1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:01,960
You got it.

2
00:00:01,960 --> 00:00:07,532
Good evening. Welcome to the Nolensville
Regular Planning Commission

3
00:00:07,532 --> 00:00:11,629
meeting. Thank all of you for coming here
tonight.

4
00:00:11,629 --> 00:00:14,416
Um, I do believe we have a quorum,

5
00:00:14,416 --> 00:00:19,660
so let's lead off with the Pledge of
Allegiance. Please join me.

6
00:00:19,660 --> 00:00:21,747
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America,

7
00:00:21,747 --> 00:00:24,485
and to I the pledge republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

8
00:00:24,485 --> 00:00:25,920
with allegiance liberty and justice for
all.

9
00:00:26,291 --> 00:00:28,420
to the flag of the United States of
America,

10
00:00:28,420 --> 00:00:32,049
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,

11
00:00:32,049 --> 00:00:33,646
with liberty and justice for all.

12
00:00:33,646 --> 00:00:39,824
All right.

13
00:00:42,147 --> 00:00:42,655
Thank you.

14
00:00:45,655 --> 00:00:51,326
The minutes for the August 11th meeting.
I'll entertain a motion.

15
00:00:53,034 --> 00:00:53,734
Motion to approve.

16
00:00:53,734 --> 00:00:54,922
Is there a second?

17
00:00:54,922 --> 00:00:56,012
Second.

18
00:00:56,012 --> 00:00:56,972
Okay, is there any discussion?

19
00:00:59,659 --> 00:01:02,285
Hearing none, all those in favor please
signify by saying aye.

20
00:01:02,961 --> 00:01:03,042
Aye.

21
00:01:03,139 --> 00:01:05,362
Opposed? Passes unanimously.

22
00:01:05,362 --> 00:01:06,248
Abstain.

23
00:01:06,248 --> 00:01:08,021
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

24
00:01:08,021 --> 00:01:08,832
Sorry.

25
00:01:08,832 --> 00:01:12,403
Okay, one abstention.

26
00:01:14,448 --> 00:01:15,536
Staff announcements?

27
00:01:17,568 --> 00:01:21,641
Uh, just one announcement. I spoke a
little bit about it prior.

28
00:01:21,641 --> 00:01:24,873
Uh, training is— the training hours are
coming up.

29
00:01:24,873 --> 00:01:29,787
Um, I did actually just send, uh, resent
the link to— there's 4 videos that,

30
00:01:29,787 --> 00:01:35,023
that you can watch. I know majority of you
have had a couple hours here and there

31
00:01:35,023 --> 00:01:37,868
with various kind of training
opportunities.

32
00:01:37,868 --> 00:01:42,716
Um, we do need to start thinking about
Trying to wrap those up and getting,

33
00:01:42,716 --> 00:01:48,147
getting those done. I wish there was more
options that we all had to watch, but, um,

34
00:01:48,147 --> 00:01:52,737
I think those last couple videos will help
get us over the finish line.

35
00:01:52,737 --> 00:01:57,909
But we'll continue to be on the lookout
for any other opportunities that we come

36
00:01:57,909 --> 00:02:00,430
across, and, and we'll send them along.

37
00:02:00,430 --> 00:02:05,847
And will you send everyone that list that
we saw earlier in the year that had

38
00:02:05,847 --> 00:02:06,902
multiple items?

39
00:02:06,902 --> 00:02:11,467
Yes, that's what I— so I said, yeah, I
sent that list, and I sent a, uh,

40
00:02:11,467 --> 00:02:12,862
perfect the, the form.

41
00:02:13,248 --> 00:02:16,209
Let's, let's really make an effort to make
sure it gets done.

42
00:02:16,209 --> 00:02:17,422
This has to be turned in.

43
00:02:17,422 --> 00:02:20,965
We want it to reflect well on the town of
Nolensville and on our Planning

44
00:02:20,965 --> 00:02:21,499
Commission.

45
00:02:22,830 --> 00:02:26,533
Next item on the agenda is citizen
comments. I have a question here.

46
00:02:26,888 --> 00:02:31,445
Mr. McGuire, sorry, are you residents of
Brentwood?

47
00:02:31,445 --> 00:02:31,864
We are.

48
00:02:31,864 --> 00:02:37,445
Okay, I need to get advice here from our
council.

49
00:02:38,834 --> 00:02:40,324
Yeah, they can.

50
00:02:40,982 --> 00:02:43,242
They can. Okay, delighted to have you.

51
00:02:43,867 --> 00:02:45,518
First on the list is Andrew McGuire.

52
00:02:45,727 --> 00:02:48,655
Please state your name. And Stephanie— oh,
okay.

53
00:02:48,655 --> 00:02:52,743
Stephanie McGuire, please state your name
and your address, please.

54
00:02:52,743 --> 00:02:53,902
You have 3 minutes.

55
00:02:53,902 --> 00:02:54,223
Sure.

56
00:02:54,623 --> 00:02:56,447
My name is Stephanie McGuire.

57
00:02:56,447 --> 00:03:01,416
I live at 9731 Jupiter Forest Drive,
Brentwood, Tennessee. Um, so good evening.

58
00:03:01,416 --> 00:03:05,127
My name is Stephanie McGuire and this is
my husband Andrew.

59
00:03:05,127 --> 00:03:10,222
We are here because we own the rights to 5
cemetery plots in the Nolensville Hill

60
00:03:10,222 --> 00:03:12,990
Cemetery, plots 759, 760, 761, 762, and
763.

61
00:03:12,990 --> 00:03:16,953
Our daughter Adeline, you can see below,
is buried in plot 761.

62
00:03:16,953 --> 00:03:20,915
Adeline passed away from brain cancer when
she was 5 years old.

63
00:03:20,915 --> 00:03:23,243
She was joyful, loving, full of life,

64
00:03:23,243 --> 00:03:26,388
and deeply loved by our family and this
community.

65
00:03:26,388 --> 00:03:30,791
We understand that this meeting is about a
subdivision and final plat,

66
00:03:30,791 --> 00:03:35,194
and we understand that growth and
development are part of a living and

67
00:03:35,194 --> 00:03:35,634
development are part of a living and
growing

68
00:03:35,634 --> 00:03:36,263
community.

69
00:03:36,263 --> 00:03:36,439
Thank you.

70
00:03:37,258 --> 00:03:40,335
We are not here to oppose reasonable
development.

71
00:03:40,335 --> 00:03:45,420
Our concern is that after reviewing the
documents submitted for this application,

72
00:03:45,420 --> 00:03:49,878
we believe there is a significant
discrepancy that needs to be resolved

73
00:03:49,878 --> 00:03:50,569
discrepancy that needs to be resolved
before this

74
00:03:50,569 --> 00:03:55,529
plat is approved. The survey submitted to
the Planning Commission depicts our 5

75
00:03:55,529 --> 00:04:00,364
cemetery plots in a location that is
different from the location shown on the

76
00:04:00,364 --> 00:04:03,001
cemetery plot map that was provided to us.

77
00:04:03,001 --> 00:04:08,149
Most importantly, Adeline's actual grave
Is not located where Plot 761 is shown on

78
00:04:08,149 --> 00:04:09,468
the submitted survey.

79
00:04:09,468 --> 00:04:14,553
This matters because the submitted plat is
not simply drawing a new property line

80
00:04:14,553 --> 00:04:19,262
near the cemetery. On Sheet 2, the plat
states that recording it will void,

81
00:04:19,262 --> 00:04:19,702
states that recording it will void,
vacate,

82
00:04:19,702 --> 00:04:23,846
and supersede a portion of the recorded
Nolensville Cemetery plat,

83
00:04:23,846 --> 00:04:27,613
and specifically identifies Cemetery Plots
745 through 1147.

84
00:04:27,613 --> 00:04:27,711
Okay.

85
00:04:27,970 --> 00:04:32,089
among the plots affected. Our plots, 759
through 763, are within that range.

86
00:04:32,089 --> 00:04:35,286
So from our perspective, this raises a
very basic question:

87
00:04:35,286 --> 00:04:39,297
how can this plat be approved if the
documents being used to establish new

88
00:04:39,297 --> 00:04:39,730
documents being used to establish new
property

89
00:04:39,730 --> 00:04:43,741
boundaries do not accurately identify
where existing cemetery plots and an

90
00:04:43,741 --> 00:04:44,175
where existing cemetery plots and an
existing

91
00:04:44,175 --> 00:04:45,638
grave are actually located?

92
00:04:45,638 --> 00:04:50,136
We are not asking the Planning Commission
to determine a dispute between us and the

93
00:04:50,136 --> 00:04:51,274
Cemetery Association.

94
00:04:51,274 --> 00:04:55,610
We are asking you to make sure that the
information being relied upon to approve

95
00:04:55,610 --> 00:04:57,181
this subdivision is accurate,

96
00:04:57,181 --> 00:05:01,355
and that existing cemetery plots and
graves are not inadvertently affected by

97
00:05:01,355 --> 00:05:01,517
graves are not inadvertently affected by
the

98
00:05:01,517 --> 00:05:02,764
recording of this plat.

99
00:05:02,764 --> 00:05:06,395
For our family, this is not simply a
question of lines on a survey.

100
00:05:06,395 --> 00:05:08,400
This is where our daughter is buried.

101
00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:12,465
We want to be able to continue coming to
her grave and remembering her in a

102
00:05:12,465 --> 00:05:12,898
her grave and remembering her in a
peaceful

103
00:05:12,898 --> 00:05:14,036
and respectful place.

104
00:05:14,036 --> 00:05:18,209
We are respectfully asking that the
Commission require the actual location of

105
00:05:18,209 --> 00:05:18,480
Commission require the actual location of
these

106
00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:22,924
plots and Adelyn's grave to be established
and reconciled with the submission plat

107
00:05:22,924 --> 00:05:25,309
before this application proceeds. Thank
you.

108
00:05:25,309 --> 00:05:25,469
Thank you.

109
00:05:25,966 --> 00:05:27,057
And I'm going to yield the rest of my
time.

110
00:05:27,057 --> 00:05:30,360
Okay. You have a full 3 minutes as well,
sir.

111
00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:32,594
Thank you. My name is Andrew McGuire.

112
00:05:32,594 --> 00:05:37,244
I want to follow up on Stephanie's
comments by explaining why we believe this

113
00:05:37,244 --> 00:05:40,807
warrants additional scrutiny from the
Planning perspective.

114
00:05:40,807 --> 00:05:45,457
We recognize that Planning staff has
reviewed the application and recommended

115
00:05:45,457 --> 00:05:49,925
approval. As Stephanie said, we are not
opposed to reasonable development.

116
00:05:49,925 --> 00:05:54,998
Our concern is what the current plat would
establish if it is approved and recorded.

117
00:05:54,998 --> 00:05:59,165
First, the plat expressly states that
recording it will void, vacate,

118
00:05:59,165 --> 00:06:02,969
and supersede a portion of the existing
recorded cemetery plat,

119
00:06:02,969 --> 00:06:05,747
including the cemetery plots 745 through
1147.

120
00:06:05,747 --> 00:06:10,819
Our 5 plots, as Stephanie stated, are 759
through 763, which fall within that range.

121
00:06:10,819 --> 00:06:15,348
We believe the Commission should therefore
require the Applicant to clearly

122
00:06:15,348 --> 00:06:19,938
establish what effect recording this plat
will have on those existing plots.

123
00:06:19,938 --> 00:06:24,165
and burial rights and ensure that no
existing grave or plot rights are

124
00:06:24,165 --> 00:06:24,950
existing grave or plot rights are
inadvertently

125
00:06:24,950 --> 00:06:29,962
affected. Second, there's a future access
issue that we believe deserves attention.

126
00:06:29,962 --> 00:06:34,793
The plat states that access to the newly
located Lot 3 will be located along the

127
00:06:34,793 --> 00:06:39,503
western boundary between Lot 3 and the
remaining cemetery property with access

128
00:06:39,503 --> 00:06:39,745
remaining cemetery property with access
from

129
00:06:39,745 --> 00:06:44,636
Clovercroft Road. The actual location and
configuration of that future access are

130
00:06:44,636 --> 00:06:46,689
not established in the final plat.

131
00:06:46,689 --> 00:06:46,785
Okay.

132
00:06:47,042 --> 00:06:51,393
We believe the Commission should
understand exactly where that access will

133
00:06:51,393 --> 00:06:51,687
understand exactly where that access will
be in

134
00:06:51,687 --> 00:06:53,451
relation to the actual graves,

135
00:06:53,451 --> 00:06:57,743
particularly given the discrepancy in the
location of the cemetery plots.

136
00:06:57,743 --> 00:07:02,036
We also believe that appropriate
protection should be established for the

137
00:07:02,036 --> 00:07:02,506
protection should be established for the
cemetery

138
00:07:02,506 --> 00:07:05,328
boundary before commercial development
proceeds.

139
00:07:05,328 --> 00:07:07,680
Construction, grading, vehicular access,

140
00:07:07,680 --> 00:07:12,149
and future development immediately
adjacent to the cemetery could affect the

141
00:07:12,149 --> 00:07:14,912
peaceful and respectful nature of the
cemetery,

142
00:07:14,912 --> 00:07:18,793
even if The final property line does not
cross the existing grave.

143
00:07:18,793 --> 00:07:23,320
We are therefore asking the Commission for
3 things before the subdivision is

144
00:07:23,320 --> 00:07:28,142
finalized. First, establish and reconcile
the actual location of Plots 759 through

145
00:07:28,142 --> 00:07:30,964
763 and Adeline's grave with the submitted
plat.

146
00:07:30,964 --> 00:07:35,315
Second, require the Applicant to
demonstrate that recording this plat will

147
00:07:35,315 --> 00:07:35,492
demonstrate that recording this plat will
not

148
00:07:35,492 --> 00:07:38,726
adversely affect those existing plots or
burial rights,

149
00:07:38,726 --> 00:07:43,077
particularly given the language recorded
Regarding plots 745 through 1147.

150
00:07:43,077 --> 00:07:47,722
Third, establish location and parameters
for future access to Lot 3 and provide

151
00:07:47,722 --> 00:07:50,779
appropriate protections along the cemetery
boundary.

152
00:07:50,779 --> 00:07:55,013
Those protections could include reasonable
setback, a berm, landscaping,

153
00:07:55,013 --> 00:07:59,305
natural screening, or other measures the
Commission believes appropriate.

154
00:07:59,305 --> 00:08:02,421
We are not asking the Commission to stop
development.

155
00:08:02,421 --> 00:08:07,125
We're asking that these property lines and
future development plans be finalized

156
00:08:07,125 --> 00:08:11,947
only after there's accurate understanding
of the existing cemetery and appropriate

157
00:08:11,947 --> 00:08:13,417
protections are in place.

158
00:08:13,417 --> 00:08:18,238
We respectfully ask the Commission not to
approve the plat as currently presented,

159
00:08:18,238 --> 00:08:22,589
but instead require that the issues be
resolved and reflected in the final

160
00:08:22,589 --> 00:08:24,647
documents. Thank you for your time.

161
00:08:24,647 --> 00:08:28,645
Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. McGuire. Adelyn
was a beautiful little girl.

