Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call this meeting to order. Welcome to everybody, to the, this meeting of the Franklin Municipal Planning Commission. December 11th, 2025. This is our last meeting of the year. We'll start off with a, roll call agenda. Commissioner Harrison. Present. Commissioner Allen. Present. Commissioner Franks. Commissioner Lindsay is present. Commissioner present. Commissioner. Man. Present. Commissioner. Macklemore. Present. Commissioner. Williamson. Present. And Alderman Peterson. Here. They're all present tonight. This next portion of our agenda is for citizen comments. It's open for citizens to be heard on any issue or concern. If you'd like to speak on a specific item that's on our agenda, we'll ask you to wait until that item comes up. If you just want to make, citizen, just normal citizen comments about something not on the agenda. You're welcome to speak now. So. So we'll ask you. I'll call on you. I've got your speaker cards. If any of you still need speaker cards, if any of you haven't filled out a form and you want to speak tonight, please do that and give it to our, one of our staff members. So you'll fill out the speaker card, and, when I call you, you'll come up to the microphone behind me and state your name and address. And then we ask you to limit your comments to two minutes. Are there any citizens who would like to speak to the commission at this time? Seeing none. The next item on our agenda is approval of our minutes. Consideration of approval of the October 23rd, 2025 Franklin Municipal Planning Commission minutes. Is there a motion for this move for approval? So.

I have a motion to approve by commissioner or a second by Commissioner. Is that you, Scott? Yeah. I received. I don't hear well, Harrison. Harrison. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? All in favor? By roll call. Commissioner Harrison. Hi. Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Franks. Commissioner Lindsay for the time. Commissioner. Commissioner. Man. Yeah. Commissioner. Macklemore. Commissioner. Williamson. Colleague. And alderman. Peterson. Yes. Motion passes for the approval of our minutes. The next part of our meeting is for announcements. I will lead off. I would like to call forward. Vernon Garth, start out with you for the. Vernon. I don't know. Vernon's the assistant city administrator of community and economic development for the position. Served us for 18 years. He has been invaluable to us as planning commissioners. He works with us City Council, planning Commission to explain complex issues. We've been through a lot, so I'm glad you stuck. Got the the community plans for us this year. So, world class partners. Last meeting. So he is is getting to take a well-deserved Roger. Sorry to interrupt. Can you turn on your mic? I'm supposed to know that. So tonight, Spartan's last meeting with us, and, just we want to show our appreciation. We would like to present to you, Vernon, with this plaque. Oh, my gosh. The appreciation of your leadership and support to the Franklin

Municipal Planning Commission from 2007 to 2025. Wow. We. Thank you very. Special. This type of speech. Yeah. So thank you. All right. Thank you all. And thanks to everybody that's here. A lot of emotions go through one's time. When it gets then they get to this stage in their life. So I put some of my thoughts down on paper. So I make sure I, I can get them conveyed to you because they're all very meaningful to me. And I hope they are to you, too. But you know, for a little over 18 years, I've had the privilege of watching our community grow and become stronger and stronger because of the thoughtful decisions and the steady leadership of the many people that give of their time and expertise, serving on our various boards and commissions. No more so than you all, and our Planning Commission. Thank you for your professionalism, your partnership, your dedication, and doing what's best for this community, not just for today, but for the decades ahead. I've learned a great deal from each of you. Most notably, the care and the passion you have in doing what's best for the community and in the decisions you make. You know as well as me that we have and and we are incredibly fortunate to work with a passionate, dedicated group of city employees who truly care about this community, much like you. Their expertise, professionalism and integrity are unmatched. I want to thank you for including staff in matters that come before you

and seeking their insights that this talented team brings. It makes a difference. I'm confident the city is in good hands. Thank you for the opportunity to serve alongside you, and I wish each of you continued success as you help guide Franklin's future. Thanks a lot. Time to do it. It's time to sit down. I'm gonna break. That's pretty. Definitely. Do you have any more announcements? I do, just wanted to wish you all a very happy holiday season. Very merry Christmas and all the best in the new year. We really are grateful for your service. I can't say it better than Vernon, but as you're planning staff, we'd like to extend just a joyful season of holiday time and time with your families. Just hope you have a really great time. And then also, just a reminder. Use your mic button to turn it on and off. I know we don't typically have to do that, but let's just try to remember for tonight and then we'll be back at the county building next month. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. The next item on our agenda is consideration of our consent agenda. This is a, consideration of approval of items, that are generally considered to be noncontroversial, that we'll handle. As one motion for all the items, going forward. So, the consideration of approval of item items three through four, three and four, item six through nine, and items 13 through 18 are all items that are on tonight's consent agenda.

Is there a motion for this move for approval? So we have a motion for approval by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Harrison. By roll call. Vote. Commissioner Harrison. Mr. Allen. Commissioner Franks. Commissioner. Lindsay. Commissioner or, Commissioner Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore I Commissioner Williamson. I and alderman Peterson. Yes. I'm okay. That motion passes. So the next item we'll take tonight will be item number five. This is, for Highlands at Ladd Park pud subdivision. Final plat section 19. This is a call on the letter of credit performance agreement for green infrastructure improvement. A call on a letter of credit for maintenance. Agreement for sewer improvement. So I'll turn it over to staff. Thank you. The purpose of this is to provide information for Franklin Planning Commission concerning two outstanding improvements within Highlands at Ladd Park PD subdivision section 19 to improvements within the section. Have been extended for over eight years, and at this time, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission call on these this letter of credit to allow the city to oversee the completion of these improvements. The key factors leading staff to make this recommendation include the following. The final plat for section 19 was approved with conditions on July 23rd, 2015. The performance agreement was executed on June 17th, 2016, and the associated Letter of Credit was issued June 25th, 2021. In accordance with city

