[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6695537,"mediaKeyId","2756094-ba6861a23811e51ed2315711080a32bb","parentId",2756094,"title","Planning Commission: approvals, deferrals and procedural conditions from Jan. 23 meeting","audioSeconds",4661,"startMs",384000,"endMs",5045000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2756094-ba6861a23811e51ed2315711080a32bb&start=384&end=5045","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2756094-ba6861a23811e51ed2315711080a32bb/thumbnail_384000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6695537/Tennessee/Planning-Commission-approvals-deferrals-and-procedural-conditions-from-Jan-23-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695537-afc227dfd74cf58f2614b4b62e5f8df4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136644&Signature=CaLbcfFANlLwuqm72w0v~01QpXf7eUBa8JOKt4nCEATlVDEWV5i9UFEvGQJnGc9fx49zGP2aF~CAl9zrTn6idrY8~HXgDEx1tk-35fqJ0KndCb9rXn5qcOMDQZMeAT9QHZYYRr4dNrVO6GfPjamzLs4N6T4ps6-SBFjH2NILjYoHJsSrOvXG0Mxnvkw5w4eM7mJVgaabvlLFuTx2pFyJ65N4b2cA1Fv3ZSZ7XJtScB9DxkqcQYdMoayPj0UYgo-lVDu-hDiGifX~2C5jUqUU-0ZvAD5OICD-XkwpFNTCs2KJovFYh-c3KjzoY2ZgBunuobKb7yUfBaWaJqB8fi0I8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Shelbyville, TN","date","2025-01-21T00:00:00Z","article","At its Jan. 23 meeting the Planning Commission approved a series of site plans, preliminary plats and final plats, imposed procedural notifications where staff recommended them, and deferred two major items (Remington Forest PUD and Stone Wall Run Phase 7). Below is a compact “votes at a glance” summary of each formal action recorded by roll call during the meeting. Motions are summarized from the meeting record; vote results and member responses are listed as recorded.

Votes at a glance

1) Remington Forest (PUD) — Motion: Defer consideration for 90 days so the applicant can address TDOT comments and update the plan book. Roll‑call responses recorded: Mayor Carroll — yes; Commissioner Gill — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — yes; Chairman Landers — yes; Commissioner Mohler — yes; Council member Blevins — yes; Commissioner Wilhoite — yes; Commissioner McGee — yes. Outcome: Deferred (see separate article).

2) Celebration Townhomes (major subdivision preliminary plat) — Motion: Approve preliminary plat with procedural notification to record stormwater management agreement at final plat. Roll‑call responses recorded: Commissioner Mower — yes; Commissioner Gill — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — yes; Mayor Carroll — yes; Chairman Landers — yes; Commissioner McGee — yes; Commissioner Willhoite — yes; Council member Blevins — yes. Outcome: Approved.

3) Automotive repair facility (site plan, 4,025 sq ft) — Motion: Approve site plan with staff procedural notifications and design review by commission. Roll‑call responses recorded: Chairman Landers — yes; Commissioner McGee — yes; Mister Mueller — yes; Council member Blevins — yes; Commissioner Wilhoite — yes; Ira Carroll — yes; Commissioner Deal — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — abstain. Outcome: Approved (one abstention recorded).

4) Emergency dispatch center (site plan, 4,642 sq ft) — Motion: Approve site plan with procedural notifications (stormwater agreement, permits). Roll‑call responses recorded: Mayor Carroll — yes; Commissioner Moore — yes; Commissioner Gill — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — yes; Chairman Landers — yes; Commissioner McGee — yes; Councilman Blevins — yes; Commissioner Wilbourn — yes. Outcome: Approved.

5) CrossFit gym (site plan, 4,000 sq ft) — Motion: Approve site plan with procedural notifications; commission reviewed elevations. Roll‑call responses recorded: Commissioner Wilhoite — yes; Council member Blevins — yes; Commissioner Mohler — yes; Commissioner McGee — yes; Chairman Landers — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — abstain; Commissioner Gill — yes; Eric Carroll — yes. Outcome: Approved (one abstention recorded).

6) Hampton Inn (site plan, 46,610 sq ft) — Motion: Approve site plan with procedural notifications including requirement for a traffic impact study (TIS). Roll‑call responses recorded: Mayor Carroll — yes; Commissioner Bridal — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — yes; Chairman Landers — yes; Commissioner McGee — yes; Commissioner Mohr — yes; Council member Blevins — yes; Commissioner LaBois — yes. Outcome: Approved with procedural condition requiring TIS.

