Public Comments

September 25, 2023
at 2:23 PM

Danny
37920

10-B-23-OA
Danny (37920), September 25, 2023 at 2:23 PM

1. The City needs to update its Comprehensive Plans before making anymore Zoning changes. Continuing to make drastic changes to the Zoning without updating the Comprehensive Plans is a recipe for disaster and sets a terrible precedence for future Zoning changes. Some Sector Plans haven't been updated since 2007 and all still reference the former Zoning classifications. There is no basis for this change, as it is not guided by any Comprehensive Plan, just as Recode was adopted without updated Comprehensive Plans.
2. The images used to show the transition between existing neighborhoods and more intense Mid-Rise or downtown structures is deceiving. It shows the Missing Middle Housing in the transition area between bigger buildings and Single-Family neighborhoods, and most are probably okay with that, but that is not what is being proposed. What the City is proposing is to mix those MMH uses into the Single-Family neighborhoods against the desire of those residents.
3. There's a reason those uses were not included in the zones during Recode...the residents in those neighborhoods were opposed to them.
4. The MMH uses being proposed for all RN-2 should be restricted to RN-2 properties along roads at least classified as a Minor Collector Road. I grew up at 2415 Lawson Avenue and to suggest that someone could buy that house, tear it down and build a 4-plex building and not change the character of the neighborhood is just wrong.

September 26, 2023
at 10:47 AM

R. Bentley
37921

10-B-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), September 26, 2023 at 10:47 AM

Please see attached comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230926104759.pdf

September 28, 2023
at 12:50 PM

Whitney
37920

10-B-23-OA
Whitney (37920), September 28, 2023 at 12:50 PM

Unfortunately, the AIA Awards are tonight so I (and many of the architects in town) won't be able to make it to the missing middle workshop so I wanted to go ahead and share some thoughts. Please see attached.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230928125053.pdf

September 29, 2023
at 10:35 AM

Aaron
37917

10-B-23-OA
Aaron (37917), September 29, 2023 at 10:35 AM

Please see attached comments and thank you for considering them.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230929103504.pdf

October 1, 2023
at 10:32 PM

John
37931

10-B-23-OA
John (37931), October 1, 2023 at 10:32 PM

I am disappointed in the city proposal. Frist, it only applies to roughly 5-10% of the city zones, so any benefit is negligible to nothing. Its really a wasted opportunity to make meaningful changes. Second, the city proposal doesn't include changes for RN-5 or reduce setback issues in other traditional neighborhoods, which all typically have 50' lots. Many of the recommendations from the missing middle report are left out completely. So much more needs to be done to revise the zoning code to increase the supply of housing. Mr Marlows proposals are much better and the board should approve those instead.

October 3, 2023
at 12:54 PM

Caroline
37919

10-B-23-OA
Caroline (37919), October 3, 2023 at 12:54 PM

Please see attached comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231003125429.pdf

October 3, 2023
at 2:32 PM

Celia
37917

10-B-23-OA
Celia (37917), October 3, 2023 at 2:32 PM

I commend the City of Knoxville Planning Department for acting on the housing shortage in this city. Many cities wait until the issue is so out of hand that they can never catch up to provide adequate and affordable housing for their residents. However, I think Knoxville is missing an opportunity to provide better solutions by so narrowly focusing this proposal on already dense neighborhoods close to the city center. The Planning Department is going after low hanging fruit, so to speak, by allowing existing homes to be subdivided under this proposal. My neighborhood of 4th & Gill spent over 30 years undoing these types of subdivisions of large homes so families could move in and build a stronger sense of community. Why hasn't any attention been paid to empty buildings and lots along or close to major corridors, such as Broadway and Central? Broadway has ample space for new construction and repurposing of empty buildings all the way from the Broadway bridge to Fountain City. Another example is the old Standard Knitting Mill off Hall of Fame, which has stood vacant for years. The owner does nothing while the building's deterioration gets worse. Why aren't incentives to develop housing in buildings such as the Mill part of a proposal for missing middle housing? There is so much more than can be done by the City than just targeting dense neighborhoods that don't have covenants to protect them. The City can do better!

