Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

See. Call us meeting to order. This meeting of the Franklin Municipal Planning Commission for January the 22nd of 2026. Welcome to everyone who's come out tonight to attend. We'll start off with a call to, call to order and the roll call. Commissioner Harrison, present, and Commissioner Allen and Commissioner Franks are not here yet. Commissioner Lindsay's present commissioner or present. Commissioner Mann. Here. Mr.. Macklemore. Present. Mr.. Williamson. Present. And alderman Peterson here. Okay. The next time part of our meeting is for citizen comments. This is open for citizens, to be heard on any issue or concern. If you want to speak on a specific item that's on the agenda, we'll ask you to wait until the citizen comment period for that item. And I do have a couple of cards, already. So, I will call on you when it's time to speak. For all citizen comments, we ask everyone to fill out a speaker card. Hand it to our staff. They'll get it to me. And then when you come up to the microphone, you state your name and address, and then we ask you to limit your comments to two minutes.

So, are there any citizens who would like to speak to the commission at this time? Maybe. Perhaps for an item that's not on the agenda? Okay. The next item, is approval of minutes. Consideration of approval of the December 11th, 2025 Planning Commission minutes. Is there a motion? Move for approval. Was that commissioner or. Looks like a mascot. No. Second. I'm not here. I'm sorry. Second. I'll talk about this in a minute. Are there any additions or corrections? By roll call. Vote. Commissioner Harrison. Hi. Commissioner Lindsay. I. Commissioner or, Commissioner. Man. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I, Commissioner Williamson. I and alderman Peterson. Yes. Okay. A motion passes. Okay. Item number two, the election of, of a chair and a vice chair pursuant to the Franklin Municipal Planning Commission bylaws. Is there a motion? I have a motion to make, please. And I the question for the attorney first. Can do both chair and vice chair and say motion carries. Okay. Separate. I'd like to nominate Roger Lindsay to be the chair for the upcoming year. Second. Okay. Are there any other nominations? I want to do. Not a nomination of to select by acclamation. I mean, okay, we'll just.

Alderman, because it's not Commissioner Harrison, high Commissioner Lindsay. Commissioner or, Commissioner Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I, Mr.. Williams and. I. And Alderman Peterson. Yes. Okay. All right. For vice chair. Is there a motion? I'd like to move Michael or to the retained vice chair for the upcoming year. Second, is that, it is. Okay, we have a motion, for for commissioner. Or, as vice chair. Commissioner Harrison. I. Commissioner. Allen. Commissioner Lindsay votes I Commissioner Hoar. Commissioner Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I Commissioner Williamson. I and alderman Peterson. Yes. The motion passes. We retain our chair and vice chair for another year. Okay. Staff announcements. Are there any announcements? None. Okay. I'm going to I want to address I'm going to make a comment. Just from a procedural standpoint, we're we're a bit challenged with our sound system up here. Amy has to physically turn on each macro microphone when when each person speaks. That Brett presented some problems, this past month. When we were transcribing minutes, to create the permanent record. And there were there were problems with that. Secondly, I think I've already, demonstrated to you tonight that sometimes I have trouble figuring out which direction of motion that comes from because of my, my hearing problems. And so consistent with what? The normal rules of order. I'd like to ask each of you to be recognized by the chair.

Yeah. Before you make a motion or a second or a statement, or to ask a question or even just raise your hand and get my team to make sure you've got my attention and say, you know, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion or whatever. Just get my attention, and then I'll know where the is coming from. I don't have to ask it every time. Every, every time around. So. Okay. So, I think that's all I've got with. Okay. Consent agenda. Consideration of approval of items four through eight. Item 1011, 13 through 18. Item 24 and 25 on the consent agenda. And, again, these are items that we, that are deemed to be noncontroversial. And we, we group them into one and approve them under one motion. We don't discuss them individually. So, that's the list. For the consent agenda tonight. Is there a motion? Mr. chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda as listed. Okay. Chairman, I'd like to second that. Y'all are doing so well. We just got started. Yet? Okay, we have a proper motion from Commissioner Macklemore and seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Commissioner Harrison, I Commissioner Lindsay votes I commissioner or, Commissioner. Man. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I Commissioner Williamson. I and alderman Peterson. Yes. I approve the consent agenda. Okay. First item on our, agenda, then for for specific projects. These first two items deal with with, with sureties

