Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call this meeting to order.  This is the April 23rd,   2026 Franklin Municipal Planning Commission  meeting. And we'll begin with roll call.   Commissioner Harrison present. Commissioner  Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks present.   Commissioner Lindsay's absent. Commissioner Ore  is present. Commissioner Man here. Commissioner   McLemore present. Commissioner Williamson  present. Alderman Peterson here. All right. So, this is the period where we have the open  comments for citizens to be heard on any issue   or concern. If you'd like to speak on  a specific item on the agenda, please   wait until that till the citizen comment period  for that item occurs. For all citizen comments,   please fill out a speaker card and hand it to  staff. Come up to the microphone and state your   name and address and limit your comments to two  minutes. Are there any citizens that have comments   on items that aren't on the agenda tonight? All  right, let's begin. So item number one is the   approval of the minutes. Conditional approval  of the March 26 20 26 meeting minutes. Can I   have a motion? Second. Second. Proper motion by  Alderman Peterson, second by Commissioner Mann,   and we'll vote. Uh, Commissioner Harrison. Hi.  Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks.   Hi. Commissioner Lindseay is absent. Commissioner  Ore votes I. Commissioner Man yes. Commissioner   McLemore I. Commissioner Williamson I. Alman  Peterson. Yes. The eyes have it. The minutes pass. Staff announcements. I don't believe I have any  announcements tonight. Amy. No. Okay. Just looking  

to you to make sure I didn't forget anything. Uh,  so we're good. All right. Our next item uh is for   the consent agenda. This cons consideration of  approval of items 3 through 14 and 21 through 24   on the consent agenda. Does anybody like to pull  an item? No. I have a motion for approval. Second. Had a motion for approval by Commissioner  Harrison and a second by Commissioner McLemore.   Uh and we'll vote. Commissioner Harrison I.  Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner   Franks I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.  Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner man yes.   Commissioner McLemore I. Commissioner Williamson  I. And Alderman Peterson yes. All right. Eyes   have it. The consent agenda is approved. And now  we'll go to item number 15. Consideration of res   resolutions 2026-21, a resolution amending the  Franklin Grove subdivision to extend the vested   rights for the property located south of South  Margin Street and east of Lewisburg Avenue located   at 423 South Margin Street. Staff, thank you. Uh,  this request is to extend the vesting period for   the Franklin Grove subdivision site plan for  one year until April 27th of 2027 to allow   the applicant to secure any necessary permits and  commence site preparation. The site plan for the   Franklin Grove subdivision was approved by the  planning commission on April 27th, 2023 on the   consent agenda. The plan includes 1,535 square ft  of additional institutional space for a site that   is composed of 5.19 acres. Staff recommended  approval with conditions of the site plan. The   site plan received final approval by city staff  in March of 2024, but the developers have not yet  

pulled any permits for the site or commence site  prep. If the vesting period is not 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. In reviewing the approved plan against  the current city regulations, the current plan   generally apply complies. The differences in  today's zoning ordinance versus those vested in   the uh previous ordinance are minor and could be  incorporated into the design without major changes   to the plan. A new park plan agreement and new  certificates of appropriateness from the historic   zoning commission would need to be approved  for any new plan. A new and updated traffic   study would also be required should the project  lose its vesting. And just as a note, this is a   planning commission level approval and will not go  on to border manual alderman for consideration or   approval. So staff recommends that the planning  commission approve resolution 2026-21 should you   determine that the continuation of vested rights  is in the best interest of the community. Thank   you. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone  from the public like to speak on this item? Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Evan Foster with  Pape Dawson, uh, civil engineer representing this   project. As of yesterday, we have pulled  grading permit and had the precon. So,   we are very close obviously, but this would  expire on Monday. So, in in an effort, you know,   safety net, we just want to make sure we're not  losing our vested rights. All right. Do I have   a motion? Move for approval. Second. All right.  Proper motion and second. Is there any discussion   on this one? None. And the motion was made by  which one of you? Alma. Alma. Uh, Commissioner  

McLemore and seconded by Commissioner Harrison.  And let's vote. Uh, Commissioner Harrison.   Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner  Franks I. Commissioner Lindsay is absent.   Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner man. Yes.  Commissioner McLemore I. Commissioner Williamson   I. And Alderman Peterson. Yes. All right. The  eyes have it. Uh, resolution 2026-21 passes. All right. Item number 16, consideration of  resolutions 2025-26 as amended. A resolution   approving a development plan for Harland  PUD subdivision with 15 modifications of   development standards, building elements,  parking, glazing, open space for the   property located west of Hillview Lane, north  of Coleman Road at 1247 Hillview Lane. Staff,   thank you. Uh, since the item was  considered by planning commission,   the applicant has provided an alternate language  for condition 30 for off-site improvements as well   as an alternate design for northern access to  the site. Um, if you'll just follow along with   me along the map here. So, the northern access  point, you can see the development down here.   And before the connection was made right around  here to preserve the uh tree tunnel, uh the   applicant has now revised that plan to essent  essentially double the length of the Matcher   extension all the way to Chimeri Drive and then  a new road this way into the Harland development. And additionally with this new plan, there is  uh a revised language for condition of approval   number 30 that I will read now. So it is up to  the applicant to secure the right of way needed   uh for off-site improvements. Specific details  of rightway acquisition will be spelled out in  

an agreement if needed prior to the first new  building permits issued by or for Harland by the   city of Franklin. The applicant shall complete  the proposed entry improvements at Coleman Road   and the proposed improvements to the Coleman Road  and Henpeck Lane intersections at Columbia Pike.   These improvements shall be accepted by the city  of Franklin and T DOT prior to the opening of them   for public use. Northern access from Harland  to Hillview Lane shall be temporarily gated   with an emergency gate. The emergency gate shall  be removed upon the completion of the following   improvements or as coordinated with the city  engineer for the city of Franklin. The western   approach of the Macatcher Parkway and Columbia  Avenue uh intersection is improved. A two-lane   road section and 8-oot multi-use trail rural path  for Macatcher Parkway is extended to the proposed   new intersection with Chimeri Drive. Uh and the  new road chime drive is extended to Machatcher   Parkway per Shadow Green u the PD subdivision  of Shadow Green approved November 2017.   The new road is extended from Hillview Lane  to Macatcher Parkway. All new improvements   are accepted by the city of Franklin and T do  DOT. These improvements shall be completed and   accepted by the city of Franklin and T do DOT  prior to the issuance of the 151st residential   building permit or prior to any certificates of  occupancy for commercial or mixeduse buildings   in phase 2 as shown on the development plan  uh sheet C6.0 0 or as otherwise determined by   the city engineer for the city of Franklin or  its designate. The applicant shall update uh   sheet C4.31 to clarify that the new road shall  match the proposed Hillview Lane road section   and to include a new temporary Machatcher  road section and replace exhibits on those   sheets and in the development plan at one stop  to reflect the modified condition of approval. Uh so engineering did review these uh this new  plan as well as the revised language for condition  

number 30 uh with the applicant and overall  staff is supportive of the revised language   for condition number 30. The board of alderman  reviewed the new language for condition 30 at   their March 24th uh meeting of this year and  voted to amend the language to match what was   what has been provided in what I just read.  As a result, the item is coming back to the   planning commission for a vote of concurrence on  this amended condition. The board man alman also   voted to defer this item to the April 28th, 2026  meeting to allow for additional public hearing   specifically related to this adjusted connectivity  and amended condition. And just as a general note,   um the boardman alderman did vote uh exactly  as the planning commission recommended for the   15 modification of standards. Therefore, I will  not be reviewing them unless you have specific   questions. You have 15 more MOS's to look forward  to later. So, I don't want to spoil the fun. Um,   so staff's recommendation uh is not changing. We  are still recommending approval with conditions.   And I'm happy to answer any questions. We also  have Jimmy Wiseman here from engineering if   you have specific questions to the off-site  improvements as well. All right. Thank you.   Anyone from the public have any comments on this  one? All right. We can move to the applicant. Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Adam Balish with  Boil Investment Company and we are proud to be the   applicant of Harland and have been uh in front  of many uh bodies here recently over the last   last couple years. Um, as a local uh developer  that's very present in this community. Um,   we try to do our best to listen to uh our  neighbors, listen to planning commissioners   like Miss McLemore and others uh that have  expressed concern um uh over time about impacts   to roads and putting infrastructure first. And so  uh we were excited to be able to work through some   alternatives um compared to what came before you  all, you know, probably over a year ago. And um in  

