Boma - Regular Meeting

Okay, thank you, Joey, and welcome to the Board of Mayor and Alderman meeting for August 11, 2026. This meeting is called to order, and we're going to call the roll. Alderman Barn here. I've got all my stuff. Alderman Blanton. Here. Alderman Season. Here. Alderman Peterson. Here. Alderman Berger. Present. Alderman Brown. Present. Alderman Potts. Present. Vice Mayor Baggett. Present. And the mayor's present. We're going to start out tonight with the invocation by Alderman Barnhill, and then I'll lead the Pledge of Allegiance. So if we'll all stand, please.

Please stand. Heavenly Father, again tonight we come to you in prayer thanking you for this great nation that we live in and for all the many freedoms that we enjoy. We know that you are the provider of those freedoms and we give you thanks for those. We ask that you be with each of our national leaders. We know that there are many different things that are going on now that may not necessarily... locally or nationally make a great deal of sense. But we ask that you be with them. We know that it's a difficult problem that we have, and we have it here. We also ask that you be with each of our first responders, those who protect the freedoms that we're praying about now. We ask that you be with them. This prayer we offer to you in Christ's name. Amen.

Join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This is new recognition. Are there any recognitions for tonight that we need to do? If not, we'll just step into the citizen comments. And I do have one speaker for items not on the agenda. That's Alan Sims. I'd invite Alan to come up and give us two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Alan Sims. I live at 119 Lewisburg Avenue here in Franklin. I'd like to begin by thanking the Board of Mayor and Aldermen for your service and your dedication to our community. I also want to share a personal note of pride in the newest member of the board who consistently demonstrates strong insight and sound judgment. Having said that, I'd like to address a procedural gap that directly affects the transparency, public trust, and this board's ability to make fully informed decisions on vested right extensions. As a concerned citizen, I believe it is unacceptable for this board to routinely and cavalierly approve these extensions without requiring the applicant to publicly explain why the extension is needed, how the revised timeline will be met, and how the project's planned deliverables and overall schedule will be affected. A clear example of this issue occurred with the request to extend the vested rights of the middleweight PUD development. This matter first came before the board on the April 14, 2026 work session. The applicant was not present, there was no discussion among the board, and there was no public explanation offered for why the extension was being requested. The same request returned for a vote on the May 12th VOMA meeting once again. The applicant did not attend. There was no board discussion and still no public explanation was provided. Yet the extension was unanimously approved. This is not a process that any of us would accept in our personal or professional lives. If an employee or a vendor missed a mutually agreed upon deadline and then simply emailed us asking for more time, you would naturally expect an explanation for why the commitment wasn't met and what steps they plan to take to meet the new deadline. In most cases, you'd likely insist on a face-to-face conversation as well. And if the employee or vendor didn't care enough to attend the meeting, I'm confident their request would be denied. That's basic accountability. As our representatives, I believe you owe the citizens of Franklin the same level of diligence. Having identified the issue, I would also want to offer a constructive solution. At a minimum, when an applicant requests an extension of vested rights, they should be required to appear before this voting board and the citizens of Franklin to explain why they failed to meet their previously agreed upon commitments. They should also be required to present a plan detailing how they intend to meet a revised commitment if the extension is approved. And in addition, the applicant should provide an updated timeline for their overall project that reflects the impact of the delay on the original development schedule. They should clearly identify how this delay affects the community benefits outlined in their initial application. And of course, they should be prepared to answer any questions. Without this level of information and transparency to the citizens of Franklin, this board cannot credibly claim that granting the vesting right extension is in the best interest of the community. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Did we miss anybody who wanted to speak on items not on the agenda? If not, I'm going to move on to the consent agenda. All items on the consent agenda are deemed to be non-controversial and routine in nature by the governing body. They will be approved as recommended by committee or staff by one motion of the governing body. Tonight we're looking at numbers 21 through 27. So I would entertain a motion.

Move to approve. Okay.

Thank you. Second for Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill.

Yes.

Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go to setting of the agenda. Are there any changes that need to be made in the agenda? If not, I will entertain a motion to set the agenda as printed. I move to approve the agenda as currently set. Is there a second? Second. Second. Alderman Brown. Thank you. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill.

Yes.

Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go to any communications from the Williamson County Commission. I see no one here tonight. Miscellaneous reports. Mr. Stuckey.

I want to highlight some important public meetings coming up in the next week. Tennessee Environmental Linkage Study. So this is really looking at the I-65 corridor, about 34 miles of it from Davidson County at Thompson Lane, which is State Route 155, down to Bear Creek Pike in Murray County. So they're evaluating that. They're gathering some public input. There are three meetings. The most probably convenient to our residents will be next Tuesday, August 18th at the Williamson County Enrichment Center from 5 to 7. So folks can come out to that. The other two meetings are on Thursday evening the 13th of August at the Spring Hill Event Center from 5 to 7 and Monday August 17th at Woodmont Hills Church in Nashville from 5 to 7 as well. So urge folks to come in to those meetings, learn about it. Specifically this study is to look at solutions for congestion, improving travel time, enhancing systems and modernization along the I-65 corridor. Specifically, we want to make sure they look at some broader solutions that have specific local impact, things like interchange improvements. Things like how transit integrates with some of these solutions. Make sure we're being mindful about both land use today but projected land use in the future and how that might impact the corridor. We know choice lanes are part of the discussion, that's great. But we want to make sure it's broad enough to cover various aspects that really impact congestion and the functionality. of the broader transportation system. So again, folks can come out to any one of those meetings. You can go to all three if you really want. But this is a great opportunity. You can learn more by going to the website that's been established around the study called buildwithustn.com. That also provides information and a place where you can provide written comments as well. So just urge folks to consider that. We are going to have a meeting of the growth management roundtable group. So that's the mayors and other key folks that have been looking at their meeting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. in this building at the county complex to talk a little bit more about how we might collectively want to speak into this process. So important part to get input around one of the major congestion areas, which is the I-65 corridor. Thank you, Mary. They're all 5 to 7, and the one that is going to be in Franklin is at the Williamson County Enrichment Center next Tuesday, the 18th, from 5 to 7.

Okay, and then tomorrow, did you say?

On Thursday the 13th at the Spring Hill Event Center from 5 to 7, and on Monday the 17th at Woodmont Hills Church up in Nashville on Franklin Pike from 5 to 7 as well.

Okay, but you were talking about the mayors, though?

Oh, the meeting tomorrow morning is the growth management roundtable group, and that's an established group that meets at least quarterly. They're going to have a special meeting tomorrow to prepare for this meeting, to speak into it collectively, and that is tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock here at the county complex in the conference room across from county mayor's office.

Thank you, Mr. Levine.

on the growth round table. Gosh, it's all the mayors and the managers and county mayor and planning folks are there as support.

It's basically the group that did the urban growth boundaries.

The actual members, I think, are around 12, but there are other folks that attend, and it's facilitated, and it's a public meeting.

Any other Mr. Delaney's reports? Seeing none, we'll do the minutes. July 14, 2026, work session and Board of Mayor and Alderman meeting. Is there a motion?

I move for approval.

Second. Thank you, Alderman Peterson. Seconded by Alderman Caesar. Any discussion? Any additional changes or comments? Seeing none, Alderman Barnhill, how do you vote?

Yes.

