On the agenda: Pacific meeting — data center (May 12)

Public Notice posted in accordance with 610 RSMo as amended
Date/Time Posted: Monday May 11, 2026, 1:30 p.m.
Posted By: Amy Bauguess

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA
300 Hoven Drive Pacific, MO 63069
TUESDAY, May 12, 2026
7:00 P.M.
This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be streamed live on the City of Pacific YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9dxzhHQWbPuIQJC1N6TSig

1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: From April 28, 2026
4. PUBLIC COMMENT / PARTICIPATION
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. PZ-2026-7: Conditional Use Permit, TM Performance Sales, L.L.C., applicant. The applicant is seeking
a conditional use permit for an approximate 0.58 +/- acre tract of land generally located along S. First
Street being Lot 123 & North Part of Lots 124, 125, 126, & 127 of the Original Town of Franklin,
Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-1-12.0-4-003-086.000. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit
to operate an Auto Dealership and sales on the subject property.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. PZ-2026-7: Conditional Use Permit, TM Performance Sales, L.L.C., applicant. The applicant is seeking
a conditional use permit for an approximate 0.58 +/- acre tract of land generally located along S. First
Street being Lot 123 & North Part of Lots 124, 125, 126, & 127 of the Original Town of Franklin,
Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-1-12.0-4-003-086.000. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit
to operate an Auto Dealership and sales on the subject property.
7. OLD BUSINESS
a. PZ 2026-3: Map Amendment, Alt Joint Revocable Trust, applicant. The applicant is seeking a map
amendment (rezoning) for an approximate 155.0 +/- acre tract of land generally located on Denton
Road (Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-6-23.0-0-000-019.000, 19-6-24.0-0-000-015.000). They are
requesting a zoning of Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the underlying NU Non-Urban District
Zoning. (Tabled at the meeting on February 25, 2026.) PLEASE NOTE: This item cannot be
considered and a recommendation cannot be made by the Commission until a public hearing is
duly noticed and published and the public hearing held. There is NO public hearing scheduled for
this meeting; therefore, no action will take place at this meeting.
b. PZ 2026-4: Map Amendment, William C. McLaren, Jr. & Linda S. McLaren Joint Revocable Trust,
applicant. The applicant is seeking a map amendment (rezoning) for an approximate 500 +/- acre tract
of land generally located at 648 Phelan Road and Highway O (19-7-35.0-0-000-001.000, 19-7-35.0-0-

This Meeting is Open to The Public
Note: The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider and act upon these matters listed above and any such
others as may be presented at the meeting and determined appropriate for discussion at that time.

000-002.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-010.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-007.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-011.000, 19-7-35.00-000-004.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-009.000, 19-7-25.0-0-000-016.000, 19-7-25.0-0-000-017.000, 19-726.0-0-000-018.000, 19-7-25.0-0-000-014.100, 19-7-25.0-0-000-016.001). They are requesting a zoning
of Planned Unit Development PUD for the underlying M-1 Light Industrial District zoning. (Tabled at
the meeting on February 25, 2026.) PLEASE NOTE: This item cannot be considered and a
recommendation cannot be made by the Commission until a public hearing is duly noticed and
published and the public hearing held. There is NO public hearing scheduled for this meeting;
therefore, no action will take place at this meeting.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Board of Aldermen
b. Board of Adjustment
c. Zoning Officer
9. ADJOURNMENT

This Meeting is Open to The Public
Note: The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider and act upon these matters listed above and any such
others as may be presented at the meeting and determined appropriate for discussion at that time.