addition to modifying this northern access point  to uh bypass the majority of of Hillview Lane,   uh one of the other uh key components that that we  are prop proposing as part of this is that we are   proposing to make the modifications uh and improve  the intersection at Coleman and Hinnpek before any   building permits are pulled on the site. And so  the previous conditions limited it to around 30,   I believe. um and we are suggesting, hey,  we'll we'll go ahead and build out that   entire intersection before we pull the first  permit. So, again, making sure that we're   doing our best to put infrastructure first  um through that process. So, um as Joey said,   we we support um the staff recommendations um  have been working very closely with them. Uh,   and we also support the recommendations  based on the modifications of standard. Uh,   following your recommendation for um, uh, I'll  call it disapproval of modification number one. U,   uh, we've pulled that ourselves. Um, and so even  though that was kind of voted down at Bulma,   uh, we also decided to pull that that request. So  we we are in line uh, with with staff and happy   to answer any questions. All right. Thank you.  Have a motion on this item. Motion to approve. Second. All right. Proper motion is second in discussion.  Anyone? I mean, I just think from what we saw   before, this seems like a much better solution,  especially when we think about in the far far   future when Macatcher does circle the  city. That makes a lot of sense. Okay.   Anyone else? All right, seeing none,  we'll vote. Commissioner Harrison,   I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner  Franks, I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.  

Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner Man, yes.  Commissioner McLemore, I. Commissioner Williamson,   I. Ottoman Peterson, yes. All right, the eyes  have it. Uh resolution 2025-26 is passed. Item number 17, consideration of ordinance  2026-06, an ordinance to reszone 204.34 acres from   plan PD 1.26 district to plan PD 1.27 district  and reszone 0.55 acres from PD 1.26 26 district to   residential 1 R1 district for the property located  south of Merboro Road east and east of South   Kurther's road including the property located at  105 CPPley Road Park subdivision staff. Yes, thank   you. Uh so as the chair just read, the majority  of this request is to reszone uh much of the Kleta   Park PUD subdivision from PD 1.26 to PD 1.27 and  to reszone.55 acres um for a parcel being removed   from the Kleta Park subdivision from PD1.26 to  residential R1 district. Um this resoning is   associated with revision two of the Kleta Park PUB  subdivision development plan. The 0.55 acre parcel   um proposed to be removed is currently designated  as open space in the Ketta Park PUD subdivision.   The acreage is designated open space in the  development plan and it currently exceeds the   required amount and would still exceed the  required amount with this 0.55 acre parcel   removed. Um, while this 0.55 acre parcel alone  does not meet the R1 zoning ordinance requirement  

for lot size, the neighboring property intends to  consolidate his lot with this parcel and develop   it in accordance with R1 zoning. As far as a Kleta  development is concerned, the number of units and   the uses are not changing, but the decrease in  acreage causes the density to slightly go up. And   so that's why you see that resoning for both this  part parcel and the remaining Kleta development.   Um with that I can answer any questions you may  have. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone from   the public like to comment on this item?  All right. Seeing none have an applicant. Hi Matt Huff with Kimley Horn representing  development plan revision 2. Um, I guess   importantly, there's there's no change to  the approved unit count or the layout. No   meaningful change to the density or open  space compliance. Both formal and informal   open space are uh continuing to exceed the city  requirements. So, this is simply a correction   to an unintended boundary condition that was  created by the alignment of Copley Road and   will allow the adjacent property to function  appropriately under its existing R1 zoning.   appreciate staff's review and we're happy to  answer any questions. All right. Thank you. Do   I have a motion on this item? Recommends  the board of mayor alderman approval. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Harrison for  approval. Second by Commissioner McLemore.   Any discussion on this one? All right. All  good. Let's vote on it. Commissioner Harrison   I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner  Franks I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.   Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner man  yes. Commissioner McLemore I. Commissioner  

Williamson I. Alderman Peterson yes. All right.  The eyes have it. Ordinance 2026-06 is passed. Item number 18 considerate consideration of  resolutions 2026-25. A resolution approving   revised development plan for Kleta Park  puts subdivision for the property located   south of Merchboro Road and east of  South Kathers Road. Staff, yes. So,   this item is specifically to update the limits of  the Kleta Park PUD now that they are removing that   parcel. I'd be happy to answer any questions that  you have. All right. Anyone from the public want   to comment on this one? All right. Seeing none,  applicant, any more to say? All good. Do I have   a motion? Move to recommend approval to the board  of mayor alderman with staff conditions. Second.   All right. Have a proper motion by Commissioner  Harrison and a second by Commissioner Williamson.   Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, uh,  we'll vote on it. Commissioner Harrison,   I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner  Franks, I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.   Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner man, yes.  Commissioner McLemore, I. Commissioner Williamson,   I. Alderman Peterson, yes. All right, the  eyes have it. Resolutions 2026-25 passes. All right. Item 19, consideration  of resolutions 2026-23, a resolution   approving a revised development plan for  Barry Farms Town Center put subdivision   for the property located north of Goose Creek  bypass and east of Lewisburg Pike. Staff, yes,  

I am so sorry. Give me just one second to pull  up this map. You read that so fast. Um, okay. Well, while that's loading, I'll go ahead and get  started. The applicant has submitted a development   plan revision for Barry Farms Town Center. As you  stated, the proposed revision does include updates   to the location of office and multif family  uses, parking garage adjustments, and open   space reconfiguration. There are no entitlement  changes or modifications of standard requests.   The proposed changes are isolated to block C and  D of the development plan. And because they change   the character of this portion of the plan from  what was previously approved planning commission,   um it triggers a a planning commission level  review. It does not include a resoning. Envision   Franklin places this area in the neighborhood use  design concept and states that the development   should provide a diverse mix of high activity  uses with a connected and walkable block   layout. These centers and corridors should  have coordinated development patterns at a   pedestrian scale with highquality architecture,  plazas, sidewalks, and pedestrian and bicycle   amenities to activate the street and connect these  gathering places to the residential neighborhoods   they support. Envision Franklin further states  that new multif family residential is encouraged   to create lively walkable neighborhoods  near restaurants, shops, grocery stores,   and workplaces. First floors are encouraged to  have active commercial spaces, including retail,   restaurant, leasing office, and other amenities,  which should be individually accessible from the   street. In locations where commercial use on the  floor is not viable, multif family units should   provide individual ground flooror entrances,  stoops, or front porches, and pedestrian  

connections to the street or to a drive resembling  a street. Multif family and mixeduse site design   should integrate seamless pedestrian connectivity  across the site and to other uses. The proposed   revisions to the Berry Farms Town Center PUB plan  maintain compliance with the recommendations and   principles of Envision Franklin. Staff recommends  that the planning commission approve resolution   2026-23 with conditions. All right. Thank you. No  problem. And public comment. I believe we have at   least one person from the public who's given us  a card. Mr. Greg Huber. Please come to the mic.   State your name and address, please. Hi, I'm Greg  Huber. I live on 1018 General Martin Lane in Berry   Farm subdivision. I've lived there for 8 years and  have been continually frustrated with the sidewalk   going along Goose Creek bypass that you can't go  from that sidewalk into the development on Captain   Freeman or Moss Lane and then it ends before  you get to 431. So, you're kind of at a dead   end there unless you want to go off-roading  to try to get into the development. Um so I   I think the changes that have been made you know  to the layout of the buildings I personally think   are good. My concern is in the area sidewalks the  um um envision Franklin the zoning ordinance and   the transportation and street technical standards  all are very clear about having sidewalks on both   sides of streets. The only exception is Matcher  and and I65 which obviously this is not the case.   um and also having connect cyber connectivity  for circulation. So the the current plan doesn't   support those requirements in my opinion. Um and  so uh it's true that the Captain Freeman Bridge   as built is not does not have sidewalks that the  no one apparently knows why back in 2013 it wasn't  

built with sidewalks but it wasn't. And the boil  has a a draft alternative uh site plan to add a   sidewalk on the on the east side which is the  opposite side of where the new development is   happening. The the section 11 development we  talked about it's on the on the west side the   development's on the east side. So the um my it  seems to me that to to honor the Franklin zoning   ordinances and technical standards for the streets  that the right answer would be for the bridge to   be on either the the left side of the or the east  side of the bridge if you can't be on both sides   which would be truly compliant but I know there's  a space issue and a cost issue to change that or   have the bridge be have a pedestrian bridge be  over the creek on the west side so You can go from   the new area that's being developed, you know,  over to Goose Creek bypass on a sidewalk without   having to go to the east side of Captain Freeman.  The if you go to the east side of Captain Freeman,   then which is where the current proposal is  for adding a sidewalk, then you've got to   go on six crosswalks to get back to the  east side. get if you on the west side,   you have to go six sidewalks to get back on the  east side of the development, which is where all   the apartments are and most of the homes are.  And so it'd be inconvenient and also a safety   issue because people are not going to go on six  crosswalks. They're going to cut across that,   you know, Captain Freeman, which is a very  busy street. Um, so my act my request is that   there be a condition added to the approval to  either have a sidewalk on the east side of the   bridge or a pedestrian sidewalk, an independent  pedestrian sidewalk going across the creek. Um,   I think that would be honoring the rules that  the city of Franklin has put in place. All right.  

