Throughout the project, we’ll post questions and comments that have been submitted on comment cards collected at community meetings, sent via email or submitted via the website.

779 results found
Comments per page 10 | 25 | 50 | 100 View All Export to CSV
← Previous 100 Next 100 →

Showing 101-200 comments of 779

Signage

I believe new sign ordinance or variances should be investigated, specifically addressing the individual personality, architecture and history of each neighborhood.
Staff Reply:

Signage

The city has gone overboard with sign regulation, governing out of fear of billboards and distractions to our scenic beauty so much so that it has paralyzed ALL signage. Those fears can be regulated and managed without stopping practically all signage. I am an adminstrator at a large church in the city that hosts and provides many community and educational functions for the neighborhood and city. Yet we have to resort to temporary vinyl banner signs to promote because of the fear of electronic billboards in the city. There should be a governmental/non-profit category that would allow information center boards with lots of rules/regulations about no scrolling/flashing, brightness, change rate, etc. but still be ALLOWED. Much like the Knoxville Convention Center message board, more of a power point type display with full color and decent resolution. This category could include the grandfathered Civic Coliseum and the Convention Center and be used by churches and Boys/Girls Clubs, Knoxville Museum of Art, etc. We are not selling cigarettes or lottery tickets but providing information to the community for the betterment of all.This has become an emotional/political hot potato topic and it shouldn't be. Let us be a trial/test case. We have money in escrow from a generous donation for such a sign, but have been waiting for a break in the moratorium/no exceptions climate to seek our chance to put up such a sign. We would love to be a part of this conversation.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks/ Walkability

I've been told that builders of new developments are not required to install sidewalks. This, to me, doesn't make any sense. I feel like they should be required to be built at the time a new development is put in place. This cost should NOT fall onto the city. As a current resident of Sequoyah Hills (and former resident of Holston Hills), I lament the fact that so many of our neighborhoods aren't more pedestrian friendly. The addition of sidewalks to new neighborhoods might free up some money to add sidewalks to older neighborhood like Sequoyah and Holston Hills and others that were in existence before the importance of sidewalks was realized.I've often wondered if it wouldn't be possible to improve walkability in some neighborhoods by changing traffic patterns on some roads. You could convert roads that are currently 2-way into be one-way roads. I feel like this could work, for example, in an area where there are 2, 2-way roads running parallel to one another (both lacking sidewalks). You could perhaps make each road one way (one now becomes south-bound only, while the other becomes north-bound only.) The now unused lane on each road is repurposed as a "pedestrian lane". We live on Arrowhead Trail in Sequoyah and I could see this working nicely in combination with Noelton Drive. Neither of these roads have sidewalks and it definitely prevents most people from walking to the local groceries and shops. I would imagine this would have to be less expensive than putting in sidewalks and it wouldn't necessarily increase traffic on either road. Perhaps it is less of a hassle, as well, with regards to getting the neighbors to agree to it as well because you wouldn't be taking away any of their front yard to convert to sidewalk... just a thought!Thanks for seeking out our opinions on recoding the city. Knoxville has come such a long way in the 12 years that I've lived here... let's keep up the amazing progress!!! Improving walkability in neighborhoods and pedestrian access to local stores and shops will be such a boon to the city... less cars on the road, healthier citizens and an even more desirable place to call home!
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks - School Zones

Thank you for allowing us to actively participate in offering comments and feedback. I live in Fountain City. We are .50 miles from Fountain City Elementary and Gresham Middle School on Grove Drive, which means that we are in what is called "parent responsiblity zone". Our daughter would like very much to walk to school, however the sidewalks stop less than halfway to our home from the schools. The road is narrow with a ditches and many use it as a cutthrough from Rifle Range to Broadway. People drive fast through the stretch were we live and it is dangerous to walk. We walk as a family and it is not a comfortable walk until we get to a sidewalk. There are children living in Grove Park Subdivision who would benefit from a sidewalk as well. Please consider ensuring there are sidewalks within the parent responsibility zones throughout the city. This would be a blessing for those of us who have students as well as the general community who enjoy walking without fear of launching into a ditch to avoid the oncoming traffic.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

The need for sidewalks down broadway in fountain city is off the charts. Residents in scooters and those walking are at risk. So many businesses are very close, yet residents are forced to drive everywhere, increasing the need for parking and increasing heavy traffic snafus.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

Upkeep of side walks is tearable in Knoxville especially in the Ft Sanders area. They are broken up, blocked by brush, low hanging branches, cars parked on them.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

The sidewalks in Fort Sanders, especially on Clinch and Laurel are cracked and crumbling. Cars are parked at yellow curbs, bus stops on Clinch.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

My son will be starting Kindergarten this year. I love being active and it makes me sad that I live so close to the school, but I can't walk because there are no sidewalks! The area is growing and there is not a lot of parking. If there were sidewalks throughout the community I think there would be a lot more people walking and biking and leaving their cars at home. Thanks for your time!
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

I would like to see a sidewalk from the Rocky Hill shopping center to Rocky Hill School. There is so much school traffic on that road and the road is not very wide. I think a sidewalk would be very helpful and make the road a lot safer.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

With the growth in South Knoxville, particularly the Sevier Heights area, we need sidewalks badly. Walkers on Sevierville Pike have to walk in people yards, the ditch and/or the middle of the road. In many places there is no where to go if cars are coming. Many times a day, people who live in apartments on Redbud walk down the street to the bus stop or convenient store and cars need to veer to avoid them.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

After taking the city's survey I would like to add that we need more sidewalks in Knoxville. It would also be nice if the road work being done to Western Avenue was completed.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

Rezoning codes should include mandatory sidewalks to meet ADA standards. KAT stops should include landing pads so that wheelchairs can load and unload safely.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalks

Please make sidewalks mandatory.
Staff Reply:

Sidewalk Or Bike Lane

just received a letter from recode Knoxville. does any of this include a sidewalk or bike lanes in my area near adair park?
Staff Reply:
The zoning code does not address sidewalks or bike lanes. You can contact the City of Knoxville Engineering Department for information regarding sidewalk and bike lane construction.

