Adequate mic up a little bit.

We feel the 32 square feet is inadequate for the building's scale and size based on our setback from the road that we agreed to.

And so that's why the banner on Sage Avenue we would like to see increased.

And then the feather flags along Sage Avenue, we feel like it's very customary to allow for the notification of a new community that has been developed and built to notify vehicular traffic that we're tucked back off the road over 900 feet from Dolphin Street, which is where our front door is.

Okay.

Questions of the board?

Chair.

Yes.

How do I choose six?

Sir?

How did you choose six?

Well, we did it based on the scale and the scope of our primary entrance, and we worked with off the point and first U.S.

bank who are the property owners on either side, and we felt like it was an appropriate number, not too many, not enough.

For y'all, which is in the middle, I guess.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Now I will say that a lot of people have watched this project developed for some time.

So it's not a surprise or for the most part that it's there.

But we're very pleased and proud of it and very appreciative of the city and the staff that has worked with us to get to where we are.

We would just like for this interim period while we're still working through lease up to enhance our marketing and visibility for a very short period of time.

Okay.

All right.

Question.

So the board is the project come finished.

Is it finished?

Yeah.

We have delivered um our clubhouse and our first five residential buildings.

We lack two residential buildings that both have 51 units apiece in them.

So we're about three quarters of the way through.

Gotcha.

So five buildings currently in lease up, ready to go.

Could lease tomorrow.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And how long has that been?

How long have they been finished?

We opened our first units in early November.

Okay.

What is your current occupancy?

We're 13 and a half percent occupied and 20.1% leased.

Okay.

All right.

Other questions of the board.

Okay.

Anyone in the audience, either in support or opposition to the application today?

All right.

Any public comment regarding this?

No, sir.

Um one last question.

Thirty 30 days, why would 30 days not suffice?

What's the hardship?

Again, it's just the duration of the lease up and the scale.

I think the UDC is written for a special for a retail business to be running for a finite duration, going out of business sale, a holiday sale, a Valentine's sale, and obviously our lease up is 12 to 14 months.

And so we feel once we get enough critical mass and momentum that we won't need to have the banners up and we'll have kind of presence, notoriety, and occupancy to be sufficient enough to self-market.

Okay.

All right.

Um question for staff.

I know we've had these before, and some of them for even city facilities like the museum or some other event.

What's the normal time?

Is it 60 days?

90.

For a banner, the uh the standard uh regulations time is 30 days per banner, uh, three per year with 30 days between banner permits.

So maximum 90 days is per calendar year, yes, sir.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, uh comments of the board.

Um I would say that I know that this kind of sets a precedent every time we do something that's an exception to the uh UDC, that we need to keep that in mind.

And the number of feather flags, whether it's three or six, you know, I don't necessarily know what the difference other than keeping it somewhat uniform.

With that, Chair entertain a motion.

I guess let me Mr.

Chair um ask a question, maybe in preparation to make a motion.

Um with regards to what the advocate said, um, making I guess a contrast between an apartment complex and maybe the impact that this would have on that versus Jay, just your smaller retail business.

And in thinking through, you know, probably a lot less of these type of projects being done, uh, which would limit maybe you know this type of exception going forward so that we're not just littering the the community with a bunch of feather flags.

Um the flip side, I think you know I think I do drive by it.

I think it's a fantastic project.

I think you know it is a mobility and I'm glad to see that type of product go up.

It seems like due to the size and scale of that, to have these you know signs kind of temporary signs to go up and down, it just creates maybe some some confusion in the market.

So I it seems very consistent to me from um you know a standpoint of allowing the community to know kind of what's going on there that you know allowing them six months in order to have consistency with those signs.

Um I'm in support of that.

And so with that, I'd make a motion that we do approve it for six months.

Okay, and the number of uh feather flags and temporary sign as well.

Yeah, I'm I'm fine with that.

Six findings of fact, yeah.

Subject to findings of fact.

Okay, I have a motion to approve, subject to findings of fact.

Do I have a second?

Second, have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye, and I'll vote opposed.

Motion carries variance is approved as requested.

All right, application 14, which is 4570, 4580, 4590 shipyard road.

Name and address, sir.

Uh good evening, Jackson Burke Pickler, uh 3502 Laughlin Drive with Row Engineering and Survey.

