November 14, 2024
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

71 Comments

8-E-23-OA

Finbarr
37919

8-E-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:24 AM

this recommendation seems reasonable.

July 31, 2023
at 11:24 AM

8-E-23-OA

Christina
37921

8-E-23-OA
Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:24 PM

This application again reveals that the code was written with exclusive expectation for heavy development in these districts (not just C-N, but also I-MU, C-G, etc). Why are buffer yards required for low density housing developments in C-N (and others) but not for the same developments in any RN district? Obviously there is a discrepancy here that needs to be corrected.

August 2, 2023
at 8:24 PM

8-E-23-OA

Ron
37919

8-E-23-OA
Ron (37919), August 3, 2023 at 3:43 PM

What sense does it make to require buffer zones between multifamily housing and traditional housing developments? Just because my quadruplex next door is owned a particular way does that somehow change its effective use as a house? The quadruplex has nothing more than a large house with four doors. Because of the affordability crisis in Knoxville right now people are renting out rooms people are renting out floors of their entire houses, or we've got multi-generational families where parents are living upstairs adult children in the basement This is far more common than people believe.
And yet I'm unaware of any large protest or complaints about these situations.
Let's move beyond the restrictive zoning that has made affordable housing almost unbuildable in Knoxville. I support this zoning amendment.

August 3, 2023
at 3:43 PM

8-E-23-OA

George
3

8-E-23-OA
George (3), August 7, 2023 at 12:15 PM

Agenda items (8A23OA,8B23OA,8C23OA,8D23OA,8E23OA)all relate to defining ADU's and relaxing set backs, buffers and the like. These requests can be construed to introduce ADU's to Knoxville. However, may also be construed as method to simply increase building density way tighter than current standards. They also can allow a rental property be added to nearly any lot/location.
I am against each of these agenda items.
And I think the County, the Planning Commission and residents need A LOT more conversations about introducing and controlling ADU's (like the ADU must be occupied by an immediate family member) prior to introduction of this concept.
Following this research, the concept should be trialed in one district to learn impact and control, and NOT just open the floodgates in all districts!

August 7, 2023
at 12:15 PM

8-E-23-OA

Aaron
37917

8-E-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 10:16 PM

I support this application with regard to the reduction in buffer yard width requirements, but I oppose removal of the landscape plan requirement to obtain a building permit. Landscape design is often overlooked and disrespected, but is as or more important for aesthetics and placemaking than building architecture. The ability to submit a landscape plan after a building permit has been issued will lead to disjointed site designs that do not take advantage of landscaping's ability to provide shade, clean and retain runoff, and contribute to ecosystems.

August 8, 2023
at 10:16 PM

8-E-23-OA

Drew
37917

8-E-23-OA
Drew (37917), August 9, 2023 at 12:20 PM

Please see attached PDF.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809122019.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 12:20 PM

8-E-23-OA

R. Bentley
37921

8-E-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:19 PM

Please see attached...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121911.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:19 PM

8-E-23-OA

Kevin
37918

8-E-23-OA
Kevin (37918), September 11, 2023 at 1:30 PM

The Board of Directors for the Knox County Planning Alliance supports the staff recommendation to deny this proposed amendment to the zoning code. The proposal to reduce buffer yard depth (changes to 12.8.C) applies to all buffer yards across all zoning districts. As staff points out, reducing the width that much would make it difficult to install the required planting, and would have unintended consequences across all districts in the city.