162
00:08:28,645 --> 00:08:36,083
Please know that you have our deepest
sympathy.

163
00:08:39,083 --> 00:08:41,519
We have no items on the consent agenda.
Surety actions.

164
00:08:41,519 --> 00:08:44,088
Anyone have any thoughts or comments on
the surety report?

165
00:08:45,012 --> 00:08:47,412
Just point of order really quick if we
can.

166
00:08:47,412 --> 00:08:50,760
Um, if possible, could you tell us those
plot numbers again?

167
00:08:50,760 --> 00:08:55,113
You were speaking pretty fast. If we can
have that clearly stated. Uh, it was—

168
00:08:55,372 --> 00:08:58,297
we have everything that we talked about.

169
00:08:59,024 --> 00:09:01,060
Okay, perfect.

170
00:09:01,561 --> 00:09:05,838
Do you want— so 759 through 763 is the
numbers that they gave us for the

171
00:09:05,838 --> 00:09:06,373
numbers that they gave us for the
ownership

172
00:09:06,373 --> 00:09:06,551
of.

173
00:09:06,844 --> 00:09:08,840
Okay.

174
00:09:11,840 --> 00:09:16,894
Surety report. Anyone have any thoughts,
comments on the surety report?

175
00:09:19,377 --> 00:09:24,955
Hearing none, we'll move on to unfinished
business. We have no unfinished business.

176
00:09:24,955 --> 00:09:27,845
We'll move to next item, new business,
A9A,

177
00:09:27,845 --> 00:09:30,600
Neil Padden subdivision minor final plat.

178
00:09:33,391 --> 00:09:36,922
Is there anyone here from the Neil Padden
group?

179
00:09:36,922 --> 00:09:37,054
Yes.

180
00:09:38,536 --> 00:09:41,078
I don't see anyone. I think staff, right?

181
00:09:41,078 --> 00:09:43,992
I think given the discussion, you know, I,
I'm—

182
00:09:43,992 --> 00:09:47,216
we put out a staff report that recommended
approval,

183
00:09:47,216 --> 00:09:51,867
but given the information we've heard
tonight, I think staff would be okay,

184
00:09:51,867 --> 00:09:55,897
you know, if we look to defer the item for
further and, you know,

185
00:09:55,897 --> 00:09:57,633
to investigate this further.

186
00:09:57,633 --> 00:10:01,845
So what I will say is, based on the
information provided,

187
00:10:01,845 --> 00:10:04,579
obviously what we are given as staff,

188
00:10:04,579 --> 00:10:09,603
and then what you all provide to us is
what has been provided to us.

189
00:10:09,603 --> 00:10:13,298
And so based on the conversation that we
have had,

190
00:10:13,298 --> 00:10:18,913
based on what happened even at the
Historic Zoning Commission and discussion

191
00:10:18,913 --> 00:10:19,209
Historic Zoning Commission and discussion
with

192
00:10:19,209 --> 00:10:25,046
the sign, and just further analysis being
needed to, to be taken at that point,

193
00:10:25,046 --> 00:10:29,332
what I would do is ask that we postpone
until we have had—

194
00:10:29,332 --> 00:10:29,387
Okay.

195
00:10:30,394 --> 00:10:35,512
Further time to look through and make sure
that we have evaluated the proper

196
00:10:35,512 --> 00:10:37,667
placement of not only the plots.

197
00:10:37,667 --> 00:10:43,122
One of the questions that I had before I
make a motion for postponement was I had

198
00:10:43,122 --> 00:10:48,576
asked both at the historic meeting but had
asked a follow-up question, which was,

199
00:10:48,576 --> 00:10:52,549
will there be any current plots that are
affected that are—

200
00:10:52,549 --> 00:10:56,523
that have been purchased And I was told
that that was a no.

201
00:10:56,523 --> 00:11:02,179
And so clearly, based on what we've heard
this evening and maybe some of what may be

202
00:11:02,179 --> 00:11:05,883
incorrect that we are seeing, that would
be my biggest—

203
00:11:05,883 --> 00:11:11,270
so I will make a motion to postpone until
further documentation has come in from

204
00:11:11,270 --> 00:11:13,560
both the applicant and from staff.

205
00:11:13,560 --> 00:11:15,710
I will second. Discussion?

206
00:11:15,710 --> 00:11:20,020
I have a question. I believe, if I'm not
mistaken,

207
00:11:20,020 --> 00:11:23,900
items B, C, and D also relate To all of
these

208
00:11:23,900 --> 00:11:24,503
things.

209
00:11:24,985 --> 00:11:27,555
So Charles, do we need 4 separate—

210
00:11:27,555 --> 00:11:29,563
It's B and C.

211
00:11:29,563 --> 00:11:31,732
I'm sorry, B and C but not D. I apologize.

212
00:11:31,876 --> 00:11:32,278
B and C.

213
00:11:32,278 --> 00:11:34,968
Uh, no, if you're reading them at the same
time.

214
00:11:34,968 --> 00:11:37,994
But are they being read at the same time,
or are they—

215
00:11:37,994 --> 00:11:39,731
they're separate on the agenda?

216
00:11:39,731 --> 00:11:43,813
They're separate. So I will make a motion
to postpone item A, B,

217
00:11:43,813 --> 00:11:47,576
and C until further time that staff has
reviewed additional

218
00:11:47,576 --> 00:11:48,469
documentation.

219
00:11:48,662 --> 00:11:50,233
And I will second. Any discussion?

220
00:11:50,233 --> 00:11:56,148
Uh, just one quick— that if, since we're—
there are questions that we have, um,

221
00:11:56,148 --> 00:12:01,839
if town staff could strongly encourage the
representatives who want this to,

222
00:12:01,839 --> 00:12:07,755
to be changed that they need to be here to
answer these kinds of questions, um,

223
00:12:07,755 --> 00:12:12,547
that in itself I think is grounds to
postpone it. So that's all.

224
00:12:12,547 --> 00:12:14,225
Any further discussion?

225
00:12:14,225 --> 00:12:18,750
Hearing none, all those in favor please
signify by saying aye.

226
00:12:18,750 --> 00:12:19,263
Aye.

227
00:12:19,263 --> 00:12:20,208
Opposed?

228
00:12:20,705 --> 00:12:22,587
Motion passes unanimously.

229
00:12:22,587 --> 00:12:25,049
The next item under number 9 is D,

230
00:12:25,049 --> 00:12:29,465
and that has also requested a
postponement, which we've done.

231
00:12:29,465 --> 00:12:30,913
So that moves us to—

232
00:12:30,913 --> 00:12:32,147
Charles—

233
00:12:32,243 --> 00:12:33,818
oh, excuse me, point of order.

234
00:12:33,818 --> 00:12:36,600
Charles, do we— applicant requested the
postponement,

235
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:39,855
but do you still need a motion? Yes, since
it's on the agenda.

236
00:12:41,044 --> 00:12:41,497
Yes.

237
00:12:41,497 --> 00:12:42,144
So I will—

238
00:12:42,970 --> 00:12:43,164
thank you.

239
00:12:43,456 --> 00:12:47,404
I will motion to postpone Sagebrook Site
Development Plan Revision 1

240
00:12:47,404 --> 00:12:50,945
until further time that the applicant has
provided additional

241
00:12:50,945 --> 00:12:51,642
information.

242
00:12:51,642 --> 00:12:53,665
Second. Is there any discussion?

243
00:12:53,665 --> 00:12:57,586
Hearing none, all those in favor please
signify by saying aye.

244
00:12:57,586 --> 00:12:58,215
Aye.

245
00:12:58,215 --> 00:12:59,021
Opposed?

246
00:12:59,392 --> 00:13:05,990
Motion passes unanimously. Item E,
Farrington Phase 3A Final PD Site Plan.

247
00:13:08,990 --> 00:13:09,087
Staff.

248
00:13:09,087 --> 00:13:14,448
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the
Farrington Phase 3A final PD site plan.

249
00:13:14,448 --> 00:13:19,222
Uh, it's kind of traveling differently
than the preliminary plat.

250
00:13:19,222 --> 00:13:24,362
They used to travel together, but now we
have them come in separately.

251
00:13:24,362 --> 00:13:30,091
So essentially a lot of the information
is, is very similar to the preliminary

252
00:13:30,091 --> 00:13:30,458
is, is very similar to the preliminary
plat,

253
00:13:30,458 --> 00:13:32,588
which is previously approved.

254
00:13:32,588 --> 00:13:38,242
Um, this plat— this final PD site plan
creates 67 residential lots and 6 open

255
00:13:38,242 --> 00:13:38,610
creates 67 residential lots and 6 open
space

256
00:13:38,610 --> 00:13:43,677
lots, and staff is recommending approval
of this with staff comments.

257
00:13:43,677 --> 00:13:47,221
Okay, is there anyone here representing
Barrington?

258
00:13:47,221 --> 00:13:51,967
Yes, uh, Colton Dorris, Kimley Horn, civil
engineer.

259
00:13:51,967 --> 00:13:54,420
Okay, any comments from your end?

260
00:13:54,420 --> 00:13:54,885
No, sir.

261
00:13:54,885 --> 00:13:56,505
Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

262
00:13:56,505 --> 00:13:59,519
Motion to approve including staff
recommendations.

263
00:13:59,861 --> 00:14:02,592
I will second. Is there any discussion?

264
00:14:02,592 --> 00:14:06,933
Hearing none, all those in favor please
signify by saying aye.

265
00:14:06,933 --> 00:14:07,708
Aye.

266
00:14:07,708 --> 00:14:08,370
Opposed?

267
00:14:08,822 --> 00:14:11,348
Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

268
00:14:11,348 --> 00:14:15,853
Next item on the agenda is Fifth Third
Bank Darcy Lot 3 Site Plan.

269
00:14:16,095 --> 00:14:16,498
Staff?

270
00:14:16,498 --> 00:14:18,097
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

271
00:14:18,097 --> 00:14:21,219
This is the site plan for a proposed, uh,

272
00:14:21,219 --> 00:14:25,102
Fifth Third Bank located at 8020
Marketplace Drive,

273
00:14:25,102 --> 00:14:28,757
which is Lot 3 of the Darcy Planned
Development.

274
00:14:28,757 --> 00:14:31,269
Uh, this proposal is a one-story,

275
00:14:31,269 --> 00:14:37,513
approximately 2,100-square-foot building
constructed on the site that will house a

276
00:14:37,513 --> 00:14:42,081
Fifth Third Bank, which has a
drive-through and ATM feature.

277
00:14:42,081 --> 00:14:48,097
Um, staff has reviewed this. It's, it's,
it follows the pattern book for Darcy.

278
00:14:48,097 --> 00:14:52,894
Um, it meets all the requirements in the
2020 zoning ordinance.

279
00:14:52,894 --> 00:14:56,929
Staff is recommending approval with staff
conditions.

280
00:14:56,929 --> 00:15:00,182
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here
representing Darcy?

281
00:15:00,182 --> 00:15:01,325
Yes, sir.

282
00:15:03,548 --> 00:15:04,982
My name is Dayan Chindanusong.

283
00:15:05,159 --> 00:15:06,770
I'm in Field Engineering under Civil.

284
00:15:06,770 --> 00:15:09,122
Okay, any comments?

285
00:15:09,122 --> 00:15:09,606
No, sir.

286
00:15:09,606 --> 00:15:11,185
I'll entertain a motion.

287
00:15:11,185 --> 00:15:13,118
Motion to approve the staff
recommendations.

288
00:15:13,118 --> 00:15:14,508
Is there a second?

289
00:15:14,508 --> 00:15:14,975
Second.

290
00:15:14,975 --> 00:15:16,341
Discussion?

291
00:15:16,341 --> 00:15:19,965
I have one question on your landscape
plan.

292
00:15:19,965 --> 00:15:26,034
And it also shows up on your submission of
the drawings of the facility,

293
00:15:26,034 --> 00:15:31,175
of the building, where you have your ADA
handicapped parking.

294
00:15:31,175 --> 00:15:35,137
If you look at the diagram, it's
Submission 02.

295
00:15:35,137 --> 00:15:41,964
It shows you've got plants right along the
curb of that handicapped parking spot.

296
00:15:41,964 --> 00:15:45,335
And I would suggest, if that's possible,

297
00:15:45,335 --> 00:15:52,162
to pull those out because if you park and
if you're the driver of the vehicle and

298
00:15:52,162 --> 00:15:58,484
you have— don't need to use the wide area
to get out on the passenger side,

299
00:15:58,484 --> 00:16:02,361
but if you're walking with a cane or a
crutch,

300
00:16:02,361 --> 00:16:07,249
you're actually swinging your door into
those grass areas.

301
00:16:07,249 --> 00:16:13,655
It would be better to be a grass area
where you've got— just expand it over.

302
00:16:13,655 --> 00:16:15,425
Does that make sense?

303
00:16:15,425 --> 00:16:16,291
Yes, sir.

304
00:16:16,291 --> 00:16:21,174
That's all I'm saying is just Those bushes
would interfere with somebody needing to

305
00:16:21,174 --> 00:16:22,703
step out of their vehicle.

306
00:16:22,703 --> 00:16:25,056
They can shift the shrub about 2 feet to
the plan line.

307
00:16:25,056 --> 00:16:26,597
Yeah, and just give some grass there,

308
00:16:26,597 --> 00:16:28,930
something where they can more easily get
out of the car.

309
00:16:28,930 --> 00:16:29,399
Yes, sir.

310
00:16:29,399 --> 00:16:29,787
That's it.

311
00:16:29,787 --> 00:16:31,811
Okay. Further discussion?

312
00:16:31,811 --> 00:16:36,424
Does anyone feel the need to amend the
original motion to

313
00:16:36,424 --> 00:16:39,824
include what Commissioner Adams asked for?

314
00:16:39,824 --> 00:16:43,182
If they can just go ahead and do it, I
don't know if we need to—

315
00:16:43,182 --> 00:16:46,576
do we need to I'm just asking how you guys
feel about it. I'm fine with it.

316
00:16:46,576 --> 00:16:47,138
Yeah.

317
00:16:47,138 --> 00:16:47,555
Okay.

318
00:16:47,555 --> 00:16:48,358
Thanks.

319
00:16:48,358 --> 00:16:52,726
Hearing no further discussion, all those
in favor signify by saying aye.

320
00:16:52,726 --> 00:16:53,368
Aye.

321
00:16:53,368 --> 00:16:56,371
Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank
you.

322
00:16:56,371 --> 00:16:56,916
Thank you.

323
00:16:56,916 --> 00:17:00,978
Okay, the next item on the agenda is the
Torque Club Nolensville site development

324
00:17:00,978 --> 00:17:03,435
plan. The applicant has requested a
postponement.

325
00:17:04,672 --> 00:17:08,132
I'll entertain a motion.

326
00:17:11,132 --> 00:17:15,402
Move to accept the, uh, applicant's
request to postpone.

327
00:17:15,402 --> 00:17:17,303
Is there a second?

328
00:17:17,303 --> 00:17:18,302
Second.

329
00:17:18,302 --> 00:17:25,663
Discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor please signify by saying aye.