Side Walks And No Ditches

Would like sidewalks in neighborhoods other than downtown to promote security and community. Also, get rid of the ditches that line almost all of the streets in south Knoxville. Either that or annex us so we don't have to pay taxes to pay for the rest of the city's sidewalks and proper water management (no more ditches dug in people's front yards). Put it in the code to require city neighborhoods to have sidewalks.
Staff Reply:

Short Term Rentals

I find it odd that your survey didn't include any questions relating to the short term rental issue. The proposal as it exists will be a disaster for R1 neighborhoods. Additionally, I found the survey extremely biased and leading in nature. Personally, I couldn't give two cents about sustainability and don't think my tax dollars should could be used to fund projects that are designed to combat, so called man made global warming.
Staff Reply:

Sherrod Rd.

On March 25, 2019 I sent you the following.  I am resending it to make sure that you received it.

Recently I communicated with you about the zoning on the west side of Sherrod Road, north of Mimosa. I need to make some corrections. The east side of Sherrod Road is zoned R-3. The five feet on the west side of should be zoned R-2. I quote from a rezoning ordinance passed by the Knoxville City Council at a meeting on July 6, 1985 entitled "An Ordinance to rezone property of Kern's Inc from R-2 . . .to I-3, east of Chapman Highway, west side of Sherrod Street . . . - MPC approved I-3 General Industrial District with a 5' buffer strip at eastern portion to property (west of Sherrod St) to be eft in the R-2, General Residential District) (11-3) (5-U-82-RZ). 

Below is my original posting on March 6, 2019

There is a five-foot buffer strip on the west side of Sherrod Road, south of Mimosa that was left in the R-2 zoning when the eastern portion of the Kerns property was rezoned in 1982. The current zoning map very clearly shows that the R-2 zoning extends to the west side of Sherrod Road. The recode map does not show this. This was done at City Council, July 6, 1982. This was done to prevent increased traffic on Sherrod should access to the Kerns property be allowed from Sherrod Road. Sherrod road is a narrow, winding road that cannot take anymore traffic than that of the residents.

Staff Reply:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I will pass this on to our GIS staff so that the map can be corrected. The change will be shown on the next draft of the proposed zoning map, which will be released in mid to late April
 

Staff Reply:

We received your initial email and continue to research this issue. A couple questions have arisen:

  1. The rezoning you noted was for the I-3 designation for the Kerns property. The property was rezoned to a South Waterfront designation as part of the South Waterfront code adoption approximately 6 years ago. Question: Did the South Waterfront designation (rezoning) maintain the buffer strip of R-2 zoning on the west side of Sherrod Road? We are still researching this question.
  2. It appears that the R-2 buffer strip on the west side of Sherrod Road was provided to prevent industrial traffic generated by uses of the Kerns property from accessing Sherrod Road. Question: Because the R-2 zoning permits multi-family development, can the proposed multi-family development planned for the Kerns property be prohibited from accessing Sherrod Road? Our research indicates that access to Sherrod Road for the proposed multi-family development cannot be prohibited as it is a permitted use in the R-2 zone.

Sequoyah Hills

I want to commend Recode for the work it has done and express my support for what it has proposed for Sequoyah Hills. I've lived in the neighborhood for approximately 25 years and at one time was an officer on the neighborhood board and I think Recode strikes a great balance between preservation and thoughtful and deliberate change.
Staff Reply:

Sequoyah Hills

I am concerned about how the recode will affect property values in Sequoyah Hills, in particular mine which is one of the most affordable (and smallest) homes in the neighborhood. While it's not a perfect solution, I think what would alleviate quite a bit of my apprehension is to move all the proposed RN-1 and RN-2 parcels to EN parcels.
Staff Reply:

Section 10.3 & 10.4 - Accessory Structures And Uses

I believe that there should be more consistency between section 10.3 (F) CARPORTS and section 10.3 (N) GARAGE, DETACHED. First, does section 10.3 (F) apply to detached carports only, or attached and detached carports? Clarification there would be beneficial.Second, why must a carport be set back from side lot lines 10 feet whereas a detached garage requires no setback from side lot lines? I would think application of setbacks for these structures would be consistent with each other. It may be that each could be addressed in a consistent manner with regard to Table 10-1, Permitted Encroachments as unenclosed porches (similar to a carport) and sheds (similar to a detached garage).Thanks
Staff Reply:

Scope Of Project

Please advise whether this project will review for purposes of potential modification, the process for changing existing zoning and the use on review process. Will the roles the MPC and the Chief Building Official of the City of Knoxville, as well as the definition in the Code of Ordinances be subject to review/discussion.
Staff Reply:
The process for changing the existing zoning of a property, which requires MPC review and recommendation followed by City Council approval, is established by state statute and will not change. The use on review process, the roles of MPC and the Chief Building Official, and definitions in the zoning ordinance likely will be reviewed and discussed.

Rvs

Dear Knoxville Planners,

Several people have asked me about RV issues in the proposed changes.  If you have a pop-up camper or other vehicle that fits the RV definition, could you still park it in your personal driveway under the proposed changes?  The people who have asked me (two different households) currently park their RVs in their driveways and have steeply sloped yards that would preclude them from parking them any other place.  

They say that the proposed changes are a solution looking for a problem, that if their RV is not bothering anyone, why should it be prohibited? A screen is pricey, etc.  

Can you help me understand this issue better?

Staff Reply:

We have received a number of comments about the proposed standards for parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas. The standards were drafted by the consultants, likely based on their experiences with other communities. I do know if RV parking is a concern in the City and will ask Peter to chime in on that question. If RV parking is not a problem, staff can propose a revision to the standards to make parking of RV's, boats, etc in residential areas easier.

