Planning Commission - workshop

Call this meeting to order. This is the August 27th, 2026 joint conceptual workshop between the Alderman and Franklin Planning Commission. And we'll begin with roll call. Commissioner Harrison. Absent. Commissioner Allen. Absent. Commissioner Franks. Absent. Commissioner Lindsey.

Here.

All right. Commissioner Orr is here. Commissioner Mann. Here. Commissioner McLemore.

Present.

Commissioner Williamson. Present. absent. Alderman Peterson?

Here.

All right. Mayor Moore?

Present.

Alderman Potts? Absent. Alderman Burger? Present. Alderman Caesar?

Present.

Alderman Blanton?

Absent.

Alderman Barnhill? Absent. Alderman Brown? Absent. Alderman Beck?

Present.

All right. Let's begin with item number one. This is a discussion of development plan revision proposing 40 multifamily units where an office use was previously approved with one modification of standard parking on 19.11 acres located near the intersection of Franklin Road and Davenport Boulevard at 574 Franklin Road, Branch Creek Crossing, Hood. And as a reminder, this discussion is between Alderman, staff, and Planning Commission members. No public comment during this time, but you're welcome to stay and listen. Thanks.

Staff. Thank you. This is sort of an interesting development revision that we have here. The Branch Creek crossing was originally approved by the Board of Mayor and Alderman back in 2016 under the 2014 zoning ordinance, and they still have that original vesting. So it was a mixture of both office space and multifamily. Since then, it's gone through several revisions where the current The lot that we're talking about now had office space, but they are now requesting a revision to go back to a multifamily condo product, similar to what was originally approved with the original plan. The only modification they are requesting is to follow current parking standards, which we're supportive of because they are our current standards, which we... support. So the only really kind of detail that we are requesting specific feedback on is the architecture for the proposed buildings. The 2014 ordinance wasn't really as rigid for building standards as the current ordinance is. So we would like some feedback on what the applicant is proposing here this evening. Thank you. All right. Do we have an applicant?

Hello, my name is Greg Gamble, and I'm representing the applicant tonight in the Branch Creek Crossing presentation. Also here tonight with us is Chad Gore, architect with Ford Homes, and he's happy to answer any questions that you may have as well. The property is located just on the eastern side of Franklin Road, almost across from Gateway Village. There are two buildings that are built there today. They are approximately 40,000 square feet combined office square footage. They were a part of the original PUD that was established on the property. With the original approval in 2016, the site was approved with multifamily apartments. In 2019, that plan was changed to include a three-story office building with surface parking lot. In 2020, COVID hit and changed the office market and the office demand. What we're proposing with this master plan is to take the office that larger office building out of the master plan and replace it with four condominium buildings these are for sale condos and Each building will have ten homes within it Each home will have ten one-car garages located in the rear behind we have an access coming off of Franklin Road and right behind the office building. There would be a new bridge constructed. That bridge has been a part of the original development plan from the beginning. And we would have an internal drive in front of the buildings with parallel parking. There would be additional guest parking in the rear behind off the drive aisle. We are proposing that this master plan be gated. So this would be the gate location here in front of the bridge where guests and or residents would enter into the property. There's also a proposed emergency access connection for fire that would go through the church's parking lot and back out to Franklin Road. As you can see in the original master plan, there's a significant amount of open space that's protected by the hilltop hillside overlay. This property is 19.11 acres in total. 14.5 of those acres are open space that are protected. We've looked at the context, the architectural character of Franklin Road in this area, specifically what we're seeing in Gateway Village. It's an eclectic mixture of architecture and we know that this site deserves a special vision for architectural vision. This is the images that you're seeing at the top are images that we've used to kind of characterize the direction of the architecture for these condominiums. The buildings that you're seeing on the bottom are characteristic, are designed, I'm trying to say conceptual design of what those elevations would look like. Ford has a vision for very high-end luxury condos in this location. Architecture This site deserves architecture that is rich in quality. The current market supports high-end condos with a more modern aesthetic. Key components of the architecture include classical principles of proportion, hierarchy, and balance. Solid lasting materials. Changes in materials and composition to break up the massing. Changes in material and fenestration to recognize a base ground level differently than those upper floors. And the composition of the building elements are designed so that the main entrance is obvious and important. We have one modification of standards that we're requesting. In the 2014 zoning ordinance, the parking requirements for a one bedroom, two bedroom, and a three bedroom are higher than what they are in today's 2026 zoning ordinance. And we're asking to be able to use today's parking requirements for multifamily, which would be 1.25 for a one bedroom and 2.25 for anything higher than a two bedroom. Of the 40 units, there are 16 two-bedrooms and 24 three-bedrooms, so we don't have any one-bedroom condos as a part of this proposal. Next, we are tracking toward a September 24th Planning Commission meeting, with board and mayor and alderman meetings being in October and December. We're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

All right, thank you. Any comments, questions? I know staff had concerns about or interested in any comments on architecture in this area. Anyone? Pardon my record?

Yeah. So we had had a conversation about this one time, and I'll just say, first of all, people are looking for... Outside the single-family homes, people are looking for other things than rentals. So here you go. We've got a for-sale product, which is along the lines of the townhomes and the condos that people are saying, can we get out of our big homes? Can we downsize to a condo, lock and go kind of lifestyle that they're looking for? Townhomes also give that opportunity. So I'm glad about that. But we did have a conversation and... I'm not thrilled with the example that still is presented here on the bottom and I'm just gonna make one quick comment about it and I would love for you to go back to the drawing board with the architecture. So can we move on from this boxy building, flat roof trend that we've had? That trend came in and we've got a lot of it all over town. And I think it's wearing itself out. The one here in the bottom is the one I'm looking at. You've got, you know, if you look at the other top ones, the one on the left in the middle, it's white there. And, you know, you've got some elements there with glass and everything. And it's, you know, and I'm not opposed to the modern look, but I think those things have more character to the design. And the bottom set, the last two lines, are this boxy flat roof trend, sort of. same thing I'm seeing around town, and I think we need to move on from that. So I would just encourage a better design on the condos. That's all.

Okay. Alderman Baggett. I would just say that on that side of the street, I have an office over there, or on the other side, and on the side of this, most of those buildings are brick, and there's no, like... Other material, I mean, it's mostly all brick, so I would kind of keep that trend. I know that in the Gateway Village there's some stucco and some different things, and I would just keep it. The brick options I see are much better than the others. Hold on, Cesar.

I would just echo what my two colleagues have said. I think context matters a lot here. And to Bev's point, I think if you do put something too far out there or too modern, it disrupts the other character pieces that are here architecturally. So slide five matters a lot for me. I would agree with Alderman Berger that the bottom doesn't feel like it fits in this place. And then I would just also acknowledge and affirm the fact that we are building not for rent multifamily units, that we're building for sale multifamily product. And I think that's in response to what we're hearing from the community. I also have no concerns about the enhanced or updated parking standards in the modification as well. All right. Thank you. Anyone else have any thoughts on this one?

All right. Sure, go ahead.

Real quick, sorry about that. But I would differ from Patrick's a little bit and say that I get what you're saying because a lot of the other buildings around are brick and you sort of want to keep a trend there. But you can get too heavy on brick. And if everything is brick, brick, brick, brick, brick, it gets like, wow, there's not much imagination here. So I would say that mixed use of materials with stone and brick and maybe some other material might lend itself to have a more interesting design. I just thought I'd draw that out. Not that I disagree with him. I just think that, no, not that I disagree with the brick thing. I think there should be some design elements there. All right.

I'm looking at all the other buildings and I'm not wowed by all the things that are already there that look kind of monotonous to me. At least those pictures make them look monotonous. So I'm looking for something that has a little more variation in style personally. I don't know how much you're going to see those buildings anyway since you've got two big buildings in front of them. But I think if I were living there I'd probably feel better once I'd drove down in there if I had something that aesthetically was better. Okay. Good points.

I'd have to agree with them. It sounds like we want to take some of the edge off, some of the modernization out. Okay. And if you could provide us a rendering from the Franklin Road looking back just to get a feel for what it's actually going to look like being behind the other two buildings, that would probably help as well.

Yeah, pretty tough to see. There is an established tree line along the creek that's got 120 foot from one buffer to the other edge of the buffer. So you've got a mature established tree line along with the three-story office buildings with the tall parapets. I think it's going to be pretty tough to provide an illustration that would even be representative.

Yeah, maybe. Exactly.

Yeah.

