Boma - workshop

call this meeting to order. This is the June 25th, 2026 joint conceptual workshop between the Board and Mayor Alderman and Planning Commission. We'll begin with the roll call. Commissioner Harrison?

Here.

Commissioner Allen?

Present.

Commissioner Franks is absent. Commissioner Lindsay is absent. Commissioner Orr is here. Commissioner Mann? Absent. Commissioner McLemore?

Present.

Commissioner Williamson. Present. Alderman Peterson.

Here.

Mayor Moore. Absent.

Wow.

Alderman Potts. Absent. Alderman Berger.

Present.

Yay. Alderman Caesar. Present. Alderman Blanton.

Absent.

Alderman Barnhill. Here. Alderman Brown. Absent. And Alderman Baggett. Absent. All right, let's begin.

Alderman Potts is on his way.

What's that?

Alderman Potts is on his way.

Okay. New business, item one, zoning ordinance update, potential amendments for First Avenue District, commercial recreation building standards, gas station roofs, data center, self-storage facilities, and shipping container temporary storage. Staff. Staff.

Good evening, everyone. I am not Kelly, but I will be handling this presentation tonight. So bear with me. I have not studied this in nearly as much detail as she has, but I am aware of all the amendments and have a good background on them. There may be a few things during discussion I may have to get back to you on just to preface it. So I'm going to go through some of the potential amendments staffs identified, either from earlier discussions or through various changes that have come down to us, for example, state law changes. So we have had some state law changes that go into effect January 1st of 27 regarding development application review timeframes. There's quite a bit to this bill, but essentially the short version is that there's a 60 business day time frame for development plans and site plans to be placed on an agenda for action. It coincides with our current review schedule fairly quickly. appropriately, but instead of being able to defer an item or have an applicant even pull their item and kind of resubmit it because they're not quite ready, that eliminates that potential. So we are working through some things. We will be coming back to you in August at the joint workshop. with more details regarding this bill and what actual language will be going into the zoning ordinance, how staff will be implementing it, and we plan to go to development services advisory commission the first week of September as well as holding a design professional meeting in the beginning to mid August to talk to our partners in the design world that submit plans to us so that we're all aligned in how this gets implemented. Also in this bill, there is an option where cities must allow for third-party inspections regarding site inspections for sureties and that they may occur prior to the city accepting the completed improvement. And then there's a 20 business day timeframe for written responses if the city disagrees with that inspection. So we are adding that option into our zoning ordinance as an option for how site inspections can be conducted as well. Again, we'll have more information on that coming in August for you. Moving on to the next amendment, this is one we discussed back in March and there was interest in looking at this. Currently, there is a historic site in the First Avenue District facing Bridge Street right along the Harpeth River And it's almost entirely constrained by the 100-year floodway. And they have received a variance to allow for zero parking spaces due to that, but potential tenants are requesting to be able to park on site. Since we had positive feedback to look into this at the March joint workshop, staff is proposing an amendment that for lots with frontage on bridge street in the first avenue district so those four properties in purple where there's a star are the first avenue district And where they are crossed by that blue on the bottom map, that's the floodway. So for lots with frontage on Bridge Street, service parking may be located within the floodway overlay district and outside the development limits. So this would allow for parking on that site within the floodway.

Can I ask a question about that? I was really disappointed to see that it said they could park in the floodway. And if you look at that, A lot of that is in the floodway, not just in the floodplain. The floodplain is kind of the lighter blue there.

It is. It mainly applies to this site and the site next to it, which already has some existing parking behind the building in the floodplain. But this was the direction that we had from the majority of the group. at the March joint workshop. If this is something that you do not wish to see, we can always take this out of the proposed zoning ordinance change that will be coming forward in September. We would love to hear your feedback as a group tonight. I definitely understand your concerns, Alderman Peterson. So the next topic I'm going to turn over to Joey who's done some research on this, but he'll be talking about commercial recreation building types.

So just as a reminder, the building types is what we break down the various buildings that we classify with the various developments that come through for review. It's essentially our architectural standards. They're built within those building types as well. So we've had some... requests or questions in the past about a few projects related to commercial recreation. And just as a reminder, commercial recreation provides participatory athletic, recreational, or physical fitness services for a fee. Examples include gyms, sports centers, bowling alleys, paintball, laser tag, day camps, mini golf, and does not include golf courses. This is also separate from any sort of parks programming. That's entirely separate. That's CI. So currently within our current standards, it would just fall under the commercial mixed-use building type. So there are no additional requirements or regulations for commercial recreation when it's a stand-alone use and that's the important thing, commercial recreation as a stand-alone use. So looking at what others have done in other municipalities, we've come up with some additional regulations specifically for commercial recreation within the commercial mixed-use building type. So when it's a sole use, we would alter to allow 20 to 65 percent glazing over the entire gross area and non-front facades not regulated by story. If I'll point to the top picture, a lot of these facilities have indoor fields and therefore they like to have windows and glazing on the upper stories to bring in that natural light into the building that may not be possible on the lower stories. Also an increase in architectural metals as an accent material up to 40% for non-front facades. So the front more public facing building would still meet all of our current architectural standards and material standards. But for the sides and rear of the building they could allow up to 40% architectural metals as part of those elevations. And also netting related to commercial recreation is limited to 50 feet within the Central Franklin overlay only. So city parks programming would not apply. That's just to limit any sort of use within the Central Franklin overlay. That's essentially within the Mack Hatcher circle. So there's not netting of driving ranges and that sort of thing that have come up before in the past as well. So moving on to gas stations, the existing condition for gas stations, which is specifically a regulation within the gas station use, is gas stations shall have pitched roofs for buildings and canopies, which gives a more residential form and improves building design. So this was really mainly done a few years ago or a few zoning ordinances ago to really kind of capture more of a residential rural feel for those service stations. And that's really when our building standards were not up to what they are today. We've really beefed them up since then. So both the material and design for commercial buildings has really been improved since this regulation went into effect. And here are just some examples of gas stations that otherwise with the materials and design would meet the current regulations, but this does show a variety of roof options to kind of show the various styles of gas stations that are out there. So our proposed amendment is gas stations, well, first of all, they would just follow the current standards for roof lines of a commercial building, which allow for both a pitched or flat roof or with a parapet roof. But the proposed amendment would be gas stations within 500 feet of a residential lot, not including multifamily, shall have a pitched roof for building and canopies. So it keeps that more residential form when it's close to residential areas. Otherwise, when it's in more commercial areas, they have the option of the flat or pitched roof. Again, some more examples, and they may not quite fit in with the architectural standards, but again, it's more about the roof forms and examples of those. I'll turn it back over to Emily.