Alderman Blanton? Yes. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go to Item number four, this is a public hearing consideration ordinance 2026-07, an ordinance to rezone 7.031 acres from Regional Commerce RC-12 District to Plan PD 32.7 District for property located north of Goose Creek Bypass and west of Old Patonsville Road located at 2408 and 2412 Goose Creek Bypass.

Good evening. Ordinance 2026-07 is to rezone 7.031 acres from Regional Commerce 12 district to planned PD 32.7 district for the properties located at 2408 and 2412 Goose Creek Bypass. This is to accommodate the proposed and concurrently submitted development plan. Envision Franklin places these properties within the regional commerce design concept and identifies a special consideration for the property. Vision Franklin states that new development should have integrated designs with coordinated access, amenities, and cohesive architecture that fits within the context of the corridor. The associated special consideration states that for the property located east of Five Mile Creek, south of Five Mile Crossing, north of Goose Creek Bypass, and west of Interstate 65, a standalone multifamily building or development, is appropriate along the frontage of Goose Creek Bypass and Interstate 65 frontage due to restricted access from Goose Creek Bypass, the proximity to commercial uses, and the availability of pedestrian infrastructure to the Berry Farms Town Center retail and office uses. The maximum height for a standalone multifamily building in this location should be six stories. The proposed development, as outlined in the development plan, generally meets the intent and guiding principles of Envision Franklin, as well as the special consideration. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8-0, along with staff, recommends that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Ordinance 2026-07. Thank you. Thank you.

This is a public hearing. I do have one speaker, Greg Gamble.

Thank you, Mayor and Aldermen. My name is Greg Gamble with Kimley Horn and representing the applicant tonight. Mayor, at the first reading, we were asked by several aldermen to present the architecture. We did not get a chance to do that at the BOMA work session, and I provided to you tonight eight and a half by elevens that should be sitting there in front of you. We were critiqued prior to the Planning Commission meeting at the Joint Conceptual Workshop that the architecture needed to be more in keeping with what has been, what is constructed in Berry Farms. And so prior to the Planning Commission submittal, we had our architects go back out to Berry Farms and really identify materials the size of buildings, the transition of buildings within Berry Farms, and then apply those to this structure. So I want to get you a little bit oriented. This view here that you're looking at on this side, the left side of the page, this is the side that is facing Goose Creek Bypass. On the right side of this page is facing the I-65 off ramp. So that kind of gets you a little bit oriented there. You'll notice that in the new architecture we have identifiable sections and massing for more variation across the building facade. That's a key component of what you see in Berry Farms. It looks like a collection of buildings, not one long massive building. We have greater distances in the facade plane to create more architectural interest along the street. We also have a variety of parapet heights. adds to the differentiation of buildings look like they're built over time instead of one long massive building. You can see in this image here, which is again the first one, this courtyard here, that's a pedestrian courtyard plaza. It'll be a hardscape plaza and place for residents to gather. We've put a lot more emphasis on pedestrians, pedestrian circulation, identifying with awnings where the main entrances are and where the pedestrian access will be into the building and the sidewalk infrastructure that's along the existing Old Paytonsville Road where the cul-de-sac is. If you turn the next page then. Second, we have a view that is looking southbound on the I-65 off ramp. The brick building on the corner is using materials consistent with the buildings that are also in Berry Farms. We have ganged balconies. We have refined building materials with more brick to emphasize on the main interim points on the building. And we have greater emphasis on the landscape and the foundation of the buildings. You can see how that brick is carried along that first floor all the way through. We're using a board and batten and hardy board panels to provide some differentiation of materials. Again, all of these were techniques that our architects found at Berry Farms and we're carrying that through in this proposed development. I'm happy to answer any questions. I know this is the rezoning, but I felt it was important that you know this going into both the rezoning and the development plan request. On the development plan, we do have one modification of the standards. It's for ADA access at the first level of the building. Happy to talk on that at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Having no other speakers, I'm going to declare the public hearing closed. Entertain a motion.

Move for approval.

Thank you, Alderman Berger. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion?

Alderman Potts. Thank you, sir. Since this is in my ward and I've spent... An extensive period of time with the development team on this. This is a unique parcel, a unique puzzle piece that's on this corner. I think it could be the right thing to do to make this both a business and multifamily retail-centric area because of the limited access that's there. So because of that, I'm actually going to support this because it's also added the increased pedestrian access in the area. But this is a very challenging corner because you cannot turn into this area directly off of the Goose Creek Road. You actually have to go all the way down to the next intersection where Twice Daily's is, circle all the way around to Five Mile to get into this area. So I will support the rezoning on this piece.

Any other comments? Ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Ponce. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggage. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number five, this is a public hearing consideration, resolution 2026-35, resolution approving the development plan for Bassett PUD subdivision with one modification of development standards foundations. for the property located north of Goose Creek Bypass, west of Old Painesville Road, located at 2408 and 2412 Goose Creek Bypass. Chelsea?

Thank you. Bassett PUD subdivision is a multifamily development located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Goose Creek Bypass and I-65. The applicant is proposing 230 multifamily dwelling units for a site that is composed of 7.031 acres. As detailed in the associated rezoning, Envision Franklin does place these parcels within the regional commerce design concept with an associated special consideration for multifamily. The proposed development as outlined in this development plan generally meets the intent and guiding principles of Envision Franklin as well as the special consideration. The proposed development meets parking requirements within the zoning ordinance. The traffic impact analysis has been submitted and reviewed. The parkland agreement has been received and there is one modification of standard request for this plan. The request is to reduce the minimum requirement of 18 inches to no minimum such that porches can be provided at grade to provide accessible route to sidewalks along the building facades facing streets or highways. Chapter 6.8 requires that the finished floor elevation must be a minimum of 18 inches above grade at front facade. The applicants requesting to reduce the required 18-inch grade 18-inch foundation for multifamily buildings is required in Section 6.8 of the zoning ordinance to have a foundation at grade along the building facade facing the street to better accommodate the residents of the building. Staff can support the MOS request to reduce the foundation height to grade level based on the Board of Mayor and Aldermen having approved similar requests for foundation reductions in order to better accommodate ADA requirements. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8 to 0, along with staff, recommend approval of MOS number 1. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8 to 0, along with staff, recommend that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Resolution 2026-35. Thank you. Okay, this is a public hearing.

Mr. Gamble, you want to come back and make any other comments? I've seen none. No other speakers. I'll declare the public hearing closed. I will entertain a motion. on resolution 2026-35. Motion to approve. Second. Second by Alderman Brown. Okay, we'll now go to the modification standard having to do with foundation at grade. Is there a motion?

Move for approval.

Thank you, Alderman Berger. Second. Second by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion on that modification of standard? If not, Alderman Caesar.

I think this is a staff question. We've put in place this ADA standard, I'm sorry, the 18-inch standard to elevate the main entrance into the building. And we've seen a couple of requests to modify that here recently. Most of the time they're utilizing the ADA explanation as why they want it to be walk-in-able. I don't know if I have necessarily on the surface an objection there. I just am curious if staff sees this as a potential concern, if the easy way to get around the 18-inch is to reference an ADA compliance, if that kind of compromises the intent of that 18-inch elevation.

I think I don't know that it compromises the intent. I would say that prior to this request, the other times that this was approved were for buildings that included something like senior living. So I don't know that it does compromise it. I think in those cases we were supportive. We We're supportive because of the ADA purpose, because of the use. This one, it's a precedent that was set. And so this one, they asked for it, and we have in the past approved it. So it was something that staff saw that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen were more amenable to supporting, and that's how we determined our support of it.

