January 9, 2025
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

26 Comments
Case Number
Name
Comment ▲
Attachment
On Behalf Of
Date
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
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
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
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
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
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
1-C-25-RZ
Andrea
37914
1-C-25-RZ
Andrea (37914), December 10, 2024 at 4:17 PM
I support the rezoning of this property. I think it will be a benefit to the community.
December 10, 2024
at 4:17 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
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
1-C-25-RZ
Rosie
37917
1-C-25-RZ
Rosie (37917), December 10, 2024 at 4:42 PM
I support this rezoning request. This would help our city and county by providing space to service school buses.
December 10, 2024
at 4:42 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
1-C-25-RZ
Mannie
37914
1-C-25-RZ
Mannie (37914), December 10, 2024 at 4:10 PM
Please consider this rezoning, as it will be a great benefit to the community!
December 10, 2024
at 4:10 PM
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
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
Joyce
37919
8-E-23-OA
Joyce (37919), November 14, 2024 at 4:30 PM
Please see the attached statement.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20241114163045.pdf
November 14, 2024
at 4:30 PM
8-E-23-OA
Kevin
37918
8-E-23-OA
Kevin (37918), November 11, 2024 at 7:41 AM
Regarding the buffer yard for non-residential use that abuts a residential district, this applies when let's say:

Condos are built in a C-1 district that abuts an R-1 district. Or an apartment complex is built next to a house. Note that if it's a multi-family dwelling, there's still a requirement to put in a Class A buffer for the multifamily parking lot if it's abutting RN-1/2/3 or EN residential districts (this is still part of 12-2.)

For example: when a 3 or 4 story apartment complex is built next to my single family residence, I'd really like there to be a buffer yard so the upper floor apartments don't look down into my yard. So maybe the suggestion is to make it:

Nonresidential use in a nonresidential district 3 or more stories in height abuts a residential district - Class B buffer required
November 11, 2024
at 7:41 AM
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
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
Sandra
37914
8-E-23-OA
Sandra (37914), November 13, 2024 at 3:51 PM
The proposal to reduce landscape buffers threatens one of the most sacred benefits of single-family residential; PRIVACY.

Buffers do more than filter noise, provide ecological benefits, and soften appearance. Buffers provide privacy to the backyard of a homeowner who wishes to relax in their backyard, maybe some grilling, maybe a swimming pool, maybe just hanging out. Who is comfortable with the windows of an adjacent building looking down on them? Or balconies? How do you know if your every move is being watched?
November 13, 2024
at 3:51 PM
12-H-23-DP
Frank
37921
12-H-23-DP
Frank (37921), December 13, 2023 at 5:54 PM
The Spring Lake Farms Phase I construction has left behind serious drainage problems on the back (south) of the subdivision. D.R. Horton did not construct French Drainage where needed. Rains carry water from Bradley Lake Ln uphill and pour over the backyards of Bogart and Dusty Rose houses. Loose soils are also carried, burying lawns in the backyards. During this Phase III development, when Bradley Lake Ln is widened, please develop and construct adequate grading on the side of the street, particularly on the west side (above or south of 2904 Bogart Ln). Please do not route water downhill, which might cause drainage issues to the houses down the hill. Drainage should be given adequate consideration. Thank you!
December 13, 2023
at 5:54 PM
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
11-A-24-SU
Paul
37917
11-A-24-SU
Paul (37917), November 7, 2024 at 3:12 AM
Would like to discuss extending the easement or road to rear lot located at 2825 Mineral Springs Ave going to top of ridge. Would like ability to extend easement and road to access 2825 Mineral Springs Ave rear lot for future single family residence. Moreover, would the proposed builder allow or KUB allow shared public utilities to surrounding properties that tie into proposed work. 2825 Mineral Springs Ave 37917 would like to request proposed new zoning to be extended to rear lot of 2825 Mineral Springs Ave owner for future personal single family home.
November 7, 2024
at 3:12 AM