September 11, 2023
at 1:30 PM

8-E-23-OA

Patricia
37920

8-E-23-OA
Patricia (37920), September 12, 2023 at 3:16 AM

I disapprove of 70% decrease in a buffer 30% and landscaping. I live in SW-1 which is low density (homes) and we had Hensons 12 units built where 3 homes had been. They stand out like a sore thumb to the existing cottages and bungalows. There are issues with storm water run-off because the development was allowed to be build higher that the original lots. They’re concrete, no landscaping so the businesses across the alley get flooded. The cottage next door has. 5 feet high clay hill so water runs down onto their yard causing water issues with only 5’ side yard (no Variance). Buffers are more for the home next door for privacy with trees and vegetation not a planter. There are 12 garage and recycle bins too. Parking ends up on Dixie and Phillips and the alley way so car can’t get though nor waste trucks. I also disapprove of removing the owner occupied living on site for ADUs which can end up as a short term rental. A duplex would have been more in line with the vision plan and low density and blending with the character on the neighborhood. This is one dev. That should have been denied and should not get a C of O until issues are taken care of for the sorrounding homes. Phase II could have been buil at 1 1/2 story which could have fit better. This is a case of speculator getting the good old boy pat on the back when you read his permit. Henson appears to be oblivious to the SW-1 FBC.

September 12, 2023
at 3:16 AM

8-E-23-OA

Dale
37909

8-E-23-OA
Dale (37909), September 13, 2023 at 9:33 PM

As chair of Trees Knoxville, a non-profit with a focus on tree canopy promotion and preservation, we oppose the amendment to this ordinance. The landscape buffer possess both an environmental and aesthetic importance. Decreasing this buffer requirement will lead to further canopy loss of valuable tree canopy and increased canopy fragmentation. These are two critical components for maintaining a healthy wildlife habitat and preventing further degradation of our urban tree canopy.

September 13, 2023
at 9:33 PM

8-E-23-OA

Sandra
37914

8-E-23-OA
Sandra (37914), September 13, 2023 at 10:59 PM

Do not reduce our landscape regulations. Landscape plants, especially trees, are important because they:
screen disaparate development
buffer concrete, asphalt, buildings, vehicles
reduce heat islands
aid wildlife
improve mental health
and make our community more attractive
Fences are not trees. Trees provide shade, beauty, and soften our surroundings. Fences are six feet tall. Trees are at least 20 feet tall (or more). Trees are as tall as buildings. Fences barely screen trucks. Please do not change our landscape regulations. Landscaping has no relationship with midrange housing.

September 13, 2023
at 10:59 PM

8-E-23-OA

Thomas
37917

8-E-23-OA
Thomas (37917), September 19, 2023 at 8:05 AM

I support the staff recommendation to deny this proposed amendment to the zoning code. The proposal to reduce buffer yard depth (changes to 12.8.C) applies to all buffer yards across all zoning districts. As staff points out, reducing the width would make it difficult to install the required planting, and would have unintended consequences across the city. Although I understand the need for more housing, I can’t support the amendment. Many other comments have indicated the public benefit of trees and shrubs provided to our community. Trees Knoxville has been conducting a master planning process and the majority of the public has recommended a review of existing ordinances to improve, tighten, and increase the requirements for trees to meet the changing environmental conditions that are causing public harm and issues. Landscaping requirements are a minor cost to the overall development cost and have not been documented to be prohibitive or costly. Studies in Knoxville have shown that the largest need for more trees is on private property and efforts being considered in the master plan will be made to increase canopy cover across the city on all properties. The people who would be living in these new homes would greatly benefit from the added landscaping by reduced heating and cooling as well as other public health benefits. The present requirements should be maintained.

September 19, 2023
at 8:05 AM

8-E-23-OA

Carlene
37918

8-E-23-OA
Carlene (37918), September 21, 2023 at 12:24 PM

Please deny this request. The professional staff recommendation provides convincing reasons why the presently existing, thoughtful standards and processes, are both appropriate and necessary. They are based on experience and the community is well-served by them.

September 21, 2023
at 12:24 PM

8-E-23-OA

Gordon
37917

8-E-23-OA
Gordon (37917), October 5, 2023 at 10:04 AM

As a member of the City of Knoxville Tree Board, we were not informed of this possible change in the landscape ordinance. We strongly oppose this proposal.