I'd love to hear kind of, thank you, Chelsea. I'd love to hear thoughts from the board on if this is an important piece. I think the explanation in the senior living makes a lot of sense. If you're adding 18 inches and there's some cost associated with that, I don't want to see us abandon this if it does provide a better aesthetic, if kind of the get-out-of-jail card on this is used more routinely for a building that may not have an ADA application.

Alderman Berger.

Sometimes I think we like to do things across the board. And I think developments and buildings and situations and locations and who's using them to stand alone. Because like one would be senior living. That makes sense. And sometimes, you know, depends on who's renting and who's living and who's using these facilities. Steps are not always that great. It's good to be able to just walk right in and not have to deal with that. So I don't see this designation as a cop-out for people. And if they want to come and ask for it, there might be different reasons. I'd really like to hear from the applicant on this one, if that's okay. Mr. Gamble, would that be permissible? Mr. Mayor, please.

I'll allow.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Alderman. Maybe this is unique. I'm not exactly sure if it is because we do a lot of development plans in Franklin, and we're required to have on-street parking in front of this building between I-65 and the front of the building. Because we're providing on-street parking in that location, at least one of the spaces has to be ADA compliant. And you can drive on Turning Wheel Lane today in Franklin and see an ADA parking space that is provided as on-street. 18 inches. So a handicap ramp, an ADA handicap ramp would be 18 feet long along the front of the building to get from that ADA parking space into the building. So we prefer not to have a ramp. There are developments such as Berry Farms Town Center, such as McEwen Northside, which were approved prior to the requirement of having these ADA parking spaces along the internal drives. So this gives us a way where, it's not going to be everywhere. I mean, we're going to have different heights and different floor elevations, et cetera. But where we need to provide ADA accessibility to the front of the building, we'd like for that to be at grade so that we can address the access to the building appropriately.

Great.

Thank you. Sure. The staff recommended approval of that, too. Okay.

Okay. Any other discussion? Ready to vote?

Recommendation of approval. What I heard Chelsea say is because a precedent had been previously set. I don't want to get into a position where we make an exception through a modification of standards where we set a precedent through a modification. Sure. Candidly, the standard should be the standard and the modification should be the exception.

So I will say, you know, when we are evaluating our support, I can't give a percentage, but I'll say nine times out of ten. That's a lot. We go with what the zoning ordinance says because that's a document that you guys... And it's our job to make sure that we adhere to those. The only times that we deviate from that, and you've probably seen it in development plans lately, is when we hear feedback from you guys that, you know what, like signs, it's a good example. We're not so concerned with this list of an irregularly shaped sign. We don't really think we're bothered by that. So when that comes in, it's better for staff to say, we're listening to your feedback. We're going to recommend approval because you guys have given us the feedback that you're not that bothered by it. So this is just one of those ones where I looked back at all the MOSs that we've approved over the last maybe like four years. And we have, I think I counted maybe four that we've approved. And that, to me, felt like a lot. And so when I went to Emily and when Amy, I was like, I'm thinking we just recommend approval for this. I mean, it seems like it makes sense. And that's how I came to this one specifically.

Okay. Any other comments on the modification standard? You ready to vote on it? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Now go back to the original motion with the approved modification standard. Are you ready to vote on it? No, Mr. Mayor. I've got a couple minutes. All right.

Vice Mayor. I voted for the rezoning and some of this stuff. And I was one of the ones that said what I said about the architecture. Yes. I have gone back and look at Barry farms residential. This is a, the front doorstep, the Southern front doorstep to our community. Um, and, um, I don't know that it's, uh, the use is appropriate, uh, in, in, in many ways, the height, maybe, maybe not, uh, the scale of the building, um, feel significant, so I won't be voting for this. I think that we hear a lot about apartments these days, and the ones that we do vote for that have had the right context and the right look, although some of them I haven't agreed with some of the architecture that they've had. You know, this is a very important gateway, and I think Frankly, I think we can do better and I'm not going to support it.

Alderman Potts, your recommendation. Thank you, sir. So I've been critical of this proposed development since day one. It is, as Alderman Baggett just referenced, this could be another gateway into Franklin. This is what people, with such a large Goose Creek overpass, I think that this one right here, it needs, it has needed the additional tension that the development team has provided, they've gone back and they have addressed the concerns that I had initially about where it was and what they were doing. I actually had more of a question. I was trying to read this in the details here. But to Alderman Caesar's comment about the ADA access, if we're going to provide that, I think that we need a wider path, wider sidewalks there if you're really trying to drive pedestrian access because there's not going to be car access on Goose Creek. it's all going to go around and then circle back up so if you're gonna drive that maybe maybe the applicant can speak to that is are we gonna if they have any plans to widen that sidewalk to really try to drive that because if they're asking for that modification of standards I think that is necessary And if the applicant wants to address the sidewalk widths, Mayor, I certainly... I'm getting pretty tired of the yo-yoing back and forth with the applicant. That's fine. The pedestrian circulation is what I'm speaking to here. As we talk about this gateway right here, the massing, and I spoke with the applicant early on, with the storage unit that was put in is it turned into a box. And I feel like this team went back and they did meet with some of the Berry Farms architectural and tried to make it more palatable. But the massing is just too large for this corner right now. And I think that there's still opportunity for them to do better landscaping, have better architectural environment right there on this corner. And I'm really just challenged by the massing of it being a gateway right there. We've got too many things that are going on in the area. So for that reason, I'm not going to be supporting it tonight.

Anybody else? You ready to vote on the original motion with the approved modification of standard?

So I was preoccupied with something. Yes. You want to make a comment? No. You're ready to vote. I'm ready.

I've got a question, Mr. Mayor.

You recognize Alderman Byrd.

Alderman Potts' comments and Alderman Baggett's. I'm just looking at this, and I'm pretty picky. with how things look because I got the short end of the deal a couple times where my ward is, and I thought it was significantly improved and a lot of different, the massing was really broken up, the materials are looking very diverse, and the landscaping is looking pretty significant. Now, this second shot on the second page is where I see more massing, but it looks like that middle, if you're looking on the second page, the middle one, where it's gray, that looks like it sets out in front of the other ones, and the ones to the left of it sets back, if I'm correct. So it's not all in a straight line. There's multiple, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven materials, at least, maybe eight that I see. I'm just wondering what improvements you're looking for because I'm looking at this design saying, I think this is pretty good compared to what I've seen. And also, you know, the massing is broken up, the landscaping's been put in. I don't know what we're looking for here. Are we looking to reduce the units so it's not so massive? Are we looking to cut buildings? I would just like to know. Because I'm about ready to vote for this because I think it would look pretty darn good. And if you want the sidewalk widened, somebody needs to make a motion to widen the sidewalk if that's not sufficient. I just don't understand where we are with this at this 11th hour on this.

Any other comments?

Any board members have anything to say about this?

I'm going to politely disagree with Alderman Berger. We're not in the 11th hour. We're actually in the second reading right now. And this is part of our discussion right now. And part of what I've been sharing since day one is as you are exiting on the ramp, it's between The storage unit that's there and now this, it is a wall of structure that's right there. And it is large massing. This is a new gateway into our community. It is one of the newest overpasses that's there. It's one of the largest ones. And my concern is that over time, the massing that's here is going to be, you're going to come up this ramp and it's just going to all be on the right-hand side and you're going to wait to make that turn and then it's going to open back up. So, you know, that's my perspective. That's the feedback that I've received from the residents that are there in the area right now. And if the applicant wanted to make changes, then that's up to their team to make those changes.

