[0:03] Good evening. I'd like to call to order the City of Spring Hill Municipal Planning Commission meeting for the August 24th, 2026 work session. The time is 5.30 p.m. There are seven members on this commission and all are present with the exception of Commissioner Rondo. We're joined tonight by our planning assistant, Miss Alexis Salas and our city attorney, Mr. Patrick Carter and our senior planner, Mr. Moron. The work session is an opportunity for the planning commission to review applications and have discussions with the submitters. There's no voting tonight.

[0:32] On each agenda item staff will give their report and then representatives for that item will have the opportunity to come to the podium and

[0:38] discuss those items or provide any pertinent information to the planning commission. There are copies of the agenda on the podium in the back.

[0:46] Audience members wishing to speak to a non-agenda item will have the opportunity in just a moment.

[0:51] Audience members wishing to speak to an agenda item will have the opportunity when we reach that item and will have five minutes to address the planning commission.

[0:58] No rebuttal marks are permitted.

[1:00] For those of you who are not able to attend the in-person meetings, please submit your

[1:04] public comments regarding agenda and non-agenda items to PCPubliccomment at SpringHillTN.org.

[1:10] At this time do we have any audience members that wish to address the commission regarding

[1:13] any non-agenda items?

[1:16] I don't see any.

[1:18] Now we'll move to item E. Draft, August 10, 2026, Planning Commission Regular Meeting

[1:25] minutes. These have already been provided to all the members. Are there any comments or questions regarding the minutes?

[1:31] Okay. Then we'll move to item F for the bond packet, Mr. Goats.

[1:38] Good evening. We'll go see how pay project manager. For the bonds tonight, everything's

[1:46] typical, nothing out of the ordinary except for item six or nine. They're a little different.

[1:52] All right, not all improvements were completed by the developer, so they have submitted cash to the city for us to complete.

[2:01] Everything else has been walked by city staff and signed off on.

[2:05] Happy to answer any questions.

[2:07] Commissioner, do you have any questions or comments on the bond packet?

[2:11] All right, thank you, sir.

[2:14] Is there any public comment regarding any of the bonds?

[2:16] I don't see any with that we'll move to item G, Old Business, FPL 2093-2026 submitted by SEC for legacy point phase one,

[2:32] lot 10 section 2A, Ms. Burke.

[2:35] Thank you. Request, the applicant is requesting final plot approval for 23 lots, roadways, and the related infrastructure, property, description, and history.

[2:44] This final plat was scheduled for the Planning Commission work session on July 27th, 2026, but was deferred because the applicant was not in attendance.

[2:52] The legacy point plan development was approved on March 22nd, 2023. Since its approval, the PD has been amended four times to revise phasing conditions of approval and development standards.

[3:03] The most recent amendment was approved on June 16th, 2025.

[3:08] PDF 1476-2023 and PPL 1475-2023 were approved on October 9th, 2023, and the Planning Commission

[3:17] subsequently approved FPL 1557-2024 on April 8th, 2024, for those nine lots.

[3:24] The revised final plat was later recorded on August 27th, 2024, to address lot lines and

[3:29] create an additional lot, which is lot 10.

[3:31] On December 8th, 2025, the Planning Commission approved FPL 1970-2025 and Phase 1A, PDF,

[3:39] 1524-2023 and PPO 1550-2024 was approved by the Planning Commission on February 12th, 2024.

[3:48] The applicant is now requesting final plot approval for a portion of the previously approved Phase 1A

[3:53] to establish 23 residential lots based on the available sewer allocation.

[3:58] Out of the 23 lots, 15 are detached single-family.

[4:02] Staff is unable to determine how their remaining lots are intended to be developed based on the submitted plans.

[4:07] Please provide additional information identifying the proposed use of each remaining lot, including the lot number and type of residential units anticipated.

[4:16] The proposed final plat is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plat.

[4:21] The primary difference is the lot numbering, which has changed as a result of multiple

[4:26] resubdivision plots that they are doing.