All right. So we also brought up at the March joint workshop that we have had an inquiry about hotel conversion to multifamily residential. It hasn't really progressed forward. It's a kind of isolated occurrence at this stage. And so we studied the topic more in depth and found it really to be a situation with limited frequency at this time and pretty unique in nature. A little difficult to address with standards that would be across the board applied to any of these potential situations. So our recommendation currently is to review these conversions on a case-by-case basis through a development plan process. That being said, I do think we'll need to look at Envision Franklin during the next comprehensive update to make sure that we are addressing this in Envision Franklin to support when these come forward, but we need to actually delve into locations and various things related to where the use may be appropriate to be converted and where it may not be. So I think there's more to study here, but we really need to start with an Envision Franklin Amendment first, and then we can allow the PD process to occur, and it would come before you in the form of a development plan if we had that come up. Another topic we wanted to bring to your attention is something we've been monitoring around the state and country related to data centers. So currently, as you know, data centers are in industrial use. They're permitted in light industrial, but they're also currently permitted in planned district, general office, regional commerce 4, 6, and 12. So all of the green on the map up and down the interstate corridor, they are currently permitted in that area when outside 500 feet of an arterial street. But it may be closer than 500 feet if it's not visible from the arterial street. So we have really been thinking about this a lot and the potential impacts that if a data center came in, a new one in some of these areas and the proximity to residential, the proximity to activated corridors where we're trying to add housing variety to support mixed use development, how those could interact with each other and the potential for conflicts. So we wanted to raise the question if should data centers be further limited in location to the light industrial district with a quarter mile spacial buffer requirement from residential. That is staff's thoughts and what we think would be most appropriate at this point, but we'd love to hear your thoughts and if that is too limiting, not limiting enough, what you think that specific standard should be. And next topic, we have a self-storage facility topic. This actually came from Alderman Potts to be on the list for discussion. Right now, self-storage facilities are considered an industrial use but are permitted with additional use regulations in commercial and industrial zones. That includes PD, regional commerce, 4, 6, 12, and then light industrial and heavy industrial. The building footprint can't be within 500 feet of an arterial street, but it may be closer than 500 feet if it's not visible from the arterial street. Previously, similar to gas stations, we made some amendments to self-storage facilities several ordinances ago, and prior to that, self-storage was only permitted in the industrial sense. Alderman Potts, would you like to say anything on this particular topic?

Yeah, I would. Thank you so much, and I appreciate you including this on tonight's agenda. This is something that we spoke to in a sub-meeting. The focus that we've got right now is there's a couple of speak to Two to three different storage units, one near Columbia Avenue that I've received feedback that's in the ward, as well as another one along Mack Hatcher that's close to Sullivan Farms. And then there's a third that's actually at the intersection of Goose Creek and the off-ramp driving on 65 southbound right there on the corner at Berry Farms. And with those, one of the things that we talked about is these are large boxes. There's very little exterior creativity, if you will, to these structures. But also the lighting that we're experiencing from these is not within that residential environment that we're really looking for. So making sure that they are back into our industrial zoning or light industrial zoning I think is essential right now because we're getting, I'm receiving telephone calls and texts on this and ironically enough it came up in our conversation and I said this is perfectly timed. So I'm certainly, I will carry this forward and if anyone has any questions I certainly welcome them.

Thank you. We'll be coming back to these topics at the end and hitting them point by point for discussion. The last topic we have in the list for this particular presentation is regarding shipping containers, which are permitted as a temporary use with additional use regulations. Currently they're not allowed to exceed more than 30 days over a five-year period or only be present during a construction period. And I know that Alderman Berger received some correspondence about this, if you'd like to speak to that.

Sure. Yeah, I've been all over town looking at some of these. The one in question that came up was Dick's Sporting Goods. And I know the zoning ordinance allows it from November to the end of January or something for I think the holiday season. They have to be gone. What I came to learn about Dick's, and I'm sure it's probably true of some other ones as well, that their turnover, and this is a great problem for us to have in our city because it brings a lot of sales tax revenue, and I'm very concerned with our businesses that we keep them healthy and functioning. So they use these storage containers all the time, daily. Because some of the times their turnovers, especially during sports seasons, turnover is quite great. And if they had these off-site, they'd have to have a customer in their store, and they may have to have them wait. You may have to travel 20 minutes to a storage facility, pick up items, bring it back, pay somebody to do that, get a staff member or employee to do that. So they have all sorts of issues if they don't have their storage units in the back. Now, what is unique about this place and a number of other ones, I think even Academy Sports has this set up as well, where they're not really using so many storage facilities in the back. I'm sorry, or containers, but there should be a way to allow if they are secluded, totally secluded. You cannot, in this photo, you cannot see these containers from anywhere except the back end of that facility, of that store. There is no street. You have to travel in front of Dix and go on an alleyway to get there. And then you take a left to go down this alleyway. When you get all the way down, you take another left to go back out another alleyway. It's totally secluded. It's probably got I don't know how many feet of total vegetation, extremely high trees, probably 20. 30 years of trees there and it's quite a distance from the interstate so you would never see that. So I think we ought to talk about some of these and this would not apply across the board. I don't think you could do that. I think it has to stand alone apart from where the location is. Location, location, location is going to be key on these things. So how are they hidden? Not one customer, not one person visiting that store, not one other entity that rents in that whole strip area of that mall can see these containers. No one. Anyone delivering goods there, they can see that. People going out the back door of the stores to obtain the things. It's very organized. You open those storage containers, It's all categorized, it's super organized, it's all labeled, so they know exactly which container to go to, grab their baseball equipment, grab their hockey equipment, whatever they need, and run it into the store to stock it, to sell it. If somebody's trying to find something that's not in store, they can run out and get it. We had a video meeting of this, a Zoom meeting with staff and we had their employees or we had the company on there and it was very helpful to hear from them. So I think we're going to have to have some kind of options for some of these businesses that have the opportunity to do this, have the need and also have the hidden areas where they cannot be disturbing or being seen and be an eyesore to the public at all. So this was one of them I did drive by. Academy Sports is very similar. Couldn't do it on the ends of Academy Sports, but if you get to the back of the Academy and the back end, you could put containers back there and never be seen by anyone.

I should have noted as well that there's additional use regulations on shipping containers as a temporary use where They can only be placed in the side or rear yard. They have to allow for a certain amount of egress, a certain distance for egress in and out. So there are some additional standards to make sure there's still safety and emergency access there. We do not have a current landscape or screening requirement above and beyond what we have for site plans as they're submitted. So that may be something we can study further as well.

And some of those could lend itself to some screening or landscaping in different areas. I don't know. I've driven a few places. There are a few places that are definitely not appropriate because you can see it from the street. Or if you're driving down like you're going to Costco, you can see it from the street behind those stores at front Mallory Lane. So some of those are not appropriate, but some would be. But if you could find a place where you could do some screening, that might be appropriate. But some of these places are just totally secluded.

Thank you.

So how long have these been at this? I'm not sure. Alderman Berger, do you know how long they've had them out there, the shipping containers? I'm not sure. They've been on and off.

Their business has really picked up in the last few years, so this is why they have need of them, and I think they just recently in the last year or so. put them out more than 30 days. Mr. Cooper is here also.

When they're not visible, oftentimes I would say our enforcement officers that are driving around are not going to be able to notice them as easily if they're behind the building.

Mr. Cooper is here also from Dick's Brand Good, and he could also tell us.

Yes, they've been there off and on. off and on for a couple of years. There's not been consistently as many there that are there now, but they've certainly been there longer than 30 days.

Yeah, and I think that's mainly because business has picked up. And they do a very high volume.

Well, Chair, if you want to lead into discussion, I'll leave this slide up. I can go back to any of the other slides as well, however you want to take them, if you want to take them topic by topic.

Yeah, let's do that. Let's begin with the First Avenue District parking in the floodway. Anybody have thoughts on that?

I'm concerned because I don't like them to be in the floodway. It can be pretty tough.

And when we say parking in the floodway, are we talking overnight parking during the day when business is being conducted or whenever somebody wants to park there?

It would be a private parking lot, so it would be allowed overnight if the property owner was okay with that, of course.

All right. I had two questions on items that aren't on the discussion topics and maybe just clarifications on the first two items you talked about if I could. Go ahead. The first was around the agenda and notification of the state law changes when the application had to be placed on an agenda. So did I understand this correctly? You have 60 days from once the development plan is turned in until it has to be placed on an agenda or it has to be heard on an agenda?

Not until it has to be heard, until it has to be placed and posted on an agenda.

And is there a time window on what time frame from then it has to be on an agenda?

We are still going through that with the law department. There's a lot of areas of the law that are not as clear as could be. And so we are working through some of that. I think there's differences of opinion on it right now. Yeah.

