Planning staff recommended denial of a concept and development plan that would build 259 dwelling units on 76.5 acres near Maryville Pike, citing multiple code and environmental concerns. The plan proposes 132 townhomes and 127 single-family units; staff said the project exceeds the maximum density allowed on a portion of the site that is zoned Planned Residential (PR) at up to two dwelling units per acre.

Staff told the agenda-review meeting that about 70 of the acres were approved previously for up to four dwelling units per acre in 2002, while a 6.5-acre entrance area was approved last year for two dwelling units per acre. Under the proposed layout, the portion zoned for two units per acre would yield approximately 16 units, exceeding the 13 units the zone permits. Staff calculated the overall density as roughly 3.5 dwelling units per acre if the entire site were blended.

Staff also flagged substantial hillside and floodplain constraints: about 74 percent of the site sits within the hillside-protection area; the northern portion has slopes between 25 and 40 percent and greater; the southern portion contains FEMA floodway and 100-year floodplains. Staff said the plan disturbs approximately 11.5 acres more than the recommended disturbance budget and relies largely on pad grading rather than terrain-adaptive architecture and clustering recommended by the hillside and ridgetop protection guidelines.

Why it matters: staff said the combination of exceedance of authorized density on the PR-2 portion, the high proportion of steep slopes, floodplain encroachment and excessive land disturbance conflicts with county codes and adopted hillside protection guidance. Staff said the county code does not provide a mechanism to transfer density between PR-zoned parcels and that approvals for higher densities previously authorized by county commission are controlling.

Discussion and next steps: commissioners asked staff for clarification on how units that straddle two zoning districts are counted; staff said their practice is to count a unit in the district where the majority of the structure is located. Commissioners also asked how the property came to have split PR densities and whether the developer could apply for a higher zone on the 2-acre parcel. Staff noted that the applicant may present arguments to the Planning Commission and that the matter will be deliberated at the commission meeting on Thursday. No formal vote occurred at the agenda review; staff framed the presentation as guidance for the upcoming public hearing.

Staff contact: planning staff provided the analysis and recommended denial; staff invited questions from commissioners and said several of the same technical comments had been shared with the applicant prior to the commission hearing.