on two of our, existing properties. So, item number nine, Dallas Downs subdivision. Site payment plan, section three. This, call on the letter of credit for performance agreement for landscaping. Specimen tree replacement improvement. We'll start off with the staff presentation. Okay. She said to stay here. Okay. Okay. I'm doing a little bit of everything tonight. Okay. This is for the Dallas Downs Subdivision site plan section three. The landscape specimen tree replacement improvement. It has been extended for over ten years. And at this time, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission call on this letter of credit to allow the city to oversee the completion of these improvements. The key factors leading staff to make this recommendation include the following. That the site plan for the Dallas Downs Subdivision site plan. Section three was approved with conditions in December of 2010. The Performance Agreement and Letter of Credit was executed and issued in August of 2013 and in accordance with city procedure, staff is annually provided action request to the developer, Paul Pratt Jr, with Kendall Hall Developers, LLC offering the option for the developer to request the release of the improvements to maintenance requests, a reduction in the agreement amount, or request a one year maintenance extension. On November 3rd, 2025, staff notified Mr. Pratt via letter that unless a performance agreement could be released to maintenance, the city would proceed with calling the letter credit. At this meeting on December 4th, 2025, staff inspected the site and found deficiencies as listed on the attached inspection report. The surety amount is for $17,000. Given the age of the subdivision approval, the outstanding required improvements

and the city's obligation to ensure completion of the public improvements. Staff feels that continuing to extend this performance agreement will not be in the best interest of the city or the residents of the subdivision. Therefore, staff recommends that the PC declare the performance agreement in default and authorize the calling of the agreement and surety for the completion of the improvement under the supervision of the city. And be happy to answer any questions. Does anyone from the public wish to speak to this item? Seeing none. Is there anyone representing the applicant here tonight? Also seeing none. Is there a motion on this item? Mr. chair? Yes, sir. But to make the motion to call the bond. It's a second. Mr. chairman, I'll second that motion. Commissioner Macklemore, we have a proper motion, by Commissioner Harris and a second by Commissioner Macklemore. To call the bonds on this project. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none by roll call. Vote. Commissioner Harrison. Commissioner. Elizabeth I, Commissioner or, Commissioner. Man. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I Mr.. Williamson. And alderman Peterson. Yes. That motion passes. Item number 12, the Longview subdivision site plan. Lots 11 and 12. This is for universal storage. A call on the letter of credit for performance agreement for landscaping improvement. We'll turn it over to staff. Yes. Thank you again. Yes. This already has also been extended for over ten years. And at this time, staff is recommending

that the Planning Commission call on these letters of credit to allow the city to oversee the completion of these improvements. The key factors leading staff to make this recommendation include the following. That the final plat was approved with conditions on in April of 2015. The performance Agreement and Letter of Credit was then executed and issued in November of 2015, and similar to the other one, according to staff procedures, we annually provided action requests to the developer, offering the option for the developer to release requests. The release requests a one time reduction or request a one year extension. An action request for a one time reduction was received in April of 2019, and a reduction was granted, from 55,000 down to 42,000. However, no other actions was happened at that time. Since then, on November 3rd, 2025, staff mailed a letter to the developer notifying him that unless the performance agreement could be released to maintenance, the city would proceed with calling the letter of credit at this meeting. To date, the applicant has not completed the remaining improvements, as hand has not provided any response to the city's most recent notices, and on December 4th, 2025, staff inspected the site and found deficiencies as listed on the attached inspection report. The amount in question is $42,000. Given the age of the subdivision, approval of the outstanding required improvements, the applicant's lack of response, and the city's obligation to ensure completion of public improvements. Staff feels that continuing to extend this performance and maintenance agreement will not be in the best interest of the city and the surrounding area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Fppc declare the Performance Agreement and Maintenance Agreement to be in default and authorize the calling of the agreements and sureties for the completion and improvements under the supervision of the city. Thank you. Is that does anyone from

