Planning Commission

MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 6:00 p.m. City Hall Members Present Staff Present Kathy Jones, Chair Donald Anthony, Planning Director Ken Halliburton, Vice Chairman Matthew Blomeley, Asst. Planning Director Eddie Smotherman Marina Rush, Principal Planner Warren Russell Amelia Kerr, Planner Ronnie Martin Carolyn Jaco, Recording Assistant Chase Salas David Ives, Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Garland Roman Hankins, Assistant City Attorney Jafar Ware, Planner Sam Huddleston, Executive, Dir. Of Dev. Services Before the meeting began, Mr. David Ives introduced Mr. Roman Hankins to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hankins is a new Assistant City Attorney for the City of Murfreesboro. He comes from the City of Clarksville after serving 10 years as their Assistant City Attorney. We are glad to have Mr. Hankins on board to work with us. Chair Kathy Jones called the meeting to order after determining there was a quorum. Mr. Ronnie Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 4, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Chase Salas. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Old Business Zoning application [2019-428] for approximately 8.14 acres located along Shores Road to amend the Westlawn PUD to modify the buffering and screening plan along Shores Road, D.R. Horton, Inc. applicant. Ms. Marina Rush summarized the zoning request from the staff report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda packet. She made known the application had been deferred at the September 4, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. The reason for the deferral was to allow the applicants to conduct a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed changes. From the neighborhood meeting, the residents now know what the changes are for and they are in support of the changes. Ms. Rush explained a 1  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 public hearing had been conducted and closed at the September 4, 2019. Therefore, this request would not require another public hearing. Mr. Eddie Smotherman made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Ken Halliburton. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Annexation plan of services and annexation petition [2019-512] or request for service as an outside the City sewer customer for approximately 58.5 acres located along Miller Lane, Brenda Benz applicant. WITHDRAWN New Business Annexation plan of services and annexation petition [2019-510] for approximately 44.75 acres located along South Rutherford Boulevard, Mary K. Murfree Family Partnership, applicant. Ms. Amelia Kerr summarized the annexation request from the staff report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda packet. Chair Kathy Jones opened the public hearing. Ms. Mary Ellen Sloan, 1545 Nathan Court – explained that she has voiced her concerns regarding significant flooding in this area with those representing Rutherford County Departments and to those representing the City of Murfreesboro. She requested remediation for this property to address the ongoing flooding conditions at Lytle Creek. Chair Kathy Jones closed the public hearing. Mr. Sam Huddleston explained over the last decade the City has been tracking the issue of beaver activity at Lytle Creek. This is a wildlife management issue on private property. The City of Murfreesboro does not have the authority to go on to the property to take action unless the property owner approves. Currently, this property is outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Murfreesboro. If this property is annexed into the City, it would be better to monitor the property with the property owner. The risk of flooding from a beaver damn is very minor. The beavers do have an 2  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 impact disrupting the stream. In the past the City has been working with TWRA and other wildlife services to relocate any beavers. It is a situation that is monitored on several streams within our City. The City has to evaluate the cost of action, and our ability to be on private property. The Planning Commission asked if annexing property that is in a floodplain or floodway was a good idea? Mr. Sam Huddleston stated he would prefer management of the streams and networks in the City. These areas could be properly regulated and managed for water quality and monitored by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Mr. Ken Halliburton made a motion to approve the annexation plan of services and annexation petition, seconded by Mr. Warren Russell. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Zoning application [2019-429] for approximately 44.75 acres located along South Rutherford Boulevard to be zoned G-I simultaneous with annexation, Mary K. Murfree Family Partnership, applicant. Ms. Amelia Kerr summarized the zoning request from the staff report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda packet. Chair Kathy Jones opened the public hearing. 1. Ms. Mary Ellen Sloan, 1545 Nathan Court – wanted to know if this property was annexed and rezoned, would the City of Murfreesboro commit to maintaining the flow of water on Lytle Creek? 2. Ms. Jacquelyn Brown, 2302 Riverstone Drive – if the City approves this property to be annexed, would the City require an environmental impact study on the water quality? She has concerns with possible industrial use being by a water stream. 