There is a history of Franklin's opposition to front-facing garages, which is based on the visual impact of large garage doors facing the street and becoming the dominant visual element of a streetscape.  I agree that this can lead to monotonous residential subdivisions, and am glad that the standards discourage this design.  On the other hand, there has to be some diversity of design in any city, and there is a place for approving this design.  Obviously, the Planning Commission agreed that this was an appropriate site.

As you might expect, there was a valid concern expressed over precedent, but I believe that there will be little difficulty sorting out where designs make sense, and where some adjustment is necessary. 

The actual Federal Register posting is here.

This ran counter to Williamson County school trends at the time.  Most schools were being located based on a auto or bus dependent model, and walking or biking to school was not accommodated, if not outright discouraged.  Part of the consideration was to avoid schools being identified with particular neighborhoods, since this complicated later rezonings.  There is a fine line between a school being supported by a neighborhood, and being "owned" by a neighborhood, making rezoning of school districts an emotional and wrenching process.  Unfortunately, in a school system as dynamic as Williamson County, such rezonings have been a recurring fact of life.

The County's decision to locate another school adjacent to a development on Clovercroft Road may signal the County's determination that schools can be integrated into residential neighborhoods.  This enhances walkability, creates community support, and increases the value of adjacent properties.  As the County moves forward, they will gain further expertise in design that will resolve issues of traffic and congestion.  If the County is aggressive in desiring these locations, and communicates to communities and developers desired locations, developers can integrate educational set-asides into their plans and donate the property.  Bringing the County in on the front end may enable the parties to select the best locations that avoid conflicts with other neighbors.

This contrasts with previous unwillingness on the part of schools to engage with either the communities or the developers with regard to future school sites.  It has taken some time to reach the current cooperative environment, and we can only hope that when the next wave of development occurs, the schools officials will be ready.

In other popular locations, it is likely that the target market will be $250,000 to $400,000, while the "bargain" markets will be in the $100,000s.  Developers who purchased land at recently inflated prices, paid top dollar for development of infrastructure, and whose loans were based on higher lot prices for repayment are likely to struggle to survive.  The good news is that after the painful and financially devastating loss for the initial developer, the development may proceed with more modestly-priced houses that meet the current market.

This may not be enough, however.  I expect that the second-generation developers will also request that development plans be reconfigured with smaller lot sizes that are more appropriate to the reduced home sizes and prices.  We have already seen this process begin, with mixed success. 

All of this is a necessary process to keep residential sales and development moving forward, which is essential to the Williamson County economy.

I live in Brentwood, and understand the commitment to relatively large-lot single family zoning.  Sometimes, however, this dedication doesn't match the situation on the ground.  You have a situation now in which those who want a loaf of bread, package of diapers or jug of milk are required to go to either the northern or southern boundaries of the City for support, except for a couple of grandfathered shoppette stores.  Further, there are just some properties that don't lend themselves well to single family development, and it appears that this includes the "donkey farm property" that sits at the intersection of Concord Road and Wilson Pike. 

Just for reference, also on Concord Road is a City library, County recreation facility, large and active "Y", and a church.  Senior living facilities are not noted for their excessive generation of traffic, even though there is staff and visitor traffic.  One wonders whether this was a case of careful consideration, or just a knee jerk reaction in favor of the status quo of development.  City staff, including the City Manager, also expressed doubt as to whether this area was appropriate for residential uses.

A complete community should include residential living for all segments, including seniors.  Finding the right locations to accommodate these needs deserves good faith efforts by all parties.

Under this process, decision-makers must approve broad concepts before the details are finally revealed.  This makes sense, as it is overly expensive for a developer to provide detailed plans until at least broad concepts are agreed upon.  Further, detailed plans submitted at the earliest conceptual stage of a project are almost certain to change, as construction and topographical issues, drainage, and market conditions will necessarily alter the final developed project.

Franklin staff has requested ways to provide more certainty for decision-makers, without tying the hands of developers or requiring expensive detailed plans. I applaud these efforts to make the process work better.

In my opinion, however, the current zoning ordinance approach strikes the right balance, proceeding from zoning to concept plan to regulating plan, with more detail at each stage.  This incremental approach avoids unnecessary expense, and ensures that when plans are presented, they are actually the plans that are intended to be implemented.  The safeguard for the uncertainty inherent in this approach is the process, and the development standards that are set forth in the 500 plus page zoning ordinance for Franklin. 

Each stage requires approval, and each stage is directed by Franklin's development standards, which are detailed and demanding.  Because of the economy, however, the BOMA has not seen a project go through this gradual, refining process.  As a result, there is no trust in the process.

Kudo's to staff, however, who see this problem and are trying to address it in helpful ways.

There is an assumption that developers were making easy money during the boom years, and it was certainly true that there were profits to be made.  Most people don't realize, however, that the bulk of development profit is made on the back end of a development.  Prior to that time, revenue is going to pay back acquisition and development expenses and loans and equity investments.  The developer bears the risk that the development will succeed all the way to the end.  For those who were caught midway through a development, they literally face the prospect of working for no foreseeable profit.

