Public Comments

Tyler
37912

8-C-23-OA
Tyler (37912), July 24, 2023 at 2:44 PM

I'm all for densification, but I think letting landlords put ADUs in all their green spaces probably isn't the best route. If we keep the owner occupied property rule, I'd be in favor of the other changes, as it would all more low income homeowners to build ADUs.

July 24, 2023
at 2:44 PM

John
37931

8-B-23-OA
John (37931), July 25, 2023 at 5:38 PM

I am fully in support of these changes. Far too often variances are required to rebuild identically to the surrounding houses and neighborhood. The current zoning ordinance is designed for larger .25 acre lots and is not consistent with the fact that most older neighborhoods have 50' widths. There has been substantial investment and vetting of these changes through the "missing middle study", but unfortunately none of them have been implemented yet. Building more homes is the only solution to the housing crisis we face.

July 25, 2023
at 5:38 PM

Ron
37919

8-C-23-OA
Ron (37919), July 26, 2023 at 8:16 AM

We have owned and lived in our home for approximately 21 years. In our neighborhood our house is on a slope with a much larger front yard than backyard. Our children grew up and left town because they could no longer afford to live here.
Under the current rules for ADUs, we could not build one in our backyard. As I understand it this amendment would correct that and allow us to build one in our backyard.
I'm not sure why there's even a question about doing this we are in a serious housing crisis in this city and it seems like we need to use every possible means to address this housing shortage.
I also agree with the provision that is part of this amendment which allows only one ADU on a property. That protects the neighborhood and protects our home values.

July 26, 2023
at 8:16 AM

Bill
37919

8-A-23-OA
Bill (37919), July 26, 2023 at 9:25 AM

I support R. Bentley Marlow's proposal to help allow more affordable housing and reduce our housing crisis.

July 26, 2023
at 9:25 AM

July 31, 2023
at 11:14 AM

Finbarr
37919

8-A-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:14 AM

this suggestion seem reasonable and probably helpful.

July 31, 2023
at 11:17 AM

Finbarr
37919

8-B-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:17 AM

this recommendation seems reasonable.

July 31, 2023
at 11:20 AM

Finbarr
37919

8-C-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:20 AM

this recommendation seems reasonable.

July 31, 2023
at 11:22 AM

Finbarr
37919

8-D-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:22 AM

this suggestion seems reasonable.

July 31, 2023
at 11:24 AM

Finbarr
37919

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

this recommendation seems reasonable.

August 2, 2023
at 8:12 PM

Christina
37921

8-A-23-OA
Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:12 PM

I support this application, particularly the addition of a “detached multi-family” development type and removal of the special use review requirement for ADUs. See supportive reasoning attached.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230802201252.pdf

August 2, 2023
at 8:15 PM

Christina
37921

8-B-23-OA
Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:15 PM

If I have a C-N lot next to RN and want to build a single family house (permissible in C-N), I’m subject to a residential abutment setback of 20’. A single family in RN only needs 5’ / 15’ combined. That is a pretty absurd discrepancy, especially problematic for an average city lot 50’ wide.
This application raises an important question: what is the purpose of residential abutment setbacks? Not just for C-N but for other zones too (I-MU, C-G, etc). If the setback is intended for larger developments, why are these rules broadly applied for all uses? And for medium density developments, if you can build townhouses in RN-7 with 15’ combined setback, why 20’ residential abutment setback for townhouses in C-N, I-MU, or anywhere?
Needless to say, I support this amendment and would actually support an expansion of the amendment to include consideration of other zones as well. Maybe address the use matrix while you’re at it (e.g. why is SF permissible in commercial districts?).

August 2, 2023
at 8:20 PM

Christina
37921

8-C-23-OA
Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:20 PM

I support this application. See supportive reasoning attached.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230802202011.pdf

August 2, 2023
at 8:23 PM

Christina
37921

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

I support and would consider expanding proposed item 6 in Article 11.3 to include all zones where these residential developments are permissible (not only C-N, but also I-MU, C-G, etc.).
I strongly support the removal of off-street parking requirements where there is street parking, but I am not sure if the wording "adequate street parking" is the most clear for enforcement purposes. Maybe "legal street parking"?

