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

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.