Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. If you please stand for the pledge [clears throat] algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] Good evening and thank you for coming to tonight's Springfield Municipal Regional Planning Commission meeting, Thursday, December the 4th, 2025. If you'll please call the role. Bagot here. Bib Boyd here. Briggs, Greg here, Morland here. Shot here. Thomas

here. Townsen here. Uh, seven are present. We have a quorum. Item 1.3 move approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of the planning commission held on November the 6th, 2025. So move. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Minutes pass. Item 1.4 public comment period. As I call your name, if you will come to the microphone, you will have two minutes to address the planning commission. And Miss Ellis will keep the time for us. [clears throat] Bob Sneed, 135 Augusta Trail, Springfield, Tennessee.

Yes. I'm Bob Sneed and my wife and I own the property at 2205 Ruth Street. So, I'm speaking in relation to item 2.3 on your agenda, proposed reszoning of parcels three and four from an R10 to an R seven. And I would be opposed to that move. That's a very narrow lot approx. My understanding it's a 30 foot wide lot that's between my property, which is a combined parcels one and two, and then parcels three and four. or there's a house on four, there's not a house on three. Uh my wife and I purchased the house at 2205 Ruth Street in the year 2000. And uh it was a place for my mother-in-law to live out her later years of life. And then two years later, we went in with the then owners of the property at 2209 Ruth Street, bought the light lot between us because we wanted to preserve some privacy and some green space between us and I still feel that way today and uh thank you for this opportunity to speak today.

Thank you, Mr. Sneed. Gary House, 2204 Ruth Street, Unit One, Springfield, Tennessee.

My name and is Gary House. My wife and I own a unit in the H Country Club Manor Condominiums, which is directly across the street from this property. I am here representing the 13 owners of that property. We like Mr. need uh question why this needs to be resoneed at this particular point. Uh I am speaking with a gentleman that has just recently bought the property. He tells me he has no immediate plans to tear down and rebuild what is already uh the house that is already there and he cannot at this point he can't rebuild unless this is reszone. So I understand because of the 30foot uh property uh if he has no immediate plans to do this why does it need to be resone now is number one question. Uh number two question if he does rebuild we are opposed to any high-rise type situations um multiple unit situations and and all that because we feel like it would be detrimental to our neighborhood. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. House. [clears throat] 2.0, New Business. 2.1 discuss and possibly take action on a performance shity renewal for Autumn Wood Estate Section 3. Do I have a motion and a second to put this item on the floor? Motion. Second. M. Durham.

Good evening, commissioners. Item 2.1 is a request to renew the performance shy for Otumwood Estate section 3. Route Dev has asked to extend the existing bond which secures the remaining public improvements for this phase of the subdivision. This includes the roadway, storm water infrastructure and utility work that has not yet been completed. The shy amount is $266,220 issued by Merchants National Bonding. staff has reviewed the updated cost estimate and finds the amount appropriate and consistent with our subdivision regulations. Renewing this shy ensures there is no lapse in coverage and this and that the city remains protected until all improvements are completed to our standards. Staff recommends that this commission recommend acceptance as submitted to the board of mayor and alderman. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Any questions for Miss Durham while she's at the microphone? [clears throat] Do we have a motion? Some move. Second. Second. Miss Ellis. Okay. Thomas, yes. Void. Yes. Shot. Yes. Bagot. Yes. Townsen. Yes. Greg, yes. Morland, [clears throat] yes. Passes with seven.

Item 2.2. Two, discuss and possibly take action on a resoning request for a property at Highway 41 North from R40 to C1. Properties within the City of Springfield urban growth boundary, map 069, parcel 022.02. Have a motion and a second to put this item on the floor. Is it 022 or 002? 02.02. 02. Sorry about that. We have a motion and a second to put these items on the floor. This item on the floor. So move. Second,

