[0:00] and most of you probably have the
minutes from the
[0:05] last uh meeting and entertain a motion
to approve those this is Jason I'll I'll
[0:12] make that
motion I have a motion do I have
[0:18] a i second
it I second by St all in favor let it be
[0:26] known
Bes ah ah
[0:32] okay uh minutes are approved do we have
any public comments from
[0:40] anyone yes I do this is Jeff Knox and I
just want to kind of keep everybody in
[0:45] the loop of what's going on with the
subdivision um obviously we're approved
[0:49] in our last uh our last thing to do is
go through the Planning Commission here
[0:54] um there's a couple of things that we
don't have 100% done yet and uh that
[0:59] would be we're working with uh me and
Mark and JW wford Greg and WS
[1:05] engineering and Southern Sales all had a
meeting we're trying to get the
[1:11] um everything together for the actual uh
they're doing a hydraulic model for the
[1:16] sewer system to actually find out
exactly to to make to make everybody uh
[1:22] happy with what we need and and make
sure it can flow what we need it to flow
[1:26] and all that stuff so that hydraulic
model is being worked on um for
[1:31] everybody including Mr Chan also for
John Chun to to make sure that he we
[1:36] don't take all the sewer from him also
so that's the only everything else we
[1:40] have in place and everything everybody's
asked for it's all all that's done this
[1:44] is our last thing that we're trying to
do and uh so we're working on that and
[1:48] hopefully we'll have something here
within the next uh two weeks or so um
[1:52] all that should be finished so I just
want to kind of give everybody the heads
[1:55] up and I don't know if Mark if you need
to put in on any of that and and bring
[2:00] anybody up to speed maybe I didn't
mention or anything and no I I actually
[2:04] uh was working with Greg on on some of
that today uh we're working on getting
[2:11] him you know some more some more data
for him to um create that model so we're
[2:16] hoping to have something done I I think
we said 30 days from the day we met Jeff
[2:21] if I'm not mistaken I believe that's
what it was so hopefully um we'll have
[2:28] something um by this time next month uh
and that's one thing we do need to
[2:33] discuss before this meeting gets gets
out is
[2:37] our we typically don't meet in
December uh so we might need to be
[2:42] thinking about either a um you know a
date that we might want to do before we
[2:47] get into Christmas or or right after the
holidays or or whatever y'all want to
[2:55] do do
[2:58] any I would just let Mark come up with a
date and just send it out to us be fine
[3:04] with
me or Mar you you can that works for me
[3:12] too okay we'll we'll work with a couple
of dates and send them out and see
[3:16] what's good for everybody that sounds
great Mark I'm out I'm sorry I was on
[3:22] mute I'm out the first week of December
I'm having surgery so I won't be able to
[3:26] come but I can do it via Zoom probably
[3:33] okay okay any other
comments all right we'll move on to
[3:39] agenda item 4 a Morehead subdivision
request do to
[3:46] that yeah I had a couple of questions is
is Will on here or not will is on here
[3:52] okay uh so is is this a sketch plaid a
preliminary plaid or is it supposed to
[3:59] be a
play I think it it was just a sketch
[4:03] that they were submitting for for
approval and then you know if yall
[4:06] proved it he was going to finalized it I
guess okay because uh has has the city's
[4:12] engineer reviewed
it I have looked at it there's a few
[4:18] calls missing I noticed on the boundary
okay and locational utilities the
[4:23] biggest thing of the boundary calls
though and making sure it's separated
[4:26] into separate
Parcels that was that was one thing I
[4:30] was looking at the the I guess we'll
call it the mother parcel you know the
[4:34] original parcel there's almost no data
at all on that but that will be a lot
[4:42] you know if it's if it's under five
acres it it you know cannot just be
[4:46] shown as remaining portion of the
property it would need it would be my
[4:50] belief that it would need you know all
the same information as the new 34 acre
[4:55] lot is that is that correct stason yes
we need to show everything on there and
[4:59] the area and the setbacks and all of
that because you're now creating two
[5:03] lots so you need to show all the
information okay uh and we'll remember
[5:07] on the on the mother parcel we'll call
it the bigger parcel uh we did pass an
[5:14] ordinance a while back that K tril may
not be aware of that we have a greater
[5:19] setback on Nashville Highway than we do
in just regular R1 Zone uh so just make
[5:26] sure if assuming we approve it make sure
Mr canr knows that the front setback