Okay, and this is to regarding a surface variance to amend a previously approved surface variance to allow aggregate service for truck parking maneuvering commercial site B3 B5 office distribution district zoning ordinance would require parking maneuvering service to be paved, concrete, etc.

You want to tell us what we should consider otherwise?

So the applicant um is not proposing any new aggregate paving service uh surface areas, only utilizing um uh aggregate paving that's been existing.

Um this site is consistent with surrounding sites of similar land use and zoning, and so more or less are just improving the existing conditions.

That's correct.

They're they're planning to install a new uh proposed structure just north of the existing shop there, um, and they intend to utilize the same aggregate paving service that's being utilized on the site currently okay.

And is there any stormwater systems as part of this with the new structure?

No new stormwater systems, um just uh utilizing these existing stormwater system, which has detention up on the east uh side along the um shipyard road frontage.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman, yes, question for staff.

If it's already being used and they're just gonna like top it, let's say like maintenance.

Why would why would this require a uh um an e uh uh uh variance?

Because variances are site plan specific, and so them adding a new structure to the site requires them to come back and get a new approval.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other questions?

All right, anyone in the audience either in support or opposition today?

Pardon?

Yes, sir.

If you got anything new to add your name and address uh Robert Altman and home address 284 Walter Lott, but regards to 4580 shipyard road, and you're in support of it.

Well for what I'm wanting I'm one of the owners of the building and the um property, so we're just we're expanding the shop, just you know, we're only adding like two employees, so we're not understanding what the whole why all of a sudden that the dust is supposedly harmful to humans and animals based on what I read, but yes, yeah.

The staff really just from my my question to them answers the question.

The only reason is because the variant the previous variants for the aggregate yard was site plan specific.

Yes, so that was at that time.

So you're making a change to it, so there's a new site plan.

Yes, sir.

So not necessarily anyone's you know, against you know, your yard, it's there.

It's a it's a it's a basically a non-conforming or a continuous use.

It's really just a technicality as far as I'm concerned, because you're changing what was there.

Gotcha.

So does that answer your question?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Yeah, and thank you for coming down here.

All right, once again, any other questions of the board?

All right, that'll conclude our public hearing regarding the request to amend a previously approved surface variants, and as stated to update more or less site plan.

All right, chair entertain a motion.

No for approved, Mr.

Chair, subject to findings of facts and considerations A B and C and uh A B and C and A B and C.

All right.

Do I have a second?

Second, have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right, we doing good okay on time, everybody.

We're getting to the end here.

Application 6741, 6662, 6549 regarding 720 Museum Drive.

Good afternoon.

I've been kind of watching this site and I haven't seen anything happen.

So we're trying.

So last but not least.

Um, I'm Kathy Sherman here on behalf of Museum Partners 41 West I65 Service Road North Suite 310.

All right, so you're increasing the footprint.

Yes, sir.

We have five um variances here today in front of you.

Uh the first one is for a large footprint footprint building, uh, which is allowed in two of the subdistricts of the Spring Hill overlay, but not in the particular subdistrict that we are in.

And so the footprint of the hotel that we propose to put on this parcel um exceeds the 20,000 square feet.

Uh it's it's 22408, is what we're proposing.

So we seek a variance for that.

Okay, now we were approved a variance before on this site.

Yes, sir.

This site received a use variance last year and then got an extension uh later in last year.

But the sites changed therefore you're back again or no, no, sir.

We uh originally had to rezone the site when we acquired the site from the city, it was a residential, so we rezoned it to B2, and then in the Spring Hill overlay, a hotel use was not allowed, also, so we got a variance to allow a hotel use.

And so now that we have um developed our plans further, we're just now coming back to you where we know more about the what the shape of the building looks like.

So there's a whole site plan with landscaping photometric.

We've done some trap culminary traffic and just done enough engineering to now come back before you with specific items.

Okay, and did uh village of Spring Hill group look at this and have any yes, sir, and there's someone here to speak on behalf of them today.

Okay, all right.

Questions of the board.

Um trying to review all the comments here.

Did you one of the I think one of the requirements last time you were going to acquire some property that was adjacent to the fire department?

We did, and we completed that subdivision and brought that strip in.

Okay, all right.