procedures, staff has annually provided actual request to boulevard builders, LLC, offering the option for the developer to request the release of the improvement to maintenance request. A 75% reduction in the agreement amount, or request a one year extension. The sewer improvement was accepted and released to maintenance in December of 2022. On March the 6th, 2024 staff contact Matthew Botta regarding the requirement. Green infrastructure improvement. Mr. Beato stated that the work would occur in the spring and that he would contact the city to schedule an inspection. However, no further communication was received. On August 21st, 2025, staff sent both an email and mailed a letter to Mr. Miata notifying that unless the performance agreement could be released to maintenance or the maintenance agreement or period to could be released, the city would proceed with calling the letter of credit at the December 11th, 2025 FPC meeting. To date, the applicant has not completed the remaining improvements and has not provided any response to the city's most recent notices. The surety amount for green infrastructure improvement is $83,000, and the amount for sewer improvement is 8900. Given the age of the subdivision approval, the outstanding required improvements, the applicant's lack of response, and the city's obligation to ensure completion of public improvements. Staff feels that continuing to extend the performance and maintenance agreement will not be in the best interest of the city or the residents of this subdivision. Recommendation staff recommends that Fppc declare the performance Agreement and maintenance Agreement to be in default, and authorize the calling of the agreement and surety for the completion of the improvements under the supervision of the city.

Thank you. Does anyone from the public wish to speak to this item? Seeing none. Is there a motion for this item? Move for approval. And that is a motion to declare the performance agreement and maintenance agreement to be in default and authorized calling of the agreements and sureties. Correct. So we have motion by commissioner or and a second by Commissioner Macklemore. Any further discussion? Mister chair? Yes. I, I think I say that each time we call one of these. But I just want to thank the staff for your persistence on this. I think when all the residents moved in, they expected the development to be completed in accordance with the plans that we spent months tirelessly reviewing to approve. So, thank you for the persistence. And I'll probably be accepting, supporting this. Thank you. Any other comments by roll call, Commissioner Harrison? Commissioner Allen, I Commissioner Franks. Commissioner Lindsay. Birdsong. Commissioner or, Commissioner. Man. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. Commissioner. Williamson. I. Alderman. Peterson. Yes. A motion passes. Item number ten. Consideration of resolution 25 2025. Dash 93, a resolution amending the Madison at Franklin PUD subdivision to extend the vested rights for the property located north of Del Rio Pike and east of Burbank Place. Located at 801 Del Rio Pike. Start off with staff presentation. Thank you. The request is to extend the vesting period by 36 months from expiring on March

10th of next year to March 10th of 2029, to allow the applicant to secure any necessary permits and commence site preparation. The development plan for the Madison PUD was approved by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen on March 10th of 2020. The plan includes the existing Madison multifamily complex, and proposes the demolition of one existing building and the construction of three additional multifamily buildings. The proposed development increases the unit count by 64 units to a total of 254 units. The project did have two modification of standards, both dealing with the class C buffer one on the western property line, one on the eastern property line. Both were approved by Boma unanimously. A previous three year vesting extension was granted in July of 2022. A site plan for the Madison was approved in December of 2023. However, no building permits have been secured for the site. The applicant is committed to constructing these additional units one. Finance. Once financing has been secured, if the vesting period is not extended, let's take care of that really quick. The project entitlements would cease to exist and stop work orders would be issued. A new development would need to be approved and would be reviewed against the current local development standards. In reviewing the approved plan against the current city regulations. The current plan generally complies the biggest challenge this plan may have, if required to meet current standards, is meeting the frontage requirements for new buildings. The site layout and locations of buildings and parking lots within the existing development limit the location of new buildings and parking lots. All new buildings would be required to face an internal drive, which is defined as two ten foot drive aisles with parallel parking on each side. Reducing the type of parking in front of new buildings to parallel parking or promoting the pedestrian experience. Both esthetic and safety limits. Parking placement for the required space is needed.

It is not known if the same density could be met under current standards, and allowable density would be highly dependent upon a new design for the site that complies with the current ordinance. Since the site is already an existing development, the application of the frontage standards to only new buildings may require changes that are easily accommodated. But in a new plan. Alternatively, if development was allowed to continue under its current plans, the proposed building and parking placements would be consistent with the existing 17 other buildings currently on the site. Staff would continue to support a full access to Brant Place for better connectivity to the area, and any condition to reduce full connectivity would have to be granted by the Board of Aldermen. A modification of standards or Buff requirements would likely not be required along the entire perimeter of the development, and would be limited to where new development was adjacent to existing single family lots. So based on the current layout, the requirements for transition zones would not limit development potential. Lastly, stormwater damage or drainage issues would still need to be resolved and would need to comply with the current BMP manual. So staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Aldermen to approve resolution 2025 Dash 93, should they determined that the continuation of vested rights is in the best interest of the community. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Does anyone from the public wish to speak to this item number ten? Okay. Seeing none. Does anyone here represent the applicant for. Nope. Okay. Is there a motion for this item? Recommend to the Board of Aldermen to approve resolution 202593. I'll second. This extends to this extend to extend the visitor. Second. Sorry, I think.

