R+L carriers seeks multiple floodplain variances for Franklin Limestone site; commission asks for bigger mitigation and no-rise analysis

R+L Carriers representatives presented a preliminary plan to the Metro Nashville Stormwater Management Commission seeking multiple floodplain and floodway variances at 3240 Franklin Limestone Road, including requests for floodway and buffer encroachments, 12,562 cubic yards of uncompensated fill, continued mowing of buffer areas and modified buffer-sign locations.

The project team said the site, developed in the 1980s and located along Mill Creek, would be reconfigured to remove one structure from the floodway, add truck bays, relocate a maintenance building and truck wash out of the floodway, and add employee parking to handle shift-change overlap. Mary McGowan, a Kimley Horn representative, told the commission the proposal would “reduce the impervious area by 1.04 acres” and include additional canopy, understory and shrub planting intended to mitigate impacts.

Commissioners and staff said the site is complex and that the proposal needs stronger mitigation and clearer technical analysis. Commission members asked for a formal HEC‑RAS no‑rise analysis for the project if the commission is asked to grant variances within the designated floodway and for alternatives that move parking out of the floodway. Stormwater staff noted the applicant reported the proposed uncompensated fill would cause a 0.04‑foot rise in the base flood elevation and recommended reducing the amount of uncompensated fill; staff said the site ‘‘achieves a no rise analysis’’ in the materials reviewed but asked the applicant to work with staff on mitigation planting plans and any floodway constraints.

Public comments raised adjacent concerns. A resident identifying an address of 4506 Artilia Drive said daily blasting and dust from a nearby quarry had caused vibration and dust problems at her home; Patricia Rocha of 106 Cherokee Hills Drive said the creek had not been cleaned since flooding in February 2010 and asked how the proposal would affect that condition. Commissioners directed staff to follow up with citizens about quarry and air‑quality contacts and reiterated that those quarry issues were not part of the variance request before the commission.

Applicants and R+L representatives described operational constraints: Stan Richards, vice president for R+L Carriers, said trucks require drive-in access and that grade changes on truck courts cannot be solved with steps. The applicant said alternative layouts were considered but that the site’s floodway location and existing topography make compensatory mitigation on-site difficult, and that placing mitigation in the floodplain did not reduce modeled flood elevations for the cross section of concern.

Commissioners and Metro Parks Greenways staff highlighted the site’s Mill Creek greenway master‑plan designation and encouraged the applicant to preserve future trail potential. Cindy Harrison of Metro Parks and Greenways noted the master plan identifies a greenway route along Mill Creek across the property and asked that mitigation not preclude a future connection.

Commissioners recommended several specific changes if the applicant moves forward: reduce the amount of uncompensated fill, remove or relocate parking now planned in the floodway, expand and diversify the proposed riparian and buffer plantings (particularly native species), avoid routine mowing of newly restored buffer areas, and explore pervious paving or other low‑impact options outside the floodway. Staff said water‑quality units should be located outside regulated floodway spans and that any mitigation within the floodway would need to be detailed for flood resilience and maintenance.

The hearing was a preliminary presentation and no vote was taken on variances. Staff told commissioners the formal plan review would include checks on whether the final plans “meet the regulations” and that a formal no‑rise finding would be addressed during plan review; staff said they would return the project to the commission if plan review identified unaddressed increases in flood elevations.

Commissioners closed the item after roughly an hour of presentation and discussion and asked the applicant to return with refined plans, a clearer mitigation and planting strategy, and a formal demonstration that any proposed encroachments would not increase flood heights off‑site.

The commission did not take formal action on the variances at this meeting; the case remains under staff review and expected to return for further consideration once the applicant provides the requested analyses and revised mitigation plans.