Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Please stand for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you for attending tonight's Springfield Municipal Regional Planning Commission meeting, Thursday, September the 4th, 2025. Miss Marley, will you please call the role? Bagot here. Bib here. Boyd here. Briggs, Gray here, Morland here. Shot here. Thomas here.

Townsend here. Aer present. We have a quorum. Item 1.3, approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of the planning commission held on August 7th, 2025. So move second. All in favor? Any opposed item 1.4, public comment. This time I'd ask Ray Stewart of 5085th Avenue East, Springfield, Tennessee to please come to the microphone. You'll have two minutes to address the commission.

I'm Ray Stewart. We live at 508 Fifth Avenue East and have for over 10 years. Good evening, members of the planning commission and all others that are present. When 506, the subject of this hearing, was placed for sale and contracted and closed owned by Mr. PZA. It was always one parcel for one structure as it is today. Current zoning does not allow for two separate structures. One of our neighbors said to Janice and I, "The city is going to do what they want. They always do." I do not agree with that. All of our interactions with each department of the city have been exceptional. Our best interest and the city's best interest were done actually since 2013. You have the task of keeping the interest of the Springfield city and in first position. Then come the homeowners and taxpayers of Springfield when it comes to your fiduciary governance of real property. judgments. We desire for this action tonight to not set any bad president for Fifth Avenue. I'm not asking you to alter or to amend anything for me. Only one person has asked the city to change the outcome for them after the purchase was completed. Two minutes does not make allowance for all the facts to come out. We believe it's not in the south the Springfield city employees or elected or appointed city leadership to choose winners and losers here. How fine a person Ray and Janice or Marvin is has very little to do with this tonight. To make the owner of 506 Fth Avenue East a winner after the purchase may just make Springfield City and the rest of us well less than winners. Thank you. Um, at this time I call Janice Stewart to the microphone to speak.

Okay, that closes the public comment period. Item 2.1 under new business, discuss and possibly take action on a reszoning request for 506 5th Avenue East, map 080F, group C, parcel 024.00 000 from medium density residential district R10 to highdensity residential district R7 to allow the development of two single family detached homes. So I have a motion and a second to put this item on the floor. Have a second.

Second,

Mr. Good evening, commissioners. Our first item is a reszoning request for property at 506 Fth Avenue East. The request is to reszone from medium density residential district R10 to highdensity residential district R7 to allow development of two single family detached homes located on the north side of Fifth Avenue East between Brown Street and Mabel Street. The parcel is approximately 0.65 acres. The proposed reszoning to R seven is consistent with the comprehensive plan for growth and the current zoning of nearby properties, particularly those to the south. A change in zoning would allow the lot to be subdivided into two residential lots. While the split would result in lot widths that are narrower than many in the area, the total lot area for each would remain greater than most and thus the density would remain consistent with the area as a whole. Given the lot's proximity to the city's central core, per the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, growth in this area is encouraged. The comprehensive plan further notes that the development patterns in higher density residential areas provide for a more compact design that groups homes closer together with reduced setbacks. Significantly damaged by fire, the existing structure would require extensive repairs to be a safe and habitable residence. Redevelopment of the site with new housing is therefore appropriate and aligned with the city's long-term planning objectives. Staff recommends approval of the resoning request to R seven based on the following findings. Consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistency with the comprehensive plan, compatibility with surrounding zoning and uses, efficient use of land and infrastructure,

redevelopment of a damaged property, and support of city's goals. The planning commission is requested to recommend approval with or without amendments, not recommend the request providing specific reasons or defer action pending additional information. Here tonight to answer any specific questions is the applicant. Of course, I along with other city staff members are also available should you have anything specific you would like addressed. Caroline, is there a way to zoom zoom in?