330
00:17:26,115 --> 00:17:26,179
Aye.

331
00:17:26,341 --> 00:17:27,180
Opposed?

332
00:17:27,309 --> 00:17:28,712
Motion passes unanimously.

333
00:17:29,583 --> 00:17:33,801
And that takes us to item 10, which is our
discussion,

334
00:17:33,801 --> 00:17:40,283
and we are discussing tonight, Article 8,
some of which we did at our last meeting.

335
00:17:40,283 --> 00:17:44,579
I'm going to turn the leadership on this
over to staff.

336
00:17:44,579 --> 00:17:47,029
Sure.

337
00:17:48,048 --> 00:17:50,152
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

338
00:17:50,152 --> 00:17:54,098
So at the regularly scheduled August
meeting,

339
00:17:54,098 --> 00:17:59,886
we did discuss a good portion from the
beginning of Article 8, uh,

340
00:17:59,886 --> 00:18:06,900
what you're seeing on the screen, 8.1 to
The modification of standard provision.

341
00:18:06,900 --> 00:18:08,742
Um, first one to ask,

342
00:18:08,742 --> 00:18:15,581
is there anything else that we need to
talk about between that portion and the

343
00:18:15,581 --> 00:18:20,229
modification of standard provision, uh,
further down?

344
00:18:20,229 --> 00:18:26,805
We talked a little bit about most of those
things, but that was last month.

345
00:18:26,805 --> 00:18:33,644
So certainly want to give you all the
opportunity if there is anything between

346
00:18:33,644 --> 00:18:33,995
opportunity if there is anything between
page

347
00:18:33,995 --> 00:18:37,152
1 to page 33 or 32 if we want to go.

348
00:18:37,152 --> 00:18:42,939
Okay, is there— I'll give everybody a
second to check their notes.

349
00:18:42,939 --> 00:18:46,530
You know I've got a couple.

350
00:18:46,530 --> 00:18:53,445
Okay, uh, on 8.3, would you give us the
page numbers

351
00:18:53,445 --> 00:18:56,504
on those? Yeah, page 4.

352
00:18:56,504 --> 00:19:00,494
And I'll need to go to it too.

353
00:19:00,494 --> 00:19:05,681
And some of these— one of these is, uh,

354
00:19:05,681 --> 00:19:09,936
the home occupation use permits.

355
00:19:09,936 --> 00:19:16,320
I'm not sure which page that— if that's
correct.

356
00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:17,085
Page 4.

357
00:19:17,085 --> 00:19:22,788
Um, that may be in the wrong— that This
may be a note in front of that one,

358
00:19:22,788 --> 00:19:28,339
but anyway, shouldn't home occupation use
permits be under codes and not,

359
00:19:28,339 --> 00:19:34,118
not under part of the planning zoning
ordinances? Which is— it's a question.

360
00:19:34,118 --> 00:19:39,403
It's a good question, and it's one we've
asked internally, but as of now,

361
00:19:39,403 --> 00:19:40,995
they have existed. Uh,

362
00:19:40,995 --> 00:19:45,701
even more troublesome in a way is that
Further down in Article 8,

363
00:19:45,701 --> 00:19:50,478
it talks about no home occupation shall
have a permit. It says so.

364
00:19:50,478 --> 00:19:54,894
Yeah, enforce that. Um, but as of right
now, it is essential—

365
00:19:54,894 --> 00:19:58,586
I think it's okay in where it's one way or
another,

366
00:19:58,586 --> 00:20:02,785
even if it was handled internally by the
Codes Department,

367
00:20:02,785 --> 00:20:07,707
that Section 8.2 You know, we would be
involved potentially in that.

368
00:20:07,707 --> 00:20:10,893
So I think it's okay for it to remain
there.

369
00:20:10,893 --> 00:20:15,670
And when we get down to the home
occupation permit more in detail,

370
00:20:15,670 --> 00:20:21,172
I think we can talk more about it. But I
think it is okay where it is there.

371
00:20:21,172 --> 00:20:24,140
For example, um, you know, there's other—

372
00:20:24,140 --> 00:20:30,076
I got rid of certificates of occupancy and
building permit in that section because

373
00:20:30,076 --> 00:20:34,203
it's specifically talking about the zoning
administrator.

374
00:20:34,203 --> 00:20:40,211
And we, you know, we may even want to keep
that, at least certificate of occupancy.

375
00:20:40,211 --> 00:20:40,435
Okay.

376
00:20:40,776 --> 00:20:46,606
Because there's a portion that talks about
not from the ordinance that Charles is

377
00:20:46,606 --> 00:20:50,925
looking at me, but just from what the
zoning administrators—

378
00:20:50,925 --> 00:20:54,380
the text is 8.2 zoning and zoning
administrator.

379
00:20:54,380 --> 00:20:56,972
Then it goes to powers and duties C,

380
00:20:56,972 --> 00:21:02,514
and then shall have following specific
powers and responsibilities from those

381
00:21:02,514 --> 00:21:06,617
things. And maybe we need to keep CO and
building permit,

382
00:21:06,617 --> 00:21:12,520
but All that's essentially saying is that
I would have some amount of oversight or

383
00:21:12,520 --> 00:21:15,183
something on home occupation permits.

384
00:21:15,183 --> 00:21:17,178
As long as you're good with it.

385
00:21:17,178 --> 00:21:22,197
Okay, then on page 4, you take out all
that descriptor of Planning Commission.

386
00:21:22,197 --> 00:21:25,286
Is that where else— is that somewhere else
then?

387
00:21:25,286 --> 00:21:27,670
Yeah, that's in the municipal code.

388
00:21:27,670 --> 00:21:29,865
Okay, that's what I thought.

389
00:21:29,865 --> 00:21:34,881
Okay, uh, on page 14, we talk about the
Design Review Committee.

390
00:21:34,881 --> 00:21:39,976
And it sets up all of that. Do we need a
design review committee?

391
00:21:39,976 --> 00:21:45,306
We've got an outside consultant and we
have the Planning Commission.

392
00:21:45,306 --> 00:21:46,874
Can that be removed?

393
00:21:46,874 --> 00:21:52,492
We still wanted to give that some teeth
to— okay, you require a third party,

394
00:21:52,492 --> 00:21:54,710
where does it say that, right?

395
00:21:54,710 --> 00:21:57,593
Because, you know, in my understanding,

396
00:21:57,593 --> 00:22:03,580
we have This kind of provides a framework
to say a third party can do the role of

397
00:22:03,580 --> 00:22:06,241
this and can provide review to this.

398
00:22:06,241 --> 00:22:10,529
I kind of have some questions further down
in the article.

399
00:22:10,529 --> 00:22:14,447
It talks about it again in the design
review process,

400
00:22:14,447 --> 00:22:19,030
that maybe it could be this portion,
establishing a committee,

401
00:22:19,030 --> 00:22:25,017
could potentially be removed and it would
just exist in the design review process

402
00:22:25,017 --> 00:22:25,461
piece.

403
00:22:25,461 --> 00:22:25,927
Yes.

404
00:22:26,040 --> 00:22:31,798
Further 8.5, 8.6, give or take. But I
think that's a good question.

405
00:22:31,798 --> 00:22:36,288
Because if it's in there, then aren't we
supposed to have it?

406
00:22:36,288 --> 00:22:38,230
Well, we—

407
00:22:38,230 --> 00:22:38,973
Not the way it's worded.

408
00:22:38,973 --> 00:22:39,700
Pardon me?

409
00:22:39,700 --> 00:22:41,574
I don't think so in the way they worded
it.

410
00:22:41,574 --> 00:22:42,010
That's where, okay.

411
00:22:42,010 --> 00:22:45,565
Yeah, shall be provided by third party
unless the Board of Commissioners

412
00:22:45,565 --> 00:22:46,009
unless the Board of Commissioners
otherwise

413
00:22:46,009 --> 00:22:47,441
determines. I think that was—

414
00:22:47,441 --> 00:22:52,249
But I will say, it might be good, and
maybe that is in here, In powers and

415
00:22:52,249 --> 00:22:52,703
maybe that is in here, In powers and
duties,

416
00:22:52,703 --> 00:22:57,186
just to— it says the Design Review
Committee shall be responsible for

417
00:22:57,186 --> 00:22:57,836
Committee shall be responsible for
reviewing.

418
00:22:57,836 --> 00:22:59,234
Right.

419
00:22:59,234 --> 00:23:02,544
Are we calling the third party the Design
Review Committee?

420
00:23:02,544 --> 00:23:05,747
I'm trying to remember what I called it
further down,

421
00:23:05,747 --> 00:23:10,581
but I believe I called it the third-party
design consultant or something in that

422
00:23:10,581 --> 00:23:13,663
nature. And I referenced it at the header
of 8.3.6.

423
00:23:13,663 --> 00:23:16,433
Maybe you could say something like a
Design Review Committee,

424
00:23:16,433 --> 00:23:17,841
whether appointed by the Right.

425
00:23:18,034 --> 00:23:21,151
And I tried to link them.

426
00:23:21,151 --> 00:23:25,688
Whether a third party appointed by the— or
a regular committee, however you say it,

427
00:23:25,688 --> 00:23:27,546
shall have these responsibilities.

428
00:23:27,546 --> 00:23:29,443
And I tried to link them in terms of—

429
00:23:29,443 --> 00:23:29,700
Okay.

430
00:23:29,828 --> 00:23:30,744
If you think you've done that.

431
00:23:30,744 --> 00:23:35,301
Of A, and there may be a better way I can
do it, but I've linked them,

432
00:23:35,301 --> 00:23:38,947
or I've tried to link them, at least in
theory, under A,

433
00:23:38,947 --> 00:23:43,178
authority shall be provided by third party
unless otherwise done,

434
00:23:43,178 --> 00:23:45,717
and then But I certainly see the point.

435
00:23:45,717 --> 00:23:51,055
Then there's all this— because if it is a
town board, okay, who, who, what, where,

436
00:23:51,055 --> 00:23:54,831
when, how, why, you know, what's their
term, what's their—

437
00:23:54,831 --> 00:23:59,340
But at that point, we could go through
what we have done in the case of

438
00:23:59,340 --> 00:23:59,975
what we have done in the case of
Buttercup,

439
00:23:59,975 --> 00:24:01,690
right? And so there can be—

440
00:24:01,690 --> 00:24:02,875
You could create one.

441
00:24:02,875 --> 00:24:08,273
So the verbiage that you have left within
that particular section gives the

442
00:24:08,273 --> 00:24:12,807
allowance to determine if the third party
is no longer working,

443
00:24:12,807 --> 00:24:15,038
we could then adjust as needed.

444
00:24:15,038 --> 00:24:18,549
Right. And it may be one where this is
almost a vestige piece,

445
00:24:18,549 --> 00:24:20,022
and it doesn't have to be.

446
00:24:20,022 --> 00:24:23,703
We can— but I'd like to maybe talk,
continue to explore this one.

447
00:24:23,703 --> 00:24:27,951
I think this is a good— because the
section that we're in is kind of saying

448
00:24:27,951 --> 00:24:28,404
section that we're in is kind of saying
the who,

449
00:24:28,404 --> 00:24:31,066
right? We've talked about zoning
administrator.

450
00:24:31,066 --> 00:24:35,200
We, at least in their previously mentioned
BOC, but we've taken that out.

451
00:24:35,200 --> 00:24:39,165
Because we don't need to say they were
created by state law, you know.

452
00:24:39,165 --> 00:24:42,166
But the zoning, you know, historic zoning
is in here.

453
00:24:42,166 --> 00:24:45,678
And other places where it's not otherwise
created, membership,

454
00:24:45,678 --> 00:24:48,736
all those kinds of things, if they have no
other home,

455
00:24:48,736 --> 00:24:52,077
this is a good place to give them the
ability to— you know,

456
00:24:52,077 --> 00:24:55,419
we could either leave them there and it's
already in there,

457
00:24:55,419 --> 00:24:59,723
or we could remove it and say in the
design review piece further down in the

458
00:24:59,723 --> 00:25:03,914
document, design review shall be done,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

459
00:25:03,914 --> 00:25:04,023
By?

460
00:25:04,713 --> 00:25:07,055
By committee or— Because we'll talk about
it.

461
00:25:07,055 --> 00:25:09,137
It's just that— and like I said earlier,

462
00:25:09,137 --> 00:25:12,729
I don't want to beat it to death because
we've got good explanations.

463
00:25:12,729 --> 00:25:16,008
It's just if it's here, somebody's going
to say, wait a minute,

464
00:25:16,008 --> 00:25:19,495
where's the review committee? You said you
have a review committee.

465
00:25:19,495 --> 00:25:23,138
You're not having a review committee now.
Why is my stuff turned down?

466
00:25:23,138 --> 00:25:26,105
You say, well— so just so that it's kind
of an either/or,

467
00:25:26,105 --> 00:25:27,979
that's clear is all I'm looking for.

468
00:25:27,979 --> 00:25:29,232
And I think we've got that in A.

469
00:25:29,232 --> 00:25:29,521
Yeah.

470
00:25:29,826 --> 00:25:30,003
Okay.

471
00:25:30,806 --> 00:25:32,284
As long as that's— that's—

472
00:25:33,617 --> 00:25:34,806
well, you have other questions?

473
00:25:34,806 --> 00:25:38,933
Uh, yeah, just real quick. On page 15, you
talk about a development review.

474
00:25:38,933 --> 00:25:43,115
Part of the time it says committee, part
of the time it says— in your notes,

475
00:25:43,115 --> 00:25:46,966
I think it says team, and I think it
should state team because, again,

476
00:25:46,966 --> 00:25:51,368
committee gives the impression that there
are going to be other people involved.

477
00:25:51,368 --> 00:25:54,629
At least on my screen, it looks like I've
every cross out is—

478
00:25:54,629 --> 00:25:55,801
UK.

479
00:25:55,801 --> 00:25:58,055
Yeah. I've removed them.

480
00:25:58,281 --> 00:26:02,365
Yeah, yeah, you started to change, but
there's still some.

481
00:26:02,365 --> 00:26:05,815
Okay, there was still a couple spots where
I saw.

482
00:26:05,815 --> 00:26:11,448
But anyway, and then, um, the only last
thing, um, I had was for public notices,

483
00:26:11,448 --> 00:26:16,729
readable signs. I think somebody recently
just posted on social media about

484
00:26:16,729 --> 00:26:22,291
complaining about trying to read a Zoning
change signs on the side of the road,

485
00:26:22,291 --> 00:26:26,445
you know, you either got to pull off to
try to read it, uh,

486
00:26:26,445 --> 00:26:32,289
and I'm sure there are probably statutes
say they only have to be this size or this

487
00:26:32,289 --> 00:26:34,683
size, but just out of convenience,

488
00:26:34,683 --> 00:26:39,401
it would be nice if those were more
visible for people when you're—

489
00:26:39,401 --> 00:26:42,217
when your neighborhood is being changed.

490
00:26:42,217 --> 00:26:45,808
It's nice to see, be able to catch the
information.

