Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Will you please stand for the pledge algiance 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. [Music] Good evening. Thank you for coming to the Springfield Municipal Regional Planning Commission Thursday, October the 2nd, 2025. Miss Marley, you call the role, please. Baggot here. Bib here. Boyd here. Briggs here. Greg here. Morland. Shot

here. Thomas here. Townsen here. Ader present. We have a quorum. Real quick, if everyone would reme remember to speak into your microphone so that everyone can hear. Item 1.3, approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of the planning commission held on September 4th, 2025. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Item 2.0, O public comment period. During this time, you will have a you'll have two minutes to address the planning commission. When I call your name, if you'll come to the microphone and state your name and address, and you will have two minutes at that time. Elizabeth Welch.

Hello. Okay. So, I think my address is 501 Highland. So, we'll just go with that. All right. So, when we purchased the lot, we were told it could be used for a home, and that has been our intent from the beginning. So, rezoning allows us to follow through on that plan in a way that benefits the neighborhood and the city. So, we were told even though it's not conforming, as long as we didn't take up more than 40% of the lot, um we could probably do something with it. And so that's why we bought it because we, you know, we're hoping to do that. Um, next thing, this also will improve the community. Right now, it has a trailer on it, which the city has encouraged us to remove. So, our plan is to replace it with a single family home, and that's something permanent, attractive, and consistent with the neighborhood. So, we would ditch the trailer. The lot is surrounded by residential homes, and most of them are rentals. So reszoning to residential would bring the property into alignment with the neighborhood. Um while the lot is technically zoned commercial, there are some challenges for us if we were to try to do anything commercial. So it's already not conforming um for residential or commercial. So that's, you know, but I was hoping that we could still do something with the lot. But the problem is it's not on the main highway. It's on a side road. It sits behind and beside other residential houses. Um, and then there's no room for parking. So, it's just a really weird lot. If we were to have to do something commercial on it, I'm not sure how. It's just very unattractive, not desirable, and not safe really if you wanted to have a commercial thing going just because there's no parking and getting in and out off that side road is super tight. So, it would just make more sense for that particular area if we could just ditch the trailer and put a residential house and just have it just a permanent structure. Um, and then it would just

look nicer because trailers are trailers. Um, so in summary, it's not it's not very well suited for a commercial use. Um, yeah. So, if we could just do residential. You're on the agenda. Yes. So, you'll have an opportunity to speak when your item comes up on the agenda. Oh, this wasn't the time to do this. There's your public comment. Well, we don't have to do again. Yeah, it's you get that same opportunity again the questions come up. Okay. Well, I probably won't come back up. You just remember remember all that.

Mr. Welch,

Ray Stewart, 508 5th Avenue East, Springfield, Tennessee. Thank you. It's good to be here. Good to see you again. Um I'm Ray Stewart, Janice Stewart. We live at 508 Fifth Avenue East and have for over 10 years. Bought it 12 years ago. Worked on it for two years till we got ready to sell a house in Goodletsville and move up. I'm not yet convinced. Uh it does not sound like all the commissioners or the city staff is convinced either that T DOT is going to approve this. And if they will not, then this resoning goes nowhere. T DOT gives special focus on lots being subdivided that are within city limits on their state routes where the additional driveway cuts are being requested. Couple more points tonight. It's helpful to go back and listen to a recording of a meeting for a couple reasons. One, you pick up more than you did when you were listening the first pass. The second you hear what was not said or not stated verbally the first time from that. Let's go back and revisit lot sizes mentioned on September the 4th. I'm not sure I heard the subject lot at 506 Fth Avenue East is only 103 feet wide at present. So two lots divided on that 103 foot wide lot are 51 ft and some inches wide. 51 foot and some inches falls somewhere between your door and before I get to you. That's how that's how wide the lot will be for the proposed resoning. I just received my lot sketch yesterday, but you may want to jot those two numbers down on it if they're not clear. 103 wide and 51 wide. In this perspective, we should be uh comparing not the lot that is present at 506 today, but we should be comparing it to

uh other lots on the street after they are 51 ft wide of actual properties on the 500 and 600 block of Fifth Avenue East. Uh you will find that many uh in that grouping will average between 90 ft wide and 100 ft wide today. Ours is about 140t wide, but I appreciate your time again. Thank you. Thank you. Josh Lion, Clover Engineering. Thank you. Let's try to make this as quick as possible. I'm speaking on behalf of just from an engineering standpoint for land development since we've done so much work here in Springfield and I know the parking regulation is coming up specifically for residential development and uh just kind of reviewing that. Um, I did an evaluation of our surrounding cities to see what approximately they use and typically they are split up into single family lots, attached and detached, multifamily, uh, town homes. Uh, but most of all, most of them are two parking stalls per unit. Now, granted, if you get a four-bedroom house or something larger, then they require more, but typically that's a standard. And I know parking is a point of concern, especially in these residential areas. And one thing I want to bring up is a lot of these municipalities do not allow parking within the garages to count. Now, if it's a single family lot in a regular subdivision, typically the driveways are big enough to accommodate two to four u uh cars. And we probably all seen that a lot of people who have garages don't use them particularly for cars themselves. I think this will probably come more into play in the smaller developments such as town homes uh where they're counting the garage and the driveway and then you're short parking because the garage is full as a storage unit. So I think uh from my recommendation or stipulation, you know, talking with staff is not to greatly increase the requirement for the number

of parking stalls required per unit, but to look at excluding garages being counted toward that uh because that would really help. Also, a lot of these municipalities such as um Gallatin and Clarksville will even put in a stipulation for visitor parking, which could be one per four units, one per five units. You can kind of set that however you would like, but visitor parking is always important as well. So, I believe excluding garages and in incorporating visitor parking within those calculations would be more beneficial than continually increasing two and a half, three and a half parking stalls per unit. Thank you, Josh. Thank you,

Janette West, 610 Fifth Avenue East, Springfield, Tennessee. Um, I'm having issues. I'm 505 and I've been told I'm locked in. I can't get out. Um, so what do I do? I reservey. Um, let's just go from there. I can't get out. Item 3.0, public hearing. The plan of service for She passed. Did she? She did.

Item 3.0, No. Public hearing plan of service for property located on William Batson Parkway map 103 parcel 173.0. Does anyone wish to speak on this matter? Public hearing is closed. 4.0 new business. 4.1 discuss and possibly take action on an annexation plan of service and zoning request to MRO for property located on William Batson Parkway map 103 parcel 173.00 Durham.

Good evening commissioners. Agenda items 4.1 and 4.2 2 will be presented together as they both relate to property owned by John Warner. The first request 4.1 is for annexation and zoning of approximately 4.94 acres located along William Batson Parkway. That tract is currently outside of the city limits but is contiguous to the municipal boundary and falls within Springfield's urban growth boundary. The request is to annex this property into the city and zone it multiple residential and office district MRO. The second request 4.2 concerns a portion of the same parcel. However, this portion of the parcel fronts Highway 41. This area is approximately 0.52 acres. While it's already within the city limits, it is currently zoned agriculture. The applicant is requesting to reszone this track to also to MRO in order to provide consistency with the larger development plan. These requests are part of the property owner's broader plan to develop a community that will include both single family detached homes and single family attached homes. Based on discussions with the applicant, the previously annexed property to the east will be developed with detached single family homes. It's the portion that's showing on the bottom of the screen. That's actually the east side. While the newly annexed and reszoned portion will primarily support the attached units, that area up on the top of the sketch is where this portion of the property is that he's wanting to include tonight. For context, in May of this year, the board of mayor and alderman approved annexation and zoning of the adjacent 10.98 acre parcel, also owned by Mr. Warner, that's also zoned MRO. That approval established the foundation for this larger residential community. Together, these properties will create a contiguous development area that supports Springfield's housing goals,

growth management strategies, and infrastructure planning efforts. The Springfield comprehensive growth plan identifies this area as appropriate for medium-density residential development, which is consistent with the requested MRO zoning designation. A plan of services has been prepared and reviewed. It confirms that the city can provide municipal services to the property, though any required improvements for water, sewer, or electric extensions will be the responsibility of the developer. Staff finds that these requests are consistent with the growth plan, supportive of the city's goals to expand housing opportunities and provide for orderly urban growth, and it's compatible with the May 2025 board of mayor and alderman approval of the adjacent tract. Uh for these reasons, staff recommends approval of both the annexation and zoning of the 4.94 acres on Batson Parkway as well as the reszoning of the 0.52 acres along Highway 41. Both to MRO. Happy to answer any questions you have. Additionally, Josh Lion is here representing the um applicant who could not be present tonight.