Is there a way to zoom in on this one? I don't believe so. That's in a PowerPoint. These same maps were sent to you in your agenda packet. So, if you have your iPad and you have that available, you can zoom in. Um, I did put stars on them. So, the lot in question is starred. The top map is the current land or I'm sorry, is the current zoning map. The bottom map is the future land use map. This is the red, green, and Yeah. Okay. Yep. Okay. So, the one on the top you said that's the one that's the current current current zoning. The property that was reszoned recently. Um the one I think we saw last No, not last month. The month before.

Yeah. Is one of the yellow ones. So, it's in that same area. Okay. So my question would be because you mentioned here that current zoning of existing properties to the south would those already be R seven. Those are all R seven. Okay. And then but you said something about lot sizes. Can you So this lot is significantly larger than most in the area. In the area.

In the area. It's an R10 lot that the north side of Fifth Avenue is predominantly R10 until you get to you're going east to where Jasper Fields is, that's the neighborhood that's under construction. That one was zoned R seven. Those lots are significantly smaller. The lots that are north of the lots that front Fifth Avenue are also significantly smaller despite having the R10 zoning. My guess, and I'm sure Dave Brewer can uh confirm this, is that those were lots that were preceding the zoning ordinance, but they are much smaller.

Because I'm looking past Mabel Street, again, this is just bird's eyee view. They look like the lots are smaller. They are the street frontage is smaller as well. Behind it, would that be That's all R10. That's all R10. Even if the lots are smaller on Grace and Mabel. Mhm. So really, it's just that area between Brown and Mabel where the lots seem a little larger. That whole area is our everything is art. Despite what that zoning, what the bulk regulations of that zoning district require, some lots don't conform as much as you're used to seeing in a newer development.

Any other questions? Can we ask what square footage these houses are going to be? Yeah, if we could get the owner to come to the microphone, please. Whoever wants to speak. If you please state your name. If you please state your name. Marvin. My name is Marvin Paza. Mr. B. Can you tell us what square footage these are you proposed to be on these two houses? I propose to to build uh something between 17 and 2,000 square feet homes. Okay. per lot. Per lot. Yes, sir. Single story. Uh probably uh twotory homes.

Yes. Um Carolyn my my biggest concern and you know there again I don't have a really good dog in this hunt just because of of where I live but my my biggest concern is two two houses on a narrow lot with two addition with an additional driveway connection to 49 which is the major east thorough affair through the city of Springfield. Now, there are a lot of alternatives and I don't know whether the ordinance would allow if this is passed to require a single driveway connection where like much like Woodmont Boulevard, if you're familiar with Woodmont in Nashville, which is a major thorough affair as well, and they've had a lot of redevelopment of those those lots over there. And that is very in fact all of them have any any two houses that were put on a former single lot still have a one single highway or driveway connection.

Is that what something that we can require or is it in is it allowed? It is allowed at the lot that's there now has a shared driveway access agreement with the lot to the west. So that one would remain because the driveway access is already there. So potentially he would only be asking for one new driveway. Um but it is allowed that he could do another agreement. I don't know from an engineering standpoint what the configuration would look like. I don't know. So there is one joint driveway already to the state to the west. Yeah, it's right here.

Yeah. So it serves these two houses right now. Now, that that's my biggest concern of narrowing lots up and having additional access. U especially the ones that think they don't have any other room to park on their property and then they want to back out into into Fifth Avenue, which is extremely dangerous, especially with Do you have a comment about the school? School traffic. You have examples of that inside the city on 17th Avenue. There was a property I got divided into three homes out there

who required that

it was actually it works well though I've seen it and I'm I'm I'm along with Mr. field. If this passes, there does not need to be another entrance cut into 49. That needs to all come from one. What about the uh I mean it's a it's a very deep lot in comparison to its width. So, what are the plans for the property behind where the act or how far back will the houses go on the site plan? Uh I had tried to push it a little little farther than where it is right now. Probably another another 10 10 more feet uh away from the houses right now to make a little more room for for parking at that what I think.