CITY OF PACIFIC
PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES
April 28, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
Call to order: The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Bruns
at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, March 24, 2026. The Public was able to attend in person.
Roll Call: Chairman Bruns, Commissioner Summers, Commissioner Love, Commissioner Aycock,
Commissioner Wymer, Commissioner Marhanka, Commissioner Aycock.
Absent: Commissioner Koelling, Commissioner Marhanka, Commissioner Goodmon.
City Staff: City Engineer and Zoning Officer Girondo, Alderman Lesh, Attorney Kronin, Building
Department Clerk Bauguess.
Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting on March 24, 2026.
Motion made by Commissioner Wymer, seconded by Commissioner Love to approve. A voice vote
was taken with an affirmative result. Opposed: none.
Public CommentChairman Bruns stated that PZ 2026-3 and PZ 2026-4 were tabled at the special meeting on February 25,
2026, and will remain tabled until the applicant provides further information and that no action will be
taken on them at this time, however, public comments will still be heard with a time limit of three
minutes per speaker. She noted that the City Attorney is present that will explain the logic behind that.
Attorney Kronin explained that the applicants tabled their applications at the February 25 meeting at
their own request, and the items therefore remain tabled. He further explained that while a 60-day
timeframe is typically used for review, that timeframe is effectively paused when an applicant requests
to table the item, and there is no set time limit for how long it may remain tabled. The applications will
remain tabled until the applicants request to remove them from the table with either moving forward
with the request or cancelling it. Chairman Bruns opened the floor for public comment.
Bill Hubbard, a resident near pacific, Mr. Hubbard expressed concerns regarding the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed data center, specifically mentioning the introduction of toxic
waste, the amount of power and the noise.
Janet Hubbard, a resident near pacific, Ms. Hubbard expressed concerns that rezoning in support of data
center development could have long-term impacts on future generations, including the effects of
construction, the energy demands of data centers, increased traffic, and potential environmental
impacts. She provided a written speaker letter to Building Department Clerk Bauguess, which is attached
to the minutes.
Jeff Hayden, Resident of Pacific, Mr. Hayden withdrew his speaker card after noting that no action would
be taken on the data center matter at the meeting.
Ann Hayden, resident of Pacific, Ms. Hayden stated that zoning laws exist for a reason and expressed her
belief that the City should adhere to its original zoning regulations rather than pursuing rezoning
changes for the proposed data center, she mentions it would be more appropriately located in a high
industrial area rather than a residential area. She respectfully requested that the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny the rezoning request for these applications.
1

Corbett Shannon, a nearby landowner, Mr. Shannon urged the Planning and Zoning Commission to
withdraw the Beltline data center application, citing concerns with the process. He noted that the
applicant tabled the request at the February 25 meeting the request due to being unprepared, despite a
large number of residents attending to speak, which resulting in criticism of the City and Planning and
Zoning Commission. He advices the board and elective officials to please listen to people and not allow
this to happen.
Gary White, Resident of Robertsville, Mr. White expressed concerns about the long-term impacts of
data centers on the city, including potential effects on farmland and food production. He respectfully
requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the rezoning request.
Dana Bowers, a resident of Pacific, Ms. Bowers stated that she is aware of the standard 60-day deadline
for applications and asked the Board whether that review period is paused once an item is tabled, and
whether a tabled application expires or remains as old business indefinitely. Chairman Bruns refers that
question over to Attorney Kronin. Attorney Kronin states that it sits in old business indefinitely. Ms.
Bowers asked if tabling an application allows an applicant to return at a later time such as one or more
years and resume the process at the same point, or if they would be required to reapply. Attorney
Kronin stated that, in his role as City Attorney, he is not obligated to provide legal advice during an open
session, but he is willing to answer general simple questions. She stated to Attorney Kronin that she
finds it unusual that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application could be brought before the City
when the City does not have jurisdiction due to lack of annexation of the property, and asked if he could
explain that. Attorney Kronin reiterated that he is not obligated to provide legal advice during an open
session and he mentions that the meeting is primarily intended for the Planning and Zoning Commission
rather than the Attorney. Ms. Bowers stated that established procedures and rules should be followed
in proper order and questioned why the City continues with the current process. She expressed the view
that the zoning request appears to be moot while it remains tabled, suggested it should be withdrawn,
and raised the concern that annexation should be completed before any rezoning is considered. She
respectfully stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Aldermen should decline the
Beltline application, expressing concern that the request is disrespectful to the City given that rezoning
had reportedly been denied in Franklin County, and questioning why it should be considered within our
City.
Dale Hoffman, Resident of Pacific, Mr. Hoffman stated that he stands with the residents in opposition to
the proposed data center. He expressed agreement with the concerns raised and urged the City to make
the appropriate decision to keep the community on track.
Sherman Smith, a resident of Robertsville, expressed concerns regarding the proposed AI data center,
including potential risks associated with lithium battery use and other safety issues. He stated that he
stands in opposition to the proposed data center alongside other residents He provided a written
speaker letter to Building Department Clerk Bauguess, which is attached to the minutes.
Darlene Hogue, a resident near Pacific, Mrs. Hogue stated that she stands in opposition to the proposed
data center and indicated that she will continue to speak against the project as long as the applications
remains on the agenda. She provided a written speaker letter to Building Department Clerk Bauguess,
which is attached to the minutes.
Twila Ashworth, a resident of Pacific, Mrs. Ashworth urged the Planning and Zoning Commission to
withdraw the Beltline data center application, citing concerns with the process. She noted that the
applicant tabled the request at the February 25 meeting due to being unprepared, which she stated
resulted in criticism of the City and Commission. She further encouraged the Board and elected official
2

