Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee asks planning commission to develop a county general growth/development plan after members raise R‑3 density, infrastructure concerns
Summary
Members asked the planning commission to prepare a general development plan and consider limits or policies for R‑3 density after debate about traffic, water capacity, and the visual impact of dense multifamily development.
Trousdale County subcommittee members voted to ask the county planning commission to develop a general growth or development plan after an extended discussion about rising multiunit (R‑3) zoning applications, infrastructure capacity, and neighborhood impacts.
The subcommittee debated whether to limit R‑3 rezonings geographically or change density standards. One member noted the county’s R‑3 standard currently allows “12 units an acre” and suggested the county could consider lowering the multifamily density limit or adopting policy guidance to shape where multifamily development is appropriate. Planning staff said the county’s current growth plan is about 20 years old and that a new, more specific development plan or policy would help align planning recommendations with community goals.
Members raised multiple infrastructure and community concerns: traffic congestion on major corridors (State Highway 25 and East Main), water-supply pressure and the prospect of a second water-treatment plant, neighborhood character, and the need to balance agricultural, residential and commercial land uses. Several speakers said that absent an updated plan the county is “tripping over itself” with rezonings; others noted the economic case for multifamily housing given affordability and rental demand.
The subcommittee passed a motion requesting planning commission consideration of a growth/general development plan. Members discussed options including updating the county’s statutory growth plan, commissioning a separate general plan or hiring an outside consultant, and establishing interim policies that would guide favorable rezoning decisions (for example, designation of preferred growth areas or reduced R‑3 density). Planning staff said any change to density standards would affect only future rezonings and could require concurrent plan amendments.
The chair asked staff to contact planning commission leadership, consultant resources, and the state/local advisory partners referenced in prior planning work. Several members suggested training for commissioners and planning staff to increase familiarity with land-use processes; the meeting ended with a commitment to send the growth-plan request to planning for development.