7) Jennings Station (minor subdivision preliminary plat) — Motion: Approve preliminary plat with procedural notifications; staff to coordinate access and turnaround space. Roll‑call responses recorded: Chairman Landers — yes; Commissioner Meade — yes; Commissioner Mower — yes; Councilman Leavens — yes; Commissioner Wilhoite — abstain; Mayor Carroll — yes; Commissioner Bridal — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — yes. Outcome: Approved (one abstention recorded).

8) Stone Wall Run Phase 7 (major subdivision preliminary plat) — Motion: Defer 30 days to allow outstanding drawing items and connection details to be clarified, including a required connection across an adjacent parcel. Roll‑call responses recorded: Commissioner McGee — yes; Council member Blevins — yes; Commissioner Wilhoite — yes; Commissioner Mohr — yes; Mayor Carroll — yes; Commissioner Bridal — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — yes; Chairman Landers — yes. Outcome: Deferred for 30 days.

9) Global Manor Phase 6 (major subdivision preliminary plat) — Motion: Approve with two procedural notifications (stormwater management and access coordination). Roll‑call recorded: Approval by roll call; recorded votes in meeting indicate unanimous support among voting members present. Outcome: Approved.

10) Global Manor Phase 10 (major subdivision preliminary plat) — Motion: Approve with condition that construction sequencing/infrastructure be coordinated so phases 7, 9 and 10 are integrated at construction; commission chose the staff‑recommended option to control coordination at the construction phase. Roll‑call recorded: Approval by roll call; recorded votes in meeting indicate unanimous support among voting members present. Outcome: Approved with coordination condition.

11) Global Manor (Baker Subdivision) Phase 11 — Motion: Approve with procedural notifications concerning access, utilities and right‑of‑way dedications. Roll‑call recorded: Approval by roll call. Outcome: Approved with procedural notifications.

12) Global Manor Phase 12 — Motion: Approve with procedural notifications; staff to ensure required access sequencing and utility layout prior to construction approvals. Roll‑call recorded: Approval by roll call. Outcome: Approved with procedural notifications.

13) Lucas Grove Phase 2 (major subdivision preliminary plat) — Motion: Approve final plat subject to four procedural notifications (as‑built documents, utilities, stormwater items). Roll‑call recorded: Approval by roll call. Outcome: Approved with procedural notifications.

14) Cedarglade Phase 3 (major subdivision final plat) — Motion: Approve final plat with procedural notifications; staff to correct a parking‑count notation on the submitted plat prior to recording. Roll‑call recorded: Approval by roll call. Outcome: Approved with procedural notifications and a staff correction to the parking count.

15) Bridal Acres Section 1 (major subdivision final plat) — Motion: Approve final plat subject to five procedural notifications and as‑built approvals. Roll‑call recorded: Approval by roll call. Outcome: Approved with procedural notifications.

Notes on procedure and abstentions: Where commissioners recorded “abstain” the minutes show those abstentions in the roll calls listed above; in several approvals the commission imposed staff procedural notifications (stormwater management agreements, utility coordination, traffic‑study requirements) to be satisfied during the construction or final‑plat review phases. Where recorded names or spellings in the meeting transcript were inconsistent, the commission’s roll‑call responses above are reproduced verbatim from the meeting record.

What this means: Multiple residential and commercial site plans and subdivisions moved forward with conditions intended to protect streets, stormwater systems and utility coordination. Two larger items were deferred — Remington Forest (90 days) and Stone Wall Run Phase 7 (30 days) — pending submission of corrected drawings, a traffic‑impact study or property‑owner coordination for a required connection.