October 4, 2023
at 10:23 AM

Bob
37917

10-B-23-OA
Bob (37917), October 4, 2023 at 10:23 AM

I am concerned that 40 years of hard work to revitalize our old neighborhoods is being put at risk. I have no problem with applying the Missing Middle concept to new construction on vacant lots. I am very concerned about conversions of existing buildings into multiple units as was done throughout the first part of the last century. This proposal needs more analysis of potential outcomes especially in regard to conversions before it is pushed through the legislative agenda. Thanks you for your consideration.

October 4, 2023
at 12:52 PM

Bob
37917

10-B-23-OA
Bob (37917), October 4, 2023 at 12:52 PM

See attached comments...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004125207.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 1:19 PM

Gordon
37917

10-B-23-OA
Gordon (37917), October 4, 2023 at 1:19 PM

I have attached a pdf file below.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004131925.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 1:52 PM

Jacob
37917

10-B-23-OA
Jacob (37917), October 4, 2023 at 1:52 PM

I live in the target area, and I am strongly in favor of changing the zoning to allow for more middle housing. Not all duplexes are created equal. There are ugly duplexes, and there are aesthetically-pleasing duplexes. Those not in favor of the proposed zoning changes may not be aware that it mandates aesthetically-pleasing duplexes/etc. that keep with the character of the neighborhood (i.e., no ugly rectangle/vinyl siding "spec" houses" will be allowed like they used to be). I am in favor of these zoning changes because: 1) the housing shortage increases economic inequality, 2) supply and demand: increasing supply will lower (or at least help stabilize) housing prices, and 3) the only other way to increase supply is urban spawl and habitat destruction. Expanding middle housing options will thus help with social inequality and help prevent our beautiful wildlands from being demolished for more (some may say even uglier) single-family suburbs. Please pass these zoning changes!

October 4, 2023
at 2:36 PM

Sandra
37914

10-B-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 4, 2023 at 2:36 PM

With only a few provisos KCPA fully supports adoption of the text amendments proposed in Application 10-B-23-A. Please read the attached PDF.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004143646.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 3:00 PM

Dustin
37917

10-B-23-OA
Dustin (37917), October 4, 2023 at 3:00 PM

See attached for my comments regarding this amendment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004150035.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 6:34 PM

Cheryl
37901

10-B-23-OA
Cheryl (37901), October 4, 2023 at 6:34 PM

The City conducted two open house events related to the Missing Middle Housing proposal developed in collaboration with Knoxville-Knox County Planning staff. More than 170 residents participated in the events. The comments from the events are on the attached document.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004183445.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 7:24 PM

Hancen
37919

10-B-23-OA
Hancen (37919), October 4, 2023 at 7:24 PM

See attached statement from East Tennessee REALTORS®.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004192400.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 8:17 PM

Sandra
37914

10-B-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 4, 2023 at 8:17 PM

To clarify the submittal previously sent, where does it state that the review process for "Missing Middle" supersedes the normal review process for the base zone? There is language regarding dimensional standards (4.6.B - Middle Housing Uses) but I don't see any regarding review process.

October 4, 2023
at 9:18 PM

Jack
37917

10-B-23-OA
Jack (37917), October 4, 2023 at 9:18 PM

I live in a targeted neighborhood. I have concerns about what the definition of "Affordable" is. If this ordinance is about the "Missing Middle" are there going to be anything more than promises to make " affordable " housing? Or will this just streamline the process for developers to build any kind of housing they want? (within guidelines of course). Or charging whatever they want? Since rent control is not an option, what guarantee is there that the "Missing Middle" will have "affordable" housing? If things go upscale fast, that will just help to drive out the majority of the people who can afford to live here now.

October 5, 2023
at 8:06 AM

Christina
37921

10-B-23-OA
Christina (37921), October 5, 2023 at 8:06 AM

Please see attached comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231005080640.pdf

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

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.