Rv's And Trailers

My comment is in regard to trailers/RV's.The current code, Article V, Section 8 C, states that:"On each lot, a total of two (2) (one (1) from any two (2) of the subsections listed below) of the following vehicles may be parked or stored per household living on the premises, and said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet in length or nine (9) feet in width; and further provided that said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not be parked or stored for more than forty-eight (48) hours unless it is located behind the front yard building line:1.Recreational vehicle.2.Hauling trailer.3.Boat trailer."In the proposed code 11.12 B"Recreational vehicles must be located within the interior side yard behind the front building line or in the rear yard. If stored in the interior side or rear yard, the recreational vehicle must be located at least ten feet from any lot line and screened from view from any public right-of-way by a solid fence or wall. If the recreational vehicle is screened by an existing structure or landscape so that it is not visible from the public right-of-way, it is considered to meet these requirements. Temporary storage tents and tarps for recreational vehicles are not considered screening and do not meet these requirements."I have a few concerns about the new code:1. There appears to be no limit to the number, or size, of RV permitted, as long as it/they are properly screened from the public ROW. 2. What about trailers that do not meet the Recode definition of a RV? Cargo trailers, utility trailers, equipment trailers, etc.3. Why is parking behind the front building line no longer considered adequate, the new screening requirements seem excessively restrictive?
Staff Reply:

Rv's And Trailers

My comment is in regard to trailersThe current code, Article V, Section 8 C, states that:On each lot, a total of two (2) (one (1) from any two (2) of the subsections listed below) of the following vehicles may be parked or stored per household living on the premises, and said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet in length or nine (9) feet in width; and further provided that said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not be parked or stored for more than forty-eight (48) hours unless it is located behind the front yard building line:1.Recreational vehicle.2.Hauling trailer.3.Boat trailer.In the proposed code 11.12 Recreational vehicles must be located within the interior side yard behind the front building line or in the rear yard. If stored in the interior side or rear yard, the recreational vehicle must be located at least ten feet from any lot line and screened from view from any public right-of-way by a solid fence or wall. If the recreational vehicle is screened by an existing structure or landscape so that it is not visible from the public right-of-way, it is considered to meet these requirements. Temporary storage tents and tarps for recreational vehicles are not considered screening and do not meet these requirements.I have a few concerns about the new code1. There appears to be no limit to the number, or size, of RV permitted, as long as it/they are properly screened from the public ROW.2. What about trailers that do not meet the Recode definition of a RV? Cargo trailers, utility trailers, equipment trailers, etc.3. Why is parking behind the front building line no longer considered adequate, the new screening requirements seem excessively restrictive?
Staff Reply:

Rv Parking And "screening"

I've just reviewed the section regarding RV parking (at a residence) and wonder if anyone on the commission owns an RV? Although I do not store my 13'2" tall RV on my property as it won't fit, I have neighbors that can and do. Based on the requirement to "screen" RVs from public view (from the right-of-way) you are going to require VERY TALL FENCES/WALLS not to mention expensive. Are the commissioners the owners of fencing/wall companies??? The typical travel trailer is about 12' tall and would require at least a 12' tall fence/wall - either that or "hide" the RV in a storage facility (owner of those as well?) or sell it (RV or house). I'm fortunate to be able to afford such luxury of indoor storage, but I doubt the typical RV owner can or is willing to do so. My issue is more with what my(our) neighborhood is going to look like with, say at least half-dozen, homes with 12' tall fencing, just to hide their RV. I'm sorry, but I'd rather you hide some of the ugly cars from sight than a well cared for RV. Since my home is "down the hill" from a right-of-way street, my back yard can be seen from above and would require, by my estimation, a 40-50 foot tall fence/wall to "hide" an RV from view. I and others feel you are trying to weed out RVs and/or RV owners from Knoxville in an effort to beautify Knoxville residential areas. Again, I do not store my RV at home, although I would rather do so. I have thought about relocating to a home where I could expand and store the RV at home, and am now seriously considering it, HOWEVER, I am no longer looking in/around Knoxville or Knox County - our politicians have run me off. I'm glad Knoxville is looking to tell America that RVs, RV owners, and the like are not welcome here - I'll spread the word from a more RV friendly county. Regards!
Staff Reply:

Rv Parking

I do not believe that a city should be a HOA. Restricting RV parking to the side yard is, I assume, because of how it might look to a neighbor. I can say that a beautiful Winnebago is prettier to me than someone's Hummer or minivan or fancy car. It can't be for obstructing views, because your language indicates that if it's screened then that is just fine. So what I'm hearing is that if you have a ton of money it's okay, but if you are middle class you can't have the same pleasure of going out camping for the weekend. Please rethink this legislation and provide some reasonable opportunity for all to have the ability to welcome rver's to their properties. I'm currently caring for a family member for a month while they recover from surgery. Your 7 day requirement and not allowing me to hookup to public utilities would make it difficult to keep my cats warm and housed in the RV, while caring for my family.
Staff Reply:

Roof Design

T 5-2 and T 6.2 (maybe other places?) Roof design in the table eliminates roof surfaces that produce glare. This is not well defined or described. For a low slope roof, we should want, encourage or even require a roofing material with a Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 78 to reduce Urban Heat Gain and increase energy efficiency. To achieve this with a membrane roof, one will need to use a white or possibly tan roof. On low slope roofs we need to allow white. On steep slope roofs > 2:12 we may want to encourage a much lower SRI of at least 29. I suggest removal of the "reflective roof surfaces that produce glare are prohibited."
Staff Reply:

Roads

Need to work on roads rather than making bike lanes and sidewalks. Since you have screwed up Moody Avenue by making it a 2 lane road I have seen far more car wrecks than I have seen people riding bikes. Crazy. I have talked to a lot of people who feel the same way. Also need more speed enforcement everywhere in the city. Especially Chapman Highway.
Staff Reply:

Roads

I think a concerted effort needs to be made to widen all secondary and connector roads. They are dangerous to foot traffic, bicycles, and automobile traffic. To have the percentage of such narrow roads and absolutely no shoulders is, in my opinion, restricting not only commercial and residential growth but also restricting other means of travel/commuting aside from auto, e.g. biking and walking for fear of getting run over.
Staff Reply:

Rn4 In Fourth & Gill

I'm just writing to express my support for having higher density zoning in the Fourth and Gill neighborhood. I understand the concerns of some of my neighbors regarding multi-family housing and its impact on our existing historic single family homes. Certainly, there could be some blocks that are zoned RN2 to provide more protection, but I would encourage all empty lots within the historic district to remain RN4 (or RN 3 at a minimum). Additionally, areas that border the historic district or lie in between the district and major roads like Broadway, Central and 5th Avenue should be RN 3 or RN 4. Our neighborhood already has great examples of townhomes and small multifamily buildings that really add to the character and the diversity of residents that live here. Let's continue that tradition.
Staff Reply:

Rn3 And Rn4 Designations

Thank you for the very informative meeting last night (11/26), it is apparent that many hours have been spent on this project. I am the VP of Edgewood Park Neighborhood Association (EPNA), and we currently have 7 apartment complexes and 1 condominium complex within our boundaries. In addition to these, there are several duplexes and quads interspersed. My opinion is that EPNA is currently maintaining a neighborhood with a plentiful supply of multi-family homes and I ask that we don't add any more.However, as an Atlanta transplant, I see the value of mixed-use projects along our corridors and I endorse them with your wise oversight. Same goes for the many industrial spaces that are vacant.Thanks for your efforts, I personally understand your struggles.
Staff Reply:

Rn-6 In Old North Knoxville

It has been brought to my attention that there are some lots in the Old North Knoxville neighborhood that could be zoned more appropriately for their current use. 1) 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density2) 428 E Scott- We would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.3) 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.I appreciate the effort you all are going to and the energy everyone is putting into improving our city!! Thank you!
Staff Reply:

Rn-4 Zoning Concerns

As a homeowner on Chicago Ave, I strongly oppose the zoning of RN-4 on my street, and throughout my neighborhood. I invested into my home with the understanding that my neighborhood would remain primarily single family housing; the proposed re-zoning would allow apartments up to two parcels away from my house. Please rezone this area back to the original zoning.
Staff Reply:

Rn-4 Puts E. Fifth Ave.'s Nrhp At Risk

This comment pertains to E. Fifth Ave. in Park City, which is part of Knoxville's largest national register of historic places. I want to see increased density in this area, but without design guidelines to protect our historic structures, I believe RN-4 is an inappropriate zoning as it leaves the historic homes vulnerable to demolition and inappropriate alterations and the community with little voice for development of empty lots. I would fully support RN-4 if H-1 were also put in place. I would also support H-1 guidelines that provide an easy path for multi-family infill housing.
Staff Reply:

Rn-4 In Belle Morris, Along Coker Avenue

As homeowners on Coker Avenue who have spent a great deal of time, energy, and money restoring our historic 1920 single family home; we oppose the proposed RN-4 zoning directly across the street from our home, as well as RN-4 'spot' zoning along Coker Avenue on top of current single family homes, duplexes, or homes split into apartments. Because we don't have the protection of a Historic Overlay, we are extremely concerned that the allowance of Multi-Family and Townhouse developments will give developers and landlords the incentive to knock down unprotected historically significant single-family homes (or duplexes) to build inappropriately scaled and historically insignificant multi-family developments. We are not opposed to current or new duplexes along Coker Avenue or in Belle Morris (which are allowed in RN-2), and in fact welcome the diversity. We also do not oppose any current single family homes that have already been split into apartments after the home was originally constructed, however do not support the allowance of that home being knocked down or substantially renovated in order to create more apartments. In single family neighborhoods where homes have been split into apartments, we would suggest RN-2 zoning on these structures which allows the current apartment configuration, but encourages restoration to single family residences if substantially renovated. Within all urban neighborhoods, RN-4 zoning placed on current single family homes, duplexes, and single family homes that have been split into apartments is a step in the wrong direction - please rezone these parcels to RN-2 (or to match the surrounding RN zoning).Rather than increasing multi-family housing by decreasing single-family housing we need to be expanding multi-family housing along commercial corridors or on industrial properties that are no longer utilized and were historically commercial or residential. We believe the new commercial and office code's allowance of multiple stories of residential use above commercial use should also adequately provide Knoxville with ample multi-family housing opportunities, if not better encourage their development directly along our urban corridors.
Staff Reply:

Rn-4 Concerns In North Knoxville

I strongly oppose the proposed RN-4 zoning throughout North Knoxville, and specifically in the Belle Morris neighborhood. I have invested significant amount of time, energy, and money into refurbishing my home on Coker Ave from a condemned house that sat empty for 12 years. The answer to the creation of multi-family housing is not the destruction of single family homes, many of which are historically significant, but rather the expansion of multi-family housing along commercial corridors or on industrial properties that were historically commercial or residential, and the utilization of residential space above commercial. Please rezone these parcels to RN-2 (or to match the surrounding RN zoning).
Staff Reply:

Rn-2 Density

Though patches of RN-3 and RN-4 now occur on the map in the outer rings of downtown, most existing neighborhoods remain RN-2. I feel these neighborhoods should be zoned a higher density, like RN-3. However, if they are to remain RN-2, I believe they should permit duplex development by right. I suggest RN-2 AND RN-1 be modified to permit duplex development because they would allow increased (from that currently proposed) housing opportunities. The ReCode team has consistently proposed lower density in these neighborhoods than is currently permitted, which counter-acts many well-researched studies demonstrating that the "missing middle" housing is at the core of our nation's housing crisis. If this code is to be sustainably productive, it should permit some "missing middle" opportunity in these neighborhoods (Mechanicsville, Oakwood/Lincoln Park, etc).
Staff Reply:

Rn-2

R-2 “right” should be retained in older, poorer neighborhoods like Vestal, rather than go to RN-2 “special use” by permit, which could require impractical design criteria.
Staff Reply:

Rn-1

What does zone RN-1 mean?
Staff Reply:
The RN-1 district is a single family district that permits one family dwellings on lots with a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. Two family dwellings (duplexes) are permitted upon approval by the Planning Commission as a special use. Please see the Residential District Comparison Table for additional information. https://recodeknoxville.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Knoxville-Residential-Districts-Comparison.pdfThanks for your email.

