Commission begins final review of subdivision regulations; staff recommends changes on street trees, amenities and traffic calming

Planning staff presented a discussion draft April 8 proposing substantive amendments to Section 5 and appendices C and F of Nolensville’s subdivision regulations, focusing on standards for streets, utilities, landscaping, trails, and site design.

Staff recommended deleting Appendix C (a template form) so administrative updates do not require a formal regulation change and proposed a number of edits to Appendix F and the Section 5 narrative. Among the issues staff asked the commission to consider were street‑tree placement, amenity timing, and traffic calming.

On street trees, staff said the town currently incurs “anywhere from $20,000 to as much as $30,000 a year replacing sections of sidewalks” because trees planted in narrow curb/sidewalk strips push up sidewalks and curbs. Staff asked whether the town wants trees in the curb strip and, if so, whether the strip should be widened or planting techniques (root barriers, different species) mandated, or whether trees should instead be planted in front yards to avoid future damage.

On amenities, staff proposed accelerating the existing threshold so that required amenities (for example, a community center, pool, playground) would be triggered when a development reaches roughly 30% of its dwelling-unit buildout instead of 50%, a change staff said would reduce the number of years residents wait before seeing neighborhood amenities.

Staff also proposed requiring traffic‑calming measures and adding clearer traffic‑impact-study references into the subdivision regulations. The presentation named design tools — offsets, medians, textured crossings, and other features — as means to slow traffic through neighborhood design rather than relying on post‑construction fixes.

Commissioners broadly supported further work on these topics. Commissioner Salameda asked staff to research best practices and provide alternative design examples that place street trees in front yards rather than a narrow park strip. The commissioners discussed potential tradeoffs between increased upfront design costs and the long‑term benefits of safer streets and reduced sidewalk repair costs; one commissioner noted that trail access, ownership, and maintenance (often conveyed to homeowners associations) should be clarified in the regulations.

Staff said illustrations in Appendix F will be updated with help from a consultant; the commission directed staff to return next month for detailed review, after which a public hearing and resolution could be scheduled to adopt changes. Staff also suggested consolidating the updated pieces into a single readopted document with a single effective date after the last section is completed.