[5:32] along 31a the setback line will be
greater and I I think we we increased
[5:38] that to was it 75 minimum or or 50 foot
minimum I can't remember what it was but
[5:44] it was a greater greater setback than
than a normal R1 would require I
[5:55] think I can't remember exactly what that
was yeah I I just remember we increased
[6:00] it or or we had a minimum along the
highway that it couldn't you know go
[6:04] under just pled for I'll check that out
I'll check that out and and get with uh
[6:10] will and and his surveyor and and make
sure that that gets on the final for
[6:16] y'all to approve okay and one other
question because the because the
[6:23] original lot is so big is there any need
for any storm water calculations or
[6:28] anything on this or is it okay because
the mother parcel is s is still such a
[6:33] large
[6:36] parcel no I mean it's still a
residential lot and we're they're not
[6:39] making any grading or adjustments to it
so I okay perfect hey this is Jason I've
[6:45] got a question and will I only bring
this up because I've had a few uh
[6:49] members of the uh Stonybrook subdivision
asked me this and I didn't know I mean I
[6:54] think they've just seen the survey
Stakes out there and they've had a
[6:57] question I guess the house there's only
one house that you're looking at
[7:01] building right and that's the the lot on
the on the leftand side of Sunny Side
[7:07] going in is that correct is that what
we're looking at right okay and on that
[7:13] one and I'm not saying you you have to
because I don't think we can set that
[7:17] perimeter because it's not a part of the
original subdivision uh the only
[7:21] questions I've had is it going to look
uniform to the rest of the houses in the
[7:28] subdivision uh
was their concern that's the first thing
[7:32] you see when you pull in on the left so
what was your what was your plans um and
[7:37] like I said I don't think the Planning
Commission can uh can dictate what you
[7:41] build there uh I was just asking because
I've been asked so if somebody turns
[7:46] Tunes in or goes back and looks at the
video then I've done what I've told him
[7:51] I would do and that's to ask you yeah
okay so I mean our plans are to try to
[7:55] keep it pretty uniform with it with the
subdivision there so I mean there is
[8:00] like you said there is no I don't think
there's any restrictions and it's not
[8:03] part of that subdivision so I don't
think there's a full-blown requirement
[8:06] but you know our plan is to try to do
something you know that fits in I mean
[8:11] I'm not looking to pull in a a double
wide trailer there or do Straight vinyl
[8:16] sighting or something so I mean you know
I think we'd like to keep it looking
[8:20] uniform it'll bring more money and it'll
help everybody else's prices stay in
[8:24] line and I mean keep in mind we we still
own our family still owns the house
[8:28] across the street from there
so I looked that up but I thought I
[8:32] thought you still my grandmother my
grandmother bought that from Matt so so
[8:36] I mean we're not looking to you know cut
her on throat there either so so it just
[8:40] be a a brick house or a brick vinyl
combination is that what you're looking
[8:44] at right okay yeah and I would say like
14 to 1,800 square feet somewhere in
[8:49] that vicinity so okay all right that's
all I've got all right Cas there
[8:57] anything else
[9:00] are there any we need to take what can
we make a motion on this before we get
[9:07] the uh the plat as Stacy requested with
the final information on
[9:15] there I I don't think we can approve it
as a plat I mean I think we could give
[9:21] it a thumbs up as a as a concept you
know that the concept works but it's
[9:26] missing you know signature blocks and a
bunch of information on the original
[9:30] parcel uh I did have one other question
is uh what did we decide a while back on
[9:35] the sidewalks is this exemp on the
sidewalk retirement or will both lots
[9:40] have to have a sidewalk along sunny side
and national highway I don't remember I
[9:45] remember was back and forth on a five
lot minimum and then we went to pretty
[9:50] much anything on the Underground you
know underground power in the sidewalk
[9:56] but I can't remember what the final
determination was is this is this
[9:59] something that'll require a sidewalk
around it or not I I think as it's
[10:05] written uh it would not but I would have
to double check
[10:10] that can we make an can we make an
exemption and vote on an exemption for
[10:16] um an exception for something like that
to make will put a a sidewalk in front
[10:20] of the house yeah it wouldn't really be
practical I mean because not going
[10:23] anywhere look ridiculous yeah I think
that it has language in there that that
[10:28] keeps things practic