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, seeing no one else  from the public, we'll move on to the applicant. Hi, good evening again. My name is Adam Balish  with Boil Investment Company and um here to   represent the owner uh this evening. Um so I'll  try to address both um some of the public comment   but also address specifically the request that's  in front of you this evening for a modification   to the development plan. So, um the area that is  in uh in red, I guess on the on the site here,   um is uh partially the area that's being requested  for revision. Do you have a slide that just shows   the specifics of the development plan that  are being revised? I can here I'll share.   Sure. Thank you. Um, so as um as you may  remember or know, uh, Barry Farms Town C   Center's original PUD was approved in 2005.  Uh, so needless to say, the market changes,   uh, a few times between that original approval and  today. Um, this only being the fourth amendment,   uh, we're kind of lucky that we've not been in  front of you more times over the last two decades,   uh, requesting changes. But um one of the um  changes that we have request and worked closely   with Amy and her staff on was that um there is a  portion of the development across the street from   residents in uh that was showing a six-story  office building. Um right now we have we had   two proposed uh six-story office buildings  there. Thank you. Um and uh that is uh in   general this area if you can see the pointer uh  was a six-story office building and there was a   separate six-story office building here and there  were three to fourstory mixeduse buildings along  

Captain Freeman across from Publix. Um due to  some of the change in how people are working and   officing postco and the office demand there um we  um worked with with staff to submit a revised plan   uh where we are changing that uh sixstory  uh office building to a two-story series   of town homes and a two to fourstory mixeduse  building. Um keeping an office building here   uh and then using these buildings to screen a  deck. So the overall density of the of the plan   uh is decreasing kind of from intensity if that  makes sense. Similarly the uh two to fourtory   mixeduse buildings along the uh Captain Freeman  we are suggesting singlestory retail there that   is kind of in keeping with what's already around  Publix. Um, in reviewing that with with Amy,   um, she pointed out the fact that this, in her  opinion, was a change of character to the to the   plan and therefore warranted, uh, us to come back  before planning commission to, uh, show you all   these suggested changes and and get your blessing.  Uh, what we are not suggesting or requesting as   part of any of this process is any modification  or change to existing conditions of approval of   Berry Farms. Um so this is simply um a submitt  to update the character um of these areas. Um   there are existing conditions that were placed on  the previous amendment that required us to widen   roads and make infrastructure improvements prior  to us going vertical or receiving cos rather on   uh the areas north of the creek. Um the gentleman  that spoke a minute ago said that he thought that   we had submitted those plans. Uh to clarify for  your all's benefit, uh those plans were submitted   and run through the planning commission cycle on  administrative agenda because their infrastructure   um in the kind of the second half of 2025.  Uh we got um uh one-stop approval of those  

uh last week in a submitt and are looking to start  those improvements uh this summer. And that would   include the widening of Captain Freeman uh the  widening uh and continuation of Village Plains and   a bridge that would connect uh here in the center  and widening of Berry Farms Crossing by Dies. Um,   and as we went through that process, uh, staff  came to us and asked if we could incorporate   a sidewalk, um, on Captain Freeman to cross  the bridge. Um, and we we worked through that   with staff and are excited to say that there  is a sidewalk that we've now been added been   able to add to cross the bridge and connect  to Goose Creek. Um, one thing that I'd love   to just hand out to make one clarification. Um  this is um a plan sheet from the original PUD.   And so there was a comment or question to say  not really sure why sidewalks weren't built   in 2013. Um if you travel to Berry Farms today,  Moss Lane and Captain Freeman, neither of those   roads have sidewalks that connect to Goose  Creek bypass. I've been at Boille for over 18   years. Uh this plan was approved prior to my uh  tenure at Boille. But what you'll notice um the   uh sidewalks in question or the roads in question  are the furthest two uh roads on the left of this   plan. Um Moss Lane and and uh Captain Freeman. And  what you'll notice there is that they do not have   a bold yellow arrow going north from Goose Creek.  So um if you really squint and look in at that,   there is a bike trail that is north of the creek.  Uh that's shown in brown. Um and so the pedestrian   connectivity in that zone was to uh funnel to  the bike trail and then disseminate kind of   east and west but not approach these kind of key  um arterial intersections for pedestrian crossings   at that location. So that is kind of the history  of why those roads weren't built there. That was  

part of the approved putt in 20 uh 2005. Um,  as I said, we we have been able to work with   staff to include a sidewalk uh today that's in the  approved plans that were approved last week. So,   happy to answer any more questions on that. But  the the primary uh request tonight was for the   modification of the development plan uh to change  the character going from a six-story building to   twotory or four to one uh in those two areas.  So, happy to answer any questions. Appreciate   your help. All right. Thank you. Do I have a  motion on this item? Motion approved. Second. All right. Had a motion for approval  by Commissioner Franks and a second   by Commissioner Harrison. Discussion. Anyone? Uh, Commissioner M. The the buildings labeled D1,  D2, D3, those are now retail. The three that you   said that up and next against Captain uh Freeman,  those are now going help me. What What were they   and what are they now? Proposed. Um D2 and D3 are  um would be single story one to twotory retail in   this in this plan I believe on the submitt. Okay.  They were two to two to four story mixed use   uh originally meaning retail below office uh in  that submitt. D1 is kind of misleading on the   corner there. Um D1 remains a four-story mixeduse  building and wraps the entire street um kind of   wrapping around that parking deck. So the mixeduse  nature uh we still have and it will complement the   existing three-story buildings that are around the  park um that exist today with ground floor retail   and multif family above that. Okay. So those those  plans aren't changing sir. And and for sidewalk,   what I'm getting, I I envision somebody parking  at the at the tip of the triangle there from guess  

the public parking lot and wanting to run across  the street to the to the retail on the first   floor. Um will there be there's an existing  sidewalk on the public side. Will there be a   sidewalk on the other side and an intersection? Uh  yes, sir. So there will be um there are sidewalks.   They're not constructed today, but there will be  sidewalks on the east side of Captain Freeman.   Okay. um down to the bike trail which is generally  in uh this area north of the creek. The sidewalk   on the west side would continue all the way to  Goose Creek, but on the east side would continue   and stop at at the bike trail. Currently, there  is admittedly a large pedestrian gap at Berry   Farms. Um, you know, even some of our um our  consultants that are here tonight work in some   of these office buildings that are closer to the  Lee Company office and um in order to circumn back   to restaurants and things like that, they kind of  have to take a secuous route today because these   roads that are um part of this upcoming project  are not built yet. So th those will be constructed   and built as part of this. Um, one other thing  that I failed to mention was that at the last um,   uh, revision, there was a condition placed on  our approvals that required us to do with staff   um, and and us as applicants and consultants is a  um, individual intersection traffic study for the   um, internal roads at Berry Farm. So, typically  when site plans are submitted, we're the traffic   studies are studying intersections outside of  the project. Um it's kind of crazy that we're now   studying roads inside the project at Berry Farms  now. But um so with the site plan, uh we submitted   a preapp for generally everything that you see in  blue um minus this office building. And uh one of   the comments back on that preapp was from Jimmy  and their staff was hey we need you studying these   intersections. As part of that we have already  converted uh Captain Freeman and Hugh Crossing  

here adjacent to Publix to a four-way stop. U  that previously was not. It was a east west stop,   but Captain Freeman was a free flowing north  south. That's been revised as of about two weeks   ago maybe, Jimmy. Um to uh to a full four-way  stop and then we are studying the additional   intersections as you go south to understand  if those need to be four-way stops or or what   kind of controls are done at that intersection.  So, that'll be part of the site plan submitt uh   when that comes before you all um for the for this  area. Okay, great. I look forward to seeing that   part. frequent berry farms a lot and particularly  that area. So, understand the concern. So,   thank you and thanks for walking through that  sidewalk issue again. I'm sure that's what you   said probably the first time, but I missed it. All  right. Any additional discussion? All right. Uh,   we have a proper motion for approval and second  and we'll vote on this item. Commissioner Harrison   I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner  Franks. I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.   Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner man.  Yes. Commissioner McLemore. I. Commissioner   Williamson I. Alman Peterson. Yes. The eyes have  it. Motion. I mean resolution 2026-23 passes. All right. Item number 20. Consideration of  resolution 2026-24. for a resolution approving   a revised development plan for Ovation  PUD subdivision with 15 modifications   of development standards, building type, on  street parking, loading zones and signs for   the property located at the southeast corner of  East Mchuan Drive and Kther's Parkway. Staff,   yes, thank you. Um, I am going to  get a hang get the hang of this