3. Elaine Gipple, 2709 Spaulding Circle – wanted to know how the water on this property would be addressed if this property was covered with asphalt? Chair Kathy Jones closed the public hearing. 3  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 Mr. Sam Huddleston came forward to address the concerns that had been mentioned. He stated the property is private regardless of the jurisdiction it is in. The beaver dams in creeks have been occurring for thousands of years. Water running over a floodplain is not a problem for the City to correct. Currently, the City is studying Lytle Creek with TDEC and those involved with Rutherford County stormwater. If this property is ever developed, the City Stormwater Ordinance would require protection of creeks, stream banks, detention, and water quality management. Mr. Matthew Blomeley made known there are no plans for development at this time. This is speculative annexation and zoning. The property owner would like to market the property for potential development in the future. The entire property would not be paved. There are requirements for development such as landscaping requirements, open space requirements, and formal open space requirements. Mr. Ronnie Martin made a motion to approve the zoning request, seconded by Mr. Chase Salas. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Annexation plan of services and annexation petition [2019-511] for approximately 297.5 acres located along Joe B Jackson Parkway and Elam Road, Betty Harris Dempsey applicant. Ms. Marina Rush summarized the annexation request from the staff report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda packet. Chair Kathy Jones opened the public hearing. Ms. Carol Hughes, 124 Lodge Court – expressed her concerns how this would impact the county residents due the increase of traffic in their area. She wanted to know if there would be any realignment to Elam Road and Butler Road? Also, if this property is annexed into the City, would a traffic study be provided, would traffic signals be included, etc.? Chair Kathy Jones closed the public hearing. 4  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 Ms. Marina Rush made known there was not a traffic study with this proposal. Currently, there are no plans for development of this land. However, if the land is annexed into the City, a portion of Elam Road would be included for future road improvements and realignment to meet City standards. Mr. Eddie Smotherman wanted to know if the property was developed, would the road improvements be at the developers’ expense? Ms. Rush answered any of the property which fronts Elam Road would be improved by the developers at their expense. Mr. Chase Salas made a motion to approve the annexation plan of services and annexation petition subject to all staff comments, seconded by Mr. Ken Halliburton. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Zoning application [2019-432] for approximately 200.1 acres located along Joe B Jackson Parkway and Elam Road to be zoned G-I simultaneous with annexation, Betty and Elizabeth Dempsey applicants. Ms. Marina Rush summarized the zoning request from the staff report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda packet. Mr. Matt Taylor and Mr. John Harney were in attendance to represent the applicant. Mr. Taylor gave a power point presentation. He made known this proposal would be a place for Economic Development, Employment, and Commerce for our City and region. Mr. Taylor explained the property is on the Major Transportation Plan which calls for realignment and widening improvements of Elam Road and Butler Road. Mr. Ken Halliburton wanted to know if the dedicated right-of-way for road improvements would be made known to future developers who are interested in this property. Mr. Taylor answered yes. However, at this time there is not a definite user, but it would be part of the conversations when a developer is inquiring about the property. Chair Kathy Jones opened the public hearing. 5  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 Ms. Mariah Phillips, 1332 Dodd Trail – wanted to know if approved for rezoning would this property be for industrial use? Would the developer be responsible for infrastructure? If so, all future developments should take the burden of all infrastructure instead of City tax dollars paying for road improvements. Chair Kathy Jones closed the public hearing. Mr. Matthew Blomeley explained it is customary for a project that is the part of the City’s Major Transportation Plan for the developer to participate in road improvements. For example, this could be the construction of the road, or right-of-way dedication, or pay fees in lieu of construction, etc. This would be required from the developer with their plans. Some of the burden for road improvements is placed on the developer. Mr. Ken Halliburton made a motion to approve the zoning request subject to staff comments, seconded by Mr. Chase Salas. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Zoning application [2019-426] for approximately 122.19 acres located along Cason Trail, Eastview Drive, and Racquet Club Drive to be rezoned from RS-10 and RS-15 to PUD (Hidden River Estates PUD), Blue Sky Construction, applicant. Ms. Marina Rush summarized the zoning request from the staff report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda packet. Mr. Rush made known a traffic analysis had been prepared for review during August 2019 and had been provided for reference. Staff had reviewed the report and had requested for additional items to be addressed: • Provide a stub road to the Chambers property to allow a future connection to River Rock Boulevard. • The developer would be required to widen Cason Trail to three lanes adjacent to their property. Continuing, Ms. Rush made known Staff had attended neighborhood meetings which the developer had scheduled in July 2019 and December 2018. Also, Staff had met with small groups 6  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 regarding this proposal. The most recent small group meeting had been on September 30, 2019. Ms. Rush explained the future land use map of the Murfreesboro 2035 Plan shows this property as auto-urban general residential as the most appropriate land use character. The characteristics for this land use would allow the density to go up to 8.64 dwelling units per acre. However, this project is proposing 5.13 dwelling units per acre. The zoning and density for this proposal is consistent with the future land use map. Mr. Clyde Rountree, Mr. Brian Burns, and Mr. Bill Huddleston were in attendance to represent the application. Mr. Clyde Rountree came forward to begin a PowerPoint presentation from the applicant’s pattern book. Chair Kathy Jones wanted to know during the phasing plan for 1A, would a road connect with Cason Trail? In addition, during the phase of 1B, have there be access points off of Eastview Drive and Racquet Club Drive? Mr. Rountree explained Eastview Drive would be the primary access for Phase 1B. She requested for this information to be revised in the applicant’s pattern book. Chair Kathy Jones asked if solid waste had been addressed for the entire development. Mr. Rountree made known it would be a gated development which includes private haulers. Mr. Warren Russell asked if the public roads would have private haulers too. Mr. Rountree explained they were working on the details. Continuing, Mr. Rountree made known they would prefer to have a private hauler for the entire development. Mr. Eddie Smotherman inquired on page 12, in the applicant’s pattern book there is a gate that is located where two public roads intersect, is this a mistake? Mr. Rountree made known it was an error it should be for public access. Mr. Rountree stated he would make corrections. Mr. Bill Huddleston representing the applicant came forward making known from the neighborhood meetings and from the last Planning Commission meeting, the major issue for this proposal had been traffic. Since then, the developer has purchased additional land to provide a total of three access points for the development. In addition, to address traffic concerns he 7  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 followed the Institute of Transportation Engineers while preparing the traffic study. From the Traffic Analysis that had been prepared and provided to the City, four critical intersections had been identified as being: • Cason Trail and Stoney Meadow Drive • Stoney Meadow Drive and River Rock Boulevard • Cason Trail and River Rock Boulevard • Racquet Club Drive and River Rock Boulevard Mr. Huddleston made known the Traffic Analysis addressed the roadways in this area, the intersections, and had projected traffic that would be caused from this proposed development. From the study, the service level of current traffic had been labeled as A and B, which is very good. However, there were two areas of movements of traffic at Cason Trail and River Rock Boulevard that are at a level C, which is an acceptable level. There were recommendations for road improvements to Cason Trail which would be one of the main access points for the property. They are proposing to widen Cason Trail to 33 feet. Along the southside of Cason Trial they would include a 10-foot multi-purpose trail and improvements to the standard electric lights. The electric lights would include underground utilities in the area. In addition, they would address staff comments with the stub street connection to the Chambers property. All the expenses would be placed on the developer, not on the City of Murfreesboro. Chair Kathy Jones opened the public hearing. 1. Ms. Tavner McKelley, 1941 Stoney Meadow Drive – opposes this development. She made known she had a petition which had 7,682 signatures opposing this development. It is a beautiful development, but it is not in the right place. It should not be approved due the limitations of the capacity of sewer, increase of traffic on our streets, increase of students in our schools, building in floodplain, etc. 8  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 2. Mr. Bob Gale, 2202 Racquet Club Drive – opposes this development due to the increase in traffic and flooding within this area. 3. Mr. Mike Green, Gaston Court – opposes this development due to the increase in traffic and the negative impact on the environment along the greenway. 4. Mr. Robert Barkley, 215 University Street – opposes this development due to the increase in traffic and the negative impact on the environment along the greenway. 5. Mr. John Boon, 2126 Eastview Drive – opposes this development due to the increase in traffic, crime, failed gates on private streets. 6. Ms. Rita Gale, 2202 Racquet Club Drive – opposes this development due to traffic and ten years of proposed construction. The greenway should be preserved. 