where that it would not require that
[10:32] okay
[10:35] perfect okay so we want to give him a
thumbs up on the concept that's what
[10:41] you're saying yeah I think conceptually
as long as as long as all the
[10:47] requirements for Signature blocks and
everything you know pretty much anything
[10:51] that Stacy you know the city's engineer
firm would require I you know
[10:55] conceptually it looks like it would work
I mean I think we could a thumbs up as a
[11:01] concept plan but I don't think we can
officially vote on it can it be approved
[11:05] subject to No it's it's missing too
[11:11] much so basically we're going to say
that we are in agreement
[11:18] unless speaks up we have a census that
uh it's up but it need
[11:31] everybody I can't hear any you're
cutting in and out Maran uh I think I
[11:36] think what Isaac
said is okay with with me as far as
[11:42] giving him a thumbs up this is
[11:46] Jason this Maran if I think maybe the
simplest thing to do would just be to
[11:52] vote to defer it and just have it come
back I mean the we'll need to do a plat
[11:57] approval so we'll need to see the that
extra information on there um and he
[12:03] doesn't need a concept plan or sketch
plan approval for this so I I think the
[12:07] simplest thing would be just to defer
till next meeting and then presumably
[12:12] approve it with the information on it
thank you do I have do I have a motion
[12:18] to
defer I would make that motion to Def he
[12:23] to the next
meeting I have a motion to defer to the
[12:27] next meeting do I have a second
I second
[12:33] it I have a motion and a second all in
favor say I or you can put the little
[12:38] raise your down at the
bottom I I I've raised my
[12:46] hand okay thank you very much let's move
to the Dollar General
[12:56] plan mark this is um one we talked about
last month
[13:03] where
the um for the overhead electric that's
[13:09] on that one side
uh right here this little piece was
[13:14] showing as
underground and uh we discussed last
[13:19] month to for them to be able to do it as
they've done it they would need a
[13:25] revised site plan and this is that res
revised site plan that that shows this
[13:30] as overhead and then we subsequently uh
uh we furthermore said that we were
[13:35] going to create something that
eliminated that issue uh in the future
[13:41] and we'll be getting something out to
y'all and advertising that uh um
[13:46] Amendment to the uh to the
regulations uh but this is that revised
[13:52] site plan that that makes everything
right with the current Dollar General
[13:56] Store okay do I have a motion to approve
the re revised site plan so
[14:04] move I have a motion do I have a
second I'll second
[14:11] it I have a motion and a second all in
favor Let It Be n by saying I I I it
[14:20] carries we'll move on to agenda item
Forest landscape plan
[14:29] have U Doug shinkle on here if anyone's
got any questions this is uh one of the
[14:36] items that was uh noted that we still
needed to
[14:40] approve uh for the River Forest uh site
plan which was the the landscape portion
[14:46] of
[14:51] it do we have have any discussion any
questions yeah I I had a question I know
[14:57] this property
originally was
[15:02] zoned B1 is that correct Mark and I
think B2 B B2 what was it reone because
[15:09] if it's still B2 would it require a
landscape buffer on the north on the
[15:14] North side uh or or or not because is is
the north side Zone B2 as well or did
[15:21] they rezone it to R3 to exempt that
requirement I I don't remember what we
[15:25] did I think that the first think 100t of
this property if I'm not mistaken is is
[15:33] still B2 with the backside R3 but it's
all it's all being done with the put
[15:39] overlay so so I would I would defer to
tide to answer the question whether that
[15:45] underlying zoning had
any um had anything we needed to do with
[15:49] that underlying zoning since it's done
as a
[15:53] PUD and and I guess the second part of
that
[15:57] question does any one know the future
plans of the property to the north of
[16:04] that well and I guess that's my question
too Mark sort of is related to that what
[16:10] is the immediately adjacent to that
currently zone is it still R3 but part
[16:15] of the put overlay to the north is a
residential property uh if I'm not
[16:21] mistaken
uh and then the properties to the South
[16:26] are uh commercial
so so would we need a landscape buffer
[16:32] there or is that something that's our
discretion I I think we' need a
[16:36] landscape buffer between the
adjacent
[16:40] residential not necessarily within the
Pud I'm not sure exactly where we're
[16:45] talking about without seeing the entire
development but it's an adjacent partial
[16:50] that's residential I think we'll need