Fair. If that becomes more clear, help me understand more about it.

We hope to bring that to you in more detail in August with those answers.

I think the intent there is probably good. We don't want things kind of sitting out there to infinity. The penalty for not moving through the process quickly is fairly significant that it gets approved, and we don't want to see developers be penalized by poor process, and we also don't want to see approvals automatically happening because of poor process. So in addition to that, the third-party inspection, I'd be curious as you think about that becoming more clear and bringing back to us. I'd love to understand if staff believes that that would be a benefit to have a third party do the inspection and then staff to review the third party inspection. Would that help with staffing and how that may affect the way that we operate our business?

I'll be surprised if we see very many third party inspections because we currently conduct our inspections quicker. than how I think we have set up the process for the 30 day or for the independent inspections per the law. So the benefit there is that you do get an independent inspector, but then the city still has 20 days to follow up, whereas you might could have been through the city's process in a more timely manner if you didn't choose that route. These bills, I mean, obviously were applied statewide, and we have found that the timelines are not restrictive for Franklin because we have been below the time frames that have been established. So I do think it could help potentially some with staffing, but because we can't require the third-party inspection, we'll probably have to get some data on how many we start to see in that first year to see if it's even frequent or not.

Thank you.

I mean, yeah. Sure. Yeah, I'd like to add that the process right now, there is currently supposed to be a design professional monitoring the site, and they're usually the same person who drew the drawings. So it behooves the developer to use that person. They've been a part of the project the whole time. So to go out, get someone totally foreign to the project, hire them when they already have someone on staff, and then do this, you see how it just doesn't really make sense in our situation, how we've set things today.

Thank you for the additional color. And now to the item that is of topic number one. I absolutely hear Alderman Peterson and her concern for parking in the floodway. Generally speaking, that is not something that I would even begin to fathom. However, as that property sits today, is there a parking lot on that property in the floodway that if it were used in its entitled use could still be a parking lot?

There currently exists one or two spaces, pull-in spaces, in front of the building, but nothing behind the building.

And those two spots, the parking spots that are existing, are in the floodway?

They are... Yeah, the whole property is in the floodway. Yeah, yeah.

And so I think we're in an interesting position with this particular property. I think there's one other component that I think is critical, and in Franklin we proclaim to be a historic preservationist community. There is a Quonset hut that is a historically protected structure that exists on this property right now, 100% in the floodway. And if we want that to become a viable opportunity that's a viable business that's something other than a car care place where you could do oil changes or wash cars or maybe you could put car radios in cars, if that's even a thing people do anymore, we need to be a little bit flexible with how we consider unique scenarios. If there weren't but for a historic property on this building that I think is worth preserving... but for not being able to use it for another application without parking on space. I know that we've given it the variance to allow parking to happen somewhere else, but if you could help me understand what commercial use a Kwanzaa hut could have where you're comfortable with parking being a quarter mile away, then maybe we would have something to talk about. But I don't think that's realistic for this particular property. And for that reason, I think in this instance, even though safety does become absolutely an issue, Alderman Peterson, and maybe if we could consider parking between times of X and Y so we don't have cars placed there overnight, they become a flood risk if the waters were to rise unexpectedly in the evening. I think for this particular property, given the circumstances, it's worth considering.

On Ms. Cesar, I would agree, too. And also, we could go years and years and years and be just fine and prevent parking, prevent them from having any parking in that floodway. And then five years later, something comes up. So during that five-year time, they have no opportunity to park. Parking is at a premium downtown. We know that. Isn't there a way to allow parking and to make sure that the owner of that parking lot is required to let anyone know who's parking in that lot? that you are parking in a floodplain. If you park there overnight, you park at your own risk. If it's raining, it's your responsibility to remove your car in time. Why not educate people? Why not inform people? Why not allow a property owner to inform the people that are going to park on their lot that they give them full disclosure, and then if it's raining and they're parked there, they go, hey, it's been raining for a whole day. We might want to move our car. And these cars will come and go. They're probably not going to park there day in, day out, stay there overnight. How many times? I don't know. But I think there ought to be an opportunity to allow these people to have some options and some leeway for parking.

Go ahead. Currently at the Bicentennial Park, we have parking in there and it says caution, you're parking in a float zone. You're liable. Why not just that simply would cause it? I mean, so is that floodway or flood zone at Bicentennial Park?

I think it's floodway. It's both. But we own it so we can put that signage out and we are responsible for making sure they're cleared.

Right.

Park at your own risk. Yeah.

Right.

You could require the property owner to do so and put up a sign.

I have a sign of waiver. Don't make a big deal of it.

Kitty. Chair. Go ahead. So I would say that I have the same concerns as Ann, and the only way that I would support it, and I was thinking the same thing, is if the property owner legally, I guess we would have to talk to our legal, Tashana, someone illegal, is if the property owner could because I know with us being the city but if they could say you're parking here at your own risk and or either not allow overnight parking or if you do park overnight you know it's at your own risk that would be the only way I could support this because the public needs to be aware that this is the floodway and you're parking at your own risk let them assume the risk and not us because we can't be negligent and say yeah you could just do it we've got to put that risk on the property owner that's my opinion.

Agreed.

Go ahead. Yeah, just to say that. I think, too, at first I was like, oh, it's just kind of a protection of property. Well, no, it could be protection of life, too. And so I think for that reason, that would probably be the only way I'd get behind it if you're educating people about that risk.

So as a group, it sounds like we're in favor of allowing parking in some manner with proper notification.

With some additional regulations for us. Okay.

Building types, commercial, recreation. Thoughts on this item from anyone?

Sure. Thank you, sir. Thank you, chair. I'm sub-bullet point number two, increase architectural metals as accent material to 40% of the non-front facing facades. As I look at that, I know that there are at least one sports development that's going to be coming forward as we've seen in the media. I also know that there may be another one according to staff. We'll call it ice rink type structures. I just want to make sure as we look at this, this says architectural metals as accent material to 40% of the non-front facades. The reason why I want to place emphasis on that is when you go over to A-game, for example, the backside and the sides of A-game are actually the sheet metal that wrap that building, that decrease cost, building cost there, which is good for that building owner. But I want to make sure we're really talking about accent, 40% accent material. Because if these other items come forward, we're talking about pitch and design and everything, that we are not wrapping these as warehouse-type buildings.

Accent only.

Yeah, I just want to be on record on that because I know a lot of this is going to be coming forward soon.

I was just going to say allowing some of the architectural metals makes a whole lot of sense because making some of these completely out of brick, it's just going to price it whether or not it just doesn't make sense.

Could somebody speak to glazing?

What exactly are we talking about here? So the windows, the glass. Just the glass? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. All right.

All right. Anything else on this one? Oh, gas stations, our favorite topic, it seems. Thoughts on gas stations, forms, placements? Yes. Yes.

No, yes, yes, and then some more yes. I think we really need to do a better job with our gas stations here. That gas station, Shell Station on Carothers, should have been a lot better than it is. And I think that if you look at that one on the, well, you get a different picture up there, but the other one with the bottom left and the bottom right, the other one looks like it's outer space.

Now, that one did come in, the one by Lifetime Fitness came in under the old ordinance, not 2019. So we have changed our entire architectural design standards since then for every building. So...

we can do a better job in our city.

The one at Berry Farms looks nice. Oh, I know. I don't know if we can recreate that everywhere, but...

So I'd love your feedback on if you would prefer a pit street everywhere across the city on gas stations or if it's just when it's next to a residential or in proximity of 500 feet to a residential lot if you'd like the pit street. That's really, I think, the nuts and bolts of what we're proposing for an amendment.