491
00:26:45,808 --> 00:26:50,505
For that, for that portion, I generally—
that's My opinion, I guess, in a way,

492
00:26:50,505 --> 00:26:53,697
is that I generally see the posted sign
as, you know,

493
00:26:53,697 --> 00:26:57,010
a physical reminder that something's going
on, go look,

494
00:26:57,010 --> 00:26:59,479
versus here's all the information you're—

495
00:26:59,479 --> 00:27:03,333
that you would ever have and you'll see it
as you're zipping by.

496
00:27:03,333 --> 00:27:08,211
That's kind of at least how I imagine the
purpose of it is that, hey, I drove by—

497
00:27:08,211 --> 00:27:13,150
I drive by here and I want to, you know,
and there's something that has, you know,

498
00:27:13,150 --> 00:27:15,619
gone to the level that requires a posted—

499
00:27:15,619 --> 00:27:15,667
Sign.

500
00:27:15,970 --> 00:27:19,858
Notice, go look at the town's website or
whatever it may be.

501
00:27:19,858 --> 00:27:26,085
Any further discussion on items on pages,
I think, 1 through 32?

502
00:27:26,085 --> 00:27:31,483
Just under third party, is there another
space that tells us, you know,

503
00:27:31,483 --> 00:27:36,425
it's the third party, is that decided by a
request for proposals,

504
00:27:36,425 --> 00:27:41,215
request for qualifications? Is that
defined in another section?

505
00:27:41,567 --> 00:27:44,869
It has to through state law for us to go
into—

506
00:27:44,869 --> 00:27:48,746
we have to follow the procurement process
for us to do

507
00:27:48,746 --> 00:27:50,325
anything, essentially.

508
00:27:50,325 --> 00:27:53,367
So I know we have to. I'm saying, do we
need to make that clear?

509
00:27:53,367 --> 00:27:56,849
I don't think so, because we have to,
right?

510
00:27:56,849 --> 00:27:59,223
No matter if we say, you know,

511
00:27:59,223 --> 00:28:05,634
we have to comply with all federal and
state laws no matter what, for everything,

512
00:28:05,634 --> 00:28:11,411
for public notice even. No matter what, we
have to comply with state law.

513
00:28:11,411 --> 00:28:13,785
Are you comfortable with that?

514
00:28:13,785 --> 00:28:15,775
Sure.

515
00:28:16,275 --> 00:28:16,436
Okay.

516
00:28:16,436 --> 00:28:22,029
You could have Charles give you the TCA
that matches with that particular one just

517
00:28:22,029 --> 00:28:23,325
to list underneath.

518
00:28:23,325 --> 00:28:24,085
Right.

519
00:28:24,165 --> 00:28:29,626
And for example, those 2 design reviews
went to a contract and went to the Board

520
00:28:29,626 --> 00:28:29,763
went to a contract and went to the Board
of

521
00:28:29,763 --> 00:28:34,609
Commissioners ultimately for their
approval on that. And that contract.

522
00:28:34,609 --> 00:28:40,343
If no other questions, on page 32, kind of
the main one we left— excuse me, page 33.

523
00:28:40,343 --> 00:28:43,620
But so, and again, kind of big picture
reminder,

524
00:28:43,620 --> 00:28:49,217
one of the big changes that we've talked
about is the splitting or the addition of

525
00:28:49,217 --> 00:28:52,085
what we are calling as a development plan.

526
00:28:52,085 --> 00:28:57,136
And the development plan is something that
has a modification of standard.

527
00:28:57,136 --> 00:28:57,329
Yes.

528
00:28:59,596 --> 00:29:04,129
A modification of standard as we have
written is listed on page 33,

529
00:29:04,129 --> 00:29:08,460
and the 2 ones that we came across from
when we talked about it—

530
00:29:08,460 --> 00:29:12,723
you scroll down just a little more— is the
following standards,

531
00:29:12,723 --> 00:29:15,294
and this is from last month's meeting:

532
00:29:15,294 --> 00:29:20,572
the following standards shall not be
considered for a modification of standard

533
00:29:20,572 --> 00:29:22,737
request. And we're— if I recall,

534
00:29:22,737 --> 00:29:27,135
there's kind of Almost evenly split among
the Commission of some,

535
00:29:27,135 --> 00:29:28,894
what I'll call guardrails,

536
00:29:28,894 --> 00:29:33,022
or some sorts of limitations to
modification of the Standard,

537
00:29:33,022 --> 00:29:38,164
and then another kind of half that wanted
the allowance of you ask for them.

538
00:29:38,164 --> 00:29:43,781
The 2 that we have right now listed shall
not be considered for modification of the

539
00:29:43,781 --> 00:29:48,111
Standard's request are twofold, and it's
density and open space.

540
00:29:48,111 --> 00:29:49,171
Okay.

541
00:29:51,070 --> 00:29:54,912
So I guess I kind of asked the Commission,
is, is that acceptable?

542
00:29:54,912 --> 00:29:58,405
That was kind of the, the big topic of
last month's meeting,

543
00:29:58,405 --> 00:30:00,733
so I want to make sure we touch on that.

544
00:30:00,733 --> 00:30:07,213
Height is still one of my concerns, right,
that we need to look at, um, when,

545
00:30:07,213 --> 00:30:10,580
when you have an additional story above.

546
00:30:10,580 --> 00:30:15,629
And it depends on whether you're looking
at residential, uh,

547
00:30:15,629 --> 00:30:20,258
and what's facing the street versus what's
on the back.

548
00:30:20,258 --> 00:30:24,214
And if you're looking at more of CD-4 or
CD-4C,

549
00:30:24,214 --> 00:30:30,021
where you're looking at mixed-use
buildings that all of a sudden are—

550
00:30:30,021 --> 00:30:34,818
people are going to be saying, we've got
3-story max now.

551
00:30:34,818 --> 00:30:39,531
Well, it says here I can add another
story. And I don't—

552
00:30:39,531 --> 00:30:42,245
Well, it says you might be able to add
another story.

553
00:30:42,245 --> 00:30:42,406
Right.

554
00:30:42,406 --> 00:30:43,337
It doesn't guarantee it.

555
00:30:43,724 --> 00:30:46,045
But it still gives them that opportunity.

556
00:30:46,045 --> 00:30:46,613
It does.

557
00:30:46,613 --> 00:30:50,430
And I would be opposed to any height limit
behind.

558
00:30:50,430 --> 00:30:56,003
And that's been proven both— in both of
our major developments right now,

559
00:30:56,003 --> 00:31:02,111
Town Square and Darcy, that they're quite
successful building 3-story buildings.

560
00:31:02,111 --> 00:31:05,928
They're all 3-story except for one in Town
Square.

561
00:31:05,928 --> 00:31:11,883
So I think there needs to be— Uh, some
real serious thought because let's face

562
00:31:11,883 --> 00:31:12,112
real serious thought because let's face
it,

563
00:31:12,112 --> 00:31:15,013
you give somebody a crack in the door,

564
00:31:15,013 --> 00:31:21,426
they're going to have their foot in there
and they're going to be pushing for, well,

565
00:31:21,426 --> 00:31:27,305
it says I can ask for more, so I want—
and, and this board right now may say,

566
00:31:27,305 --> 00:31:27,610
and, and this board right now may say,
hey,

567
00:31:27,610 --> 00:31:33,107
you know, we're opposed to it, but 2 years
from now we have a change in,

568
00:31:33,107 --> 00:31:38,604
in who's on this board, and we may have
folks who are saying, hey, yeah,

569
00:31:38,604 --> 00:31:42,650
I want high density. I want 4 and 5-story
apartments.

570
00:31:42,650 --> 00:31:44,253
So I think, you know,

571
00:31:44,253 --> 00:31:50,590
I will fight for not being able to raise
particularly buildings in CD-4 for another

572
00:31:50,590 --> 00:31:51,048
story.

573
00:31:51,048 --> 00:32:00,770
What are the advantages to allowing one
additional story in specific situations?

574
00:32:03,770 --> 00:32:06,150
Is that—

575
00:32:08,337 --> 00:32:08,835
wait.

576
00:32:08,835 --> 00:32:10,843
From a design perspective,

577
00:32:10,843 --> 00:32:16,094
it's not inappropriate to consider
increasing the number of stories,

578
00:32:16,094 --> 00:32:21,808
especially if you're trying to feature
certain prominence of architecture.

579
00:32:21,808 --> 00:32:27,600
You know, when I went through graduate
school in urban design and planning,

580
00:32:27,600 --> 00:32:34,086
there was a lot of emphasis on corners and
the need to really emphasize that from an

581
00:32:34,086 --> 00:32:36,017
architectural standpoint.

582
00:32:36,017 --> 00:32:41,963
If you look at the modification of
standard provisions, we've included in the

583
00:32:41,963 --> 00:32:42,426
standard provisions, we've included in the
draft,

584
00:32:42,426 --> 00:32:48,604
I hope, a provision that basically says
that we will do a visual analysis of the

585
00:32:48,604 --> 00:32:50,148
surrounding context.

586
00:32:50,148 --> 00:32:50,443
And—

587
00:32:52,587 --> 00:32:58,403
Discussing this with certain members of
the Planning Commission in advance of the

588
00:32:58,403 --> 00:33:03,717
meeting, the concern was raised about
having an abrupt change going from 2

589
00:33:03,717 --> 00:33:04,219
having an abrupt change going from 2
stories

590
00:33:04,219 --> 00:33:09,533
to 4 stories or 5 stories, or going from
multiple stories down to 1 story.

591
00:33:09,533 --> 00:33:15,564
I think again it behooves us from a design
practice standpoint to try to temper that

592
00:33:15,564 --> 00:33:21,380
type of request so that you're basically
considering In the case of a multifamily

593
00:33:21,380 --> 00:33:24,971
structure going from 2 stories to 2.5 or 3
to 3.5,

594
00:33:24,971 --> 00:33:30,858
where you're allowed the opportunity to
occupy that otherwise unusable attic space

595
00:33:30,858 --> 00:33:32,869
in a pitched roof structure.

596
00:33:32,869 --> 00:33:37,177
In the case of a building like Village
Square— or excuse me,

597
00:33:37,177 --> 00:33:40,624
Village Green down here where Publix is
located,

598
00:33:40,624 --> 00:33:46,224
it wouldn't be unusual in good urban
design practice to see that corner With a

599
00:33:46,224 --> 00:33:46,583
design practice to see that corner With a
punch

600
00:33:46,583 --> 00:33:52,256
of height in order to emphasize and frame
the public space and the public realm

601
00:33:52,256 --> 00:33:54,051
around that intersection.

602
00:33:54,051 --> 00:33:59,077
It really boils down to something that's
tasteful, but also practical,

603
00:33:59,077 --> 00:34:03,888
and it reinforces kind of the urban or
public edge to include that.

604
00:34:03,888 --> 00:34:09,489
Is it going to give a developer, you know,
some extra developable real estate?

605
00:34:09,489 --> 00:34:11,643
Obviously, yes. That would be—

606
00:34:11,643 --> 00:34:11,788
Yes.

607
00:34:12,698 --> 00:34:14,539
Certainly something to consider.

608
00:34:14,539 --> 00:34:18,277
It's very unfortunate when you look at the
Village Green project,

609
00:34:18,277 --> 00:34:21,498
you see a number of 2-story structures
from the outside,

610
00:34:21,498 --> 00:34:25,640
but when you look at the inside of them,
those aren't 2-story buildings,

611
00:34:25,640 --> 00:34:28,458
they're one. And it's unfortunate that,
you know,

612
00:34:28,458 --> 00:34:32,887
there was an emphasis placed on something
that really created kind of a false

613
00:34:32,887 --> 00:34:36,166
impression from, you know, the interior of
the structure.

614
00:34:36,166 --> 00:34:39,502
I'm not suggesting that we look for a
similar type of Yes.

615
00:34:39,502 --> 00:34:43,701
I think that's a reasonable kind of
approach here that should be a usable

616
00:34:43,701 --> 00:34:44,219
approach here that should be a usable
component

617
00:34:44,219 --> 00:34:48,072
within a building. I think as the
community continues to build out,

618
00:34:48,072 --> 00:34:52,271
we obviously need to be sensitive to
height and obviously the surrounding

619
00:34:52,271 --> 00:34:52,732
height and obviously the surrounding
context.

620
00:34:52,732 --> 00:34:56,700
And I think it's in that spirit that you
would want to consider that.

621
00:34:56,700 --> 00:35:01,244
Can you place certain limitations or
design criteria for height? You absolutely

622
00:35:01,244 --> 00:35:01,475
design criteria for height? You absolutely
can.

623
00:35:01,475 --> 00:35:05,788
further modify the modification of
standard provision to say that you can't

624
00:35:05,788 --> 00:35:06,249
standard provision to say that you can't
increase

625
00:35:06,249 --> 00:35:08,377
the number of stories by more than 1,

626
00:35:08,377 --> 00:35:12,633
or it could be by more than a half in the
case of a residential structure.

627
00:35:12,633 --> 00:35:17,292
I mean, there's, there's things you can do
to create guardrails so that you don't

628
00:35:17,292 --> 00:35:22,124
have a situation where somebody's creating
a kind of a runaway design consideration.

629
00:35:22,124 --> 00:35:24,644
Could you limit it to a corner like you're
talking about?

630
00:35:24,644 --> 00:35:25,930
It could be corners.

631
00:35:25,930 --> 00:35:30,302
It could be something that's to the
interior of a major development.

632
00:35:30,302 --> 00:35:35,574
That way it's not— you're not imposing a
multi-story or a much higher structure on

633
00:35:35,574 --> 00:35:39,946
the edge of a project that's basically
adjoining in terms of impact.

634
00:35:39,946 --> 00:35:45,282
There's lots of different design criteria
that you could put on that that would set

635
00:35:45,282 --> 00:35:50,362
limitations on it, but still provide an
applicant with a reasonable opportunity

636
00:35:50,362 --> 00:35:54,605
based on good design practice to give
consideration to that. Okay.

637
00:35:55,456 --> 00:35:57,686
Anyone else on the Commission have a
thought on—

638
00:35:57,686 --> 00:36:02,828
My only concern with limiting it
completely is even if you take what we

639
00:36:02,828 --> 00:36:03,480
completely is even if you take what we
currently

640
00:36:03,480 --> 00:36:06,087
annexed, which is roughly 700 acres,

641
00:36:06,087 --> 00:36:11,519
and you look at the topography of that
particular area, if you were to put—

642
00:36:11,519 --> 00:36:14,850
so here's what I appreciate, no more than
one.

643
00:36:14,850 --> 00:36:20,354
So if that particular verbiage could be
added in, I think that's beneficial.

644
00:36:20,483 --> 00:36:21,493
But limiting it there now—

645
00:36:22,087 --> 00:36:25,177
It is, right. And so having that in and
making that—

646
00:36:25,177 --> 00:36:29,813
all of these items Brad and I spoke
through would be individual modifications,

647
00:36:29,813 --> 00:36:33,794
I'm assuming, much like, you know, that
town that starts with an F,

648
00:36:33,794 --> 00:36:38,132
where they come in and each modification
is something that gets approved.

649
00:36:38,132 --> 00:36:41,520
So there might be 10 modifications, you
accept 6 of them.