From the standpoint of the two buildings that face Franklin Road, it looks like there is indeed a buffer that kind of defines both ends, both the front of these four buildings and the back of these four buildings.

That's right.

And one thing you don't really show here is whether or not there's any floodplain that's affected buildings. In fact, yeah, no, you're right.

We're not showing the floodplain when the city installed the the wetland There was a new flood map that was done and it created new cross sections We do believe that there is some floodplain outside of the stream buffer Right in this location for bit in front of building one We're sending survey teams out just to verify exactly where that's located So we're gonna get more information when we do file the development plan

All right.

That would be good to talk about. Anyone have anything else?

All right.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Item number two, discussion of an Envision Franklin plan amendment to allow a hotel use at 151 Franklin Road. This is Riverview Mayberry Historic House. Staff?

Good evening, Planning Commission and Aldermen. Thank you. As mentioned, this application is going to be an Envision Franklin plan amendment request. The applicant is requesting an Envision Franklin plan amendment, a proposing amendment to the current special consideration for the property at 151 Franklin Road. The current property does have a special consideration already, which states that the rural view shed along Franklin Road should be preserved with infill located behind the Riverview Historic House and its accessory structures per the previously approved Splendor Ridge subdivision. The proposed amendment that we're going to be reviewing today is an amendment to the current special consideration which would now allow for uses such as a 90-room boutique hotel, restaurant, cafe, meeting space, health and wellness spa, private function space, and space for underground parking. Staff is not supportive of this Envision Franklin plan amendment request and does have several concerns with the proposal based on the following reasons. No significant changes have occurred to the surrounding residential area. The immediate area is still predominantly single family residential. This does not meet the intent of the rural reserve design concept to maintain a low density historic agrarian landscape. The area was intended to be a low impact transitionary zone between the downtown and the single family residential neighborhoods to the north of the Harpeth. The request is not compatible with the surrounding area and the proposal would cause an abrupt change in massing form and architecture due to the scale intensity of this current plan. And due to the intensity and scale of this proposal, there are some concerns, potential concerns regarding the noise and lighting that could potentially affect the adjacent property owners as well. A number of emails and correspondence have been submitted to the planning department. Around 60 or so correspondence have been submitted to us and with the majority of them in opposition to the request raising a number of concerns about the proposal and the impact to the area. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 3rd and around 70 residents did attend that meeting. Many expressed opposition to the proposal as well as the uses that were proposed, the scale of the development, and the impact to the neighborhood and Franklin Road. The applicant did submit and attend the August 17th Design Review Committee meeting to seek additional feedback. And at DRC, Historic Zoning Commission members expressed concern with the number of structures that were proposed for this development, the intensity of the proposed development, and how it could overwhelm the historic estate. This item has come before you all so you all can discuss and provide feedback regarding this plan amendment request, the change of the current special consideration language, as well as the proposed uses that they are outlining with this request, as well as to discuss the scale, the massing, the number of structures of this proposal, and what this could mean for the property and the historic estate. The applicant does have a presentation that they're going to go through, but I will be here available to answer any questions you may have. All right, thanks.

We have an applicant.

Good evening. My name's Patrick Poole. I'm here on behalf of the development team to talk about Mayberry at Riverview. Quick goal for tonight. We had the benefit of coming to you all back in the spring with an initial site plan as part of our Envision Franklin plan amendment. We had many meetings, took your feedback, as mentioned, took DRC's feedback, historic. Also had a lot of different community meetings We elected to regroup throughout the summer and really revisit our design and our operations to hopefully come back with a more appropriate plan that we're very excited about presenting. So today we'd like to introduce that plan to you guys, but also leave as much time as we can for any feedback, because we are looking for that continued conversation and feedback. For those of you that weren't here in the initial workshop last spring, just a quick introduction on what the Mayberry Riverview is. Riverview is a historic 1902 estate sitting right in the heart and the front door of downtown Franklin. We believe that through our historic preservation, we can reinvent this into a long-term destination that allows this property to not only be open to the public, but one that can be a landmark for the city of Franklin for the next hundred years. I'm gonna flip over into a bigger screen of the site plan, but just to give a quick hint at what some of those changes were. The initial feedback we heard from the first workshop was that a lot of you really liked the use, but not so much some of the features of the site plan. And some community feedback was overall density, event venue, and some other items that we took to heart, and we really tried to incorporate some of those changes into this updated plan. The first I'm gonna run through in these six items below. We initially started with 120 keys across this property. We have reduced that density down to 90, which does a lot of different things. It takes our parking count down, but more importantly, it really spreads out the scale and allows for much more lush green spacing across the property. The property sits on 15 total acres. some of which runs along the Harpeth, but also has a really beautiful setback across the front, Franklin Road, the historic setback that doesn't allow any density, nor do we want any density to be in front of that main home. The 1902 property is the crown jewel of the site, and that would be the front door to the entire campus where all guests, both local and not, would be able to access the home and really experience Riverview and all of its history. Some other feedback we heard was just the overall parking and site circulation. You can see the plan on the left hand side of this screen shows a full circulation around the site. It also has parking throughout the whole site. We have taken that and completely removed it such that the only parking is on the southern portion of the site and all items on the northern portion remain lush green space, much more consistent with the residential area. Some other feedback we received due to the site's location adjacent to other residential areas is a heavy emphasis against any event venues. We originally proposed that the historic barn, which is a beautiful structure on the National Registry, could be used as an event space. We have taken that completely off and will no longer be offering any events on site to the public. This allows that historic barn to be used for other much more smaller scale items such as potentially spa or other food and beverage. All active uses on the site has been shifted to the south side, away from any of the residential areas. You see on the right hand side of the screen, the proposed pool would be located as far south as possible, making all of the structures on the northern site all quiet zone and just meant for lodging. Because of the significant reduction in density, it allows our parking to be reduced significantly as well. We've removed about 40% of all paving and really isolated any of those parking and traffic areas to the bottom portion of the site. And I'll shift through some of these. Again, I wanna leave a lot of time for any comments, but just for those of you who weren't here in the initial meeting, The site sits right in the intersection between downtown Franklin and the historic factory at Franklin. We believe this provides a great connectivity for the city, as you all are noticing much more pedestrian traffic along Franklin Road, and we envision that to continue. The site does have several historic features on site that have historically been used as primary residence for almost 100 years. Our proposed plan allows that to be open to the public, but more importantly, preserved. We believe, knowing the family that has lived there for the last 30 or 40 years, that owning and maintaining these historic structures has become very challenging economically, and that's why you see a lot of cities such as Franklin converting some of these structures into other uses so that they can live on for another hundred years. Our overall concept plan is to be a boutique end. You'll see here some concepts of interiors, lush landscaping, outdoor amenities, all open to the public. And focusing on this last slide is going to be the site plan. This provides a little bit more of a zoomed-in version, maintaining the two current curb cuts that are already located on Franklin Road. The first curb cut would be allowed for our public use. The second would be for service vehicles. The inner workings of the site would remain heavily landscaped, very lush green space, and all pedestrian uses. On the bottom portion of the site plan, you see we've shifted some of those commercial spaces such as the pool, pool grill, and potential spa to the south side of the site. And more importantly on the density, we took a lot of note from that first workshop we were in to reduce that density, not only in unit count, but also in massing and scale. We've broken these buildings up. They range from one to one and a half to two story, none of which are higher than the barn or the house itself. And it's gonna look and feel much more residential. The last piece is the buffers. We have put additional setback buffers on both the north and west portion of the site. 50 total feet on the north and 75 on the west allows for significant landscaping. By doing 50 total feet of buffering, it allows us to do multiple layers of green space, not only to provide screening, but also to allow scale. And lastly, as part of the special considerations, we have added some operating commitments, including no event venues, managed arrival and parking, defined service zones, light and sound standards, the landscape buffers that I just mentioned, as well as one comment we have received that I definitely wanted to point out in today's meeting is there is an emergency access that's required on the west side of the property that will be enhanced and screened such that is only to be used for fire and emergency services and no public access. So today we are really asking for feedback so that we can take any feedback we received and put it into our design and operating plans as we look to move forward on the Envision Franklin plan amendment proposal. Would love to answer any questions you all have.

All right. Thank you. Comments on all this information we just took in? Anyone? Yeah. Alderman Baggett.