Okay. I I failed to get a motion in a second to bring that up. Could we go? Do we have a motion and a second to discuss? Motion. Second. Second. Okay. Does anybody have any further questions on on 4.1 and 4.2?

I do actually. Mike, go ahead. No, you got it. the uh the long sliver that goes all the way up to 41. Is that going to be an outlet, another entrance based on what I'm looking at on the property map? Looking at the sketch, Josh, do you want to answer this? Yeah, I can.

I'll let Josh speak on behalf of the sketch. Um, so the sliver bob is coming right up the back side of all these properties right up against the cemetery. And so no, we will not have any access point there. It' be more centered on the currently zoned in our own larger parcel that's in there. It's the sliver that's in the city with AG2 in there. There's the sliver in this portion that's outside the city that's petitioned to be reszoned to MRO in that makes this all MRO gets rid of that sliver of everything. So property lines will be all combined into a single track. Yeah. Once it's all said and done.

Yeah. To a normal subdivision. Any further questions for Miss Durham or Mr. Lions?

Have a motion. We have a second to approve. Second. I made a move. Ready for a vote. Rigs? Yes. Thomas? Yes. Boy, yes. Bib, yes. Shot, yes. Bagot, yes. Townsen, yes. Greg, yes. Passes with eight. Item 4.3, discuss and possibly take action on South Meat section five, subdivision plat map 102. You have to vote. Okay.

I presented them together, but they're too. That's my fault. Um, same motion. Same motion from second. Second. Okay. So, Bib and Briggs. Yeah. Okay. Mor Bib, yes. Boyd, yes. Thomas, yes. Shot, yes. Bagot, yes. Greg, yes. Townsen, yes. Briggs, yes. Passes with eight. Now, we'll try 4.3. Mhm.

Discuss and possibly take action on Southmeid section 5 subdivision plaque map 102C group B parcel 042.00. Do we have a motion and a second to put this on the floor? So move. Second. M Durham.

Item 4.3 is the final plat for section five of the Southme subdivision. The applicant is requesting approval to create four new lots at the end of Harding Place where a new culde-sac will be built to finish out the street. Each of the lots meets the minimum size requirements for the R15 zoning district and all will be served by public utilities. The design has been reviewed by staff and found to be consistent with the city subdivision regulations. Because all requirements have been met, staff recommends approval of the Southme section 5 final plat. Happy to answer any questions. Uh Steve Arts, the surveyor, is also here this evening if you have questions.

Any questions for Mr. or Mr. Arts?

Motion to approve. Second shot. Yes, Thomas. Yes, Greg. Yes, Bib. Yes, Bagot. Yes, Briggs. Yes, Townsend. Yes, Floyd. Yes. Passes with eight. Item 4.4. Discuss and possibly take action on Robertson Cheetum Farmers Co-op subdivision plat map 092, parcel 154.00 00 and map 103 parcel 013.0. Do we have a motion and a second?

Motion. Second, M. Durham.

Item 4.4 is the Roberts and Chetum Farmers Co-op Subdivision Plat. The request before you is to re to approve a replat of lot 7 and a final plat for three additional lots creating lots 7 through 10. Lot seven and eight are vacant parcels with no existing buildings. Lot nine is just under three acres and contains an existing building and parking. And lot 10 is a little over an acre in size and also has an existing building. Um the existing buildings on lots nine and 10 do not fully conform with current zoning requirements. However, this plat will clarify the property boundaries, establish formal lot lines, and make future redevelopment or utility service more straightforward. Staff has reviewed the plat and found it generally compliant with subdivision regulations. There are a few outstanding comments. We're asking for staff or for planning commission approval contingent on all of those final comments being addressed. That it has been submitted. We just have not finished the review. So, it will not be recorded until all staff comments are addressed. Again, I'm happy to answer any questions as well as Mr. Arts is here.

I mean, they're looking at putting houses on it. Is that what he's That's not my understanding. Mr. Arch, do you want to address that? You probably be better those. Yeah.

What what Mr. Com is trying to do is just separate the old fertilizer building, the co-op building, and then the uh uh old tire uh shop. That's that's literally it. I think Demetri might have a buyer for one of the buildings, but Mr. Combmes doesn't want to sell the the tire shop or the diesel repair. So, everything's just kind of kind of supposed to stay like it is. The comments uh mostly I believe was Terry Beers uh had a couple notes about if if in the future uh we need to come across a highway to tie into water or whatever if it's developed in some nature, he want me to add a note on that. And then the sewer line. Uh, we had a time trying to figure out where the sewer was.

I could see exactly where it said, but again, he wanted me to add a note about just to make sure that any developer would have to pay any expense for the water and sewer or gas. And the way I worded it would be electric as well and not not be the responsibility of the city. So the lot on on both sides of the drainage area he's not doing anything with right now. Demetri might can tell you but I don't I don't know that. And that was part of this replac you know the the old lot seven ran all the way across the ditch. So we just we split that and made the ditch the line.

Do you know what the intentions are with with those lots? Well, one baggage uses for grain and you don't want somebody to buy it and maybe kick baggots out of being able to use that. And then you don't undoubtedly the people anyway. He don't want to do anything to mess up. He's got great people that's down there with the diesel shop. So, he don't want to mess them up. He's trying to if he's going to sell something, he don't want to mess his neighbors up as the bottom line. Right. We just get all that runoff water. So I just curious about what was fixed to happen. So

and that is one thing that Clayton we made sure that on that existing ditch originally I had like 30 ft. Clayton and I talked we widen that easement out to like 60 ft where there's plenty of room to get in there if it you know anything ever needs to happen. Right. Thank you. Any further questions? I have a motion. Second. Okay. Greg, yes. Thomas, yes. Boyd, yes. Bib, yes. Bagot, yes. Townsen, yes.

Briggs, yes. Shot, yes. Passes with eight. Item 4.5, discuss and possibly take action on Glen View Estate subdivision plaque map 092 I group A parcels 031 032 and 033. Do we have a motion and a second? So move. Second,

Mr. Durham. Item 4.5 is a replplat within Glen View Estates. This request involves reorganizing three existing parcels into two more functional lots. One lot identified as 7A will be about 3/4 of an acre and will include two existing structures. That's the lot on the left. The second lot 7B will be a little under 1 acre and will include one existing home. This replot replat, I'm sorry, simplifies the layout by reducing the number of lots and redistributing the land between them. Before this was presented, the back portion or the northern portion of that lot, there was another lot that sat there and they're just splitting it between the two. Staff has reviewed the plan and found it to be consistent with our regulations. Like the last one, there's a few outstanding comments that we're asking for approval contingent on those being addressed before it gets recorded. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. This is also from Mr. Arts's office, so he would probably be able to answer questions as well.

Any questions for either one of Mr. or Mr. Arts?