Okay. We have a proper motion for approval of a motion to recommend to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. Approval of the extension of the vesting rights. Motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Franks. Any further discussion on this item? We should have a question. Yes. I was hoping to ask the applicant, but do we know why? The extensions we did was. I think we started with ten minutes. It says to secure necessary permits and community preparation, but I'm not sure that it is. So the site plan was approved by, city staff for the development. And once it gets to that, it's usually just due to financing. So I think that's probably the last hurdle that they are trying to overcome. And they've told us, just in on one on one that they're working on that now to break ground. Hopefully next year, which is just for extension was made it. Yeah. The other question is specifically yes, correct. Yes. What is in here tonight? Okay. This is approved by 405, which I was a question before financing forecast issues. And this is wasn't an affordable housing apartment complex. So I was just going to say Crescent City. But a lot of things change. Yes. That's correct. And those, those delays since March of 2020. So for the world shut down. Yes. I don't think I could ask the extension without the, like, speak to the applicant. Why? Why? It's needed for that kind of. Just give me a blanket extension at this point. I'm disappointed they're not here to ask. So I won't be supporting a heart condition, which is project.

Can you show us? Could you turn on your mic, please? Commissioner Franks? Sure. Thank you. Oh. The project possibly were. There were. So if you're familiar with the area, Del Rio Pike is over here. It goes down to the Kroger at Hillsborough Pike. So this is all the existing, apartment units that are there today. We was approved in the 70s or the 80s. And so over here, you have the new buildings and the new parking layouts, that are more, towards the back of this existing site. So don't you? It's a renovation job, essentially. It was, they were going to tear down one of the existing apartment buildings and then build three new buildings and then, review the or renovate the parking areas and some open space. I mean, if we didn't grant it once, their fallback, if it's not granted, then the project will lose its entitlements and they'll start over. Well, given the economy and the interest rates and inflation we've had over the years, and with the hopes of, valuations coming back down on affordable housing, we have got to support it. That's my thought exactly. So once we grant this extension, will they have it is it like a ten year total extension after this, or would they be totally. It's it's a they're requesting a three year extension

and then it's basically ten years maximum. Right. That's what I was asking. Okay. But there's if they ran up against that final deadline, they could request a future extension of that deadline to. We don't really know what the future will hold like that one. Yeah. Any other questions? Discussion. By roll call. Vote. Commissioner Harrison. Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Franks. Commissioner Lindsay. Commissioner or Commissioner? Man. No. Commissioner. Macklemore. Truth. Commissioner Williamson. I and alderman Peterson. Yes. So that motion passes. Okay. Item number 11, consideration of Ordinance 20 2551, an ordinance to rezone 16.81 acres from General Office Geo. District to regional commerce for RC four district for the property located south of Liberty Pike and east of Carruthers Parkway. Located at 1211 and 1217 Liberty Pike. Staff presentation. Yes. Thank you. These two separate lots are currently vacant and were specifically zoned General Office District many years ago to implement a transition from intensive commercial uses along the I-65 corridor to the adjacent single family residential uses. Envision Franklin places both lots within the regional commerce design concept.

Envision Franklin's Height map recommends a maximum height of three stories for the property at 1217 Liberty Pike, to help transition away from the Liberty Pike and Caruthers Parkway intersection to the residential areas to the south. This request would not, accommodate the recommendations of Envision Franklin for this property. Envision Franklin allows for six stories and height for 1211 Liberty Pike. Assuming all the zoning requirements can be met. Envision Franklin could support the rezoning of 1211 Liberty Pike due to the guidance of the height map. Due to the request for rezoning only partially meeting the intent of Envision Franklin. Staff can't support the rezoning request for 1211 and 1217 Liberty Pike. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to disapprove ordinance 2020 551. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We've got a number of of residents that have indicated an interest in speaking to this item. Lynn Finch. And, so we'll ask you to come up to the lectern here, and I'll call out 2 or 3 of you and get you just to come on up and be ready for your. Your turn. So lame. Jay Ray and David Stewart, if the three of you would come up, if. Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. So, Hi. My name is Lane Finch. I am this year. My husband, Wesley, and I have both lives in Franklin our entire life, and we recently moved to this neighborhood just to get away from the hustle and bustle of Franklin. Just for the peace and quiet, of this neighborhood. And part of the reason we purchased this house was because we're on a dead end right here.

And, I want to express my concern of rezoning this property to RC for and the possibility that it would create a connecting that dead end to Liberty Pike, which would make our neighborhood a cut through from Liberty Pike to Highway 96 and then turn our quiet neighborhood where kids play in the street to just a road that has high traffic and is a shortcut. Not to mention the noise, the lights, everything that it would create that would shine right on to our property. And we could hear. That's my concern. Hi, I'm Jay Ray. I live at 704 Langford Court, which is just south of the property in question. Couple things that, as was in the recommendation from the city, there is, a lot of land, a lot of trees and and blockage from that. Any light and development to the property will destroy property values. And we think it's inconsistent with the intention. Franklin. Plan. Certainly the there's an easement through the property as well from drainage. There was some previous attempt at development on the property and one of the properties in question, the main part and has caused significant drainage issues. I know that there's, going to be a plan for that, but that has continued to cost me money, to be frank, to, address the drainage off the property, clear cutting or cutting a large majority of the trees that are on the property within the, outside the easement for the power lines will affect that. And we think increase that and continue to provide additional cost for the homeowners of, Breckenridge.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm David Stewart. I live at 700 Langford Court. It is, but for the property, there. And really, regardless whether the zoning changes or stays know, significant construction of the area is going to have the same impact. So we're we're going to or at least it's going to have significant impact. Concerns for property values. Again, environmental noise, light. What I did notice, though, between the two zoning is that the landscape requirement was cut in half. Going to the RC for, the way I read that, which even exacerbates the the land problems of drainage and whatnot, because we're, we're getting rid of more, more landscape under that option, potentially. So I do appreciate you allowing us to speak here. County residents, that show that you're you're looking out for preservation and and boundaries and other folks. So thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody else wish that that's all the cards I have, sir? Okay. Is there someone representing the applicant? Yes. Good evening. Adam Cronk with Cronk Engineering. We're here representing the owner of the property. Just first, like to begin by, offering a brief recent history of the development of this property and these two parcels.