Mr. [clears throat] Item 2.2 is a request to reszone property on Highway 41 North from R40 to C1 for future commercial development. Although this parcel is outside the city limits, it does fall within Springfield's urban growth boundary. So, our role tonight is to provide a recommendation to Robertson County to help guide coordinated growth. The property is currently zoned for lowdensity residential use and a new single family home is being built directly on the adjoining parcel. While there are some scattered commercial uses further along the corridor, this immediate area is experiencing continued residential investment and has a predominantly suburban residential character. Our 2024 comprehensive growth plan identifies this area as appropriate for medium density residential grow residential development, excuse me. The requested C1 zoning is not consistent with that land use designation and introducing commercial zoning at this location could create long-term compatibility issues with both existing and planned residential uses. It may also set a precedent for fragmented or spot zoning patterns that run counter to the development framework the plan envisions. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the resoning request. However, the commission may choose to recommend approval, recommend denial, or defer the item if additional information is needed. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions for Miss Durham at this time? Is this the only commercial pro that they have been asked to be in that spot in this particular parcel? Yes, this is the only commercial they've asked for here. And this is just a recommendation to go back to the county. Correct. Yes. Ultimately, because it's still within the county. We're just making a recommendation because it's within the urban growth. But yes, we're just making a recommendation to their planning commission which will then take it through their process. and city staff does not recommend because it goes against the the comp plan. Comp.

The growth plan suggests that this area is appropriate for residential uses. So if you if you do that, if you open the door for one commercial bank, it could open the door for potentially. Yeah. Resident. So, I just have a question to clarify about the growth plan. Right now, it's still county, but in order for it to become city, quote unquote, that would be annexing it to us if that happens.

But to become annexed, and it's a little difficult to tell from the map, um, if you're looking at the aerial view, there's a red line that outlines where the city properties are. There's a handful of properties between this one and the city. So, it would take a coordinated effort between all of those property owners for everyone to want to annex into the city for that to even happen. But between now and 2044, yeah, which is what this plan outlines, it could potentially happen.

Any further questions? So, a yes vote [clears throat] would be agreeing with the city. You would probably make a motion. I would just make a motion. however you want the vote to be. A motion to approve or a motion to deny and then vote with whatever that motion is would be my recommendation. So in that case I think Jeff what she's saying is if the city is recommending against it is that correct? Yes. So then if we did, our motion would have to be to deny it if we want to follow what the city has recommended and that would be your yes to deny.

Okay, we have a motion to deny the request to reszone from R40 to C1. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Morland, yes. Boyd, yes. Thomas, yes. Shant, yes. Bagot, yes. Greg, yes. Townsen, yes. Passes to deny.

Item 2.3, discuss and possibly take action on a resoning request for a property at 2209 Ruth Street from R10 to R7, map 091K, group B, parcel 0003. 00 and 0004.00. Do we have a motion and a second to put this item on the floor? Motion. Second. Durham.

Item 2.3 is a request to reszone two parcels at 2209 Ruth Street from R10 to R seven. The applicant is seeking this change to allow for the possibility of creating an additional residential lot in the future. The comprehensive growth plan identifies this area as appropriate for highdensity residential use. So the requested R seven zoning is fully consistent with the plan. The surrounding development pattern also supports this request. AC across the street we have Country Club Manor which aligns closely with the R seven density and the lots immediately behind these parcels are already developed at or above R seven lot sizes. The adjacent homes to the east and west are zoned R10, but their spacing and lot widths are compatible with what R seven allows. Staff does note that R seven would reduce the required sideyard setback from 12 ft to 8 ft, which could slightly change visual spacing along Ruth Street. However, staff does not see that as a reason to oppose the request. It's also important to note that based on the size and placement of the existing home, subdivision into two lots may not be feasible even with R seven zoning. Staff has already discussed these limitations with the applicant. Overall, the request is consistent with the comprehensive growth plan, compatible with surrounding development, and appropriate for this area. Staff recommends approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have on the request.

Can you go back to that point where you said you already went through it with

this? The it is my understanding there's two lots here. There is, as it was explained already, the house sits at 2209 Root Street. There is an adjacent 30 foot wide parcel immediately to, if you're facing the house, immediately to the right. [clears throat] That parcel was part of a a regular size lot, an R10 lot. At some point in history, that undeveloped lot was split between the two houses. So what remains is that 30 ft that 30 foot lot that's there can't build on that. You have to have at least 50 ft of road frontage to have a buildable lot in the city of Springfield with some exception. But for the most part and especially in a straight R seven zoning, you need 50 ft of road frontage. with the existing house that sits there. There is not enough room between the side of that house and that additional 30 ft to provide the required setback and get 50 ft. So essentially between the edge of the house and the edge of where the second lot is there is not 58 ft. So that house would not fit inside the building envelope if they were to go and re resubdivide. We can't create a subdivision that does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations.