the public wish to speak to this item? Seeing none, is there anyone here representing the applicant? Is there a motion for this item? Mr. chair, I'd like to make a motion to call a bond. Mr. chairman, I'll second that motion. Okay. We have a proper motion by Commissioner Harrison, the second by Commissioner. Or is there any discussion? Seeing none by roll call, Commissioner Harrison, I Commissioner Lindsay votes high commissioner or high commissioner? Man. Yes, Commissioner. Macklemore. I Mr.. Williamson. I and alderman Peterson. Yes. The motion passes. Item number 19. Consideration 16. Now, as I said, I'm sorry. Okay. We're good. Yes. Sorry. Consideration of resolution 2025 Dash 107 A resolution amending the Gateway Village PUD subdivision to extend the vested rights for the property located south of Linwood Way and west of Franklin Road, located at 120 Davenport Boulevard. Let's turn it over to staff presentation. Joey. Yes? Thank you. The request is to extend the vesting period for the Gateway Village PD subdivision for a period of 24 months, from April 10th of this year until April 10th of 2028, to allow the applicant to secure any necessary permits and commence site preparation. The revised development plan for the Gateway Village PUD was approved by the board, mayor and Aldermen on October 11th of 2021. The plan includes 6.75 density per unit acre and 144,258ft²

of nonresidential space for a site that is composed of little over 60 acres. The revision was specifically submitted to request the addition of six residential units to their last remaining mixed use building. Staff recommended approval with conditions of the overall development plan revision. The Board of Aldermen approved the development plan revision by a vote of 8 to 0. A previous three year extension was granted by the Boardman aldermen in October of 2024. The applicant submitted a site plan for lot 134, but has not yet pulled any, permits for the site. Should the vesting period not be extended, the project entitlements would cease to exist. Stop work orders would be issued, if applicable. A new development would need to be approved and would be reviewed against the current local development standards. And reviewing this plan against the, current city regulations. The current plan generally complies with the differences in today's ordinance versus those vested under the previous ordinance, are minor and could be incorporated into the design without major changes to the plan. A new park land agreement would need to be approved for any new plan, and any new plan would require an updated traffic study. Should the project lose its vesting, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen that they approve resolution 2025 Dash 107. Should they determine that the continuation of vested rights is in the best interests of the community? Thank you. Thank. Does anyone from the public wish to speak to this item? Seeing none, is there someone here representing the applicant? Yes. The. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim Lukens, the applicant. They still intend to develop the project. As was stated at its in general compliance with all the current current rules and everything. They just need more time

to pull the finance package together, finish the permitting and build. This, I believe, is the last lot in Gateway Village. It's right in the front. So I think everybody would like to see it finished out, and, so would the owner. So we appreciate your consideration. Okay. Okay. Is there a motion on this item? Mr. chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the extension. Of investment rights to, recommended. Recommended. Yes. Sorry, I left it out. I got a motion to recommend the extension of the entitlements. Okay. We have a motion, by Commissioner Harrison. I'll second, Mr. Chairman. I'll second thing. Okay. Is there any discussion? By roll call, Commissioner Harrison. I. Mr. Lindsay votes I commissioner or Commissioner Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore I. Mr.. Williamson I and alderman Peterson. Yes. That motion passes. Thank you. Jim. Good. Okay, these next three items run concurrent to kind of run together. There'll be a plan of of services then then followed by an annexation followed by zoning. So item number 20, consideration of resolution 2020 5-105A resolution adopting a plan of services for the annexation of property, located south of Hillview Lane and west of Columbia Pike by the city of Franklin, Tennessee. We'll start with a staff presentation.