October 2, 2023
at 8:15 AM

David
37917

8-C-23-OA
David (37917), October 2, 2023 at 8:15 AM

Hello, I was in favor of the ADU's when the Recode was going through its transformation, attended several of the meetings and thought then and still think that building ADU's in neighborhoods needs some guidelines. The owner of the property should have to live on-site, this will help with controlling the tenants who would live on the property. With an influx of outside investors, they will use ADU's as a tool to double the units per property, regardless of the effects it would have on their neighbors or the neighborhood as a whole. As to enforcing the owner-occupied rule, the city needs to come up with an enforcement provision....change in the deed?

October 2, 2023
at 9:51 PM

Christopher
37932

8-B-23-OA
Christopher (37932), October 2, 2023 at 9:51 PM

I fully support the idea of reducing setbacks on properties. There is no reason why a property needs to maintain a lawn if it does not have to. Besides, a lot of the grass used is not native with the environment and it requires a decent amount of watering, fertilizer, and pesticides that would be best kept to a minimum. My complaint is not against people who want a wide expansive yard, because I can see why some people like the aesthetic. However, forcing everyone to have a big lawn does tend to restrict development. For instance, much of downtown would be impossible to be built today because all the downtown apartments have no setbacks. R. Bentley Marlow's application is a reasonable one, and I hope that you all pass it through.

October 3, 2023
at 12:52 PM

Chris
37919

8-C-23-OA
Chris (37919), October 3, 2023 at 12:52 PM

See attached
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231003125253.pdf

October 3, 2023
at 11:12 PM

Sandra
37914

8-B-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 3, 2023 at 11:12 PM

Deny this proposed amendment. Setbacks create compatibility in a neighborhood and this proposal to alter setbacks has not been fully evaluated. Setbacks are important.

October 3, 2023
at 11:22 PM

Sandra
37914

8-C-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 3, 2023 at 11:22 PM

It is essential to keep the owner occupancy requirement to maintain a normal residence and avoid the noise and constant turn over of short term rentals that could occur in both units. The argument sometimes raised that enforcement of the owner occupancy requirement is impossible is untrue. Just ask to see the driviers license. That address should match the site address. As this requirement is complaint driven, there is nothing required of Inspections and Enforcement until there is a complaint. The complaint is then handled through a simple inspection of the propety owner's driver's license.

October 4, 2023
at 9:55 AM

Chris
37919

8-C-23-OA
Chris (37919), October 4, 2023 at 9:55 AM

I support this proposal. ADUs are a way to actually expand affordable housing throughout the city. While the "missing middle" proposal is a small step, it's insufficient because it doesn't necessarily mean the proposed housing will be affordable. ADUs will be. I have a couple of rental properties in South Knoxville that have the space for ADUs in the back yards, and I would build them within the year if allowed (especially if they were allowed to be a little bigger given the modest (i.e., affordable) house sizes on the lot already). As a landlord, rising rents are good for the bottom line, but they are short term gains if the city can't figure out its affordability problem. I actually don't feel very good when 20+ people apply for one of my houses when it comes up. ADU's (for non-owner occupied housing) is a serious solution to expand housing options sprinkled throughout neighborhoods (rather than concentrated in specific areas). And, the only way I could afford living in one of the most expensive markets in the USA (San Francisco) with my young family, was because of an ADU, so I have a personal experience on the receiving end. Allow, then streamline ADU development for non-owner-occupied parcels to move toward solving our affordability challenges.

October 4, 2023
at 11:24 AM

Christina
37921

8-C-23-OA
Christina (37921), October 4, 2023 at 11:24 AM

One reason 18’ is a prohibitive height for ADUs is that in many cases (due to average city lot sizes), the only way to meet parking requirements for the lot and build an ADU is to build a garage apartment. The standard ceiling height for garages and livable spaces is 8’. With a garage below and living above (16’), that leaves only 2’ for both floor and roof structure combined. This particular requirement renders garage apartments essentially infeasible to build, and because it’s the only option for many lots, it significantly cuts down opportunities to build ADUs in Knoxville.

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 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 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

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 10:05 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