So why would you recommend to pass then if you

because it's because we are not evaluating the development. We are evaluating the designation of the land and its compliance with what the comprehensive plan says. I don't know in 10 years if that house will remain. I don't know in 5 years if something were to happen and that house were not to be there. If this were raw land and they had these two lots there, they could do what they're wanting to do. So it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and essentially unless there's some really outstanding reason not to if it is consistent with the plan that was adopted by this board and by the board of mayor and alderman with community input those are always that's going to be our recommendation.

So basically you could change it to R seven but they can't build on it and nothing changes. Yes, they could change it to R seven, but unless they remove that house, they're not going to be able to resubdivide the property and create two buildable lots. Can't be a two houses on that one lot. No, that 30 foot lot, you can't build on at all. Right. But with the placement of that house, there's not enough room to put that existing house in an R seven building envelope, so to speak, within the setbacks and then create another buildable lot. But again, if the house wasn't there, it would be a different situation. They could get two houses if the house were not there.

If the house were not there, yes, there's a little more than 100 ft, I believe, if that was But it would have to be subdivided into 50 and 50 or something. Essentially, what they would do is recombine the lots and then subdivide again. Yes, they would just replplat the two lots so that that lot line would move over 20 feet. So there would be multiple steps before you could even get to the point of building something on it. Yes, there's a whole there's another subdivision process that would have to happen.

This just gives them by changing it to R seven, you're opening up the possibility of that at some point in the future, but right now the way it sits, it would not be feasible with that house there. I think that house is is a little bit nicer than what somebody would just go in there and tear down. That's my understanding. So why change it? Yeah, that's the thing there. Yeah,

I think it gives the the the ability to in the future. I get that. But I mean, as long as the house is sitting there, why tear it, you know, if the house then let them come back and pass then, you know, that's my opinion, too.

Cuz the lot would still remain [clears throat] vacant because of 33. Any further questions? We have a motion one way or the other. I'll make a motion to deny. Second. All right. So, we have shot. Yes. Thomas,

no. Gray, no. Bagot, yes. Townsend, yes. Boyd, I missed something to deny. She's a yes. Yes. Morland. Yes. Okay. So, it does pass with five. Failed the two. Passes to deny.

Item 2.4. discuss and possibly take action on an amendment to the preliminary master plan development plan for the existing summit view PUD to include phase two. We have a motion and a second to put this item on floor. So move second, [snorts] Miss Durham. Okay. I'm going to preface this that I'm going to talk about 2.4 and 2.5 together because they go together,

but then we'll vote separately. Yes, you have to vote separately, but when it goes it, assuming it goes forward, it will go forward to the board as one item because the re they're contingent upon one another. Items 2.4 and 2.5 relate to Summit View phase 2. The applicant is requesting to reszone approximately 2.78 acres from RS20 to R10 PUD and to amend the preliminary master development plan to incorporate this additional acreage into the existing Summit View development. This would allow for 13 additional single family lots as part of a new phase 2. And those lots are along the bottom. Um they're the southernmost portion of the property. The road as it was currently platted just is a one-sided road or one there's only development on one side. The original request for R seven PUD has been formally withdrawn and the new R10 PUD proposal is fully consistent with our comprehensive growth plan and the future land use map. The updated plan also shows several improvements over earlier versions, including a better located and enhanced amenity area, additional parking, improved landscaping and buffering, and open spaces that are more usable. These upgrades support the modest density bonus allowed within a PUD. The preliminary plaque for phase 2 has also been submitted, but that plaque cannot be approved until the resoning and the amended master plan are approved. If tonight's items moves If tonight's items move forward, the plat along with a final master development plan will be brought back following approval of the resoning request for formal action by this commission. So once the resoning is fully complete, assuming it moves forward and gets finalized,

the applicant will bring back through our office the final master development plan which gets approved by this board and then a preliminary plat for phase two, which we've already reviewed and seen, but I can't present it to you until the resoning is done. There are still a few outstanding items that will need to be addressed, including minimum playground specifications, correction of the HOA documentation, which I am actively working with um the builder's representatives to get that taken care of currently, updated representative home images, and some remaining technical comments on both the master plan and the plaque. Staff is working with the applicant on these items and does not foresee any issues with each item being satisfactorily addressed. With those conditions noted, staff recommends approval of the reszoning to R10 PUD and approval of the amended preliminary master development plan and I'm happy to answer any questions.