that buffer between
[16:55] those this property line here I think uh
a residential property to the north yeah
[17:02] that's I think and it's just an
undeveloped portion of property but it
[17:07] you know someone could develop it and it
could be residential or or easily Zone
[17:12] commercial but right now with it being
residential I think at a minimum it
[17:16] would need a some type of a you know a
landscape buffer or rais burn with some
[17:21] small Landscaping you know some
something that would satisfy as a buffer
[17:29] hey guys it's it's Doug shinkle um I've
got I've got my engineer Reagan Smith on
[17:35] there uh Mark are you on I am so we had
a
[17:41] landscape
uh architect specialist do all this
[17:46] design with Reagan Smith and I know we
were going back and forth following your
[17:51] ordinances but but Mark when we when we
went back through and I probably did
[17:56] three or four revisions to this
to add plants and make sure we cover the
[18:02] ordinances but Mark do you know the
ordinance that we
[18:06] followed uh she's Kate is actually on
the call she's the one who went through
[18:11] the ordinances um I asked her to get on
the call to speak the land landscape
[18:16] side of it I know the property of the
north is Zone R1 so yall right it is a
[18:20] residential property um but Kate did you
see anything in the ordinance that
[18:27] specifies that we have to have a buffer
against an existing residential property
[18:32] um hi um for uh first of all nice to be
here um I'm looking through the
[18:38] landscape ordinance that's um behind the
that's in the same L um document as the
[18:45] zoning
ordinance and really I um let me look
[18:51] through it yeah I think we had something
or have had something that would require
[18:57] it at least on that first 100 foot that
would have the
[19:00] underlying
uh commercial zone or B you know the B
[19:05] anytime there's a b Zone a budding you
know an or Zone in in the past we always
[19:10] required some type of a landscape buffer
U for the separation
[19:16] there but to me it just to do a 100 foot
of it I would I would either do it all
[19:21] or
none to me it seems like a transitional
[19:25] screening or buffer will be required to
to the northern property just because
[19:30] it's a vacant residential lot and this
would fall under like a
[19:36] multifam not or higher density okay um
it just says densely planted strip of at
[19:42] least 10 feet in width um and it goes
into a little specific about um how many
[19:48] trees or um percentages of trees planted
maybe deciduous um things like that um
[19:56] so so are y'all open to putting
landscape buffer on that Northern
[20:00] property
[20:02] line so we're all on the same page we're
speaking about from from basically the
[20:08] front of the property to right here
where the the end of the um town homes
[20:13] are is that correct yeah and it and it
would be more for the benefit of the
[20:18] adjoining property um I I think that's
the intent when we have talked about
[20:24] that before it's U just screen but does
the ordinance but does the ordinance is
[20:30] is stating right there right now does it
say that that is required I I think it I
[20:36] think it is we've we've asked other
people to do that when a b Zone buts up
[20:42] to an R zone now this is our first is is
this a putt overlay mark it is a putt
[20:47] overlay and that would be my question
for tide is is what's going to be the um
[20:53] you know the controlling ordinance here
would it be the the put overlay uh or
[20:58] would it be the the underlying zone or
or would it matter uh well I think yeah
[21:04] I think on the HUD we we have the option
or the right to request pretty much
[21:11] anything we want so I mean I I I I think
it would need something in a minimum uh
[21:16] and I mean I'd be okay with the plan is
drawn if if something was added on the
[21:21] Northern side right there yeah and I
don't to answer the question I think
[21:26] with respect to the adjacent Parcels I
don't think there's anything in the put
[21:29] ordinance that would exempt it from
having to comply with the boundary to an
[21:36] adjacent parcel now if it if it is
within the Pud itself you know I think
[21:42] then you could wave any sort of
landscaping um if you wanted to between
[21:47] uses within the Pud but um you know that
language in the ordinance with respect
[21:53] to the buffer between a a b Zone and a
residential Zone has been in there you
[21:58] know forever so what about a b Zone
going up against a an agricultural Zone
[22:05] because it buts up to Greg Harris's Farm
yeah in the city Jason in the city we
[22:09] don't have an agricultural Zone
everything's either b or R
[22:14] okay okay well that I just wanted to ask
