Wilmington Capital seeks floodplain buffer variances at 5330 Charlotte Ave.; commissioners defer for plan detail and no‑rise review

Wilmington Capital Group and consultant Kimley Horn presented a redevelopment proposal for 5330 Charlotte Avenue at a regular meeting of the Metro Nashville Stormwater Management Commission, asking for variances to disturb zone 1 and zone 2 buffers, to allow maintenance of newly planted mitigation within the buffer, and to place alternative (educational) buffer signage instead of standard signs.

John Richard Patterson of Kimley Horn, working for owner Wilmington Capital, said the project proposes removal of roughly 27,000 square feet of existing building footprint that currently encroaches on the floodway and would raise finished floor elevations of remaining buildings so they comply with the base flood elevation. Patterson said the team plans to reroute an 84‑inch storm culvert that lies under existing slab and convert large areas of pavement near the creek to planted riparian buffer; he stated the project adds roughly 0.7 acres of impervious area across the site while also removing encroaching structures and creating new green space near the creek. The applicant reported an LID waiver had been granted and that water‑quality units would treat disturbed areas; staff and the applicant said water‑quality devices would be located outside the regulated floodway where required.

Nearby residents and stakeholders pressed for assurance the project would not increase flood elevations outside the property. Brian Metzger, reading a written comment authored by Simone Metzger, requested an analysis showing on‑ and off‑site effects of any proposed grading or fill and asked that the applicant update effective FEMA models to demonstrate no adverse impacts to upstream or downstream elevations. Commissioners and staff said a formal no‑rise demonstration for any work in a designated floodway is part of the commission’s regulatory review and that staff will verify HEC‑RAS modeling, cut‑and‑fill balancing and other technical measures during plan review.

Parks and Greenways staff reiterated that the Richland Creek master plan calls for a greenway along the creek and encouraged the applicant to preserve space for a future trail connection; Cindy Harrison of Metro Parks and Greenways suggested the removed southwest building and newly planted buffer could provide an opportunity for a trailhead or improved pedestrian connections to Charlotte Pike.

Commission discussion focused on three topics: the adequacy of proposed mitigation (planting plans and stability in a flood-prone setting), how to demonstrate no‑rise in the designated floodway, and whether proposed parking and service areas remaining in the floodway could be reduced or converted to pervious surfaces. Staff identified specific technical items to resolve: confirm the no‑rise modeling and, if modeling shows uncompensated fill or a rise in flood elevations, return the case to the commission; remove water‑quality units from the regulated floodway if necessary; provide section details, contours and planting specifications to confirm that the proposed buffer plantings are physically feasible and resilient to flood events.

After discussion, the commission voted to defer the application to the next meeting to allow the applicant to supply additional plan detail requested by commissioners and staff (HEC‑RAS/no‑rise documentation, clearer grading/contour sections, planting/specification details and confirmation that water‑quality units and treatment will be located outside the floodway). A motion to defer carried on an affirmative voice vote; commissioners indicated they were generally supportive of removing building footprint from the floodway and of creating wider plantings, but wanted more detail before granting variances.

No variances were granted at this meeting; staff will verify technical submittals during plan review and the applicant is expected to return with revised materials for formal action.