There have been three separate site plan submittals over the last 15 years for office buildings that did not result in final construction for various reasons. Since the Covid 19 pandemic, there have been no offers for office development, which is the predominant which is the predominant limited use allowed in this geo zone property. Therefore, due to these new economic conditions, since Covid, the owner wishes to rezone to a zoning designation that's technically supported by Envision Franklin, which is regional commerce for with RC for zoning, the the owner envisions the possibility of retail between Liberty Pike and the large electric lines that bisect this property and then to the rear of the property south of the power lines, maybe senior living, additional retail or possibly medical office use. In our opinion, with the transitional buffer requirements that are in place under the current zoning code. The feasibility of a four storey building, with the proximity of the power lines to the rear of the property line is difficult, if not impossible. You know, the transitional buffer from the, from the county line, there would be 25ft of undisturbed trees. Another 50ft, with no building. And then the tallest building that could be placed at that 50ft mark would be a 40ft structure, which could only be a three story building. And then by that point, you're only, you know, less than 150ft away from the power lines. It's hard to envision a four storey building beyond the power lines. For that reason. A few years ago, we tried to rezone the property by subdividing the property, with one parcel north of the electric lines and other parcels south of the electric lines. But in order to rezone at that time, we were told we had to replant the property with that new boundary line first.

We then ran into issues with the sewer department, only allowing a plat if we would submit a fully engineered, approved and bonded sewer project proving gravity sewer was available to the property. Even though we had an approved site plan in 2017 showing gravity sewer to a new building, that became a burden too high to bear for the property owner. All of these prior issues, led us to where we are today, which is a desire for a zone that meets envision Franklin for the uses that can be developed on the property. Unfortunately, we don't have any definitive uses proposed at this time. But we're reasonably confident that a retail use along Liberty Pike is very viable. And office space, unfortunately, is not. We respectfully request a rezoning recommendation for RC four to permit the highest and best uses for the development of this property that we believe has long sat vacant due to the limited uses currently allowed on the property. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Thank you. Adam. Is there a motion on this item? Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Franks. Is there a second? I'll second for discussion. Motion to approve by Commissioner Franks and a second by Commissioner Harrison. I'll open the floor for discussion on the item. Have. So I'll. I'll start with a question chair, if I may. So in the so, of course, staff is recommended that we disapprove this so that in the, narrative here

we say that envision Franklin allows for three stories for 1217 Liberty Park and six stories at 1211. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. On the height map. On happiness? Yes. So. But the the proposal is, though the proposal is a request to rezone both properties to allow for up to four stories in height and height, above which, both virtually just from, from our top eliminates 1217 of top, which is only three stories right. As recommended by the mayor. Right. And so automatically that that would throw it out as far as Envision Franklin is concerned. Yes. And they asked for the rezoning as a pair. Right. All together? No. No distinction. Yes. So? So we had to give a recommendation on the pair, but that's just all together. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Yes, ma'am. But as hard as it is, only 43 to 41 thing, it's three stories. So it's it's measured in story. So, the height allowed, at that location, per the height map in envision Franklin is, no taller than three stories at 1217, 1217 at 1211, which is at, I believe this one is 1217. The lot is 1211. Right. And so 1211 is supportive of six stories and the height map in Envision Franklin, because it is a transition to the more dense RC six, which is this pink color right here. So that is why staff recommended disapproval based off of the collective request in in just as my in it my my last part is because 1217 is

the largest of the two by like three three times as large. So that was my point. Okay. I'm done. I'll let someone else have the floor. Other questions comments? Go ahead. I just don't see a reason to go against staff recommendation here. I don't know that I, couldn't perhaps be persuaded at a later point, maybe with more information. Maybe seeing what what they with the true intent or, you know, what's going to happen there. We're right now, we're kind of just giving a blank slate to to that, to the open possibilities. And, I know it sounds like there's some practical considerations and some intent to to not do that, but I think I'd like to see that more concrete before I, I go against staff recommendation. Envision Franklin. Okay. All the way just to say that, since so much of the what, 1217 is, is next to, county property, which is residential. And, that makes it pretty tough. I think. Okay. Yeah. And I'd say it's kind of a similar thing as far as that, you know, residential right there. If we're giving kind of a blank slate. Not to say that, you know, if I had more information, you know, kind of what's been, you know, the idea what being proposed because there's a lot of great uses and RC for that could be very, you know, a good a good option for, you know, lowering that intensity density away from residential. But we don't know that. So I think it makes sense to just go with the staff. Okay. Commissioner Harris question.