Joseph. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The plan of services for this property outlines how infrastructure will need to be provided to serve this property. Of approximately 80 acres. A property is contiguous to city limits and was in and is within the southern portion of the Franklin Urban Growth boundary. The property includes one parcel and lies within the S1 basin, as defined by the city's Sanitary Sewer Basin Study. This basin is identified as a long term annexation capability area due to some needed sewer improvements, as well as an overall lack of existing road network. The property does not have sewer currently available to service the property. Should the property be annexed into the City of Franklin, sanitary sewer service will not be provided until the property owner constructs the sewer in accordance with the Franklin Water management requirements. Water availability will be provided by being BTS. The draft plan of services details no major concerns and providing infrastructure and services to the property. No additional personnel or equipment will be needed. To serve the property from fire, police or sanitation. Staff recommends approval of resolution 2020 5-105. Thank you. Okay. So this is item number 22. Okay. If you look hard, I forgot to get to turn it. Okay. You want to just hand that to me? Thank you. Rob Dodson. Do you want to speak to this one? Okay. No. Feels the timer. Not, Rob Dodson. I live at 1178 Hillview Lane. I think there's been a misconception of how the city would be able to provide any city services to this property because there's no road, street or access for the city to do that.

As it stands right now, you can't provide police or fire service to this property because you can't get to this property. So I am concerned that the city is contemplating an illegal annexation of property, where it has no intention or ability to provide any city services whatsoever for an ulterior motive of an adjacent property owner to try to get their property annexed into the city. And there's been no consideration of whether the city has any intention or ability to provide city services, which is a requirement under the law to be able to annex this property and the staff recommends it based on we're not going to do anything, we're just going to annex this property takes tax dollars to annex this property, but we're not going to provide any city services because we don't have to. And under the law you can't do that. So I hope that the commission will consider that. I mean, it's it's obviously an illegal annexation because you cannot provide any city services to this property. That's all I have to say. This Curtis, or do I want to speak to that at this time or. And Mister Goodspeed okay. Good evening commissioners. My name is Janet Curtis. I live on North Chapel Road in Franklin. I have seven priority questions about compliance with Tennessee law and the Plan of services. Does the proposed plan of services under TCA 651 102 includes specific projected timing for delivering

police, fire, water, sewer and other services? Or is it entirely deferred with no schedule? Since water is described as available from the adjacent Harlan property, does the city commit to providing these services directly, or is the plan relying on the private developers infrastructure? How does that satisfy the municipality's obligation for an underdeveloped 80 acre parcel with no current development plans? What independent justification exists for annexing it now, beyond and beyond creating constant connectivity for the Noncontiguous Harlan property principal planner Joey Brown stated that this is a long term annexation capability area not incorporated into any future Harlan project. If there's truly no need to or plan for services on the Ingram itself, how can this plan be considered reasonable and not arbitrary if the plan lacks meaningful city commitments, timelines for independent rationale, and appears primarily to an able harlot? Could it be challenged as unreasonable under TCA? 651 108 potentially invalidating the annexation? How does annexing this form parcel at this time promote orderly growth and public benefit, as required by state law and case and case precedents like state ex rail? How you versus City of Pigeon Forge if approved tonight, what is the exact next step and timeline for Obama to adopt a full, detailed plan of service with public hearing before any final vote? These questions go to the heart of legal compliance and whether this meets the standard, the legal demands. I respectfully ask for a clear answer so the Commission can make an informed recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr.

Goodspeed. Thank you very much. Ascend here, before you tonight with deep concerns about the annexation at the Ingram property, I would like to know who is truly driving the process. Is it Mr. Gamble who is representing both the Harland's and the Ingram's? Is it the resident of the city of Franklin, or is it a determination to push this through without the full scrutiny it deserves? Facts raise serious red flags that this is a coordinated bridge type tactic. Mr. Ingram claims to have no current development plans, and city principal planner Joey Bryan explicitly stated it is not part of any Harland project. Mr. gamble admitted at the November 11th and then again that December 9th, from the meetings that annexing the Ingram property would make Harlan contiguous, eliminating the need for a county interlocal agreement. If approved, this would allow Harland to bypass the state mandated interlocal agreement required for non annexation. DCA 651 104D. The strategy risks violating Tennessee law. Annexing annexing solely to create proximity resembles prohibited corridor or strip annexation. Scrutinized by the Tennessee courts in 1980 and collier versus the City of Pigeon Forge. Plan of services for undeveloped Ingram farmland may be deemed arbitrary and unreasonable if it lacks independent justification. Per TCA 651 102 opening the door to legal challenges and potential invalidation again, TCA 651 106. Considering he is now, after ten years, deciding to do annexation, even if technically permissible with owner consent,