What am I doing wrong? Okay, we're going to we're  going to go with this. Um,   for some reason it's like Sorry,  I can't do two things at one time. There we go. Okay. Um, I was just putting off  the 15 modifications of standard readings. Um,   so this is to uh request an additional 15  modifications of standards and to update vesting   uh to current standards. The vesting update does  not change the plan in any way. It just allows   some additional signs by right. This revision  does not propose any changes in in density   or entitlements from revision 2, the original  entitlements. Um, for reference, revision three   was a layout revision to impro improve roadway  design and build building placement that was   approved at the January 2026 FMPC meeting.  With the with this revision, revision 4,   there are no major layout changes and the only  changes on the plan are those as a result of the   modifications of standards requests. MOS number  one, also you were given a little reference sheet.   Yes. Um, that is is it's colorcoded, so hopefully  it's simple as we go through this, so I'll try to   be quick. MOS number one is a request to allow  angled parking along internal private streets.   Chapter 9.2.4B states that other streets may have  parallel parking per the transportation and street   technical standards and the proposed alternative  is angled parking along internal private streets.   The intent of the zoning ordinance is to limit the  limit the amount of parking in front of buildings,  

accentuating a pedestrianfriendly and activated  streetscape. Angled parking creates the feeling   of a parking lot in front of buildings.  As opposed to parallel parking spaces,   angled parking requires additional pavement to  accommodate both the parking space and movement   in and out of the space. Angled parking also  creates an unsafe environment for patrons wanting   to access their trunk while their car is parked,  placing the patron within the drive lane of the   street. In addition, the proposed configuration  does not meet the city's engineering standards,   raising additional concerns related to safety,  maneuverability, and operational consistency   with the street network. At the joint conceptual  workshop, it was me mentioned by some elected   appointed officials that angled parking could  be supported as a parking option when the street   traffic volume was low. The location proposed  for this angled parking is along the major   thoroughare of the development within the heart  of the activated commercial and entertainment   core of the development. For these reasons,  staff feels that standard parallel parking   or other compliant configuration should be  utilized and staff recommends disapproval   of MOS1. I'm also going to ask Jimmy to come  forward. He um worked up a a diagram for us. Oh my god. Start talking. Okay, I'm going  to let you do that. Let's see.   Where did that hide? Is it down  here? It's on the desktop. So,   you're going to have to go back to here.  Okay. And on the desktop. And then you  

can double click it. closed out. That's the  presentation. This is the auto turn. All right, let's see how fast our internet is. Um,  I can describe it and u certainly get you   the information you need. I won't go through the  presentation again. And I think everyone was here   for that at Joint Conceptual. But I did want to  highlight a couple things from that presentation.   One was the example I gave in Cookville where they  removed some angled on street parking spaces. So   we contacted them and ask them why. And uh between  the years 2022 and 2024, this is West Broad Street   in Cookville. You can go on some aerial and  kind of go back in time. It they replaced it   last year so it's easy to see. Um, between 2022  and 2024, there were 15 crashes reported and 14   of those were related to uh the parked car, the  angled parked cars, whether they were backing   into traffic, a car was trying to pull in and hit  another one. No injuries or anything like that,   but there were 14 out of the 15 crashes that  happened in that short stretch of roadway were   because of the on street parking, the angled on  street parking. A couple examples came up last   week or at Joint Conceptual about examples here  in Franklin. One being Main Street uh right off   Five Points. You've probably driven on it. I did  on the way here today. Um it's a one-way street,   different animal. Um it has about 20 plus feet  of pavement between the angled spaces and the   other parking spaces that are there. The other  example was uh Hughes Crossing in Berry Farms,   which is we've talked a little bit about tonight.  um at which that road tease into Moss Lane and   terminates on the other end at a public's parking  lot and it's surrounded by pretty low density  

singlestory maybe threetory at most um mixeduse  development. The drawing that I cannot show you   um was our attempt uh to use a program called  autoturn which is the model that every traffic   engineer every site designer uses to lay out  parking, layout streets and making sure that a   vehicle can maneuver properly. That's where you'll  see wider radi when you have trucks coming through   and buses and things like that. We run all of  our um uh fire trucks on this template as well.   We took the the smallest vehicle that Ashtto will  even list on their um design guidelines and tried   to maneuver in and out of these spaces that are  shown on the plan. And under no circumstance   were we able to do it without either entering  into one of the other stalls or entering into   opposing traffic. Now, that happens all the time  in parking lots um when you're trying to find a   parking space, but you're very aware of that. Um,  so again, wish I could show you, but um, we we   really tried to make that work to see if you could  stay within the travel lane and make the movement,   but it just can't be done. So, just further  highlighting the fact that it may be appropriate   in some places to show angled parking at a certain  degrees of of angle, but on the major third or   the major roadways that bisect a highly dense  development, it's just inappropriate. Thank you. Okay. MOS number two, it's a request to allow a  loading zone in the front of a building. Chapter   10.6.3B 6.3B states that an on-site loading area  shall be one located to the rear of the building  

adjacent to the loading doors and two arranged  to have safe and convenient access to a street,   but in no case shall the loading area extend  into the required drive aisle of a parking   area. The intent of the zoning ordinance is that  the loading area would not be visible from the   road. The proposed loading zone, while in the  front of the building, will be screened from   view of the road with a screening wall and a grade  change. Staff recommends approval of MOOS number   two with the condition that the brick screening  wall be integrated into the facade and meet the   requirements of the building type. MOS number  three, it's a request to allow variation in the   multif family building facade presentation.  Chapter 6.8 states that the front facade   shall face the public street, private street, or  internal drive in that priority order, and that   the front facade shall parallel the frontage.  The following language is proposed to be added   except where the building pulls back from being  parallel to the street to allow for activated   unusable open spaces that is well connected to  the pedestrian network to allow the variation in   the building facade presentation on multifamily  buildings. The intent of the zoning ordinance is   to require buildings to be parallel um to ensure  that developments are pedestrian focused and   friendly. The language proposed, while it allows  for a deviation from buildings being parallel to   the frontage, it still ensures the intent of the  zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval of   MOS number three. MOS number four, very similar uh  but for the commercial mixeduse building type. Um,   they would like to also add the following language  to the end of chapter 6.9 that states that the   front facade shall face the public public street,  private street or internal drive and that priority   order and that the front facade shall parallel  the frontage except where the building pulls  

back from being parallel to the street to allow  for activated and usable open space that is well   connected to the pedestrian network. The intent  of the zoning ordinance to require buildings to   be parallel is to ensure that developments are  pedestrian focused and friendly. The language   proposed while it allows for a deviation from  buildings being parallel to the frontage still   in ensures the intent of the zoning ordinance.  Staff recommends approval of MOS number four. MOS   number five is a request to permit irregularshaped  signs. Chapter 15.1.3 states that signs shall not   be irregularly shaped except for small hanging  projecting signs. Irregularly shaped signs have   been approved by previous MOS requests. The  applicant is requesting to revise the standard   to allow irregularly shaped signage related to the  element that is representative of the project and   business logo or symbol. Staff recommends approval  of MOOS number five. MOS number six is a request   to permit neon and le LED internal illumination  when the sign has three-dimensional depth and is   used within a channel or used to reinforce the  design of a sign as letters, numbers, logos,   and accent lines. Chapter 15.1.6 states that this  standard will apply to the following sign types:   band signs, development entry signs, monument  signs, vertical blade signs, and wall signs.   Staff recommends approval of MOOS number six.  MOOS number seven, this is a request to permit 15   pedestrian scale interactive displays to provide  wayfinding or advertising. They are to be a   maximum square footage of 50 total square feet per  sign with a maximum of two sides, maximum height   of 10 ft, and signs are to be located on internal  drives only and located within the frontage of  