Vice Mayor, since there was a question, and I, too, from the very first joint conceptual said that, and yes, changes were made, and it is better, but I think we've approved multifamily innovation, and I would argue in the mall is better. They did some major changes to size, scale, and massing and architectural features that I would say move the needle for me in a lot of those. Middle 8, now this is not the historic overlay, so a lot of those items wouldn't pertain, but I think this is a very important corner, and this is a little too much. When you're coming down the interstate exit and you look to your right and it's six stories, now that's allowed, but six stories can be done well. If you remember the one at the end of McEwen and Cool Springs, those were, I think, three or four stories, those apartments. And height is okay, but they're set back. Those... feel big, large, and expanse. And I think this is as long as those are. So coming off the interstate, I have no problem with multifamily being here. Just I think the development needs a bit of work.

I have a suggestion. Mr. Mayor, may I make a suggestion? First of all, I have a question. We don't see this in a work session. I don't recall this being a work session.

It was. I believe it was on July 14th work session. Can we go back? I'm sorry? I'd like to make a motion that we put it back to another work session.

rather than voting it down, I would like to make a motion that we put it back to the work session August, end of August, September. Let me see what the date is. Let me look at that. We need to give them...

It would be a deferral. A deferral of this vote and then we could schedule it for whatever work session.

Let me make a deferral then. My motion would be for a deferral until September 8th work session. I'd like to give them time.

You'd be deferring this vote.

Yes.

So it wouldn't be work session. We can schedule it that night, but you're really deferring this vote. I defer it to the vote. You're not so much scheduling. We'll schedule the work session however you want, but the actual action tonight is to defer your vote.

Yes, I'd like to defer. My motion is defer it to the September 8th voting session at 7 o'clock. Your second reading would be deferred to that. I'd like to be put back on the work session as well for discussion.

Is there a second? I'll second that for discussion, because I think there's people that have questions.

Okay, discussion's open for deferral.

Anyone want to discuss the deferral? Yeah, I guess so. You're recognized. Thank you. This is second reading. It's not third. So it's not a heck of a lot of reason to defer this when you've got another opportunity to vote on this. And I keep hearing the term new gateway. 65. That has been there for 50 years. That's not a new gateway. And what was there before this was a filling station that they tore down and an old motel that they tore down. Goose Creek Inn. Goose Creek Inn was there in the 60s. It was there in the 70s. Deteriorated probably in the 80s. You'll keep your comments on why you're deferring.

Well, that's why I'm deferring it. Just to clarify, it's the development plan, so it's one vote. Oh, is it this? Yeah, this is the development plan. Okay. My apologies. I was thinking about zoning. Gotcha.

On the dates? Alderman Caesar. Go ahead. Thank you.

Can somebody help me with the calendar? We're at the 11th of August, and we've deferred it to the 8th of September meeting. How many meetings will we have between now and then?

You have August 25th is your next meeting, and then that's the meeting following. It's September 8th.

Is it likely that we could have this on a work session if it were to be deferred to the 8th? Could we have it on the work session between now and then? I think we can.

I'm not sure what work needs to be done by... Sure.

We will make it work. I will point out we have approved a rezoning already, and it's a PUD. So now we have a rezoning that's been approved that no longer has a development plan attached to it. So would we just defer both items?

So you could either do two things. I know that we haven't actually done anything yet, but we could either do a motion to reconsider item number four and then defer it to match with the rezoning, but you still have a third reading on the rezoning, so it can go to the next meeting and then you defer it so that they match. But they do have to eventually match.

So there is time to go ahead and put this on the August 25th work session, and then it could come back to you for a vote on September 8th. The question I would have is the applicants here tonight, staffs here tonight, what additional information do you need us to bring you at work session? Because that would really help us prepare. So I'd just ask that. That's very good.

So we're still on the deferral discussion.

So you want to vote on the deferral?

Okay, ready to vote on the deferral. Alderman Barnhill? No. Alderman Blanton? No. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? No. Alderman Berger?

Yes.

Alderman Brown?

No.

Alderman Potts? No. And Vice Mayor Baggett? No. The furl fails 6-2. We'll now go back to the original motion with the approved modification of the standard. Is there any further discussion on that? I just want to make a comment, if I may.

We talk about the gateways, and I remember when I first got elected, it was always about the benchmark to the gateways, and Clyde is right, and maybe it's my purview, but this is an improvement of what we have had in this community on that exit for many years. And if you think about, you're talking about the height and the scaling, and I'm not trying to be funny, but you get off that interstate, and the gateway is a... in-and-out burger with the palm tree, and then you get back on the interstate and you're looking at more mixed use. If you look across the interstate, you're looking at big office buildings. So to me, I don't think this is marring the gateway that's already marred. This is not going to detract from, in my opinion, coming into Franklin based on what has already been built recently there This is just a continuation of a product that is next door that is almost hiding or maybe erasing a storage store that shouldn't have been there in the first place. So, yes, in our day it was Goose Creek Inn. which did not have the best reputation after a while.

Lovely place.

Or two map codes that were back-to-back. So the idea, I would support this as it is on this piece of paper.

Any other discussion on the original motion with the approved modification of standard? If not, I'm ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill.

Yes.

Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Burger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? No. And Vice Mayor Baggett? No. Passes six to two. We'll now go to item number six, which is a public hearing consideration ordinance. I'm sorry. Is there a question? This is a public hearing, consideration of Orders 2026-15 and Orders to rezone 5.14 acres from Plan PD District to Plan PD 21.7 District with property located east of Natchez Street, north of Acton Street at 137 Natchez Street, Denson Place PUD.

Thank you and good evening. The applicant has submitted a rezoning request for the property located at 137 Natchez Street. The rezoning is being submitted in conjunction with the Franklin Housing Authority's new Denson Place PUD subdivision, which is also on tonight's agenda. That plan includes a proposed 97 multifamily units on 5.14 acres, giving the overall density of 21.70. And Vision Franklin places its property in the mixed residential design concept, which states the defined character across this design concept may vary by neighborhood, but new development should transition from existing development patterns in adjacent neighborhoods. Envision Franklin does include a special consideration that Franklin Housing Authority properties may include multifamily residential in accordance with their master plans. The FHA master plan has been updated with the plan that is being proposed tonight, so it meets the recommendations of Envision Franklin for mixed residential. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 2026-15, as did Planning Commission unanimously. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, this is a public hearing. I have Mr. Gamble that wants to speak, apparently, on the rezoning.

Yes, Mayor and Alderman, thank you. My name is Greg Gamble, and I'm excited to represent the Franklin Housing Authority and their joint venture with Elmington. These next two development proposals that you're going to be considering are the last two of the Franklin Housing Authority Master Plan. And we are encouraged by their effort, their work, by providing affordable housing in the city of Franklin. At the BOMA work session, there was a question that was asked regarding the height of the building. I provided you with an 11 by 17. And if you look very closely at the City of Franklin's GIS, you will see that where we thought we were proposing the building and where the police station sits was a difference of about 18 inches. Turns out after our survey crew went out and actually shot surveys, that GIS data, that information is very old. It is before the police station was actually constructed. So what we have learned is that after the police station was constructed and prior to us building this building, there's a difference in finished floor elevation of five and a half feet. So the police station sits at elevation 660. The proposed building sits at an elevation of 645, six inches. And so the distance between the proposed building at three stories, the police station at two stories is much, much more aligned than what we thought when we presented this to you at the BOMA work session. We believe that the architecture on top, which is the original architecture, and the gable pitch really is more appropriate for this scale of building and that it almost kind of cheapens the building to lower those gable pitches. If we could have your support tonight to stick with the original architecture, we'd be grateful. If you believe that the architecture on the bottom, which has the new gables, is more appropriate, we're certainly happy to do that and are willing to do it as well with a change. Thank you.