it undermines the legislative intent of county cooperation and orderly growth. Protections bottom line proving this sets a dangerous precedent. We risk unchecked developer driven growth, demands slower protections now safeguard our schools, roads, fiscal, health, and the character Franklin that we all have moved here and or live here and cherish. I thank you all and urge you to reject the annexation and require full transparency and county involvement. Thank you. Thank you. To someone here representing the applicant. I commissioners, my name is Greg Gamble and I'm representing the Ingram family tonight. I provided to you an 11 by 17 map, that I handed out earlier to you. And this is just for reference. This is a new information, but it's a little bit easier to see this darker area that you see here on the map. This is property that's already annexed into the city of Franklin. This yellow line that you're seeing here, that's property that the Ingram family owns. They already have over 200. And, 18 acres in the city of Franklin that exists today. So they're already a large portion of property annexed to this property that we're talking about tonight, 79. Just about 80 acres of land is directly adjacent to and contiguous to property that they own for estate planning purposes. They would like all of their land under one jurisdiction. In the city of Franklin, they are in the urban growth boundary. This green area that you're seeing here, that's the City of Franklin. Urban growth boundary. The area not included in the urban growth boundary is this black and white, aerial photograph right here that goes down Coleman Road. So that area is not in the JB. The green area is in the YouTube, and this darker blue area is currently annexed into the city of Franklin. Today, this is contiguous to the city limits.

And I did make it clear to at the meeting, as stated that both the Harlan family and the Ingram family understand that by annexing this, the Harlan property would be, contiguous to this property. But the reason why the Ingram's are doing this is that they want the property that they own under one jurisdiction. And under what jurisdiction? But I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Greg. Which is Greg, which of these parcels is the Harlan property? It it sits over to the west. Okay. Right in here. Is that all the way up to the Hillview line? Okay. It cuts across okay. Okay. Thank you. Is there a motion on this item? Share. I'd like. I can make a motion to recommend approval to the board and Marinol alderman. Is there a second? I'll second Fisher Williamson. I'll second. Is there any more discussion? Yeah. Sorry. That's okay. So, Yeah, I'd just like to say just, you know, there's some concerns on this, but looking at this, it's owned by the same family. You know, I can understand that you have to purchase a piece of property right next to each other, you know, why not kind of make them the same as far as the jurisdiction. So, I mean, for those property owners, you know, that seems like it makes quite a bit of sense to me. Okay. So, chairman, I had a question.

Is there still a referendum required at one time? I know there was talk. We was supposed to have a referendum on this and vote for annexing for annexation. No, no. Not anymore. And also the plan of services. That's things that were mentioned as far as being in violation of the law. Can anyone from the city explain that if once we approve annexation, how soon, oh, is there anything against not having a plan of not having me doing anything right away as opposed to improving it? And then when do we have to take any action on it? Well, some services will be immediate. So for example fire and police services will be immediate. I assume solid waste will probably be immediate. I mean, you'll have they'll have to establish an account. But as soon as they do that, probably within, you know, a couple of weeks, they could have solid waste services as well. Now, whether or not and when they would want any other services, I mean, that's kind of addressed in the plan of service, but some things will be immediate and they're already getting them, I think, from some of their other properties as well. So, it'll it'll be immediate. Yeah. There's random. There are times when referendums are required, but when they're contiguous like this okay. It does not. Require thank you. Okay. Commissioner. Man. I think my question probably to Shauna as well, you know, this staff is recommending approval, to the concerned of being an illegal annexation. I presume the staff wouldn't recommend something for approval if it hadn't been approved by the legal department. Not proposing a risk of violating the law. Right. And and a lot of times, the cases you see about plan of service is when someone was annexed, not of their own request, and then they feel like they were annexed because it was a land grab by a city or a community. And then they weren't provided any sort of services.

