Bartlett board approves Union Depot mixed‑use expansion, 4‑2, after hours of public comment

The Bartlett Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted 4‑2 to approve Resolution 19‑25, granting a special‑use permit for a mixed‑use residential development on roughly 34 acres at the northeast corner of Highway 70 and Highway 64.

Supporters said the project would add retail and grocery options and broaden housing choices; opponents warned the development could strain schools, increase traffic and encroach on the Little Bears preschool playground. The board accepted multiple changes the developer offered, including unit caps, additional buffers and limits on building height.

The developer and planning staff described the revised proposal as three connected districts: a Mixed‑Use Lofts district with ground‑floor retail, a Village district limited to townhomes and single‑family products, and a Marketplace district intended for a grocer and commercial uses. The developer said a grocer is under contract for the Marketplace parcel but declined to identify the tenant because of a confidentiality agreement.

Why it matters: Board members cited competing priorities — preserving Bartlett’s “small‑town” character and protecting school and neighborhood capacity while expanding the city’s retail tax base and housing options. The vote followed nearly two hours of public testimony and a detailed presentation by the applicant and the project economist.

What the board approved: As revised in response to public comment and staff review, the project now: caps multifamily units at 360; limits building heights in the multifamily areas to three stories; removes a separate “flats” district that would have allowed taller apartment blocks; prohibits second‑story balconies facing the northern property line; and establishes a minimum 30‑foot landscape buffer along the northern boundary that includes a 10‑foot non‑disturb zone, an eight‑foot fence and 20 feet of plantings. The special‑use permit text also includes a 50‑foot minimum building setback from the northern property line. The illustrative site plan shown to the board placed buildings about 100–105 feet from that line.

Developer and technical presentations: Developer representatives told the board they had reduced density and reconfigured roads to match the City of Memphis’ preferred intersection location at Vanderveer and Stage Road. They said the grocer under contract would coordinate detention for surface runoff with the project and that a road/traffic plan would be submitted for that component first. The developer said phases of the project would return to the planning commission for approval and that the developer would not proceed to later phases until leasing and absorption metrics for earlier phases are met.

An economic consultant, Corey Van Blaercom of Younger & Associates, presented an impact summary showing the new phase’s projected returns to the local economy. He said the development would generate about $104.5 million in annual economic activity, roughly 690 jobs and substantial annual property and sales tax revenue; he estimated roughly $1.7 million a year in combined property and sales tax benefits to Bartlett from the new phase and associated retail. (Those figures were presented by the consultant during the meeting.)

Public comment: Supporters included neighborhood and business leaders and a series of letters from local companies and owners who said the phase would bring grocery and retail choices, jobs and tax revenue. Christopher George Payton, a Bartlett resident, told the board the project would bring the amenities the city lacks: “this is not just an apartment complex. It’s a mixed‑use development that includes retail, dining, and potentially a new grocery store,” he said.

Opponents and nearby residents cited safety, school capacity, drainage and tree loss. Multiple residents urged the board to wait and evaluate how the first phase is leasing before approving additional units. Little Bears Preschool owner Cynthia Cromwell said she was “concerned if the townhouses that are back there, if they’re rentals, or if they’re just going to be sold,” and urged more study of retention ponds and child safety.

Public‑safety data: Police Chief Cox responded to concerns about crime in multifamily developments, saying apartment complexes account for a small share of the department’s calls for service. He said roughly 1.6% of the department’s incident calls in recent years were connected to apartment complexes and that overall crime and property‑crime rates in the city have been trending down.

Developer commitments and process clarifications: The developer indicated they have sizable private equity in the project and said banks will require evidence of absorption before financing later phases. They also described using homeowners association (HOA) rules to restrict leasing in the townhome product; the developer said HOA documents for the neighboring development had been amended previously to prohibit leasing.

Board vote and record: After discussion and additional questions from board members about permitted uses under the underlying SC‑1 zoning, the board voted to approve Resolution 19‑25. The roll call as read on the record named the votes given in the meeting transcript: Alderman Reeves (yes), Alderman Williams (yes), Alderman Young (no) and Alderman Quinn (no). The final tally announced by the clerk was 4‑2 in favor.

Votes at a glance: The board also recorded the following actions at the meeting: a motion to purchase a Falcon three‑ton asphalt transporter passed unanimously (6‑0); Resolution 20‑25, an amendment to the FY2026 general fund budget to appropriate $6,500 from a state recruitment and retention grant for law enforcement, passed; the board set public hearings for Aug. 26 on Resolution 27‑25 (planned residential development at Yale Road and Bartlett Boulevard) and Resolution 30‑25 (a separate mixed‑use residential proposal at New Brunswick Road and Highway 64), each of which came to the board with a planning‑commission recommendation; and the board set a public hearing Aug. 26 for Resolution 29‑25, a special‑use permit application for a hookah/lounge establishment (planning commission gave that application a non‑favorable recommendation; staff reported compliance questions relating to on‑site alcohol sales and a business license that the city will follow up on).

What’s next: The approved special‑use permit authorizes the zoning classification change only as written and does not approve construction drawings. The developer must submit subsequent development phases, detailed site plans and any required public‑works or traffic improvements to the planning department and planning commission. The developer said the grocer under contract intends to move forward quickly on a road/site plan for the Marketplace parcel and that any later multifamily phases would await demonstrated leasing performance of the completed phases.

This article summarizes discussion and decisions recorded in the Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting transcript for the item identified as Resolution 19‑25. Direct quotes and numerical estimates are attributed to speakers who spoke on the record during that agenda item.