Design Review Commission recommends approval of Shilling Farms Water Tower District Phase 2 with conditions

The Collierville Design Review Commission on April 10 voted to recommend approval of the preliminary site plan for Shilling Farms Phase 79 (Water Tower District Phase 2), a proposed multifamily development that would add 246 rental units south of Poplar Avenue and west of Shilling Boulevard West.

The recommendation, which the commission transmitted to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BMA), was accompanied by conditions including a detailed final landscape plan, photometric lighting verification, dumpster enclosure screening, a dog‑park fencing plan, and resolution of a previously cited 75% masonry material requirement for building elevations.

Staff presentation noted the subject parcel is zoned R-1 with a Planned Development (PD) overlay and totals about 13.13 acres within Area 2 of the Shilling Farms PD (Area 2 is ~91.3 acres under the PD outline). The proposal calls for 246 rental units ranging from one to three bedrooms, 508 parking spaces, and approximately 27.5% green space with 9.19% usable open space shown at the preliminary stage. Staff recommended approval after conditions are met.

Les Binkley, representing Boyle Investment Company on behalf of the owner, said the applicant wants consistency between Phase 1 and Phase 2 and that the project team will provide additional documentation if requested. "We aim to just have consistency throughout Phase 1 and Phase 2," Binkley said.

Several neighbors who live in the adjacent Porter Farms Phase 7 subdivision raised concerns during the public‑comment period about tree removal, privacy, dumpster placement, lighting spill, and cut‑through traffic using Peyton Parkway. Gustavo Cornitz, vice president of the Porter Farms Phase 7 homeowners association, asked the commission to require preservation of more trees, relocated or interior dumpster placement, privacy screening and cooperative coordination between the developer and the HOA. "Weare not opposed to thoughtful development," Cornitz said. "We are requesting that the city require the developer to preserve more trees ... include privacy as a core design principle ... reposition the dumpster ... and collaborate with our HOA."

A resident and planning commenter asked about stormwater and runoff. Michael Rogers, the applicant's civil engineer, stated most site drainage does not flow west toward Porter Farms; the majority will drain south and toward an existing detention system associated with adjacent development and hotel construction. "For the most part, nothing drains west," Rogers said, adding the northwest corner drains north toward onsite detention near the hotel.

Staff and commissioners flagged several items needing follow up before BMA consideration: (1) a definitive final landscape plan that lists species, quantities and sizes; (2) detailed screening and enclosure design for the dumpster/compactor; (3) a fenced dog run design and confirmation of fence type and location; (4) a photometric lighting plan meeting the town's property‑line foot‑candle limits; and (5) documentation addressing the 75% masonry/materiality standard used in earlier approvals and whether per‑elevation or per‑facade calculation will apply. Staff said some conditions can be resolved at final site plan submittal and that the BMA will have the final decision.

The commission's recommendation was recorded by roll call. Commissioners recorded voting "yes" included Commissioner Lawhon, Commissioner Donhart, Alderman Robbins, Commissioner Hepner, Commissioner Larimore and Chairman Doss. The motion to recommend approval passed and will advance to the April 28 BMA meeting as part of the next steps identified by staff: final site plan submittal, recording of the final subdivision plat and building permits.

The commission noted it is a recommending body and that the BMA has the final authority on the PD and any waivers. Staff said the applicant is generally agreeable to the conditions and will revise the conditions texting to reflect corrected tree counts and timing of final submittal requirements.

Minor pending items and project clarifications captured in the record include the proposed exterior materials (three brick types identified as Laredo, Danbury and Walnut Grove, with some brick painted alabaster), proposed fiber cement panel and shingle colors, the applicant's use of an alternate tree mitigation table consistent with prior phases, and staff note that the decorative inorganic rock mulch used previously was approved with limitations and must be clarified for Phase 2 on the final site plan.

The commission indicated it wants to review or receive a report on the final landscape, fencing and photometric plans prior to the BMA decision; staff agreed to notify the public and commissioners as those materials are submitted.