I'm sure others have it, too, or have comments as well. But, I mean, I watched the DRC and it was not favorable. And so that is a key component to getting the COA for this to move forward. But in addition to that, which I would take great stake in their review and their comments on this. You know, I've heard even rumblings of other neighbors, well, if they can go commercial, then why can't I across the street go commercial? And this kind of start eating its way down Franklin Road. And I appreciate that. If you look north of Main Street in downtown Franklin, at some point someone decided to allow someone to put a business into their house. And then the next person did. And the next person did. And now when you go through downtown Franklin, if you take a left and go south of Main Street, it's very residential, mostly. A couple streets, not so much. But if you go right, if you go right, it's pretty much all commercial in what used to be residential areas. So I'm very attuned to not expanding commercial in this part of town. Did advocate for the factory district. and that would commence at Liberty Pike, but I don't want to see us continue to have commercial in this area. While I do think this looks like a lovely place, and in many ways I do love what this could be, just not at this place, unfortunately, for me. All right. Anyone else?

Mayor Moore? Well actually I'm going to be two people tonight. Alderman Brown is on a sister city trip and had asked me to echo his concerns about this property. And he said he'd supplied me with some brief comments, but I think his brief comments didn't come through because they came in the form of three different letters, which I'll enter into the record, but I won't read them all. But one is from neighbors along Franklin Road. Another is from the HOA of Splendor Ridge. And the last is from... A group of neighbors that live in Harpeth Meadows and Old Liberty and Daniels Drive and Franklin Road, all these are opposed. And I got a number of letters from people saying this is a great project and they want it to happen. The only problem I found was that none of them lived around this project. And by the way, all three of those letters are in opposition to it. And that's been one question I've asked. Well, show me something where the neighbors are supportive. I think it is really a nice project. I think it needs to be somewhere else, unfortunately, in our community. I think, as I had said before, whenever that property was developed in the back splendor, I think that took away the opportunity to really make something special on that entire property. And I think it is a challenge Patrick mentioned as far as older homes of this size and value. And I just hope we can find a solution. to preserve this property and also allow the owners to benefit from the escalation in value that they have. So that was me and Alderman Brown speaking. I have less hair than him, but. All right, we appreciate all this. Alderman Berger.

Do you want to go? You can go ahead.

Are you sure?

Yeah.

Well, it doesn't matter. I'm going to take a 180-degree difference on this whole thing. I may be the only one that sees this, but somebody better be getting ready to buy this property if they want to save it. Some single-family homeowner better buy this property or this home is going to sit there and deteriorate and deteriorate, and this has happened many, many times before to our properties. So, having a historic house here and this opportunity that we have, I don't know if I'm the only one who sees this, but I guess I've stayed in too many boutiquines, which I love to stay in, in Annapolis. Savannah and I can name you two or three places. I've stayed there Charleston and when I used to live up near Williamsburg, Virginia So many of these boutique homes boutique inns are right in the heart of residential And they work beautifully They were quiet. There was not a lot of traffic. People don't come in in droves. They don't leave in droves. You have one car, one car. You have different activities. If you had people going to lunch there and doing things that N would allow you to do, I can't see it being a huge infrastructure or a huge problem with people, with numbers of cars and people coming and going. What you have here is an opportunity to connect. First of all, let me go back and say, how many people oppose the Harpeth Hotel? A lot of people oppose that hotel. They argued and argued about it. That is a jewel we have downtown. I love to talk to the people that stay in that hotel. When I go in there sometimes I'll meet people there for meetings in the lobby and I see people coming and going and I know a gentleman that works there and he talks to me all the time and he introduced me to some of the guests one time and people just rave about having this beautiful, small, unique place to stay in the heart of a historic town. And I know what they're talking about because every fall For years and years and years, we would go to Savannah and Charleston and stay. And I've stayed in a lot of these places, and I've experienced it firsthand. And I know some of these places were deteriorating, and then they were able to resurrect these places and save the property. And not only that, for us here, I'm a little selfish. I love the fact that our residents could actually enjoy this beautiful property that they've never seen. They don't get to see it. They don't get to enjoy it. They don't get to go in it. And I can just see a couple saying, hey, if you had this beautiful little inn, Mayberry Inn, that, you know, they have an anniversary. Let's go down and book a night at the Mayberry Inn. They do that at the Hotel de Harpeth. I've met people down there who are local that stay there overnight once in a while just to get away and have some unique experience in our city. I think we're making a huge mistake by not looking at this seriously. All I've heard is negative, negative, negative. And I understand people's concerns. I'm not going to dismiss that at all. But I think there are so many ways to work this out. And I've lived near very busy places. And I've lived in urban places. I've lived in regular subdivisions. And I get it. When you're a neighbor to these places, you want to make sure that people pulling up and lights are not going to flash into your house and that there's not going to be a lot of noise out there. So I just look at this as a whole different way. And I think that it's a marvelous idea. And I think that it would be a very sad time if we did not do something to make this work. And Mayor, you said something about maybe it needs to be moved somewhere else. Well, we can't pick this house up and move it. And that experience can't be moved. That experience will be between the factory and the downtown. And Highlandsdale and putting all of that together mixed in with residential and mixed in with sidewalks and the ambiance of Franklin that over the years I've just come to love. And years and years ago I came to the city when I saw aluminum siding on these buildings. I moved here in 2003, but I saw this place being built over the years and changing over the years. And when the aluminum siding came down and the streetscapes were done, it just changed the whole atmosphere of this place. And people wanted to be someplace. They wanted to be downtown. And I just love my city. And I just see some of these things that could be so awesome. So that's my opinion. Thanks.

Anyone, Commissioner? Commissioner May. You can go over there. Whenever you're going to finish over here and then come over. Okay. A lot's been said already about this. And I have a question for staff. So maybe we'll get there. But I wasn't a part of the board. that agreed to the plan amendment request. And the plan amendment request just helped me with the history. This was one time a contiguous parcel that went all the way back to Splendor Ridge. They said, can we divide it and can we build single family homes on the back end of it? And so we made, did we make a variance to the land zoning at that point?

That was, I was going to say, can you handle a little bit of the history?

So what happened is the property was zoned. I don't remember exactly what it was zoned, but it came in for a preliminary plat. Under the base zoning, it was already zoned. So the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat because it met all the city's requirements and the subdivision regulations required. So basically all those single-family lots were able to be created under a previous zoning ordinance. That was not the zoning ordinance we have in place at the time or right now. So this was pre-2019. So it was a different zoning ordinance that had different lot standards, different lot sizes that would have been allowed than what probably would have been as part of our R4 district today, which covers much of our historic residential area now.

And so today this is R4?

I'm not sure what it's saying today. R2, the applicant says.

R2.

Thank you.

I think that matters because... This should be, in my mind, a transitional space. And fundamentally, if you look at good city planning, I think the city of Franklin, we don't do everything right, but we do planning pretty well and with intent. And any time you try to change the zoning, I get a little bit concerned because intentionally we made this. And so it would require, in my mind, an exceptional situation to eliminate that transitional space that is important between commercial, which is the downtown district, and residential. And this would require some sort of a zoning change in order for this project to come out of the ground. So, correct.

This would first have to have an Envision Franklin plan amendment that is currently set to be considered at the September Planning Commission meeting. If that were to pass, then a rezoning would have to be submitted by the property owner or the applicant, which would go to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen for approval.

So significant barriers are between this project becoming a reality and where we are today. And I think that's because a zoning variance is a significant change. And the reason it's a significant change is because people made investments in properties around there with understanding of the project and what it was and what it could be and what it might not be. That doesn't mean it can't change, but it does mean that the people that purchased homes in Splendor Ridge didn't envision that this property would potentially become something commercial in the future. And I hear that. I also know that good planning standards require or suggest that you should have transitional space, and Patrick, you and your team have done, I think, a good job of showing a much better project than we saw earlier this year. Unfortunately, I don't know that this project replaces the fact of that transitional space. And what keeps me up at night, one of the things that keeps me up at night, besides four kids and all the other things, one of the things that keeps me up at night is the preservation of the thing that makes Franklin not like the other communities that are around here. And the thing that makes Franklin different, I think, number one, is the people that live here and your willingness to communicate to your represented body what you like and what you don't like. And number two is the downtown community that is representative of the buildings but also the people and the good planning that it goes into preserving that downtown community. As much as I love this concept, Patrick, as much as I appreciate that this would be awesome to go and visit, I wouldn't want it in my backyard because of the transition space that it violates coming from higher density commercial into residential. That is supported by the design review committee saying that they can't recommend it, staff saying that they can't recommend it, neighbors reaching out directly and saying that they couldn't recommend it. A handful of neighbors have, surprisingly, sent me emails directly saying they support it. But I think the thing that, like I said, keeps me up at night is how do we make decisions today that support our community going forward? And while I would love to see this home preserved, and I do hope that it is, I don't know that it's fair or that the neighbors need it or that the Greg of 40 years from now would be glad that this was here.