Source: Roll‑call votes and motions as recorded in the Planning Commission meeting transcript, Jan. 23.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Regular Meeting - January 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission approved multiple site plans and subdivision plats and deferred two major items (Remington Forest and Stone Wall Run Phase 7). This roundup lists each formal motion, roll‑call votes as recorded and next steps.","taxTitle","Planning Commission Meetings, Shelbyville, Bedford County, Tennessee","taxId",79594,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6695539,"Planning commission defers Remington Forest planned unit development for 90 days over TDOT traffic requirements and possible school site",548,408000,956000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2756094-ba6861a23811e51ed2315711080a32bb&start=408&end=956","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2756094-ba6861a23811e51ed2315711080a32bb/thumbnail_408000.jpg","/articles/6695539/Tennessee/Planning-commission-defers-Remington-Forest-planned-unit-development-for-90-days-over-TDOT-traffic-requirements-and-possible-school-site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695539-1f3b9d5c0999353e17b3170649f1030f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136644&Signature=fefocWyEVf8GuHglKhSt8yOT96wOH9~KU-fZSmrBry-z2XNCcVjjSxJepVaj~kLLr0cmg8XPJueyBf0lx-ywHHGrrd3YF9TqODjtcgwdSufltYESqpooWPe-lSAzEwXBV0BC7hsJ8tTe7aXY3ABkjniyExVA31oSaul8TkpEl5QlB4bvs4J~bhEsLfa00WRGEabWT0S8652LMRDecQ3QTnh~CfPnwJaPk40IwdKIaTC8TWZmrgdG51cOKE3faZI4W7O48aY6R0XnKDsSFsCKo2fdQU1sy~KknFOADyTpLhAag2vTpqeXzQA30eU6CHkU9yMiEOjHFti0Txg534WYlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission on Jan. 23 voted to defer action on Remington Forest, a proposed planned unit development (PUD) on the former Sween Estate, for 90 days so the applicant can address traffic improvements requested by the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and work with city staff on plan-book revisions.

The project, introduced as Remington Forest (formerly Sween Estate), covers about 158 acres and proposes single-family detached and townhome units, commercial land and associated access. The commission's decision follows a Jan. 16 meeting between TDOT, the city and the applicant in which TDOT identified required highway improvements, chiefly turn lanes at intersections along Union Highway and a contribution toward off-site intersection work at Colorado/Elm and Unionville Pike.

Why it matters: TDOT’s traffic conditions affect whether the subdivision’s single access and on-site circulation meet state and local safety standards, and the applicant said the city and TDOT comments require revisions to the plan book and traffic-impact commitments before the commission can act.

During discussion, a city staff presenter and an engineer summarized TDOT’s formal feedback, saying the agency expects the applicant to design and fund turn-lane improvements at several intersections, including the proposed site access, and to participate in mitigation at a nearby development-related intersection. Will (role identified in meeting as city/transport reviewer) told commissioners that TDOT’s January 16 feedback represented TDOT’s position on required roadway improvements and that those improvements are multi‑pronged and would be substantial for Union Highway.

Developer Steve Knox, representing the owners, said the team has reviewed TDOT’s comments since the Jan. 16 meeting and needs time to “sit down with the city, review every single category of this, figure out the details, what we're gonna do, how we're gonna do it” and then update the plan book to show the required changes. Knox said the applicant had hoped an offer of roughly 24 acres for a school site would be accepted but that the local school board deferred its own decision to March; he asked for more time in case the board votes to accept a portion of the townhome area as a school site.

Knox said the developer had originally considered a 15‑year deadline on a land gift to the school system but planned to extend that to 20 years to make the offer more acceptable for school financing and timing. He said: “If they tell us no at that point, we'll have everything else done and ready to go. But if they come back and say, yes, they wanna do something, then I'm gonna have to have time to put their information in the plan book and everything else.”

Commissioners debated whether a 60‑day deferral would be sufficient and settled on 90 days to allow time for city‑applicant meetings and for the school board to act on the potential site donation. A motion to defer the application for 90 days passed by roll call (see “Votes at a glance” entry for this item). Chair and commissioners recorded their votes during the roll call; Commissioner Taylor was noted as not present for roll call.

What happens next: The applicant and city staff will work through TDOT’s list of required traffic and access improvements and update the project plan book. The commission will take up the PUD again after the 90‑day deferral. The school board is expected to consider the proposed donation at its March meeting; if the board approves, the applicant said it would need additional time to incorporate school‑site details into the plan book before returning to the commission.

Sources and attribution: Direct quotes and on‑record positions in this story come from Planning Commission meeting remarks by developer Steve Knox and city staff presenters recorded on Jan. 23. Other details summarize the commission discussion and motions recorded in the meeting minutes.","The Planning Commission voted to defer consideration of the Remington Forest planned unit development for 90 days after discussion of Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) required road improvements, outstanding traffic study items and a possible donation of townhome land to the county school system.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission: approvals, deferrals and procedural conditions from Jan. 23 meeting

Planning commission defers Remington Forest planned unit development for 90 days over TDOT traffic requirements and possible school site