7. Ms. Wanda Hendricks, 1543 Dodd Trail – opposes this request. Where would the separate dedicated construction entrance be located? This development would require large amounts of rock, gravel, soil, etc. from large dump trucks over the next 7 to 10 years. She recommended an entrance be provided by the old Racquet Club building or on the World Outreach property. 8. Mr. Warren Tormey, 733 North Spring Street – opposes this development. He provided a handout from the Murfreesboro’s City Sewer Allocation Study making known there is no sewer infrastructure, no traffic infrastructure for this development. 9. Ms. Barbara Higgins, 718 Oakwood Circle – opposes this development due to the impact of density, traffic, school, electrical, sanitation, noise, environmental, air quality, large dump trucks traveling in neighborhoods for the next ten years. She requested for this development be reduced to the current zoning of 410 single-family residential homes. She requested for the following be considered: • Do not approve the zone change to City Council. • The developer should provide full transparency to the public regarding project impacts under the zoning change. This should be similar as a plan of services. 9  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 • The City should be fully aware of the project impacts in mitigation before it approves a zoning change. • The developer identifies and mitigates impacts regarding traffic and public safety for the neighborhoods in this area. 10. Mr. Craig Higgins, 718 Oakwood Circle – opposes the zoning request. He requested for the property to remain as RS-15. 11. Ms. Jacquelyn Brown, 2302 Riverstone Drive – opposes the zoning request. She requested for the City to require proper insurance be secured on this land from the developer just in case in the future there is an economic downturn. 12. Ms. Mariah Phillips, 1332 Dodd Trail – opposes the zoning change. Before the development is approved, she requested for the following be addressed: • The residents should be able to review and comment on the results from the traffic study. • Would any homes be annexed into the City from the proposed widening of Cason Trail? • The City of Murfreesboro should provide parking spaces for the Cason Trailhead Park versus vehicles currently parking along Cason Trail. 13. Mr. Dennis O’Neal, 713 Oakwood Circle – opposes the zoning request. He made known over the past five years the City of Murfreesboro Water Resources Department comes into his neighborhood every couple of weeks with a sucker truck to address sewer problems. He expressed his concerns how this proposed development could create additional sewer issues. 14. Ms. Mary Ellen Sloan, 1545 Nathan Court – opposes the zoning request. The burden of infrastructure costs from a new development should not be placed on City tax payers. No more high-density zoning, it is too much. 10  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 15. Ms. Elaine Gipple, 2709 Spaulding Circle – opposes the zoning request. This land is road locked. The proposed public access would be dumping traffic into single-family residential neighborhoods. She requested that the traffic study include the traffic from the future bridge that is being proposed within this area. 16. Dr. Jon Zayas, 126 Pennsauken Court – opposes the zoning request. He feels if approved this development would create an increase of crime in the area and destroy the character of the Cason Lane neighborhood. 17. Ms. Linda Stevens, North Maney Avenue – opposes the zoning request. She has concerns with the environmental impact within a high-density area. 18. Mr. Bruce Kirk, 707 Oakwood Circle – opposes the zoning request. He has concerns with the increase of traffic being placed on City streets in a residential area. The streets are substandard and the streets do not have sidewalks, or curb and gutter. 19. Ms. Daniel Brown, 2468 Oakhill Drive – opposes the zoning request. She voiced her concerns regarding the traffic study. This study does not account for the additional traffic from the apartment complexes that are being constructed within the area. In addition, she wanted to know why a private development would be allowed to have safe access to the greenway when other taxpayers must travel to get to the greenway from other neighborhoods. She requested for the Planning Commission to consider the negative impact this development would have on the entire region having to deal with 1,000 additional vehicles and additional traffic affecting this area. 20. Mr. Jim Butler, 1310 River Rock Boulevard – opposes the zoning request. He has concerns with the widening of Cason Trail which would take property away from the property owners. In addition, the burden of taxes being placed on property owners for the City to construct a bridge within this area. He requested for the developer to be responsible in building the bridge, paying for water and sewer improvements, etc. Only the developer wins and everyone else loses. 