[4:29] Spring Hill Rising.

[4:31] Spring Hill Rising designates this property as a Community Commerce Center.

[4:35] Community Commerce areas provide regional commercial services for Spring Hill and neighboring

[4:39] communities.

[4:40] Primary future land uses include professional and regional offices, restaurants, large-scale

[4:45] retail, municipal services, community centers, automobile-oriented services, transportation

[4:50] and large-scale entertainment venues.

[4:54] Multi-family residential development is identified

[4:56] as a secondary land use.

[4:59] Access and site circulation.

[5:01] Access to the development is provided by the previously established rights of way

[5:04] for legacy point trail, vibe, street, and bistro lane.

[5:08] This final plat proposes additional 50-foot wide local streets

[5:11] and 20-foot wide private alleys to provide internal circulation.

[5:15] The 15 proposed single-family lots will be accessed

[5:17] from an extension of bistro lane.

[5:20] Streets and sidewalks. All proposed local streets include five and a half foot sidewalks

[5:24] and two 11 foot travel lanes within a 50 foot public right-of-way. The proposed private

[5:29] alleys will be located within 20 foot private right-of-way. Both right-of-way widths are

[5:34] consistent with the approved Lexi Point pattern book. Utilities, stormwater and sanitary sewer

[5:40] infrastructure will initially be located within easements that are intended to become public

[5:44] rights away, as future phases of the development are completed.

[5:48] For this phase, the applicant is requesting 22,684 gallons per day of sewer allocation.

[5:54] For clarity, please provide an illustration that outlines the exact boundaries for each

[5:58] phase slash subphase.

[6:00] Sewer allocations are shown in the table below.

[6:02] Summary, staff met with the applicant on July 8, 2026, to review the proposed final plat.

[6:08] All previous staff comments have been addressed, except for the allocation of the town home

[6:11] lots.

[6:12] The additional comments that have been identified shall be addressed with revision deadline number two.

[6:17] That concludes my report.

[6:19] Thank you, Ms. Vark.

[6:20] Is there a representative here for this item?

[6:26] Good evening, my name is Osama, with the SEC 850, middle Tennessee Boulevard in Marvusboro.

[6:30] I'm here to represent the applicant and happy to answer any questions.

[6:35] I've been in contact with the planning department about the clarity about the town homes.

[6:39] Usually, the location of the touch units is addressed with the HBR plat.

[6:43] later on after this plot is approved, my client is intended to prepare an HBR

[6:50] plot to show each town home location and how those lots are divided up for the

[6:56] individual units for that attached and we've done the same practice on the phase,

[7:00] the other phase for the quads on lot 12 where we recorded the final plot then we

[7:05] came with the HBR plot it's just when we asked about the HBR plot it's not

[7:10] something that the planning will review it's being done by that Tony and then recorded then the recorded version will be provided to the planning department after that.

[7:19] Okay, thank you.

[7:22] Mr. Moore, not this may be a question for you, but I'm sure they're going to do everything exactly like they said they will, but just for the sake of protected protections for the city.

[7:31] like what would those those lots not being specified the the density or the what's

[7:39] going to be put on there what is the protection for the city on that so under ordnance 2529

[7:45] they like see point was given an allocation and out of that master allocation

[7:52] gallons per day I forget the exact number 36,000 maybe was given to

[7:57] asked in woods and they have submitted a letter how they're going to allocate that portion

[8:04] of the overall legacy point so that's what's really going to limit how many units are going

[8:09] to be on.

[8:10] Okay, it works for me.

[8:13] Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments are

[8:18] you all okay with putting this

[8:19] on consent?

[8:23] Okay.

[8:23] Thank you, sir.

[8:24] Thank you.

[8:25] Is there any public comment for this item?

[8:28] Okay.

[8:29] I don't see any.

[8:29] They'll move to H, Item New Business, Item 1, PPL 2118-2026, submitted by Goodwin Mills and Kaywood for Spring Hill Commerce Center, Phase 1, Lot 1.

[8:43] Mr. Pavlik?