August 2, 2023
at 8:24 PM

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 3, 2023
at 3:27 PM

Ron
37919

8-A-23-OA
Ron (37919), August 3, 2023 at 3:27 PM

It seems like this is exactly the kind of revision that our zoning needs to even attempt to address the findings of the MMH report and the need for affordable housing.
Detached multifamily housing seems like a greatly underutilized and a more affordable option in a city that moderate income people are having a hard time even finding housing in.

August 3, 2023
at 3:30 PM

Ron
37919

8-B-23-OA
Ron (37919), August 3, 2023 at 3:30 PM

We're dealing with 75 years of urban sprawl planning that no longer serves the needs of this city. In the midst of a terrible housing crisis that seems like he just keeps getting worse and worse and more and more expensive it's time to rethink how we use our small lots in the CN zoned property. With this revision as I understand it it would allow townhomes and condos and other medium density housing options to be built. This seems like a reasonable revision in the current zoning laws to address our crisis state of housing in Knoxville.

August 3, 2023
at 3:36 PM

Ron
37919

8-D-23-OA
Ron (37919), August 3, 2023 at 3:36 PM

Our city has had enough of urban sprawl and the long-lasting effect it's had on development in this city. It's time to reduce the parking minimums in residentially zoned areas to allow for heavier density development to address the ongoing housing and affordability crisis in Knoxville.
We've lived here for almost 23 years and almost every year the new home price has averaged over $400,000. We have done this to ourselves and it's time to correct it.
Right now in Knox County there are areas where people are living in their trailers and campers because there's extra space for parking. For the most part that does not exist in the city. But if we maintain these arbitrary and antiquated parking requirements it is likely to happen in the future or sooner. Please fix this zoning.

August 3, 2023
at 3:43 PM

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.

7-SC-23-C

Angela
37923

7-SC-23-C
Angela (37923), August 4, 2023 at 1:51 PM

Please see 2 Page Objection. Page 3 is a high level timeline for easy reference. Pages 4-37 are reference documents
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230804135125.pdf

August 4, 2023
at 1:51 PM

7-A-23-DP

Angela
37923

7-A-23-DP
Angela (37923), August 4, 2023 at 1:52 PM

Please see 2 Page Objection. Page 3 is a high level timeline for easy reference. Pages 4-37 are reference documents
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230804135223.pdf

August 4, 2023
at 1:52 PM

August 7, 2023
at 12:05 PM

George
37932

8-A-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:05 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 12:08 PM

George
37932

8-B-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:08 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 12:10 PM

George
37932

8-C-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:10 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 12:12 PM

George
37932

8-D-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:12 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

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 8, 2023
at 7:47 AM

Tara
37920

8-A-23-OA
Tara (37920), August 8, 2023 at 7:47 AM

This proposal will damage existing neighborhoods with negligible affordable housing benefits. This removes opportunities for neighborhoods to have a voice in development, and loosens requirements for developers. This will change the character of historic neighborhoods, leading to additional traffic and safety issues. This is an effort to silence neighborhood input, while providing a boon for developers in the guise of ‘affordable housing.’

August 8, 2023
at 8:28 AM

Aaron
37917

8-A-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 8:28 AM

See attachment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230808082833.pdf

August 8, 2023
at 8:11 PM

Dustin
37917

8-A-23-OA
Dustin (37917), August 8, 2023 at 8:11 PM

See attached for my full comments in support of this Amendment as both a local renter who can't afford a house due to lack of supply and as a Knoxville Transportation Authority Commissioner.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230808201157.pdf

August 8, 2023
at 9:14 PM

Aaron
37917

8-B-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 9:14 PM

I support this amendment on grounds that historical "neighborhood commercial" buildings and nodes often often had minimal setback. Staff makes a point that resonates with me that if engineering has to set setbacks based on sightline distance in the permitting process, that will create delays. For something standard like this and other typical sightline considerations (like when there are existing nonconforming structures on adjacent lot), I think it would be ideal to add a sightline diagram to the zoning ordinance.

