Planning commission backs change to PUD minimum lot‑size language after debate over density and design flexibility

5960218 · October 17, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After debate over whether to keep, lower or remove a minimum lot‑size standard in PUD overlay districts, the planning commission voted to recommend an amendment to Article 8‑207.3, sending its preferred change to the Board of Commissioners for final action.

Mount Juliet planning commissioners on Aug. 16 discussed and voted to recommend an amendment to Article 8‑207.3 of the zoning ordinance, the section that addresses minimum lot area in Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay districts.

Staff presented background, explaining that the city previously had no minimum lot‑area requirement in PUDs, then several years ago set a 7,500‑square‑foot minimum and removed an average lot‑size requirement. The current proposal under review would revise the minimum lot‑area language in Article 8‑207.3; staff framed the change as a recommendation back to the Board of Commissioners and provided the ordinance language to the commission.

Commissioners discussed the policy implications. Commissioner Christian Franklin questioned whether a minimum lot size is necessary at all, noting past years without a minimum and saying smaller lots had sold successfully. Other commissioners said a minimum can preserve variety and that the PUD process allows the planning commission and Board of Commissioners to review each proposal individually.

Planning staff and other commissioners pointed out that base zoning density caps remain the controlling limit on overall units per acre — lowering a lot‑size minimum alone does not automatically increase allowable overall density without a zoning map or base‑zone change. After discussion, Commissioner Franklin moved for a positive recommendation to the Board of Commissioners; Commissioner Giles seconded. The commission approved the motion and will forward its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for final action and ordinance adoption if the board agrees.

The debate indicated differing policy preferences among commissioners: some prefer preserving a minimum lot‑area standard to maintain lot‑type variety, others prefer retaining full PUD flexibility and relying on the review process to address compatibility on a case‑by‑case basis.