Rn 4 Fourth & Gill Neighborhood

Thank you for working to update the code. Many of the revisions are needed and welcome. However, I strongly object to the change to RN 4 for the Fourth & Gill Neighborhood. I have lived at 722 Luttrell St. since 1991. I love my neighborhood - the people, the old houses, the green spaces and large trees. We cannot have more density in living spaces or more traffic on our streets and maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. In the past we had a problem with people speeding down Luttrell St., but the calming circle on Caswell and Luttrell has slowed the traffic. Speed on Gill Ave. is still a problem (at least 2 dogs have been killed), and I understand that it cannot be slowed because it has to remain open for emergency vehicles. More families with small children have moved into our neighborhood, which is wonderful. We must work for fewer cars on our streets instead of increasing the traffic. We also must save the small green spaces that we have. They are used for play by children and dogs. Don't open our neighborhood to developers who want to make a buck at the expense of our neighborhood.I agree that there is a crucial need for more affordable housing. I represented low income clients on housing issues when I worked as a staff attorney with Knoxville Legal Aid. The need is even greater now than in the past. My house has a rental apartment in it, which it had when I bought it.My apartment has been a Sec. 8 unit, and it worked out well for both my tenant and for me. I am also pleased to tell you that the Fourth & Gill Neighborhood has a Housing Cooperative owned and managed by low income people. The Housing Cooperative was established in the 1980s when gentrification came into our neighborhood. There are 7 houses with 12 units in the Coop. In addition, several people in the neighborhood rent a room or apartment at below market rent in their homes. As a possible solution, I suggest that the City of Knoxville work with HUD to provide an incentive to home owners all over the City to make their rental units subsidized (Sec.8), which will increase the affordable housing available in Knoxville.I also suggest that the City explore increasing/expanding public transportation and make buses available for all (without charge) so that all people can travel freely throughout our City, and even expand the transportation throughout Knox County.
Staff Reply:

Rn 1 And Rn 2

I currently live in a R1 zoned neighborhood, per the recode map, the proposed new zone will be RN 2. What is the difference between RN 1 and RN 2?
Staff Reply:

Riverside Recode

Hey, I think that the properties 2214-2226 Riverside and 0 Mohawk, 2217 Mohawk, and 2315 Birdsong would be appropriate for an infill pocket neighborhood as described in RN-4 guidelines.

Staff Reply:

Riverscape & Stream Buffers

Love the inclusion of Riverscape Standards and Stream Buffers in the South Waterfront (SW) district. Since the Tennessee River is such an important natural asset to our community, wouldn't it make sense to apply similar standards for all riverscape and streams in the City? Most streams have unfortunately already been developed, but applying these type of standards across the City would provide a means of protecting our waterways during future development/redevelopment, and a vision for caring for our natural resources. It is also just a smart development practice from an aesthetic standpoint to allow public access to river frontage instead of cutting people off with streets and buildings.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning Traffic Concerns

As a long term resident (18 years) of one of Knoxville's historic and urban neigjborhoods, I have many thoughts/concerns on the topic of Knoxville's rezoning. Number one on my list is increased traffic, which I do not feel is being publicly discussed/addressed equivalent to to other concerns. I would like to see measures put into place to decrease increased traffic, along with zoning changes. We have witnessed first-hand the effects of latent traffic calming attempts and it is quite simply ineffective.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning Preposal Of The Cottage Neighborhood On The Corner Of Sutherland Ave And Tobler And Flanked On The East And South Sides By The Third Creek Trail

I am very much opposed to the zoning of this neighborhood being reversed from R-1 to R-2. This neighborhood of cottages has been intact as single family dwellings since it was built in the 1940’s. The property was formerly a dairy, and the land was carefully planned to host family homes. The streets were laid out in curves to give an expanded view, the foundations and chimneys where built on site, the windows manufactured in Cookeville, and the rest of the construction was prefabbed up north and brought to the site and put in place.This little neighborhood has been intact as home to families since it was created. Several years ago, when I moved into 3935 Briargate Ave., I found out that the neighborhood was zoned R-2. With help and encouragement from the Historic Association and some members of city council and the Bearden Council, several of us in the neighborhood, formed a neighborhood association to promote unity in the neighborhood, clean up the neighborhood and set about seeing about changing the zoning from R-2 to R-1. After several months of creating interest and good will in the neighborhood and lots of very hard work, we presented our request to City Council and the MPC - the request was voted on twice by and passed unanimously. To go backwards would be detrimental to this historic neighborhood and would set it up to be in jeopardy and undercut the sincerity of purpose to keep it intact. The little neighborhood association that began as seven hopeful neighbors in an open carport on the corner of Tobler and Greenleaf has grown into a full fledged association that meets regularly at the little Baptist church a little ways up Sutherland and has just elected the next roster of officers. This is progress that supports the best of Knoxville, and it would be a mistake to this area and the unity of this neighborhood to reverse the zoning back to R-2.
Staff Reply:
Thank you for your email. The RN-2 designation proposed for your neighborhood is a single family zone which restricts permitted uses to single family dwellings, with duplexes permitted upon approval by the Planning Commission provided certain standards are met. The proposed RN-2 zone is very similar to the existing R-1 zone.

Rezoning Of Kesterson Road

I was made aware that the street I live on is being considered for re-zoning. I would like to express my concern about this change. I am opposed to the change of changing Kesterson road to RN-2. . I do not want my street to be changed from RN -1 to RN-2. I feel that the change will decrease my property values, as well as the possibility of homes being converted into apartment buildings. One of things my neighbors are proud of is that we are single dwelling homes. I feel that I live in a very safe neighborhood, but if homes are able to be multiple dwellings, I feel that safety could be a concern. Please consider not changing our street & neighborhood zone.
Staff Reply:
The RN-2 district is a single family designation which permits the same uses as the RN-1 district. The difference between the RN-1 district and the RN-2 district is the minimum lot size. In the RN-1 district it is proposed to be 10,000 square feet while in the RN-2 district it is proposed to be 5,000 square feet. MPC staff is evaluating the need for another single family residential district with a minimum lot size of 7,000 to 7,500 square feet.