October 5, 2023
at 10:04 AM

8-E-23-OA

Bob
37919

8-E-23-OA
Bob (37919), October 11, 2023 at 10:12 AM

I oppose this amendment. Article 12.2A - As a landscape architect I feel that it is important to include a landscape plan prior to issuing a building permit, not at the certificate of occupancy phase. Including a landscape plan prior to issuing a building permit ensures that the developer is considering the code implications as well as budgeting for an appropriate, compliant design. Landscaping is a vital part of a community infrastructure and often overlooked already. The use as a visual buffer is only part of the benefits, which include noise buffering, stormwater mitigation, heat island effect, providing wildlife habitat and beautification. Article 12.8 - Reducing landscaping buffers by using a fence or wall does not benefit anyone except the developer. As mentioned above, buffer yards ensure landscaping is provided for all of the aspects listed.

October 11, 2023
at 10:12 AM

8-E-23-OA

Jessica
37920

8-E-23-OA
Jessica (37920), October 17, 2023 at 5:54 PM

As a member of the City of Knoxville Tree Board and its subcommittee looking at the landscaping ordinance, I believe any changes to policy should be informed by the upcoming Urban Forestry Master Plan and the work our subcommittee is doing. This work is all slated to be completed in the upcoming few months, and while the problems Mr. Marlow is attempting to address are real and pressing, the process to make changes needs to be more inclusive and informed.

October 17, 2023
at 5:54 PM

8-E-23-OA

Jessica
37920

8-E-23-OA
Jessica (37920), October 23, 2023 at 5:54 PM

I would like to add this letter to the comments I previously submitted.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231023175428.pdf

October 23, 2023
at 5:54 PM

5-SC-24-C

Patricia
12

5-SC-24-C
Patricia (12), June 2, 2024 at 2:19 PM

When considering the request to allow development on the Monterey Oaks property, please note the following :
Since 2006 there have been six owners of this property. The last owner had planned to build two or three homes (for family), but three of the other previous owners had plans for larger developments, but were not successful in their attempts.
In 2006 Camdun Realty LLC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars clearing the hardwoods and vegetation, grading extensively, and preparing 18 lots for sale. However, with heavy rain the problem of uncontrollable runoff became an issue , with water gullies created, and water collecting at the end of the cul-de-sac on Peppercorn Lane, at the foot of the hill. The problem persisted , even with plastic fencing, straw bales, and a retention pond at the lowest point of the property . Finally the property was auctioned off. Two other attempts to develop have also been unsuccessful, due to financial or environmental obstacles.
There is a reason this property has not been developed for 18 years. Please do not let the neighborhood suffer the consequences of another attempt.

June 2, 2024
at 2:19 PM

5-A-24-SU

Fleida
4638

5-A-24-SU
Fleida (4638), June 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM

I have lived here for 25 years This has always been a good neighborhood for seniors to walk in and children to play in. the increased traffic from new project in not good for neighborhood. The new project should have its own entrance in and out instead of going 1 mile thru a subdivision with 10 connecting stop signs. Halfway up melstone there is a pool were many traffic accidents have occurred.

June 4, 2024
at 2:41 PM

5-A-24-SU

Carole
37912

5-A-24-SU
Carole (37912), June 4, 2024 at 2:59 PM

i am opposed to the project because of the increased traffic. this single residence was not designed for this amount of traffic going down melstone to merchants rd. there is a community pool half way down on melstone were is is always crowded on spring and summer months

June 4, 2024
at 2:59 PM

5-A-24-SU

Debbie
37912

5-A-24-SU
Debbie (37912), June 4, 2024 at 5:02 PM

Please see attached letter. A petition with 96 signatures of residents that this development would impact is attached in another comment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240604170201.pdf

June 4, 2024
at 5:02 PM

5-A-24-SU

Debbie
37912

5-A-24-SU
Debbie (37912), June 4, 2024 at 5:40 PM

See pgs 1-7 of 12 page petition. Divided into parts to upload. This file contains 1-56 signatures
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240604174038.pdf

June 4, 2024
at 5:40 PM

5-A-24-SU

Debbie
37912

5-A-24-SU
Debbie (37912), June 4, 2024 at 5:42 PM

See 2nd part of petition, 57-96 signatures
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240604174224.pdf

