[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6580702,"mediaKeyId","3174736-a447a1065c71f34ef3300d3f40597cd0","parentId",3174736,"title","Spring Hill planners press Arbor Valley developer for parking, traffic and design clarifications on phase 6 changes","audioSeconds",1217,"startMs",392000,"endMs",1609000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3174736-a447a1065c71f34ef3300d3f40597cd0&start=392&end=1609","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3174736-a447a1065c71f34ef3300d3f40597cd0/thumbnail_392000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6580702/Tennessee/Spring-Hill-planners-press-Arbor-Valley-developer-for-parking-traffic-and-design-clarifications-on-phase-6-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580702-4aee7efe2928de7196c61ff9ddb9b12f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136926&Signature=GHKdcYQVP9th37WTDKBOM9VK-0th106avH5avrWiYyXr92-bS4GbKOtn8sFxoVfuBg8e~S1StX0BgExQOL5i-UJv3ilxvtGw8IQgNx-WRXHntn9aWcLVRc7OK7QWAlhinSfxKJoVE6xWfWN00rkWKDvHWGp~r-cf4Nyk0GEgXVmxx5LVtHhyonbBvfctUzDTfT1IV2kyNQxJttHmkymiw7nWPPXmHBFA7NKSAKzMpKC0rn1NbhJUUpnacbDzYRWfpvh-KLU-kpZwUWayDP93Np50FBX6HLHWadY3aPh9oPdlXq1qRpDa3EogvfolrRELzrcnMzGZwvygHS8ms~hOCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Spring Hill, TN","date","2025-04-28T00:00:00Z","article","Spring Hill Planning Commission staff raised multiple technical and design concerns April 28 about a proposed modification to the Arbor Valley planned unit development that would change phase 6 to front‑loaded townhomes, alter cottage building sizes, and remove rear alleys.

Senior planner Mr. Moran told commissioners the applicant seeks to reallocate dwelling units in phases 6–8, making phase 6 exclusively 28‑unit cottage‑style townhomes and changing cottage buildings from 3–5 units to 4–6 units each. Staff said the proposed plan replaces rear‑alley, rear‑loaded garages with three public streets and front‑loaded garages, which increases impervious surface in front yards and raises concerns about guest parking, driveway widths and curb treatments.

The nut of staff’s technical concerns is traffic, parking and long‑term maintenance. Moran said the project’s current construction totals about 312 units (roughly 54% of the approved project) and that changing phase 6 from 111 to 128 units would push the overall development past the UDC’s 75% build‑out threshold that requires updated traffic counts and a traffic signal warrant analysis at project intersections with Beechcroft Road.

Representatives from Reagan Smith, including Matt Hamilton and Sam Chrisman, told the commission they had reviewed staff comments. Hamilton said the team will provide an updated traffic study when the 75% threshold is reached and will work with staff on guest parking. He said eliminating alleys reduced impervious area by about 20% and that rollover curb details are consistent with other work in the development. Chrisman said the developer will shrink one cul‑de‑sac that exceeds Fire Marshal requirements and add requested landscaping and labeling to the plans.

Commissioners pressed for more detail. Mayor Fitterer and others asked the applicant to provide labeled elevation types and material percentages so the commission can verify façade variation and avoid a monotonous appearance if a single building type predominates in phase 6. Commissioners also suggested the excess cul‑de‑sac could provide guest parking but noted that one cul‑de‑sac must remain available for emergency vehicle turnaround; staff said red curbing, signage and HOA enforcement would be required to keep fire lanes clear.

Staff flagged an outstanding Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) violation tied to ongoing construction; Hamilton said the developer remediated the issue and received confirmation from TDEC that no further action was required, and offered to provide documentation.

Because several plan details remain unresolved — guest parking, labeled elevations and materials, exact unit counts per building, impervious area computations and confirmation of how alley removal will affect long‑term maintenance costs — the chair left the modification and the associated preliminary plat off consent for further revision and review.

