Rezoning

2-M-08-RZ

Recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission

R-1EN (Established Neighborhood)


See case notes below

Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Applicant Request

+

Property Information

+
Location
Curtis Lane

Council District 4


Sector
North City

Case Notes

+
Staff Recommendation

The R-1EN zone district was created in 2007 to protect established neighborhoods. It creates dimensional regulations that reflect the existing development and subdivision pattern and enacts minimal design standards that respect the prevalent development character of the neighborhood. The district has been used, to the point, in areas that were developed and subdivided outside the City of Knoxville and subsequently annexed into the city with R-1 zoning. The requirements of the R-1 zone district do not correspond to the actual development pattern of these areas. To date, R-1EN has been applied to the following areas:
*Holston Hills/Chilhowee Hills/Holston Heights area in east Knoxville
1,285 acres with 1,250 lots or parcels
*Highland Drive/Maple Drive area in Fountain City
124 acres with 173 lots or parcels
*Woodcrest Drive/Seminole Road area in Fountain City
114 acres with 192 lots or parcels
*Castle Heights/Sherwood Forest/Ridgecrest/BelCaro area in Fountain City (City Council approval still pending)
154 acres with 245 lots or parcels

MPC staff has been working with the Curtis Lane area over the last several months to apply the R-1EN zone district to this established neighborhood in the Fountain City area. It is located to the north and east of two recently approved R-1EN zone districts: the Woodcrest Drive/Seminole Road area and the Highland Drive/Maple Drive area. If approved, it will extend the R-1EN zone in a northwestern arc around the heart of Fountain City.

The proposed district includes approximately 53 acres and has 54 lots or parcels, a gross density of about 1.0 lot or parcel per acre. The boundary has been drawn to capture the platted lots of a portion of the existing Highland Park subdivision, the Ridgewood Heights subdivision, as well as some other smaller subdivisions. Most of these lots meet the standards of the proposed R-1EN district. Currently platted lots and legal parcels of record will have legal nonconforming status. Petitions in support of the rezoning signed by owners of 34 lots or parcels within the proposed district have been received.

The proposed R-1EN (Established Neighborhood) Residential Zone District creates a zone district for established neighborhoods that were developed with significantly larger lots than their current R-1 zoning. Its intent is twofold:
1) to preserve the existing pattern of development by establishing dimensional requirements that more closely match the existing development, and
2) to protect the existing character of development by establishing minimum design requirements for new housing within the neighborhood.

The new zone district will prevent the subdivision of existing platted lots into smaller lots using the current R-1 standards, with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, minimum lot width of 75 feet and a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. There are many lots in the proposed district that could be subdivided into two or three lots. Exceptionally large parcels could qualify as infill parcels and allowed to develop under the requirements of the R-1EN district if they are at least 2 acres and have at least 250 feet of street frontage.

The new zone district establishes minimum design requirements for any primary structure built or moved into the district. These requirements will assure compatibility with the existing homes in the district.

This effort stems from interest in the nearby rezonings this past year. Meetings were held with a group of neighborhood homeowners on January 17 and area wide on February 11.
Disposition Summary
R-1EN (Established Neighborhood)

What's next?

+
After the Planning Commission
This Rezoning case in the City was recommended for approval. The appeal deadline - February 29, 2008 has passed.
Applicant

Metropolitan Planning Commission


Case History