650
00:36:41,520 --> 00:36:46,096
My concern with eliminating height
completely is if you look at topography of

651
00:36:46,096 --> 00:36:49,186
certain places, i.e., the land that we
just Annexed.

652
00:36:49,186 --> 00:36:49,397
Annexed.

653
00:36:50,028 --> 00:36:55,724
And there is the capability of putting the
first or second story at ground level and

654
00:36:55,724 --> 00:36:59,793
then working up, but it's level to the
rest of the building.

655
00:36:59,793 --> 00:37:03,659
You may end up with a 3, dare I say
4-structure building,

656
00:37:03,659 --> 00:37:05,693
but it's the same height as 2.

657
00:37:05,693 --> 00:37:09,355
But if we limit height completely or story
completely,

658
00:37:09,355 --> 00:37:14,713
that would not lend towards having an
architectural view that might be somewhat

659
00:37:14,713 --> 00:37:19,866
appealing. So that's my only concern with
putting it on as a totality of no.

660
00:37:19,866 --> 00:37:25,292
But I do understand the concern where
we're looking at like 3 stories in an area

661
00:37:25,292 --> 00:37:30,717
that is prominently single or 2 stories.
So I do understand the thought process.

662
00:37:30,717 --> 00:37:33,565
I just don't know if it's complete for me.

663
00:37:33,565 --> 00:37:37,689
That's an excellent point because in the
case of a residential structure,

664
00:37:37,689 --> 00:37:40,343
oftentimes when you're dealing with
topography,

665
00:37:40,343 --> 00:37:44,806
you have a walkout condition basically off
You may have a story that as you are

666
00:37:44,806 --> 00:37:48,365
looking at the dwelling from the front is
completely concealed,

667
00:37:48,365 --> 00:37:51,189
but it's still part of the number of story
makeup.

668
00:37:51,189 --> 00:37:55,802
Then perhaps my compromise is what's
facing out, street face,

669
00:37:55,802 --> 00:37:57,541
could remain 3 stories,

670
00:37:57,541 --> 00:38:03,667
but if it's in the back of the building
because of the topography, you could Yes.

671
00:38:03,667 --> 00:38:09,263
You could have an add— you could
residentially, you've got a basement, you

672
00:38:09,263 --> 00:38:09,641
residentially, you've got a basement, you
know,

673
00:38:09,641 --> 00:38:15,539
you could have a 3-story house that's
built on a slope and you've got a garage

674
00:38:15,539 --> 00:38:15,842
built on a slope and you've got a garage
or a

675
00:38:15,842 --> 00:38:17,430
basement in the back.

676
00:38:17,430 --> 00:38:20,681
I can see that same thing with some of
the—

677
00:38:20,681 --> 00:38:26,656
I think there's some of the townhouses in
Town Square on the front appear to be

678
00:38:26,656 --> 00:38:32,857
2-story, but they're actually 3 because of
the topography and they've put a garage

679
00:38:32,857 --> 00:38:38,755
underneath. So, you know, if we're looking
at something like that, that would—

680
00:38:38,755 --> 00:38:43,266
You could still see a similar experience
even with a nonresidential structure on

681
00:38:43,266 --> 00:38:43,773
occasion.

682
00:38:43,773 --> 00:38:44,550
Yeah.

683
00:38:44,615 --> 00:38:45,036
And I'm saying—

684
00:38:45,036 --> 00:38:47,366
Especially if you're having to deal with
grades.

685
00:38:47,366 --> 00:38:49,368
Any other Commissioners have some thoughts
on this?

686
00:38:49,368 --> 00:38:49,497
Yeah.

687
00:38:49,546 --> 00:38:55,338
I'll just— I'll also just weigh in and say
that I think of these that are listed,

688
00:38:55,338 --> 00:38:59,843
height is also the one to me that stands
out as one to rethink.

689
00:38:59,843 --> 00:39:05,135
Because you state above that the purpose
of this is for— how do you write—

690
00:39:05,135 --> 00:39:10,641
to grant minor relief from development
standards under limited circumstances.

691
00:39:10,641 --> 00:39:14,788
Adding another story to a development is
not minor relief.

692
00:39:14,788 --> 00:39:17,863
That's on a 3-story building, 33%
increase.

693
00:39:17,863 --> 00:39:21,081
I think it's verbiage change is what we
need.

694
00:39:21,081 --> 00:39:24,585
There's just some— a little bit of
clarification.

695
00:39:24,585 --> 00:39:28,733
As to how we go about presenting what they
are able to do.

696
00:39:28,733 --> 00:39:34,025
And so I do think there's some verbiage
change to what you have presented.

697
00:39:34,025 --> 00:39:39,317
Again, I have some hesitation on the
limitation that we put on the height.

698
00:39:39,317 --> 00:39:41,248
I think it should be there,

699
00:39:41,248 --> 00:39:46,254
but I also am concerned again about how
the project build-out happens,

700
00:39:46,254 --> 00:39:51,832
especially with— as we work our way
towards the the South and what those plots

701
00:39:51,832 --> 00:39:52,118
towards the the South and what those plots
look

702
00:39:52,118 --> 00:39:55,479
like, I do worry about putting that
limitation.

703
00:39:55,479 --> 00:40:01,128
So I think if there is some better legal
verbiage that we could put within that

704
00:40:01,128 --> 00:40:06,635
maybe specifies a singular story or— and
so maybe that is something, Charles,

705
00:40:06,635 --> 00:40:11,426
that you could work with staff and just
kind of rewrite that issue.

706
00:40:11,426 --> 00:40:14,968
Does anyone else on the Commission have a
point of view you would like to express?

707
00:40:16,297 --> 00:40:20,966
Just that I agree. I think the height one
is a bit tricky because we've seen those

708
00:40:20,966 --> 00:40:24,895
structures where they drop down and
they're definitely not 2 stories,

709
00:40:24,895 --> 00:40:28,881
they're much more. So I don't know, I
don't have a solution right now.

710
00:40:28,881 --> 00:40:31,064
When architects design and they—

711
00:40:31,064 --> 00:40:35,838
I'm using the corner because I think it's
the easiest for me at least.

712
00:40:35,838 --> 00:40:37,634
Yeah.

713
00:40:37,634 --> 00:40:39,205
The reason that they— sorry.

714
00:40:39,205 --> 00:40:40,439
Go ahead.

715
00:40:40,439 --> 00:40:46,222
The reason that they I think the reason
they do it is because it adds an effect

716
00:40:46,222 --> 00:40:51,712
that's pleasing to the eye and maybe as
well, perhaps it should be as well,

717
00:40:51,712 --> 00:40:57,787
not maybe, there is a practical reason for
doing it in terms of making the most use

718
00:40:57,787 --> 00:41:03,570
of the property. I struggle a little bit
with an absolute insistence that nope,

719
00:41:03,570 --> 00:41:06,278
3 is it, can't do any more than that,

720
00:41:06,278 --> 00:41:10,158
because the world doesn't really work
quite that way.

721
00:41:10,158 --> 00:41:15,648
In most cases, there are reasons why it is
allowed in so many other places,

722
00:41:15,648 --> 00:41:18,210
why we are saying 3, and we're not—

723
00:41:18,210 --> 00:41:23,041
I haven't heard a reason for that yet that
could get me behind it.

724
00:41:23,041 --> 00:41:27,579
I would allow the extra, again, as a
modification of standard.

725
00:41:27,579 --> 00:41:32,128
We'll commit to doing some additional
research to see if there's some additional

726
00:41:32,128 --> 00:41:36,905
practices and Are there some policies that
we could present that will help to create

727
00:41:36,905 --> 00:41:40,488
a better framework that will limit the
extent of the number of—

728
00:41:40,488 --> 00:41:42,825
Yeah, possibly when listing height,

729
00:41:42,825 --> 00:41:46,965
say limited to either an additional story
or 10-foot increase,

730
00:41:46,965 --> 00:41:50,170
whichever is lesser of the maximum or
something.

731
00:41:50,170 --> 00:41:54,377
I'm confident that we can find some
examples out there that will give us a

732
00:41:54,377 --> 00:41:54,605
examples out there that will give us a
nice

733
00:41:54,605 --> 00:41:59,267
balance, but also give applicants a little
bit more of an array of tools that they

734
00:41:59,267 --> 00:42:03,815
can consider. Obviously, the intent is to
try to improve design and development,

735
00:42:03,815 --> 00:42:07,511
not necessarily just give somebody a boost
in the square footage.

736
00:42:07,511 --> 00:42:07,849
Right.

737
00:42:07,849 --> 00:42:09,358
You know, do it for all the right reasons.

738
00:42:09,358 --> 00:42:10,177
Thank you.

739
00:42:10,177 --> 00:42:13,468
And I will note just one is that in the
current,

740
00:42:13,468 --> 00:42:18,609
we do have it stated limited to one
additional story above maximum allowed.

741
00:42:18,609 --> 00:42:21,968
So that is stated currently in the draft
version.

742
00:42:21,968 --> 00:42:27,179
Now, so to Chuck's point, I mean, we can—
again, it's almost one where I go,

743
00:42:27,179 --> 00:42:32,389
what do I do? I'll say it more bluntly, I
guess, is that I go, I'm not sure.

744
00:42:32,389 --> 00:42:37,805
I don't want folks to raise their hand or
anything, but part of me is like, OK,

745
00:42:37,805 --> 00:42:40,684
I'm counting 2. I'm counting maybe 2 to 3.

746
00:42:40,684 --> 00:42:45,381
I think we're talking about the fact that
it might be more than one story based on

747
00:42:45,381 --> 00:42:49,333
topography, let's say. That could be a
situation to the south, right?

748
00:42:49,333 --> 00:42:53,343
Or, I mean, I know for sure, like, even in
my own neighborhood, right,

749
00:42:53,343 --> 00:42:56,436
we have houses that look one story and
they're like 3,

750
00:42:56,436 --> 00:43:01,019
and you wouldn't know unless you were
going around to the back and you saw that,

751
00:43:01,019 --> 00:43:03,768
but that was purely based on just the
landscape.

752
00:43:03,768 --> 00:43:04,492
Mm-hmm.

753
00:43:04,492 --> 00:43:08,557
So if we say you can't add more than one
story and that's our limit,

754
00:43:08,557 --> 00:43:10,051
should that be our limit?

755
00:43:10,051 --> 00:43:12,084
And what I'm hearing is us saying,

756
00:43:12,084 --> 00:43:15,192
I'm not sure that should be how we define
the limit.

757
00:43:15,192 --> 00:43:16,806
If it's within a— you know,

758
00:43:16,806 --> 00:43:20,871
as like Len was saying about the focal
point of the corridor, right?

759
00:43:20,871 --> 00:43:24,278
There could be a reason for it to be more
than one story.

760
00:43:24,278 --> 00:43:25,803
Right.

761
00:43:25,979 --> 00:43:30,738
And one additional note that I'll state
is, you know, this is to Terry's point,

762
00:43:30,738 --> 00:43:35,016
is that right now we have these
modifications of standards going to the

763
00:43:35,016 --> 00:43:35,377
modifications of standards going to the
Board,

764
00:43:35,377 --> 00:43:37,486
Board of Commissioners essentially.

765
00:43:37,486 --> 00:43:41,341
So it would— similar to how we handle
resolutions or ordinances,

766
00:43:41,341 --> 00:43:45,679
that this commission would give a
recommendation and then ultimately the

767
00:43:45,679 --> 00:43:46,341
recommendation and then ultimately the
board would

768
00:43:46,341 --> 00:43:48,149
be the arbiter or the decider.

769
00:43:48,149 --> 00:43:52,064
I don't know if that allays the fears or,
or the concerns or not,

770
00:43:52,064 --> 00:43:54,173
and I'm happy you guys let me know.

771
00:43:54,173 --> 00:43:57,913
Meaning that the Planning Commission is
not the ultimate decision maker with the

772
00:43:57,913 --> 00:43:59,128
modification of standards?

773
00:43:59,128 --> 00:43:59,691
Correct.

774
00:43:59,691 --> 00:44:01,138
Which I think is a good guardrail.

775
00:44:01,138 --> 00:44:01,782
Correct.

776
00:44:02,940 --> 00:44:06,680
Um, one other thing before we maybe leave
page 33.

777
00:44:06,680 --> 00:44:09,447
Potentially other than height, right?

778
00:44:09,447 --> 00:44:11,093
Wherever height lands,

779
00:44:11,093 --> 00:44:16,628
whether it lands where it's currently
listed or moves to the one above it.

780
00:44:16,628 --> 00:44:18,722
Are there any other kind of—

781
00:44:18,722 --> 00:44:23,135
this was another one where we were kind of
split last time.

782
00:44:23,281 --> 00:44:23,685
Are there—

783
00:44:24,897 --> 00:44:30,425
would it be beneficial for us to list, you
know, as the wording is right now,

784
00:44:30,425 --> 00:44:36,169
the following standards may be considered
for a modification of standard parking

785
00:44:36,169 --> 00:44:38,180
set, but So on and so forth.

786
00:44:38,180 --> 00:44:44,211
There's some discussion to say don't have
anything or have some under point being is

787
00:44:44,211 --> 00:44:49,883
that here's your zoning ordinance. These
are your two to three non-negotiables.

788
00:44:49,883 --> 00:44:54,980
We're not even talking to you if if the
request is density, open space,

789
00:44:54,980 --> 00:45:00,724
and maybe height. And do we need to list
out just those or should it be Just for

790
00:45:00,724 --> 00:45:04,745
discussion, let's keep height where it is.
Do we delete—

791
00:45:04,745 --> 00:45:05,102
is there—

792
00:45:05,135 --> 00:45:06,270
do we delete the rest of them?

793
00:45:08,403 --> 00:45:11,866
Or— sorry. So you're basically— if I
understand you correctly, may I?

794
00:45:11,866 --> 00:45:12,349
Yes.

795
00:45:12,349 --> 00:45:16,455
It sounds like you're saying the following
standards shall not be considered for a

796
00:45:16,455 --> 00:45:19,159
modification of standard request: density,
open space.

797
00:45:19,899 --> 00:45:20,302
That's it.

798
00:45:20,800 --> 00:45:24,146
We make no further reference to it which
says that any other areas—

799
00:45:24,146 --> 00:45:24,725
Correct.

800
00:45:25,002 --> 00:45:26,897
You could request a modification of
standards.

801
00:45:26,897 --> 00:45:31,312
And we may have to— we'll figure out a way
to do height in some capacity, you know,

802
00:45:31,312 --> 00:45:32,854
and maybe it's just that one.

803
00:45:32,854 --> 00:45:34,122
Let's assume height makes it.

804
00:45:34,122 --> 00:45:34,781
Right.

805
00:45:34,877 --> 00:45:39,818
And let's just assume it's somewhere in
between, just for discussion's sake.

806
00:45:39,818 --> 00:45:45,215
The following standard may be considered
for modification of standard with a caveat

807
00:45:45,215 --> 00:45:46,841
or with additional rules.

808
00:45:46,841 --> 00:45:50,807
Height limited to 1, blah, blah, blah,
blah, whatever we say.

