Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lebanon council defers Blue Hickory specific-plan amendment after facade, layout questions

2138629 · January 22, 2025
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

The City Council deferred a second-reading vote on a Blue Hickory specific-plan amendment after a Ward 4 councilor requested more time to review facade and layout details with the developer. The applicant said the change swaps a service-park product for an alley-loaded product and that it meets previously approved architectural standards.

The Lebanon City Council on Jan. 30 deferred a second-reading vote on an amendment to the Blue Hickory Specific Plan, requested by Tri Gate Suncrest Blue Hickory LLC, after a Ward 4 councilor asked for more time to review façade and layout details with the applicant.

The item, an amendment to the official zoning atlas of the city, would flip the previously approved service-park product to an alley-loaded townhome product. Casey Kister, a representative of Meritage Homes, said the change would move the development to garage parking, alley-loaded units and that the team is meeting the architectural requirements previously approved in the specific plan. "We are not asking for any variations, changes to requirements, regulations from the previously approved SP," Kister said. He added one building has a unique orientation because of wetland buffers; the developer is willing to adjust material percentages on that single unit.

Councilors and staff noted remaining questions about façade materials and a townhome orientation Kister said could not be rotated because of wetlands. A Ward 4 councilor asked to review details with the developer before voting and moved to defer the item for one meeting; the council approved the deferral.

The council record notes the planning commission recommended approval previously, by a 7–1 vote. The council did not take a final vote on the amendment at this meeting; the item will return to the council agenda at a later date.

Council discussion and the developer's remarks occurred during the public comment and old-business portions of the meeting. The council's deferral preserves the application’s current approvals while staff and the applicant prepare additional facade detail for the next meeting.