Just tuned into the Metro Planning Commission debate on the Planning Department's alternate proposal for development of Scottsboro/Bells Bend that would open the door to May Town Center. Reading from prepared remarks, Commissioner Hunter Gee said that he would vote against the Planning recommendation, and he asked that if the Commission deferred, it should commission independent impact studies to be performed. The Planning Department should have already commissioned these studies. Planner told Commissioner Victor Tyler that impact studies are conducted once the May Town Center developers submit their proposals rather than conducting them during the "larger policy discussions" of Planning's alternate proposal. To me that's the cart-before-the-horse approach.
UPDATE: Commissioner Tyler says he likes the plan, but he thinks it needs more discussion.
UPDATE: Commissioner Stewart Clifton says that the May Town Center developers are asking for a deferral on today's Commission vote.
UPDATE: CM Jim Gotto says that he does not want any Davidson Co. taxpayers to bear any risk for the development. He says that it is a good idea to take more time. Says he doesn't agree with the charge that the developer took over the process. Wants an indefinite deferral and rejects CM Lonell Matthew's call for a year deferral.
UPDATE: Commissioner Phil Ponder calls for adoption of the neighborhood plan (supported by the neighborhood) and for an indefinite deferral on Planning's alternative. Says that there is no I-65 to help May Town Center out like there is with Cool Springs.
UPDATE: Commissioner Judy Cummings disagrees with the claim that Bells Bend is the only development-worthy area. She feels there are other areas that could be redeveloped that would provide places that businesses would want to relocate to. Believes that May Town Center would attract people away from Downtown. She is concerned about the environmental impact. She criticized Metro Planning's unrealistic support of urban development without plans to widen Old Hickory. Supports the neighborhood's plan with an indefinite deferral of Planning's alternative.
UPDATE: Commissioner Tonya Jones calls the alternative "half-baked."
UPDATE: Commissioner Derrick Dalton is not convinced that the alternative plan won't take away from Downtown. No MTC proponents have convinced him otherwise.
UPDATE: Commissioner Andree LeQuire wants to know what its going to cost if the MTC idea does not fly. She moves that the neighborhood plan be adopted and the alternative be deferred indefinitely.
As a neighbor who watched the SubArea 14 Plan Update for our community hijacked before its adoption in 2004 in order for a huge non-conforming development to be approved, I can identify with the struggle that the Bells Bend neighbors have been battling. I applaud the efforts of the residents of Bells Bend who have worked so hard to protect the vision for their community.
ReplyDeleteCitizens from neighborhoods across Nashville should stand up for the residents of Bells Bend, and for any neighborhood whose SubArea Plan is threatened by development that destroys the vision of the people who actually live in the community.
As residents of Nashville, we cannot wait until the bulldozer is at our own back door before we ourselves take action. When one SubArea Plan is compromised, all of our Plans are in danger. What happens to one of us, impacts all of us.
Remember, resident citizens have to fight battles like this to protect the vision for our communities on a regular basis. Residents have to win the battle every time. Developers only have to win once.
If you have not already done so, make your voice heard to the powers that be. As neighbors, we stand stronger when we stand together!
Susan Floyd
President
Donelson-Hermitage Neighborhood Association
Here is Richard Lawson's article in the Citypaper followed by my slightly different take.
ReplyDeleteStewart Clifton
Planning commission passes on May decision
Deferral leads to different interpretations from backers, opponents
Email | Print By Richard Lawson
08-14-2008 7:58 PM —
The Metro Planning Commission tonight approved a detailed community plan for the Bells Bend area but deferred indefinitely its alternative design portion, which basically would encompass the proposed May Town Center.
Opponents saw the vote as a victory and an opportunity to eventually kill the idea, which calls for 550 acres of mixed-use development. Developer Tony Giarratana, the consultant to the May family, said the delay provides more time to answer questions and put to rest misconceptions about the proposal.
Even though the alternative design area doesn’t specify May Town Center, all comments were directed at the proposed $4 billion project, which is still in the rezoning process.
The discourse from the commissioners proved interesting as several seemed to go beyond the role of land-use planning to take on the responsibility of economic development.
Commissioner Hunter Gee, whose day job is director of community planning for architectural firm Looney Ricks Kiss, questioned why corporate campuses need 20 to 30 acres.
Janet Miller, the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce’s economic development chief, told commissioners in a community planning meeting that companies looking to relocate wanted such campuses.
“This is not a judgment statement — it is neither right or wrong — but corporations have made the choice more often than not to locate into a corporate campus suburban setting — like a Century City office park … much more often than they opt for a downtown or WestEnd/Gulch location,” she said in remarks.
Gee, however, said this should be looking forward instead of backward to Cool Springs as competition. With gas prices and the lure of downtown cultural activities as well as housing, corporate executives opt to live close to where they work, he said.
“So perhaps we find in 20 years that corporate campuses aren’t desirable,” Gee said.
Gee and others noted the need to focus development on existing infrastructure instead of an area where new building is needed.
Former Councilman David Briley, a lawyer representing opponents of May Town Center, after the vote noted that developer Bert Mathews just rezoned 180 acres in Donelson for a mixed-use development named McCrory Creek Business Park.
Briley said Mathews should go first. Asked whether Metro should be favoring one developer’s plan over another, Briley said, “Yes.”
stewartclifton@comcast.net States:
Posted on 8/14/2008 9:12
Interesting, Richard. I was there and my impressions are a tad bit different. It is almost like you intentionally but clumsily strung together several odd items to try to favor one point of view over another. I have no interest in discussing the relative merits of the Maytown proposal but your review of what happened today deserves some response.
Many thoughtful comments were made by councilmembers and Commissioners in well over one hour of discussion. You reported almost none of these. As to this characterizing editorial quote from your article, -- "the discourse from the commissioners proved interesting as several seemed to go beyond the role of land-use planning to take on the responsibility of economic development . . ." -- I would point out that the Maytown proposal has partly been pitched to the Planning Commission and others as economic development and tax revenue heaven. And yes, planning involves evaluating land use considerations but also environmental concerns, sustainability, and evaluations of possibly hyperbolic claims of economic development and tax revenue heaven.
As to who won, of course no one won or lost in terms of the Maytown proposal since the Commission deferred, but surely you know that the Maytown advocates at the last minute specifically and strongly asked that the detailed neighborhood plan be deferred. Not one commissioner favored that suggestion.
As to invoking the Chamber, that seems an odd item to inject today since the Chamber has no position on the proposal and since the statement was not made at the Commission hearing today.
As to your final point, you apparently are trying to tie a lawyer for persons opposing the development to what you apparently think will come across as an unfair favoring of one developer over another. Perhaps your readers would benefit from knowing the following. Yes, the Commission approved the McCrory Creek business park a few months ago. It was essentially zoned for the planned use, while Maytown is not. McCrory had the support of the council and most neighbors and businesses, while Maytown does not. And finally, we have a longstanding principle that already zoned but under-utilized land should be developed before rezoning other land. Not a bad planning principle actually.