Yeah, I have a little bit of a different take, I think, than Greg, and maybe a little bit more aligned with Bev. We have the BGA lower school across the street, so we already have a civic institutional commercial type of a use. I think the question is – I like the use, but I think is the scale going – are we going to allow the scale to be large enough to make a pro forma work? I like this site plan much better than what you brought the first time. My recommendations at the time was to make it more of a campus feel, and you've done that. I still think, just looking at it, it's a lot. It's a lot of buildings. It's still a lot of scale. I have a few questions, if you could help me. The inn building on the northwest corner looks very big, and it looks to be the same size as the one on the northeast corner, but it's much closer to the residential. How many rooms do you anticipate to be in that inn?

Yeah, so the ends are all approximately 16 to 18 rooms each, and the goal would be that there's four of them across each quadrant of the site plan. The inner buildings are more of the cottages, and those are a mixture of one- and two-story and probably closer to about eight to nine rooms. Okay.

I really like the cottage look of it. I think the ends are really big. At least they look like they are there. And then I'd like to understand where the access points are going to be. I know you had a condition that you will make the access points operational for the service entries, but it's unclear to me where those would be on the plans. I don't know if you have those that you can show or if that's something you're developing.

We don't have those in more detail in this package, but I'll just anecdotally say the goal would be to keep the existing curb cuts where they are with proper directional signage, et cetera, would be to have all guests enter through the main driveway that's there existing with the rock walls on either side where the gate is located. There is another entrance on the south side of the property that's historically been used for... horse trailers and other farm equipment. We would identify that as more of our service entry because it allows for easier egress for service vehicles to come and go. Okay. Also has the option to continue to be gated. That's the other thing about service vehicles is you can schedule them and you can make it a little bit more controlled access. Okay.

And then the restaurant, the barn becoming a restaurant instead of an event center, I think that's significantly better. But that's still a really big barn, maybe a really big restaurant. What's the occupancy you would expect to be in there at any one time? And when we say it was open to the public, could I just go there for lunch? And that means anybody could just go for lunch and add all that lunchtime traffic or dinnertime traffic that aren't staying at the hotel?

It would be open to the public. The barn is approximately about 3,500 square feet, so it's not overly big. This 2D plan may emphasize it a little bit. Ideally, we're looking for about a 100-seat restaurant. That's going to be primarily lunch and dinner and probably not seven days a week either. Would be open to the public. And of course we've had to account for that parking. I failed to mention because a lot of you saw this plan previously, the portion of the parking has not changed. We are still looking at a kind of tuck in or tuck into grade parking structure on the southern portion of the site where the pool is located. That would all be coming in under that pool level, shielding that parking from not only the user experience, but also from the traffic along Franklin Road. So the restaurant, any restaurant on site, we've toyed with not doing the restaurant in the barn, making that the spa, just something to allow our guests to continue to use the barn. It's a beautiful structure. It goes up about 30 feet clear height. It's an incredible space. But making that a much more kind of intentional space that's a little more quaint but still ability to have access. But we have accounted for that parking within the site plan. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I think 100-seat occupancy for a restaurant is relatively close to the neighborhood. I think it's quite a bit. So I guess I'll just wrap up my comments with this. I think the use, in my mind, I like it. I think it's a way to preserve the house. I think it just has to be scaled perfectly, as they said. And I think that's obviously the trick, but I certainly welcome your ideas on making that happen.

All right.

Anyone else?

It does appear to be too much for the site. There are four large buildings that look like they're designated as S.N.s, eight or nine units per N, and then a series of five different cottages. I've got some concerns about the floodplain as it runs on the south side of both of the ends and the pool area. And you're talking about an area of subgrade parking below that? or at least under the ends. So it does appear that there are only two buildings that are part of the historic home and the barn. They're the only two buildings that are designated as being part of what exists today.

There's also a cabin and smokehouse that may not be clearly identified, but all historic structures would remain on site and preserved.

So my question would be a little less wordy. I'll keep this to a minimum. I do agree and I do see that you're struggling here with trying to maintain the historic character of this site. I do think, though, that it's a bit much for this site. I know that you have to make a profit, but I'm struggling now with a historic site in my community, okay? As Alderman Burger was saying, though, if you want to preserve historic structures, though, they do have to be used. You've got to open doors, close doors, run water and all that. It will fall into disrepair. So for the owners, I would say, yes, you do have to do something with the site, but in order to preserve it, in order to keep its character, you can't do too much with it you know so with those that with with the uh historic historic zoning uh commission and with those that are you know are really caring about this site you also have to be sure that you don't do too much with the site so what you're hearing from us is yes as property owners yes you do have a right to do something with it but Let's be very mindful with how much, how intense the development is. And yes, we care about it. We do want you to be able to do something with it and preserve it, but also just be aware that, you know, you've just got to weigh these. And that's what you're hearing from us. It looks great. You have really, really scaled it down, but it's just still too much. And in order for it to be viable, in order for it to still, 100 years from now, still be a historic site, that's something that people can enjoy it. You just have to scale it down. And I can't support it still. It's much better than it was, but it's still just too much.

If I could read Alderman Brown's comments, who he's now sent me, and I'll try to paraphrase a little bit. Since he is the Ward 2 Alderman, I think it's important to have his input. And he says he stands with the neighbors, do not support moving the proposal. forward is currently contemplated why I very much want to see the historic Riverview home preserved. I do not believe preservation should require introducing a substantial commercial use into what is largely a residential area. I believe there's an important question of fairness and good planning. When Splendor Ridge was developed, that was the time to contemplate this type of development and on the joining Riverview property. Doing so would allow future Splendor Ridge homeowners to understand what might ultimately be built next door. It also would have allowed the residents of Lancaster, Franklin Road, and the surrounding area, many of whom oppose Splendor Ridge, to consider and respond to the full development picture at one time. Instead, we are now being asked to consider another significant development decision on the adjoining property. To me, that feels like two bites of the apple. Good planning should provide reasonable predictability for the people who live in our neighborhoods. as well as those who seek the development property. And he also goes on to talk about the neighbors' concerns and about other developments in the area. And he hopes, I'll continue on, I hope Riverview can ultimately be preserved through reasonably priced private sale to an owner committed to stewarding the remarkable property. So thanks for letting me read this note. Yes, thank you.

All right. In closing, I'd say I appreciate the changes that you've made from the previous plan, cutting back on density-sized buildings, removing the loop road that could have put headlights in some of the residents to the north, moving the pool further south to get what could be a noisemaker a little further away from residential homes. I'd also remind everyone that when Splendor Ridge came before us, we had folks from Lancaster and to the north complaining. They didn't want it put there. So remember, let's remember about sacrifices we may have to make on what feels correct to save a house that could be in disrepair. So there's got to be some give and take on what's appropriate for the area, what would make Franklin better, in the long haul and this could very well be it if it's proportioned correctly with the right things included. So that's it. Oh, one more. Last one.

I agree. I think it's just too much and there is improvement from the last time but I'm thinking about the quality of life of the neighbors and I made a note, as Mike said, the neighbors didn't want Splendor Ridge. I remember, but that's okay. I can understand that, and I can understand why they don't want this, but they need to have a buy-in to what they think it should be because they're the ones that live there, and if you can propose something that they can live with because they're the ones there, and you talk about the lunch, the restaurants, people are going to be coming, and that's going to be more traffic, and if things are going to be open to the public, that's going to be a lot of traffic. So I feel like at this time... even though it's a beautiful, beautiful home, historic home, and we're glad that it's still there. We just got to figure out something that's going to be good for the community and for the city of Franklin for present and future generations without altering the quality of life of so many people. I know that's difficult. We can all say what we want and what we don't want, but trying to figure out a median ground to where everything will work for everybody, it's hard, but hopefully we can get there.

All right, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Item number three, zoning ordinance update. Potential amendments for the First Avenue District, commercial recreational buildings, gas station routes, data centers, self-storage facilities, shipping containers as permanent storage, parking pads in front yards, building height for residential buildings in Central Franklin, and rezonings. Staff.