809
00:45:50,807 --> 00:45:53,082
All other standards are applicable.

810
00:45:53,082 --> 00:45:56,723
Within state law, you know, or something
to that nature.

811
00:45:56,723 --> 00:45:58,674
Thoughts on doing it that way?

812
00:45:58,674 --> 00:46:03,615
So the alternative is that we, we again
say, okay, you can modify standards,

813
00:46:03,615 --> 00:46:07,452
it can be these, and then we're double,
we're double going.

814
00:46:07,452 --> 00:46:09,922
And maybe somebody says, okay, I want—

815
00:46:09,922 --> 00:46:15,319
I'm asking for something that we haven't
considered yet. Signs. There's a good one.

816
00:46:15,319 --> 00:46:15,709
Signs.

817
00:46:16,544 --> 00:46:16,834
What was it?

818
00:46:16,834 --> 00:46:17,685
Landscape.

819
00:46:17,814 --> 00:46:24,851
There's a lot of signs, landscape buffer
signs, landscape buffer area, whatever.

820
00:46:24,899 --> 00:46:25,108
Just—

821
00:46:25,285 --> 00:46:27,335
I'm just picking stuff right now.

822
00:46:27,335 --> 00:46:30,752
We could say we cannot even entertain that
application.

823
00:46:30,752 --> 00:46:35,722
I'd be for either having nothing or saying
could be included and not limited to,

824
00:46:35,722 --> 00:46:39,202
and then basically referring to them as
examples, right?

825
00:46:39,202 --> 00:46:42,743
But this is implying that this is not an
exhaustive list.

826
00:46:43,360 --> 00:46:43,747
Agreed.

827
00:46:43,747 --> 00:46:44,054
Okay.

828
00:46:44,506 --> 00:46:45,184
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

829
00:46:45,879 --> 00:46:46,509
I got a majority.

830
00:46:46,719 --> 00:46:46,864
Okay.

831
00:46:47,607 --> 00:46:47,898
Okay.

832
00:46:47,898 --> 00:46:50,998
Is there—

833
00:46:50,998 --> 00:46:52,163
you're going to ultimately forget one?

834
00:46:52,163 --> 00:46:53,892
Yeah, correct.

835
00:46:53,892 --> 00:46:58,522
So it better— which I think is the same
way Smyrna, Franklin, Henderson Builders—

836
00:46:58,634 --> 00:47:02,019
yeah, correct. Um, and you know,

837
00:47:02,019 --> 00:47:06,780
I'd also say is that as we move through
this,

838
00:47:06,780 --> 00:47:10,800
potentially move through this process,

839
00:47:10,800 --> 00:47:15,984
if there's ones that we find out real
quick is a,

840
00:47:15,984 --> 00:47:20,216
is a no-go We can add it. We can add it.

841
00:47:20,216 --> 00:47:26,880
Is there anything else under the
development plan, uh, process?

842
00:47:26,880 --> 00:47:32,699
So that goes from page 34 to page 40, uh,
further down.

843
00:47:32,699 --> 00:47:37,029
No.

844
00:47:40,029 --> 00:47:40,493
56.

845
00:47:40,543 --> 00:47:46,560
Any comments between where we were and
page 56? Any comments for site plan?

846
00:47:46,560 --> 00:47:50,170
If— and just interrupt me if I went past
you.

847
00:47:50,170 --> 00:47:56,347
For site plans, that's the one that is not
as fleshed out. It may be obvious.

848
00:47:56,347 --> 00:48:03,005
Part of the reason is I wanted to kind of
hear and get through development plan and

849
00:48:03,005 --> 00:48:07,979
maybe use some of that same language and
cadence in, in terms—

850
00:48:07,979 --> 00:48:12,872
so those are kind of some placeholder
comments on site plans.

851
00:48:12,872 --> 00:48:15,359
So more to, more to come there.

852
00:48:15,359 --> 00:48:17,404
What page?

853
00:48:17,404 --> 00:48:23,884
56.

854
00:48:23,933 --> 00:48:34,120
More to, more to come on that one.

855
00:48:37,120 --> 00:48:42,215
But we are now going to be requiring a—

856
00:48:45,215 --> 00:48:45,765
no, I'm sorry.

857
00:48:45,765 --> 00:48:52,390
The site plan portion is probably the one
that is the least

858
00:48:52,390 --> 00:48:58,341
fleshed out. Um, wanting to grab feedback
from there.

859
00:48:58,341 --> 00:49:03,393
Anything with some of the additional
permits?

860
00:49:03,393 --> 00:49:07,099
This goes to the On page 56 down.

861
00:49:07,099 --> 00:49:13,723
That includes a temporary use permit, home
occupation, COs.

862
00:49:13,723 --> 00:49:19,225
Certificate of appropriateness is a part
of that.

863
00:49:19,225 --> 00:49:21,669
Let me ask it this way.

864
00:49:21,669 --> 00:49:24,007
Given your experience,

865
00:49:24,007 --> 00:49:29,427
Have you consciously excluded something in
terms of

866
00:49:29,427 --> 00:49:30,277
permits?

867
00:49:30,277 --> 00:49:31,002
No.

868
00:49:31,002 --> 00:49:32,179
That should be noteworthy?

869
00:49:32,179 --> 00:49:33,137
No.

870
00:49:33,137 --> 00:49:38,817
So what you're asking is, is there any
one-off or unusual—

871
00:49:38,817 --> 00:49:44,357
Or has anyone seen anything in the removal
or deletion or change in the proposed

872
00:49:44,357 --> 00:49:48,165
regulatory text that there's questions or
issues about?

873
00:49:48,165 --> 00:49:51,212
One thing that's kind of a big picture
item,

874
00:49:51,212 --> 00:49:56,336
and I'll use this time to talk about it,
is we removed a large portion of—

875
00:49:56,336 --> 00:49:58,275
I don't want to say removed,

876
00:49:58,275 --> 00:50:03,399
but we relocated a large portion of
submittal requirements. That's exactly

877
00:50:03,399 --> 00:50:03,814
submittal requirements. That's exactly
right.

878
00:50:03,814 --> 00:50:09,631
So you'll see pages and pages and pages of
applicant shall provide A, B, C, D, E, F,

879
00:50:09,631 --> 00:50:12,678
G. Well, Brad, why are you taking that
away?

880
00:50:12,678 --> 00:50:17,733
Right now, if we wanted to alter one that
says, instead of a north arrow,

881
00:50:17,733 --> 00:50:21,887
I want a north arrow with, you know, a
certain kind of font,

882
00:50:21,887 --> 00:50:26,873
something that is now a requirement that
every submittal should do for a

883
00:50:26,873 --> 00:50:27,635
every submittal should do for a
development

884
00:50:27,635 --> 00:50:32,690
plan, a site plan, whatever it may be,
that'd be about a 4-month process.

885
00:50:32,690 --> 00:50:36,567
We would have to change the zoning
ordinance to do that.

886
00:50:36,567 --> 00:50:40,999
Let's say, you know, we don't— let me give
you a better example.

887
00:50:40,999 --> 00:50:41,095
Okay.

888
00:50:42,618 --> 00:50:47,448
Right now, you know, the applicant is
required to submit 5 hard copies.

889
00:50:47,448 --> 00:50:52,277
We currently have an online submittal
system. We need essentially zero.

890
00:50:52,277 --> 00:50:53,638
Now, it's currently—

891
00:50:53,638 --> 00:50:59,216
we would need a 4-month process for us to
strike that comment and that requirement

892
00:50:59,216 --> 00:51:04,249
from each application or permit that
requires 5 submittals, 5 hard copies.

893
00:51:04,249 --> 00:51:07,990
What staff is proposing is that Under each
application,

894
00:51:07,990 --> 00:51:12,344
it would say a checklist will be provided
on the town's website,

895
00:51:12,344 --> 00:51:17,310
and some language to say that the
checklist is approvable by the Planning

896
00:51:17,310 --> 00:51:22,343
Commission. So we've had some folks
question some of our other checklists.

897
00:51:22,343 --> 00:51:25,608
Some applicants question some of our
checklists.

898
00:51:25,608 --> 00:51:31,254
We haven't fully talked through well in in
great detail, but in in the big picture,

899
00:51:31,254 --> 00:51:34,043
the Board of Commissioners approves this.

900
00:51:34,043 --> 00:51:35,948
Zoning ordinance as a whole,

901
00:51:35,948 --> 00:51:41,322
which gives power to Planning Commission
to kind of regulate its own checklist,

902
00:51:41,322 --> 00:51:43,090
and it will be found here.

903
00:51:43,090 --> 00:51:48,532
So let's say I want to remove item 1 on
the checklist that says you should bring

904
00:51:48,532 --> 00:51:48,668
the checklist that says you should bring
me

905
00:51:48,668 --> 00:51:52,545
5 copies to submit to the town's online
submittal system.

906
00:51:52,545 --> 00:51:57,919
I would bring it to you all at a regularly
scheduled meeting, you'd vote on it,

907
00:51:57,919 --> 00:52:03,497
and that checklist would then be changed.
That's the goal. It's still transparent.

908
00:52:03,497 --> 00:52:08,258
It's still there. The Board of
Commissioners has bequeathed that power

909
00:52:08,258 --> 00:52:09,007
Commissioners has bequeathed that power
rather than

910
00:52:09,007 --> 00:52:13,700
saying, I want to know every single
submittal document that's needed.

911
00:52:13,700 --> 00:52:18,802
And we've done that or proposed to do that
for every application or permit.

912
00:52:18,802 --> 00:52:20,138
And so that's what you've done?

913
00:52:20,138 --> 00:52:20,481
Yes.

914
00:52:20,481 --> 00:52:24,485
That's what you're proposing that we go
along with?

915
00:52:24,485 --> 00:52:27,232
Does anybody have comments on that?

916
00:52:27,232 --> 00:52:31,000
Well, it sounds like you've got the green
light.

917
00:52:31,000 --> 00:52:31,503
Great.

918
00:52:31,827 --> 00:52:37,054
Yeah, there are other municipalities that
do it.

919
00:52:37,054 --> 00:52:41,955
Um, Commissioner Salamida mentioned
Farragut.

920
00:52:41,955 --> 00:52:43,262
It's a joke.

921
00:52:43,262 --> 00:52:44,071
Okay.

922
00:52:44,071 --> 00:52:47,778
One of the other things on the certificate
of appropriateness,

923
00:52:47,778 --> 00:52:50,050
there's some discussion needed on, uh,

924
00:52:50,050 --> 00:52:54,354
condition of Demolition by neglect and
certificate of economic hardship.

925
00:52:54,354 --> 00:52:56,985
We've talked about that internally. Page
71.

926
00:52:56,985 --> 00:52:57,710
71.

927
00:52:57,710 --> 00:53:01,903
Um, right now those are kind of happening
as separate processes.

928
00:53:01,903 --> 00:53:03,935
State law allows us to do that.

929
00:53:03,935 --> 00:53:06,490
It allows us— it doesn't say you shall,

930
00:53:06,490 --> 00:53:10,290
at least my reading of it says you can do
this, and if so,

931
00:53:10,290 --> 00:53:14,746
you have to have reasonable standards and
here's these other things.

932
00:53:14,746 --> 00:53:19,267
We've talked about potentially making that
a part of a certificate of

933
00:53:19,267 --> 00:53:23,264
appropriateness, so it kind of follows one
submittal process.

934
00:53:23,264 --> 00:53:25,688
Right now, the demolition by neglect—

935
00:53:25,688 --> 00:53:30,472
essentially a petition has to be done and
certified to me that then I do—

936
00:53:30,472 --> 00:53:35,910
it's a long— I challenge, or I'd ask you
to read the process essentially, and, and,

937
00:53:35,910 --> 00:53:38,072
and you'd see why we've had zero.

938
00:53:38,072 --> 00:53:43,249
The economic hardship portion can be a
part of a certificate of Appropriateness

939
00:53:43,249 --> 00:53:43,380
part of a certificate of Appropriateness
is

940
00:53:43,380 --> 00:53:47,311
how I would kind of reword that, or a
demolition by neglect.

941
00:53:47,311 --> 00:53:52,562
So are you asking in terms of demolition
by neglect whether we agree with those?

942
00:53:52,562 --> 00:53:57,491
That's one thing. Or also what— a little
bit of— this is what I'm thinking about.

943
00:53:57,491 --> 00:53:59,145
And this is within the historic district?

944
00:53:59,145 --> 00:54:00,430
Correct, only.

945
00:54:00,430 --> 00:54:06,674
So, so, and so there is that house on the
corner of Nolensville Road, whatever.

946
00:54:06,674 --> 00:54:07,623
Um, is that—

947
00:54:07,848 --> 00:54:11,206
would that be a house that It would need
to do the process—

948
00:54:11,206 --> 00:54:15,874
shall be made by the zoning administrator
after an investigation that is initiated

949
00:54:15,874 --> 00:54:19,973
by a petition from any person who is
familiar with the subject property,

950
00:54:19,973 --> 00:54:22,990
which may include but not limited to a
town employee.

951
00:54:22,990 --> 00:54:25,722
On receipt— I mean, you can kind of follow
that.

952
00:54:25,722 --> 00:54:28,226
It becomes what I can— I think it becomes
a—

953
00:54:28,226 --> 00:54:32,268
I would put it as a part of the
certificate of appropriateness process.

954
00:54:32,268 --> 00:54:35,568
Would it then go before the historic zone?
Correct.

955
00:54:35,809 --> 00:54:36,581
So the—

956
00:54:36,581 --> 00:54:39,188
And here's my question ultimately.

957
00:54:39,188 --> 00:54:43,865
If there is clearly neglect based on what
you've listed here,

958
00:54:43,865 --> 00:54:49,921
can the Board of Zoning Appeals— Historic
Zoning, I'm sorry— can they overrule?

959
00:54:49,921 --> 00:54:55,902
Can they say, yeah, we agree with all
that, but we're not taking that building

960
00:54:55,902 --> 00:54:56,285
that, but we're not taking that building
down?

961
00:54:56,285 --> 00:55:03,446
I'm not sure. They would not issue the
certificate of appropriateness.

962
00:55:03,446 --> 00:55:04,233
Say again?

963
00:55:04,233 --> 00:55:07,783
Sorry, they would not issue the
certificate of appropriateness.

964
00:55:07,783 --> 00:55:10,206
So, okay, yes, they could do that,
correct?

965
00:55:10,206 --> 00:55:13,805
And the demolition by neglect provision,
it's actually aimed at staff,

966
00:55:13,805 --> 00:55:15,655
the town going out and enforcing it,

967
00:55:15,655 --> 00:55:19,768
as opposed to someone coming and asking
for a certificate of appropriateness and

968
00:55:19,768 --> 00:55:22,955
then you determining whether they've
demolished it by neglect.

969
00:55:22,955 --> 00:55:26,967
So the town could make that determination
without Historic zoning?

970
00:55:26,967 --> 00:55:30,869
Yeah, well, the historic— it'd be— it
would still go through historic zoning,

971
00:55:30,869 --> 00:55:32,086
but I'm saying it would—

972
00:55:32,086 --> 00:55:35,785
it could come before you without anybody
ever asking for a certificate of

973
00:55:35,785 --> 00:55:36,596
appropriateness.