Next steps: the applicant will revise plans to address staff comments, provide building elevations and material schedules, document TDEC closure, and supply additional parking/landscape plans. Staff will require updated traffic counts and signal warrant analysis once the project exceeds the UDC 75% build‑out threshold.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Monday, April 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Spring Hill Planning Commission staff raised multiple technical and design concerns April 28 about a proposed modification to the Arbor Valley planned unit development that would change phase 6 to front‑loaded townhomes, alter cottage building sizes, and remove rear alleys.","taxTitle","Planning Commission Meetings, Spring Hill, Maury County, Tennessee","taxId",69742,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6580692,"Staff warns that rezoning Eastport Farms to C‑4 could strain Spring Hill sewer and contradict comprehensive plan goals",2474,1530000,4004000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3174736-a447a1065c71f34ef3300d3f40597cd0&start=1530&end=4004","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3174736-a447a1065c71f34ef3300d3f40597cd0/thumbnail_1530000.jpg","/articles/6580692/Tennessee/Staff-warns-that-rezoning-Eastport-Farms-to-C4-could-strain-Spring-Hill-sewer-and-contradict-comprehensive-plan-goals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580692-4b408a102bdcc0770fb5a08da674454e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136926&Signature=HpTjNF2UOMM2utVRy9Gd~1hCxs3zksSH2KZu~KGRHj5hMeIgBgyY3ZIXLdMISOHAma79Ta1hGbpxbhPzAPtgP42xErv8TVP5hJlSd2dTBvNzRQTtcccYDUNDgTEVPnLwwUe1sXy13BA5B55g9P1UafFKPpTf0AxIIPS~ACRd3y-Pl8y-pa8LFNDt2nbidgz54O1yVf-N~jxgIuTSnOiNhRFur5BR0pWm7mhaaqmn0eHF0wHfxW-hhfSlwG-buEOKKB6hUkMRXjPEq0CQjyI2vlBAMwm4cZ7m2ZX0O3quK2SK9h13p~GIPyr1mf49nahIq2dFoSI-5-ax6FiO96QPMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission on April 28 heard competing arguments over a rezoning request to change a 1.97‑acre parcel on Port Royal Road from agricultural to C‑4 (general commercial) to enable a planned development called Eastport Farms.

Senior planner Mr. Moran and planning staff advised the commission the rezoning is not consistent with the Spring Hill comprehensive plan when viewed in full context because of existing utility and transportation constraints. Staff pointed to a June 12, 2024 city memorandum to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen urging discretionary denial of annexations and rezonings that would increase sewer demand until the city completes wastewater treatment and reservoir projects. Staff said existing water use has exceeded 80% of capacity and there is an overcommitment of sewer capacity.

Ms. Sanders and other staff explained that rezoning the parcel to C‑4 would allow higher‑intensity, by‑right uses that could be inappropriate along an unimproved Port Royal Road (a two‑lane rural arterial with open ditches and no curb or sidewalk) and that the small size of the parcel (approximately 1.97 acres) raises questions about developability for intense mixed‑use under C‑4. Staff recommended the applicant consider lower‑intensity interim districts such as RA or RR and then pursue a C‑4 planned development (PD) if appropriate; staff emphasized that conditions and phasing in a PD enable limitations on timing and utility demand that a straight rezoning would not.

Greg Gamble, representing Gamble Design Collaborative, said C‑4 aligns with the comprehensive plan’s “community commerce” character area and argued that the parcel’s size and frontage make C‑4 a reasonable request. Gamble said his client intends to advance a PD with triggers and milestones to limit impacts. He also corrected an earlier misstated acreage to 1.97 acres during his presentation.

Commissioners and the mayor expressed mixed views. Mayor Fitterer and several commissioners said they believed C‑4 could be an appropriate long‑term fit but that current infrastructure constraints counsel caution. City attorney Patrick Carter reminded the commission that its role is to act on the application submitted — the body may recommend approval or denial — and that the elected Board of Mayor and Aldermen has broader discretion at the rezoning stage.

Because staff and several commissioners expressed concern about immediate approval given the city’s sewer and water capacity limits, the chair left the rezoning request off consent for additional review and discussion before a formal recommendation to BOMA.