Good evening. Let me just pull up the presentation. All right. Well, this is our third installment of the year for zoning ordinance discussion. We met and talked in March and then in June and usually this time of year we're giving just an overview of what's coming in September to the Planning Commission in ordinance format for a recommendation on to the board. This year, though, we've got a handful of items where we're really still looking for direction and guidance from this body to help us finalize the ordinance for next year. So... We've got a lengthy list, but we've generally found consensus in the first five on this list. Where we'd really like to spend some time is the shipping containers as permanent storage, the parking pads in front yards of residential lots, which is a new one that we haven't brought forward yet, but we'll introduce later, and a look at the Central Franklin residential building heist discussion that we had in June. We'll also talk about the Tennessee Child Care Red Tape Reduction Act and any changes that we're proposing there, as well as proposed rezonings, and then ultimately in the next item, development and performance agreements state law changes, which are very significant this year. So to go over the first five, the first is an amendment to the First Avenue District for lots on Bridge Street to have surface parking in the Floodway Overlay District and to allow parking as a primary use on Second Avenue North. The next is a proposed amendment to the building type standards to the commercial mixed-use building type for commercial recreation when it's a standalone use in a larger building, just to give some more flexibility in the architectural standards when that's the case.

Did we add comments on these as we go, or did you give us instructions to wait to these?

Oh, well, I was going to get through the first five, but feel free. Okay, all right.

I have a question on the first five, just a quick question.

Okay. On the prior slide, sorry.

On the prior slide, it says limit netting related to commercial recreation. What are you referring to there?

Oh, like if there is a driving range and there are tall poles and netting that might come with a, you know, like a use like a Topgolf or something like that. Got it.

Actual netting.

In the Central Franklin Overlay District, we're proposing to limit the height of that netting because there's nothing in the ordinance today that does limit that type of netting or poles.

Got it. Okay.

Actual netting.

Got it. Specific to commercial, not community-owned or governmental recreation facility.

Correct. Yes.

While we're paused, I'll go ahead and do my next question. No, it's good. It's fine. I was the first avenue or the second avenue. Allowing parking is a primary use on 2nd Avenue North. Only in the properties where it is predominantly floodway? Because there is some that is in the 100-year that could have actual character development put on it and some that is predominantly all floodway.

That's a great question. There's already a standard in the zoning ordinance that allows properties on North Margin Street that have frontage onto that street to be parking lots. So there's two lots there. I don't know if you can see my amounts.

Right. That one is the one I would be okay with the primary use, but the one on the left I would not because I think there's – I don't want that to be permanently – Parking when there is development potential in the hundred-year floodplain. Does that make sense?

That there is no change proposed to those two lots So the the ordinance already allows parking as a primary use along North Margin Street What we're really getting at is this lot that's next to it. That's also has the same encumbrances of floodplain That's right next door that is not allowed so in terms of fairness across properties across a location like this we're recommending to allow surface parking lots that would include that parcel to Got it.

Thank you

All right. I think we were on gas stations. So gas stations, we talked about this in June and came to the consensus that flat roofs were appropriate for gas stations and commercial areas and to only require pitched roofs for gas stations when they're next to residential so that they keep that residential context. For data centers, it's proposed to remove the industrial data center use as a principal use from the GO, RC4, RC6, and RC12 districts while keeping them in the LI industrial district and also allowing them through a case-by-case approval through the PD district that includes a neighborhood meeting and public hearings, and also including a spatial buffer from those a 15-minute walk, 1,320 feet from the property line for residential.

There's a lot of light industrial and some pretty residential-feeling areas in there. Well... I'm thinking this stuff closer to downtown. So I'm thinking off Eddy Lane and where there is already a data center. But the Harpeth Industrial is another area that is light industrial. And so there are a couple. And in the other places, I think it's fine. But I think there's maybe a way to carve that out inside Mack Hatcher, possibly light industrial inside Mack Hatcher, if that could be carved out in some way. I don't know. We're further discussion. I think there's some light industrial off Columbia Avenue. It looks like out Seaboard Lane, out in that area, would be appropriate. But those might be my comments. Thank you.

The next is vertical blade signs and small hanging projecting signs and just allowing those small hanging projecting signs on the ground floor underneath the vertical blade sign to represent the ground floor tenant. and self-storage facilities to remove these facilities from the RC4, RC6, and RC12 districts while keeping them in the industrial districts LI, HI, and also a case-by-case approval process for the PD district. Okay. Any other questions about these five topics?

Go ahead.

I think the last thing you said Pretty straightforward, I think.

I suppose one of the things about self-storage facilities, nobody wants them in their backyard, but they want them close to their house, right? And maybe that allows that to happen in a PD perspective. If you come in with a planned district, then you can get it close to the house. That's my only thought, is if all of them are in the higher density or the... heavy industrial and light industrial and heavy industrial, it puts them all kind of in a place where everybody's gonna drive a long way to get to their storage facility, and I don't know how appropriate that is for the people who use them. So maybe, and maybe you can help me here, Kelly, you get by that by doing a PD and putting a storage facility in your development.

We've also had a lot of self-storage facilities come in in the last five years that have predominantly been in the RC district. So I think there are a lot that exist relatively close to residential, but it will always be the option to request a PD to still come in in some of those areas if someone really wanted to in the future.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other comments before we proceed? Well, we're paused. No, go. Thank you.

All right, next we get into the ones where we anticipate a lot of discussions. The first is shipping containers. As a longer-term indefinite storage capability on commercial properties, This one was discussed in June. It didn't seem like there was clear consensus for how to proceed with this one, so we did bring it back with possibilities for allowing extended shipping container storage. on commercial properties, and we're really looking for your feedback on whether or not this should be included in the ordinance. This would include allowing shipping containers to be there longer than the 30 days the ordinance currently permits, if it's in the rear yard and if it's on the ground and not stacked, and if it's fully visually screened by vegetation or walls or a combination thereof.

Thanks. We had a lot of discussion about that.

Commissioner Williams.

So, yes. It all reads pretty straightforward, you know, especially kind of the way you worded the screening. It's like you can do any of these in any mixture as long as it's achieving the end result. So... I think it makes a lot of sense, and I really appreciate the point about not vertically stacking them.

I've driven about 14 of these just in my ward to double check, and that came up originally in my ward. So I really appreciate the work on this because a lot of times we want to make sure that these businesses are not having to store off-site And then send their people over to pick something up. Like Dick said, Dick's Sporting Goods said that they had items out in the containers and somebody, a lot of sports equipment for kids. And they said something about, well, we're out of it. on the shelf, but we have it and they can go get it immediately rather than taking 20 to 30 minutes or a day for them to retrieve it. So I think there's a lot to be said with this and I agree that when I drove about 14 of these sites around town, a lot of them are easily screened. where there's nobody on both sides and in the rear that can see these containers. But I like the fact that they're not stacked and also they're on the ground and that we require what we're doing here to make sure they're not visible to the public. So I think you did a good job. Thanks.

Not to exceed a maximum duration of 30 days over a five-year period.

So you just read the current ordinance language.

It says potential amendment, and then the next bullet point is not exceed a maximum. But it can be when they are all these things.

What you're seeing is a format we use to make changes in the zoning ordinance. The bold part would be new language, and then just regular font would be the existing.

Who's going to determine what the maybe longer amount is that's appropriate?

This is indefinite, so long as it would meet these standards.

Yeah, and I think heavy industrial, especially, I would be less inclined for some of the evergreens and various landscaping. I mean, that's kind of, in those areas, I would be okay with it if that's part of that.

Would it depend on your point? But also, if you're driving down a street, I don't think you want to see it from the street in an industrial area either.

Right, but it already says located in the rear yard. Rear, yeah. But maybe there would be some things in the rear yard where you would have industrial that I wouldn't care if it was screened or not in those areas. But this is good.

All right. Oh, sorry.

I assume there's other, because a shipping container doesn't have the type of building design requirements. You can put it on the ground anywhere, right? Are there restrictions on where this can be placed? So if it were near a floodplain break, perhaps, you wouldn't have to get anything formal that says you can place it there, but it could become quite a barge going down the river if it were in a floodplain.

Okay.

I don't want to overcomplicate it, but I think it's an important piece if we're going to allow it in industrial and something industrial does.

We'll take a look at that. So your guidance is not to allow them in the floodplain?

That was an example. I assume there are other potential hazards that we should consider by allowing this, by design, temporary operation. instrument to be placed in a more permanent fashion. Yes.

A few examples I can think of where the containers have been there for a very long time, like Jim Warren Park. There's a container that's very necessary to the baseball operations. I guess applying where that's at here, I think it would kind of figure out how to make that compliant. I don't know if there's any at the soccer fields. I don't know if we carve out civic institutional uses or how we think about some of those, because I think that some of the parks use those. And I think doing this would make it really difficult when it's never really been an issue. So just something to think about on some of the civic uses. Yeah, that's a good point.