What are the outstanding comments again? The one I remember this one was very minor. Yeah. U Miss Sandy wanted me to add uh there's electric catches that corner right there and she wanted me to make sure I had an instant there. That was a bad idea. I think that was it. But you're showing that's showing on here, right? Yes. We've gotten the new plaque back. It's been redistributed to staff. I just haven't gone in and checked because it just gets in there and we get it done within two weeks. So, I'll be honest. It's probably So, basically, the comments have been addressed.

Probably. Yes. I will say it is very likely they have been. I'll make a motion to approve based on all comments being complete. Okay. Right. Shot. Yes. Briggs. Yes. Townsen, yes. Bagot, yes. Bib, yes. Floyd, yes. Thomas, yes. Greg, yes. Passes with eight.

Item 4.6, discuss and possibly take action on 107 Mimosa Drive, subdivision flat, map 080F, group E, parcel 031. Do we have a motion and a second? Motion second. Miss Durham.

Item 4.6 is a replat for property at 107 Mimosa Drive. This comes to you with a little bit of history. Earlier this year, construction was discovered on the property that had not been properly permitted. When permits were applied for, it was found that the addition being built encroached the rear the required rear setback. A variance request was submitted to the board of zoning appeals, but unfortunately it was denied. Since then, the property owner has acquired additional land to resolve the issue, and this replat reflects that correction. By approving this replat, the property will be brought back into compliance, and the setback issue will be resolved. Staff has reviewed the plat and found it acceptable. This is the updated, revised plat based on staff comments being addressed. Um staff recommends approval and that's what we're asking for.

You're saying that now that it has been permitted. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. So I'm going to walk over here to show you. This one's a little confusing. So this house that sits here, their property line actually runs diagonally right here. So they are I take it back. It ran That's not showing where it was. This diagonal is where they want it to go. That diagonal will allow them to Sorry. The diagonal is where it was. This new line is where they want it to be. It's a little confusing. Essentially, they were making sure they had 30 ft off of the back of the house so that addition would sit within the required setback. It was built think they thought they knew where their property line was and didn't check it before the addition started. So this is just correcting that they were able to work with the property owner behind them to acquire the necessary land. Okay.

Just just out of curiosity, what was the encroachment on the setback? It's like 20 ft approximately. 15 or 20 feet. Sorry, this came before this the zoning board and um you know we denied it and asked that they go back and work with the property owners to replat it to meet the subdivision regulation came before the appeal board. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So it was a 20ft encroachment

approximately. Yes. They really thought based on where their tree line was, where their property line was. And it wasn't until codes went out, codes found the the violation, they went back out to work with them on getting the building permit and realized how far into their setback they were, but the addition had already been made. It had Yes. At that point, it was mostly done. Okay. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. Great. Uh, Bagot, yes. Townsend, yes. Briggs, yes. Shot, yes. Greg, yes. Thomas, yes. Boyd, yes.

Fib, yes.

Passes with eight. Item 4.7, discuss and possibly take action on a resoning request from Commercial General CG to Highdensity Residential District R7 for 501 Highland Street, map 080K, Group E, parcel 004.00. Unfortunately, I'm missing a lot of pages that were in here, but you all have all of the information on your iPad. So, you have the same information that's in the presentation. I'm not sure where those pages went.

Do we have a motion and a second to bring this item to the floor? So, move second. Miss Durham,

I'm going to apologize for the presentation. I have no idea what happened from getting upstairs to downstairs today. Uh, agenda item 4.7 is the reasonzoning request for property located at 501 Highland Street. Um, you heard from Miss Welch earlier this evening. The property is currently zoned commercial general and contains a single wide mobile home. The applicants are proposing to remove that mobile home and replace it with a traditional single family house. While the desire to improve the property is certainly understandable, staff identified several concerns with this request. First, our comprehensive growth plan designates this area for commercial use. Reszoning it to residential would be inconsistent with that adopted plan and could limit the potential for future commercial opportunities in this area. Second, the property itself is undersized for the zoning being requested. It's only about 5,700 square ft, which is below the minimum lot size required in the R seven district. Approving the resoning would create a non-conforming situation that could lead to long-term issues. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the resoning request for 501 Highland Street. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. And additionally, the property owners are here this evening.

Yes, sir. Was this property part of the building that sits on Fifth Avenue at one time? Not to my understanding. I believe it's always been a separate parcel, but I the building in front of it has the same zoning. I'm familiar with this area and it's uh it's of no value as commercial. There's a tobacco warehouse that sits beside it

and everything else around it is is residential other than the building that sits on Fifth Avenue. uh taking the trailer away is going to clean up the area and putting a house there is going to make it better for sure. Unfortunately, that's inconsistent. The staff recommendation is to not approve because of the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. That area was identified as commercial. Do you do you know is there a residential zoning district that with the current size that it would meet?

No. there in that area in particular, there's a lot of lots that are undersized that would have been lots of record that were there long before the zoning was. Yeah.

Yeah. I think uh you know, my concern is maybe it not meeting the existing zoning standards. Um I can see um in an instance with the comprehensive plan as being on a boundary that there may be some you know wiggle room because it is clearly kind of notched out between you know a commercial and a residential transition. Um I guess I'm just I'm more concerned about it meeting the the the zoning standards for today for a residential lot. Well, having a piece of land that you can't use is uh kind of sad when somebody needs a home.

It was sized enough for the trailer, but it's not if they take the trailer away, it still wouldn't be if they remove the trailer, they cannot put the trailer back. It It is not allowed in that district. It wouldn't be allowed in an R seven district either. Any other comments? I'm I'm going to call Mr. Martin for his thoughts on this. Sure.

This is one of those unique situations, unintended consequences created by the comp plan. Right. So, it's it's it's kind of impossible. We went through that whole comprehensive growth plan process to identify parcel by parcel by parcel, you know, where those lines and boundaries need to be. Now, that was an 18-month or whatever it was, 14-month process, but that was it. It's kind of impossible to go through parcel by parcel. This is what results from that. We've got a few of those. Um, I understand what Alderman Gragg is is saying as a result. You know, removing the trailer would help the city, right? It cleans up the city. Uh, and I'm not getting into Mr. Briggs your comments about whether or not it could meet because that's a whole a whole different issue of when you got I don't know how I'm not that familiar with the lot particularly, but I think it's probably less than 7,000 square ft, right? So, we're going to have setback issues. We've got a whole another, you know, obstacle to overcome there. What I would I mean, Mr. Chairman, my my opinion is if you all wanted to do something with this, I would ask that you not. So, first, Miss Durham's in a box, right? Because as a staff, we cannot recommend that you violate the comp plan, right? So, that's why she recommends that you don't approve it. What I would recommend or my my opinion would be that if you want to do something and act on this, let's fix the comp plan, right? So, we amend the comprehensive growth plan which frees everybody up to make it consistent with the comp plan. We don't need to reszone a lot that's inconsistent with the comp plan because what happens after that is you have somebody else showing up next month

and then you have somebody else showing up the month after that. So, we did a comprehensive growth plan. We all agreed that we were going to stick to it and commit to it. Let's do that. But let's identify where there might be mistakes, right? Because again, it's impossible to go through parcel by parcel. And I believe this might be a consequence of that if that makes any sense. Mr. Rick made a statement that, you know, to have land that you can't do anything with. Are there any type of recommendations or any type of anything that could possibly go there? Nothing. Anything that goes there. Now, I think it's own commercial general. Is that right? Commercial services. Commercial services. It's Oh, commercial general. I'm sorry.

Okay. So we've we've got it boils down to this too, y'all. We've got a 206 year old city, right? So we've got 206 year old problems. Uh you know, cities like White House, Mount Juliet, uh Brentwood, some of those cities that are 50 years old, they don't have these issues. But cities like Springfield and Lebanon and Colombia and Franklin, we have these issues because when that lot was created, presumably, and I'm going to take I'm just going to make a guess because we run into this a lot. when that lot was created, there were no zoning regulations. Right. Right.