So you're saying part of your concern for disapproval is that it would increase the height, density of both parcels would increase that. Would it not suit with that the existing height overlay restrictions supersede. That okay. So no. So what would happen is right now it's zoned Geo which allows for I believe three, three storeys in height. If we're zoned it, we we can sell Envision Franklin and Envision Franklin does allow for the potential of of staff support for six six storeys in height for the larger property. But when they're, they're requesting, oh, I'm sorry for the smaller property. Excuse me. So. And I'm sorry I'm confusing everyone. When? Now that they're asking for RC for what will happen is that they would be allowed for stories for both properties. If you were to recommend approval. No, not six and or stores for both. And that's not for, livable storage. That's three storeys with that height restriction. This would be regional commerce. So it would, it would just be for four stories. We have no, we have we don't really know what the applicants wanting to propose at this time. You could put a four storey office building. You could put the exhibition here, whatever way. So right now, you would be allowed to build six stories on the. No, sir. Right now, you're allowed to build three because it's zoned general office. The only reason the six story came into the conversation. Yes, sir. It's for both. The only store. The only reason the six story came into the conversation is because when they asked to rezone both of those sites, we gave you the information for both sites. This envision Franklin height not says that this property

could support six stories. This property could only support three. So that's the only reason the six stories even came into the conversation, was just to give you the information for the way they're currently. It's three stories. It's six and three. No, sir. The way it's currently zoned is Three and Three Oaks, both zoned general office, three stories. You're you're getting the six stories from Envision Franklin, which doesn't really come into play unless they're ready to develop it in terms of a rezoning, which is why we mentioned at this evening and why we can't support it. So this rezoning would allow it would permit four stories on each of the two. Yes, sir. Okay. Because there's. It's for you. Yes. There also is a concern about the drainage, out there. And was there any. So there was. It was rezoning. We don't evaluate that. But I will say I talked to a couple of residents, last week about this, but, if this were to get approved with the rezoning or if it stays general office to develop anything, they'd have to come forward with a site plan and we would evaluate it at that time. So unfortunately, there's just no way for us to give any information on that at this time. Okay. Any other comments or questions? So we have a motion to approve, three to approve the rezoning. And there's been a number of commissioners that have expressed concern for that. So we'll vote on this motion. Consider that as your vote, that this is a motion to approve.

So we'll do recommend approval to board a Marin alderman. So consider that. Keep that in mind as you vote for this. So by roll call, vote. Commissioner Harrison. Nay. Commissioner Allen. Nay. Commissioner Franks. Right. Commissioner Lindsay votes no. Commissioner or nay. Commissioner. Man. No. Commissioner. Macklemore. No. Commissioner. Williamson. No. And alderman. Peterson. No. Okay. That motion fails. The motion to approve fails. And so what I'd like to do is entertain a motion to disapprove the request for rezoning. I make a motion to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the board of May an alderman to disapprove ordinance 202551A second. The motion. Okay. We have a proper motion to recommend disapproval to the Board of Mayor and Alderman by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Allen. By roll call again, Commissioner Harrison. Hi. Commissioner. Allen. Commissioner Franks. Mr.. Lindsay votes. Commissioner or, Commissioner Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore I Commissioner Williamson. I and Alderman Peterson. Yes. Okay. That motion passes recommending disapproval. All right. Item number 12, consideration of Ordinance 20 2550, an ordinance to rezone 7.01 acres from a state residential AR district to office, residential or district for the property

located south of Long Line and west of Carruthers Road. Located at 4325 Long Line. We'll start with staff presentation. Thank you. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property at 4325 Long Lane from a state residential to office residential. The property consists of 7.01 acres. It is the applicant's intent to utilize the existing building as office and administration space for the neighboring refuge center complex and vision Franklin Place this property in the regional Commerce design concept, which supports a variety of uses within the design concept, with more intense uses being located closer to the Interstate 65 corridor and divisions Franklin supports the proposed rezoning as it supports the office use and requires minimal changes to the existing site. Any further development or additional changes on the property may require a new rezoning to a district that would support those changes. Staff recommends approval to the Board of Aldermen of Ordinance 20 2550. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody from the public wish to speak to that item? I would, I don't know if. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Come on up. Give us your name and address. Sure. It's John. Okay. Lesson series. Speak into the square. Just kidding. I'll just get up here. Sure. Hi. My name is John Searing. I reside at 779 Fontwell Lane in Ladd Park. Approximately right there. Okay. Number one. I'm probably the only one representing Ladd Park tonight because we were not notified, in a timely fashion.

As somebody that lives less than a quarter of a mile away from that property, we had no notification by mail that's required. I believe, the only time that we were notified was when our HOA property manager, received a letter less than two days ago. So, just want to make that apparent. And for the record. So this the first time we're hearing about this. We've been, we've had no notification. But, that track of land right now is, is really for residential. I am not aware of any purchase, of the refuge center for, that property. I'd be curious to find out if there is a, if there's a record of a, any need to, or, any agreement to buy that property. Any research that I did over the last day and a half shows that there is no purchase agreement there. So we're not quite sure why. They're looking to have this resound, without any really direct, use of that. That area. If there is a change to it. The concern there is traffic and also the value of our houses, in that area. I did check with several of our, our neighbors, that are adjacent to me. And nobody was notified about this change, so, they were hoping to have this pushed. I doubt if that will happen, but, there are some real concerns without more information about this property, and how they're going to develop it, and that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank. Is there someone here representing the applicant tonight? Hi. Good evening. My name is Greg Gamble, and I'm representing the property owner, Keith Baker.