Okay, any other speakers on this? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion on the rezoning.

Move for approval.

Second. Second, Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Fox. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go to item number seven. This is a public hearing. Consideration resolution 2026-49. Resolution approving a development plan for Denson Place PUD subdivision with four modification of development standards, parking, open space, and buffer for the property located west of Natchez Street and north of Acton Street located at 137 Natchez Street. Joey?

Thank you. The applicant has submitted a development plan for the Denson Place PD subdivision, which proposes 97 units on 5.14 acres. And Vision Franklin places this property in the mixed residential design concept. And it does include a special consideration that Franklin Housing Authority properties may include multifamily residential in accordance with their master plans. This plan includes demoing all the existing buildings on the property and building new buildings. that range in height from two to three stories. The plan does include four modification of standards requests. MOS number one, the applicant is requesting to modify the minimum parking standard to 1.7 Spice 1.75 spaces per multifamily residential unit type for all bedroom types. Section 10.2.3 of the ordinance requires that a studio apartment have 1.25 spaces per unit, one bedroom 1.25 spaces per unit, and two bedrooms and above have 2.25 spaces per unit. The applicant has provided a parking memo with sufficient information for this request. Additionally, the Board of Mayor and Alderman has previously approved similar MOS requests for multifamily parking standards for similar developments. With the information provided by the applicant and the previous grants and requests, staff is supportive of the MOS number one, as was planning commission unanimously. MOS number two is the applicant is requesting to modify the required natural area from 10% to 0% with a total of 15% open space, five of that being programmed and 10% being non-programmed. Section 11.1.5 requires that PUDs with residential uses only have an additional 10% natural area for a total of 15% open space and natural area. This subdivision is replacing an existing development that did not incorporate any significant natural areas or resources into that original design. As such, there is nothing that would qualify as natural area per our city's definition. Natural areas would include meadows, hillside, ponds, streams, slopes, etc. The applicant has agreed to increase the amount of open space to a total of 15% in order to keep the intent of the regulation. Given the lack of natural area amenities for this specific site and the applicant's willingness to increase the total number of open space, staff is supportive of MOS No. 2, as was planning commissioned unanimously. MOS number three and four both have to do with the historic buffer. For MOS number three, the applicant is requesting to allow stormwater infrastructure within the historic buffer that has been established at the north end of the development adjacent to the First Missionary Baptist Church. New development next to National Register properties or those that are eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places are required to incorporate historic buffers to protect the historical and cultural assets of the community. To protect the freestanding historic lands and structures from negative visual impacts associated with new development in their proximity, new development and redevelopment are subject to one or more applicable historic resource as treatments per Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the eligibility of the church campus is still pending from the State Historic Preservation Office, the applicant has established a naturalistic historic buffer in their plans. Section 18.3.7d of the ordinance prohibits stormwater retention or detention facilities within that buffer. Staff is comfortable with the MOS request provided the plans meet the required landscape screening to further protect the local cultural asset. Staff recommends approval of MOS number three as did planning commission unanimously. Applicant NOS number four, the applicant is requesting to allow utility easements within the historic buffer without applying additional offsetting width to that buffer. So while the eligibility of the church campus is still pending for the NR, the applicant has established a naturalistic historic buffer in the plans. Ordinance dictates that additional width shall be added in an amount equivalent to the amount occupied by the utility lines and associated easements. Given the limited size of the property, staff is supported of the MOS request to not apply additional width to the historic buffer, as did Planning Commission supported unanimously as well for approval. So staff recommends that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Resolution 2026-49 with conditions. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, this is a public hearing, Mr. Gamble.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to add, we have our entire Franklin Housing Authority team here tonight, board representatives, and we have some of the board representatives, and we have our entire Kimley Horn team here tonight in case you have any questions. These modification of standards that we're asking for are very unique to this property and to the next property. So don't normally ask for these MOSs. So if you do have questions, you want to understand a little bit more about that, we're available. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing now, and we'll entertain a motion on Resolution 2026-49. Move to approve. Second. Appropriate motion. Second. We'll now go to... I have one question about the height, if I could. And I appreciate the fact that your team went back and looked at the height, because I thought the flat roofs were ugly. And I'm glad that there is such a difference between that and the police building. But one of the things that I'm concerned about now is that we've set some rules for the Hill property, but I'm looking at the Carter Center Visitor Center. It looks really tall. Did you measure the height of that building versus the police station?

We did not measure that. We can. We can also get finished floor elevations and total height from the architect or building and neighborhood services and bring that back to BOMA, but it is taller than the police station, maybe by as much as a story. Okay, thank you.

So we'll now go to... Is there a motion? No, we've had the motion. It's been seconded. So we're now going to modification of standard number one, which is minimal parking standard alteration. Is there a motion? Seconded. Seconded by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, let's vote on the first modification of standard. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. We'll now go to modification standard number two, which has to do with a modification standard relating to natural area and the 15% open space that Joy referenced. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. Seconded by Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill.

Yes.

Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson.

Yes.

Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We now go to modification standard number three, which has to do with stormwater in the buffer next to the First Missionary Baptist Church. Did I describe that close enough? Okay. Is there a motion? Second. Thank you. Second by Alderman Barnhill. I'll take that one. Thank you. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, are you ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Cesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Burner. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggage. Yes. Passes unanimously. And the final modification of standard has to do with the utility easement in the buffer without adding additional width. Is there a motion?

Move to approve.

Thank you, Alderman Brown. Second. Second by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion on that? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Cesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go back to the original motion with the approved four modifications of standards. Is there any further discussion?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to move with... I may need some help with this from legal, but to go with the 612 roof pitch option described in the exhibit.

Would that be a... Appropriate motion to go... This is the bottom drawing you're referring to? Correct.

Second.

Appropriate motion. Second.

Any discussion on 6-12 roof pitch, the bottom versus the 9-12? Correct.

I'll just make a friendly amendment to mine if you want.

We've already started this. Let's just keep rolling.

One point of view. You've got a motion and a second for the 612 roof pitch. The only comment I would make, Mayor, is that I wish you'd have been as adamant about the ugliness of flat roofs on the prior vote than you were on this one. I didn't get the vote. But anyway, it's fine. It's fine. No, I appreciate the applicant for doing this and meeting out on the site. This is a good solution, and thank you all for working with us on this.

Okay, we're ready to vote on the... Amendment?

Yeah.

We're voting on the amendment to specify the 612 roof pitch design. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go back to the original motion as modified and plus the modification of standard. You ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Okay. Now... We will go to item number eight, which is City of Franklin contract number 2026-0202 with Franklin Housing Authority for parkland impact fee and construction agreement for Denson Place. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. Alderman Blanton? Second. Second by Alderman Caesar. Any discussion? Any point? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number nine. This is a public hearing consideration. Ordinance 2026-16. An ordinance to rezone 7.68 acres from planned PD district to planned PD district. 18.85 district of the property located north of Westmead Boulevard and west of Brookwood Avenue located at 500 Westmead Boulevard, Iris Place PUD. Joey.