I think on this, definitely an extra residential. I think it gets a little bit gray on a lot of this because perhaps there might be some mixed use, some other stuff that different districts within downtown where maybe it's not residential but maybe we're trying to, the intent of that, the intent of Envision Franklin, all that, is to get something maybe visual with a pitched roof. However, you have other areas, maybe light industrial, those industrial areas where sometimes the compliance method to get that pitched roof is laughable when it's done. And you're just like, was it really needed in the context? So I think that certain areas, having a pitched roof, does not make sense is, you know, specific to the zoning, not necessarily just residential. Residential, of course, but I think there is beyond residential, there might be other areas that we know we are sensitive to. We are very sensitive about the design and adjacent design. There's other areas we know we aren't. And so maybe that gets refined a little bit more, not just for residential.

I agree with that.

Anyone else? Go ahead. I think two things. I think Ginny knocked it out of the park with her comments there. I would also say I'm not sure 500 feet is enough. I think maybe it could be 700. I don't know where 500 comes from because it's a round number, but maybe it could be 1,000 feet. And I think, you know, chair, or talked about the Berry Farms gas station. That's not, I don't think that's within 500 feet of residential, if you think about what's near it. But, you know, thankful that Boyle decided to make that look the way that it does. And so that's where I come in. I'm like, well, it's probably more regional than it is 500 feet to residential. So I don't know how you take that feedback and make it.

Yeah.

into something material, but I think it's probably a site-by-site. I would not want to say pitched roof across the city, though, because there's certainly some areas in the city where a flat roof, a pitched roof would look out of place. I think about Market Master on Columbia Avenue. You put a pitched roof there, that's great, but...

So I will admit staff has struggled with this particular standard in areas sometimes where it doesn't seem to make sense.

So that would be my only...

comment is maybe, I don't know if 500's right, and it may have to be a case-by-case scenario.

I agree.

Sure. I think Alderman Caesar touched on something that I've got here. There's actually a property that's already approved for a small convenience center that's on South Carothers. It would be on the north side of where Robinson Lake is right now. And this is a great example of why we do need this. And the 500 feet, I think if you went across the street, you might be close to it. But I think maybe the 1,000 feet marker might actually behoove us a little bit better.

I agree, yeah.

Okay.

Sounds good.

One other quick point. When you talked about light industrial, I would totally agree with that. But like if you're going down in front of Berry Farms in Paytonsville, having that kind of design for that gas station, that enhances the street facade. It enhances the overall look at that development. So if it wasn't there and it was just a regular gas station, I think it would really not be a good design for that development. So I think we have to really pay attention to that.

Let alone it provides great service for the people there. I mean, if you push it back, you're just going to maybe have to move it somewhere else that's not as convenient.

Next topic, hotel conversion to multifamily residential. Is that... Have you had some discussions of developers wanting to do it?

We've only had one instance so far, and it doesn't seem to be entirely baked at that point. So we did want to study it a little bit, and I think it's something we need to be aware of moving forward, especially when it comes to how we treat it in Envision Franklin. But as long as everybody here is okay with moving forward with first looking at it from an Envision Franklin standpoint and then having them come through the PD process if they want to convert. I think that's the approach we'd like to take now, if that would be agreeable to everyone.

I would think so. Anybody disagree with that? Good. Next. Data centers. Go for it.

I made some notes. I think on this, you know, I have not followed this closely at all, other than seeing little blips of it. But I do know there's one going in that wants to go near the Nashville Zoo. I think my big question on this is, you know, what are ones that have already gone in in other areas, maybe near residential areas and different areas, what are the things, the real things that come up after they're built that are concerns that we need to be aware of? Because I think... Me personally, commenting any deeper on this, I don't know. I don't know what they look like.

We do have a couple in the city that are very close proximity to residential. We have one on Eddy Lane, right where it's on the east side of Eddy Lane, but right where you transition from residential into industrial. It is right at the line. It is the first industrial property and then residential. They actually have not built out all of their buildings yet. They are allowed to build five buildings. I think they've built one or two. So it can get much bigger in scale per their site plan. I don't know if we've had many complaints on that one, but there's also one on Carruthers Parkway. between rolling hills hospital and liberty pike that is on the east side of carothers and backs up to a county subdivision and now i have heard of some issues there have you heard of any tom We've heard through public hearing processes when there was a rezoning coming through that there's a lot of noise sometimes at certain points that come from that building, and also the Sarah Cannon location where they have a lot of generators, I think, just south of there. But we've been really lucky that the data centers we have are not that large in scale. I will say what we have... seem to be more contextual to the size light industrial buildings we already have. So we don't just have a huge campus of a data center here. This is not a topic I'm overly familiar with either, but we did want to bring it to your attention while we were going through this zoning update because it may be a good time to look into this specifically.

I would say it's probably a good thing to look at and look at other communities where they had had full build-out and, okay, is the scale a factor? So at what point do you start having these issues? Is that something we can regulate? I think it's something we should look at.

From a data center standpoint, what we have here is larger. I mean, I have seen major data centers that take up more area than the mall by far. I don't know that the land values here would would allow that.

I think that plays into a lot of why we don't have more.

Most of those are on the outskirts. Anyone?

Is that what you said? I couldn't hear you. Yeah, that probably plays into why we wouldn't have large ones here. The one on Carruthers is in my ward. It's set back. It's probably nondescript. You don't really see it. I've never had any complaints about it at all. It's not in a residential area. I mean, Breckenridge is behind it, but it's somewhat behind there, so it's not actually near Breckenridge. It's around commercial. It's around commercial. If we're going to live in the 21st century and continue to live in the 21st century, we're going to deal with data centers. If you want to, use your phone, use your computer. have technology because that's where the trend is going and it's the need. We have to find a way how to manage those and how to not be against them but also address some of these issues that have come up. Where they're located, how much energy they use and how much water they use. And is that sufficient? Can we provide that? Is that some questions that we will need to ask and have answered sufficiently for these centers, especially if they plan to build and expand? There's all sorts of questions I think we need to be asking about that.

And for a major data center, no, we can't provide that amount of water.

I'm wondering if, based on what you just said, Alderman Burger, and what we've kind of been talking about, if instead of only the light industrial district, if perhaps we allow them also and continue to allow them in the planned district, And that way they can come through a little bit more of a scrutiny for an approval process and would have to go to the board to be allowed in the PD. But maybe not outright, by right, allow them in general office in the RC districts. Just a thought for something you need to ponder.

And if we limit it to light industrial, we pretty much said you can't give...

There's not a lot of property. Yeah. Yeah.

I don't see... I do worry about limiting them so severely because, as Alderman Burger said, Tennessee has an opportunity to win the data center race, but not without some potential repercussions, and so we've gotta be mindful about what that might mean. This is the future sitting right in front of us. Of the existing data centers, I'm trying to make sure I understand the roads on the map here. Are all of them in regional commerce currently? The one on Eddy Lane is probably not.

The one on Eddy Lane is light industrial. It's in the pink area. And I don't know if we have any other data centers. Those are the only two.

So Duke Drive would be light industrial.

Thank you, Chair. Emily, thank you for this. So a lot of the complaints, and Jenny, I think you were just speaking about the noise. I get a lot of complaints in Ward 3 right there by Polk Place regarding light industrial. And typically it's going to occur during the fall, winter time frame when the vegetation's down, we're getting all the noise that has come in. So I'm very sensitive to this. I'm also looking if we've got the, you said a quarter mile special buffer there. That'd be tough to put something into that light industrial park on the east side of Columbia Avenue. But on the west side of Columbia Avenue, that may be more of an option there. But I could also see repurposing some of these buildings along that Columbia Avenue area for something like this. I would like more oversight and approval, as you were just describing, as we go through this process.

