Use On Review

5-C-06-UR

Recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission

APPROVE the development plan for up to 14 two-family dwellings (28 dwelling units) on individual lots subject to 2 conditions.


See case notes below

Details

Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Details of Action

+
1. Meeting all applicable requirements of the approved concept subdivision plan.
2. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knoxville Zoning Ordinance.

With the conditions noted, this plan meets the requirements for approval of a concept plan and a use on review in the RP-1 zoning district.

Applicant Request

+

Property Information

+
Location
810 Dry Gap Pike

East side of Dry Gap Pike, north of Haynes Sterchi Rd.

Council District 5


Size
11.73 acres

Sector
North City

Land Use Designation? LDR & SLPA


Growth Plan
Urban Growth Area (Inside City Limits)

Case Notes

+
Staff Recommendation
APPROVE the development plan for up to 14 two-family dwellings (28 dwelling units) on individual lots subject to 2 conditions.
1. Meeting all applicable requirements of the approved concept subdivision plan.
2. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knoxville Zoning Ordinance.

With the conditions noted, this plan meets the requirements for approval of a concept plan and a use on review in the RP-1 zoning district.
Disposition Summary
APPROVE the development plan for up to 14 two-family dwellings (28 dwelling units) on individual lots subject to 2 conditions.
Details of Action
1. Meeting all applicable requirements of the approved concept subdivision plan.
2. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knoxville Zoning Ordinance.

With the conditions noted, this plan meets the requirements for approval of a concept plan and a use on review in the RP-1 zoning district.

What's next?

+
As a Use On Review case, the Planning Commission's decision is final, and it will not be heard by a legislative body unless it is appealed.

The appeal deadline - May 26, 2006 - has passed.

The Process
Applicant

MPM Development


Case History