The, property is currently zoned to state Residential. The Envision Franklin policy here is regional commerce. And I provided to you, in front of you is, sheet here that, talks about, straight from the zoning ordinance. This is office residential. One of the things I want to point out on here is building types 3.1, 1.3 building types. The only building type that is permitted on this property is a house residential house. That's the type of house it has to have, you know, gabled roof. It's going to look and feel like a house that's very significant. In this, consideration of this rezoning. On the second page, then you also see a number of buildings maximum. So it says principal building, one per lot, which is also significant. I've provided to you the 11 by 17 map that is in the rezoning submittal application. And what you see in the aerial photograph and on the survey is the location of a single building. This building is 40 900ft². It's two stories with a garage, basement. It is served by sewer with a septic tank. It does not have City of Franklin sewer services. In order for a sewer to be provided to this property, it has to come from, Long Lane to the east down the middle of the creek, which will happen someday. You know, maybe in the future. In talking with city water and sewer services, they would allow an office use to lease this house as an office. As long as there wasn't an expansion of the square footage, because an office of 40 900ft² actually generates less sewer demand than a single family house with a family with washer and dryer and dishwasher and all the things that come along with that. So, as long as we're not expanding the square footage,

we're not allowed to add any additional principal structures. The house is the house is the house. This is a seven acre property. In order to subdivide this property into additional lots would require a final plat. We can't subdivide it by letter. It's too small. Subdividing by letter would be like recording two deeds for tracts that are five acres or greater. Because this is a seven acre property, we can't do that. So we can't create another principal, use another lot. I mean, another, principal building here. All he wants to do right now is he can rent it to for residential use. He'd like to be able to rent it or lease it for office space. And there's no ability to create any expansion beyond the 40 900ft² that's here now. Several months ago, I contacted the, Ladd Park HOA president, who was a lady. Now, I understand that the HOA president is. Ma'am. I think there may have been some, mixed up. I asked her if Ladd Park wanted a neighborhood meeting for this request, and she said no. That wouldn't be necessary. We have been contacted by multiple neighbors that are around this property. After they had received a letter saying, hey, tell me what's going on, I want to know a little bit about this. My cell phone number is on every letter, so I know that those were sent out. I'm sorry that you didn't receive your sir. But planning commission. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion on this item? Recommendations to, second Commissioner Harrison. We have a motion for approval with staff recommendations by Commissioner Macklemore. And a second by Commissioner Harrison. Is there any discussion?

Was concerned about the litter box. It's about the safety against the records and the cameras. So this is not wanting to see. Yeah. So requirement is a 500ft. It's five feet. It's 500ft from any border of the property. And from what we can tell on the map, the distance is just beyond that. So it the a letter was not sent to that property per our list, but the signs were posted on the property. Correct rezoning signs. Yes. They've been there for what, three months? Okay. The long term project, 30 days. Other comments. Questions? About. Got several letters from people. Yes. There. I mean in the in the area. When we do public notifications, we are required to provide the city's planning staff with an, an affidavit, notarized, stating that we sent letters to everyone on the list to the Excel list that's provided by city staff. We don't generate the list of who it's mailed to. City planning staff gives that to us. We have to provide those letters, and we send those out. And we notarized that. We did send them out by the date. And I do know multiple neighbors that are right within this area that I have my cell phone number that call me and said, well, what's going on? Please tell me. I was involved in the refuge center planner. So I've built some relationships, with these immediate neighbors and, I know that they've received theirs. So. Okay. Other questions? Comments. But, so we have a motion for approval. By roll call. Vote. Commissioner Harrison.

All right, Mr. Allen, I Commissioner Franks. I Commissioner Lindsay Melton. Commissioner or, Commissioner Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore I Fisher Williams and I and Alderman Peterson. No, no, no. Okay. A motion passes. Item number 19, consideration of resolution 2025. Dash 89, a resolution by the Franklin Municipal Planning Commission to amend the Franklin Subdivision regulations. Staff comments. Staff presentation. Thank you. The updates proposed by staff touch on two different topics changes in vested rights legislation and surveyor requirements related to monumental placement. Monument placement not monumental placement. Catholic. Too much pasta. For the first topic, the changes proposed respond to recent changes to state law regarding the timing of vesting entitlement. Preliminary plats are considered a preliminary development plan that obtains vested rights, and so section 4.2.9 has been updated to reflect the language of state law and matches the proposed changes in the zoning ordinance addressing survey requirements related to monument placement. It was brought to staff's attention that there are some instances when the monuments identifying new property corners are not always set at the time of plat recording, and that the current language of the surveyor signature block does not reflect this condition. Staff resource. The topic, specifically the rules of the Tennessee Board of Examiners for Land Surveyors Standards of Practice, and we found that the standards require that plats clearly note whether monuments were found or set, and then outline

the size, material and identification detailing for the monument and that it regulates the making or the marking of property owners. However, nowhere in these rules does it specifically to define the timing of when those pins must be set. So, as discussed previously at a earlier joint conceptual workshop, the timing of pin placement is pertinent to the selling of a lot. Land is transferred by deed and a plat is a tool that can be used as a reference when creating the legal description of a lot for a deed. But a plat is not the document which transfers ownership of land. It is the responsibility of the creator of the deed to ensure that the legal description being created matches the site conditions, including locating all monuments to be referenced. Therefore, addressing the timing of the monument placement can give those involved in a land transfer a clearer sense of what to expect when investigating site conditions. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve resolution 2025 Dash 89. Thank you. Thank you. Joy. Does anyone from the public wish to speak to this item? Seeing none, is there a motion recommend approval of resolution 202589. I second that motion. Yeah. Good. Yeah, yeah. So I said move approval. Yeah. So we have a proper motion for approval by Commissioner Harris. I stumbled over recommend this time here to stamp of approval. And as a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any further discussion on the item by roll call, Commissioner Harrison. Commissioner Allen, I Mr. Franks. Commissioner Lindsay. Votes. Commissioner or commissioner? Man. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore I Commissioner Williamson. I alderman Peterson. Yes. And first of all, I'd like to commend the eagle eyes

