Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff recommend limits on grading, deny blanket road-radius variance for Asheville Highway concept plan
Summary
Planning staff briefed commissioners on a concept and development plan for a commercial-oriented parcel near Asheville Highway and Governor John Sevier Highway, recommending denial of a blanket intersection-radius variance, limiting new grading within a 150-foot riverbank buffer and requiring further environmental review before broad disturbance.
A concept and development plan for a multi-lot commercial project on property near the intersection of Asheville Highway and Governor John Sevier Highway drew detailed scrutiny from planning staff on grading, road design and environmental safeguards.
Mike, planning staff, said the application includes a development plan and “is really just looking at the roads and land disturbance or or grading for the site.” He described the site as largely in the planned commercial zone with CA zoning nearer Asheville Highway and said the plan shows new road extensions, three requested variances and about 16 lots and outlots.
Why it matters: staff recommended denying one major variance — a blanket reduction of intersection radii from 75 feet to 25 feet — because it would be unsafe or impractical for commercial deliveries and long‑term maintenance. Staff were willing to consider narrower approvals for some locations but said the blanket 25‑foot proposal was not acceptable without further engineering review. Mike said staff is comfortable with two requested variances tied to vertical curves.
Most important facts: staff flagged the proposal’s potential disturbance within a 150‑foot buffer measured from the riverbank. The master plan for the site included conditions that required development‑plan applications before land disturbance of previously undisturbed areas and allowed a rough‑grading permit only predicated on an approved erosion and sediment control plan. Planning staff recommended that the eastern, less‑disturbed hillside portion remain undisturbed until the applicant submits either a plan with reduced grading or a remediation plan for the graded hillside area.
Environmental and engineering checks: staff called out condition number 11 in the packet, recommending a Phase II environmental site assessment be completed and coordinated with the state brownfields remediation program. Mike said the applicant is “moving forward with that phase 2, working with the state, brownfield remediation program,” and that the Phase II requirement “may or may not be struck before the planning commission meeting” depending on engineering and remediation progress. Condition number 12 in the staff packet warned applicants that moving ahead with rough grading before final development‑plan approval would be “at your own risk.”
Road design: staff described four new roads and noted two internal driveways that are better reviewed at the subsequent permitting stage. Because commercial outlots could generate delivery vehicle activity, staff cautioned that the smallest radii (25 feet) could be problematic for maintenance and for larger vehicles. The applicant later offered modified radii — 50 feet in some places and 25 feet in others — and staff said engineering review will determine whether the revised plan is acceptable.
What remains unresolved: staff asked the planning commission to decide whether to permit additional disturbance within the 150‑foot riverbank buffer now or require a later development plan showing reduced grading/remediation. No formal vote was recorded during the briefing; the item was set for the planning commission meeting later in the week.
End note: staff emphasized that although a development plan accompanies the concept submission, “there’s nothing that’s been technically approved yet,” and any final approval will need to reconcile road geometry, grading limits and outstanding environmental testing.
