Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning commission approves Waters at Bartlett master plan despite developer plea to drop traffic condition
Loading...
Summary
The Bartlett Planning Commission approved the Waters at Bartlett Residential Mixed‑Use master plan (25.73 acres) with staff conditions. The developer asked the commission to remove Condition 28, arguing projected traffic growth — not the apartment project — drives the need for off‑site improvements; city engineering staff said the left‑turn movement already shows deficient level‑of‑service and the condition is consistent with past practice. Vote: 7–1.
The Bartlett Planning Commission on Dec. 1 approved the master plan for the Waters at Bartlett Residential Mixed‑Use development, allowing a 25.73‑acre project that includes roughly 15.46 acres of residential and about 10.26 acres of commercial property to proceed to later permitting stages.
The commission voted to approve the plan with staff‑recommended conditions. The roll‑call tally was 7‑yes, 1‑no: Alderman Jack Young, James Reid, Don Conway, Greg Easton, David Hunt, Jim Lamb and Paul Kaiser voted yes; Ken Demetrio voted no.
The developer’s representative, Michael Rogers of Fisher & Arnold, said the applicant supports all staff conditions except Condition 28 and asked the commission to remove it. Rogers told commissioners the traffic analysis that prompted the condition is driven largely by multi‑year growth projections and not by the apartments alone and warned that adding the off‑site improvements and associated costs — which he described as “right under half $1,000,000” for certain items — could “sink this development.” He also argued some intersection problems are existing regional issues for TDOT or neighboring jurisdictions to address rather than obligations created by the project.
City engineering staff defended Condition 28, noting that the left‑turn movement from eastbound Highway 64 onto New Brunswick Road is classified in the staff study as level‑of‑service D under current conditions and could decline toward E under 2031 projected volumes. Engineering staff said LOS metrics reflect intersection efficiency and that, historically, the city has required developers to mitigate off‑site impacts when studies show a material adverse effect on movements such as the subject left turn. Staff also pointed to prior nearby improvements tied to commercial development as precedent for placing some off‑site obligations on developers.
Commission discussion focused on precedent and who should share costs. Several commissioners said requiring developers to address off‑site capacity and safety issues is consistent with past practice; others raised the possibility of partnership approaches or credits but noted those require separate board action and are not standard in the subdivision review process.
Staff reminded the applicant that the developer may appeal to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen if it seeks to overturn conditions. The commission’s action approves the master plan with the conditions as presented by staff; no change to Condition 28 was made.
Next steps: the approved master plan allows the developer to return with final construction plans under the agreed conditions; the applicant retains the right to appeal conditions to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