So that was before land use planning and zoning, you know, probably became a real a thing that it is now. So I I think you, as I mentioned a minute ago, you've got a whole other issue to kind of encounter as it relates to a sub7,000 foot lot meeting setbacks for a building, right? But for purposes of just the zoning issue, which is before this body tonight, that's what I would recommend. So, in sorry, in carrying this forward, I guess if if we amend the uh comprehensive plan to kind of bring the zoning request in line, it's still a lot that is substandard. So, are they going to need to go to the board of zoning appeals to get any permitting or

potentially? It would really depend on whether or not they could fit their structure within the setbacks, right? Without having a survey, without seeing what that looked like, it's hard to say. Sure, it's a lot of record. So, the size would not be an issue so much. But how those setbacks apply to what's there and will that work with what they want to put there, I don't have that information to answer that question.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, my my question or my it's not I mean this is a a tough situation. There's no doubt about it. U you got an individual who has spent money to buy something they thought was going to they were going to live there. Is there you know we got plenty of dwellings in the city as far as I can tell by driving around and looking because they've got signs in front of them that were former residential buildings. people used to live in them, especially up and down Fifth Avenue that have all turned into commercial. So why can you not build a a building on the commercial lot, build it to commercial standards and live in it and then at some point in time it could turn around and be used for commercial purposes under appeal.

The commercial zonings in our city don't allow residential use. So if you were to build a building on a commercially zoned property right now, she's fine. That property is fine because that structure is existing. Understand that that's not helping her a bit. No, because she don't want to live in that trail.

And and this is a unique situation and it is unfortunate in the sense of she is trying to do something for that community, but it does go against the comprehensive plan that was adopted by this board. But if let's say she built a commercial building, she vacates the trailer that's there, removes it from the property, builds a commercial building. By code, you can't live in a commercial building. It does not allow residential use. That's under appeal.

I don't believe I'd have to research that to be honest if that would even be something that could be appealed to the BCA. I've seen what I've done that would answer an issue. It would take care of an issue. Build it under commercial zone, go to appeals board under appeal and live in it until such time. Who knows? Somebody's liable to come in there. If that lot in front all of a sudden gets redeveloped, then her lot becomes a real attractive lot for or a building for commercial use. It's already all commercial. same issue she has with the setbacks she would have with that being redeveloped commercially as well. In fact, it would probably exacerbate the issue because the setbacks are larger for commercial than they are for residential.

Who owns the lot behind? Does anybody know does she do you know in front on Fifth Avenue? No, it would be there's an alley in between. It's a separate lot on the I don't recall who the owner of of that property is. I know they were notified, but I don't recall the names of all the adjacent property owners. I know Miss West is the property owner to the west and diagonally to the northwest.

Is your property that vacant lot is that 505? 505 and 501 used to be one lot. The lady the lady um died the only lady in 505 and she wielded 501 to Miss Cat Walker. That Walker being a single lady lived there for a number of years in the trailer. Yes. And then she died and it was later sold. But I'm not kidding.

Something's wrong.

It has no access.

Other than the alleyways that have never been used, never been open, never been closed. based on the property map that I'm looking at, Mr. City Manager. Yes, sir. What happens if we if we try to change this plan a little bit? Is that should that be a no no or a growth plan to to make something like this happen?

Yeah. coming up to Mike for purposes of the recording of the of the meeting. You do not want to get into the business of changing the comprehensive growth plan land use future land use map every time somebody comes and asks, right? Otherwise, what's the point in getting all the public input that we got uh for where we want to grow and how we want to grow and what was the point? What I'm advocating for with regard to that is correcting mistakes, right? If there's something that's inadvertent, you look at 501 Highland, you look at Highland Street, and and why would there why would it be contemplated the the way things are today and and presumably looking forward 20 years into the future, which is what our comprehensive growth plan looks at. Why would why would the city why would the planning commission the board the city staff and the city officials want to see commercial grow a commercial development on 501 Highland? Right. We don't.

Correct.

Right. I mean that's not that's not a good location for commercial. It'd be terrible for tra you know it' be terrible for traffic. It'd be terrible for So that's something that was some somehow another some zoning along the way grouped that parcel in and it got grouped in. Um, I'm saying this might be an opportunity to fix that. Now, I think there are issues that I'm hearing again raised tonight with regard to neighbor access, which would have to be handled between the property owners and and that sort of thing. And then you've got setback issues. I was, Mr. Bib, I was looking in the zoning ordinance to see if if something if if a use an unallowable use is something that the BZA has the authority under our zoning ordinance. I know some cities it might, some counties it might. I'm not sure that ours allows it, but that's I was looking for that because that might be an avenue, right? Uh if our board of zoning appeals has the authority granted to it to to give a use in a zoning classification that is not otherwise allowed, right, which residential is not allowed in commercial services or commercial general. It is in core commercial, which is your downtown district, but it's not allowed in the what we call our primary commercial zoning classifications. So that would Mr. Greg, to answer your question, no, I do not advocate getting in the business of amending the comp plan for the sake of making somebody happy or or you know that. I'm saying that if you look at it objectively, this lot probably shouldn't be zoned commercial. We're locked into keeping it commercial because the comprehensive growth plan designates it that way because they kind of took they kind of took parcels that were and that were not again didn't go parcel by parcel. So when we find these things I recommend fixing them. H

how do we I don't want to say write the wrong but how do we go about fixing this situation?

Yeah. I don't know anybody did anything wrong. You didn't do this board didn't do anything wrong. The board of mayor al didn't do anything wrong. It's it's we I don't know how many thousands of parcels of land there are in the city of Springfield, right? But but it's just the way that wind up. I think we you bring an amendment back to this body next month and amending the comprehensive growth plans uh future land use map and and you amend that to suggest that this parcel should be designated as residential, right? And then that frees the planning commission up to reszone the parcel and be consistent with the growth plan. Okay. Hey, you all can reason. You all can vote to reszone it tonight. I mean, I'm being honest with you. I'm not saying as a staff, we're we we cannot come to you and recommend that you violate the comprehensive growth plan because you all when you adopted that plan, you told us this is how you want us to do business as a staff. So, we can't come back to you and say, "We don't care what you said. Here's what you need to do." Right? No, we're basing our recommendation off what you told us you wanted. Right? You all can do what you want to. You can recommend to the board of mayor and alderman to reszone it, right?

I don't recommen they don't have to. They don't have to and I would not go to them and recommend that they do it either because I'm not going to recommend you do anything inconsistent with the comprehensive growth plan. Right. So the the way around that is to fix the comp. So it could be brought back in as an amendment. Yes, sir.

Okay. So, I mean I I to me it seems like we should defer this to also have a a similar item that tracks amending the one parcel on the the growth plan. Um, which I think maybe addresses the issue. I think there's still this unknown of whether or not it could ultimately meet the zoning requirements that might have to play out before the board of zoning appeals potentially. So, I just want us to be clear that like we could kind of fix one thing, but it's maybe not going to be completely carried all the way through if there's an issue when it goes for permitting, for example. Well, I believe we need to try to fix it personally. And if we do that, we need to look I'd like to find out what's going on on parcel 5.0 if it was included as a in the growth plan as a commercial as well.

Parcel 5.0 that that parcel that is owned by Miss West that's adjacent. It is currently zoned R seven and it remained R seven on the comp plan. So you could I believe I included that page the future land use or I'm sorry the existing zoning and the future land use in your staff packet. The it kind of makes a ring around it. It does. Yeah. Yeah. which gives even more credibility to this lot being out of the growth plan as a commercial general

lot. You want to talk 7,000 square ft. Is that the lot size? The the minimum requirement of an R seven currently if you were to zone one today would be if you were to develop one today 7,000 square feet. But because it's a lot of record, the size would not be an issue. and potentially, like I said, if if she could fit or they could fit a house in the required setback, they'd be fine. They've indicated that they could work with it, but again, we don't have a survey, so it would be hard to say for sure. But if they could not, they certainly could go back before the BZA and ask for a variance and it would be represented as a hardship because of the size of the lot. So,

I'd like to say it's right or wrong, it looks like, and I don't think I did anything intentionally. How long would it take to amend the I'll have to research what the process is. I'm not 100% sure. And what I am curious about is do you want to look at just that one particular lot or do you want staff to look for similar inconsistencies? Do you know of any right off? I've seen others on the map.