All right, we need to move on. We're running over time on this item. Self-storage facilities. Thoughts? Previously only permitted industrial zones. We want to keep it that way? Or are we just concerned about lighting when they are built, it sounds like?

We've looked at the lighting, and because so much of it is internal in the corridors where they are actually providing the lighting, it's harder for us to regulate from the zoning standpoint. It's not external site lighting that is generally the issue. It's how they light up the corridors inside the building and then put the glass windows. So it's harder to regulate that from a zoning standpoint, just so everybody's aware.

And the one that's near Southeast Parkway in McHatcher, it was fine until they... cut all the tree buffer down, and then the complaint started.

And so, Chair, that's part of what is driving this, is now these buildings have moved from being one-story buildings that we all used to go to. There's actually one, and I apologize, don't remember the street name, but it's behind the Chick-fil-A on 96th. Thank you. And that's a one-story unit. It blends into the environment really nice. But now everything's gone two, three, four stories up. And it's everything that Emily's describing. It's the complaints that we get on a regular basis. And unfortunately, they're being dropped in closer to a lot of the apartment units that are in there. And it makes it convenient for those individuals. However, these giant boxes are not conducive to the theme of an environment. And we were just complimentary about the gas station in Berry Farms. and yet almost on the other side of that tree line is this giant four-story box that's sitting there right now. And so putting them back into light industrial or industrial zoning is appropriate.

I'll give one example, too. In my ward, next to Lifetime, behind the Shell station, is a storage unit, and the first floor is all commercial. We have dog training. We have a veterinarian in there. We have a doggy spa in there. But it doesn't really look like a storage unit. And it sits back in. It's sort of nondescript. But at the same time, it looks nicer than this one in this picture. And, you know, this one's not bad looking. I mean, it's not a bad looking building. I mean, it looks like an office building. And I wouldn't be opposed to that because it's right among all the apartments. But I'm concerned about design and placement location.

I think, too, it sounds like lighting is the issue, light pollution that's coming from the interior of the building, and we don't really have anything that we can dictate on that. I mean, do we have anything in the zoning ordinance about a property that's creating nuisance light pollution? I mean, regardless of where it's coming from?

We can do a light reading at the property line, and we can enforce it in that way. But a lot of it's more the glow... outward rather than like where we're measuring at the property line.

Pollution.

Yeah.

Because I know how that goes. You can measure it and it's low and then you go six feet up and it's the surface of the sun.

They make them bright for security reasons. They want to make everybody feel safe going in there because they're in 2020.

This is another one where we could do light industrial, heavy industrial, and PD as an option. If somebody really wanted to put it in somewhere else, like for instance, like the one on Carruthers, they could come in as part of the plan development and pre-plan it as a part of their master plan. So that gives a little more flexibility.

I'll pause the other thing. I would just suggest driving by there some night when it's dark. Because, honestly, I don't even recognize the light. I don't think there's any really light pollution from that particular unit. And it also is, again, by the apartments. But I think, you know, we...

The 1096 is lit up more than that one. The one across the rolling hills, kind of by the car dealership. That one's lit up, yeah. I live in Bethsward, so I can...

Well, what I was going to say, it's such a competitive market, so once one gets in a certain area, like Berry Farms, there's not likely another one's going to come. And so that's big enough to facilitate the... consumers in that area and I've had three of them and the thing about it is they the market study that's been created for the area has to conform with the number of rooftops and so you know like they wanted Berry Farms over there to The old hotel, that's out of sight and out of mind to an extent. And so I think it's a great need for the people in that area. Otherwise, you're going to create more traffic bringing them across town if you go into an industrial area. So be careful with the consequences. Right.

Shipping containers.

Sure. Too sweet. On this, just a couple things. You know, I think if they're not visible from anywhere, I think, like Beverly was saying, there's not really issue with that. I will say, as much as my first instinct was like, oh, you can screen it, you can put up stuff, I will say that that would probably limit the usefulness of them because they have to unload, offload these things. And so, you know, if you're requiring vegetative screening buffer, you know, that's pretty much setting it. How are you going to unload, offload these things? So, you know, my first instinct is like, hey, we can treat it like a dumpster. But I think, you know, thinking about that, that's probably not the best idea. Yeah, I think, you know, if they're somewhere that's not visual, you know, from public right-of-way, all those places, that's not a nuisance to adjacent properties. And as long as they're maintaining those drive aisles, you know, I don't see that really as an issue. You take a look at what Home Depot does with their mulch and their seasonal stuff. They have mountains and pallets and just huge, massive areas. They even set up full drive-through stuff. And so, you know, that's... Yeah, the same. I see no difference.

Anyone?

I would say one more thing. Great, great points. I would say that I agree with the screening and landscaping because it doesn't seem practical. But if you have a back end like this, let's say as we're looking at it from this end here, looking into it, If that fronted a street area, but you had the opportunity, not a street, but maybe a drive aisle or something, and you could see it from cars going down a side street or something, if you had the opportunity to screen that side street and screen that part so they don't see into the back, then you could do screening, but you couldn't do screening around those. That would be impractical. So if you had it in a different location, that would be exactly what you say wouldn't work.

Yeah, if you modify the visual access to it, put something in there, you can fix any issues.

Yeah, I was just thinking if I'm going down Nickel Mill Road and I passed Academy Sports and I, you know, you can take a left and go behind their building. If I took a left and went behind their building, but if I'm driving down Nickel Mill and I could see in and they had them along that road, If you could screen that, that'd be one thing, but in the back is where they need it. It could be totally secluded like this, but it might be an opportunity, and we'd have to look at those individually, I think.

Are we done with this one? No more comments? Ready for the next item?