974
00:55:36,596 --> 00:55:36,921
Okay.

975
00:55:39,921 --> 00:55:40,034
Yeah.

976
00:55:40,339 --> 00:55:40,548
Okay.

977
00:55:40,548 --> 00:55:43,911
My point, in a way, is that it's a con— I
think there's a lot of work.

978
00:55:43,911 --> 00:55:47,659
I'm almost just trying to kind of say,
here's some things we're looking to do.

979
00:55:47,659 --> 00:55:48,956
I guess more so maybe I'll—

980
00:55:48,956 --> 00:55:52,992
that's a big thing where if you note that
that's different next time I'd rather tell

981
00:55:52,992 --> 00:55:55,298
you ahead of time we've got our eye on
that one.

982
00:55:55,298 --> 00:55:56,024
Okay.

983
00:55:56,024 --> 00:55:59,118
Next is to the aforementioned design
review.

984
00:55:59,118 --> 00:56:03,689
This is maybe another portion where we
could look at the page 76.

985
00:56:03,689 --> 00:56:06,501
The design review is intended to— prior,

986
00:56:06,501 --> 00:56:11,705
it talks about design review shall be
required for all non-residential and

987
00:56:11,705 --> 00:56:12,267
required for all non-residential and
attached

988
00:56:12,267 --> 00:56:16,768
residential, so on and blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah.

989
00:56:16,768 --> 00:56:21,620
All the standards are there, page 76,
towards the bottom of the page.

990
00:56:21,620 --> 00:56:26,190
Yeah, that's one where potentially, to
Commissioner Adams' point,

991
00:56:26,190 --> 00:56:31,534
we'll have to relook at it, but could we
remove the Design Review Committee,

992
00:56:31,534 --> 00:56:34,769
or do we need to— or does it— do they need
to—

993
00:56:34,769 --> 00:56:40,535
it could potentially that be removed and
it lives here as a requirement, you know,

994
00:56:40,535 --> 00:56:46,231
that we've linked the requirement when I
require an applicant to go to one of our

995
00:56:46,231 --> 00:56:49,325
third parties. for review, what's the
basis?

996
00:56:49,325 --> 00:56:52,700
Where's the legal that tells me that thou
shalt?

997
00:56:52,700 --> 00:56:56,942
Just really quick, are there any
requirements that we're aware

998
00:56:56,942 --> 00:57:01,320
of that says that it must be posted
somewhere besides a website?

999
00:57:01,320 --> 00:57:03,891
Yes, for—

1000
00:57:03,891 --> 00:57:08,208
Well, just something like this, because
you have like on C, checklist, uh,

1001
00:57:08,208 --> 00:57:11,708
requires some information to be found on
the town's website.

1002
00:57:11,708 --> 00:57:13,691
Does it have to be somewhere else?

1003
00:57:13,691 --> 00:57:18,974
Not for the— not for check submittal
requirements. That's not public.

1004
00:57:18,974 --> 00:57:20,753
Just for something that's like that,
right?

1005
00:57:20,753 --> 00:57:23,069
Kind of like the checklist we were talking
about before.

1006
00:57:23,310 --> 00:57:23,503
Correct.

1007
00:57:23,551 --> 00:57:25,109
It's going to be referenced.

1008
00:57:25,109 --> 00:57:29,727
Is there any requirements that we're aware
of that it has to be somewhere besides a

1009
00:57:29,727 --> 00:57:33,010
website for people who may not have access
to the internet?

1010
00:57:33,010 --> 00:57:33,925
Not that I'm aware of.

1011
00:57:34,246 --> 00:57:34,407
Okay.

1012
00:57:34,552 --> 00:57:35,596
Not that I'm aware of.

1013
00:57:35,596 --> 00:57:36,640
If anybody came to us,

1014
00:57:36,640 --> 00:57:40,342
I'm sure we'd be happy to print it out for
them and hand it to them if they so

1015
00:57:40,342 --> 00:57:40,627
asked.

1016
00:57:40,627 --> 00:57:46,474
Is your question right now whether or not
you want to remove—

1017
00:57:46,474 --> 00:57:52,897
you want to move the Design Review
Committee or third party to this

1018
00:57:52,897 --> 00:57:53,664
section?

1019
00:57:53,664 --> 00:57:58,624
Not necessarily. It was more of this is
the next section we were talking about as

1020
00:57:58,624 --> 00:57:58,747
the next section we were talking about as
it

1021
00:57:58,747 --> 00:58:02,850
relates to Commissioner Adams had
questions about the Design Review

1022
00:58:02,850 --> 00:58:03,830
questions about the Design Review
Committee in the

1023
00:58:03,830 --> 00:58:08,484
first section or so. And kind of stating
this may be one that we'll look at.

1024
00:58:08,484 --> 00:58:13,138
This is one I've got noted down that we'll
look to see, can we look at that?

1025
00:58:13,138 --> 00:58:16,591
I just wanted to say I think that's
really— I think it's doable.

1026
00:58:16,591 --> 00:58:17,159
Right.

1027
00:58:17,159 --> 00:58:21,100
Yeah, I think just keep the design review
shall and then—

1028
00:58:21,100 --> 00:58:22,040
And then be done.

1029
00:58:22,040 --> 00:58:22,494
Yeah.

1030
00:58:22,494 --> 00:58:24,230
Okay.

1031
00:58:25,349 --> 00:58:26,944
I won't go over each one.

1032
00:58:26,944 --> 00:58:29,112
Is there anything else within the—

1033
00:58:29,112 --> 00:58:33,833
because we're just kind of listing through
the applications The permits of

1034
00:58:33,833 --> 00:58:37,086
processes. Those include variances, signed
permits.

1035
00:58:37,086 --> 00:58:43,906
Charles, for legal purposes, when we say
third-party design consultant,

1036
00:58:43,906 --> 00:58:45,827
is that specific to—

1037
00:58:45,827 --> 00:58:51,974
so based on the verbiage that we went
through a few minutes ago,

1038
00:58:51,974 --> 00:58:57,641
it says third-party design consultant. Is
that appropriate?

1039
00:58:57,641 --> 00:59:00,331
Should there be a committee?

1040
00:59:00,331 --> 00:59:08,015
Does that cover both a committee as a
consultant or vice versa if they're hired?

1041
00:59:08,015 --> 00:59:11,701
I was going to recommend later to Brad
that rather than make any

1042
00:59:11,701 --> 00:59:15,676
distinction, just say the third-party
consultant is the Design Review

1043
00:59:15,676 --> 00:59:16,252
Committee.

1044
00:59:16,252 --> 00:59:20,210
Okay, because then that covers both no
matter which way, right?

1045
00:59:20,210 --> 00:59:23,791
Okay, thank you. No, that's the only
question that I had.

1046
00:59:23,791 --> 00:59:24,985
So that it matches.

1047
00:59:24,985 --> 00:59:27,909
Asking about variances in here,

1048
00:59:27,909 --> 00:59:33,757
where it moves forward talking about the
BZA and their role in

1049
00:59:33,757 --> 00:59:39,227
this. How does this now modification of
standard play into

1050
00:59:39,227 --> 00:59:42,340
BZA's role in this whole process?

1051
00:59:42,340 --> 00:59:47,636
So a variance— so they are separate. So
they would still be considered as

1052
00:59:47,636 --> 00:59:48,289
they would still be considered as
separate.

1053
00:59:48,289 --> 00:59:53,223
A variance would be something
Topographical, environmental features,

1054
00:59:53,223 --> 00:59:59,027
things like that. This is more of a mod.
This is saying I have no variance need.

1055
00:59:59,027 --> 01:00:04,759
I have no other hardship done by that
other than I this this this it would be a

1056
01:00:04,759 --> 01:00:06,355
self-imposed hardship,

1057
01:00:06,355 --> 01:00:12,377
and that was kind of the thing is that if
an applicant said this this rule this you

1058
01:00:12,377 --> 01:00:16,513
know. Minimum lot width, I'll just pick
one, is 100 feet.

1059
01:00:16,513 --> 01:00:21,011
Well, you know, there's no topographical
reason I can't do it,

1060
01:00:21,011 --> 01:00:24,711
but I just don't have enough, you know, is
99 okay?

1061
01:00:24,711 --> 01:00:30,153
There was no avenue for them to even ask
that question to get in front of a

1062
01:00:30,153 --> 01:00:30,806
decision.

1063
01:00:30,806 --> 01:00:33,985
I guess what I'm asking though is, so in
that example,

1064
01:00:33,985 --> 01:00:37,754
they come in and say lot width is 100
feet, we want to build 90,

1065
01:00:37,754 --> 01:00:40,874
we say we give a negative recommendation
for Correct.

1066
01:00:40,874 --> 01:00:41,741
Does—

1067
01:00:42,319 --> 01:00:46,587
can they take that to the BZA, or because
it's not a hardship,

1068
01:00:46,587 --> 01:00:49,271
it is between us and the commissioners?

1069
01:00:49,271 --> 01:00:53,574
Right. Now, if they wanted— now, they
could go to a BZA for something else,

1070
01:00:53,574 --> 01:00:58,221
appeal of the administrative decision, if
they disagree with something I've done,

1071
01:00:58,221 --> 01:01:01,950
or whatever it may be. They can go— they
have an avenue that way.

1072
01:01:01,950 --> 01:01:04,073
But ultimately, if the Board says no,

1073
01:01:04,073 --> 01:01:07,114
your modification of standard for Whatever
is denied,

1074
01:01:07,114 --> 01:01:11,704
their next one is whatever the appeals
process is for the Board of Commissioners

1075
01:01:11,704 --> 01:01:12,220
decision.

1076
01:01:12,220 --> 01:01:12,478
Okay.

1077
01:01:12,478 --> 01:01:15,497
Which I don't believe is Board of Zoning
Appeals.

1078
01:01:15,497 --> 01:01:18,111
Okay.

1079
01:01:18,369 --> 01:01:18,644
Okay.

1080
01:01:18,644 --> 01:01:22,442
Um, is there anything else within the— you
know,

1081
01:01:22,442 --> 01:01:28,218
we have zoning ordinance amendments and
appeal administrative discussion,

1082
01:01:28,218 --> 01:01:31,304
annexation, rezonings are all You know,

1083
01:01:31,304 --> 01:01:37,160
the annexation one needs to be fleshed out
a little bit, but the rezoning—

1084
01:01:37,160 --> 01:01:43,411
those are all just the processes. Any
questions on those processes and how-tos?

1085
01:01:43,411 --> 01:01:47,826
If I may, is there anything in particular
you'd like to point out to us?

1086
01:01:47,826 --> 01:01:50,154
Not that I can think of.

1087
01:01:50,154 --> 01:01:54,556
Okay.

1088
01:01:57,556 --> 01:02:00,928
The BZA didn't have a separate document,
right?

1089
01:02:01,009 --> 01:02:04,508
The whole point was to put this together,
right? Right.

1090
01:02:04,508 --> 01:02:06,608
And, and they don't have one now.

1091
01:02:06,608 --> 01:02:10,552
They have bylaws, which is some portion of
this that has been—

1092
01:02:10,552 --> 01:02:15,133
that we've removed because it either
exists in the bylaws or, or it can,

1093
01:02:15,133 --> 01:02:17,550
in my opinion. Um, and a lot of the B—

1094
01:02:17,550 --> 01:02:20,922
so when I would reference stuff to BZA
staff reports,

1095
01:02:20,922 --> 01:02:23,403
I was referencing the zoning ordinance.

1096
01:02:23,403 --> 01:02:28,684
You know, there are some questions I have
about the variance procedure and the list

1097
01:02:28,684 --> 01:02:33,710
of things we have, but that's something
that I think staff needs to continue to

1098
01:02:33,710 --> 01:02:33,964
that I think staff needs to continue to
work

1099
01:02:33,964 --> 01:02:35,173
out before we come.

1100
01:02:35,173 --> 01:02:39,635
But it would still be within this living
document, correct?

1101
01:02:39,635 --> 01:02:43,990
Did any of the changes that just came out
in the training from July—

1102
01:02:43,990 --> 01:02:47,513
I think it was July— impact these years'
timing either,

1103
01:02:47,513 --> 01:02:51,292
or is it just Not that it impacted us
because we're pretty—

1104
01:02:51,292 --> 01:02:53,299
Yeah, it impacts everybody.

1105
01:02:53,299 --> 01:02:54,859
It impacts everybody,

1106
01:02:54,859 --> 01:03:00,730
but I don't know that there's anything
specific to variances or BZA that would—

1107
01:03:00,730 --> 01:03:04,818
it impacted everybody, um, all the
different processes.

1108
01:03:04,818 --> 01:03:09,258
So in annexation under the Board of

1109
01:03:09,258 --> 01:03:13,909
Commissioners actions or home page?

1110
01:03:16,909 --> 01:03:17,167
91.

1111
01:03:17,264 --> 01:03:19,395
Um, is it a certificate of
appropriateness?

1112
01:03:19,669 --> 01:03:20,961
Is that the right language there?

1113
01:03:20,961 --> 01:03:22,704
No.

1114
01:03:23,124 --> 01:03:24,028
Are those all crossed out?

1115
01:03:24,522 --> 01:03:25,006
I can't—

1116
01:03:25,006 --> 01:03:29,464
So it's now— it's new number 4 on page 91.

1117
01:03:29,464 --> 01:03:33,792
No, that's, that's, that's— no, that's
just— that's incorrect.

1118
01:03:34,275 --> 01:03:34,436
Yeah.

1119
01:03:34,630 --> 01:03:38,070
So the, the annexation one is still a work
in process.

1120
01:03:38,070 --> 01:03:41,191
Site plan and annexation are the 2 Big
ones that,

1121
01:03:41,191 --> 01:03:43,357
that still need more fleshing out.

1122
01:03:43,357 --> 01:03:44,573
So it would just be approved, denied?

1123
01:03:44,573 --> 01:03:51,132
Correct, correct. We just get rid of the
annexation request.

1124
01:03:51,132 --> 01:03:58,457
I probably just liked how it was worded in
an order and grabbed it.

1125
01:03:58,457 --> 01:04:05,235
Any other questions on applications and
things of that nature?

1126
01:04:05,235 --> 01:04:12,013
I guess it's page 99. Hearing none, I
think we'd get this far.

1127
01:04:12,013 --> 01:04:19,338
Yeah, the other big one that you will see
that I handed out a paper

1128
01:04:19,338 --> 01:04:27,100
copy in this There were some additional
changes that needed to be made.

1129
01:04:27,100 --> 01:04:33,003
We didn't make those in time to add it to
your agenda.

1130
01:04:33,003 --> 01:04:38,579
We will send out this copy in digital form
as well.

1131
01:04:38,579 --> 01:04:43,498
So before— because when I start adding
stuff,

1132
01:04:43,498 --> 01:04:48,418
deleting it with new added stuff, it's
gonna,

1133
01:04:48,418 --> 01:04:52,791
it's gonna just double the length of it.