of the planning commissioners who raised the question last month about the timing of setting of a conference and that I greatly appreciate the efforts of staff to even go to the to the, survey, to the Board of Registration. And and find out the real scoop on setting corn pounds. So. Item number 20, Consideration of Ordinance 2025 Dash 25, as amended, an ordinance to amend as part of an annual update, various chapters of the Franklin Zoning Ordinance text, including overlay districts, signage uses street lights, performance agreements, floodplain regulations, state law changes, and to amend the zoning map, including a rezoning of 171 Hill Haven Lane and 370 Franklin Road to the Civic Institutional District and 171 Belhaven Lane to the historic Preservation Overlay District. Staff presentation. This is a revisit of an artist's concerns about everything he does. So it does contain it contains the same descriptive item. So this this is update again the whole ordinance is before you, but it really is only back before you because of one amendment that was made at second reading at the farm, last month. Any change is required by state law to have a Planning Commission recommendation when it comes to the zoning ordinance. So that's why this is back before you. Again, it is a small amendment. But it but it will receive a recommendation tonight

and then go back to Boma for third and final reading with another public hearing per state law at the third reading, January 13th. So this has to do with the SEO, the Columbia Avenue Overlay subdistrict one, the HG Hill Plan amendment that came through in September to Planning Commission, and then it came back in October so that the zoning could match that new heights as established by envision Franklin. And at the second reading in November, which was the first time that they saw it, due to the timing of the the plan amendment, they made a motion to amend the amendment to allow for up to three storeys or allow it to be eligible for up to three storeys, with a development plan approval, meaning the the process would change if an applicant wanted to do three storeys, it wouldn't be by right as a site plan, it would go through the development plan approval process with the PDD district and the rationale given was that this is a very important corridor. It's adjacent to a National Historic Landmark property. It's very historic in nature, and that the development plan process allows more public input because there's a neighborhood meeting associated with that. There's more flexibility in the design process as it moves through more chances for additional review. So this type of requirement has been used before in the in from 2008 to 2019 with the central Franklin area overlay. If if some of you remember that in downtown Franklin. That's how Harpeth Square came through as a kind of a block redevelopment. So that amendment needs a recommendation from this body tonight. So real quick,

what is the cliff note version of this change? This it I guess got it. Just as a reminder for everybody to use their mics. Please myself. Okay. I'm real real quick. I have to break. Just means that. Can you break it down? But what's the difference between what they're doing, what they want us to do and what we're doing than what we already approved? Yeah, that's the question. Okay. So that top line is generally the amendment that you all made. Plus what's in underline is what Boma added. Yes I agree everyone, but I'll hold up. Hold on. Jay yeah, I have to recuse myself for this item. Okay. All right. Thank you. That that's so they're adding additional language. They added additional language that said that said building height could be eligible through development plan approval for the three storeys with a ten foot step back on that third story previously approved. Shall we say that anyway? Okay. Can I ask you a question? And I'm I'm not trying to be facetious, but he's going to come across that way. So without this change, it would only come before it. So it would only come before the Planning Commission. Is that correct or would it not even come? Would you just come before staff? But with this it has got to go below before a whole lot of other people. Is that basically what this is? Do it. It depends on what uses they bring forward as part of a site plan approval, whether it goes to planning commission or it just as an administrative approval. I think Emily might be checking on that. Okay. But yes, to your statement to the board of mayor and aldermen and other folks. You get to see it. So it just didn't stop. And the staff for us is basically what's going to happen now.

Well, it depends on what the applicant wants. If they want two stories, then it just would go to the Planning Commission. If all other uses are permitted within the CC district. If we have a lot of question, I think we need to have public comment first. Get a motion on the table, then you guys can start. Yeah. Delivery. Yeah. I'm sorry. That's okay. We do have someone from the public that wishes to speak to this item. So we will, call on John as John Cooper. Yes, I you good evening. I'm John Cooper with the law firm Holland and Night in Nashville. I'm here representing HG Hill Realty company. I'm here to talk about the amendment that was added by the board of mayor and aldermen, as discussed, it will directly and solely impact the whole property. That's the the only the only impact will be to my client's property. In case you don't know, H.D. Hill Realty Company, they've been a local company operating here for 130 years. They have developments all over Middle Tennessee. They've been working with planning staff for, I believe, over a year regarding a proposed mixed use development. For this site, similar to what they've done with the other hill centers in Middle Tennessee. This planning commission in September approved the amendment to the Envision Franklin plan to allow the three storeys with a ten foot step back with you. Then the next month, in October, approved an amendment to the Columbia Avenue overlay language in the zoning ordinance to include this language that then went to the board of mayor and aldermen. And on November 11th, without any discussion with the property owner, an amendment was added by motion to require that the the Boma approve a development plan in order to get three stories.

So, as you know, in order to. Part of a planned development district, which is a rezoning, meaning this property would have to be rezoned in order to get three stories. That's a lengthy process. That's an expensive process. And preparing all the plans. Had they been told a year ago that the city wanted a development plan, we probably could have and would have accommodated that. But to come in at the last minute when, you know, we've come this far and say, oh, we want a development plan approved by Boma, that's just not reasonable. It, it jeopardizes the entire project, frankly, you know, it it's, it sounds like a very minor thing, but from a development standpoint, it it is very significant part of the rationale that was given at the last meeting when this was discussed by Boma, was that there was a concern about what had happened across the street or another development in the area and, that what was built wasn't what Boma thought was going to be built. And so they wanted they wanted control over that. But in our opinion, that should not impact our development. My client's development, again, they have a 130 year history track record of of building what they say they're going to build and doing what they say they're going to do. As my clients chair and CEO Jimmy Granbury told the Boma at the meeting, he said they went through all the processes required by law. They complied with planning staff requests throughout the way. They received unanimous approval at both the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission. And now, at the last minute, they're being asked to rezone their property, and they they just cannot agree to that.