You mentioned something about R seven earlier. They had previously submitted an R seven plan. That plan was pulled because it was not consistent with the comp plan, the growth plan, and they formally pulled that and replaced it with the R10, which is in alignment. It pulled out a few lots. So, that's what we're looking at now. Yes. This is the R10 layout with the addition of that area that they're asking us to Yes. reszone.

This is the area down here that's in for reszoning, the 2.78 acres. This section right here is where the 13 lots are. The R seven, I think if I remember correctly, was 15 lots. And then they did have the amenity area up here near the front. That has all been relocated down here with some additional parking. The amenity area is proposed to include a dog walking area, a playground, and then a pergola with grills, I believe, is what it stated on there. We have asked for um them to quantify what's going to be in the playground just to ensure that ultimately does get built and maintained and put into the HOA so that it reflects what can be expected from the res or for the residents. But

that was going to be my question. But if if the city if staff is already working on that then there's no need for the question. [clears throat] We just ask that it be part of your motion so that we know that ultimately we do get some agreement on that. So the motion would would include pending what they have to pending completion of of all staff comments being satisfactorily addressed or adequately addressed stating what's in the playground. Right.

Including stating what's going to be included in the playground, but that was part of staff comments. Okay. So there's still a few I double checked before I came down here today. Um there's a couple of departments that haven't looked but we haven't asked them to. So, there's a couple of things that are still outstanding, but not anything that would hold up approvals at this point or recommendations for approvals because they they do have some time to get some of the engineering documents finalized. So, how many houses are in this development? Total um there were 34 I believe there's going to be 67 single family homes when it's complete and 20 town homes. Sorry.

Would this already be in the tracker that we This is in the development tracker. Yes, this one is here. First phase is already there. Yeah, that first phase is Yeah, but this second part without the corrections yet. Oh, I take that back. No, the we typically don't put reszonings in the development tracker, but I would have to double check, okay,

if this one is up or not. But typically just a reszoning, I don't ask for that because it may or may not ever get developed. And these lots are still contingent on a reasonzoning being successful. But that road that they front, that is where the the development currently ends. So that road, you can drive down that road right now. You can see that field where those houses will go. This was deferred from October. Correct. This was deferred in October and then they formally withdrew. And this is them coming back. This is them coming back with the Yeah.

Yes. So, how did it get through staff the first time? I don't I don't still We We came before this board and recommended you deny it and they asked for a deferral, right? So, it went through staff. We looked at it and said, "Hey, it doesn't meet the comp plan." So, we cannot recommend that it go forward.

But, if my memory is correct, R10 was cohesive with the growth plan. It is um R10 falls within medium density and the yellow portion of that land use map on the left is what is depicted as medium density. Orange is the high density. The northern part of that development falls within the shaded orange portion of the map. So hadn't there additional property been purchased too? The 2.78 acres. Has it been purchased on the other side of this? It was it was on the 15. This was it. Mhm.

The way I understand it that this is the last part of that. There's only two phases of this property. That is my understanding as well. The roads are not set up as they currently are designed. Let me go back. Let me not misspe on that. The rest of that property is owned by Gerald Wakefield. But I thought he sold that. Didn't he sell that? That's 2.78 acres is what is under contract to be purchased is my understanding. The way it is designed now there is what what we're getting at down the road. No, the 2.78 is what is here, right? It's this strip right here.

It is. The development line currently sits at the right of way of this road. So you can see and it was in your packet phase one and phase two lines. Phase one is the current boundary of this plan unit development. So what they've put under contract to purchase my understanding anyways is this 2.78 acres

if they request. Yes. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Reynolds, correct? I'd like to hear what he has to say. Well, it it just seems like there's just a hair confusion, but she's explaining exactly correctly. I'm just confirming there is there is no other housing or purchases or anything um beyond this 2.7 acres. So, it's the existing development that's out there. This is the next two plus acres to be added to it. and the rest. Yes. At least not as far as we're involved and as far as we know, Mr. Reyes is not involved um with anything on the remaining I think it is right at 15 acres. So,

any questions for Mr. Rounds while he's at the microphone? Did you say that started out as 15 units there and then they pulled two out? Is that correct? It that's correct. Yeah. And that had to do with that that what we can fit in there on the R seven designation versus the RT. And then they also moved the playground from the front of the road into the back. Yeah. Got bigger and they added the overflow parking. [cough and clears throat]

