The Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission on Sept. 11 approved a concept plan and a development plan from Messana Investments, allowing single-family and attached housing on a large tract after the developer agreed to remove three proposed units and accept a package of conditions.
The commission’s actions — the concept plan passed 9-4 and the development plan also passed 9-4 — follow months of debate among commissioners, staff and neighbors about hillside and ridgetop disturbance and density limits.
The approval matters because the property includes hillside and ridgetop areas that staff said exceed recommended disturbance levels and because the project would add more than 250 dwelling units across the larger tract. The commission attached conditions intended to limit clearing and grading in the most sensitive areas and to document the density limits on the portion rezoned to lower intensity.
Developer Scott Davis told the commission he had agreed to withdraw three units from the portion of the site zoned for two dwelling units per acre. “We are agreeable to withdraw those three units on the record, so we do not exceed the density on that 6 acre piece,” Davis said during the hearing.
Staff initially recommended denial because the plan exceeded the allowable density in one of the planned residential zoning subareas and because the overall proposed land disturbance in hillside areas exceeded the recommended disturbance budget by large margins. In the staff report, the recommended disturbance budget for the hillside protection area was 21.37 acres; staff said the proposed disturbance exceeded the recommendation by roughly 76 percent across the full site.
Commissioners and engineers approved a set of variances and alternative design standards that the applicant requested. Engineering staff confirmed to the commission that they supported the applicant’s justifications for nine roadway variances and recommended approval of 11 alternative design standards, subject to conditions. During the meeting the commission approved those variances and the alternative design standards before taking the concept and development plan votes.
Neighbors and nearby property owners opposed the plan at the hearing, citing concerns over traffic on Maryville Pike and John Sevier Highway, erosion and habitat loss, and the scale and density of development near longstanding rural-residential properties. William Sofield and Lee Ann Sofield of Mount Olive Road and other adjacent residents described steep slopes and ridgelines near their properties and asked the commission to preserve more of the hillside.
Commissioners stressed they had discretion to impose conditions and that conceptual approvals are typically refined at the design and permit stages. Amy Brooks, executive director of Knoxville-Knox County Planning, told the commission that while the county’s hillside guidance is advisory outside the city, a specific condition attached to the small front parcel had required adherence to recommended disturbance limits unless the planning commission approved otherwise.
The commission’s roll call on the concept-plan motion recorded nine yes votes from Commissioners Browning, Levinson, Boyer, Barger, Overton, Anderson, Biggs, Daley and Chair John Huber; four no votes from Commissioners Butler, Gill, Midas and Adams. The same tally applied to the development-plan approval.
Discussion and conditions: The approvals included 14 conditions for the concept plan and several additional development-plan conditions. Conditions referenced implementing reforestation of graded slopes, reducing grading to meet recommended disturbance budgets where possible, and ensuring the portion rezoned to PR-2 does not exceed its allowed density. Engineering and planning staff are responsible for verifying compliance at plan review and permitting stages.
What happens next: With planning commission approval, the concept and development plans now proceed toward permitting and construction if subsequent submittals meet the conditions. Several commissioners said they expect further refinements at design review and permitting and that engineering will enforce technical elements such as stormwater and road design.
Clarifying detail: the applicant described the site footprint as roughly an 80-acre tract; staff cited a recommended 2.3-acre disturbance allowance on the rezoned front parcel; staff noted the proposed disturbance exceeded recommendations by roughly 76 percent across the overall parcel (staff figure). The development plan as approved was described as allowing “up to 127 single-family houses and 132 attached houses” pending the stated conditions and the requirement that the PR-2 portion not exceed its zone density. These counts were included in the development-plan motion and recorded in the staff summary.
Commissioner Gill and other commissioners stressed the need to preserve ridgetop and hillside areas and asked staff to make sure the conditions are enforced. Staff and the applicant agreed to incorporate the conditions into the record and to work through engineering and permitting requirements before construction begins.