I couldn't tell you where they are immediately, but I have, as Mr. Martin explained, I've seen evidence where the existing zoning was basically duplicated on the future land use map. And from no fault of anybody's, just that was what it made sense there, but it maybe wasn't as thought out. on an individual basis as maybe some of the lots could have been. Mr. So, this could possibly come before us again. Not maybe not this exact lot, but a similar situation could

I would ask what's your thought on what she was saying about looking at those outliers that might correct a few wrongs along the way and avoid some of this later. Yeah, I think it's going to come up. I mean, if if if no one wanted to move here, no one wanted to build here, no one wanted to live here, you'd never hear about it, right? Um but it's going to come up. I mean, this lot, I don't know how long this lot's been zone commercial. It's never been a problem. Why? Because nobody ever wanted to buy it and do something with it, right?

Um yes, I I think there are some that we've identified that have come up uh since and I I don't think there's probably a lot and I don't know that we could bring back to you next month and have all of them. Not saying there wouldn't one come up next spring. was like, "Oh, that that probably shouldn't have happened." Have no idea why in 1983 that was zoned that way, but it was zoned that way and we should fix it. Right.

Um the question about how to amend this, the planning commission owns the comprehensive growth plan land use map. So, uh and I'll double check that, but it was my understanding upon adoption, the board of mayor and alderman did adopt and ratify that plan based on your recommendation, but it's your plan. Okay. Uh, I think that that's the way it's written. And so you all have, I believe, the unilateral ability to amend that both substantively from a from a substantive regulatory perspective and also from a a future land use planning map. Mr. Be.

Yes, sir. That being the case, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the request with the potential of amending the comprehensive growth plan which will turn around and rectify it in the end anyway. We can go against our own growth plan. So if it provided that the applicant has the ability to build a residential based on setback for an R seven, then I make a motion that we did it. And if we amend the growth plan, which I think is going to happen, but I'd like to take the time to do it right on other potential lots of issue and then we can do do it one time and then maybe we could come back and say we will not amend the growth plan for a period of however long that may be. Try to do the best job we can of catching some of these other potentials in the perimeter. I mean, the city is not that big. So it got well if you work on it every day it is but you have everything but I'd like to say is you know a plan is a plan but it and it's not carved in stone. We're going to find issues just like we've seen here and just like we'll probably see again.

So you're suggesting correcting in the motion correcting some of the wrongs they find already or start the process to do that. But tonight, I recommend my motion is to approve the request to reszone to R7. Second. We're ready for a vote. All right. Greg, yes. Thomas, yes. Boyd, yes. Fib, yes. Bagot, yes. Townsen, yes. Briggs, yes. Shot, yes. Passes with eight.

Item 4.8, 8, discuss and possibly take action on a reszone request reszoning request from low density single family residential district RS20 to highdensity residential district with a planned unit development overlay R seven of approximately 2.7 acres and an amend amendment to the planned unit development PL pud known as Summit View map 102 parcel 04 44. We have a motion and a second. Second. Who was the first one? Town. Town.

Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, M. Durham.

Okay. Again, I'm going to apologize for our presentation, but you should all have these um images available in your agenda packets. Agenda item 4.8 ate as a resoning and planned unit development amendment request related to the Summit View subdivision which is currently under construction. The applicant is requesting that approximately 2.78 acres be reszoned from RS20 to R7 putt. This request is submitted as phase two of the Summit View subdivision. Because this acreage is under 5 acres, it cannot stand alone as a separate PUD. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting that the previously approved preliminary master development plan be reapproved and amended to incorporate this acreage into the overall community. A complete preliminary master development plan has been submitted with this application and that was shared with you as a separate file. If approved, this would add 15 lots, bringing the subdivision to 68 homes, 48 detached and 20 attached. density would slightly decrease from 5.94 to 5.81 units per acre and a landscaping strip has been added along the southern property line. While there are positive elements in the amended plan, staff has concerns with the request. First, the city's comprehensive plan identifies this property as appropriate for medium density residential development. Medium density serves as a transition between the higher density areas to the north, medium density to the west, and low density areas to the south and east. The requested R seven pud zoning is inconsistent with this adopted land use policy. Second, when planned unit developments incorporate common open space, those areas are intended to provide meaningful shared spaces and amenities for residents. Here, the proposed common areas fall short. One of the proposed areas will be reduced by a culde-sac and

the second is primarily a detention pond. Neither serves as a usable amenity. The final plat for those portions of the community currently under construction do include five distinct common areas. Um two are at the entrance to the neighborhood. You can see those in your plat that provide landscaping between the existing homes and coming into the neighborhood. Um there is an area that incorporates a stream buffer. And then area four is a pond and area five is up near the road at Black Patch and is planned to include a playground for children. Uh while it's appreciable that they're planning this playground, that active amenity area is not ideally situated and is relatively small at approximately 2900 square ft, which may potentially be underserved to serve the needs of future residents. [Music] Because of these issues, staff does not support approval of this resoning or the amended plan as submitted. If the commission believes highdensity zoning is appropriate, staff strongly encourages including conditions to enhance the common areas before final approval. This information has been shared with the developer and staff has discussed the zoning districts that align with the comprehensive plan and would be considered appropriate and suitable for this property. I do need everybody to understand that a PUD functions as an overlay. So it establishes a unified set of development standards applied across the site regardless of the underlying zoning. In this way, a PUD may encompass multiple districts provided the overall development is guided by a comprehensive master plan. What I mean by that, if ultimately the developer were to decide to keep it R20

or R10, R15, you can have two zonings within one PUD. What's important is that the whole thing be included within the one PUD overlay. So the overlay standards would apply. The density for that particular section that 2.78 acres is based on the underlying zoning. Staff is happy to answer any other questions. Additionally, the project engineer, Phil Casterline with CSR Engineering and the developer, Mr. Pedro Reyes, is here this evening. What is the zoning of the first phase?

R7. Is it the same? It's R seven put. It is R seven. Our thought process, excuse me, thought process behind it was it's part of the original R seven put. So, we were going to ask for R seven to make it one contiguous zoning. But you are you're minim you're you're adding more lots because you're going from 5.9 to 5.8. It's actually going down. You're at I'll answer that. I thought you said the first part had 5.9 units per

the density on the phase one is 5. 5.9 roughly. When you incorporate that additional area and spread it across with all of the lots proposed or the units proposed because some are attached, then the density actually does go down throughout the the overall pud. Yeah, I was looking at it backwards. 6:00. The location of the property. Hold on. Sorry. I don't know that we've asked a question just yet. Sorry. Oh, we got another. Yeah, but we've not recognize him to speak. Okay.

Does anybody have any questions for him while he's at the microphone? Now, I'll ask a question. What about the uh amenities that Carolyn discussed and not being

So, the original TUD last year, everything was approved. This is adding more residences. This is the preliminary, so we're amanable to modifying and adjusting to make the plan work for the commission and staff. And what is the goal of the developer on phase one in areas that I know we've had a dry year, but he's also planted some things that don't look too good. I would have to assume that that falls within his bonding requirements. I know we still got some time, but

but if you look back on the his original plans, everybody copy that one. If I'm reading it right, it looks like he was supposed to have put irrigation in the obviously the entrance way plus he was supposed to irrigated each lot. And maybe I'm reading that wrong, but anybody want a copy of this? I think everything's highlighted there that is

that's um that's the business that I'm in and I just pay attention when you drive up down the road and you see the landscaping that is all that is all died which I understand with the weather we've had and I understand he has a year to he has a fall time to be able to replant that but if you look back in the notes according to what was issued he was um supposed to put irrigation in that so this question I don't know that I have an answer for the specifics of it but right it's part of the plan

so are you able to reduce the number of lots that are in that that side in order to meet the amenity needs.