[8:46] Thank you.

[8:48] Request.

[8:49] The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to extend a new public road south of the existing realignment of Jim Warren Road and across Rutherford Creek.

[8:58] property, description and history. The site abuts the east side of I-65. This area was historically

[9:05] farmland while the northeast and southern portions are still wooded. The overall site is in both

[9:11] Murray County and Williamson County. As Rutherford Creek passes through the site, significant portions

[9:16] of the preliminary plat are within special flood hazard areas. The Spring Hill Commerce Center planned

[9:22] development previously known as South Nashville Commerce Center and Project

[9:26] Suitcase was approved under PDP 1323-2022 by Ordinance 22-26 in January 2023

[9:35] rezoning the site to PDI-2 and establishing vision book regulations and conditions

[9:41] of approval. Bulk area and zoning requirements. There are no details outlining the

[9:48] reconfigurations of the lots. This preliminary plat does not propose new lots,

[9:53] dimensional standards listed below are for reference. However, new lots shall

[9:57] meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the PD dimensional standards.

[10:01] These are shown in the table on the staff report.

[10:06] Streets and sidewalks, a new

[10:08] public road south of the existing realignment of Jim Warren Road is proposed,

[10:13] including a bridge over Rutherford Creek. The road culminates in a cul-de-sac. The

[10:17] The new portion of right-of-way under this preliminary plot is approximately 108 feet wide

[10:22] at its narrowest and approximately 310 feet wide at its widest.

[10:26] This width exceeds the minimum right-of-way width set forth both in the UDC and the SHCC

[10:33] vision book.

[10:34] Sidewalks in street lighting are not proposed.

[10:36] This is consistent with the pattern book and development agreement.

[10:40] The proposed road network is consistent with the overall PD plan.

[10:43] It would complete the north-south roadway connection.

[10:46] Summary. Staff is met with the applicant on July 8th and August 12th, 2026, and all previously

[10:53] identified comments have been addressed. The preliminary plan establishes a new public

[10:57] roadway and bridge consistent with the SHCC plan development approvals, the development agreement,

[11:03] and the pattern book. Any additional comments from the work session should be addressed by revision

[11:08] deadline number two. This concludes my report. Thank you. Is there a representative for this item?

[11:21] and are all the, is everything that they mentioned in the report? Is your client okay with

[11:29] that sorry? Yes ma'am. Okay. Commissioner she have any questions or comments? Is everyone okay with

[11:36] the spin on consent? All right thank you sir. Thank you. Is there any public comment for this item?

[11:42] We'll move to item 2, SPM 2136-2026 submitted by Jonathan Edwards for 5414 Main Street Quick

[11:50] Mart for site plan approval to extend a public access easement.

[11:56] Mr. Morin.

[11:57] Thank you.

[11:58] The applicant is requesting site plan approval to extend and connect to an existing public

[12:03] access easement located south west of the Quick Mart site.

[12:08] easement currently provides secondary access to racetrack, RB's, S-MDNL, and star

[12:14] bugs. Based on the request, I'm going to focus on access and site circulation. The

[12:22] existing business has two access points to Main Street. Both are in-gress,

[12:26] egress points located at the northeast and southwest edges of the property. There are

[12:32] two way access aisles on both sides of fuel canopy. There is another two way

[12:38] access aisle from the main building to the north east access point to main street.

[12:44] The last two way access is to the west of the main building that directs traffic to the

[12:48] rear of the building, presumably for trash pickup.

[12:53] The access aisle to the west of the canopy is one way to the south.

[13:00] The abutting parcels do have different grades making the connection more challenging.

[13:04] The grade changes 8.8%, an 8.8% slope can significantly affect site distance, depending

[13:15] upon how the grade changes.

[13:18] Any off-site grading would require an agreement with all the budding property owners affected

[13:23] prior to construction.