commercial mixeduse building types or within  a formal open space out of view of Kurther's   Parkway, Mchuan Drive, and Ovation Parkway.  Chapter 15.110 states that the following signs are   prohibited. L le LED electronic message centers.  The applicant's request for 15 of these prohibited   signs and since the sign type is is prohibited,  there are no standards for the size of the sign.   Further, the sign and quantity proposed by the  applicant is too substantial. With a dimension   capped at 10 feet in height and the maximum  allowance of 50 square feet, the MOS essentially   permits a 10 foot tall by 5 foot wide sign or the  standard width of a sidewalk. Staff recommends   disapproval of MOS number seven. MOS number eight.  It's a request to permit a large format digital   display screen mounted on the facade of a building  for on-site advertising and events. The sign is to   be located on the ground floor of a commercial  mixeduse building out of view from Kurther's   Parkway, Mchuan Drive, and Ovation Parkway.  Maximum square footage of the sign would be   400 square feet. Chapter 15.1.10p 10P states that  the following signs are prohibited. LED display   screens. The applicant's request is the first  request of its kind and since the sign type is   prohibited, there are no standards for the size of  the sign and the size proposed by the applicant is   too substantial. Staff recommends disapproval of  MOS number eight. MOS number nine, it's a request   to permit band signs above the entrance to a PO or  an alleyway. Chapter 15.4 states that the quantity   of these types of signs are a maximum of one per  main entrance per retail storefront tenant space  

of the ground floor if no wall sign is present on  the building. Buildings five stories or more may   have band signs as described above in addition  to permitted wall signs. The sign area would be   a maximum of 1.5 square feet per linear foot  of retail storefront tenant space facade. The   applicant is requesting to add language to allow  for band signs above the entrance to a po alleyway   as written within the sign area requirements which  staff can support. Staff recommends approval of   MOS number nine. MOS number 10. This is a request  to allow a canopy sign to project above the canopy   roof line and allow for internal illumination.  Chapter 15.5 states that the placement of these   types of signs shall be placed on the front facade  of the canopy and outside of the HPO. The sign   can be placed above the canopy when channel cut  letters are used. The lighting allowed is external   illumination only. The applicant is requesting  to add language to allow canopy signage to be   located above the canopy roof line and allow  for both external and internal illumination   when not visible from Mchuan Drive or Kurther's  Parkway and the canopy is located at the ground   floor entrance. Staff recommends approval of MOS  number 10. MOS number 11. This is a request to   allow a directory sign on the fac the building  facade or freestanding adjacent to the primary   entrance of the building with a maximum of 10  square ft per building facade in addition to   other permitted signage on the building and with  exterior and interior illumination. Chapter 15.8   8 states that a small sign that is flat against  the building facade and mounted or applied   directly to the building uh is is the definition  of a directory sign. The sign area is a maximum  

of 4.5 square ft per building facade and that  lighting is external illumination only. While the   request deviates from what is allowed within the  zoning ordinance, it is similar to requests made   with other plans that were approved and supported  by BOMA. Staff recommends approval of MOS number   11. MOS number 12. This is a request to permit  internal and external illumination for small   hanging and projecting signs. Chapter 15.12 states  that external illumination only is allowed. Staff   recommends disapproval of MOS number 12. This type  of request has never been approved anywhere else,   so there's no precedent for this request. Small  hanging and projecting signs are meant to be on   a pedestrian scale and aimed at the pedestrian  realm and internal illumination does not aid in   achieving this intent. MOS number 13. This is a  request to allow a maximum of one per commercial   mixed mixeduse building where residential is on  upper floors over commercial, a maximum of one   per multif family building and a maximum of one  per parking structure. These vertical blade signs   shall not project below the winding window header  of the first floor and shall not project above the   parapit of the building facade. A maximum of 4 ft  from the building facade inclusive of the bracket   depth. Chapter 15.14 states that the quantity of  these vertical blade signs are maximum of one per   building frontage on a street intersection and  may be used only if no other hanging signs exist   on the ground floor retail storefront/tenant space  below. The sign area of these is a maximum of 30  

square ft or one square foot per linear foot of  building facade whichever is less. The placement   is at the corner of the building or at the change  in mass near the corner of the building. It shall   not project below the window header of the first  floor. Shall not project above the cornice of a   two-story building or above the window sills of  the third story of the building with more than two   stories. When it comes to projection, it states  that project that it projects from the building   facade at a 90deree angle or at 45 degree angle  when placed at a corner of a building. It's a   maximum of 3.5 ft from the building facade and  brackets connecting the sign to the building   facade shall be a minimum depth of 1 ft and  a maximum of 1 and 1/2 ft. The updates to the   language within the zoning ordinance requested by  the applicant are not overly concerning to staff.   Staff recommends approval of MOOS number 13. MOS  number 14 is a request to permit painted wall   signs and add language to the quantity placement  and material. Chapter 15.15 states that the   quantity is a maximum of one per building facade  only if no band sign exists on the building.   Buildings five stories or more may have signs as  described in addition to the permitted band signs.   Materials would include brick, stone, wood,  metal, or composite material that has the   same properties. The applicant is proposing  language just to allow for painted wall signs.   Staff recommends approval of MOS number 14  based on positive feedback from the joint   conceptual regarding painted signs. MOS number  15. This is for window signs and it's a request   to permit 20% coverage on window signs and the  material to include white frosted or gold leaf  

vinyl. Chapter 156 states that the sign area  of these is a maximum of 15% of an individual   window area but shall not exceed five window  signs. In cases where windows are grouped,   the sign area shall not exceed 15% of the window  grouping area. The materials include metal, wood,   or easily removable paint, paper, cloth, or other  like material. Staff is not overly concerned with   the language update requested by the applicant.  Therefore, staff recommends approval of MOOS   number 15. Staff recommends that the planning  commission recommend to the board of mayor and   alderman to approve resolution 2026-24 with  conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone   from the public like a comment on this item?  All right. Seeing none, have an applicant. Hello, my name is Greg Gamble and I'm  representing tonight the Ovation development   team including Highwoods and CenterCal and  uh Alec Chambers is here tonight with me   uh in case you have questions for the uh  developers. Um I provided to you a a quick   simple packet. This has every modification  of standards. Uh there's no new information   in here except for a map that I'm going to  draw your attention to here in just a few   minutes. Um but this is information from the  development plan sheets itself. So I thought   it would be easy and kind of simple for you to  peruse through. I'd like to comment on four of   these modification standards. If at any point  you have additional questions for me on some   of the other modification standards, I'm happy  to address those. But uh for the sake of time,   I just thought I would talk about um uh the four  uh on modification of standards. Number one,   um development plans are identified in the zoning  ordinance as used to create special places. It's   about placemaking. uh the modification of  standards that we're asking for in Ovation  

um are to make Ovation special. Uh it's to make it  unique. It's a standout development and a center   that we're all going to be very excited about and  proud of. Um Ovation has over 400,000 square feet   of restaurants, retail, and personal services.  The distance I'm going to use this map real quick. The distance from Kther's Parkway to Ovation  Parkway is the same distance as it is from   Starbucks to Landmark Bookstore. Give you a sense  of scale and how long this this walk is. Um,   do you know what that? No, I got it. I think it's  okay. on modification of standards. Number one,   we're asking for angled parking. Uh you've heard  some concerns tonight about safety. Um you notice   on Main Street, we have uh two parking  scenarios there. We have parallel parking,   but if you drive past Five Points, we have angled  parking uh that goes all the way down the street.   You'll also notice that where there's parallel  parking, you have a lot of midblock crossings,   a lot of pedestrians that that cross uh between  those parallel spaces. With angled parking,   we're focusing the pedestrian crossings to the  intersections. Each one of these intersections   will have a raised table where um if you  look on the front cover, you'll see that in   the illustrative. Um it's this is a raised table  where it makes it safer for pedestrians to cross   the street and it really focuses those uh who have  strollers to cross at the intersection as opposed   to crossing midb block. Um another thing you'll  notice about the Ovation master plan is there's   six parking structures. That's where the majority  of our parking is located. If you want convenient  

parking at Ovation, you're going to park in  the parking structures. Um, decks E, H, X, N,   and L all have direct connections out to Ovation  Parkway. This is where our traffic is going   to flow on Ovation Parkway. Deck E and B, they  connect directly to Null Top, which with a right   turn out or a left turn out, uh, you're able to  get out of Ovation. It's very very intentionally   designed this way so that the structured parking  becomes the con the the parking that's easiest   if you're staying there for a while. If you're  staying there long term. If you're coming in   for 10-minute pickup or coming in for 15 minutes.  The angled parking provides for a convenient easy quick turnover parking. It's only within this  area of Encore Lane and only within this area   of Noltop. So very specific key locations  where that angled parking is located. Um we   do have angled parking in downtown Franklin.  We have angled parking at Berry Farms. We   have angled parking at Gateway Village. Um  we called uh the city of Franklin police   department and asked how many accidents have  occurred in those areas where we have angled   parking and since they've been constructed  they have had zero. Uh I understand that   um the location and the design is very  important. We take that very seriously.   Our design team's taken that very seriously. But  this corridor that is through Ovation is intended   and meant to be a pedestrian. It's meant to  be um and is designed for pedestrian safety   and it's very intentional uh in that regard.  Um on modification of standards number seven.