Rezoning Of Fourth And Gill Neighborhood

I thank the committee for their continued efforts to overhaul Knoxville's aging zoning. I also thank you for addressing the many concerns and questions raised in this process.I write to voice a concern, shared by many of my neighbors, about the most recent revision of the Recode, in which Fourth and Gill was changed from an R2 to an R4 zone. The neighborhood is a unique historic neighborhood that has been revitalized through the efforts of homeowners and developers. These individuals have worked diligently to restore houses that were separated into apartments back into single-family dwellings, and have met with much success. By keeping the neighborhood zoned R2, for single-family home and duplexes, this continues to encourage the ongoing trend to maintain houses and restore them to their historic configurations. While there are still some houses that are divided into apartments and multi-family dwellings, this is increasingly not the case for the neighborhood. We, the home owners in Fourth and Gill, want to discourage the division of historic houses and encourage the decades of effort made to restore the many century-old houses in the neighborhood.For these reasons, I respectfully ask the committee to change Fourth and Gill back to an R2 zone, for single-family homes and duplexes.Thank you.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning Of 4th And Gill

I am a resident of the 4th and Gill neighborhood. The residents have worked hard to restore this beautiful old neighborhood of single family homes. We vehemently protest the approval of this area for townhouses and multi-family units.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning In Knoxville

I would like to have more information on the rezoning in Park City in Knoxville and when public meetings will be held.
Staff Reply:
Information on the zoning designations for Park City can be found at this site: https://maps.knoxmpc.org/MapSeries/recode.html?appid=edbdccdfac0b46749541d854bb19d8e8. You can locate the property you are interested in by address, find the proposed zoning designation, compare the proposed designation to the existing designation, and leave a comment. Three community meetings were held last week, including one at Payne Avenue Baptist Church, and two community meetings are scheduled for this week. A community meeting was held last evening at Overcoming Believers Church and a community meeting will be held this evening at the Church of the Good Shepherd. Additional information about upcoming meetings and about the updating of the City's zoning code can be found at https://recodeknoxville.com/.

Rezoning Areas

what areas are being rezoned
Staff Reply:
Pelase check this website https://maps.knoxmpc.org/MapSeries/recode.html?appid=361f37427c0a44a8b4fbcea4f412a8d9 to identify the current zoning of property and the proposed designation. Please note that all zoning district designations will change but the development standards may have minimal changes.

Rezoning Areas

what areas are being rezoned

Staff Reply:

Pelase check this website https://maps.knoxmpc.org/MapSeries/recode.html?appid=361f37427c0a44a8b4fbcea4f412a8d9 to identify the current zoning of property and the proposed designation. Please note that all zoning district designations will change but the development standards may have minimal changes.

Rezoning 4th&gill

please do not rezone the 4th and Gill neighborhood to allow for Multi-family dwellingsthank you,
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

I am concerned that multi-family housing is being decreased in the Recode process and encourage city council and the MPC to redesign the map and Put the Orange Back.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

I don't understand the reasoning in rezoning the entire 4th and Gill neighborhood from R-2 to R-4. I can understand the logic of multifamily zoning along corridors to act as a transition into established neighborhoods, as I see being done on Magnolia on the new map, but not the rezoning of an entire neighborhood. I also don't see that type of rezoning in surrounding historic neighborhoods, so why 4th and Gill? We worked long and hard many years ago to become R-1A, or R-2 as it is called in the Recode. This would be a huge step backwards, in many eyes. Please reconsider this decision.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

As a resident in 4th and Gill neighborhood, I do NOT want re-zoning to allow for multi-family and townhomes. The neighborhood has undergone years of renovations and rehabilitation and is largely owner occupied and I feel that allowing multi-family/townhomes will jeopardize our property value and neighborhood appeal
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

PUT THE ORANGE BACK!
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

I am firmly against the rezoning of any R1 neghiborhoods being rezoned to the new R2 zoning. You stated that the only difference in the new classification was lot sizes. I seriously doubt that is the only reason this change is needed. Reclassification for property tax hike maybe. Leave our neghiborhoods alone.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

Please consider more flexibility and guidance for building tiny or very small homes in blighted areas as a way to increase affordable housing.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

Please help us to preserve the Kesterwood, Oak park, Gibbs Road area from changes in the current zoning. The Jacksboro pike Corridor has deteriorated to the point where I will no longer walk the area. I cannot allow my grandchildren to be on bikes without me outside watching them. Section 8 housing, homelessness, and crime have escalated to the point where I no longer recognize my neighborhood. I have lived on those two streets for 22 years and now feel unsafe. Theft is rampant and prostitutes stroll the area between the firehall at Essary to the overpass on Old Broadway. Please help save our neighborhood and preserve property values. Please!! Thank you!!
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

Ive seen that there are a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look like they could be zoned more appropriately for their location.
  1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density
  2. 428 E Scott- I think 428 E Scott should be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
  3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

Affordable housing is at crisis point for many people in Knoxville. Homelessness is on the rise in our city due to a lack of affordable housing. "Bring Back the Orange! in our core neighborhoods by utilizing RN-3,4, and 5 zones to allow for a greater range of housing choices in walkable, bus-friendly neighborhoods. Please adopt appropriate zoning & standards to encourage good design, scale, and development in a manner that will protect our neighborhoods while still allowing them to evolve."
Staff Reply:

Rezoning

Please don't rezone Parkridge. I am a victim of domestic abuse. I need affordable housing that is not in the unsafe housing projects.
Staff Reply:

Rezone Request To Match Current And Best Uses Of Residential Properties

Hi- I'm writing to request rezoning of property based upon current density established within an R1A district. Specifically, 400 E Scott is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density. It is not zoned appropriately in current map draft. Due to precedent established, I would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.Additionally, there are a few apartment houses that I think have been zoned inappropriately on the same street. Specifically 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue- These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott because they are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.
Staff Reply:

Rezone Request To Match Current And Best Uses Of Residential Properties

Hi- I'm writing to request rezoning of property based upon current density established within an R1A district. Specifically, 400 E Scott is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density. It is not zoned appropriately in current map draft.Due to precedent established, I would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.Additionally, there are a few apartment houses that I think have been zoned inappropriately on the same street. Specifically 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue- These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott because they are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.
Staff Reply:

Rezone On Strawberry Planes Pike

How can I voice an opinion of this rezoning. This will really create driving issues ...... children on school buses. We have enough traffic in the area now!
Staff Reply:
Thanks for your email. I will pass your concerns on to the Planning Commission members.