From our calculations, we were seeking R seven to make it contiguous. R10 and R15 would also result in the same number of lots if you treat the entire development as a whole. So it would be 69 permitted in R15 and 77 in the R10. Because what what I what I'm thinking is if you reduce the number of lots, if it's one or two taken out, you might be able to meet the amenity needs and meet the intent of the comprehensive growth plan of of a bit lower density. It kind of brings it because when you look at we I don't think we've got a map of the whole area, but when you look at the parcels that are on the outside, they're a lot larger as you get a little bit further south. And so it may be like taking one or two lots out. I don't know if that still works for, you know, what you're trying to seek.

I think it might, but it also works at an R15 or an R10. So I'm going to ask Mr. to speak to that. When I talked to Mr. Reyes. Earlier today, we did look at the possibility of an R10 zoning and how that would impact and just based on no density credits for common areas or a mixed variety of residential units, which you do get a density credit for, but just using the R10 density. If he went from the 15 to the 12 unit to 12 lots,

you would be able to meet the intent of the medium density. R10 is considered a medium density zoning district. And then that would open up some area. If you're looking at the updated preliminary master development plan, which was in your packet there in the bottom souththeast corner where there's a culde-sac area, maybe taking those two lots out that back up to that detention facility, replacing that as an active amenity area and kind of incorporating all of that area as one. It's a little more centrally located and it's quite frankly safer being off of Black Patch Road and away from the dumpster facility that is going to service the attached units. But it would cost him, if we're going to use that word, three lots. I don't know if he would need all three though because there may be that he could get 13 and still meet that density credit based on the additional parameters of the putt. did not calculate it out that way, but just using the straight zoning 12 would comply with the intent of the comprehensive plan.

Did that answer your question? Okay,

any further questions? You're reducing the number of amenities in that particular area? No, we do not tend to reduce any of them. Um, let's see. What is that? Any other questions? Boy, are you okay? Nothing. Any other questions?

I would make a motion to deny the requests and have them work with staff in order to meet the amenity requirement. So that specific reasoning is that the amenity uh issue is not being met. Second, we're ready for a vote. All right, Greg. We we may need to Hold on. We may need to confirm that if you're voting yes on it, you're denying the request. Correct. Yeah. So, the original motion, as I understood it, was was to deny the request. So, a yes vote would be in support of that motion to deny the request. A no vote would be in opposition to that motion.

Correct. Can we amend the request? You may not amend the request. The planning commission may have been your request request. The request before them is reszoning from RS 20, I believe, to R seven. Correct. Mr. Chairman, you have a motion on the floor and a second. Correct. I can't vote. I have to abstain. Abstain. Okay. U All right. We're let a motion second so we can discuss the motion in a second. Correct. Correct. Is it beneficial to the applicant to rather than deny to uh defer

defer? Yeah. But I'll let you speak on behalf of what you love to do.

I mean, you've heard the comments and rather than a pure denial, a deferral where you could have time to go back and come back. I mean the same thing if you come back with it later we're going to see the same whatever it is you're going to change based on the comments but we could also defer it uh potentially if that would be of any interest. First I want to say thank you the opportunity to let me speak um to answer your question about the trees are already aware to uh the I need to replace a lot of trees already dead and uh talking about the uh the common area I believe if I take couple lots out there it will uh benefit the whole project and uh there's one other reason uh the town houses I don't have an extra overflow parking so I really believe that in there we can put the overflow parking And the other thing is like uh entries um that we have the close to black patch we got the playground so I don't feel safe now that have the playground over there and we can move that playground and if we take those other two lot out just just keep that in mind there um so I don't know for our seven uh probably not working our 10 pot work you know

so Mr. Bib is asking, would you like to defer tonight and come back with? Yeah, I would like to do that. Defer, come back. Yeah, I just want to throw that over there. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, their representative had asked, can they amend it? And I believe that since the R seven is not going to work and there's some amenity issues. I believe if they come back next month, it may be a different it'll be a different looking proposal. Yes, sir. The end result's the same. We're going to see it again. Um Okay. I don't know if it makes any difference other than is there a fee difference for the applicant on a deferral and a denial? Um,

if he wants to come back as an R10 presumably to be in compliance with the comp plan, it would be essentially he's pulling the zoning and resubmitting and it would have to be readvertised. So yes, there is a fee involved with that, but denial then works just as well as the deferral.

I believe there's some provisions in the code though that potentially and I I I'm not 100% sure, but I've read in some codes where you cannot turn around and resubmit immediately. There is a waiting period. So, a denial could cost him time, whereas a deferral allows him to decide how he wants to move forward, potentially pull it all together, resubmit it as a district that would align with the comp plan, but yes, there is a fee, but there's also time involved. So, it would ultimately depend on them which was more important. All right. Check.

So, can I amend the mo the motion? I made you motion. You can amend your own motion to change it to deferral and the second would have to do the same. You have to agree. So, so I amend that. It looks like we may have a second to to defer. So, I guess that's the motion now before is to defer. We have a second. We're ready for a vote. Okay. All right. Bib, yes. Boyd, yes. Thomas, yes. Shot, yes. Briggs, yes. Townsen, yes. Bagot, yes. Passes with seven. That's it.

It should be six and one. Greg abstained. Correct. Yeah. Seven. There's nine people. 71 abstain. I see what you're saying. Sorry. 71. Item 4.9. Discuss and possibly take action on amendments to the city of Springfield zoning ordinance by amending section 11-812 entitled sidewalk cafe overlay zone. Do we have a motion and a second to put this on the floor? So move second.

Murmur. Item 4.9 is a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to expand the sidewalk cafe overlay zone in the historic downtown Springfield. The proposed expansion adds South Main Street from Fifth Avenue West to Central Avenue and Bats Boulevard from South Main Street to Central Avenue while retaining coverage of the courthouse square. Um, with this amendment, properties fronting the Springfield Greenway are specifically excluded because that is a different kind of sidewalk. This amendment supports the city's comprehensive growth plan by promoting vibrant pedestrian-friendly streets and allowing more restaurants to offer outdoor dining. All cafes would operate under a permit, ensuring tables meet accessibility standards, maintain required clearances, and do not obstruct traffic or public use. Um, insurance is required to protect the city and the public as well. Staff recommends approval as presented and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about the proposed ordinance or the proposed amendment that was presented.

Any questions for Mr. [Applause] So if they set up if they set up equipment outside and who's responsible for that equipment? In other words, if a storm come up blew it out, blew against the car. I mean who's is they are as the property owner they are and that's why insurance is also required as part of the permitting process. They have to have an umbrella policy for that correctly. Yes. What is the we put in there? A certificate of liability insurance and the minimum amount of $1 million naming the city as spring naming the city of Springfield as an additional insured. So yes. Was there something that recently happened that caused a number of things to get cleaned up?

No. What are you talking about? Essentially, there are some restaurants that currently exist that are outside of the current footprint of the sidewalk cafe overlay zone. So, by ext expanding it to match the overall historic district overlay zone, it'll fix that situation, but also it could prevent it as downtown grows and expands and buildings get rehabilitated and redeveloped, should they become restaurants, they'll have the same opportunity. um with the exception of those that front the greenway. Thank you. Any further questions?