June 4, 2024
at 5:42 PM

7-SE-24-C

Ryan
37931

7-SE-24-C
Ryan (37931), June 21, 2024 at 9:29 PM

Byington Beaver Ridge Rd is a narrow 2 lane State Route and last year saw an average daily traffic count of 9,630 cars. It's 35 mph posted limit is routinely disregarded substantially and has been the host of multiple fatal traffic accidents. You will show NO DUE REGARD to the safety of current residents if you shoehorn 21 additional lots into a backyard and call it a subdivision. There is no infrastructure to support such lunacy. The proposal should be laughed out of the room. The lot has VERY little road frontage (just barely 200'), and it would be an engineering marvel to add the required access road to feed a new subdivision of 21 additional lots where there is just barely room for one driveway. Because of old growth trees, typical to the original home construction, traffic visibility is poor and would be a recipe for disastrously bad crashes. The current utilities are NOT adequate, as there are constant outages and repairs on the water mains which are stressed by capacity and age. The developer has turned this formerly beautiful lot into an eyesore and a landfill, growing a bumper crop of old appliances, garbage, and construction debris for almost 2 years now. Please don't allow developer greed to rule this decision, please take into account the safety of the current residents on this road. Please make the right choice and deny this proposal.

June 21, 2024
at 9:29 PM

7-C-24-DP

Ryan
37931

7-C-24-DP
Ryan (37931), June 21, 2024 at 9:31 PM

June 21, 2024
at 9:31 PM

5-SC-24-C

Patricia
37912

5-SC-24-C
Patricia (37912), June 24, 2024 at 11:11 AM

In 2014 a developer submitted the use of Monterey Oaks 8.23 acres tract for 18 single-family detached lots, at a density of 2.19 du/ac. FILE #1-SB-14-C MPC stated that one of the (10) conditions for approval was: "Providing a geotechnical study prepared by a registered engineer for the proposed building sites for Lots 6-15, verifying that the subsurface is suitable for building construction. The geotechnical study must be submitted to the Knoxville Department of Engineering for review and approval prior to approval of a building permit for each lot." It was observed that the original developer (Camdun Realty LLC) dug out a large area within the now proposed duplex site as a dumping ground for dozens of large tree stumps, which were then buried. The decomposition of these stumps would make the ground unstable for the future of permanent buildings. It is critical for the safety and integrity of any structures that this area be deemed thoroughly safe. This major concern, as well as the previous runoff problems related to the slope of the acreage, must be given serious investigation before any building is permitted.

June 24, 2024
at 11:11 AM

7-C-24-RZ

Elisha
37912

7-C-24-RZ
Elisha (37912), June 26, 2024 at 7:03 PM

In Appendix B, Article 6, Section 1 of the city of Knoxville's Code of Ordinances, General Industrial Zoning Districts "allow for a range of general industrial uses", which may "[render] them incompatible with retail, service, or residential uses." This lot is directly across Inskip Dr. from a single-family home, and literally adjacent to the Rand Sylvia apartment complex. I think that allowing this property to be rezoned from Neighborhood Commercial to General Industrial doesn't make any sense given the surrounding properties. The uses allowed by General Industrial zoning would absolutely affect the quality of life and the character of the surrounding community, and definitely impact the flow of traffic on Inskip Dr. As a member of this community, I urge you to not approve this rezoning case.

June 26, 2024
at 7:03 PM

7-SE-24-C

John
37931

7-SE-24-C
John (37931), July 1, 2024 at 4:58 PM

To build anything on this poor road will be insane. Traffic behavior well exceeds the 35 mph speed zone.....cars and trucks are lined up at least a half mile from the RR tunnel in the afternoon time slot There have been multiple fatal accidents in the 14 years I have lived here. To enter or leave the intersection of Hodge Rd. is almost impossible in the early and evening drive time hours. To build an entrance for this subdivision on this property where there is already an existing home having the front next to the main road is the most ridiculous idea I have ever witnessed. Please for the sake of taxpayers and residents of this area that call it home, please deny this application and tell the developers to take their money elsewhere !

