Harland PUD proposal sparks debate over Hillview Lane access, traffic mitigation and timing

The Board of Mayor and Aldermen spent the longest portion of its May work session on a proposed annexation, zoning and development plan for the Harland property at 1247 Hillview Lane, with developers seeking the City of Franklin's Village Green designation and multiple modifications of standards for the proposed Harland PUD.

City staff summarized the package: an anticipated 242 residential units, about 32,000 square feet of nonresidential space and a proposed 80-room hotel within a plan that the applicant describes as leaving roughly 74 percent open space. The development plan requests 15 separate modifications of standards (MOS) to allow features such as alternative front-entry treatments, modified parking ratios, and flexible stormwater amenities. Staff said planning commission recommended approval for most MOS but recommended disapproval for MOS No. 1, which would alter setback requirements tied to alleys; the fire department raised access concerns for that item.

Developers and their representatives told the board the project is intended to preserve more land than county zoning would allow and to phase infrastructure work. Adam Balash (applicant) told the board the project's net density is about "0.67 units an acre," which he said is lower than the one-unit-per-acre standard that applies under county zoning; he added the team supports the staff conditions of approval and is prepared to work through MOS issues.

Consultant Greg Gamble and others outlined off-site roadway commitments the developer proposes, including turn-lane and safety improvements on Coleman Road, reconfiguration/signalization at Henpeck Lane and Coleman Road, an extension of Mac Hatcher Parkway and Hillview Lane safety and pedestrian improvements. Gamble said several of those items "must be completed prior to the first certificate of occupancy of Harlan," including portions of the Mac Hatcher/Hillview connection and certain Hillview improvements.

The development's traffic impact analysis (TIA) modeled a 2032 full-build scenario and, according to the presentation, projected an additional roughly 40 vehicles during peak hour on Mac Hatcher at full build-out; staff and the developer described phased construction and conditions intended to have certain off-site improvements in place as residential phases advance. The project also includes limits: engineering staff noted a cap at 50 home permits before additional off-site improvements are required, with some flexibility if the fire department advises otherwise.

Neighbors strongly opposed Hillview Lane being used as an unmitigated primary access. Gene Lovell, Rob Dodds, Blair Garner and Angela Lovell, who all identified themselves as Hillview Lane residents, urged the board to avoid increasing traffic on the winding rural road. Rob Dodds said, "We just don't want our quiet little country road destroyed," and several residents asked that construction access be limited to Coleman Road while permanent improvements are built.

Aldermen voiced mixed positions but repeatedly cited timing concerns: several board members said they cannot support any plan that effectively adds traffic to Hillview Lane until major projects such as the Mac Hatcher extension and Columbia Avenue improvements are advanced. Vice Mayor Potts, Aldermen Barnhill, Bland, Baggett and Caesar said preserving Hillview Lane's character is a high priority; some called for stronger guarantees that Coleman Road improvements and the Henpeck/Coleman realignment or signalization occur before broad residential occupancy.

City staff reviewed a draft interlocal agreement the county provided that would assign roadway maintenance responsibilities and described a sizable funding gap between estimated arterial and collector improvement costs (roughly $11 million combined in staff estimates) and the impact fees the project would generate. Staff said the draft interlocal would put maintenance responsibility for specified road segments on the City of Franklin while not extending other municipal services into county territory.

Board members asked whether Hillview could be gated or restricted for emergency access only; staff explained that generally the city prefers to maintain public connectivity and that gates present operational and emergency-response risks. Staff and the applicant said they had discussed gating options privately with neighbors and that the applicant would consider stricter gating if the board made it a condition, though staff had not modeled gated access in the TIA.

No formal annexation, rezoning or approval vote occurred at the work session. The items were presented for review and feedback; staff indicated public hearings and subsequent readings are scheduled (the packet referenced public hearings in late June), and the city will continue to refine conditions, the interlocal language and phasing requirements with the applicant and county.