to listen to residents and not allow the process to continue, referencing a recent vote in Franklin County
and asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to take similar action. She provided a written speaker
letter to Building Department Clerk Bauguess, which is attached to the minutes.
Nancy Watson, a resident of Pacific, Mrs. Watson stated that she is aware the Alt and McLaren map
amendments are currently tabled but noted they still appear under Old Business on the agenda. She
requested that her comments be included in the minutes for future consideration. She referenced a
recent interview with Senator Josh Hawley regarding data centers in Missouri, stating that
approximately 60 data centers exist in the state with more under development, and raised concerns
about potential health risks for residents living nearby. She further cited Senator Hawley’s comments
calling the risks “horrendous” and his request for additional review and study by the Surgeon General to
better inform the public. She provided a written speaker letter to Building Department Clerk Bauguess,
which is attached to the minutes.
John Rose, a resident of Pacific and member of Camp Solidarity, Mr. Rose stated that he agrees with the
comments made by previous speakers. stated that he agrees with the comments made by previous
speakers. He described Camp Solidarity, located within one mile of the proposed data center site, as a
long-standing outdoor education camp in operation for 35 years, where children and families engage in
activities such as swimming and fishing on the Meramec River, hiking, and wildlife observation. He
expressed concern that the proposed data center could negatively impact the area through noise,
lighting, water usage, environmental and health effects, and increased utility costs, and urged the
Commission to consider these concerns and oppose industrial development in rural areas. He provided a
written speaker letter to Building Department Clerk Bauguess, which is attached to the minutes.
Chairman Bruns states to the audience that she heard all comments made during public input and
thanked everyone for speaking. She noted that all input will be taken into consideration and that, as of
now, no action will be moving forward since the matter remains tabled by applicants.
Keith Ketcherside, a neighboring property owner, Mr.Ketcherside stated that he moved to the area to
escape the chaos of the city where he works and to enjoy the community’s rural lifestyle. He indicated
he had two questions. He asked the Commission if anyone had observed opposition to the Beltline
project with the franklin county last week. Chairman Bruns addresses yes, we all have. He asked the
Commission what has prevented it from removing the Beltline proposal from the table completely.
Attorney Kronin responded that this is opportunity for the public to address the Commission directly. He
noted that while he understands there may be questions, it would be inappropriate for him to provide
legal opinions in open session that are otherwise confidential, and encouraged questions to be directed
to the Commission that do not require legal counsel. Chairman Bruns noted that although the question
was directed to the Commission, it was addressed to the Attorney Kronin. Mr. Ketcherside respectfully
requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission remove the Beltline applications from the table and
not allow the project in a rural area. Chairman Bruns stated that the Commission understands the
concerns raised, but clarified that our role as commission is to make recommendations to Board of
Alderman and the Board of Aldermen having final decision. Discussion Followed.
Corbett Shannon returned to the podium and stated that, based on earlier comments, he understood
that matters discussed in closed session cannot be addressed in a public meeting. He asked what
information can be shared with the public, why the Beltline request has not been denied or required
further presentation, and why no time limit has been set on the tabling. He notes that the lack of
answers has created concern and uncertainty among residents and stated that elected public officials
have received criticism as a result. Chairman Bruns clarified that the Commission members are not
3

