right. And the county requirement would be that it should have started 5 foot off of that northern property line, the property owned by the Haggard, Calvin Haggard. That's correct. But you're saying you now are purchasing a five-ft strip. Is that from Horton Highway all the way back to basically the flood plane? Uh, correct. Yeah. L3 like line three. Yeah.

Yes. It's it's the entirety of the their property from Horton Highway all the way to their rear property on and then from there we'll be able to locate the easement on our land five feet off. staff, do we need what documentation do we need from the applicant in order to feel comfortable? I mean, like for me, I would be in favor of approving the variance knowing this new information, but I'm just wondering what documentation we might or what we need to say in a motion to approve in order to document that.

I believe it would just be that when they come in with that final plat Oh, she wanted the I mean the the easement will be shown on the final plaque as revised and so that will create the revised easement showing compliance with the regulations.

So then we could do a motion that does not approve that variance because it's not required with what they're stating tonight. You can't approve it tonight because it requires a variance, but you can approve it conditioned upon a deed closing that five that 5ft strip and then it shown with the revised property line boundary when it comes in with final plat approval because you're not relocating the easement, right? You're adding the 5ft strip so that you have the space. That's correct.

Okay. So yeah, we're not variance variance anymore, right? We are we're looking the proposal on on the table and and I guess the other proposal is to defer and get it revised and and brought back. Is there one more alternative to just accept the 45 foot e make change it to make approve it for 45? Accept the variance. Yeah,

maybe not. I think we've got better options on the table. To reduce that ordinance variance. Yes. That the board of zoning appeals would have to approve. That's correct. Yes. I don't know. 5T about like this right here. So, it's an engineer. It's the world. One other question about the bridge before we on this. Who is going to be responsible maintaining the bridge? Is that the the homeowners association? Who who maintains that bridge?

Yeah, it would be the Yeah, the HOA that's also responsible for maintaining the entire large lot easement. It's not a It's not public. Can we um address the bridge first and then address the um easement as a separate item? There's two variances, right?

You could do it in three different steps if you if you wanted to. You would you would take action on the easement for I mean the the bridge request. you would take action on the variance request for the or you can actually just do it in two and do the easement as part of the overall approval regardless there needs to be an action on the overall approval. Okay.

Um I mean it sounds like if you're not if you're not going to do the bridge then you can't approve the plunary plat. You could probably approve the plunary plat without the variance for the easement so long as it's conditioned upon a final plat coming in until that strip of land has been acquired and closed with proof provided with submitt of the final plat. We I think I heard could we not defer this until we have the proper information through from the applicant come back with that at that time. Would that be You can do that too.

I would like to make a motion that we defer this item and let the applicants back with the proper information about the easement before we go further. I would defer it to next month. Yes. And then if it has to go beyond that, they would need to request it so we don't risk an 60-day correct issue. Yeah. Yes. So defer it one month. Yes, that'd be fine. Do I have a second on that? Second. I have a motion and a second for deferral for one month. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Opposed. Opposed.

So two opposed. The we motion passes to defer. Thank you. Moving on to non-residential site plans. Item 29, site plan review for arbors at Leapers Fork Subdivision Amenity Center on 51.41 acres located off Harrove Road in the first voting district. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. The property and subdivision is located west of Harrove Road. The amenity center will be in open space at the internals of the subdivision at the corner of the May View Pass and Laurel Valley Drive intersection. It consists of 51 acres in in open space shown in the blue. The facilities in the open space include a sports court with a pavilion shown in the brown, a small playground shown in the green, a um pavilion and fire pit shown in the yellow, a sidewalk shown in the pink, a trail system in in the brown, and also a parking lot in orange. Amenity center improvements require planning commission review and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you. Any questions for staff on item 29? Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 30 was on consent agenda. Preliminary plat item 31 preliminary plat review for Haley Valley large lot easement subdivision containing five lots on 25.12 acres located off Murphy'sboro Road in the fifth voting district. Staff.

Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. This uh project is located off Murphy'sboro Road. You can see Murphy'sboro Road in red on the top of the screen. Uh the development totals 25.12 acres. Um the boundary of the property is shown in pink. Uh the development consists of five lots where the lots are shown in the blue gray. Um there will be a shared access easement to provide access to all five lots. It is shown in yellow. Water will be provided by the Nolanville College Grove Utility District. Waste water will be handled via the U triune sewer facility and staff recommends approval with standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Any questions related to item 31.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to final plats. Item 32 was on consent. Item 33, final plat review for lot 2011 of Artisian Acres Subdivision, section two containing one lot on five acres located off Artisian Drive in the fifth voting district. Staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property is located off Artisian Drive shown in red. This consists of uh one lot that totals five acres. There you see the lot in in the blue. The water will be provided by the Nashville Culture Grove Utility District. Wastewater is handled by individual on-site septic system which has been approved by the Wilson County Department of Sew Disposal Management. The final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Any questions related to item 33?

Do I have a motion to approve first? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to item 34, final plant review for King's Chapel, section 16, containing one lot on 0.78 acres, located off Murphy'sboro Road in the fifth voting district. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property is located off Murphy'sboro Road further to the south, shown by a red arrow on the left of the screen. The development total is 0.78 acres in size and contains one lot shown in the dark blue. There's a half an acre of open space that has not been depicted on this plan. Uh water is provided by the Milcraftoft utility district. Wastewater has been handled by the Superior Wastewater System. And the final PL is consistent with the preliminary plat and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Yes. So, it appears that we're basically the developer is proposing to kind of squeeze this new lot in in between a forested area and a pond. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. That's correct. And how does it was this the number of lots? Is it still consistent with what was approved before or is this an additional lot? Yes, ma'am. It's still consistent. Okay, Commissioner. This was on the approved site on the approved revised concept plan that you guys did a couple of months ago. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Do I have a motion?

Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Items 35 and 36 are on consent. And that takes us to the end. So, uh, motion to adjurnn. So, ajourn. Thank you.