Uh this modification of standards is lo has has  been has had a lot of communication between us   and staff. Um staff asked us for a map that uh we  wanted to turn in with the resubmitt. We weren't   able to. Uh I have a map tonight that uh kind  of speaks toward um modification of standards   number seven. Unfortunately, staff has not  had a chance to review this map. Um we our   team is requesting digital wayfinding signs. Um,  in this modification of standards, we said permit   up to 15 with a maximum height of 10. After  further analysis, we are comfortable with you   making a condition of approval or modifying this  modification of standards to uh permit up to 12   uh with a maximum height of 8 ft and kind of  reduce that scale. These digital wayfinding   signs are planned to be in areas where pedestrians  are coming out of these parking garages where when   you come out to the pedestrian network, when you  come out to the pedestrian area, you're able to   identify where you need to go, ice cream, hair  salon, etc., and there's a clear digital map that   gives you clear direction to where you're going to  go. There are two on Encore Lane here in the park.   The others are very intentionally located so that  they're where the pedestrians are accessing this   um this main road uh where the restaurants and  retailers are going. With 400,000 square ft of   restaurants, retail and personal services, there  needs to be clear direction to um patrons that   are visiting them on where to get there and  how where to go. Uh we'd certainly appreciate   u in addition to just dayto-day again Chambers  with Highwoods. Um we are planning to have you  

know maybe a thousand events a year at Ovation.  That sounds like a lot but that's about 20 a week.   I mean that's yoga in the morning, dog walking,  something in I mean that's like three a day which   when you put it down to that it doesn't sound like  that much but every single day it's going to be a   very dynamic environment. So when people come  out of the decks and you can see these are all   strategically placed. So when people come out of  the deck they can see an arrow to yoga go here. Uh   it's dog event or some other event Christmas tree  lighting movie. Uh this is just to help people   because it's you know we sometimes lose the scale  of how big Ovation is. Um, and if you're coming   out of a deck and you, you know, you're with  somebody that's going to one event and you're   going to another, this just just a way for us to  be able to change it every day, every hour. Um,   and having static signs, it isn't going to cut it.  It's just not feasible. Um, so this is a way for   us to help the pedestrians get to the right place  for all these events. We plan on having innovation on modification of standards number eight. This  is for a uh movie screen in the park. Um we can't   just call it a movie screen. Uh it will have  some advertisements on it. Just like when you   go to the movies and they start rolling a movie,  it advertises for some of the businesses in the   area and then they play the movie. We intend to  have outdoor areas in the park where families can   gather, young kids can come play. It's a part of  the atmosphere and the experience of of being at   Ovation. Um certainly love your consideration  of supporting this modification of standards.   The screen uh as we wrote in the modification of  standards faces back toward building G. It does   not face out toward the street. It will not face  out toward um Mchuan or Kurthers. Uh it's intended   to be a park element. It's intended to be a part  of that experience of the park. As you'll notice  

with these modification of standards, as you  reviewed them uh and studied them, you've noticed   that the vast majority of these modification  of standards are within just this red box here   within this corridor. We're not talking about  modification of standards of signage that relates   to anything on Kathers or along Ovation Parkway  or Mchuan. It's all about this experience being   innovation when you're when you're internalized  inside uh this commercial core. And that takes us   to modification of standards number 12 which staff  is also recommending disapproval on which relates   to small hanging signs. Uh, as mentioned by staff,  um, we are requesting that the retailers have the   opportunity to have internally lit signs with  streets that uh, again are from Starbucks to um,   Landmark Book. We don't expect every retailer to  have an internally lit sign. We are trying to give   the opportunity to have some expression, to create  some individuality, um to create some uniqueness   and where there are small hanging signs, if  somebody wanted to create the glow and ambiance   that related to their particular business, we'd  like to give the opportunity for them to do that   and we appreciate your consideration on that.  Internally lit small hanging signs might not be   appropriate everywhere in Franklin, may not be  appropriate at the factory. with the energy and   the vibrance that Ovation is bringing, we believe  that it is appropriate along this corridor in   internal uh within Ovation. Happy to answer any  questions that you may have. And again, I didn't   hit every MOS, but if you do have questions about  one of them, I'm happy to go through it with you. All right. Thank you. So, do I have a motion  on the primary resolution? Motion to approve.  

Second. All right. Proper motion and second.  Let's roll into the modification of standards.   MOS number one, request to allow angled parking  along internal private streets. Motion to approve. Is there a second on that one? I'll second.  Okay. have a proper motion in second. What's   Let's discuss that. Anybody have thoughts,  comments, results with the city not having any   accidents and we have angle parking and I'm old.  I can't parallel park. So, I love angle parking   and I'm not I'm not making this decision based on  my ability to park, but I think this is a special   place and I think the opport the area that it's  going to be where the aim of parking would be,   I think it um it warrants the modification in and  out than I've ever seen at Berry Farms. The way   it works from Tito's all the way up to Publix,  it just angle Perkins perfect. Commissioner,   I think my con uh question on this would be that  um it was brought out that this doesn't meet the   um city standards and I think the question I have  is how does excuse me the Berry Farms examples,   how are those different than what we're looking  at? Is there something that's different from what   they did at Berry Farms and the other examples  in the city where this one is meeting it less?   What? I don't know what I'd have to go back and  look at the old FUD for berry farms and when that   was approved if it was even in the standards at  the time or if they asked for a modification of   standards also. I don't I don't know. Okay.  But it's it's one or the other. I'd imagine   either it wasn't in the standard at that time or  um a modification of standards was requested. So  

I think just you know that would be the only  thing is just make sure if you know if if this   is a thing that it's at least comparable if not  better on spacing and everything to what we have   so we don't design it differently you know and  that it's an issue. Anyone else have thoughts   comments on this one? I guess this is this is one  that I I I don't think I can support. I wasn't on   this commission when when Barry Farms came before  us or you know downtown Franklin parallel parking.   Um I I honestly see both sides of this. I I I  just have a hard time taking position you know   contrary to staff that I I it's clear Jimmy feels  very strongly about this um and has um you know   evidence to to back up I think that position  despite not being able to pull it up on the   screen. Um oh there it is. Oh. Um maybe maybe  I'll pause and Jimmy you can show us this. Yes.   So um I will preface this by saying that ashtto  standard for vehicle it's a it's a larger SUV or   truck because if that can make it obviously a  passenger vehicle has a lot less of a problem   doing it. Um so the engineer on staff who did this  is a perfectionist. I will say that. So he really   tried to make this work and there could there be  some factor safety built in? Of course, um we are   in a community that see a lot of SUVs, a lot of  bigger trucks driving around if you go about your   day. Um and this was the best we could do. So the  the one on the far left is a car backing out which   would and it's not uncommon again in a parking lot  you expect that somebody backing out of a space   you usually yield to them. Um, and then number the  one in the center is is staying in the travel lane   and making that maneuver into the parking space.  You encroach a little bit into the other spot. Um,  

if these were all smart cars, Fiat small vehicles,  probably not a problem. Uh, but that's just not   the environment we have here in Franklin. And then  the the last example on the on the far right is   um not encroaching into the other stalls and  having to encroach um into the oncoming uh travel   lane as well. So glad I got to show that to you.  But um oftent times in in a a parking area, you'll   have wider pavement, people going about 5 miles  an hour, really slow, really paying attention what   what they're doing. Um and a lot less through  movements for traffic as well. So, this these   are the two major corridors that go through this  development. We heard a thousand events. That's   a lot of traffic. Um, not to mention all the  great restaurants and retail options that'll   be here. I'm sure of it. It's going to be a great  destination and a great project for the city. Uh,   we just can't support the the angle park. Thank  you. Anybody else? I have to agree with some other   comments. I'm not sure how um or I don't recall  how Berry Farms got their angled parking approved,   but it works there. I'm down there a lot shopping,  getting food, that sort of thing. And it's almost   like a a traffic calming mechanism because you're  on the lookout for somebody backing up. It it it's   by far you're not traveling down that road  anything over a couple miles an hour. U so   my thoughts. Anyone else have any opinions or want  to comment? All right, we have a motion to approve   MOS number one to allow the angled parking.  Uh we'll begin voting. Commissioner Harrison.   Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks,  I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent. Commissioner   Ore votes I. Commissioner man, no. Commissioner  McLemore, I. Commissioner Williamson, I. Alderman  