July 1, 2024
at 4:58 PM

8-A-24-DP

Steve
37920

8-A-24-DP
Steve (37920), July 31, 2024 at 1:22 PM

Chrenshaw is a very narrow road. The additional traffic will require better intersections at Chrenshaw and 33 and also Chrenshaw and 168. It is already very busy and those exiting onto Chrenshaw from 33 north exit much too fast and will be very dangerous for the residents of the complex entering Chrenshaw. I think a better plan is to enter and exit onto a third lane on John Sevier, like this do entering onto John Sevier from Chrenshaw.

July 31, 2024
at 1:22 PM

8-A-24-DP

Jennifer
37920

8-A-24-DP
Jennifer (37920), July 31, 2024 at 1:32 PM

Concerns of having so many addtional families trying to use such a small residential road in addtional to the current traffic. WhY can they not have a turn off from Maryville Pike?

July 31, 2024
at 1:32 PM

8-A-24-DP

Marcie
37920

8-A-24-DP
Marcie (37920), August 1, 2024 at 5:49 PM

I live right off Crenshaw. The traffic will be too much for a 1 1/2 lane road. It's going to be a nightmare for us living on or off Crenshaw.

August 1, 2024
at 5:49 PM

7-A-24-SU

Mary Jo
37912

7-A-24-SU
Mary Jo (37912), August 2, 2024 at 11:36 AM

See attached document regarding my concerns about this proposed development.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240802113604.pdf

August 2, 2024
at 11:36 AM

7-A-24-PA

Shannon
37912

7-A-24-PA
Shannon (37912), August 7, 2024 at 5:07 PM

This is NOT an industrial area! Think of the community members that live here and please vote no. Central Avenue Pike is dangerous enough with people flying down the street and the heavy traffic associated with industrial businesses will only make it worse. We don't want something that could be noisy or harmful. This is a growing area and labeling it as industrial will only hurt our growth. Please vote no.

August 7, 2024
at 5:07 PM

7-A-24-PA

Elisha
37912

7-A-24-PA
Elisha (37912), August 7, 2024 at 5:38 PM

Even though the applicant has changed their request to now just I-MU, approving this would still be ridiculous. Even just the permitted uses in I-MU would be utterly out of character for this location. The adjacent commercial properties are a hair salon, a veterinary clinic, a taqueria, and a small auto shop. The uses allowed under I-MU would make no sense in this location and greatly reduce the quality of life for all the people living nearby. I'll reiterate from my last comment, this plot is directly across from a single-family home, and adjacent to an apartment complex. Allowing, say, a wholesale establishment at this property would be absurd, highly increase the rate of traffic (and Central Ave Pike is already an incredibly dangerous road, I see accidents happen all the time), and would cause lots of noise for the people living less than 100 feet away. There is no good reason to allow this rezoning to happen. Please deny this.

August 7, 2024
at 5:38 PM

7-SE-24-C

Cynthia
37931

7-SE-24-C
Cynthia (37931), August 9, 2024 at 8:08 PM

The posted speed limit on Byington Beaver Ridge Road is 35, but 45-50 is normal. Pulling out onto this road is dangerous enough for the existing residents on this section of road, but to add 18 homes (which according to the estimated daily traffic impact is 219 trips Mon-Fri only) using one entrance/exit to do it is reckless. There have been multiple deaths on this road, not to mention wrecks without fatal injury in recent years. Slowing down to pull into your driveway is dangerous, and you risk your life every time you pull out. People either speed and don't pay attention or sit in stand-still traffic due to the backup from the underpass. The water main has broken twice in the 4 years we have lived here, and the additional strain of 18 new homes? A recipe for disaster. With any heavy rain, there is standing water on the road directly in front of the property. Also, adding a road that crosses a natural drainage path behind the existing house (and multiple existing houses on that side of the street) poses a serious concern. They have conveniently tidied up the property before each of the hearings before the planning commission, but during the drawn out year and a half renovation to the existing home, the property has been an eyesore and a complete disaster. I cannot imagine how they will manage the construction of 18 new homes and the chaos that will bring for many years to come. The location of this project is a tremendously bad idea.