August 8, 2023
at 9:44 PM

Aaron
37917

8-C-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 9:44 PM

An owner-occupancy requirement to construct or operate an ADU would be extremely expensive (and thus impossible) to actually enforce and really doesn't prevent developer-ownership of dwelling units in general; it only constrains housing supply. There is no need for a minimum lot size, maximum floor area, or floor area ratio requirement for ADUs as building coverage, impervious surface, and principle structure already effectively regulate ADU size and existence. ADUs should be exempt from parking requirements, as the person building the ADU is capable of determining the local market demand for parking and the transit richness of their particular context. Ability to use transit or non-automobile modes of transportation is much more granular in Knoxville than any particular zone. If we must have a codified requirement, ADUs should be exempt from parking when the street contains street parking or the ADU is within a 1/4 mile of a transit route. The height of ADUs should be increased to allow for garage apartments as a typology. A maximum of 25' or the height of the primary structure, whichever is less would accommodate garage apartments.

August 8, 2023
at 10:03 PM

Aaron
37917

8-D-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 10:03 PM

I support the reduction of parking requirements in the city in general, but agree with staff that this proposal would need to be clarified. In general, homeowners, developers, business owners, etc. are well-equipped to determine their own parking needs. A better approach to parking would be to neither subsidize nor mandate new vehicular parking and leave that determination to market forces.

August 8, 2023
at 10:05 PM

Dustin
37917

8-B-23-OA
Dustin (37917), August 8, 2023 at 10:05 PM

See attached for my full comments supporting Ordinance Amendment 8-B-23-OA.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230808220538.pdf

August 8, 2023
at 10:16 PM

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 9, 2023
at 9:19 AM

Dustin
37917

8-C-23-OA
Dustin (37917), August 9, 2023 at 9:19 AM

See attached for my full comments in support of all aspects of this Amendment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809091938.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 12:17 PM

Drew
37917

8-B-23-OA
Drew (37917), August 9, 2023 at 12:17 PM

Please see attached PDF.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809121714.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 12:18 PM

Drew
37917

8-C-23-OA
Drew (37917), August 9, 2023 at 12:18 PM

Please see attached PDF.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809121833.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 12:19 PM

Drew
37917

8-D-23-OA
Drew (37917), August 9, 2023 at 12:19 PM

Please see attached PDF.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809121927.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 12:20 PM

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 11:01 PM

Dustin
37917

8-D-23-OA
Dustin (37917), August 9, 2023 at 11:01 PM

See attached for my full comments in support of this amendment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809230114.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:16 PM

R. Bentley
37921

8-A-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:16 PM

Please see attached...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121655.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:17 PM

R. Bentley
37921

8-B-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:17 PM

Please see attached...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121735.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:18 PM

R. Bentley
37921

8-C-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:18 PM

Please see attached...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121810.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:18 PM

R. Bentley
37921

8-D-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:18 PM

Please see attached...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121840.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:19 PM

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

September 11, 2023
at 1:30 PM

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 12, 2023
at 3:16 AM

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 13, 2023
at 9:33 PM

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 10:59 PM

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 19, 2023
at 8:05 AM

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.

7-SC-23-C

Lee
37923

7-SC-23-C
Lee (37923), September 19, 2023 at 2:20 PM

No number of proposed changes or variances alter the fact that the property was deemed unbuildable in the 2014 Concept Plan and it remains so to this day. Is the BZA willing to alter that determination simply to accommodate a persistent developer? I trust not. I drive this segment of Nubbin Ridge almost every day and this particular stretch is dangerous due to disregard of yellow center line. I have been forced to leave the road (which has virtually no shoulder along this stretch) due to oncoming traffic. Public safety should trump this developer's desire to build.

September 19, 2023
at 2:20 PM