Okay, I'll just jump right into it then. This is a topic about something that came up during our discussion at the end of the March joint workshop. We are not proposing any amendments or changes to the zoning ordinance related to residential infill development. at this time, but we have studied what we have today, and we have taken some pictures of things we've seen around our central Franklin overlay district where this would apply, where transitional features apply, and we have compiled it into a presentation for you, and we would really like to get your feedback tonight on if you want us to propose any future amendments because we'll be bringing back the full zoning ordinance amendment package to you at the August joint workshop for a September planning commission meeting. So we want to make sure that we use the next two months appropriately if there is a desire to look at these standards. But we have not done it yet because this was not a unanimous topic when it was brought up at the March Joint Workshop. And I have Elizabeth Boulay here. She is our Assistant Preservation Planner, and she has delved into this topic for us. So she's going to be doing the presentation, and I'm here as well if you have any questions. So she'll run through the presentation. If you could reserve your questions and comments for the end discussion, that would be awesome. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you and good evening. So as mentioned, this is intended to be a conversation about the Central Franklin overlay and residential infill and if any changes are desired. So we'll start with, this was a topic that was brought up during the March joint conceptual workshop as one of the potential topics to research. And it was requested that we look at new residential infill and the standards that are producing the outcomes we're seeing today and whether the products are contextually sensitive and compatible with the existing neighborhood and character areas of the central Franklin overlay. Specific neighborhoods such as Natchez Street and Hard Bargain were mentioned along with other unique pocket neighborhoods seen throughout the Central Franklin overlay, such as along Adams Street and Battle Avenue as well. At the workshop, it was mentioned that new construction may appear to be incompatible in size and scale compared to the established neighborhoods. And in similar feedback we've been receiving during the preservation plan update process as well. On the slide here we have a map to assist in understanding the boundaries of the central Franklin overlay where the research was conducted as the CFO captures the neighborhoods that were mentioned. Mostly bounded by the Mack Hatcher Parkway and includes the oldest parts of Franklin. So our study consisted of a windshield survey of Central Franklin, reviewing the existing and previous zoning ordinance standards, reviewing building permits and infill data, and interviewing zoning staff while working with colleagues in the planning department. And our goal this evening is to understand if this is a topic that we should continue to research to refine the standards for. So we've compiled some images in an attempt to capture what could be a mobile workshop into this discussion this evening. The central Franklin overlay is intended to establish that some of the oldest parts of the city have unique character defining elements and that this character is desired to remain. So new infill should be context responsive and be respectful of our unique neighborhoods that have helped define the character of Franklin historically. And this is what you see on screen currently. As we are discussing residential properties in the city out of respect for privacy, we have not called out specific locations, but they are all within the Central Franklin overlay and have provided notes to call out any examples that are not in Franklin. So these images on screen reflect the established character of the Central Franklin overlay, and the next few slides will show info that has taken place over the last few years. So here are some examples of the new infill development, and we've tried to capture the established character that is next to them. One exception on the slide is the image on the right, which is in the central Franklin overlay, but transitional features were not applied to the construction, as it is not in a defined established area, and we'll discuss this more later. So here are some additional images to show the trends of increasing height, scale, and massing of new construction. And so we would like to note that the construction is of very high quality with the standards that we have in place today. But we'd also like for you all to examine the differences that you're seeing in some of the buildings that we have the defined character elements in and the new construction. So as we've seen a few examples of the infill development, we want to go over and explain the existing requirements that shape the development of the infill. These infill projects are most common in the R4 and R6 zoning districts, so these standards apply, which regulate setbacks, height maximums, which allow for half a story above the block average, and the landscape surface area, which requires permeable surface as a percentage of the lot. There are also transitional features applied to properties in the established areas of the Central Franklin Overlay, which address compatibility through building height, scale, and massing, and character through certain provisions outlined on the slide, such as traditional placement of dormers and one-story porch elements. So Envision Franklin calls out and provides recommendations for infill development and defines the established character area where the existing character is desired to be preserved, shown in green, and transitional areas where change in the neighborhood form is expected or enhancement of the existing character is desired, shown in blue. Some of the transitional areas include areas along West Main Street, Fifth Avenue North, Liberty Pike, and the Harpeth Industrial Court. Contextually appropriate infill is encouraged in all parts. However, the zoning ordinance currently only requires transitional features be applied to the areas of established character. So we'll go over some of staff's findings now. and some of the challenges. So first is regulating hype by stories. Some of the challenges are to verify and enforce and relies on averages in comparison to established housing submitted by applicants. And this average gradually increases over time as well. Second, full width build out to setbacks and maximizing buildable area. As height increases, the setbacks do not increase, which allows for buildings that are larger and have more frontage. The five to seven foot side setback requirements may be inconsistent with the infill with the established residential development patterns. Average front setback measurement may include existing covered front porches when applicants are measuring them. So new buildings then are positioned in line with the existing porches and new porches commonly encroach into the front setback, which may break the established rhythm. For lot coverage, building coverage is not regulated and the LSA can be hardscaping, such as permeable driveways, walkways, which allows for a larger footprint, building footprint on lots. And lastly, transitional features. There's a trend towards features that are larger scale, proportion, and rhythm than the established characteristics, and interpretation of transitional features can be subjective. So staff's analysis is that infill development does not always appear contextually sensitive or in keeping with the character of established areas. If there's a desire for more compatibility for infill development, then refinement of the standards for districts or transitional features would be needed. So we've put together a few different approaches if you at all would like for staff to study this further and bring an approach back for a potential amendment. Our first approach option is to explore an alternative metric to regulating building height and apply it to all facades of the building. As seen in our example image on the right here, which is not in Franklin, there is a one and a half story building that is taller than a two and a half story building next to it. In researching peer cities, other municipalities have a maximum height in feet that accompanies the height in stories, which may be helpful. A change in metrics could lead to more compatibility with existing construction and reduce subjectivity in determining the height in stories as one and a half stories become increasingly exaggerated. And this can also reduce the appearance of height being taller on the sides and rear of the buildings compared to the front. So for the second option that we could explore is the building coverage maximums and LSA requirements and possible refinements to those. As mentioned previously, the current definition of LSA allows for permeable paving to be considered landscape surface area. And in doing this approach, we want to ensure that there are not inconsistently covered lots by buildings because they are dipping into that traditional lawn green space that we see in our defined areas. This may also assist in reducing sprawling buildings that are not characteristic of the established areas. In the footprint seen on the right side, there are notable differences in the lot coverages in which they're being maximized, and this pattern of development begins to depart from the established character. So for the third approach option to explore setback requirements, this is to ensure the established development pattern is retained and new buildings do not overwhelm adjacent properties. Since taller heights are a trend, it could be an option to consider additional side setbacks, and exploring the setbacks could reduce possible inconsistencies of building widths of infill development. So approach option four is to examine the transitional features and the desired character. Our final approach option is to examine this and the desired character of the Central Franklin overlay. We could study the existing character desired to remain and refine the ordinance to ensure proposed buildings match the established character. This could provide more specific standards for scale, rhythm, and patterns of architectural elements on buildings. So as we're here this evening, we would like to better understand and discuss with all of you if there's a desire to further refine the zoning standards in the Central Franklin overlay through the approaches discussed to address height, building widths and setbacks, building coverage, and architecture. And one other question we would all like you to focus on is if transitional features should be applied throughout all of the Central Franklin overlay, including the established and transitional areas on the map to the right. So I'm happy to go back to any of the approach options if you'd like to discuss them further.

For the first bullet, I think there is a desire to further refine those to keep new construction within reason. I'm all for property owners being able to sell and receive value for the property they've held for a long time, but to come back in with something new that just overwhelms everything else, I think that's a deterrent for the streetscape as you're driving down any of these areas. So for you all to dig back in and try to find some type of standards that reels that in a little bit will be a benefit to the city. Anybody else have thoughts? Commissioner Williamson.

Yeah, I think on this one, on the you know, looking through the presentation, I think the one thing that I was most curious about would be kind of max coverage. You know, of course, property owners will, whoever it is, you know, if you buy that small 600 square foot house that has a decent yard, you know, you're going to want to build that out. But again, to what extent, and I think that It does limit, it changes the character of the established places. And also, too, I think some of the ones that may be in question that we've seen, it really comes down to kind of poor architectural sensitivity. You know, that depending who develops it, it could be great or it could be not great. So I think regulating that a little bit. Height limitations, I find that interesting. And then I don't know if this would be appropriate or even a good idea or anything, but kind of the floor-to-floor limits, I know that's something that's applied in commercial. Of course, some of these older houses, they have seven-foot ceilings. That's not a – people kind of want a little bit more – Yeah, upgraded living experience, and that was done for the times because it was efficient. So not to limit it where you can't enjoy modern living if you were to renovate even an existing house. One thing, too, like for the setbacks, I know in R4, specifically the Hill Estates, that was lined up pretty clear. especially side to side and that front facade. You know, there wasn't necessarily a big limit on how far back you could go in those lots. You know, they're quarter-acre lots. So I thought, you know, yeah, I think that can provide some clarity. Yeah, because I think sometimes people buy these houses that are smaller square footage and you're paying $800,000 for a tiny little square footage. Well, you know... you'd wipe it out and build to your maximum capacity and go build your $1.2 million house that might look more like a tall skinny. And does that fit in?

Sure.