Anyone else? Thoughts? No? Next.

All right, so next topic is the continuation of the building height in central Franklin related to half story. Elizabeth Boulay has done some research on this topic and looked at peer cities and our own standards and done quite a thorough study. So she's going to tell you more about that.

Hello, we're back with some additional studying of the Central Franklin overlay. So we'll start with some additional background. This was just discussed at past joint conceptual workshops and we've continued to study this. So for our study, we examined the existing standards in Franklin for further refinement and researched peer cities for other examples. We interviewed our zoning and residential plans reviewer staff to understand the current review process and challenges, and we surveyed the study area for building height and stories in the R4 and R6 zoning districts within the Central Franklin overlay. So before we hop into what we are proposing this evening and facilitating discussion, we'll discuss what we currently have in place. So in the R4 and R6 zoning districts, height is context-based, so it's currently based on the average height of the block in stories with a half-story increase allowed. The standards for transitional features within the central Franklin overlay mirror the R4 and R6 zoning district standards. And lastly, the height of buildings is currently measured by habitable stories within a building measured from grade to top of habitable area as shown in the diagrams on the screen. So from our zoning and plan review interviews, our findings highlight a need for clarity and definition for what a half story is in order to apply it to our reviews. And found that height is actually currently not verified in inspections and that applicants submit height in various measurements and forms in their permitting process. So on screen now we have a snippet of our height survey findings showing the Battle Avenue, Everbright Avenue, and Adams Street neighborhoods. The results show a dominance in existing one-story buildings within the established neighborhoods with increasing heights of new infill development. Our current standards allow for the half-story increase and staff has recommendations for an amendment and would also like feedback on another potential approach this evening. So based on our findings and hearings from our building plan reviewers, the additional clarity is proposed and needed to define what a half story is. Staff is recommending that we add some parameters that better define a half story, and those include upper floor area maximums and upper wall height maximum, specificity on dormer width and windows and gable ends, and a maximum height and feet for the building, and looking at eave height and porch elements. These would help define what a half-story is and what a one-and-a-half-story building is and help differentiate it from a two-story building. Staff has studied buildings in Franklin and in peer cities for these parameters, so we are recommending these in order to better define what a half-story is. For additional discussion and consideration that will help staff finalize the ordinance for next month, it is whether or not you all would like to adjust the height maximums to better reflect the existing conditions of our neighborhoods. Seen on the map earlier, this would remove the additional half story allowance to be more aligned with the existing conditions. This would not lead to gradual increases in height on the block over time and would need to be done in coordination with the refinement for the half-story definition shown on the slide before. An additional amendment that we are proposing this evening is an additional standard within the Central Franklin overlay and the Columbia Avenue overlays to not allow cantilevered upper stories And on this page, just to update on the discussions that we had previously as well, we are not looking to refine the central Franklin overlay transitional feature application. Staff found that additional time is needed in order to study this topic and map for an Envision Franklin amendment before proposing zoning changes. So in summary and recap, staff is proposing two amendments, first to further define what a half-story is, and the second being not to permit cantilevered upper stories in the Central Franklin and Columbia Avenue overlays. And additionally, staff would like feedback as to whether an amendment should be prepared to adjust height maximums to be closer to the existing neighborhood conditions so that buildings are the average of the existing block and to not allow a half-story increase.

Thank you.

Sure. I think on the height maximums, I think that does make sense. I think the one question I would have on that is when you're looking at height maximums and we look at some of those neighborhoods in there, some of them are older houses. For example, let's take Let's even just take a two-story house. And maybe the older ones that were designed in certain eras were designed for their ceiling heights because that's what size the plywood came in. That's what size the chipboard came in. And so often in those houses, you can reach up and you can touch that seven-foot ceiling. And so... I think, too, it's being sensitive to that there's old construction and that does add to the character and the texture. But then there's also if you say, hey, you want to build a new house, my question is on the height maximum. does it take into account if you were to build, say, maybe there's an old craftsman style. You want to build a brand new, modern, nice craftsman style. But you're probably not going to have some foot ceilings. You're probably going to have something taller. So my question to the staff would be, in those heights, while I think that might be a very effective tool to kind of bring things in a little bit control to match the context, I would just say just be cognizant of current construction standards and kind of what is actually considered a nice space and nice ceiling heights for more modern buildings. Because you can build modern, nice houses, but, you know, I don't want a seven-foot ceiling. You know, most people want a good, you know, nine foot, maybe ten foot. you know, even taller. So I think keeping that into consideration. So if you're removing a half store, you can still give somebody that wants to maybe redo it or renovate, or maybe it's a tear down and rebuild. but give them the flexibility to kind of build in the modern era. And then the other one would be dormer widths. I'd say just be careful on that. There's different types of dormers. There's some that are two feet wide, and you get in the Craftsman style. That's like a 10-foot wide shed that comes over, but, you know, it can be considered a dormer. So I think that that's a little dangerous because then all of a sudden you get kind of these gingerbread,

Houses that all I have a dormer and they're all the same and you kind of remove your architectural differentiation on that so Any additional comments anyone I'm back so back on this slide where you've done the survey of south of Heights south of downtown you're asking for feedback whether you should you should do this for the rest of the central Franklin overlay to that was one of the points at the end Is that right?

The point of discussion was to better understand whether a height adjustment is needed for the maximum to not allow the half-story increase.

Closer to the existing neighborhood conditions.

Yes, so it would be the average of the block face.

I guess when we look at this kind of study, though, here that you've done, this is great to see this, is the block face has also been kind of a point of definition in... When we run into things that doesn't have a complete block face, or this block face has two houses, which one do you choose that makes the block face? And so I think we look in sections, and I wish we could do this off of Natchez. Just how the area is, I would say, off of Adams Street, predominantly one-story houses over there, except for the ones that have been built. So at this point, shouldn't we say... one and a half stories. If we're saying the half story over the block face, I think looking generally is probably a better area. The block face is really great for downtown historic 16 blocks where you have more housing of scale that you want to keep in line. I think when we can look at some of these areas, maybe allow some flexibility and not have every applicant looking at the block face and measuring every house on the block face to figure out just how high they can be. But making it a little bit more simple by maybe taking some broader strokes I think would be good. But the block face height, is that what we're talking about? The actual foot height or the number of stories height?

It's measured by the number of stories.

Yeah, okay.

And one thing we've talked about doing, too, as a tool for building and neighborhood services and applicants is continuing to map all of the CFO building height and actually provide that map to staff and applicants so that they can use that as a tool so they're not going out and measuring heights.

Yeah, and I think that kind of ease of what we don't want Back into what we don't want. We don't want three, almost two massive 13-foot ceiling stories and then a massive gate, whatever this is, pitch, next to a one-story or next to a one-and-a-half story. That's what we don't want. So if you can build that next to a one-and-a-half story, and I know that's what you've... I don't know exactly the feedback you need. We don't want that to happen. And what feedback do you need to make sure that that... Specific feedback.

And I would ask, do you have examples of where the half-story increase is way out of proportion? Because I kind of like the idea of allowing somebody to add or build a half-story larger than beside them. But that proportion can get out of control, as you just mentioned.

Well, that's one of the reasons staff is recommending defining the half story regardless of if we change the actual height standard. Because by defining the half story, it allows our plan reviewers to really make sure that that half story is truly an actual half story and not a full story that is being submitted and described as a half story. So that's one reason we're definitely describing that.

Okay.

I'm going to be my question. Didn't we change that requirement on matches in that area to one and a half stories?

So the current requirement is a half story above the average height in stories. So the question for you all is, do we keep that or do we take out the extra half story?

Well, can I... Go ahead. Can I continue to ask you? We talked about that and we changed it. So that definition of that half story, is that why we have the buildings that are so much higher than it looks, the one and a half stories, is that why we have that situation that matches? Because they are just...

There's some areas with extra height in that upper level that probably is more of a two-story when the ordinance requires one and a half. But what we're missing is the parameters that we've provided tonight To really define what that is. It's very general right now in the zoning ordinance and so defining those Parameters that really shape that upper level and create that half-story form will help with compatibility we had we had a tiered layer of request to discuss tonight. The first one is one that we're definitely recommending, which is to further define that half story, which will help a lot with some of the exaggerated lines that we might be seeing in some places. The next step, you know, would be to further refine that building height down to what is the existing condition on a street. So we wanted to bring that to you so that you could discuss it and give us direction on that.