And that is a way that that property owners can ask to be next. And there's a whole body of law about how that happens with not following a plan of service. That's why you see a plan of service coming back, at one year mark, six month mark telling you where we are. We do annex sometimes ag properties, agricultural properties that really don't need any sort of, sewer infrastructure, street infrastructure that happens from time to time because they want in and then after a period of time, they might want to add sewer, but it might not be immediate. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Other comments. So we have a proper motion to recommend approval to the Board of Mayor and aldermen. By roll call vote. Commissioner Harrison I Commissioner Lindsay votes I commissioner or Commissioner. Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore I Commissioner Williamson. I and alderman Peterson. Yes. Okay. That motion passes. Item number 21. The consideration of resolution 2025, Dash 106, a resolution to annex one property consisting of 79.89 acres, located south of Hillview Lane and west of Columbia Pike and adjoining the city limits within the southern part of the Franklin Urban Growth boundary. The YouTube staff presentation. Joey. Yes. Thank you. The property being considered for annexation is contiguous to the city limits. And as when it was within the southern limits of the city's urban growth boundary on the southern side, the ability to serve the property with utilities and services has been addressed in the Plan of Services. The subject property requesting annexation is within the development reserve design concept as defined by Envision Franklin. It is the intention of the applicant

to maintain the current agricultural use on the property. And just as noted previously, the property in question is adjacent to land within the city limits that is owned by the same property owner. So staff recommends approval of resolution 2025 Dash 106. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Do any of you wish to make any further comments on that? Okay. I think there's a misunderstanding here. When there's a statement that there's going to be city services provided immediately to this parcel to provide city services to this parcel for fire, police, sanitation, you need a road because you can't count on the fact that they currently owned the adjacent property. They're not going to ask for it. You can't provide any of those services if that other property is sold. And under the law, you have to be able to provide those services to be considered to be providing those services. So this piece of property with no public access for anyone at all, police officer cannot drive to this property, fire department cannot drive to this property. The waste management cannot drive to this property. None of those city services are going to be provided. They cannot be provided because you do not have public access to this property. You cannot say that because the Ingram's on the adjacent property. Well that's okay. That's not under the law. That is not sufficient. So you're not providing any of the basic city services required to annex this property. You're not providing any other services required to annex this property. You're not providing any city services whatsoever. And to say they want to do this for estate planning purposes is laughable. It is laughable.

No one needs to have all of their properties under the city's umbrella for estate planning purposes. It offers no advantage. It's simply ridiculous. Thank you for your comments or the any of the other tenant. Mr.. Okay. On the single line description, no development is proposed and water is available from adjacent. Development of the Harlan property does not meet Tennessee law. Tennessee TCA 651 102 B requires the municipality to adopt the written plan of service before annexation. Include the projected timing for delivering those services. Be reasonable in scope and timing. Facts specific to the property, and comparable to services provided to existing city residents. It provides no projected timing whatsoever, no schedule. It offers no city commitment. The municipalities required to ensure services not defer to a private developer infrastructure. It lacks independent justification for any undeveloped 80 acre farm with no plans. Simply saying no development proposed and pointing to the Harlan property is passive and developer dependent. MTA's status and taxes, our guidance all emphasize that even low impact parcels require specific, defensible plans, not zero effect deferrals. Legitimate phase plans in other Tennessee cities include clear triggers and ex explicit city commitments, not reliance on adjacent projects. Private projects if this thing if this inadequate language

becomes the adopted plan, it invites serious legal risk for Ingram, a property with no current development intent and no tie to Harlan, per the planning department, the law demands more immediate essential conditions, extension for others and commitment tied to this parcel. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Goodspeed, you wish to make any further? Okay. Okay. Is there a motion I'll break? Hi again. My name is Greg Gamble, representing the applicant. And this is an annexation request by the property owner. They cannot consolidate or create one property, as long as they're under two different jurisdictions. So they want them, to be in the city of Franklin. The water provider for this property is not the city of Franklin. So that clarifies that point, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Okay. Yes. This acquired the, 79 acres. No, they've owned it. They found they found both of these properties. The one that is along Columbia Pike that has the buildings in close proximity to Columbia Pike. They've owned longer than this, 80 acre property that we're asking for annexation on. But this just wasn't recently purchased. Neither of them were recently purchased. No. The property that is 79.9 acres, it does not have structures on it today. It does have farm roads that access it. The structures are along Columbia Pike, and it is provided those structures are provided police and fire and city services today they're currently in the city limits. So thank you. Chair. Okay. Is there a motion on this item?