Next steps: staff and the applicant will continue discussions; commissioners may recommend denial or conditional approval with an alternative zoning suggestion to BOMA; final action will be decided by BOMA at a later meeting.","At an April 28 work session, City of Spring Hill staff recommended caution on a requested AG→C‑4 rezoning for Eastport Farms, citing sewer and water capacity constraints and potential conflict with the comprehensive plan; the applicant said C‑4 best fits the plan and intends to pursue a planned development with phased commitments.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6580697,"Staff recommends calling Ketron Square Phase 1B maintenance bond after developer declines bridge statement",356,130000,486000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3174736-a447a1065c71f34ef3300d3f40597cd0&start=130&end=486","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3174736-a447a1065c71f34ef3300d3f40597cd0/thumbnail_130000.jpg","/articles/6580697/Tennessee/Staff-recommends-calling-Ketron-Square-Phase-1B-maintenance-bond-after-developer-declines-bridge-statement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580697-ddd672f7df26a3fcc1e5553821d90abe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136926&Signature=faaOH~tmuEppjx6pnfowqfcY0F2uesdzhFQznz8kr1-TZJyhO06J5FMkAtydgQbzMjhuevwvHiUXvBPalz~QEqnjJkflMKttBCiCUl~h0sYIuMVbyizMUyzteVwTOee1e2E-nMGECIHtSyOVbxi9xhBj89sH6uSH1tRrScrM9EMNOc0FEj-ZBKjnBcIDqRRgwt0ybDCJUZpxPL7NgCv05DCMbFBrP6aHNZglJr-5P~TkZbEgVqB-79gK3Fv7WYFzeE5XNXvxcPBKweb~gh8~3JkrI6-EixwER0uw4QCu4eFEoYYY55G-jUtZzpAvE6g3cspUY-iccTSHDss91p4sPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff recommended that the Planning Commission follow normal UDC procedures and recommend calling the maintenance bond for Ketron Square Phase 1B at the April 28 work session after the applicant failed to provide a 12‑month performance bond required by the Unified Development Code.

Missy Stahl, the city CIP director, told commissioners staff is recommending the bond be called and that timing between the Planning Commission voting session and the next Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BOMA) meeting could otherwise allow the bond to expire. She said staff is working with the developer to secure a renewal, but advised calling the bond is the appropriate step in the process.

Commissioners flagged a related issue: one developer representative, Mr. Scroggins, did not sign a standard statement for the Harvest Point bridge that certifies construction per approved plans. Ms. Sanders explained the bridge was not constructed entirely per the approved plans; portions deviated from the specifications the applicant proposed and the city engineer approved. Because a blanket statement that the bridge was built exactly per plan would be false, Mr. Scroggins declined to sign it.

Sanders said staff and the public works director are preparing an alternative, more specific statement intended to support the developer’s request to reduce the performance bond to a maintenance bond. Staff and the developer have worked toward a solution that could include extending the maintenance bond period or negotiating a long‑term maintenance agreement for portions of the bridge that did not meet the approved specifications.

The chair determined the first bond item would be left off consent and the others put on consent. Final action on the Ketron Square maintenance bond will be taken at a later meeting where a vote is recorded.

Next steps: staff will present the recommended bond action and any alternative bridge certification or maintenance agreement at a future voting meeting of the Planning Commission and BOMA. The developer may provide an alternative signed statement or a proposed long‑term maintenance agreement.","City staff told the Planning Commission April 28 they will recommend calling the maintenance bond for Ketron Square Phase 1B because the developer did not post a 12‑month performance bond required by the UDC; staff and public works are preparing alternative documentation on a bridge that was not built exactly to approved plans.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Spring Hill planners press Arbor Valley developer for parking, traffic and design clarifications on phase 6 changes

Staff warns that rezoning Eastport Farms to C‑4 could strain Spring Hill sewer and contradict comprehensive plan goals

Staff recommends calling Ketron Square Phase 1B maintenance bond after developer declines bridge statement