11  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 21. Mr. Andrew McKelley, 1941 Stoney Meadow Drive – opposes the zoning request. He has concerns regarding the impact of the flood zone/floodway in a high-density area. He requested for Murfreesboro to participate in the AE flood zone program to limit development within a floodplain. Chair Kathy Jones closed the public hearing. Ms. Marina Rush apologized for not providing the traffic study on the website. It was the intent for Staff to have the traffic study as an attachment and believed it was available. It was during Mr. Bill Huddleston’s presentation she realized it had not been made available. She made known it had been an honest omission. The traffic study is available at City Hall and it is an open file to anyone who would like to review the study. Chair Jones wanted to know when a Traffic Study is required from a developer are there certain elements that are required for the development? Mr. Bill Huddleston came forward to make known there are normal requirements from City Staff when a Traffic Study is warranted. He stated this study has followed the normal requirements and he provided the following information: • In a floodway or floodplain there are FEMA requirements and City requirements for development. Fill is not allowed in a floodway. However, there can be a responsible fill in a floodplain. • The developer has requested for the construction fill to occur from their property that is out of the floodway onto the floodplain. It would help keep cost down and limit the amount of construction trucks on the neighborhood streets. • The State of Tennessee and the City of Murfreesboro requires information on the developer’s construction plans to address where the construction access would be located. • There is a 50-foot right of way to widen Cason Trail for road improvements. • Oakwood Circle is uphill from this property so development on this property would not exacerbate Oakhill Circle residents. 12  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 • There are sewer capacity issues being discussed for capping density at this time. However, this development fits in with the proposed density cap being proposed by the City Water Resources Department. • For this development they are seeing traffic being used at River Rock Boulevard more than Oakwood Circle. • On page 11, the Traffic Study addresses the apartment complex that is south of this property. The apartment complex is responsible to provide a bridge over Spence Creek which would have direct access to Highway 99 and Cason Trail. • This development would be required to meet all detention and retention requirements to meet stormwater quantity and stormwater quality. Mr. Warren Russell commented that the applicant’s pattern book does not show the detention area and retention areas. Mr. Bill Huddleston stated they were in the pattern book colored green, but he would revise the areas to be blue. The details for the detention and retention areas would be provided with a preliminary plat. Ms. Jennifer Garland wanted to know if the Traffic Study provides outline areas from the development. Mr. Huddleston answered no, they usually meet with Staff to decide how far out to go or not to go by using good engineering judgement. Chair Jones wanted to know if sidewalks were in the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Huddleston made known during the time period of the existing neighborhoods being developed the City had designed the streets to be 33/36 feet-wide asphalt without sidewalks. Now, City residential streets are required to be 24-feet wide streets with sidewalks. Ms. Rush addressed the concerns that had been made about the distance of this development and the greenway. She made known there would be 150 feet or more separation between this development and the greenway. Also, a ten-foot wide pedestrian multi-purpose path that had been mentioned could be required for the developer to construct. It is not part of the developer’s proposal at this time. To address noise during construction, the City has in place a noise ordinance 13  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 which provides the time of day when construction could occur in a residential area. Lastly, this development has been proposed to be constructed in phases. During any phasing, the remaining portion of the property must be maintained and kept in good order. Mr. Sam Huddleston said he was responsible for working with the developers, the design engineer, and Staff to establish a scope that seemed to be appropriate for the Traffic Study. The project team had studied the local impacts, the 2040 Major Transportation Plan, the existing traffic counts, and the traffic history. In addition, they had studied the 2035 Future Land Use Map and followed the Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines. This property has been considered as a future buildout at some point. The Land Use Study has shown this property being 8 units per acre and this proposal has been designed to be less than 8 units per acre. In addition, the Traffic Study identified the needs for this area. A proposal had been made to address the area with a couple of bridges to provide local access. The bridges are for the residents who are here attending this meeting. City Staff knows there is work to be done in this area such as the Cason Trailhead Park that includes a greenway system that has been a very successful park. Whether or not this development occurs, our Staff needs to review this area further to address appropriate parking. In addition, there are two blocks that connect from Stoney Meadow Drive and Cason Trail to River Rock Boulevard which should be reviewed further to connect additional pedestrian needs and bike facilities. Mr. Brian Burns came forward making known from his own experience the proposed plan is for young families who move into a townhome or those who have lived in a larger home and want something smaller. The townhomes he has constructed in this area have included very few children. He explained it was very important for his team to provide affordable housing. A third of this project would have a cost of $200,000.00 to $250,000.00 price points. The Row would have sixty units with a price point between $400,00.00 to $600,000.00. There would be eighteen Estate Homes. The Cottages would be age restricted in a range of $280.00 to $320,000.00. 