Before we go any farther, because you guys have just addressed something. You've addressed people coming in and buying, okay? So let me, I want to stop you there, and I'm speaking for some other property owners here. So first of all, I'd like for you to bear with me because we've discussed some other things that are not quite as important to some of us here. So please just bear with me for a second. I'm speaking for existing property owners, and there are several of us here. So I'm going to speak from the perspective of those who are not selling properties who currently own, so there was a meeting that was held years ago when Pearl Bransford was an alderman, and some people had already started this process of gentrification, which is basically what we're discussing. And gentrification, for those who are not so familiar with it, is when wealthy individuals come into a blighted area, and I hate to call my neighborhood that, but it's an area in which some of the houses have gone down and Some things need to be upgraded, okay? My area is not blighted, but we have some older homes that need some renovations, right? And there have been some two-story buildings come in, like you say, the houses really are a little bit big for the lots. But anyway, and so the community was invited in. The city was there. The mayor was there. There were aldermen there. I was out of town. Emily and Amy Brown were there. They own quite a bit of property there. I think the leeches may have been there. But anyway, and the neighborhood basically said, that horse has already left the barn. These guys have already come in. And the community, as you guys would say, you know, the... The way that houses are built now, that's already gone. We already have beside our houses, houses that are built that don't, you know, fit the character of the neighborhood. We already have houses that look like they're space age beside other houses. We already have two and a half story houses beside ours. So we don't want you coming in city now telling me, that my porch can't look this way, and that my permeable, you know, this is the way my drive has to look, and I've got to have this and that and all that. Please don't come in and tell us that already have been living here for 50, 60 years, and our grandparents have owned. Give us... you know, guidelines that we have to meet and now have to pay more taxes because we have million-dollar houses, cause us to have to spend extra money that we don't have because we now have to meet guidelines that these folks who built a million-dollar house don't have to. So, you know, that was stopped. The city backed off. Okay, so now we have six or seven of these huge mini mansions, and now we're coming back in and you want to give us some, you want to regulate our height, our width, our coverage, our architecture. No way. Basically, at least for Natchez Street and Park Street, we have some Park Street folks here, some Action Street here, we're basically like, city, leave us alone. Please leave us alone. We're going to renovate. There's some of us that already have plans to not sell, but to renovate. And to allow us to rent. And now the city wants to come in and say, oh, but you've got to have two and a half inches here. You've got to have a calendar here. You've got to have a bush here. No, don't do that to us. Those horses have already left the barn. Okay? And so basically we're saying, leave us alone. And if you want to go somewhere else and do that, leave us alone. And one of the things that's being said is, and we have some people that want to regulate us and didn't even know that the nursing home was open. once Claiborne Institute, that was once Natchez High School, and that's okay, but we do know that. This is our neighborhood. This means a lot to us. And just like I feel, you know, I do feel strongly about those, about the data centers, but this is a hill that I would die on, okay? This is something, we're talking about places that, you know, historic places, but this is, yes, I'm passionate about this. This is places that, we talk about affordable housing, These are places that folks live that have got to have a place to live. We make concessions for affordable housing and it lights up our faces. And we will give extradicity for affordable housing. These are people that are not selling. And I understand exactly what the chair was talking about. I do understand that. I understand exactly what you were talking about, Commissioner Williams. We're talking about folks who are here for the long haul. who've been here for the long haul. We don't need any extra. We don't need anybody to tell us how to do it. We know how to do it. We just haven't had the money to do it, you know? And so that's, we're basically like, leave us alone. We can do this. We don't need those extra things, you know? But I understand what you're saying. We don't want anybody to come and put a five-story in. We also don't want anybody to tell us that. So I'm speaking for, they know they can't speak. They would love to speak, but I'm speaking for more than just me tonight. And so Kind of, you know, basically we kind of say leave us alone. And I'm saying it as nice as I can. Thank you for listening. I'm going to hush now, but anyway.

My question is how does it compare to the current zoning and the current? Because I built over there off Oak Drive and Cedar Drive. And I went through the process and had some great staff comments about my height and about my height. setbacks and all that and all that worked out great so why are we asking for additional handcuffs on our property owners and and our newcomers compared to our current

Yeah, we're not actually proposing any of these approaches now. These are just things that could be done if you wanted them done. We have not written any text for the zoning ordinance. We have not even studied how we would apply the approaches yet. We have only just brainstormed. That's all we've done. So we're not proposing anything else at this point.

Are they allowed to speak in this meeting now? No. Oh, I thought they changed it.

No, no. We tried that once. It didn't work out. Commissioner?

I think, too, I do understand that. And I think, you know, looking at the map that's up there, you know, yes. anything were to be modified, you know, all this area, would it be appropriate? Absolutely not. I'm thinking like 50, 100 years when I'm not even, you know, no one's around, you know, how much, are there specific historic areas that character needs to be looked at so that say, in 50, 100 years, maybe, you know, you don't want to just have the historic house that's preserved with brand new infill all the way around it. Because, you know, I lived in, you know, the whole estates for a long time, and I really appreciated, you know, my neighbors have been there for 40 years, and they weren't going to go anywhere, and they're going to stay there. And I think, too, in areas, there has been very tasteful kind of modern standards and build-outs done, and

Yeah, I wouldn't want to limit that So I just worry about the future fabrics and the history being erased I'm thinking about having You know things that that a person who is either redoing their home or somebody that wants to come in and build a something different. I was looking at my own subdivision, which is several decades old. It's amazing. A lot of people have two stories. Some of them have two and a half, but several people have one-story houses or one and a half. that they've all been able to work together and everything. So I don't know if we want to put too many requirements on people having some particular zoning standards about Building height or building width or so on. I think it's something that's been done before, but also it could be that somebody builds a really big new house close to you, then suddenly your house is worth a lot more money.

Can someone flip to page five of that? By the way, Marcia, thank you. I totally agree with what you had to say. needs to be said, and I think there's a lot there. But this is one I have a problem with. When you're driving down Liberty Pike and all of a sudden you get to Ralston Lane and this huge house has gone up and it's pretty, you know, in a different setting, it would probably look great. It's got a carport thing that goes, a walkway that goes to a garage and everything. But look at the house on the right. It's like the... You know, the rhinoceros and the little turtle. It's just like the worstest little house. And I'm like, it so overpowers it. And it really bothers me. I drive down there every day, and every time I drive down Liberty Park, it just goes whoop, right in my face. And I can't get over this place, so... It's like, I think there has to be a little bit tapering here of some sort because it just doesn't, that doesn't mean that house may not go away someday and somebody decides to go ahead and build up something as well. But I guess, I don't know what your opinions are on this. I'd certainly like to hear if other people have an issue with that. But I remember a long time ago we had some forums and seminars that we went to and you threw up stuff and you said, what house doesn't fit here very well because you had something very much like this, something towering over, very small homes. And granted, places change and they're going to evolve. We don't want to stop people evolving their neighborhoods and changing their homes and building on and people that want to stay there and 40 years later they get to build on to a house or they... Renovated or something. I mean, I don't I don't want to set those. I'm with Marsha I don't want to put all those rules and regulations on people but but this is This is so that gets at one of our other questions.

We have this Is it Jonathan? We have this map in Envision Franklin. The green area are considered established areas in central Franklin and the blue are considered transitional areas. And that area of Liberty Pike was designated during this mapping process as a transitional area. So we do have some transitional features requirements in the zoning ordinance already that we adopted last time we talked about it. And so they were not applied to that particular property because it was a transitional area. So that is something we'd love to hear from you is that even if we don't change what we have today, should we at least say anything in Central Franklin gets what we have today, the same standards? Or if it's in the blue, should we say, no, they can deviate from what we have today under the transitional features?

Whenever we're talking about Ralston Lane, there are a lot of different types of houses on Ralston Lane. A lot of different types of houses. And they're also in the... I guess in the little subdivisions that are, you know, that you just can turn into on Ralston Lane are also a lot different. But I mean, right now, there may not be anything like else, much like this white thing here, but there are a lot of different and definitely a lot of different prices on houses there.