But and what about parking? Will there be any proposed uh enclosed parking or will it all be onsite parking outside? uh would be uh twocar garage in in uh the house had to be twocar garage each house on the side of each house or in the back. No uh you know uh uh attached garage I mean in the in the front of the property. In the front in the front of the property. Yes. In the front. Yes. Because uh with this you know with the setbacks I don't really have enough room to go on on side. you know, we be in front of the house.

Well, my I thought the only comment I've got is is the access and accessing Fifth Avenue with a very extreme net potential narrow lot. I think it's I think it's very dangerous. Um especially right there because you got that little that sight the sight distance is not the best in the world coming from where Mabel Street is. Did I hear someone say you're going to reduce the setback on the reduce the setback? Did I hear that?

There was no request to re to reduce the setback. The R seven setbacks are different than the R10. So there was not a request to have an accompanying variance though. So probably the houses will actually sit further back than what the front setback would require of the R seven. The R seven front setback is only 25 ft. Okay. So I know the the house as it sits now is further than 25 ft.

Is there any way to reconfigure what you're doing and put your parking in the back because the lots are deep. Like I I'm not 49 is such a busy highway in the mornings and the afternoons, midday for that matter, and you you putting cars right up on the street. I I think it's going to be an issue. Something that's Could you do something like that with the one driveway? Uh yeah, we can do that to uh get a parking that way they can uh um find you. That way there no problem to come back to the the main highway main I mean main fifth avenue.

Could we ask for a I mean this is this is significant and could we ask for a potential layout but of how the houses are going to look on the site like a mini site plan? I know we're not required to look at a site plan necessarily on this right now. But before we before we act on this change of zoning, request that we get a a site layout of how the just a footprint, maybe an elevation or something of how the houses are going to sit on the lot along with the parking and a combined driveway.

I mean, you can ask to defer for additional information. So, I think that's that is an option. I make a motion to defer. Second. Well, you need to state what you want. Okay. So, we want we want to defer until we can see what would be the semantics of that. Just a layout, a preliminary layout of what the homes would look like, where the driveway would be, and where the garages would be. What's the short way? I don't think we can ask for what the homes are going to look like, but we can ask how they're going to sit on the lot. On the lot.

There we go. that that's going to affect zoning. And then I'll just kind of get a a print of of how it could potentially look and how the driveway situation and the parking could be because you're making a significant change to an existing one. Is that Yes. So you got Mr. Bib made a motion. Actually, Miss Moore made the motion. I'll second the house. Yeah. Now we're ready for a vote. All right. So this is for a deferred. Deferred. All right. Briggs, yes. Thomas, yes. Boyd, yes. Fib, yes. Shot, yes. Bagot,

yes. Townsen, yes. Gray, yes. Lorlin, yes. Passes with nine. And she'll be back next month. Item 2.2, two, discuss and possibly take action on a site plan for the new wastewater treatment plant. Have a motion and a second. Put this item on the floor. So move. So move. Second. Mr. Durham.

Okay. Our second item on tonight's agenda is the site plan for the new wastewater treatment plant. The applicant, Griggs and Maloney Incorporated, on behalf of the city of Springfield, has submitted a site plan for the development of a new wastewater treatment plant on the 66 acre parcel located at 530 Lawrence Lane. The project represents a critical public infrastructure investment intended to replace aging facilities and to ensure adequate capacity for current and future wastewater treatment needs within the city of Springfield and the urban growth boundary. The proposed design accommodates projected population and industrial growth consistent with the city's comprehensive plan objectives to proactively manage utility infrastructure in support of anticipated development. The site plan includes primary treatment structures, associated process equipment, administrative and operational buildings, internal circulation drives, and utility connections. Buffers and setbacks have been incorporated into the design to minimize off-site impacts. Access to provide access is provided from Lawrence Lane and the layout has been coordinated with city departments to ensure traffic circulation and emergency service access are adequately addressed. Staff recommends approval of the site plan contingent upon all remaining staff concerns being adequately addressed prior to the issuance of permits. The planning commission is requested to recommend approval with or without amendments, not recommend the request, providing specific reasons or defer action pending additional information. City staff along with a representative from Griggs and Maloney are here to answer any specific questions.