Peterson, yes. All right, the eyes have it.  MOS number one for angle parking is approved.   Let's go to MOOS number two, which is a request  to allow a loading zone in front of a building.   All right. Um, I have a motion on this  topic. I'd like to for approval. Second. All right. Proper motion and second  discussion. Does that motion include the   recommendation to staff on their comments?  to provide the brick screening. Yeah,   that motion would include the staff staff  recommendations. Okay, thank you. All right,   any other discussion? None. Have a motion,  proper motion to um approve and a proper   second and let's vote. Uh, Commissioner Harrison  I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner   Franks I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.  Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner Mann,   yes. Commissioner McLemore, I. Commissioner  Williamson, I. Alman Peterson, yes. All right,   the eyes have it. MOS number two is approved  to allow a loading zone in front of a building. Modification of standard number three, request  to allow variation in the multif family building   facade presentation. All right. Do we have a  motion on this item? recommend move for move   for approval. Second. Okay. Who was a second by?  Commissioner Mmore. More. All right. Have a proper   motion in by uh Commissioner Mann and second  by Commissioner McLemore. Any discussion on  

this item? I guess I would call off that I think  this will um our decision here will probably also   apply to I think Harpath Village that we saw at  the joint conceptual maybe it was Harpath right   um because they have an interior road with  a setback angle I think they were seeking a   similar modification of standard so I just wanted  to flag that but I think it's probably going to be   a pretty similar analysis so this is precedent  in my opinion any other comments all seeing   none we have a proper motion for approval uh to  allow variation in multif family building facade   presentation and we'll vote. Commissioner  Harrison I. Commissioner Allen is absent.   Commissioner Franks I. Commissioner Lindseay is  absent. Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner   man yes. Commissioner McLemore I. Commissioner  Williamson I. Alman Peterson yes. All right. Eyes   have it. MOS number three is approved allowing  variation in multif family building facade. All right. MOS number four request to allow  variation in the commercial mixeduse building   facade presentation. Have a motion. Before you  take a motion, just a reminder that these are   recommendations to the board of mayor and alderman  for the phrasing of your motion. Sure. Thank you. request to add the following language on all of  these that that have that. Is that okay? Great.   Do we have a motion? Number five. Um motion  number four. Number four. Motion to recommend   approval to the board of mayor and alderman.  Second. All right. Proper motion for approval   by Commissioner Mann and second by Commissioner  Harrison. Uh discussion on MOOS number four.

Anyone thoughts? None. All right. Have a  motion for approval uh to request variation   in commercial mixeduse building facade.  This is MOS number four. And we'll vote.   Commissioner Harrison I. Commissioner Allen is  absent. Commissioner Franks. Hi. Commissioner   Lindseay is absent. Commissioner Ore votes I.  Commissioner man yes. Commissioner McLemore   I. Commissioner Williamson I. Alman Peterson  yes. All right. Eyes have it. MS number four is   approved to allow variation in commercial  mixeduse building facade presentation. MOS number five request to permit a regular  shaped signage. Have a motion on this item.   Move to approve. Recommend approval to  the board of mayor mayor, excuse me,   board of mayor and alderman. Okay, I'll second.  All right. Proper motion for approval by   Commissioner Harrison and second by Commissioner  Williamson. Any discussion on MOS number five? No. All right. Seeing none, we'll  we'll vote. Commissioner Harrison,   I. Commissioner Allen is absent.  Commissioner Franks, I. Commissioner   Lindseay is absent. Commissioner Ore votes I.  Commissioner man, yes. Commissioner McLemore,   I. Commissioner Williamson, I.  Alderman Peterson, yes. All right,   the eyes have it. And West number five is  approved to permit irregular shaped signage. MOS number six, request to permit neon and  LED internal illumination when the sign has   threedimensional depth and is used within  a channel or used to reinforce the design   of a sign as letters, numbers, logos, and  accents. Have a motion on this item. Move   for approval. Second to the board of mayor  and alderman. Great. And who is the second?  

Alderman P. All right. All right, we have a  motion for approval to the board of mayor and   alderman by Commissioner McLemore and a second by  Alderman Peterson. Discussion on MOS number six. None. All good. With proper motion and second,  we'll vote for approval. Commissioner Harrison I.   Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks,  I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent. Commissioner   Ore votes I. Commissioner Man, yes. Commissioner  McLemore I. Commissioner Williamson I. Alman   Peterson. Yes. Eyes have it. Us number six to  permit neon and LED internal illumination passes. And west number seven request to permit 15  pedestrian scale interactive displays to   provide wayfinding or advertising. Maximum  square footage of 50 total square feet per   sign with maximum of two sides. Maximum  height of 10 feet. Signs to be located   on internal drives only and located within  the frontage of commercial mixeduse building   types or within formal open space  out of the view of Kther's Parkway,   Mchuan Drive and Ovation. Do we have a motion  on this item? Move for approval. Vote of Marman. suggestions that have suggestions.  I'll I'll second that for discussion,   but I would like to amend. Yeah. You want  to amend it? You want me to amend it? I'm recommending approval of  the modification. Okay. Not  

disapproval. Approval. Okay. And your  motion for approval is as written. I'll make a motion to I can. Well, we got a we  got a motion and a second on the floor now. I'll   second that. Well, no, I won't take that. So, I no  longer have a second. All I have is a motion. I'll   second. Okay. Well, that was suggesting to change  the maximum height to 80. Okay. Would you like to   modify your motion to include uh 12 total signs  with a max height of 8 ft? Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank   you. Is it? You want a second? A second to amend.  Yes. I'll second. Okay. We have a proper motion   and a second. And the motion is for approval  with to allow 12 pedestrian signs with a max   height of 8 ft. Discussion. We talked about this  at the conceptual meeting and I thought it was   something great because it is a special place and  you got 500 square feet of area that people need   to know where they're going. So I think it's I  think it's a good thing. So that's why I'm voting   for approval. Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner  Williamson. Yeah, I think unless I'm I don't   know. I'm sweat. I can kind of see both sides of  it. Um I could support it completely if it was,   you know, more you inside the parking structure.  Um, but you have a lot of signs here and just like   on the next one that we're going to be looking at  where there's a cognissance of facing that towards   a building away from those, you know, main areas,  you know, these signs are going to be eliminated  

at night as well. So, I'm kind of hesitant and  I don't I don't think I can quite support this   as written. Okay, Commissioner May. This is this  is one that I also don't think I can support. Um,   I I think even 12 is a lot. Um, I I almost feel  like it would be distracting trying to drive   out of a garage and seeing that. Um, in today's  day and age, I actually feel like maybe a better   option would would maybe be creating an app for  Ovation and and you reflect all the events there   and you precisely locate where in the development  is going to be, click on it, and you can just walk   there using your your maps on your phone. I I  I mean, that's how I typically get around. Um,   I think a lot of folks do. I just think there  there's probably better options in my mind   than than this many signs that are illuminated  with advertisements around the development. So,   okay. Any other discussion? All right.  So, this is a vote to approve. I have a   proper motion for approval by um Commissioner  McLemore and a second by Commissioner Franks.   And this is to permit 12 pedestrian scale signs at  a max height of 8 ft. Correct. And let's vote. Uh,   Commissioner Harrison I. Commissioner  Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks I.   Commissioner Lindseay is absent. Commissioner  Ore votes I. Commissioner Man no. Commissioner   McLemore I. Commissioner Williamson, no. Alman  Peterson, yes. Yes. We have eyes of one, two,   three, four, five. Nose of two. The  eyes have it. MOS number seven passes.