Any further questions? We do get to take a second look at it once I'll go tease across and eyes and dot it. This going to come back before the committee. It

if this moves forward as a successful preliminary master development plan amendment that will go forward to the board of mayor and alderman as well. Yeah. To answer your question, yes. because it will have to come back with an amended final master development plan which will be consistent with what you see here and then a phase 2 preliminary plat after the resoning is complete assuming it moves forward. So yes, you will get to see it again before anything is finalized before these these houses can be platted. There will be minimal construction necessary though because the m the majority of the neighborhood is done with the exception of this amenity area. There will be I believe some storm water improvements that will need to be completed just to enlarge the pond that's there to accommodate these houses, but it will be minimal.

Any other questions?

[cough] We have a motion one way or the other. I can't make it. Move to approve 2.4. Okay. So, we're going to vote on 2.4 and then I will read and then we will vote on 2.5. So, we have a motion to approve on 2.4. Do we have a second? Second. Jinx. Second. All right, Miss Ellis. We will vote on 2.4. Okay. Greg, abstain. Thomas, yes. Boy, yes. Mor, yes. yes. Yes. Shot. Yes.

Passes with six. And Mr. Greg's abension is he is a owner. Correct. I think we have to have list their reason for abstaining. Yeah. So it's cuz he's an owner. Item 2.5. Doesn't possibly take action on a resoning request for a property at Black Patch Drive from RS20 to R10 PUD, map 102, parcel 044.00. Do we have a motion and a second? So move. Second. Do we have any other questions on this? I would like to make one statement on this.

Sure. When you make a motion on this, make sure that you include any contingencies in your motion. Staff has asked that you include the contingency that all comments are adequately addressed. I made my motion to include that. No, you won't. This is a new one. This is a new one. Oh, I mean on that for staff to include all the amenities that staff have recommended with contingencies. The contingencies. Yes. Is that right? Yeah.

That all of the staff comments are addressed before the resoning is complete. Yes. Yes. So, you're you're my first motion. Yeah. We need a second. Okay. Yes. Second. Okay. Contingency. So, Greg, abstain. Thomas, yes. Boyd, yes. Morland, yes. Bagot, yes. Townsen, yes. Shot, yes. Six.

Uh, item 3.0, old other business. It's going to swap around just a little bit. Um, it'll be 3.4 four on your agenda packet, but discuss and possibly take action on an appointment to the board of zoning appeals. Mr. Durham, as I explained in my email, Michael Briggs resigned from this commission, which he also com resigned from the board of zoning appeals because he was moving out of the city. That leaves a vacancy on both this commission and on the board of zoning appeals. Um the alderman of W six will make the appointment for the planning commission. I believe that is under under review right now and I expect to know at the board meeting who becomes appointed. But with the vacancy at the board of zoning appeals, this body needs to make a recommendation from within themselves of someone to appoint to that board. Any takers?

Can we wait and see who's appointed? [laughter]

Technically, yes. Technically, you can defer and think about it a little bit more and decide. Um, we do we don't have a meeting for December, so you'll be good for that. But if something is not decided for the BZA, there's no December meeting. There is a January meeting. the January meeting, and I'll talk about this in the director's report. The January meeting I know of right now has two items. I think we're close to the deadline or within days, so we likely won't get anything else for that deadline. One is a conditional use permit request. The other being um the variances necessary to reconstruct the marquee at the theater. So there we absolutely have to have this meeting. Not that we wouldn't anyways, but I I know that a lot of people are really interested in seeing this theater get reconstructed and brought back to life. So, but that will be presented in January. So ideally we'll have someone if not by default your chairman gets to be the interm so to speak

to make a motion to make him% show you I don't want to quit. [laughter] So I think the idea is we want to defer. So you you need to make a motion that you'll defer and that you'll bring it back at your January meeting. Yeah. Would be my recommendation. This time that we defer the director BZA board until January when we come back.

Well, okay. The BZA will then have to once somebody goes to the BZA, the BZA will then recommend and internally decide who is going to be the chair because u Mr. Briggs was also the chairperson of that board. So they will have to recommend a new chairperson of that board as well. And you have more than one absent person tonight. So maybe one of them will want to. We have one absent person. We're waiting on the other one. Fair enough. You have two open chairs. On [laughter] one of them. Yes. So we have a motion to defer. Do we have a second?