Thank you. The rezoning is being submitted in conjunction with the Franklin Housing Authority's new Iris Place PUD subdivision, also on tonight's agenda. That plan includes a proposed 144 residential units on 7.68 acres with a proposed density of 18.85. Envision Franklin places this property in the mixed residential design concept, which states that the defined character across this design concept may vary by neighborhood, but new development should transition from existing development patterns and adjacent neighborhoods. Envision Franklin also includes a special consideration for Franklin Housing Authority properties that they may include multifamily residential in accordance with their master plans. The FHA master plan has been updated with the plan being proposed here this evening, so it does meet the recommendations of Envision Franklin. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 2026-16, as did Planning Commission unanimously. Thank you.

Okay, this is a public hearing. I do have Mr. Gamble up again. He does not want to make any comments. I'm going to close the public hearing, and we'll go for a motion on the rezoning, Ordinance 2026-16. Is there a motion? Thank you, Alderman Blanton. Second. Seconded by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson.

Yes.

Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go to item number 10. This is a public hearing. Consideration Resolution 2026-50, Resolution Approving the Development Plan for Iris Place PUD Subdivision with two modifications of development standards, parking and an open space for the property located north of Westmead Boulevard, west of Brookwood Avenue, located at 500 Westmead Boulevard. Joey.

Thank you. The plan being proposed tonight includes the demolition of all existing buildings on the property and the construction of five new multifamily buildings that range from two to three stories in height. Envision Franklin places special consideration in the mixed residential design concept that allows for multifamily in accordance with the FHA master plan. And there are two modifications of standards with this development plan. They're going to sound very familiar. They are exact duplicates of the first two that we discussed previously. I will review them very quickly just so you can keep them straight. So for MOS number one, the applicant is requesting to modify the minimum parking standard to 1.75 spaces per multifamily residential unit type for all bedroom unit types. With the information provided in the parking study by the applicant, as well as previously granted requests by the board, staff is supportive and recommends approval of MOS number one, as did planning commission unanimously. For MOS number two, the applicant is requesting to modify the required natural area from 10% to 0% with a total increase of open space to 15% with 5% being programmed and 10% being non-programmed open space. Given the lack of natural area amenities for this specific site and the applicant's willingness to increase the total number of open space, staff is supportive of this request and recommends approval of MOS number two as is planning commission unanimously. Staff recommends approval with conditions of Resolution 2026-50. As is Planning Commission, happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. This is public hearing. Mr. Gamble, no comment. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. We'll go to motion for Resolution 2026-50. Is there a motion? Thank you, Alderman Barnhill. Second. Seconded by Alderman Potts. We'll now go to Modification Standard 1, which has to do with modification of the minimum parking standard. Is there a motion? Motion approved. Thank you, Alderman Caesar. Second. Seconded by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, Alderman Barnhill, how do you vote? Yes. Alderman Blanton? Yes. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. That passes unanimously. We'll now go to modification standard number two, which has to do with the natural area, which doesn't exist there, and modifying the open space requirement to 15%. Is there a motion?

Move to approve.

Thank you, Alderman Brown. Second. Seconded by Alderman Blanton. Any discussion? Seeing none, you're ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Fox. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go back to the original motion with the two approved modification of standards. Is there any questions or discussion regarding that? Seeing none, We're ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go to item number 11, which is City of Franklin Contract 2026-0201 with Franklin Housing Authority for Parkland Impact Fee and Construction Agreement for Iris Place. Motion approved. Thank you. Second. Alderman Caesar. Second. Alderman Blanton.

Berger. Another B. Another B.

Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Begg. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number 12. This is a public hearing. Consideration of Resolution 2026-48, a resolution adopting a plan of services for the annexation of property located north of Clovercroft Road and east of Oxford Glen Drive by the City of Franklin, Tennessee.

Thank you. Thank you. Resolution 2026-48 is a drafted plan of services for 22.78 acres of property being considered as part of the proposed request for annexation. These properties are contiguous to the city limits and within the eastern portion of the Franklin urban growth boundary in the Watson Branch drainage basin and identified as a short-term capability property. in the city's annexation analysis. These properties are within the mixed residential design concept as defined by Envision Franklin, and it is the intent of the applicant to develop single-family homes. The plan of services details no major concerns in providing infrastructure and services to the property. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8-0 along with staff, recommends that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Resolution 2026-48. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Gamble, you're up again.

I'm having a run tonight. This is exciting. Hi, I'm Greg Gamble with Kimley Horne representing the applicant. And I provided you all with 8 1⁄2 by 11s. These are the same graphics that I provided to you at the BOMA work session. But as it relates to the plan of services, when we talk about smart growth in the city of Franklin and planning ahead, we talk about not leapfrogging properties. Well, I want to point out these properties were leapfrogged. And the city of Franklin City Limits absolutely goes all the way around them. They sit in a donut hole. It's time to include them into the city limits. There are five properties here. And on our yellow map here, we're pointing those out. The reason that this is such golden yellow here is that this is in the mixed residential policy. So it would allow for... single-family homes, townhomes, multiplex units, and you could kind of imagine if we weren't master planning this together in a unified plan, what this would look like if we were trying to accommodate development on each of the five properties at a different time period. So it is quite fortunate that my client was able to get these property owners to come together, to all have conversations, to talk about developing these properties in a unified master plan, and certainly the services that the city provides are already being provided up in Dunclovercroft and portions of Oxford Glen today, so this makes sense. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay, we're going to close the public hearing then and entertain a motion for a Approval of Resolution 2026-48. Move for approval.

Second.

Alderman Berger. Who is it? Alderman Blanton is second. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. No. Passes 7-1. Next is item number 13, which is consideration of Resolution 2026-47, a resolution to annex five properties consisting of 22.78 acres located north of Clovercroft Road, east of Oxford Glen Drive, but the city of Franklin, Tennessee, adjoining the city limits within the eastern part of the Franklin urban growth boundary. Chelsea?

Yes, sir. Resolution 2026-47 is the request for annexation. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8-0, along with staff, recommends that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Resolution 2026-47. Thank you. Okay.

Mr. Gamble, did you want to come back on that one at all?

Just to say on the rezoning, if you have any questions, happy to answer it. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion.

Move for approval.

Thank you. Second. Second by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. No. Passes 7-1. We'll now go to Item 13, which is a public hearing. Consideration of Resolution 2026-47. I'm sorry, I just did that one. Item 14, this is a public hearing consideration ordinance 2026-17, an ordinance to zone 22.7 acres to plan PD 1.8 district for the property located north of Clovercroft Road, east of Oxford Glen Drive, Poplar Reserve PUD. Chelsea?

Yes. Sorry about that. Ordinance 2026-17 is to zone 22.78 acres to planned PD 1.8 district for the properties located north of Clovercroft Road and east of Oxford Glen to accommodate the proposed and concurrently submitted development plan. Envision Franklin places these parcels within the mixed residential design concept that states that the defined character across this design concept may vary by neighborhood, but new developments should transition from existing development patterns in adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, new neighborhoods should have walkable while connected street systems that connect to surrounding neighborhoods and nearby destinations. They should be designed around natural features to highlight forested areas, hillsides, and hilltops. Water resources and tree rows as accessible amenities. The proposed development as outlined in Poplar's reserve PUD development plan generally meets the intent and guiding principles of Envision Franklin and the board, the planning commission by a vote of eight to zero along with staff recommend that the board of mayor and aldermen approve ordinance 2026-17. Thank you.