Motion to approve. I second it. We're ready for a vote. Bagot, yes. Townsen, yes. Briggs, yes. Shots, yes. Bib, yes. Floyd, yes. Thomas, yes. Greg, yes. Passes with eight.

Item 4.10, discuss and possibly take action on amendments to the city of Springfield zoning ordinance by amending sections 11-203 entitled definitions to define substantial compliance and submission dates. We have a motion and a second. So move We have a second. Second, Miss Durham.

Item 4.10 is a proposed amendment to define substantial compliance and submission date in the zoning ordinance. This change implements public chapter number 465, which establishes that vesting of development rights occurs upon submission of an application rather than approval. The ordinance clarifies that a development application is considered submitted on the date the city issues a receipt for review fees and that vesting does not occur until those fees are paid or secured according to city policy. Um this ensures consistency with state law, provides clear objective standards for developers and staff and reduces potential disputes over submission dates. Staff recommends approval of this ordinance as presented. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Any questions for Miss Durham. You accept checks for fees. Yes, the cat I was trying to think if if we do. Yes, the cashier does downstairs when and you can pay over the phone, too. So when people call to pay or they show up to pay for their development applications, they're certainly allowed to bring a check. I know, but you issue a receipt for a check and if that check's not good, then your submission date is going to change. That is definitely something I did not consider. Just a thought.

But we also put in there that it has to be with city policy. So, I I don't know what the city policy says offhand about return checks, but I would assume that it invalidates and then that receipt is no longer valid. I mean, we've had it happen with building permits. So, their building permit is no longer valid when their checks don't clear. as long as long as you're consistent.

The the reason behind establishing this though is because somebody could the way it was presented could turn in something on a napkin and if I take it in my office, that means that it their three-year window essentially has started the day that we receive that. Recently, I got a set of plans that immediately I knew we could not charge a review fee for because the plans were so incomplete. I did not want to start their vesting period. So, I sent them back and said, "We need some more information before we'll issue an invoice for review." Have a motion. Second. We're ready for a vote. Bib, yes. Floyd,

yes. Thomas, yes. Greg, yes. Bagot, yes. Townsen, yes. Rigs, yes. Shot, yes. Passes with a Item 4.11, discuss and possibly take action on amendments to the city of Springfield zoning ordinance by amending sections related to time periods associated with vested property rights. Do we have a motion and a second to put this on the floor? So move second. Mr. Durham,

this proposed amendment um presented in item 4.11 is also to comply with state law. There are several places in the zoning ordinance that refer to site plans and development approvals of various sorts being valid a vesting period of one year. This amendment just cleans up those inconsistencies with state law in the zoning in the zoning ordinance and just changes everything from one year to three years. So state law reads from the date of submission now you have three years assuming you with reasonable diligence move some dirt get started on your project you then automatically have another two years. So if you do everything right you would have five years and then you could apply for an extension if you weren't done. But this just brings our zoning ordinance into compliance with state law.

Motion to approve. Second. We're ready for a vote. Shant, yes. Briggs, yes. Townsen, yes. Bagot, yes. Bib, yes. Boyd, yes. Thomas, yes. Craig, yes. Passes with eight. Item 4.12, discuss and possibly take action on amendments to the city of Springfield zoning ordinance by amending sections related to residential parking requirements. Do we have a motion and a second? Motion. Second,

Mr. Durham. Item 4.12 is a proposed amendment to Springfield zoning ordinance regarding residential off- streetet parking. The changes respond to concerns about inadequate parking, excessive on street parking, and front yard parking impacting neighborhood aesthetics, traffic, and emergency access. Key updates include requiring paved driveways, prohibiting front yard parking, and ensuring all required spaces are located on site for single family, duplex, attached, multifamily, mobile homes, and elderly housing. The ordinance also differentiates between or I'm sorry, the amendment also differentiates between new subdivisions and infill lots while clarifying that residential uses in the core commercial district remain subject to the parking requirements. Um, looking at the zoning ordinance, the way it was written, the intent is not to require parking of a developer when they develop commercially in the core commercial, but it didn't spell it out very well. So, part of this amendment would be to clarify that only the parking is required for residential parking. Core or commercial development within the core commercial areas could rely on on street parking. Um, I can go over all of it. I'm happy to answer any questions that were presented. It was broken apart into three sections. The first one relating to duplexes and multif family was basically just to pull the parking requirement out of that section and refer it to where the parking requirements are for every other district. That was the only one. for some reason it spelled it out there and it was cleaner to put it in another spot and just put all the parking requirements in 11807. The the second one was about the core commercial clarifying that there is

parking requirements for the residential you proposed development but not for commercial development. And then 11807 is where like the bulk of the proposed changes are. The biggest thing is the new neighborhoods, new subdivisions, and then cottage housing development, which is something we're seeing more often. Essentially, detached units on one overall lot. So, they're not on single lots. So, they're clustered a little bit more. They're probably not set as far back, so they don't have as much driveway space. clarifying some overflow parking requirements that I know we've wanted to see or the boards have asked to see in some of the newer subdivisions. So allowing some overflow parking. Um try to look at redevelopment infill versus the new subdivisions because if you can park on street, you maybe don't need as much parking in your driveway. I tried to think about some of the neighborhoods around here and did some research on how things are done in other communities and what some best practices are for planning. So,

any questions for Mr. Mi Mr. Martin? I believe you all have had some the staff has had some issues with on street parking and parking in general. Mr. Chairman, that's that's right. The board of mayor and alderman's actually taken up quite a bit of of these issues lately um with regard to on street parking. What are the issues particularly? The issues particularly are the road widths for some of the subdivisions that were built prior to making a change to our minimum road width. We've we have some 18 foot wide roads. We've got some 20 foot wide roads. We've got some 22 foot wide roads. Those aren't wide enough. Okay. Maybe. And also, you look at it, and I've having a conversation with somebody a couple of weeks ago, you look at a full size uh not to be to pick on a brand, but a full size 1999 Chevrolet Silverado, right? Is the same size as a as a midsize truck today, right? That Chevy Silverado is a lot larger. The 2025 model is a lot larger than that 99 model, right? But guess what didn't happen in those 26 years? The roads didn't get any wider. So when those vehicles are parking on the street, you've got an issue. We've got an issue for emergency vehicles. You've got an issue for residents. You've got an issue for garbage pickup. Right. So the board of Marman via the traffic committee has had to take up a lot of these issues with regard to on street parking in in subdivisions and outright ban on street parking. Uh in some subdivisions, the traffic committee's made recommendations to limit it to one side of the street in other subdivisions. So what I think the the thought process here is is to try to attack this issue on on the front end, right? On the front side, let's make sure that these people have enough adequate space when they're developing the subdivision. So let's up those limits. Now I understand and I

heard comments earlier about what well I think Gallatin was mentioned. I think Clarks was mentioned. Yeah. And if and if you look at some of those um for instance, a collector street in Gallatin has to be at least 28 foot wide, right? Okay, that's a,000 to 3,000 average daily traffic. We've got some some residential neighborhood collector streets, right? The developers, I know it's it's adverse to them because that makes the lot size a little larger, but then if you also try to make the road widths wider, they wouldn't want that either, right? Okay. So, Gallatin has a 28 foot wide collector. We've got a 26 foot wide collector, right? So, so there's a little bit more room, right, for on street parking on a 28t wide collector in Gallatton. There is in a on a 26t wide and we don't have many 26 foot wide residential subdivision streets. Um, a lot of the ones that subdivisions that have been built in the last 30 years are a whole lot less than 26. What we're going to see is 26 and we're seeing some 26 being built out now, but they're a lot a lot more narrow than 26. So, thank you.