The communities were happy to hang additional fees and requirements on developments during the good times.  Adequate facility taxes, building permts and additional property taxes resulted in significant cash flows to governments.  Now that things have changed, the question is whether governments can adjust to the new realities.  So far, I have not seen governments reacting.  Costly and time-consuming approval processes and significant fees continue to face any prospective development.

It is no surprise that developers were reaching out to the Spring Hill officials, and credit is given to those officials for listening to the concerns of this important part of our economic community.

The interesting aspect is the extent to which the County, in making its school selection, is bound by the City of Franklin's zoning ordinance.  The County has to date pledged to go through that process, but it is not clear that the required rezoning, from Residential to Civic/Institutional, will be approved by the City's Board of Mayor and Aldermen. 

Tennessee law is pretty well-settled on this issue, although one could argue some unresolved matters.  The Supreme Court has previously held that the State was not subject to county zoning regulations despite the fact that the State had sought approval of county zoning authorities. The Court also held that a private act creating local zoning authority did not waive governmental immunity of the State or its instrumentalities unless the intention to do so was clearly expressed in the act.  The general principle of governmental exemption from ordinances, as expounded in other cases, applies not only to the State government, but all instrumentalities of the State, including counties and cities.  In other cases, a city was not entitled to impose taxation to a county property.

Of course, just as important to the County is the timing of the school's opening, which is desired for fall of 2011.  A lawsuit brought by the City that had the effect of delaying the school could be a powerful weapon simply because of the delay involved.

This is not the first time that the City of Franklin has suffered public outcry due to the location of a civic instituion, including churches.  The City and County are commendably cooperating on this issue, but if Franklin officials ultimately reject the siting of the school, you can expect some serious legal challenges to ensue.

Franklin's bias against street-facing garages stemmed from subdivisions that are dominated from a street view of garage doors. Where the garage door overwhelms the house, or where the street view is a series of garage doors, the result can be a shabby appearance (even without the hotrod).  From this point, however, Franklin went on a binge, even considering an absolute ban on street-facing garages. 

This kind of restriction goes farther than maintaining an overall quality of design, however, and is more suitable for restrictive covenants in a neighborhood.  It ignores the variety of design and price that needs to be present in a community.  it is similar to the recent consideration of banning all chain link fences in Franklin.  Thankfully, in both cases, the restrictive efforts did not gain final approval.

The current Zoning Ordinance restrictions appear to provide a good balance between the aesthetic goals and functionality, but even these restrictions don't always make sense.  The 20 foot setback is probably overly severe, particularly if the other design requirements are included that, among other things, prevent an oversize, unbroken door being the main visual element of the facade. 

The restriction also prohibits the courtyard entry design, which is a very efficient design for smaller lot homes, but which avoids the visual problems of a street-facing garage.  This is an example. 

As with any restriction, some flexibility can be useful to ensure that great ideas are not held back, and to meet unforeseen circumstances.  The City should strive for quality, but not force everything into a similar, high-priced, product line.

This may leave some question about how specific the language must be.  Is it sufficient to recite only the change or to cite the new zoning category, or must there be an explanation of what the category might mean? 

In this case, the suit was brought by a party whose property had been rezoned.  One could imagine, however, adjacent neighbors using this argument against rezonings that they had opposed unsuccessfully.  My recommendation is to review the proposed language of the notice, which is usually done by the governing authority, to avoid this vulnerability.

The County’s Director of Economic Development, Matt Largent, recently made this point. In a presentation to the Brentwood Cool Springs Chamber of Commerce, Largent is quoted as saying “While some space still exists for building new office buildings, many prospects are on a fast track and want something available immediately or very quickly and that is where the county has a shortfall.”

I also attended a NAIOP presentation by the Nashville Chamber’s Chief Economic Development and Marketing Officer, Janet Miller, discussing their new strategy for economic development. Once again, the availability of sites is key to that strategy.

My concern has been that Franklin is taking economic development for granted, and is not actively working to prepare the City for the recruitment of new companies. I recently spoke to Matt about this, and was pleased to hear him say that the City and County are assessing potential sites to lay the groundwork for future development. In my opinion, however, the City should be actively considering how best to encourage the use of these sites. This is particularly troubling given the difficulty of gaining approval in Franklin, even when the property is properly zoned.

I don’t know of any more favorable economic growth than the relocation of corporate headquarters to Franklin, which supports property taxes, the housing market, and the image of the community. Taking steps to support those relocations is just good sense.
 

Finally, this ignores the significant tax increases resulting from successful development, which fund a significant portion of City services on an ongoing basis through property taxes and, for commercial projects, sales tax revenue.

Areas in which government operations are a significant presence should feel the impact more.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/J2GHHZB