And the one point on that I would say is think about if you are adding or if you're continuing to allow the half story allowance to go up a half story eventually over time there could be impacts to a block where everyone is continually the average i don't have to say all that but

I would love for... I support further defining that half-story. As a matter of fact, I'd love to get rid of it, but, you know, if I had my druthers, as my grandmother would say, I'd love to get rid of that half-story extra. You're getting the average. If you want it more, go to the country and build your seven-story house. Because that's what happens. You get a creep. Well, I want my half-story more than yours. And after a while, that becomes the average. Then you add a half-story, and in ten years, you have five-story houses. So, you know, but... to be more amenable and compromising. Further defining the half story would be my compromise. To be honest with you, I'd like to get rid of the half story.

Thank you. Hold on, Cesar. Just a question for staff around the block face reference. We continue to use block face reference. Help me understand why block face and why not street? Obviously, I guess the street creates a definition between the north and the south or the east and the west. But why would we not, in the slide right before this, you've got some areas where there's some taller properties that are still on that same street. And I'm thinking about like my subdivision. All of the homes in my neighborhood are about the same size, but they look like they're different sizes, whether they're on the left or the right side of the street.

Well, the theory behind that is that you generally perceive height when you're looking at one side of the street or another, and you're comparing a new house that might go in to the houses next door to it when you're looking at height. So that's why we've kind of used that terminology in our plans.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

Yeah, I'd say just on the average, I think that could be a little dangerous. Okay, some blocks, if everything goes up a little bit, it's okay. But then at a certain point, it becomes kind of the more newer generic. So I say we have to be careful with saying an average for exactly what Marsha was saying too. And then defining the half, the half story. I think for me to really comment on that further, it would be understanding the good examples and the bad examples because we've written something right now we've all agreed that okay maybe we need to look at this a little bit more so we know what we have written um there's gaps in it so I think identifying um because you write something too we don't want to wait you know five years to realize oh we should have done that a little bit differently so just way more examples and trying to kind of find where they would fail and find where they would succeed

Anyone else? Next topic.

After BOMA initiation and significant discussion based on aesthetics, impact on property values, the number of vehicles in the front yard creating parking lots in residential front lawns and vehicles for sale in front yards. And this prohibition was moved over to the zoning ordinance in 2019. So the current parking pad requirements today include having them be adjacent to the driveway on the outside of the driveway, not on the inside of the driveway in front of the house. There's also requirements about driveways and that those are in front of garages or to the side of the house. And it also exempts any parking pads on residential lots before March 1st, 2007, which corresponds to the date that the city began requiring driveway permits for new driveways. This is not uncommon. There are other communities that also regulate parking pads in front yards. This is Duluth, Minnesota, before they enacted theirs. Norfolk, Virginia, before they enacted theirs. And Octavia, California, this one was a nonconformity, or excuse me, a violation situation that is not now there today. The background on this is that recently a residential building permit was denied due to a parking pad in the front yard. It was removed from the building permit, but it was then later constructed. So a notice of violation was issued. A variance request was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. It was denied. No other variance requests have come through for this particular topic. although parking pads have consistently been denied at the building permit stage since 2012. Because what came out of that variance process, which was noted that there were other lots that also had parking pads in front of the houses, BNS conducted an inventory of where those exist along major residential corridors in Central Franklin and the older areas of the city where alley loaded lots aren't as prevalent. It's not really an issue there. So they researched them and then when they were installed as well. So what we have is about 80 of these around Central Franklin, 42 of which are legally non-conforming. So they've been there since before 2007. And there are 38 that are in violation that were installed. Some more recently, some longer ago, but still all after 2007. So these are an enforcement situation because they don't meet the zoning ordinance, the ones that were constructed after they were prohibited. This doesn't align with our zoning ordinance or Envision Franklin or the historic district design guidelines, but we've provided some options for you to discuss and consider. And the first is to enforce all of the illegally non-conforming locations for the parking pad removal. That involves building a neighborhood services enforcement of that. The second option is that you could change the date of when those were able to be allowed from 2007 to this ordinance adoption, thereby making all of these legally nonconforming and then enforce parking pad requirements going forward in the ordinance. If the latter is chosen, the ones in the historic district would still need a COA, and we're researching which ones of those need them at this time. So I'll turn it back over for discussion.

Just out of curiosity, I'm just interested. I wonder if there has been a transition over time, certainly before I got here, where downtown Franklin went from residential to a lot of those houses becoming businesses, and I wonder if a lot of those installed after 2007 were done to support the business because they needed more parking. I don't know that it matters, but I just find that interesting. I'm of the opinion that if they shouldn't have it, they shouldn't have it. They need to apply for a variance. If it's denied, they shouldn't have installed it. I mean, otherwise... It feels like a very slippery slope outside of parking pads into everything else we do. The only thing I would think about is how much of a burden that puts on the city to enforce something like this. That I just don't know. But to me, it feels like, particularly the recent one, it was just a willful violation of their permit. And I feel like there ought to be consequences. I would agree with that.

So, I feel pretty strongly about this one in a couple of ways. Number one, we shouldn't have people parking in yards. So... The examples you gave, unfortunately, show the worst of the possible options out there. Maybe that was what... There are some very tasteful parking pads in front of homes. If you go down Lewisburg, you'll find a number of them. Almost all of them. Not all of them, but I'd say 15 or more. And they're done very tastefully. And some of them are not even pads, but it's... you know, maybe 12 feet of kind of curved out pavement that you can park in. Is that a pad or is that just a driveway with a wart? So we end up looking at A lot of meticulous things. And you see many houses on that street that look beautiful with parking in the front. Now, in the grass, we should probably not allow anyone to park. There should be some structured parking in front of the house, right? And we should look at the size of the yard. If you live at Mayor Moore's old house on 3rd Avenue... He should not be able to park in front of his house because there's only about 11 feet of grass in between. There was in between the front of his facade and the sidewalk. But there are many yards that are quite large that this could be done without issue. The fact that we're thinking about making 38 homeowners rip up something they've put in is... And I've really got to wonder why... What happened for us to wake up in 2026 after 19 years of this being in existence and us say, find the 38? And so they shouldn't have done it, but we now kind of have a problem here. I don't think we need to go through. We didn't do our job with no offense. We didn't catch it when it happened. And so I really don't know that we want to go back and make all 38 do this. I also think the Historic Zoning Commission has a place for this in the downtown area. I think if you went up and down our historic areas, I think even they would say that there are some that are appropriate and then some that are not. Figuring out what those standards are, it's not just gravel thrown out in the front yard. There are some with very beautiful decorative pavement and plantings. I would be in favor of doing it. And if that means changing the date for the exemption, I'd do that. and then set forth these new standards moving forward that would allow it, but with conditions.

Patrick said a lot there, and I tend to fall into Nick's category, like it's a rule and you broke the rule and we should enforce it. We made the rule in 2007, and between 2007 and 2012, we started denying. So there was a five-year gap, and I don't know if nobody applied for it in that window. I also would say, like, kind of to Patrick's point, are these driveways being poured without any kind of permit? Is there a requirement for a permit in order to pour a driveway?

Yes, there's a driveway permit required, and there are situations where these are getting put in and not applying for a permit. Exactly.

And so I think the fact that we're having a conversation today, it's tough to go back and say, like, oh, wait a minute. We did this in 2015, and we shouldn't have done it. We didn't enforce it. We didn't hold you accountable. I think it's hard to go back. I think it also is probably appropriate to get community input on this, Because in many areas, this will be a significant disruptor. And I'd love to hear what the community opinion is, rather than just saying, hey, we did this in 07, 20 years later, we think it's something we should enforce. And obviously you say no border zoning appeals have granted it, but how many have come before and asked? Right, and I think Patrick alluded to it, and I would just reinforce, there's a number of these out there. 38, I don't know if 38 is an exact number, but I'd say it's a low number probably.

Police is it. I mean, does a neighbor call and say, someone illegally put in a parking pad, or how do you get the numbers?