Okay, this is a public hearing. I do have Mr. Gamble back if he wants to come back.

Yes, thank you so much, Mayor. Again, Greg Gamble, representing the applicant. I provided you with the 8.5 by 11s. I just wanted this to be a quick reference for you. Tonight, in here, it does provide all of the graphics that we have for our modification of standards. In here is the map that shows the full dedication of right-of-way by my client. This right-of-way line is for a five-lane road. Now, they're going to be building a three-lane road across the frontage of their property, tying into the three-lane road that Navarro is building. But this right-of-way dedication is for ultimately a five-lane Clovercroft. So the measurements that you're seeing here are based upon that right-of-way line, not a three-lane right-of-way, but a five-lane right-of-way. And this distance from that right-of-way line to the first lot line at its closest point is 28 foot 5 inches. So I just wanted to make that clear. As you move west down Clovercroft, we're into well over 100 feet of distance from the right-of-way line to the first lot line. Also wanted to provide to you the modification of standards exhibits that we showed. The first being the 14% slopes and the 25% slopes. If you recall, this road that you're seeing on the south side of Clovercroft, that would be the connection point at Poplar Farms that somebody would have to get to in order to meet the city's standards on driveway separations, on roadway separations. So any road that's proposed going eastbound would have to go up those 14 and 25 percent slopes, which is in direct conflict with the city's maximum 10 percent slope roadways. On the next page then, we're asking here at the DeBeers request that they be provided with a cul-de-sac in that location. We do believe that the connectivity that we have back to Navarro is sufficient for 38 homes. Modification of standards number three, the property directly to our south has two homes that exist on it today. One is on the north side of the lake. One is on the south side of the lake. And we are providing a right-of-way connection if that property is ever developed in the future. But likely two homes is the highest and best use on that property as well. For the modification of standards number three, Sorry, this is modification of standards number three is in regards to the cul-de-sac addition there. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer it. I know these MOSs are a little unusual as well, but they are very specific to the site and very specific to development patterns that already exist today and requests from neighbors to be respectful of what they have. So thank you so much. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, I'm going to close this public hearing and entertain a motion to approve the zoning or ordinance 2026-17. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Second by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Blanton? Yes. Alderman Caesar? No. Alderman Peterson?

Yes.

Alderman Burger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor Baggett. No. Passes 6-2. We'll now go, this is item number 15. This is a public hearing. Consideration of Resolution 2026-52, approving a development plan for Poplar Reserve PUD subdivision with three modification of development standards. street in circulation for the property located north of Clovercroft Road and east of Oxford Glen Drive. Chelsea?

Yes, sir. Poplar's Reserve PUD subdivision is a single-family residential development. The applicant is proposing 41 single-family lots for a site that's composed of 22.78 acres. As detailed in the associated rezoning, Envision Franklin places these parcels within the mixed residential design concept. The proposed development as outlined in the development plan generally meets the intent and guiding principles of Envision Franklin. The proposed development meets the parking requirements within the zoning ordinance. The traffic impact analysis has been submitted and reviewed and the parkland agreement has been received. There are three modifications of standard requests for this plan. MOS number one is a request to remove or waive the requirement to provide a street stub to the eastern property. Chapter 9 of our zoning ordinance states that street connections, street stubs, or internal drive connections shall be provided in every direction and shall connect to all adjacent streets and internal drives, including those existing, planned, or otherwise deemed necessary by the DRT. to extend the street network. Staff does not support the MOS request due to the connection being feasible and the requirement for the connectivity being necessary. Staff recommends disapproval of MOS number one. FNPC recommended approval by a 5-3 vote. MOS number two is a request to align the connection to the adjacent western property to provide access to the northern property line via a right-of-way extension from the proposed cul-de-sac rather than in a manner that would extend Den Haag Drive. In the same chapter, it requires that arrangement of new streets and internal drives have to be provided for the alignment and continuation of existing or proposed streets and internal drives into adjacent properties. Staff does not support the MOS request due to the connection being feasible and the requirement for connectivity being necessary. Staff recommends disapproval of MOS number two and FNPC recommended approval by a six to two vote. MOS number 3 is a request to provide a cul-de-sac at the Western Connection at Albrecht Drive to accommodate existing residents. Chapter 9 states that cul-de-sacs are permitted only where existing development, floodplains, wetlands, naturally occurring slopes exceeding 14%, riparian buffers, tree save areas, or other unique site conditions prevent a street connection. Staff does not support this MOS request due to the lack of substantial reasoning for the full connection to not be made as required by the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends disapproval of MOS number 3. FNPC recommended approval by a 7 to 1 vote. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8 to 0, along with staff, recommends that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Resolution 2026-52. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Gamble, did you want to come back? Okay. So I'll entertain a motion on Resolution 2026-52. I move to approve. Thank you, Alderman Berger. Is there a second? Second. Second, Alderman Barnhill. Okay, let's go to these modification standards, and I'm going to try to paraphrase briefly. Modification standard number one. which is to remove the street stub outs to the eastern property. Is that a good enough description, Chelsea?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion as far as modification of standard number one.

Move for approval.

Second. I've got Alderman Peterson and a second by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion on modification of standard number one? Seeing none, let's vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson.

Yes.

Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor Baggett. No. Okay. Well, now I go to modification standard number two, which is align the connections to – say that one again, Chelsea. I think I noticed it.

Can you say it in the – Yeah, say that again so that – It's a request to align the connection to the adjacent western property to provide access to the northern property line via a right-of-way extension from the proposed cul-de-sac rather than Denhart Drive.

Gotcha. Okay. Is there a motion to approve modification standard number two? Okay, for approval. Second. Appropriate motions. Seconded by Alderman Blanton. Any discussion?

Mr. Mayor, I just want to discuss this one. I think there's two areas of concern for me on this. One, it limits kind of connectivity between the Novara subdivision. Obviously, on what appears to be Henro Drive, there's connection, but you've got to go all the way to the back of the development to get over there. Especially with these homes and this parcel that's not yet a part of the city I worry about not having connectivity and what that potentially could mean for future connectivity between Navarro Whatever that middle parcel becomes and this development obviously, those are two single-family homes that are not yet part of the city, but I would hate for us to have this cul-de-sac. I would hate for us to have this island that ultimately can't really be done with anything couldn't really be done with it because of a lack of connectivity on this particular project. So I just want to think through that with the board on this modification.

Mr. Mayor. Vice Mayor. I will be supporting this modification because if you look on the slide here, the reason that connection doesn't make sense is Well, first of all, Novara is going to be stubbed out behind the trees. And we decided to do that because we, with the aldermen for that ward, asked that Novara be behind those trees. And I believe that was asked because we wanted to preserve that U-shed. And so now that makes this... connection unreasonable Only to put more houses in front of the view shed and so that we were we did we voted to not do to two houses down so That is a logic.

Why I am NOT voting for this any other comments on modification standard number two Are you gonna go ahead all the number so Solomon Bagot you're saying

You're not supporting the modification because it destroys the viewshed? Did I misunderstand that?

You did. The reason why there's no connection. I'm just putting no on all of them, as you can tell. But the reason why the modification has been requested... Is because there's nowhere for it to go.

Right, right.

Because you didn't want things built in front of the trees. Exactly. And we all didn't want things. Right. So the reason we're doing this is because there's nowhere for it to go to connect because of something we did prior to protect that area.

So that's... Right, but you're not supporting. Okay.