Yeah. I recommend approval of resolution 25 106 to the board of Mayor and Alderman. I'll second that. Okay. To have a proper, motion to recommend approval to the board of mayor and alderman. By Commissioner Mann, seconded by commissioner. Or is there any further discussion on this item? I have a question. I guess, maybe this is more towards staff. Is there is there a downside to the city of having this annexed into the city? I'm struggling to see one. I, you know, we can provide services looking through, you know, the water, the sewer, a lot of that's going to be the burden is going to be placed on the owner to to build that. Yeah, some city services, but I just wanna make sure it's not something on there I'm missing that is detrimental to the city. We usually see these in connection with the development, and here it's a little bit different. But I just don't see a downside. Am I missing anything? I don't think so. We would have reported that to you if we saw a downside. Yeah. Further discussion. Yes. And I just want to make a quick point. Most of the time when people are arguing about the plan of service is because we are annexing them and it's the property owner that are that's saying, you're forcing me in. I don't want to be in, and I'm not getting any services. And this situation and as you've seen this, the law has changed. It probably changed about 5 or 6 years ago, maybe eight. Whether or not some a property owner is annexed or not is now a property owner decision. It's not a city or municipality decision. And we get to decide if we want to take them in, but they get to ask, and we can't just go out and try to get it without their approval.

And so it's a different body of law now that we deal with. And that is why we can't annex Noncontiguous property. It's a special carve out in the law. I just kind of want to explain that to you because a lot of things have changed in annexation. Thank you. Okay. Further discussion, comments. A roll call vote. Commissioner Harrison. Commissioner Lindsay votes I wish or, Commissioner. Mayor. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I Commissioner Williamson. I. And Alderman Peterson. Yes. The motion passes. Item number 22, consideration of Ordinance 20 2553, an ordinance to zone 79.89 acres. Agricultural. AG district and hillside. Hillcrest. Overlay District for the property located south of Hillview Lane and west of Columbia Pike. Staff. Thank you. The applicant is requesting TOS on the property to Agricultural District should the Plan of Services and annexation for the property be approved by the board. Me and alderman. The property includes or consists of 79.89 acres and is currently zoned MGA one by the county and vision Franklin places this parcel into the development preserve design concept, that encourages new growth to be in areas where capable of handling high traffic with adequate public sewer water, streets are available or planned. It further states that these areas should be, subject to further planning and coordination with planned infrastructure improvements and public service delivery. The zoning as proposed, is consistent with the recommendations of Envision Franklin, and maintains the current use of the property as agriculture

Additionally, the Hillcrest and Hillside overlay district, as well as the 500ft buffer would be applied with the zoning and further protect the character of the area. Let me pull up the other map here. I gave out a map earlier. That'll come in handy for this path. So it should be noted that the current HHR line, Does not match the city's conservation line that was recently updated as part of the countywide YouTube update. So I provided maps that shows the difference between the current line as well as the the updated conservation line, just so everyone's aware. It's kind of the that there are several greens on this map. I just now notice, but it's like the medium green. So if you look, this is the parcel that's requesting annexation. So it's this line here that kind of juts around the southern end and then comes back over. So it's actually covering and protecting more property than the current Jo line. So it would be recommended that the ordinance, this zoning ordinance be a, update. The h h h o line to match the modified conservation line so I can answer any questions if that's a little confusing. So with that, staff does recommend approval of ordinance 20 2553. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone from the public wish to make any further comments on this item? Okay. Seeing none, applicant, do you have any further comments? Okay. Is there a motion on this item? Mr. chairman, I'd like to make a motion, please. Like the motion to recommend to the board of mayor and Aldermen to approve ordinance 202553 with the amendment to the adjust the Ho boundary to match the conservation line on the property. That is, that is shown on the Envision Franklin map.