Once again, questions of the board?

Yes, quick question.

So I mean it appears as though the I mean your reduction of the front landscape area is based on the fact that you're making a more pedestrian-oriented project.

Yes, sir.

It's in part the Spring Hill, much of that wants you to have the building closer to the frontage, and again, our particular subdistrict is not governed by the overlay, the Spring Hill overlay landscape requirements.

Uniquely, I guess this particular subdistrict is governed by the the remainder of the UDC's landscape requirements, which wants you to have 60 percent of your landscape in front of the building, and because our building is so close to the front, we just can't fit 60 percent there.

We do overall exceed the minimum landscape requirement required.

I think it requires 15%, and we're at 22.

I think we're just trying not to have so much of it in front of the building because we're trying to have that typical village fill of the wide sidewalks, the the lights, the trees that they want.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any further questions of the board.

Do we have any public comment on this one?

No, sir, we did not.

Okay, all right.

Anyone in favor that wishes to add anything?

Okay, you have a seat.

Good afternoon.

Your name and address.

Hi, and thank you all for waiting through all this.

Jennifer Tremain, 4564 Old Shell Road.

I represent the village of Spring Hill uh neighborhood association as a board member.

We fully support the variances requested and ask for your approval to advance this project.

We've collaborated with Burton Property Group for over two years on this site plan, and we can confirm that the boutique hotel development with these modifications fits the overall character and spirit of the village plan.

Happy to go point by point, but suffice to say, lots of conversation has been had with Philip to determine kind of what the best case scenario is for all of this to arrive at the desired development impact.

Happy to have a developer like this that's willing to work with us on to work through issues and arrive at good compromises that benefits the community.

Okay, any questions of the board?

All right, thank you.

All right, do we have anyone that likes to add anything to it?

Okay, you're they're in support as well.

Okay.

I just want to add one more thing before you do take a vote.

Under the special conditions, there was one uh that the staff had commented item number three, um, suggesting that we needed to come back for a new variance for the hotel use.

Um, and I just want to explain our position on that.

When we were here before and obtained a hotel use variance, that was just for a hotel use.

Um, in the application, we referenced an approximate number of units at that time, and because now our approximate number is different than then.

I think the staff was seeking as an additional item on your agenda an answer to a question about whether an additional variance was needed or not.

It's our position that additional variants is not needed, um, and we don't want to have to come back for one.

Under the use charts, there's just hotel use.

There's not high density hotel, hotel, medium high density.

There's not different levels of a hotel.

When we first came here, we um spoke of a number that we thought we might have at that time, and and today we still don't know an exact number because until we identify the brand of the hotel and what level of a hotel it is, you know, whether it has a full service restaurant or not, we won't really know exactly how many um units it will have inside, but the footprint will stay the same.

Obviously, we'll have to come back for a new site plan approval, but uh we're just asking that that condition not be part of the approval today.

That was part of the uh or the reason for the other business at the end of the agenda to address that so everybody's on the same page.

Okay, I just didn't want to get approved by your conditions as part of the okay.

Do we have to handle this separate or can we handle it as one?

Okay, all right.

So thank you.

We'll conclude our public hearing regarding this uh application, and with that, chair entertain a motion.

I I take that back.

Um, since condition number three ties in ties into I'm looking at this condition number three requires a use variance uh to a new one because of that room number.

Uh we can go ahead.

She Kathy brought it up.

You what she stated is pretty much what is in on your agenda for that the just the way the staff explained it.

So if y'all want to go ahead and review that so that when you make the motion for 15, you can if you so desire remove condition number three.

But the staff is we discussed this with the applicant last week, and we're in agreement that's the best way to handle it.

That they were not unit number specific in the original narrative on their use variance, but that wasn't required.

No, right.

But there was some question whether it was limited to 87 units and is our position it wasn't.

We just want to make sure we get it right and everybody's on the same page.

And so you're uh I know you're in your development stage, but but the the use variance is still active, we're still working off of it.

Correct.

Okay.

Would that need to be extended at some point or the current use variance is valid until November of this year?

Okay.

And does that work with your schedule?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right, so do we need to consider number three as condition or not?

Not so that will be stricken from the it'll all depend on how you interpret the use variance.