I'm not.

Any other comments on modification standard number two? Let's vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Blanton? Yes. Alderman Caesar? No. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? No. Passes six to two. We now go to modification standard number three, which has to do with connections to adjacent property in the cul-de-sac. Is there a motion?

A motion to approve.

Second. Alderman Burger, seconded by Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Blanton? Yes. Alderman Caesar? No. Alderman Peterson?

Yes.

Alderman Burger?

Yes.

Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? No. Passes. Six to two. We'll now go back to the original motion.

I have two conditions of approval. Motions, please. First condition of approval would be I worked with the developer because there was concern that that the homes and the property were too close to Clovercroft. It was a 30-foot buffer and I'd like to change that to a 50-foot buffer. So we're increasing the buffer. to be the condition of approval will be that they will change the 30-foot buffer on Clovercroft to 50-foot. I'd like to put on that first, and then I have a second one.

That's the 28-foot-1-inch, something or other.

Yeah, so it's increasing that.

We'll make that 50.

It's 50.

So there is a modern buffer. An amendment to the motion having to do with the condition of approval changing the buffer from 30 feet to 50 feet on Clovercroft Road. Is there a second? Second. Second by Alderman Blanton. Any discussion on that? Alderman Potts. Thank you, sir.

question for alderman burger so I'm looking at the the map here that's got the roads on the far right hand side you're stating that you want to move that buffer from 28 point or the house that There's a buffer there at 28.5 feet, and you're stating that you want that buffer actually being extended to 50 feet? And if this motion moves forward, then that would, in essence, eliminate that lot right there.

No, actually it will not. The four lots have been adjusted by so many feet under... approval standards for development. So they are tweaking some of the lots a few feet here and there to allow that to happen. And they had some room up front to make that happen. So I worked with the developer to improve that because people wanted that. Our board talked about a deeper buffer. Some of the residents in the area wanted the deeper buffer so they would be able to accomplish that without losing a lot. And that's actually, I think, lot number one. But they'll be pushing that back. Is that lot number one? Yes, okay.

Any other discussion? Alderman Caesar, you've got a question.

Bev, I'm looking at whatever page this is. And so this is not accurate based on what you're making the...

This is what is there now.

Correct.

My motion is for... Condition of approval will go from 30 feet which is 28 point whatever 28.5 to 50 mm-hmm Yeah, they're able to make that happen without changing their plans I Think I think my concern is two things with regard to this condition of approval number one is Can we prevent because I think at some point in the hopefully not too distant future this road will be expanded

And I don't want it to be in somebody's backyard. And I also think it changes the look of this particular area if you drive from such a substantial setback, which is in the first two parcels off of Oxford Glen going east, to 28 feet. That feels kind of tight. I don't know if the board has an opinion on if maybe going from 50 to 75 feet would change the way that that would feel. I'd be open to, if Alderman Burger were open to the idea of changing them from 50 to 75 feet, what that might look like.

Mr. Mayor?

Alderman Burger.

I worked very hard with the developer on this so they wouldn't lose lots, but that would require them to go back and redo the whole development for the lots. And I'm not going to ask them to go back and rework all those homes again. They'd have to rework every lot to do that. I'm happy with the 50 feet, and also it matches up pretty well with Navarro, with the setback of Navarro, which is a little bit more than that. So I think it sort of coincides with that, and then they'll have the turn lane that will be coming in here, which is another thing I'm coming up with. So I feel comfortable staying with the 50.

Any other comments on the amendment to the motion? Seeing none, we'll vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously.

For the record, could you just clarify that that was a setback and not a buffer? Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.

For clarification, for the record, it was a setback, not a buffer from... to the 50 feet setback.

I think Alderman Blanton seconded that. Everybody understands that with their vote? Perfect. Okay, Alderman Berger, you recognize it again.

Last condition of approval would be that the road improvements by the developer on Clovercroft for the turn lane and for the extension Additional lane in front of them, in front of the development, down to the Navarro. And we're working with Navarro to get this in at the same time. The turn lane is put in before the first CO certificate of occupancy. So we can get that done. And actually, I believe that's going to be done probably before that even. But I'm going to put it on there as the first, before the first certificate of occupancy. So road improvements with the turn lane. condition of approval before the first CO. That's my motion.

I'll second that. Appropriate motion. Second, you mentioned Navarro. Does the turn lane

It goes all the way down. This developer will be responsible to put it all the way down to the beginning of Navarro.

To the beginning of Navarro.

Yeah, and then we're working with Navarro, so they will do that in concert with each other. So we're going to be able to get that done.

Okay, so we have an additional amendment, which is road improvements for the turn lane. being built before the first certificate of occupancy is issued. Yes. Appropriate motion. Any other discussion? If not, we're ready to go.

A quick comment, and I was the second on that, and I think this is a good example of requiring infrastructure to come in along with development, and so thank you, Bev, for bringing that forward. I do have one question, because you mentioned in the motion Navarro. Navarro's not started yet. Navarro's not finished yet. If Navarro doesn't start and doesn't finish prior to this, it is started? Yeah. Okay.

We're doing major infrastructure right now.

Perfect. If they don't finish the improvements, does that potentially risk this development's certificate of occupancy?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, you ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill?

Yes.

Alderman Blanton?

Yes.

Alderman Cesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Okay, we're back to the original motion to approve three modifications of the standards and... Two conditions of approval. You ready to vote on that? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor Baggett. No. Passes seven to one. We'll now go to item number 16, which is City of Franklin contract number 2026-310 with Color Burst Landscape Services. Landscape Services in an amount of $263,933.62. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. Appropriate motion by Alderman Brown, second by Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes.

Alderman Peterson. Yes.

Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number 17 is reappointment of Jim Martin, Juanita Patton, Vonda Wilson, and Jerry Sharbert to the Ethics Commission.

So moved. Second.

Second. Any discussion? Yes. Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar.

Yes. Alderman Peterson.

Yes.

Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. We'll now go to item 18 is the appointment of Aaron Housel to the Ethics Commission. I had 16 applications. They were so good, I interviewed nine of the 16. Mr. Housel happens to be the ethics officer for Nissan North America. That's the kind of candidates that we're getting.

That's in temporary.

Thank you. Seconded by Alderman Caesar. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Blanton? Yes. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Passes unanimously. Consideration of appointment of Victoria McCloy to the Development Services Advisory Commission. Move to approve. Second. Second by Alderman Berger. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Schleser. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Now we'll go to the appointment of Mary Pierce, Heather Doyle, and Alma Macklemore to the Civil War Historic Commission. Move to approve. Thank you. Second. Vice Mayor. Seconded by. Second. Alderman Peterson. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. If I understand correctly, we have an executive session, so I need a motion to go into executive session. So moved. Second. Second by Alderman Potts. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Matters to be considered after executive session.

I recognize Alderman Potts.

Yes, sir. Thank you. In the case of the City of Franklin v. Ellen Octavia Stokes Dunavan et al., Circuit Court Case No. 26-CV-34, I move to reject the settlement offer of $58,000. Appropriate motion. Second. Second.

Second.

Okay, any discussion? You ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Blanton? No.

Alderman Caesar, I have a point of information. Can you restate the motion?

That number was different.

You're rejecting the higher number.

Oh, and I resent. I vote yes. My apologies.

Thank you. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson?

Yes.

Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett?

Yes.

Passes unanimously. Any other matters come before this body? Seeing none, is there a motion? Motion to adjourn. Second. You second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We're adjourned.