I think I think that was Towns and then we do a vote on this. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. So, we're going to do Greg. Yes. Thomas, yes. Floyd, yes. Morland, yes. Bagot, yes. And did I say Townsend already? Townsend. Yes. And Shot. Yes. Item 3.2, our next planning commission meeting is on uh January the 8th. Is that correct? And item 3.3 is the community director community development director's [snorts] report. That's a lot.

It is a lot,

Mur. Okay. Um, couple of things. I've already stated that we don't have a BZA meeting for December. I've explained what the January ones are and that it's important that we have that meeting. Um, you've already reminded us that the January planning commission meeting was rescheduled for Thursday, January 8th. Um, in the past month, there have been no notable site plan approvals. Nothing to share regarding what's been approved in our office. We do, however, have several notable site plans under review and anticipated submittals coming in. Um, recently submitted are the site plan for Seven Brew Coffee, which is going to be on the lot adjacent to Panda Express. Um, on 17th A East, um, we're reviewing Mid Tennessee's nursery and grounds, which is just several buildings to, uh, I understand, house contractors and landscaping supply type businesses. Um, we've also received plans for a 7,500 foot commercial building at the intersection of Memorial and Black Patch. That lot that's across the street from Dobros, the lot that's the parking lot right now. And then finally, the engineer the engineer associated with Harvest Park located on South Main near Tom Austin has shared a conceptual layout. Um with this particular development, we have been asked by their engineer if a traffic study is going to be required. Typically, this board, this commission is the one that decides, hey, planning commission would like to see a traffic study or we don't really worry about this particular project. This project is going to include 86 detached units and some commercial space on the front.

And what's the location again? It's at South Main and Tom Austin. So, it's that cutth through where people can cut through. Do you want to des Dave Brewer? Will you do you want to describe it? I did not include a map with this. Mr. Brewer will be able to explain better where it's at. It's [clears throat] Harvest Park. If you remember, we looked at a town home development in 22. Is that RA Benton? RA Benton. South Main Ra Benton. The is it close to Martin Luther King Jr.? It's within throwing. Yeah. Okay. A small rock fire.

Yes. That's where I was going. We have negotiated the city and the industrial development board has negotiated property the commercial aspect of that development to do a fire station. So, we are the city well the industrial development board is in the process. We've had a first meeting in the uh architects are in the process of getting that surveyed and an initial design on that fire station underway. Uh we have a meeting on the 18th of December. So, uh to you know to follow up. So, but so it's going to be substantially less units than was originally

proposed cuz it's like 230 original proposed and so they're only doing 86. So, you know, that's what 860. That's the average daily. So, the the question is is do you guys want a traffic study? And so, I'm seeing affirmatives. And so we will relay that to them. Do we need That's not a motion though, right?

No, it was just they asked me directly to find out from this commission if that was something which is going to lead me to another point. So [laughter] um I will relay that back to the engineer that a traffic study would be appreciated for that. Um looking ahead to your January meeting though, we don't have very many things that have been submitted. tentatively. We'll have another bond um acceptance recommendation for Highland Estates. That is the completion of two culde-sacs. Craig, what is what are they? No, what is the Highland Estates? What are those two roads? Oh, yeah. Curtiswood.

Curtiswood. Sorry, I couldn't think of what it was. And then Walnut.

Walnut something or other. It's Walnut something or other. any they're two dead end roads. They're completing the culde-sac. That's going to be it's going to come back so that they can get a final plat, but they need to get a bond in place so they can get their final plat approved. That's going to come forward. And then a minor revision to the final master development plan for legacy section six. Um we've been approached about looking at phasing. they want to phase section six rather than taking down the whole thing. But because it's part of a PUD, you have to approve a revision or amendment to that plan as well. They're not changing any lots. They're not changing any approved construction. They just want to phase that section as opposed to building the whole thing at one time. So, those two items will likely come before this board in January. But that's it right now that we have. Um there are two zoning ordinance topics that with your support staff would like to consider bringing forward for amendments in the future. The first is related to traffic impact study requirements. Right now our zoning ordinance does not identify a specific threshold for when a traffic impact study is required. Although the commission can request one when appropriate, the lack of defined standards makes it difficult for developers, engineers, and consultants to anticipate what will be required. Establishing clear triggers would bring consistency and predictability to the development review process. So, we just don't have anything in our code right now that says, hey, yes, you have to do this or it's not required. There are a lot of codes that I've looked at that there is a guideline spelled out. So, we would like to look at that if that's something this board would consider.