If you interpret the use variance that you guys approved as limiting to 87 plus or minus rooms, then it needs to be considered.

But you guys were clarifying our position on the use variance.

Did it limit the number of rooms or did it not?

Okay, and if it did not, then you can strict meaning strike number three.

But if you agree if you believe that it did limit the roof numbers, then you need to keep number three.

Okay.

All right.

I personally don't remember a restriction on the number of units.

I I was more concerned with parking, if I remember right.

And the discussion about the additional property being acquired from the adjacent part of the if you need it, if you want to look at it.

Okay.

Yeah, and he just said plus or minus.

I mean, if you're gonna give, if you're gonna give a number, you got to give a number.

So, you know, um, if they needed to have 88 or or 86, depending on that, then uh we would we would be here again now.

Now I will stay based off your comment.

The staff did not create the number 87 plus or minus that was in an application for us.

So we're not sitting here creating numbers.

Yeah, we're going off of applications that somewhere in the narrative 87 plus or minus.

Not necessarily that's that's fine.

That's for y'all to interpret it.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

With that, we'll conclude our public hearing regarding this application.

And if somebody should make a motion to approve disregard or strike number three as a condition, and we'll consider it as the follow-up with the clarification as to the number of rooms.

Chair entertain a motion move to approve uh based on findings of fact ABNC, uh, including conditions one, two, and four, striking number three, and that the previous use approval was for hotel use, uh, not specific to any exact room count.

All right, I have a motion with those conditions and findings of fact.

Do I have a second?

Second, have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

So do we need to do a clarification on and that'll remove that?

All right, other business.

So we have minutes to approve.

Let me just read off the dates.

Do I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented for July 7th, 2025?

So move.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Minutes are approved.

August 4th, 2025.

Motion to approve.

So move.

I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

September 8th, 2025.

Do I have a motion to approve?

Have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

October 6, 2025.

Do I have a motion to approve?

So move.

Have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

October 27 appeal transcript.

Is this okay?

And give me a second here before I make a motion on this one.

Do you know what this was regarding Doug?

The appeal transcript.

That's the next minute on the giant.

Then the next uh minutes are November 3rd, 2025.

I that transcript, I'm not really sure where that I'm gonna take this out of the so minutes November 3rd, 2025.

Do I have a motion to approve?

Have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

December 1st, 2025.

Do I have a motion to approve?

So move.

I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Now regarding the transcript, I don't know.

This is an administration.

This is an appeal.

That's the DAF in matter.

Was the one?

The DAF in application, Miss Dapin.

The appeal is okay.

316 Dauphin Street had a special exception for an event center that was denied.

That was denied.

She did that's on appeal.

And I think she's a plot submitted a new application, hasn't she?

It is scheduled to be heard again on next month's BOA.

Okay.

Do I have a motion to approve the uh transcript?

So move.

Have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Have a second.

A further discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

And last item for agenda.

I understand we need to elect officers again.

With that, entertain a motion for vice chair.

I'll make a motion for Adam Metcalf to continue as vice chair.

Okay, I motion to appoint Mr.

Metcalf, Vice Chair.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

You didn't oppose?

Okay, good.

All right.

And for chair, I'll entertain a motion to appoint a chair.

I nominate.

Mr.

Guess.

Okay, I've been nominated.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And I will abstain.

So motion carries.

All right.

Thank you all.

And any other business.

Mr.

Anderson.

Uh the only one I can think of.

I didn't go down my list, but your favorite more like a set for a hearing this Friday morning.

That's it.

For the judge.

The one in the I'll be not in our car lot.

Trying to get them out.

All right.

Hey Doug, what about Doug?

What about the one there at the foot of uh on Shell Road?

Right there.

Oh, yeah.

That was assigned to a new judge, uh, and that new judge has not done anything on it yet.

That's the uh Hunter LLC or whatever.

Yeah.

All right.

And I got a question for staff.

Yes.

The car lot that we unfortunately uh approved on highway 90 uh near the Walmart, in that area.

Um they've been in violation of uh what we approved, I think, for the long time.

Is there anything going on with that as far as uh I think that's what Doug was saying is gonna be at court this week later that weekend?

Okay, I'm sorry, I thought it was a different one.

No, that's the one, because we've done several.

Yeah, all right.

Any other business?