1134
01:04:53,369 --> 01:04:58,098
So I'd almost like to look at the document
that I provided, uh,

1135
01:04:58,098 --> 01:05:03,352
and I will email out a This is the
document that's going to be doubled

1136
01:05:03,352 --> 01:05:03,952
in size?

1137
01:05:04,530 --> 01:05:04,948
No, no, no.

1138
01:05:05,045 --> 01:05:05,478
I'm sorry.

1139
01:05:05,607 --> 01:05:09,927
I'm talking about just Word formatting. I
added all this portion.

1140
01:05:09,927 --> 01:05:12,387
There's changes that need to be made.

1141
01:05:12,387 --> 01:05:16,308
If I just copy, paste, delete, it shows—
it becomes a mess.

1142
01:05:16,308 --> 01:05:21,626
So what I'm trying to do is to have for
you all to review essentially the surety

1143
01:05:21,626 --> 01:05:23,620
section separate just for now.

1144
01:05:23,620 --> 01:05:26,212
And once we've kind of worked that out,

1145
01:05:26,212 --> 01:05:30,931
we do have some internal discussions
discussion, a good bit of internal

1146
01:05:30,931 --> 01:05:31,663
discussion, a good bit of internal
discussion.

1147
01:05:31,663 --> 01:05:34,188
Commissioner Huber mentioned the 1044.

1148
01:05:34,188 --> 01:05:37,711
1044 has impacted some things more than
other things.

1149
01:05:37,711 --> 01:05:42,763
The surety piece is one we're still trying
to kind of wrap our heads around.

1150
01:05:42,763 --> 01:05:47,615
We've reached out to some of our
colleagues in Brentwood and Franklin and

1151
01:05:47,615 --> 01:05:48,280
colleagues in Brentwood and Franklin and
some other

1152
01:05:48,280 --> 01:05:53,797
places about how they plan to handle it,
and, and they're still working it out too.

1153
01:05:53,797 --> 01:05:58,516
So we, you know, I don't know that we're
not behind the 8-ball on this,

1154
01:05:58,516 --> 01:06:03,235
I don't think. But everybody's feeling a
little under the gun, I think.

1155
01:06:03,235 --> 01:06:08,009
So is your hope to not only read— so we'll
obviously have a digital copy,

1156
01:06:08,009 --> 01:06:11,344
but to go through this, and then you, I'm
assuming,

1157
01:06:11,344 --> 01:06:12,914
would like notes before?

1158
01:06:12,914 --> 01:06:13,635
Correct.

1159
01:06:13,924 --> 01:06:16,190
So we will send that out to you all.

1160
01:06:16,190 --> 01:06:19,588
So since JoJo handles the sureties a good
bit, if you,

1161
01:06:19,588 --> 01:06:24,622
if you direct them to me and to, and to
her, um, comments and questions on that,

1162
01:06:24,622 --> 01:06:29,216
and that'll just kind of help us speed
this up because we have this done,

1163
01:06:29,216 --> 01:06:31,797
or at least done, and it's somewhat done.

1164
01:06:31,797 --> 01:06:37,083
We still need to walk to work internally a
little bit to figure out what we're going

1165
01:06:37,083 --> 01:06:40,544
to do. Some examples are, you know,
there's a timeline.

1166
01:06:40,544 --> 01:06:45,390
There's a timeline for a surety to get
Asked and needs to be put on an agenda

1167
01:06:45,390 --> 01:06:45,642
Asked and needs to be put on an agenda
from

1168
01:06:45,642 --> 01:06:50,550
what I can tell. Well, how does that deal
with maintenance versus performance?

1169
01:06:50,550 --> 01:06:52,942
How does that deal so on and so forth?

1170
01:06:52,942 --> 01:06:57,788
There's some additional language that I
think we need to work out internally,

1171
01:06:57,788 --> 01:07:02,256
but I'd also like us to get comfortable
with with some of those things.

1172
01:07:02,256 --> 01:07:06,283
So apologies for not having that in your
packet as a part of it,

1173
01:07:06,283 --> 01:07:09,178
but it'll it's a kind of a big enough
section.

1174
01:07:09,178 --> 01:07:14,339
And, you know, sureties currently weren't
real— you know, other than Article 1.26,

1175
01:07:14,339 --> 01:07:16,290
I think sureties are mentioned.

1176
01:07:16,290 --> 01:07:18,933
It's not really mentioned in other places,

1177
01:07:18,933 --> 01:07:22,835
and other communities have it in the
similar kind of location.

1178
01:07:22,835 --> 01:07:29,782
So I think it's good that we put it in the
zoning ordinance. So that's a new add.

1179
01:07:32,782 --> 01:07:38,084
Any— So let me make sure I'm clear because
I thought I would have I'm a little under

1180
01:07:38,084 --> 01:07:40,482
the weather, so it's totally possible.

1181
01:07:40,482 --> 01:07:45,216
So this document here, we got tonight, you
want us to provide copies to it?

1182
01:07:45,216 --> 01:07:49,571
I mean, I mean, make comments to it and
then send them to JoJo? Yeah.

1183
01:07:49,619 --> 01:07:50,134
Okay, correct.

1184
01:07:50,183 --> 01:07:51,036
Just outline or—

1185
01:07:51,261 --> 01:07:55,981
correct. Email, email an individual email.
Don't include everybody else on it.

1186
01:07:58,133 --> 01:08:01,126
Um, And then when you have time to review
it,

1187
01:08:01,126 --> 01:08:03,920
you prefer the paper version or the email,

1188
01:08:03,920 --> 01:08:07,644
just respond with anything that you think
is of concern.

1189
01:08:07,644 --> 01:08:11,835
The biggest thing, um, to Brad's point is
the change with 1044.

1190
01:08:11,835 --> 01:08:15,360
It's really only impacting the release of
the surety,

1191
01:08:15,360 --> 01:08:20,415
but that does change how much work is
involved with the surety and how we're

1192
01:08:20,415 --> 01:08:20,748
involved with the surety and how we're
going

1193
01:08:20,748 --> 01:08:22,278
to handle that process.

1194
01:08:22,278 --> 01:08:27,000
That's the only part that's still kind of
out in limbo right now. Okay.

1195
01:08:28,343 --> 01:08:28,731
Thank you.

1196
01:08:29,799 --> 01:08:31,064
That's the only part,

1197
01:08:31,064 --> 01:08:35,222
but that's the only part that's still kind
of out in limbo right now.

1198
01:08:35,222 --> 01:08:39,861
But the rest of it's kind of clearly
defined as to how it has been happening.

1199
01:08:39,861 --> 01:08:43,235
Um, so hopefully we can determine what
makes sense here,

1200
01:08:43,235 --> 01:08:48,296
and then we'd mimic the same thing in our
subdivision regulations if we want to keep

1201
01:08:48,296 --> 01:08:49,140
it there also.

1202
01:08:49,140 --> 01:08:53,854
So then the last thing is 8.6, which is
enforcement.

1203
01:08:53,854 --> 01:08:59,746
We just had some, I think, fairly minor—
potential minor changes.

1204
01:08:59,746 --> 01:09:06,363
I've been talking with our Codes
Department as well as some minor changes

1205
01:09:06,363 --> 01:09:09,626
there. But that concludes Article 8.

1206
01:09:09,626 --> 01:09:12,957
Anybody have any comments or

1207
01:09:12,957 --> 01:09:17,834
conversation, discussion on any aspect of

1208
01:09:17,834 --> 01:09:19,142
Article 8?

1209
01:09:22,142 --> 01:09:28,450
If you're talking about— excuse me— if
you're talking about enforcement, uh,

1210
01:09:28,450 --> 01:09:34,259
the only major— you know, you talk about
one of the remedies, no heat,

1211
01:09:34,259 --> 01:09:40,899
but given this summer, you may want to
also include no air conditioning as well,

1212
01:09:40,899 --> 01:09:44,883
that you, that you've got to look at both
sides.

1213
01:09:44,883 --> 01:09:45,925
Yes.

1214
01:09:48,925 --> 01:09:50,731
And then I'll have to look up—

1215
01:09:50,731 --> 01:09:54,643
I'll send you something because when
you've made changes on this,

1216
01:09:54,643 --> 01:09:57,833
it changed my notes from a month ago of
page numbers.

1217
01:09:57,833 --> 01:10:02,708
So I'll go back through, but that's just—
there were just a couple little things.

1218
01:10:02,708 --> 01:10:03,370
Yeah, sure.

1219
01:10:03,951 --> 01:10:08,892
And always feel free to send those to me
and then— and I can— we can—

1220
01:10:09,151 --> 01:10:10,107
yeah, it'll be nothing.

1221
01:10:10,620 --> 01:10:16,806
Yeah, I think it's page 112 now where it
talks about no heat or heat below 50

1222
01:10:16,806 --> 01:10:18,333
degrees Fahrenheit.

1223
01:10:18,333 --> 01:10:20,633
Yeah, but what about the other end?

1224
01:10:20,633 --> 01:10:25,627
Because there are, there are literally
people dying with homes getting up to

1225
01:10:25,627 --> 01:10:25,956
people dying with homes getting up to
above

1226
01:10:25,956 --> 01:10:29,439
100 degrees because they don't have air
conditioning.

1227
01:10:29,439 --> 01:10:33,865
And that one, I'll just— I'll probably
need to rely on the codes department.

1228
01:10:33,865 --> 01:10:37,301
That's— that one's absolutely more in
their in their realm.

1229
01:10:37,301 --> 01:10:41,843
And that it's fine for us to have it in
here because I don't really know where

1230
01:10:41,843 --> 01:10:42,076
here because I don't really know where
else

1231
01:10:42,076 --> 01:10:44,697
they have a home to put some of those
things,

1232
01:10:44,697 --> 01:10:46,968
whether it's in municipal code or here.

1233
01:10:46,968 --> 01:10:49,938
So I wouldn't want to make any— we'll look
into it.

1234
01:10:49,938 --> 01:10:52,675
And, and because it may be coming from the
IBC.

1235
01:10:52,675 --> 01:10:56,383
I was gonna say that might be an IBC, or
it might be— yeah,

1236
01:10:56,383 --> 01:10:59,589
that it's not to say that it could not
potentially,

1237
01:10:59,589 --> 01:11:01,537
but it would have to have some—

1238
01:11:01,537 --> 01:11:03,107
I'll need to reach out to Chris and Monty.

1239
01:11:03,477 --> 01:11:03,833
Yeah.

1240
01:11:03,833 --> 01:11:04,561
On that one.

1241
01:11:06,632 --> 01:11:13,887
Anything else? Brad, you okay with where
we are?

1242
01:11:13,887 --> 01:11:16,726
Yeah, I think, you know, kind of to
summarize,

1243
01:11:16,726 --> 01:11:20,058
we've got some questions on the design
review portion,

1244
01:11:20,058 --> 01:11:23,143
some design review team committee kind of
cleanup.

1245
01:11:23,143 --> 01:11:27,895
I think we did get— still discussion
needed for modification of standards and

1246
01:11:27,895 --> 01:11:28,142
needed for modification of standards and
what

1247
01:11:28,142 --> 01:11:30,302
that kind of final list looks like.

1248
01:11:30,302 --> 01:11:34,066
Certainly got feedback on what I'll call
the other, you know,

1249
01:11:34,066 --> 01:11:39,126
what we'll just need to decide what are
the kind of quote-unquote non-negotiables.

1250
01:11:39,126 --> 01:11:43,693
So I think I'd continue to think through
that. We will as well, the staff.

1251
01:11:43,693 --> 01:11:47,025
But, um, but I think we're, I think we're
much closer.

1252
01:11:47,025 --> 01:11:50,927
I think it— I mean, if you're asking for
non-negotiables,

1253
01:11:50,927 --> 01:11:54,076
the 2 that are there Are my 2
non-negotiables,

1254
01:11:54,076 --> 01:11:59,553
but I would like to see the additional
verbiage for height and how we would like

1255
01:11:59,553 --> 01:11:59,690
verbiage for height and how we would like
to

1256
01:11:59,690 --> 01:12:04,003
incorporate, and then the rest of the list
potentially removed.

1257
01:12:04,003 --> 01:12:07,700
There might be one other, but I'll send
you that if I—

1258
01:12:07,700 --> 01:12:12,834
just some additional verbiage for one
other, but other than that, no. Sure.

1259
01:12:14,678 --> 01:12:18,063
And I'd ask everybody to do the same if
there's any of those.

1260
01:12:18,063 --> 01:12:20,837
You know, I got enough head nods on the,
you know,

1261
01:12:20,837 --> 01:12:25,054
these are the ones that shouldn't be, and
then the rest are up, you can ask,

1262
01:12:25,054 --> 01:12:29,493
you know, applicable to state law. So
we'll make those changes and, and, and go.

1263
01:12:29,493 --> 01:12:33,876
And so with, with that, the next one is
really Article 9, which is definitions,

1264
01:12:33,876 --> 01:12:37,094
which I'm not— I'm happy to show you what—
where we're at.

1265
01:12:37,094 --> 01:12:39,647
We've been making changes as we've been
going.

1266
01:12:39,647 --> 01:12:42,699
I don't know that that almost deserves its
own meeting.

1267
01:12:42,699 --> 01:12:44,474
I don't think it does, you know.

1268
01:12:44,474 --> 01:12:49,135
So I would almost look that we're— we may
start putting together 1, 2, 3 3, 4, 5, 6,

1269
01:12:49,135 --> 01:12:53,352
7, you know, and maybe leave 8 off just
for a second with some of the surety

1270
01:12:53,352 --> 01:12:57,014
discussion and some of the final touch-up.
But we might be closer.

1271
01:12:57,014 --> 01:13:02,707
Okay. All right, are we closing this
portion of our discussion?

1272
01:13:02,707 --> 01:13:08,380
I, I have no more questions, and if the
commission has no more—

1273
01:13:08,380 --> 01:13:10,728
Next item on the agenda is other.

1274
01:13:10,728 --> 01:13:14,571
Does anybody have anything they'd like to
say, report?

1275
01:13:14,571 --> 01:13:20,122
I just wanted to make note of the fact
that we do genuinely appreciate staff's

1276
01:13:20,122 --> 01:13:20,407
that we do genuinely appreciate staff's
hard

1277
01:13:20,407 --> 01:13:22,968
work in getting this stuff together.

1278
01:13:22,968 --> 01:13:28,448
I know this has not been easy, but I think
you have made some great progress,

1279
01:13:28,448 --> 01:13:33,216
and we do really genuinely appreciate
everything that you're doing.

1280
01:13:33,216 --> 01:13:35,000
Thank you.

1281
01:13:35,000 --> 01:13:39,368
Anyone have anything else? I'll entertain
a motion for an adjournment.

1282
01:13:39,952 --> 01:13:40,711
Motion to adjourn.

1283
01:13:40,711 --> 01:13:42,018
Is there a second?

1284
01:13:42,018 --> 01:13:42,534
Second.

1285
01:13:42,534 --> 01:13:44,986
All those in favor, please signify by
saying aye.

1286
01:13:44,986 --> 01:13:45,567
Aye.

1287
01:13:45,567 --> 01:13:49,956
Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thanks very
much to everyone.