to make sure because I know that Reagan
[22:20] Smith dove into those ordinance pretty
hard and and it looks like um we should
[22:26] be able to add something along that
border I just wanted to ask the question
[22:30] to make sure we're on the same
page yeah and um which this doesn't have
[22:35] anything to do with the Landscaping but
I know right now as the lot lays there's
[22:41] a uh there's a high voltage overhead
power line going pretty much right
[22:46] through the center of the parcel is
y'all's plan to reroute that to stay
[22:51] overhead right against the highway or
y'all going to jump underground go
[22:56] through your property and then jump back
overhead if y'all have yall talk through
[22:59] that no we have and we've we've worked
with Duck River Electric and all those
[23:04] engineers and we just last week got a
verbalization of kind of how their
[23:11] long-term plan play is against the the
state highway and what they want to do
[23:15] longterm and
shortterm so it's moving those power
[23:19] lines that come through those Town HS
and pulling them up forward to the
[23:24] street um but staying overhead and and
it's overhead and we go underground from
[23:31] from the highway to the
development but they have a they have a
[23:36] long-term plan that they've been working
on too for the potential growth and
[23:41] moving some of those polls and there's
some pretty big polls they're going to
[23:44] put in front there and Isaac yeah to
Todd this a question for you because
[23:50] they're because they're having to route
an existing overhead power line are we
[23:57] okay because they're being rerouted in
in just a different part of the property
[24:02] we're okay with those staying overhead
uh because they're already there they're
[24:05] just being rerouted is H they're
technically not running new power into
[24:10] the property there's already existing
overhead on the property they just got
[24:13] to reroute it to get it off the rooftops
U are the proposed rooftops are we okay
[24:18] with that staying overhead as long as
they rout it on the highway and then my
[24:22] next question on that once it's rerouted
on the highway is Duck River going to be
[24:28] okay with your Landscaping plan with all
these trees underneath their high
[24:33] voltage lines because typically
typically they're going to want to wipe
[24:36] out a 40 foot strip uh so kind of to me
it seems like it defeats the purpose if
[24:41] we plant these trees and then two years
later Duck River comes in and cuts them
[24:46] all
[24:48] down um that's a this is Kate the
landscape architect I have a question
[24:54] about that so you're we're showing
Street tree because your ordinance is
[24:57] requiring us to show Street trees along
um any like Highway and the public roads
[25:05] um if there is a in case where there is
a utility conflict is is Street tree
[25:11] something that can be waved um through
Planning Commission or um yeah that was
[25:18] that was kind of the nature of of my
question because it's it's uh you know
[25:23] we're battling two things which I know I
know Going Underground is an option it's
[25:27] just not a cheap option especially when
you're dealing with underground primary
[25:31] the you know the high voltage that's
probably a three-phase line through
[25:35] there it's a three phase I know it's
possible but the cost of it is is you
[25:41] know would not be a would not help how a
bit to do that but if we allow you to
[25:47] reroute it and stay
overhead and and if we approve this plan
[25:52] as it's drawn this plan in a year is
going to be completely voided because
[25:56] Duck River is going to send their crew
in just MCH them trees down to nothing
[26:01] in fact in fact Duck River may not even
let you
[26:05] plant this is Mark Merill with Reagan
Smith I know um a few months ago when we
[26:10] originally started talking about this in
the P discussion we brought up that
[26:14] there's going to be a power line
rerouted there and that we didn't want
[26:17] to show trees and and the response we
kind of got was well it's in the
[26:20] ordinance so I think we're both kind of
on the same page here is that this these
[26:24] trees are theoretically if we go
underground or overground still don't
[26:28] see them allowing us to plant anything
in fact I think right now they're shown
[26:32] as a small shrub instead of a tree um
but I think it goes back to Kate's point
[26:38] I mean it if we if it's a if it's a mute
point to show them anyways and they're
[26:43] going to either get planted get ripped
up or taken out can we just not show
[26:48] them well I guess Todd that's a
um question I guess I have for you if in
[26:55] in in a situation like this where
underground is a option it just would be
[26:59] a financial hardship on the