Anyone have any questions for any of the staff or Griggs and Maloney? Will the existing plant be utilized at all or will it be once it's once the the expansion is done? I mean, will the existing plant be part of the expansion or will it go away after the existing plant is not going to be abandoned? It will no longer be in service. It will be abandoned. Yes, sir. And that and that space will be utilized for

uh for construction for some different components that we have there, Ben. Uh but uh existing building, the main office building, there's a couple things to remain, but for the most part, it's a different process and that'll all be uh done away with, filled in things to there. So, no, it won't be operational at all up until the day that it's vacated. Yeah, that's kind of what I thought this motion to approve. Second. All right. Briggs, yes. Thomas, yes. Boyd, yes. Bib, yes. Shot, yes. Bagot, yes. Townsen, yes. Greg, yes.

Morland, yes. Passes with nine. Item 3.0. Other and old business. Mur.

Okay. Um closing out tonight's agenda by providing a brief update on some of the things that I have been working on over the past month. First of all, we do have a BZA meeting uh next week. There has been one property submitted for a minimum front setback or minimum building setback depending on how you're looking at it. In this case, they're kind of one in the same um request to reduce that on a property on North Main Street. Uh there will be three amendments coming or three ordinances coming to you next month. One defines substantial submission. So I've talked about this in the past. When a set of plans comes into my office, we need to define what date essentially the plans get submitted because the new state law regulates vesting periods with the date of submission. So that kind of starts the clock ticking. Um, the ordinance is going to state that when the review fee is paid, the day we get the check, that's going to be because I won't accept a set of plans that are not complete enough to review. So, you're going to see that. Then, we're going to do some code updates to change the vesting period to match state law. Um, some of the zoning ordinance still says one year, so we just need to update it so it says three years cons like consistently throughout the document. And then just in the last couple of days, we've had a business owner on Main Street make a request that we extend the Sidewalk Cafe Overlay District to accommodate some businesses that are further down um toward Central. I'm not exactly sure how far that will go. Right now, it only goes to Seventh, so it could potentially go to ETH or potentially to Thomas. So, we're going to look at that, but that ordinance will come before you because that's a change to the zoning ordinance. uh training videos. I am working through watching those so I can send those out. If you

want another in-person training, everybody here has had their two hours except Miss Boyd. She's 100% done. So, she got all four overachiever.

I've got paperwork for her to sign off on. So, she is done. Um if you want to have a work session about anything, just let me know and I can coordinate that. Two notable approvals in the last month. Lookout crossing phase one civil construction plans were approved. We have a pre-construction meeting later this week. And then as of today, the Panera site plan was approved um by all city departments and then we'll have to coordinate getting the pre-construction meeting for that one as well. But I know that in both cases they are ready to really get started. Three submitts for next month. Summit view phase two. Some property on the south side. it's going to require an amendment to their uh planned unit development. So, a PUD amendment. And then there's the request for the zoning on that particular property to match the rest of the pud at R seven. Um I think it was either March or April, John Warner was in and annexed some property on William Batson Parkway and Highway 41. He has now purchased another piece of property contiguous with that and brought that forth for annexation. that's across the street from Lookout Crossing. And then one small lot at 501 Highland Street that is currently zoned commercial. There is a mobile home on the property and they would like to remove the mobile home and put a single family home, but because of the zoning, they're not allowed to do that. So, they're requesting a reszone back to R seven to facilitate construction of a single family home. But those are all the big things that are kind of going on in our offices upstairs besides building permits and construction. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Otherwise, that's all I've got for you.

Any further questions for this room? I have a motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion. I'll make a motion to Oh, I thought you made I did this the last time, too. I'm sorry.