I thought I thought Village Green was 26 and west for the roads. Village Green, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, has a 16ft wide alley, right? Has an 18 18t wide 18t wide alley. Yeah. Me and you could barely walk down there together. It um which is really tough for parking. Village Green is um is is is I don't think there's a 26 foot wide road in Village Green. There's there's not I I believe 22 might be the It might be 22. It might be 24. I'm not sure about that.

It's not 26 though. And so Village Green is one of those subdivisions that recently had to be addressed by the board of mayor and alderman for on street parking because neighbors I mean because residents are complaining. It's not because the city's just out there looking for stuff to do and beat people over the head. Citizens are like, "I can't get in my driveway. My garbage can't get picked up. Um, you know, we've had issues where the fire department can't get down. If you got a 20 foot wide road and a car and a full-size truck is parked on the side, a fire truck might take out somebody's mailbox." I agree with you. I mean, it's challenging, you know, depending on how you park it. It's It's tight.

That's right. Yeah. Any further questions?

Need a motion? I do. Move to approve. Have a second. Second. We're ready for a vote. Thomas, yes. Boyd, yes. Gray, yes. Bib, yes. Townsen, yes. yes. Shot, yes. Friggs, yes. Passes with eight.

Item 5.0, other and old business. 5.1 Discuss and possibly take action on a resoning request from medium density residential district R10 to a high density residential district R7 for 5065th Avenue East map 080F group C parcel 024.00. Do we have a motion and a second to put this item on the floor? So move second. Miss Durham.

Item 5.1 is a resoning request from R10 to R seven for 506 Fth Avenue East. This 65 acre parcel is proposed for development of two single family detached homes. This item was deferred at the September meeting to allow the developer an opportunity to provide additional information. Specifically, a site plan showing how the two homes would fit on the property and consideration of shared driveway options to reduce the number of curb cuts along Fifth Avenue East. That updated site plan was in your agenda packet. It was uh se emailed separately. The developer has addressed these points. The two homes will share a single driveway, limiting new access points and reducing the likelihood of vehicles backing onto Fifth Avenue. The home to the west will continue using the existing shared driveway easement. Parking will be located behind the homes and T DOT has provided verbal authorization for the driveway configuration. Both the applicants representative and myself had a chance to speak with the T dot representative of that area to confirm that they had discussed this situation. Homes are anticipated to be around 1,700 to 2,000 square ft compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed resoning is consistent with the comp plan which identifies this area for highdensity residential development and encourages compact infill housing near the city core. Redevelopment of this fire damaged property into quality homes strengthens the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of this request as presented. Um I'm happy to answer any questions. Additionally, the property owners are here this evening as well.

So, they did go back and do everything we asked them to do last month.

They Yes. Yeah. They provided a site plan that they're going to their plan is to provide one curb cut for the two houses coming essentially where their stairs right now coming up through the middle and then putting parking behind the homes. It it's worth noting that even though and it was brought up earlier the width of these lots would be narrower than some in the area. There are lots in the area that not immediately adjacent but in the the area and in that proximity to the core that would be the same width and the overall acreage the amount of square footage in the lot is still substantially larger than the majority of lots in that area. Are we still going to have some backing out on Fifth Avenue? It eliminates that.

It would the proposed driveway configuration would eliminate backing into Fifth Avenue. It would allow property owners or homeowners to pull in and park behind their homes and then turn around and do all the maneuvering behind the home. The lots are relatively deep, so there's room for that in the back. What happens to the shared driveway? I'm sorry. What happens to the shared driveway?

The property owner to the west will be able to continue using that driveway. Can we can the planning commission require a certain um the driveway to be of a certain type or can it be gravel? It cannot be gravel by subdivision regulations. It has to be a dustfree surface. So you can require that it can't be gravel because it's in the code.

Who will maintain this road this driveway? that would be split between the two lots. They would have to reach some kind of property agreement between the owners. That would have to be drafted. Mr. Arts, typically what we do when there's a shared driveway, uh there's an agreement that's put together. It's called a shared driveway and maintenance agreement. Uh, so it spells out forever, you know, the responsibilities of each party and then that's a recorded document that goes in the rest of your deed's office. Yes, sir. Thank you.

There's a lot of room behind those two developments. Is is there a way he could come back and try to ask for something build something behind that?

You can't build a house behind a house. our subdivision regulations and our zoning ordinance prohibit building a house behind a house. Um, in I'll say hypothetically, if he wanted to build an actual road and replplat everything, but the lot's not wide enough to allow an actual road because you'd have to build a full culde-sac. So, it it's not feasible that it could actually be done. T DAT has verbally authorized a driveway permit for two homes. That is quite a different request than an actual road.

Any other questions? It sounds better than before, but I still feel funny about this shared parking. You know, I just think it might be a move thing, but you know, it's okay. Could I ask the applicant a question? Could you sir could you come to the microphone please?

Yes sir. So my question I think I asked it the last time too. You're showing a a building envelope of 1,200 square ft but yet you state it would be somewhere between 17 and 2,000 square ft. So, I'm assuming a twotory Yes, sir. twotory single family homes. And what will the is the parking going to be exterior or will there be also enclosed parking at the back side of the of the house? Uh proposed uh we don't have the exact we don't know exactly if we're going to do enclosed or um exterior. Most likely going to do um probably going to do interior parking. Um but um we can do both.

Whatever works better for the site plan. So, we're looking at a tall skinny probably. Yes, sir. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? We have a motion one way or the other. Motion to approve. Have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Shot. No. Bib. Reluctantly. Yes. Bagot. No. Townsen. Yes. Boy, yes. Gray. Yes. Uh, Briggs.

Yes. And Thomas. Yes. It passes with 1, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and fails with two. That can't be right. Should be five. 52. Sorry. Mhm. Five fails with two. 5.2. The October BCA meeting has been cancelled and item 5.3, the community development director's report. I'll get it out. I'm going to go super fast and again I'm going to apologize. I spent most of today getting this presentation together. So, I have no idea what happened between putting my Dropbox file is.

It's exactly where it is. Um, October 14th BZA meeting has been cancelled, but the historic district commission is meeting on October 28th. I don't believe they have met in years, but we have a meeting scheduled for the 28th for a property on North Main that wants to add a roof over a front porch. And so, because it's the facade of the house, the historic district commission gets involved. Um, two-hour training session. I talked to some of you before the meeting. I was going to say it's either going to be offered in person. I'm proposing we talk about ethics and some case studies. I was going to suggest doing it after this meeting, but it sounds like this meeting could end up being a little longer than the BZA. So, right now, I think I'm going to propose November 11th following the BZA meeting, which potentially has two quick items on it. Um, if you do prefer and you don't want to come in, I'm sorry,

check the Veterans Day. I will double check that one. I did remember that was a holiday. So, I'll put it in an email, but I got to see if the BZA was rescheduled because of that. I apologize for not checking that already. Um, if you don't want to come to an in person, I will send you videos or if you're Miss Boyd, you're done. So, she does not have to come. Uh, let you know that staff formally approved the wastewater treatment plant. Their pre-construction meeting was held um in the engineering offices Monday. Tuesday. Tuesday. Monday. No, that was Tuesday.

Tuesday. So, the project has officially kicked off. So, that is underway. And in a couple years, we'll have a new wastewater treatment plant. Uh right now, not including anything that got deferred or discussed at tonight's meeting, we only have two submitts for next month. one resoning at 2814 Memorial Boulevard, a request to go from CG to CS. Um they want to allow medical uses. There's some tenants that are looking at the space, but it won't allow what they want to put there. And then the first final plat for Blackwood Farms has been submitted. All of the attached units on the north side and then a portion of the single family on the bottom half on the south side. Um, and then I'm going to a conference in a couple of weeks, so hopefully I'll come back with lots of good planning information. And I'm in the process of trying to find and hire a planner. So there might be some more staff in our offices. And that is all I have. And you thank you all very much. We

have a motion to move. Second. Hey. Hey. Hey.