Rezone Knoxville Properties

Hello! It has been brought to my attention that there have a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look as if they should be zoned more appropriately for their use. My thoughts and recommendations are explained further below:
  1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density
  2. 428 E Scott- I think 428 E Scott should be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
  3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.
Staff Reply:

Rezone E Scott

It has come to my attention that two buildings in the Old North Knoxville should be zoned more appropriately for use.
  1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density.
  2. 428 E Scott- 428 E Scott should be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
  3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.
Knoxville is rapidly growing and I believe this is an excellent space to put higher density apartments in due to the surrounding businesses and developments. It is in great proximity to the mountains, downtown, and campus and would attract a lot of working people looking to maximize their potential in Knoxville. I hope that this is helpful in your processes and meetings. Thanks!
Staff Reply:

Revision Five

Good Afternoon,

We've looked through the recent revision. The following comments are respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Article 2 should include a definition of the term "mixed use".

Article 2 should include a definition of the term "interlock" as used in table 11-6.

Article 6.3 - Industrial zone setbacks: Has the rear setback exemption for sites with railroads been eliminated? Many forms of industrial buildings need to have direct access to rail service.

Article 11.1 - Off street parking applicability is rather confusing.

Article 17: Nonconformities: These transition rules are difficult to understand. I suspect consistent enforcement will be onerous.

Staff Reply:

Reviewing Codes Survey

Points I'd like to cover based on questions asked in the survey.I believe there needs to be a mixed use provision for the downtown area if the code hasn't already been updated. I'm thinking along the lines of commercial on ground floor and residential above.Some means to encourage smaller commercial spaces. For example, limit a Walmart or Kroger mega-store from opening in a downtown area and instead encourage smaller grocery and retail stores.Curb the amount of advertising on roadsides, much like the town of Farragut does. Signs limited in size, limited in height, etc.I voted against the 'historic tree' preservation mainly because of the ginko trees that line certain roads. I hate those things and the Bradford pears that started cropping up in the 80s. I'm not against old oaks and the like, just the "fad" trees some landscaper decided to add on a whim that later turn to be a nuisance.Thank you for your time and attention.
Staff Reply:

Response To 8/23/18 Meeting At Tvuuc

To the Recode Knoxville team:I recently attended a Recode Knoxville meeting on August 23, 2018 at TVUUC. The MPC staff answered many zoning questions to the best of their ability. What they could not answer is why the rush to make these major changes. Gerald Green of MPC said the driving force was developers and the Mayor. Affordable housing was also in this mix of reasons for zoning changes.I am very concerned about the R-1 and R-2 proposed zoning changes for Sequoyah Hills. There is nothing in the proposed zoning to protect our neighborhood from additional outbuilding for Airbnbs or Short Term Rentals. We already have Long Term Rentals for UTK students with their cars parked on the streets. Not a good situation for our neighborhood. Now this rush to rezone is going to result in more disruption to a lovely neighborhood. I urge you to delay this push to rezone the City of Knoxville until there has been more time to learn about and question these proposed changes. Rezoning driven by developers is not in our community's best interests.
Staff Reply:

Resining Questions

I recently purchased a home. The map indicates that it is going to be rezoned from residential to commercial. Is this going to change my taxes or affect my utilities in any way? Does it affect my property value?
Staff Reply:
Your property is currently zoned C-6 which is a commercial zone. The draft map proposes the property to be zoned single-family neighborhood (RN-1) which I presume is how it is currently being used. I hope this information helps. Let us know if you have any other questions.

Residential-use Properties Zoned As Nonresidential

There are numerous pockets of residential in North Knoxville that contain viable low-mod income/ 1920s-1940s more affordable housing stock that are zoned Industrial, Commercial or Office. A quick scan of the Sector Plans show that these pockets are recommended to be utilized as MU or TDR or remain as LI. However, the largest area of intact housing zoned non-residential is just north of Parkridge between Hoitt and I-40, which is recommended by both the Sector Plan and the One-Year plan to be utilized as Heavy IndustriaI (HI). It is a residential cluster surrounded by warehouses. There is a shortage of low-to-mod income housing. Many of the industrially-zoned residential areas are zoned with an IH-1 Overlay- -which implies that there is an intent to protect the residential character within the industrial zones.Additionally, there are also some important contributing resources within the National Register and local historic districts that are zoned for non-residential use, possibly because they abut other commercial uses/districts or are utilized for multi-family, but most are being used for single-family housing. The properties include those located within the Old North Knox, Fourth and Gill, Mechanicsville and Edgewood-Park City H-1 overlays and the Fort Sanders NC-1 Overlay. Following is an internal link to the file that contains GIS maps of all these areas: G:shared1-HZCZoning Code updatesResidential uses zoned as non-residential in NorthKnox
Staff Reply:

Residential Plat Zoning

Is this a commercial project only, or will you be incorporating the equally outdated residential property zoning plats in the project? Property ward maps do not match property deeds and the result can be over $2,000 for a resident to pay for a surveyor and mpc updates, just for the city to update its own records. Thank you ahead of time for your response.
Staff Reply:
The update will address the entire zoning code. We have heard several complaints about the issue created by the ward maps, including many concerns voiced by MPC and City staff. This issue will be addressed in the code update or may be addressed earlier due to the challenges it creates.