And European look, you know, If they have two or three other lots around it, it may continue on to a European look, but it's no different from the various churches we have throughout the community. That's true. Their architectural is different. Are we going to set up an ARC and have a review committee to review applicants? Do we want to do those kind of things?

That is not in the plan. Not at all.

I think there have been some really interesting points tonight here, and I don't have a definitive direction to give you. What I would say is I am supportive of not over-regulating home builders and homeowners because I think the free market kind of drives that in some regards. Bev, I think you spoke for me on the slide five. However, I can say there are folks in this room that are saying don't overregulate, and probably one of the most consistent comments I get when we're talking about housing is the frustration for people in the central district about the tall and skinnies that are going up all over the place. And so while I am trying to balance for the audience here and for the people who are watching at home, I get it, this is my land, don't tell me what I can do, but the six that just got disappeared and became something that doesn't fit our community or doesn't fit the community as it is today, and Commissioner Allen, I'm not just talking about Natchez, I'm talking about that whole big green area because it's not, while Natchez is an important area, there's a lot of land in there and people are putting up big tall and skinnies and if you drive out in front of Franklin High School, there's one, and I'm not sure that the subordinate property is not taller than the primary property. I don't know whose tape measure measured that one, but that is what I worry about, is you take a community that has nice, well-built homes, and you come in and you change the fabric of that community with one of these, not a lot, but one of them, and there's not really any oversight. And so I'm trying to balance that. I don't have an answer. I'm asking for the community to kind of reach out, communicate to us more, because it's obviously a hot button where I don't want to see over-regulation happen, but I also don't want to see this come up next to my house.

So the one thing that I would say, Natchez Street is on the National Historic Register of Places. So out there in Hillsboro, we can come out from under that. So I could say that to you. So we could take care of that that way. So we could say, because we're all about preservation in the city of Franklin, all right? So I could say that to you. So we could say that we're going to come out from under that. We could say that we're going to preserve Natchez Street, right? And so that our character of Natchez Street, if we want to, we could change that. So is that in the transitional? What he's talking about, is that in the blue? That's in a totally different area than we are, right? So I think we're in the green and you're in the blue. So we can separate. And so for what you're saying, what I'm talking about is in a different color than yours. I thought it was whole. Okay. But what I'm saying is, since you're having problems, what I'm saying is my area is in a different area than yours. I think you're in the blue or the green. We're in different colors. Aren't we different colors?

I think the example on Hillsborough Road that's going up is in the green area. So you're in a different color than what I am. It would be the same area.

In order to make you feel better about what I said, we're in different colors, so we're dressed in two different colors. So if anyone gets on your back about that, what Marsha was talking about was in a different area of town.

So just to clarify, the example on Hillsborough Road and Natchez Street, they're both in the established character areas. Okay. So they are both in the green area.

Or you could just tell them to get over it and they could talk to me. So that would be the other. Or if you just can't, I mean, sometimes we just have to swallow some things.

All right. We've got another item coming up. Is there any more discussion on this one? Did we give you any... Did you have a comment?

I just have one comment to Emily. Emily, I'll answer your question just yes and yes. I do have a or on your slide you asked for answers yes or no. I am I would like to see why Fort Granger as it's listed there is in the transitional area. I do have concern about that. So just take that to note. Thank you.

All right. Briefly explain to me how you can take a 900 square foot house and then you build like a 3,900 square foot house on the same lot. Aren't you allowed to? or have to use the same building footprint, why are you able to build so far back and you take the entire lot and build a humongous house? That's what our issues are. And we have these amazing people tonight who won't sell, but there are some people who probably will. And Natchez Street is going to lose a lot of its historic character. And it is on the National Register of Historic Places. And the more we have of that sort of thing, we do have a chance to lose. you know, we have a threat of losing. So if we can figure out something. We talked about even seeing if we could get some funds. I mean, if they're going to do it, at least let us get something out of it. We talked about getting some funds and then putting it toward a housing fund. And we brought that up. I don't know if there's anything we can do to investigate and see if there are any opportunities for that. But it is going to change. And we hate that. But I just wish we could figure out and understand why if you have this lot and you have this small house, then you have this house that, and all of these houses, most of them were built since we had that meeting with Pearl. A bunch of them in the neighborhood that have been built in the last two or three years. One right across from the 264 Natchez and one down the street. on a lot that my grandfather owned. That's the biggest house. It almost looks like a hotel. And I don't understand how they were able to build that on that little lot.

Yeah, so outside of the historic preservation overlay, demolition isn't regulated. And so all the other areas in the Central Franklin overlay, you could demolish a building and build to the current standards, which we went over with the current setbacks and the block coverage or the LSA requirements and the current building height restrictions that we do have, which is a half story above the average of the block face.

Yeah.

So there's nothing restricting them from building.

All right. Do you have any additional questions for either board or commission? Do we give you what you need to proceed forward with? Or just more confusion?

I think we can take this back and we can discuss how we want to proceed and we'll bring back. what we have concluded in August, but it sounds like the majority of the group seems to be okay with keeping the current standards, maybe still applying the Central Franklin standards across all of Central Franklin rather than just the green area, perhaps. But we'll look at that since that was not unanimous necessarily. And then we may have some clarifying language coming forward for transitional features that staff is proposing just due to implementation and ease of implementation for the building neighborhood services department that don't regulate further but just clarify.

That would be good. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Item number three.

I can go through this very quickly. These are the rezonings to the map that we will be planning to bring forward in September with the actual text and map amendment. The first is the Carter Hill Park Rezoning, which is the soon-to-be city-owned properties just south of the Carter House along Columbia Avenue. That's 1210, 1214, and 1224 Columbia Avenue. We would be rezoning them from central commercial to civic institutional with the historic preservation overlay. Then the next one would be there's a piece of property that the city already owns that is part of Bicentennial Park. We would like to include that as a zoning change from central commercial to civic institutional. It's already used as part of the parks. And then the city has acquired the parcels with the historic Franklin Road Bridge Foundation along First Avenue across from Harvest Square. So we would like to rezone those to CI. They're currently in the First Avenue district, but we do own them as a city. And then we would also, this is off of Carruthers Parkway, behind Ovation, between Knoll Top and Carruthers, across from Columbia State, that Orient U. This was city parkland that was dedicated to the city with the Ovation development as part of their parkland requirements. And there are mountain biking trails all through that piece of property. We would like to reason that to CI. And then the next two rezonings for the map are related to the Envision Franklin update that we did in 2025 where we added property into the urban growth boundary. So we would like to go ahead and zone the HHO within those areas where we have... brought those forward into the city. They've been annexed. So you can see those properties in the dark blue, sorry, dark green. Those are properties within the city limits that were impacted by the change to the Envision Franklin update. And then there is one area in pink where there is existing HHO, but due to where Goose Creek bypass would be continuing, we would like to remove that from the HHO. And then the last rezoning is as part of the Envision Franklin update, we adopted corridor setbacks for Peytonsville Road with a 100-foot setback scenic corridor overlay being as you transition down Peytonsville and then going into a 150-foot scenic corridor overlay. These just match up with Envision Franklin standards. And that's it for the map changes.

All right.

I can take any questions if you have them.

Anybody have any thoughts on these? All good?

Okay. The rezoning mountain bike trails to civic institutional. The city owns that now.

The land's been dedicated to the city for parkland.

Why would we put it civic institutional?

Because it is in the HHO, it is non-developable, and that is their parkland set aside that they had to dedicate to the city. So it is now a city-owned, and it will forever be parkland for us. Is that what we... Zone Parkland? Mm-hmm. We zoned Parkland Civic Institutional. Civic Institutional?

Yeah. Because that gives us a... Any other recreational that's on public recreational properties. I just want to make sure it was that consistent. It is.

All right. Anything else? Meeting adjourned.