Yes.

The second thing, the second topic involves challenges with infill development. The ordinance as currently written presents challenges for the development or redevelopment of lots of record. So, I'm talking about lots that exist that are small. um they're all over town that we have these little tiny lots that some of them have houses on them, some of them don't. Property owners, contractors, and homebuilders often seek to make substantial improvements rather than limited cosmetic repairs. However, existing code restrictions limit what can be built. Many lots of record also lack sufficient buildable area without variances and in some without variances and in some cases combining lots is not feasible. As a result, the code can unintentionally discourage reinvestment in older areas. Staff would like to explore options [snorts] to update the code so that reinvestment becomes more feasible. There's been multiple times just this week alone that people have come in wanting to tear down a house and rebuild it or even look at combining lots and even combining the lots. They're still too small to meet the zoning ordinance. Um we'd like to look at how some other cities handle this infill and kind of see if we can't make it work in Springfield to the city's interest to devel to everybody to get some stuff cleaned up essentially. Um, and then if there's no other questions about anything, that's all I've got for you tonight.

Any further questions from Mr. D? I have comment. Yeah, I always have. No, I think you know I was looking at the tracker that is available online for people to access.

Yes. And it's great that we're transparent, you know, but with all this information, it can sometimes get misinterpreted also because if you just look at that tracker, you know, you can click on something that says, "Oh, they're going to have a thousand houses here." Or this, you know, you look at this development and it's going to say, "Oh, there's 200 houses here." I [clears throat] know we have no control over what de when developers will complete projects but I feel as we go through these reviews every month there's a sense of well we're growing but but you know are and we're meeting our growth plan goals and future land use goals but when are we going to hit that threshold. Are we doing it too fast or are we doing it in a way that allows everything to happen thoughtfully? And I bring this up because I know it is a typical issue that people locally will bring up uh that may not always be substantiated by evidence. So to me being here on the planning commission, I still feel like I need something more to see. And I don't know if it's the tracker or if it's some kind of spreadsheet, if that's even something that you have that just kind of tells us, okay, in the pipeline, here's what we have that is, you know, slated to be completed within the next 2 years versus, oh, they've asked for plans or they've asked to reszone like what was mentioned earlier, but they don't really have any plans to tear down

that house and build two yet. They're just asking to reszone. I know that probably puts a lot more on your plate, but maybe we can find some kind of middle ground that that can appease Well, I can tell you there are spreadsheets that exist that tell you how many lots have been approved. It doesn't necessarily tell me how many or tell you how many are under construction. I can tell you that. We'll use Summit View for an example. Let's say that project was starting today. From the time they submit that project, they have three years

that it can just sit there almost before they have to do anything. Okay? That's state law. We can't do anything about that.

If they go out there and they start construction, they get another two years to continue. And as long as they're moving forward at that point, the process will continue. How long it takes to build the houses, that's there's not really a way to predict completely how long all of that will take. Some of that is market conditions, but we do have the information on the number of lots that have been approved. I don't know that you could quantify unless you looked at maps and said, "Okay, all of these areas are zoned whatever what is I don't want to say worst case scenario, but maximum density that you could put in this area based on current zoning, assuming somebody didn't want to come forward and reszone something."

But I mean, is anybody else here concerned that, you know, are we I'm not against development. I and I love being on this board and everything on this planning commission, but I feel like there are questions about well, how much are we approving or what is going on? And I just want some numbers behind that. And if it is just me, I'm happy to go to your office and have that um be educated on that. I I would just need to know exactly what you're looking for because if if you come to me and you have 10 acres and it's zoned appropriately, the way everything in place right now, if they meet the code, they're allowed to build on it. I mean, obviously, they have to submit construction plans. They have to get approvals, grading permits, have water and sewer availability. Without infrastructure, they can't build. But if there's infrastructure in the area and they can make it work from an engineering standpoint and they meet the letter of the code, we have to approve it.