developer do we allow them to get around
[27:05] our regulation due to a financial issue
or do
[27:11] we leave the trees and and and go
underground yeah I don't I don't know
[27:16] that our ordinance would allow us to
require them to go underground for
[27:22] this moving of an existing line it's not
they're not moving a you know new power
[27:29] to to the property um and especially
with it being the high voltage I don't
[27:34] I'd have to look back at it but I don't
know that we can require them to go
[27:37] underground the way our ordinance is
written under these
[27:41] circumstances well what what does it
make sense for us to allow them to
[27:46] reroute it overhead knowing that they're
going to have to plant these trees and
[27:50] cut them down or well and again that
that is something I think we can do is
[27:55] to adjust the Landscaping requirement to
fit the whe whether that's removing it
[28:00] all together or moving it outside the
the utility right away okay or but one
[28:09] option or other I think you could
certainly make that do something that
[28:13] makes sense that we don't have to put
something there that's gonna get
[28:16] demolished so so Mark Mark this is a
question for you can can y'all get back
[28:23] with Duck River and see what they will
allow so we can keep some type of some
[28:28] type of landscaping or a burn with some
short Shrubbery there is there can y'all
[28:33] get with Duck River to see what they
would allow or what height they would
[28:36] allow and come up with a you know leave
leave a landscape buffer but come up
[28:40] with an exception for some low low
growing
[28:45] um plants of some kind that that that
Duck River would be okay with yes and
[28:51] and the another caveat throw on top of
that is right behind that electric Ean
[28:55] is the existing water line that runs
along Horton highway so you're going to
[28:58] be dealing with two utility easements on
that side so I see somebody running a
[29:03] hand up and down the left side of that
road um that right there is really our
[29:08] viable strip for showing any type of
screening to where I think we could get
[29:12] any height associated with it but yes we
can we we can easily reach back out to
[29:17] Duck River and see what if any they
allow within their easement under their
[29:21] line certain height restrictions even if
it's just a 4 foot dirt BM or something
[29:26] like that okay out to we find
out and I think that would be the most I
[29:32] think that'd be the most practical thing
to do okay I think that if we can just
[29:37] uh give some kind of aesthetic visual
with some Landscaping to keep it from
[29:43] going straight to Pavement uh yeah I
think that's what we're trying to do is
[29:48] is give it you know a nice visual
aesthetic uh from the from the highway
[29:56] okay okay what's your
pleasure I would say you like with u
[30:04] with those two amendments would could
could we approve it subject to uh maybe
[30:10] Stacy and
Mark just reviewing an amended plan that
[30:14] would be okay with Duck River that would
still have something along the highway
[30:18] and something new along the north side I
think with those two additions or or
[30:23] amendments you know I believe the rest
of it as long as stac is okay with it I
[30:27] think rest of it would
comply okay I have I have that as a
[30:33] motion sure I second
it I have a motion and a second all in
[30:39] favor let it be known by saying I I
I any
[30:47] opposition
carries moving down to other business
[30:51] anybody have any other
[30:55] business Mark any updates on I would
like to say go
[31:00] ahead I was going to say there's going
to be a meeting or that started at 6:30
[31:06] at Hugo has been giving the he has he is
going to be given an award so I'm G to
[31:13] be cutting out of
here anybody who wants to come come on
[31:21] down okay now what did you want to say
Isaac no I was just going to ask Mark if
[31:26] there was any any new updates on the the
sewer or just the same as last month
[31:30] basically the same as last month like
Jeff mentioned earlier we're going to be
[31:35] uh I'll be working with J.R wford to
create a a hydraulic model to kind of
[31:42] show um the uh capacity of our our
current infrastructure with our current
[31:50] plans uh based on everything that's been
approved thus far uh to try to give uh
[31:57] you know Jeff and his development some
kind of idea of what what they would be
[32:01] looking at in subsequent phases uh as
far as what the need there would be with
[32:06] the collection system
okay okay can I get a motion to
[32:12] adjourn sure I'll make that
motion thank you do I have a
[32:20] second I second it I don't have a second
I have a motion in a second and we're
[32:27] going to
and
[32:33] talk thank