elected officials, that they are a volunteer board. Alderman Lesh stated that he is an elected official and
that he would respond to the questions raised. He agreed with the concerns expressed by citizens and
stated that it does not sit well with him that zoning requests can remain tabled indefinitely while
awaiting the applicant’s return before the Planning and Zoning Board. Alderman Lesh asked Attorney
Kronin whether the application could remain tabled indefinitely while waiting for Beltline to return and
reconsider it. He emphasized that action needs to be taken, noting that the ongoing status of the
request has created concern among citizens and caused issues at the board level, particularly since it
continues to appear on the agenda, and he requested clarification on what this means. Attorney Kronin
responded that he did not state the application would remain indefinitely. He explained that once an
item is tabled at the applicant’s request, the standard 60-day timeframe does not apply. He noted that
the Planning and Zoning Commission may reconsider the item at its discretion, and emphasized the
importance of allowing the applicant a public hearing to present their perspective. He added that the
City must ensure all matters are addressed fairly and in accordance with the law, with both sides given
an opportunity to be heard. He mentioned that no action or hearing will occur tonight, but stated that if
the applicant revisits the request in the future, a public hearing would be required, including proper
notice and written notification to surrounding property owners. Alderman Lesh referenced the February
25 meeting that the motion was made to postpone the item without assigning a new date. He asked
whether this effectively functions as an indefinite postponement. Attorney Kronin responded correct,
He explained that applicants may request postponement for various reasons, such as needing additional
time to work out details or gather more information before proceeding. Alderman Lesh requested
clarification from Attorney Connor as it remain tabled, that it will remain on the agenda until the
applicant chooses to take further action. Attorney Kronin responded that the item may remain on the
agenda until it is either withdrawn by the applicant or acted upon by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. He added that removing it from the agenda may raise additional procedural
considerations, such as whether further public notice would be required, but stated he was not
comfortable providing further detail on that point in the public session. Alderman Lesh requested
clarification from Attorney Kronin, he expresses that with his understanding is the applicant may need
additional time to provide information, and that once they return and request to proceed, the matter
would resume at that time. He further noted that, in the meantime, the item would remain listed as
tabled on the agenda. Attorney Kronin responded correct, that is what the law says. Alderman Lesh
expressed concerns raised by residents that as long as the item remains on the agenda, citizens will
continue to attend meetings out of uncertainty about when it may be revisited. He stated that this
ongoing uncertainty is creating additional issues for the Board and with his belief that leaving the item
on the agenda indefinitely is not appropriate. He asked what options may be available to remove the
item from the agenda or to make a recommendation regarding its removal. He stated that residents are
seeking to have the matter brought before the Board of Aldermen for answers however, he clarified that
it is currently not at the Board level and remains before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He asked
Attorney Kronin what steps could be taken to provide residents with clarity and reassurance. He noted
that the Board of Aldermen cannot take action on the item at this time, and with recommendation that
the only available option would be to direct staff to request that the applicant return and continue the
process from where it was left off. Attorney Kronin responds correct, that it is city duty consider each
application they receive fairly with regardless of nature of it. Alderman Lesh asked what would happen if
the applicant does not return and whether there is any established timeframe or requirement that
provides assurance or a defined point at which the City must act on or address the applicant’s request.
4