So we would ask that you recommend to the Boma that they remove this amendment. Thank you. Thank you John. So. I mean, Mr. Chair. Yes. I'm still confused why this amendment is needed. And staff, before we we need to get something on the floor for a motion. Yeah. Okay. My mother disapproved, and I said, you know, I'm. I'm 30. Maybe more discussion. Well, it's it's really a motion to recommend that that right that the amendment made. Boma be rescinded. I guess this kind of is really the motion you're looking for, if that's what you want. Yeah, and that's what I said. Okay, so there we go. So what you are considering is an amendment to the zoning ordinance made at Boma and if the recommendation is to not go with that amendment, you would say, you know, motion to recommend that the amendment be rescinded at Boma. That deals with a requirement that a development plan be required if the applicant chose to go up to three storeys because he is, the staff recommends that the final this planning Commission, recommend approval to vote on for ordinance 22, as amended. So we're not on third and final reading. So we're not only asked to that section and that's that's really all your you've already get given recommendations for every thing like 2 or 3 times it. Yeah. Twice. Right. And again if, if the board here's what you say. And either makes another amendment

they can and it'll still have to come back to you. And that's possible back and forth. Right. Okay. Good. Yeah. And I second would it be okay just to jump to a previous question that was asked when this before this amendment was made and a site plan were to be submitted, it would require review by this body, not only staff, because it is in the c A01 overlay district which requires it to come to Planning Commission. Right? Right. So just to clarify, that was the earlier question. Okay. Staff here. Okay. So our our motion then is what is who's claiming the luxury to move this amendment right to. I would like to rescind the amendment the amendment made by Boma. Yes. With regard to the development plan one amendment. Yes. And maybe add to if you're okay with your motion that the rest of the zoning ordinance as amended. Remain right, just so the record is clear that we're not talking really about anything else, but this. Everything else is fine. And said to me, there are some people on the border made an argument who said they were in charge of zoning. That was it. You don't want to be the planning commission. I'm just I'm just I'm just I mean, come on, man. No, I'm just saying to you have a meeting. There was there are some people there that just said that they for mayor and alderman was in charge of zoning. Do they need to read the duties of the planning commission? You know, I mean, because I don't but I know I, I did charge we did I tried to feel like I needed like the zoning ordinance, though, is technically approved by the Lord mayor. Not. That's right. They get final decision from the D. But there's certain parts

that we have certain we have certain duties and certain responsibilities. You guys are he they have a huge budget in eternity. Control. All right. That's another discussion. We're going to vote on this. Do we have a motion we can work with. So do you want to read it back or do you feel good. Read it. What have you we talked about, you know, an amendment, a motion that would require that the amendment native boma be rescinded, that deals with a requirement for the for, for development of a for development plan and that the rest of the the rest of the ordinance remains intact. Micromanage. I have I have a comment to that. I just think it's unfair to try to applicant the way he followed all the rules for over a year to bring this thing, to the Planning Commission to meet all regulations. God might have to give staff, recommendation of approval. Yeah. Be okay, Mister. Mister chair. Yeah, say that right, Mister. Mister chair. Okay. Yeah. I'm going to support this motion for the same reason. I'm going to stay out of the control between Velma and Fppc. But I think it's also fair that the applicant went through this process and, I feel like to require them to to go back through additional steps at the end of the, the process there were, you know, not not clear on the onset, I think is, not the intent of, you know, the land development process. Okay. So the motion would be a motion to recommend that the amendment made that at, be rescinded, that deals with a requirement for producing a development plan.

Period. The rest of the ordinance remains intact, and I'll claim that motion. So, is there a second? Well, he's already got it. Okay, so that's why I look at it. Okay, so that was Jamie's motion. We get it. Okay. Thank you. Have another. He had. You had another hand. I think Mike had his hand up now. I mean, there was ample time for anybody else from Beaumont that doesn't sit on the Planning commission to come and discuss this very fact. If they were that concerned. So I have no problem in asking this, requirement to be rescinded. And then we allowed the same thing down the road, at another development. Correct. Okay. Yes, at the margin district. That's right is right there. And this is the very same thing. So yeah. Okay. So we've got a proper motion. Excuse me, because I say, the, CIO one on the what was it, the West side specifically got approved. But, approved by, the board of mayor now. Yes, they did. Yeah. So the margin district property and those, those properties that were acquired for that project did go through the same process as the H.g Hills site has with they each requested and envision Franklin amendment right, which this, this commission approved in both instances. And then we proceeded forward with an amendment to the zoning ordinance to match that. That was approved in the case of the margin district. So that's the history, the same thing. Yeah, same thing. So, okay, so we have a proper motion.

And second, by Commissioner Allen, the main motion for the primary motion was made by Commissioner Franklin. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none by roll call. Commissioner Harrison, I Mr. Allen, I Mr. Franks, Commissioner Lindsay votes commissioner or Commissioner Mann. Yes. Commissioner. Macklemore. I Commissioner Williamson. Recused yourself and alderman Peterson. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. I'm just. Is there any other business before the Planning Commission tonight? Hearing none. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Second, is this Harris? Yes. Commissioner Harrison. Hi. Commissioner Allen. Mr. Franks, Commissioner Lindsay Kozak. Commissioner or, Commissioner Mann. Yes, Commissioner. Macklemore. I Mr.. Williamson, I and alderman Peterson. Yes. Mr. mayor, Christmas.