Okay, I'll second that. Okay. Okay. We have a proper motion recommending approval, to the Board of Mayor and aldermen. As stated by Scott. Is there any further discussion on the item? By roll call. Vote. Commissioner Harrison, I Commissioner Lindsay votes I Commissioner or I Commissioner. Man. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I Commissioner Williamson. I. And alderman Peterson. Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Item number 23 the consideration of resolution 2025 Dash 103, a resolution approving a revised development plan for Ovation Pad Subdivision for the property, located at the southeast corner of East McEwen drive and Caruthers Parkway. Staff. Good evening. The applicant has submitted a development plan or vision for Elevation Subdivision. The proposed revision includes updates to the overall layout to the roadway, design, building placement, distribution of uses, and building height. There are no entitlement changes or modification of standard request there for the review. The revision request does not include a rezoning and triggers only a Franklin Municipal Planning Commission review. The proposed update to the development plan realigns the internal roads to address existing topography and adjust the scale of some of the stormwater features. Along with the internal road realignment. The parking structure parallel to Caruthers Parkway is now screened by a building. A no longer needs

the modification of standard that was approved as part of revision two. Lastly, the uses on the site residential, commercial and hotel have moved around but still not meet the intent of Envision Franklin and the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The prior conditions of approval that were not fully addressed with the revision with this revision have been included as conditions of approval for. For this revision, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve resolution 2025 Dash 103 with conditions. Thank you. Does anyone from the public wish to speak to this item? Seeing none, turn it over to the applicant. Hi, my name is Greg Gamble, and I'm representing, High Woods and Senator Kyle team, in this presentation tonight, for your convenience. And I'm talking with Chelsea. Name it. We thought this would be helpful. We provided a side by side comparison of the current plan, which is shown on the left side of this 11 by 17. And the proposed plan that you're voting on tonight, shown over on the right side of this plan. We've also provided a heatmap showing the heights comparisons. Again, the old plan on the left, new plan on the right. And as we discussed in the joint conceptual workshop, when we were going through the process of the development plan approval, we heard several things from really both planning commission and the alderman that were concerns, number one, that there would be an elevation of a garage along Caruthers Parkway. We have now removed that. There was a concern about the heights of buildings along Caruthers having a range from ten stories, down to three and four story, buildings and, now the building, a building, those buildings that are along Caruthers are lower profile. Building C is a tall one story building,

that it's directly across from one and two story buildings that orient the building on the corner of McEwen and Caruthers Parkway was previously, a hotel that would range in height from between 5 and 8 stories. Now, it is a 4 to 5 story building. So we're bringing those heights down. And and these are really responses to comments that we had heard through the process. So we're kind of taking those items into consideration. We've moved the taller, ten and 12 storey office buildings internal to the site. That was a comment that we heard. Bring them off of Caruthers Parkway, bring them off of McEwen drive and analyze those more so we've done that. And we've also adjusted building. J you may remember, building J is where we had to have a 21ft tall retaining wall adjacent to the stream buffer. We've pulled that building off of the stream buffer. And now we believe that we can meet the ordinance without a modification of the standards. We might not even have to have a retaining wall in that location. With this new plan. So, happy to answer any questions that you may have, but I believe we've been able to really capture and improve the plan in a lot of areas where we heard, input from both planning Commission and Boma. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion for this item? Motion, Mr. chairman. Okay. I'd like to. Move to approve to the Board of Aldermen recommendation of approval with staff comments. Approve. Oh, sorry. I'd like to make a recommendation of approval of the staff. Conditions with conditions. Mr. chair, I'll second that. Commissioner or to a proper motion for recommending approval by the Planning Commission with conditions by Commissioner Harrison, seconded by Commissioner. Or is there any further discussion of this item? Seeing none by roll call. Vote. Commissioner Harrison. I. Commissioner Lindsay votes Commissioner.

Over. Commissioner. Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. Commissioner Williamson. I. Got Alderman Peters. Yes, a motion passes. Any further business? No further business. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved to share. Commissioner. Almost made it. Almost made it through without. Another debatable. Motion. Commissioner Harrison. By roll call. Commissioner. Harrison. Commissioner. Elizabeth I. Commissioner. Commissioner. Man. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore I. Commissioner Williamson I and alderman Peterson. Yes. That motion passes.