MOS number eight, request to permit a large  format digital display screen mounted to the   facade of a building for on-site advertising  and events. Signed to be located on the ground   floor of a commercial mixeduse building out  of view from Kther's Parkway, Mchuan Drive,   Innovation Parkway. Maximum square footage of  400 square ft. Do I have a motion on this item?   I'll make a motion to recommend for approval  to the board of mayor and alderman. Okay. I'll   second. Second. All right. I have a proper  motion for approval by Commissioner Mann and   second by Commissioner McLemore. Discussion.  Anybody have Commissioner Man? I I think this   is a pretty cool feature um that does make  the development really unique. Um you know,   I I'm I'm downtown Nashville a lot. I I on the um  assembly food hall they have the large screen and   they use it for those not the movies but for those  purposes. I think that one's a little bit too high   in the sky but this is I think a great location um  right at Central Park. I think it'll be a really   cool feature for the development. Okay. Any other  thoughts Commissioner Williamson? Yeah, I think   you know it came before in the workshop and I  think I was a little hesitant about that. Um,   but I think looking at this and the application,  I like how it's being faced towards building G   and I think just overall it will be a benefit to  the community uh to appreciate this. All right.   Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none,  I have a motion of approval by Commissioner   Mann and second by Commissioner McLemore and  that is to uh permit a large digital format   sign. Proceed to vote. Commissioner Harrison.  I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner   Franks I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.  Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner Man.  

Yes. Commissioner McLemore I. Commissioner  Williamson I. Alman Peterson. Yes. All right.   The eyes have it. MOS number eight is approved  to allow a large format digital sign screen. All right. MOS number nine. proposed to permit ban  signs above the entrance to a Pasco alleyway. Uh   have a motion for this item. Recommend approval  to the board of mayor and alderman. All right.   Second to it. Second. Have a motion for  approval by Commissioner Mann. A second   by Commissioner McLemore. Discussion.  Anybody thoughts, feelings? All good.   All right, seeing no discussion, we'll  proceed to vote. Commissioner Harrison,   I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner  Franks, I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.   Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner Man, yes.  Commissioner Mackmore, I. Commissioner Williamson,   I. Ottoman Peterson, yes. All right. The  eyes have it. MOS number nine is approved   to permit van signs above the entrance to Pasco  and Hallway. Motion number 10, request to allow   a canopy sign to project above the canopy  roof line. Allow for internal illumination. Motion on this item. Recommend motion  to approve to Port Alderman. Okay,   I'll second. We'll be I guess with staff. Yeah. Have a motion for approval um by Commissioner  Harrison, second by Commissioner Williamson.   discussion, thoughts. You may have thoughts,  feelings on this one. Seeing none, we'll proceed   to vote. Uh, and this is a motion for approval.  Commissioner Harrison, I. Commissioner Allen is  

absent. Commissioner Franks, I. Commissioner  Lindsay is absent. Commissioner Ore votes I.   Commissioner Man, yes. Commissioner McLemore,  I. Commissioner Williamson, I. Alman Peterson,   yes. The eyes have it. The MOS number 10 to allow  a canopy sign project above the canopy roof line   and allow for internal illumination passes. MOS  number 11 request to allow a directory signs on   building facade or freestanding adjacent to  primary entrances to building with maximum of   10 square feet per building facade in addition  to other permitted signage on the building and   with exterior and interior illumination. Have a  motion on this item. Motion to approve. Second. All right. Have a motion for  approval by Commissioner Franks,   a second by Commissioner Harrison. Discussion.  Anyone? All right. Seeing no discussion,   we'll proceed to vote. Commissioner Harrison,  I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner   Franks, I. Commissioner Lindsay is absent.  Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner Mann,   yes. Commissioner McLemore, I. Commissioner  Williamson, I. Alman Peterson, yes. All right,   the eyes have it. MOS number 11 passes to  allow directed signs on building facade. MS number 12, request to permit  external and internal illumination   for small hanging and projecting signs.  to have a motion on this item. I'd like   to recommend approval to the board of  mayor and alderman. All right. Second. All right. I have a motion of approval  uh by Commissioner Williamson, a second  

by Commissioner Franks. Any discussion? Yeah,  on this one on this one um you know I know it   was uh expressed uh by staff that it doesn't add  to the pedestrian scale. I think it really does   um especially on the scale of this type of  um development and you have those out there   especially if you think about kind of it's going  to be very very activated in the evening. Um if   you have external illumination you know it's you  are getting some extra glare. There's a lot of   light spread outside of that sign area and it's  internal. It's definitely more contained and I   think more visible which is what they're trying  to achieve from that pedestrian standpoint. Any   other discussion? None. All right. We have a  motion for approval by Commissioner Williamson,   second by Commissioner Franks. Seeing no more  discussion, we'll vote. Commissioner Harrison   I. Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner  Franks I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent.   Commissioner Ore votes I. Commissioner man no.  Commissioner McLemore I. Commissioner Williamson   I. And Alderman Peterson yes. All right. The eyes  have it. MOS number 12 is approved to request or   permit external and internal elimination for small  hanging projecting signs. MOS number 13 request to   allow a maximum of one per commercial mixeduse  building where the residential is on and upper   floors over commercial and maximum of one per per  multif family building and a maximum of one per   parking structure should not project below the  window header on the first floor and shall not   project above the parapit of the building facade.  a maximum of four feet from the building facade   inclusive of bracket depth. Have a motion on this  item. Move to approve to the board of mayor. Okay,  

there's a second. Second. All right. Have a  motion of approval by Commissioner Harrison,   second by Commissioner Man. Any  discussion? Discussion. Discussion. All right. Seeing no discussion,  we'll proceed to vote for   Uh, Commissioner Harrison. Hi. Commissioner Allen  is absent. Commissioner Franks, I. Commissioner   Lindsay is absent. Commissioner Bore votes I.  Commissioner Man, yes. Commissioner McLemore, I.   Commissioner Williamson, I. Alman Peterson, yes.  All right, the eyes have it. MOS number 13 passes. Question number 14, request permit painted wall  signs and add language to the quantity, placement,   and materials. Do I have a motion on this item?  Recommend approval. Mayor second. All right. Have   a motion of approval by Commissioner Man, a second  by Commissioner Harrison. Discussion. Anybody   have thoughts on this one? All right. Seeing no  discussion, we'll proceed to vote. And this is   a motion for approval. Commissioner Harrison, I.  Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks,   I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent. Commissioner  Ore votes I. Commissioner Man, yes. Commissioner   McLemore, I. Commissioner Williamson, I. Alderman  Peterson, yes. All right. The eyes have it. MOS   number 14 uh request to permit painted wall signs  and add language to the quantity placement and   materials passes. All right. MS number 15 request  to permit 20% coverage on window signs and the   materials to include white frosted or gold  leaf vinyl. Do I have a motion on this item?

Approval to the board of mayor  and alderman. All right. Second. Have a motion for approval by Commissioner  Mann and second by Commissioner Mackmore.   Any discussion on this one? None. All right.  Seeing no discussion, we'll proceed to vote for   an motion of approval. Commissioner Harrison I.  Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks   I. Commissioner Lindseay is absent. Commissioner  Ore votes I. Commissioner man, yes. Commissioner   McLemore, I. Commissioner Williamson I. Alman  Peterson. Yes. The eyes have it. Motion for   approval passes on MOS number 15, which is a  request to permit 20% coverage on window signs,   the materials to include white, frosted, and gold  leaf from file. All right, let's go back to the   main motion for item number 20. And that includes  all 15 of the approved modification of standards   with subsequent conditions on each one of them  with the change on MOS number seven of 12 of   the displays at 8 foot maximum height. Any final  discussion on this one? All right. Seeing none, we   have a proper motion of approval by Commissioner  Franks and a second by Commissioner Harrison. And   we'll proceed to vote. Commissioner Harrison I.  Commissioner Allen is absent. Commissioner Franks   I. Commissioner Lindsay is absent. Commissioner  Ore votes I. Commissioner Man yes. Commissioner   McLemore I. Commissioner Williamson I. Alderman  Peterson yes. All right. The eyes have it. Uh,   resolution 20-26 2026-24 with all  15 modification of standards passes.

All right. Any other business? Anybody would like to give me a motion  to adjurnn? All right. Have a motion to   adjourn by Commissioner Harrison, second by  Commissioner McLemore, and we'll vote. Uh,   Commissioner Harrison, I. Commissioner Allen is  absent. Commissioner Franks, hi. Commissioner   Lindsay is absent. Commissioner Ore votes I.  Commissioner Mann, yes. Commissioner McLemore,   I. Commissioner Williamson, I. Alman  Peterson, yes. All right, we're journed.