[13:25] If cross-axis is allowed, it would be right in, right out only, signed with a directional

[13:34] curb island to limit traffic direction. Also, if cross-axis easement is allowed, the property

[13:40] owners must, from the UDC, one, record an easement allowing cross-axis to and from properties

[13:47] served by the joint use driveways and cross-axis easement. Two, any pre-existing driveways must

[13:55] be closed and eliminated after construction of the joint use driveway. And three,

[14:03] record

[14:03] and maintenance responsibilities of each property owner.

[14:07] Staff would like planning commission feedback

[14:09] on the above items specifically item two.

[14:13] Discussion.

[14:14] Staff brought attention to the narrow width

[14:16] of the existing public access easement.

[14:19] As a result, the applicant is proposing

[14:22] to widen the public access easement.

[14:25] However, this causes concern

[14:27] because it is on a neighboring property.

[14:30] Any change to the public access easement

[14:32] can only be made with a consent of the property owner, staff request the applicant provide

[14:38] an update on discussions with the neighboring property owner, and also grading changes

[14:45] to reduce the slope of the potential connection would impact the neighboring property that

[14:50] would also require consent prior to construction.

[14:54] A few outstanding items, neighbor consent for the easement widened.

[15:00] Meeting, neighbor consent for grading impacts, kind of an analysis of the 8.8% grade, updated site plans showing driveway closures, if required, in revised circulation plan, demonstrating safe right in, right out movement. Lastly, a draft, cross access easement and maintenance agreement. That concludes my report.

[15:28] They're representative, I don't see one, however I am open to discussing this and giving

[15:38] feedback to Mr. Morena's or to the city staff has requested, yes, Mr. Moreno.

[15:48] Just asking the, seeing pre-existing driveways would be closed, so then would the only eagre in and out from there be this through the Starbucks, they're both of them to Main Street would be closed?

[16:05] That appears to be what the UDC calls for but it does say that at the time of development and one could argue that that time has passed.

[16:15] So that's what I was hoping to get a little more feedback on.

[16:22] Yeah, I think considering it times when Starbucks is probably really busy, it's like the only

[16:29] way in and out through people trying to get out of a Starbucks drive through is challenging.

[16:36] And then the other just wondering what the future of the rear access looks like as far as that

[16:47] that being an additional way for them to have access.

[16:54] Mayor Fitterer.

[16:55] Thank you, Chair.

[16:56] When the crossings north building that has the Aspen

[16:59] dental and the Starbucks was approved,

[17:01] I mean, we stub this out to the property line in hopes

[17:03] of facilitating future connectivity.

[17:06] So now that we have somebody asking to do that eight years later,

[17:10] help facilitate it.

[17:14] I agree.

[17:15] And I tend to think I would lean towards not closing the exits

[17:21] But it's on to 31, I do appreciate how closing that might reduce traffic on 31 and momentarily.

[17:32] But I am also concerned about, I think we mentioned, or you mentioned about fuel trucks,

[17:38] like how is that going to cause an issue for them if they have a whole different entrance

[17:44] point?

[17:45] It absolutely will they won't be able to access the site through the public access

[17:52] easement. Okay.

[17:57] Then I tend to personally and I want to hear y'all's feedback as well

[18:00] but I tend to lean towards letting those access on to 31 stay open. Okay. Okay.

[18:09] Well

[18:10] typically we don't put it on consent or put it on the agenda but considering this isn't

[18:16] an ongoing development and that kind of thing they may not be aware I don't know but

[18:21] Would y'all be okay with putting this on consent?

[18:25] Yeah, okay, me too.

[18:26] Yes, Mr. Moore, yeah.

[18:27] I could certainly pass on the comments

[18:30] to the applicant in the next meeting day.

[18:34] Okay, awesome.

[18:36] Okay, we'll put that on consent.

[18:38] Is there any public comment?

[18:40] I don't see any other business.

[18:43] There is none, round table commissioners.

[18:45] Do you have anything to say?

[18:47] Okay,

[18:50] staff, it's not on the agenda

[18:52] of it? Is there any comments, staff? No. Okay, meeting adjourned.

Work Session

Transcript