All right. But you are you trying want to know how many and how soon it's going to be completed? I mean, no, I just I want a more, at least for myself, educated ability to be able to say, "Yes, we can see this project going forward, but we also know that we've already approved so and so how many projects?" We do have that. But basically, what she's saying is is if they approve it, you just say yes. Not necessarily. Necessarily. Yeah. Basically, [clears throat]

because how how do you turn it down there? Again, you got to figure out you got to know. You got to have a reason why you're turning it down. But then that opens up the discussion to okay, do we want to revisit the growth plan? Do we want to make amendments to to that growth plan? You've mentioned that before. That's up to this point. Exactly. So when you say our hands are tied right now because staff has said we recommend approval and it meets all of the guidelines. We have control over those guidelines through amendments in ordinances. Correct? Am I saying this correctly? To some extent to some degree.

But if they meet all the guidelines that we have laid out, we cannot deny something because there's too many being built. if they have if every if there's water, sewer, gas, every department meets it. You can't say no to something because there's too many in that area. And that's fine as long as everybody understands that. I feel like it's not and it's it's not pointing fingers or anything. I'm not saying that. Let's be clear. What I'm saying is you get uh you might have a conversation with someone in public or when I say you I just mean anybody in general. Uh we've seen that this board has gone through a lot of uh very controversial social media speaking uh developments that we've had to review and they may or may not have been received well or represented well to the public because people choose to share what information they share. And so I think, you know, if nothing else, it's our job to educate the people of Springfield and to at least let them know what goes behind our decisions, right? And sometimes, like even me, I'm learning as I am on this board. I'm not an expert of anything. Um, and sometimes, yeah, we do express like our hands feel tied or why can't we do this and why can't we do that? So, I think that's where I believe that's where my sentiment is coming from because I take this job seriously and I want to make sure that um as I believe everybody else here does that we're trying to make this [clears throat] city better and we don't want to develop too fast um and learn from the examples of other areas that have uh been affected by

such. So, that's it. I think I think that leaves us at me going to your office and trying to learn more and uh maybe [clears throat] fine-tuning my questions. All right. Tonight on 2.3 staff approved it. We deny and then the motion to deny it and it was voted on to deny if they're in place. This cat can come back and bring a lawsuit against us. And that's what y'all need to be aware of.

If he meets everything he's supposed to, and he did, and y'all voted him down, he can sue us. So why isn't this You got two no votes tonight. So why isn't that brought up during the discussion time? Because my staff recommendation was to approve because it met the growth plan. That's your disc. I'm sorry. That's your discussion. Yeah. It's not hers. She just brings forth the information as it's written. We're to discuss.

Okay. So why aren't we discussing it then? You can bring up the question. I mean any one of us can bring up questions were questions were brought up. Questions were asked, right? But are we saying we shouldn't be directing the questions to Carolyn? We should be directing it to each other. We're not saying that. I was asking. Okay. They say something about the house. It was in too good a shape to be torn down at this point. It's a good but what what what you're saying is that the 30 ft there and that house sitting there should have been approved. That should have been approved.

Okay. Even with the it needed what 58 ft to be built on with that even with the two you know it be 50 ft then you had to have another 8 ft there for the frontage of the offsets on here. It I'm asking it should have been approved because they recommended it and it was he was legal on everything he was wanting to do. It may never be torn down. It could just be sat there for the next 50 years. Okay. So, what you're saying it should have been approved if it sits there for the next 50 years. Yes. And nothing is built on it to be sure that he got a reasoning why he wanted that changed.

Okay. That's my point. I mean, that's my point. He's got a reasoning. It ain't just out of the blue. Mhm. That's my ward and that's my neighborhood over there. And and I didn't want to see that happen, but I [snorts] don't want to see the city get sued either. Well, no. We don't Can I make a statement?

In that situation, if you're going to make a denial, have a reason behind it. I deny because it is not feasible to do what the applicant would like to do regardless of the zoning. At least there's a a some sort of reasoning behind it rather than just a blanket. It maybe not. It is in the section of the code that talks about how many feet are required for a lot to exist to create a lot. So you have a little bit there, but the gentleman it wasn't enough to Good night.

Was Sala Gurgus, is he the owner? Yes. Well, I don't need to say anymore. We don't want him building anything. That's the bottom line. Let's be still in session. Yeah. Um if is there any further questions on the developer the director's report? If not motion to adjurnn. Need a motion to adjurnn. So move second.