Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Charlies Place Pmdp topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors decry scale of Charlie’s Place; planning commission issues negative recommendation on downtown PMDP

Mount Juliet Municipal and Regional Planning Commission · October 17, 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 commission on Aug. 16 issued a negative recommendation for the Charlie’s Place preliminary master development plan and PUD after hours of public comment raising concerns about height (up to 64 feet), density (about 220 units), parking and impacts on narrow residential streets; staff recommended conditions but the commission voted against the proposal as presented.

Mount Juliet planning staff described the Charlie’s Place proposal as a preliminary master development plan with a HUD overlay combining parcels in the town center corridor to create a walkable mixed‑use district. The developer proposed two multi‑use buildings with commercial on the first floor and four floors of residential above, for roughly 220 units across about 9 acres. Staff identified multiple requested variances including a 0‑foot front setback, building height to 64 feet (five stories), density up to about 25 units per acre, a reduction in required commercial parking, and a 60/40 masonry split rather than 100 percent masonry.

“Ordinance 2251 requires a minimum of 10% commercial,” staff noted while reviewing commercial‑use and parking calculations and asking the commission to include staff conditions if they chose a positive recommendation.

Residents packed the meeting to oppose the scale and siting. One nearby resident said, “This is almost... I’m totally, obviously, against this,” expressing concern about shadows, traffic and the character of the historic neighborhood. Developers and consultants said the project responds to a city request for a downtown district and cited prior planning efforts and outreach; they said shared parking and phased development can address some staff concerns.

Commissioners spent extensive time on traffic, parking and the project’s relationship to existing single‑family homes. After public comment and discussion, Commissioner Bowman moved and Commissioner Armstead seconded a negative recommendation to the Board of Commissioners based on height, density and parking variances; the motion passed (recorded as a negative recommendation by the Planning Commission). The Board will next consider the application and the commission’s recommendation.