14  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 Chair Kathy Jones commented on how the Planning Commission members have strong feelings and love for Murfreesboro. Each Commissioner wants the best for our City. The Planning Commission realizes there are a lot of people who are moving into our City and moving into Rutherford County. We are trying to plan for all the people who want to move into our wonderful City, and we are doing the best we can, and roads would need to be built. City Staff has spent lots of time and effort studying this project and have met with the residents individually, as groups, telephone calls, email, etc. Mr. Ronnie Martin made known how grateful he was with Staff spending so much of their time with this proposal. Also, he has been in several of the residential meetings and has seen Mr. Brian Burns be very patient. He feels that Mr. Burns has done a great job going through this process. This proposal has been difficult for him due to the following: • The numbers presented from Change.org may be misleading with signatures that may not be from the neighborhood or from Murfreesboro. • Traffic is a concern and he appreciates the Traffic Study. There are two sides with the traffic. Sometimes the traffic has a pinch point and other times there is zero traffic. When the improvements to Hwy 99 are completed it would help this area. • There are midterm road improvements to help the traffic issues. He does not see these improvements bringing traffic into the area. However, it would be some time before these improvements occur. • The proposed development is very attractive. However, he has concerns with construction traffic occurring along residential streets. • He has concerns with traffic being along Racquet Club Drive because it does not have a 35-foot wide street, nor it does not have sidewalks. Mr. Eddie Smotherman commented he had been involved with the new tax increase. The reason for the tax increase is because there had not been a tax increase over the last 19 years. There is 15  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 never a good time for a tax increase, but it had to happen. Now, we have a sustainable tax rate for our big City. The services that are provided are expensive and we try to manage the City as prudent as we can. Ms. Jennifer Garland made known she grew up in this area and is very fond of the area. She feels this proposal is very nice. The developer has improved their plan from their original plan by addressing the additional access points. Growing pains are hard, but this is a well-done project with some challenges. If this project moves forward, the Planning Commission would continue to be involved and would make certain the issues that have been presented would be addressed as best as they can. Mr. Ken Halliburton commented this is a difficult proposal; however, he feels it is a well-thought- out plan. Density is an issue with the neighbors. Also, there are guidelines with our City and this proposal meets the sewer guidelines. The Traffic Study has been prepared from the information provided to him. He had traveled in this area at 7:30 a.m. and it is horrible. It is difficult to get out of the area. The information provided indicates this proposal is less dense than the 2035 Land Use Study calls for. With this planned development request, we would know exactly what we would get for this property. Mr. Ken Halliburton made a motion to approve the zoning request, seconded by Mr. Chase Salas. The motion carried by a vote of 5-2 (Mr. Martin and Mr. Smotherman voted no.) Staff Reports and Other Business Mr. David Ives requested for a Mandatory Referral regarding City-owned property at 912 Dashiel Street. He made known the City had acquired this property in 1956 and would like to sell the property to the company Univar. If Univar acquires the property, they are proposing to provide additional industry use and jobs at this location. Mr. Chase Silas made a motion to approve the sale of the property, seconded by Mr. Ken Halliburton. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. 16  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2019 Chair Kathy Jones announced this meeting is the 100th meeting for Planning Director Mr. Donald Anthony. She made known Mr. Anthony was moving on to his next opportunity with the City of Nolensville. She sincerely thanked Mr. Anthony for his years of service. Mr. Blomeley complimented Mr. Donald Anthony for being a man of integrity and of character. He is a highly intelligent man that knows the craft of Planning. It has been a privilege working alongside with Mr. Anthony over the last four years. Mr. Anthony has had a positive impact on our department, and we are going to miss him. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. _____________________________________ Chairman _____________________________________ Secretary DA: cj 17