Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Development Cardinal Place topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff recommends denial of 650‑unit ‘Cardinal Place’ planned development
Summary
Planning staff told the commission that Cardinal Place, a proposed 650‑unit development on about 32.5 acres, requests zoning exceptions that staff say provide benefits largely internal to the project and are not commensurate with the requested intensity; staff recommended denial of the preliminary plan development.
Planning staff recommended denial of the preliminary plan for “Cardinal Place,” a proposed 650‑unit residential planned development on roughly 32.5 acres near Williams Creek Golf Course that would place six four‑story apartment buildings and about 80 townhouses on the site.
The recommendation came at the Knoxville/Knox County Planning Commission agenda review meeting May 6 after staff summarized the application, which seeks 13 exceptions to RN4/RN1 standards and lists 22 compensating benefits organized under community/recreation, environmental/preservation, and infrastructure/mobility themes.
Staff said the development would include 570 apartment units and 80 townhouses, on‑site amenities such as a pool, clubhouse, community garden, pickleball courts, walking paths and two multi‑acre stormwater detention ponds. The applicant proposes 981 parking spaces where code requires 723, and plans to preserve about 4.27 acres of trees and rock outcroppings.
Jesse, planning staff, told commissioners the PD process allows exceptions only when projects provide compensating benefits “to the city and surrounding neighborhood,” and that many of Cardinal Place’s listed benefits appear to serve future residents rather than the broader neighborhood. Staff noted that the recreational features are embedded within the development and are not readily accessible or viewable from surrounding streets; staff also said there is no plan for city ownership or perpetual public maintenance of those amenities.
Staff questioned whether several infrastructure items labeled as voluntary benefits would, if the project proceeded, be required by permitting or code. For example, sidewalk and road improvements shown in the plan could be compelled by engineering standards for substandard streets; likewise, parking to serve publicly available park space would be required at permit review rather than counting as an added benefit.
Staff also raised concerns about traffic access and neighborhood compatibility. The application shows two access points to Del Rose Drive, one to Riverside Road and two to Brooks Avenue (one pedestrian). Engineering told staff that Riverside Road would need to be widened to 20 feet and a sidewalk added if the project generated the expected traffic; staff said that supports the conclusion the exceptions sought are substantial and require commensurate public benefits.
When asked about general approval standards, Jesse said, “I think we did have concerns about it being injurious, considering the scale of the development, the impact it would have on the street infrastructure, and the character of the surrounding neighborhoods.” Commissioners asked whether better coordination with city parks and recreation or reconfiguring amenities to be more publicly accessible could change staff’s recommendation; staff said stronger, documented collaboration and benefits that clearly serve existing neighbors and the city would be required.
Staff concluded that the enumerated benefits were not commensurate with the zoning exceptions requested and therefore did not meet the planned development intent; staff recommended denial of the preliminary plan. No formal vote appears in the agenda‑review transcript; the item was slated for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting and, if acted on there, would proceed to council if approved.
