Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer revises Rivertown Landing plan; council forwards change removing commercial uses on Tract A to Planning Commission
Summary
Applicant revised a proposed amendment to the Carson's Ferry (Rivertown Landing) planned development to permit only single‑family homes on a 4.25‑acre commercial tract after community concerns. Planning staff will forward the revision to the Planning Commission for public hearing on June 5.
An applicant seeking to amend the Carson's Ferry (Rivertown Landing) planned development asked the City Council to consider a revision that would remove commercial uses from Tract A and allow single‑family homes instead.
The revision was presented by Planning staff member Miss Huggs. The Carson's Ferry plan development, originally adopted in 2007 for roughly 28.5 acres as a mixed‑use project, has already been amended several times. Huggs told council the applicant revised the proposal after community concerns raised by residents of the adjacent Parsons Ferry neighborhood about increased traffic, upper‑floor residential overlooking neighborhood amenities, and other impacts.
Under the revised amendment, Tract A — approximately 4.25 acres on Riverport Drive — would permit single‑family detached homes in the same style as earlier Carson's Ferry phases. Huggs said the amendment could yield up to six additional single‑family lots on the tract; the applicant removed the earlier mixed‑use concept that would have allowed commercial ground‑floor uses with residential above. Planning staff will present the revised amendment to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on June 5 and will forward the commission's recommendation to council with a first‑reading ordinance when available.
Councilmembers questioned tradeoffs between preserving commercial space and addressing neighbors' concerns. Councilmember Goldfinch asked whether eliminating commercial acreage would reduce services that could have cut local car trips onto US‑501; another member noted the risk that institutional or other broad commercial zoning could allow unanticipated uses in the future. Staff responded that the future land use map identifies the parcel as institutional and that staff will coordinate with the applicant to clarify the full list of intended uses before the Planning Commission hearing.
The council did not vote on the amendment at the June 2 meeting; the item was sent to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. Planning Commission will meet June 5 to consider the revised amendment.