Attorney Kronin responded that he did not disagree with the concerns raised, but stated that further
discussion would be more appropriate in a closed session with the Board of Aldermen, Mayor, and
Planning & Zoning, where he could address the matter in detail. He states that he feels uncomfortable
providing legal advice during an open public meeting. Commissioner Love asked if a brief statement
could be added to the agenda indicating that the applicant has not contacted the City regarding the
matter and that it remains tabled, in order to keep the public informed.
Attorney Kronin stated that he had no issue with including such a statement on the agenda to inform
the public that the matter remains tabled and that the applicant has not made further contact. He also
addresses this statement again that the item cannot return for consideration without proper public
notice, including a scheduled public hearing and notification to surrounding property owners. Alderman
Lesh asked Attorney Kronin these items don’t have to remain on the agenda in between until the
applicant brings them forward for further action. Attorney Kronin answers I would agree, he said it may
not be strictly required, it is typical practice and advisable to keep the item on the agenda under Old
Business so the public remains aware that it is tabled and to maintain continuity in tracking the item.
Chairman Bruns stated that the Commission may need to make a recommendation to the Board of
Aldermen regarding these items listed under Old Business. Discussion Followed. The public hearing was
closed.
Public Hearing
A. PZ 2026-6: Map Amendment (Subdivision), Kyle Vogt- Klance Staging., applicant. The
applicant is seeking a map amendment (subdivision) for an approximate 3.85 +/- acre
tract of land generally located at 2298 Rose Lane. (Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-1-11.0-3010-002.700). The applicant is seeking a subdivision to three properties from the current
single parcel in the M-1 Light Industrial District.
Zoning Officer Girondo read the staff report. Kyle Vogt, Applicant, Mr. Vogt explained that the request
is intended to clean up the subdivision by establishing easements for each building to improve access
and better assist future buyers and businesses. Commissioner Love asked Mr. Vogt if the purpose of
subdividing the lots is to intend to sell them. Mr. Vogt responded yes, the lots could potentially be
sold in the future and as of right now that at least one is currently unoccupied and could be made
available. He added that they are currently working with counsel to draft a statement, similar to an
HOA agreement, for future buyers that would address items such as road access and related
provisions.
New Business
a. PZ 2026-6: Map Amendment (Subdivision), Kyle Vogt- Klance Staging., applicant. The
applicant is seeking a map amendment (subdivision) for an approximate 3.85 +/- acre
tract of land generally located at 2298 Rose Lane. (Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-1-11.0-3010-002.700). The applicant is seeking a subdivision to three properties from the current
single parcel in the M-1 Light Industrial District.
Motion by Commissioner Wymer, second by Commissioner Aycock to recommend approval of PZ
2026-6. Ayes: Commissioner Love, Commissioner Aycock, Commissioner Wymer, Chairman Bruns.
Nays: 0. Abstain: Commissioner Summers. Motion carries.
Old Business
a. PZ 2026-3: Map Amendment, Alt Joint Revocable Trust, applicant. The applicant is
seeking a map amendment (rezoning) for an approximate 155.0 +/- acre tract of land
generally located on Denton Road (Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-6-23.0-0-000-019.000,

5

19-6-24.0-0-000-015.000). They are requesting a zoning of Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for the underlying NU Non-Urban District Zoning. (Tabled by applicants 2-25-26)
b. PZ 2026-4: Map Amendment, William C. McLaren, Jr. & Linda S. McLaren Joint Revocable
Trust, applicant. The applicant is seeking a map amendment (rezoning) for an approximate
500 +/- acre tract of land generally located at 648 Phelan Road and Highway O (19-7-35.0-0000-001.000, 19-7-35.0-0-000-002.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-010.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-007.000,
19-7-26.0-0-000-011.000, 19-7-35.0-0-000-004.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-009.000, 19-7-25.0-0000-016.000, 19-7-25.0-0-000-017.000, 19-7-26.0-0-000-018.000, 19-7-25.0-0-000-014.100,
19-7-25.0-0-000-016.001). They are requesting a zoning of Planned Unit Development PUD
for the underlying M-1 Light Industrial District zoning. (Tabled by applicants 2-25-26)
Motion by Chairman Bruns, second by Commissioner Aycock to recommend that the Board of
Aldermen contact Beltline to determine the status and intent of their application.: Commissioner
Summers, Commissioner Love, Commissioner Aycock, Commissioner Wymer, Chairman Bruns. Nays:
0. Abstain: 0. Motion carries.
Committee Reportsa. Board of AldermenAlderman Lesh explained that an ordinance was passed at the meeting for Osage Hills, which releases
liens on the properties and allows them to move forward with development.
b. Board of AdjustmentZoning Officer Girondo reported that a Board of Adjustment meeting was held on April 14 to consider
two variance requests at 111 E. Bellevue Street and 322 S. Columbus Street, both involving waivers for
curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements, and noted that both were approved. He further reported that
the next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for May 27 at 5:30 PM to consider three variance
requests, including two from applicants Dennis Oliver (112 E. Franklin Street) and Mike Gallagher (321 N.
Fifth Street) seeking reduced front setbacks to construct or replace covered porches, and a third request
from Jason Clark seeking a variance from minimum lot width requirements to allow subdivision of a
property into two lots.
c. Zoning OfficerZoning Officer Girondo reported that a Conditional Use Permit request from TM Performance Sales LLC
for an automotive dealership on S. First Street will be considered at the May 27 meeting. He also
reported that he has been busy handling zoning inquiries, including those related to commercial
businesses and general zoning questions within the city.
Miscellaneous
Motion made by Commissioner Wymer, seconded by Commissioner Aycock to Adjourn. A voice vote
was taken with an affirmative result.
Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.