Good evening. I'm Tom Marsh, Director of the Building and Neighborhood Services Department. Happy to answer a variety of questions that have come up. I guess one of the first things I would say in terms of the lapse of how did 38 get built without permits. So I think one of the obvious statements is In case anyone, we don't drive streets every day looking for violations. Just wondering. We do not harass our residents on a daily basis to try to catch what they might be doing. So the way 38 got built without a permit, and there has been a permit requirement for several years, unless that driveway is built in conjunction with a residential building permit. So I think the fact that they were built without... being noticed, the neighbors didn't care. So I think that shows you that there is some community support for allowing this in places. Lewisburg Pike is a good example. Battle Avenue, several have been built. Some of the ones where a residential structure is converted to a commercial use that would require a building permit and we would catch that and then the change of parking requirements would require additional parking required and you've seen that in a few places on West Main Street much to the chagrin of the I believe Eric may have heard from some folks on West Main Street who were very unhappy about being required to build a parking area when they were converting a residential structure to a commercial use. And we do have people that try to do that, converting in a lot of our Central Franklin area, converting residential to office and commercial and even restaurant uses, and they start trying to do those things without permits also. Someone alerts us to it, and they become very unhappy when they find out what they're going to have to backtrack to do to convert from an office to residential. Sorry, I got off track with some of the questions, maybe.

I think you did really well. The one thing that I would say, if you applied for a permit with a parking pad, it was denied because of the parking pad and you built it anyway? That's not who I'm talking about here, just to be really clear.

And that was at least the one variance request in one of the Board of Designing Appeals was it was denied because it was a straight violation. And I think what you see is, as Alderman Baggett, excuse me, Vice Mayor Baggett was alluding to, In terms of some of the conditions that might be considered, when that variance appeal went to the Board of Zoning Appeals, there were no conditions that they could consider. There were no allowances, no special conditions. And one of the things that might be like when you talk about some of the streets, Battle Avenue, West Main Street, Lewisburg Pike, we've had some on Liberty Pike. These are major arterial collector streets that you don't necessarily want someone backing all the way out onto the street.

And to that point, I think having driven in one of these driveways that has a turnaround spot or we call it a parking pad in the front now apparently. It's a safety concern. And if we were to go and say, nope, everybody has to have a straight driveway, I worry about the amount of traffic that's coming down some of these roads and requiring our drivers. Some of them are older. Some of them are younger. Some of them are my age and have trouble backing like me. I wouldn't want to go in and say you have to tear this out and you've got to back out or you've got to back into your driveway in order to safely exit the property.

It's what's one of the things that we experience a lot of the houses are being built now with a two-car garage And it's it's lovely and it's nice when their children are in elementary school At some point there are additional cars that come along with and sorry people aren't parking in the garage anyway They're already parking at least one of their it's a two-car garage, but they're already at least parking one car somewhere else on that property and

We are way over a lot of time for the meetings. We need to get rolling and keep additional comments brief.

I'm going to be very brief. Yeah, I don't want people parking on the grass. People have events. They have dinners at their homes. They need places to park. If they don't have that and they're on a street like Lewisburg or Liberty Pike from where? from Liberty Hills to Mack Hatcher, you can't park on that road. And so some of them have larger front lots that they could put a nice turn area in where they could park their cars or would it be appropriate. So I think they ought to be able to come to us and ask for those things. And I'm with Patrick. Let's not ask them to tear all those things up. Let's just go with the date. I don't want to see that happen.

Commissioner Williams.

I'll just keep it super simple. question if we need to maybe look at parking in front of houses and everything. If it's an issue, if it's an upcoming issue, I don't know that it is, but if it's like, you know, one-fourth of the elevation could be overlapped with some of these parking pads because it seems like there's a need for it. We have very small lots with not a lot of space now.

I know we're

I've got to address this. As I sit here and listen to this, I have a serious issue with these 38 people who did not follow the law. I could care less if it was 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago. We had someone who came in, followed the law, asked for permission for this parking pad, and was denied. We have 38 people who did not come in, who did not ask, and just because their neighbors were gracious enough or happened to like the design, it was pretty, and did not, they're allowed to not, to have no consequences, okay? That's not right. Building neighborhood services, my long guy on one of our properties that I don't visit very often, it rained and rained and rained and rained. He wasn't able to cut the yard. I got a call, should have. The grass was high as all get out. And I was going to get fined. They should fine me. So I would be and should be held accountable. Now, yeah, we can't go back, but it's just not, it just really bothers me that these 38 people would not have to comply, and because they broke the law, they will not be fined, they will not be held accountable, but there's some people who need parking, will not be able to get it because they're going to follow the law and apply and be denied according to our ordinance. Now, we're going to change the rules and somehow reward people who did not even attempt to comply with the law. I want that on the record. And so I think we need to discuss this because some people do need parking pads. And because of where you are and because of your situation, you won't be able to get that. So that has to be on the record for me. This is something we need to look at, in my opinion, further.

Anyone else have thoughts? Just to clarify, I'm not against parking pads. The point was what Marcia aligned with is that I feel like there ought to be some sort of consequence for the 38. And I'm starting to hear a little bit that there might not actually be violations in all those 38s. There's some nuances. But I think if there's a clear violation, a knowing violation, there's got to be a consequence.

All right. Next.

Next.

Okay, the next one is Child Care Red Tape Reduction Act, which is a new state law that went into effect last month. It now requires child care agencies to be a use by right in any zone that permits office uses, commercial uses, industrial uses or institutional uses, and in residential zoning districts for home-based child care, all of that notwithstanding another law or local ordinance to the contrary. Those are the specific words. Our zoning ordinance generally meets the standards and offers child care facilities in a range of our zoning districts by right in most non-residential districts and all of our residential districts allow home-based child care. But we do have some places where we don't believe that it's appropriate to have childcare in those districts. So I'm gonna go over those districts with you. The first two are First Avenue and Fifth Avenue districts that are specialized districts, mostly covered in floodway or floodway fringe, and where public safety and potential for loss of life and property is higher. Long ago, we did community studies on these particular areas because they had a lot of constraints in the floodplain and were impacted by the 2010 flood. And one of the community consensus points, the compromise that came out of that was not allowing places where people sleep overnight or where there are children there for lengthy times of the day. The next one is the heavy industrial district, which is considered an intensive industrial zoning district with higher dust, noise, vibration, and heavy truck traffic potential. And the last is the office residential district, which is considered a transitional residential district with residential building form and where home-based childcare is already a permitted use. So our staff recommendation here is no change to the ordinance, but we will lay that out in the whereas clauses so that the ordinance that comes before you is adopted to reflect where our local districts are contrary to childcare facilities. If anyone disagrees with that, now is the time to bring that forward.

I see none.

Okay.

And very quickly, rezonings. You all have seen almost all of these, I believe. First is a few properties related to the Carter Hill Park on Columbia Avenue to go to CI and HPO. The next is a city-owned property that's already part of Bicentennial Park, but still zoned CC for some reason. So that will be rezoned to CI. A rezoning on First Avenue North, two properties that the city recently acquired that contain the Franklin Road Bridge historic foundation and also a historic building foundation on those properties. So that would be a rezoning to CI as well. The mountain bike trail in the Ovation development going to CI as well since it's part of the park system. Rezoning for Hillside Hillcrest overlay district. This just corresponds to the Envision Franklin update that was done for conservation areas when the UGB was expanded in this location. And rezoning for scenic corridor overlay to reflect that. rural corridor coming into Franklin for both Paytonsville Road, portions of each of that expanding as you move away from the city center, and it also matches the Envision Franklin recommendations. So next steps, coming back for a review of the updates to BOMA September 22nd, going to September 24th Planning Commission meeting for a formal recommendation. We will probably include some of these discussion topics. We may need to phase others as it may take further study. So don't expect all of what we just talked about to come back this next month, but most of it. And then moving forward into the fall with approval of the ordinance, We need to get this into effect by January 1st because state law has made some other very significant changes to our development review process and our sureties review process. And I'm not sure what time it is. I can't find a clock.

Kelly, I can jump in there. Okay. So we were going to have Amy run through the state law changes to the zoning ordinance. There are some development process and surety process changes that will result due to the state law change. But just because of our timing, we are going to bump that. But here's an optional homework assignment for the planning commission. Amy will be doing that same presentation at the September 8th work session of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. So you can watch that on the YouTube channel or all the various locations where Franklin TV comes on. So you can tune in for that. You can come in person in this room. We will, depending on, you know, if you have any questions, please reach out to us. But we will try to also put it on the joint workshop for September as just a brief overview of what will be included in the zoning ordinance update since you'll be voting on that at your September meeting. I will say we don't necessarily need a lot of feedback on those changes because they are required by state law. So it's more to bring you up to speed than to ask for feedback.

Is that it? I had a question. Is that supposed to be January 1st, 2028?

Good catch.

Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have to notice it a year ahead.

That's what we have to do.

Okay, thank you. All right, meeting adjourned.