6

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF PACIFIC
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Conditional Use Permit
Lot 123 & North Part of Lots 124, 125, 126, & 127 of the Original Town of Franklin along
S First Street., Pacific Mo
Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-1-12.0-4-003-086.000
The City of Pacific Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday,
May 12, 2026 at 7:00 P.M. at the Pacific Government Center, 300 Hoven Drive, Pacific MO to
hear comments on the following proposals:
1. PZ-2026-7: Conditional Use Permit, TM Performance Sales, L.L.C., applicant. The applicant is
seeking a conditional use permit for an approximate 0.58 +/- acre tract of land generally located
along S. First Street being Lot 123 & North Part of Lots 124, 125, 126, & 127 of the Original
Town of Franklin, Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-1-12.0-4-003-086.000. The applicant is seeking a
Conditional Use Permit to operate an Auto Dealership and sales on the subject property.
Interested parties may comment during the Public Hearing at the specified date and time.
Copies of the application are available for review at Pacific City Hall, 300 Hoven Drive, during
weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Copies are also available online at
www.pacificmo.gov. If you should need additional information, please contact A.J. Girondo,
Zoning Officer, by telephone at 636-385-5648 or by email at [email protected].

16305 Swingley Ridge Road
Suite 300
Chesterfield, MO 63017

5/4/2026
City of Pacific, MO
300 Hoven Drive,
Pacific, MO 63069
SUBJECT:

Staff Report –S. 1st Street – Tyler Myers
Conditional Use Permit Application

PZ-2026-XX: Conditional Use Permit – S. 1st Street.
Existing Zoning: C-1 – Downtown Commercial District
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Automobile Dealership/Sales
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use: Mixed Use
This is a proposed conditional use permit for the parcel located along S. 1st (Parcel ID: 19-1-12.0-4003-086.000) and currently located inside the limits of the City of Pacific. The owner has applied for a
conditional use permit of the parcel for automobile dealership/sales in a C-1 Downtown Commercial
District. This property lies along South 1st Street just south of the railroad tracks and across the street
from the Depot and Pacific Brew Haus and is currently vacant. This area of South 1st Street is located
within ZONE AE of the FEMA FIRM Map and is within the floodplain.
The requested use of the lot as an automobile dealership/sales location would be a use that is currently
provided along S. 1st Street. There is a lot for used care sales two blocks to the south. The area is
generally commercial with mostly restaurants and small businesses to the north and east. The areas to
the south are more residential and light industrial in use than those to the north. The area is currently a
mixed-use environment, which the business would fit, and matches the future land use plan.
Based on the proposed use being an automobile dealership/sales lot would fit within the mixed use
environment and would be consistent with others around South First Street. The conditional use of this
lot as an automobile dealership could be recommended for approval with discussion about if this lot is
the right use in this location. This is for an approximate 0.58 +/- acre tract of land generally located
along S. First Street being Lot 123 & North Part of Lots 124, 125, 126, & 127 of the Original Town of
Franklin (Franklin County Parcel ID: 19-1-12.0-4-003-086.000) in a C-1 Downtown Commercial District.
Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
GEORGE BUTLER ASSOCIATES, INC.

Page 2 of 2

A.J. Girondo III, P.E.
Senior Associate