Residential Neighborhoods

Residential neighborhoods such as R1 and SW1 need to be protected from encroachment of non-residential. Old homes need to be saved for their character as residential and stay residential. Parking restrictions in those neighborhoods that will have impact from non-resident traffic need to move forward with MPC and Council. Building heights and setbacks restricted to retain a neighborhood's character. STR not allowed or only by homeowner living on premise or in house as was stated in public meetings and generally accepted to control STR in residential areas such as R1 and SW1. There needs to be minimum parking requirements added to the FBC as commercial is already removing parking from their places of business, which pushes parking into places that should not have to deal with the spaces these business are removing from their locations. They are not sharing parking with other commercial but removing parking because there is no minimum required parking. This is a main issue with FBC and multi-use.
Staff Reply:

Residential House Freedom

I strongly believe house owners should be able to use their houses as they see fit. It is not government's business to regulate who lives in your house. I think ordinances restricting occupancy would prove unconstitutional if challenged. I also think short term rental such as Air B&B should not be restricted.
Staff Reply:

Residential Development

Very displeased at the lack of opportunity for meaningful input when Wellsley Park Apartments were developed across the street (Wellsley Park Rd.) from our subdivision. City officials told us we would have an opportunity for input before site/building plans were approved, and some City officials did meet with us; but it was clear that by the time we were allowed input, the skids had already been greased and the developer's plans were merely a hair's breath away from approval. So our input was perfunctory only--officials at the City just checking off the box--without really listening to or considering our concerns. Among those were building height, traffic and parking, and landscaping. It was criminal that beautiful, mature birch and magnolia trees,which our subdivision had paid for years to maintain, were just bulldozed in constructing the apartments. No consideration was given by the developer to alternatives to save or transplant any of the existing beautiful landscaping along their side of Wellsley Park Rd. This should not be allowed to happen again. Thank you.
Staff Reply:

Residential Design Standards – Single Family

Restore design-standards for single family residential.  These are not overly onerous to comply with or to enforceMany communities require these and more
Staff Reply:

Residential Design Standards

Basic residential design standards for single family homes were included in Drafts 1 and 2, but deleted in Draft 3 without explanation. (9-12, J)Design standards insure quality construction, protect property values, preserve community character, promote the aesthetics of neighborhoods and enhance quality of life. They attract new residents to the neighborhood. They make people proud to call their house a home. Everyone deserves to be proud of where they live.The following standards should be restored for single family dwellings:p. 9-12J. Two-Family DwellingsThe following do not apply to two-family dwellings where a NC or IH Overlay District is in place.1. On lots less than one acre in lot area, a dwelling must have a primary entrance from a façade facing the street. The front entry must be a dominant feature on the front elevation of a home and an integral part of the structure, using features such as porches, raised steps and stoops, and/or roof overhangs.2. Windows, entrances, porches, or other architectural features are required on all street-facing facades to avoid the appearance of blank walls.3. A 15% minimum transparency requirement applies to all street-facing façades and is calculated on the basis of the entire area of the façade.4. Front-loaded attached garages are limited to 60% of the width of the front building line or 24 feet, whichever is greater. Garage width is measured as the width of a garage door; in the case of garages designed with multiple garage doors, the distance is measured between the edge of the outmost doors.5. Front-loaded attached garages must be set back a minimum of five feet from the front building façade line. This façade building line does not include architectural features, such as bay windows or porches.
Staff Reply:

Residential Design Standards

In the first two Recode drafts, minimal design standards for single family homes were included (see p. 9-12, Section 9.3.J). These were inexplicably dropped from the third draft. These standards are not onerous to comply with or to enforce and should be put back into the ordinance. Many cities include design standards in residential neighborhoods, demonstrating that this is feasible.
Staff Reply:

Request For Postponement Of Agenda Item 5, 11-a-8-oa

It has come to our attention that the Community Forum has requested Agenda Item 5, 11-A-18-OA, Consideration of the Comprehensive Update of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance, be postponed from the January 10, 2019, meeting of the Planning Commission to the February 14, 2019, meeting. The Knox County Democratic Party Progressive Action Committee fully supports such a postponement for reasons similar to those outlined in the Community Forum letter. We urge you to make such a postponement.
Staff Reply:

Rental Property In Residential Neighborhoods

I would like a conversation concerning absentee landlords in residential neighborhoods, or anywhere for that matter. Run down properties and dead beat renters are currently affecting the property value in my neighborhood. I would just like to see some accountability for landlords that have no interest in our neighborhoods. Thank you!
Staff Reply:

Reflecting Roofs

Increasing the Reflectivity of Structures Could Reduce High Temperatures in CitiesI've been wondering whether it is feasible to include within the zoning codes requirements for reflective roofs. It certainly would help with urban heat island effects. See below.Recent research has shown that cities, which absorb drastically more solar radiation than the countryside, would benefit from coloring dark surfaces with light gray or white materials. For instance, black asphalt reflects only four percent of the sunlight that strikes it, while grassland and white snow can reflect up to 25 and 90 percent, respectively. In New York City, this "urban heat island" effect can increase temperatures 1-3 degrees Celsius warmer relative to rural areas. Research by the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that by raising the reflectivity of a city's roofs from 32 percent to 90 percent, the urban heat island effect would decrease by a third, reducing maximum daytime temperatures by an average of 0.6 degrees C. Additional studies have found that "cool roofs" could reduce temperatures by 1.8 degrees C in other cities. Urban heat islands can also cause nighttime temperatures to remain high, placing stress on vulnerable populations in need of a recovery period from blistering daytime conditions.For more information seeYale Environment 360https://e360.yale.edu/features/urban-heat-can-white-roofs-help-cool-the-worlds-warming-cities
Staff Reply:

Recreational Vehicles

I originally submitted this comment on 5/9, but never received a confirmation e-mail and it is not showing up on the website so I'll try again. 

My comment is in regard to trailers/RV's. The current code, Article V, Section 8 C, states that:

"On each lot, a total of two (2) (one (1) from any two (2) of the subsections listed below) of the following vehicles may be parked or stored per household living on the premises, and said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet in length or nine (9) feet in width; and further provided that said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not be parked or stored for more than forty-eight (48) hours unless it is located behind the front yard building line:

1.Recreational vehicle.

2.Hauling trailer.

3.Boat trailer."
In the proposed code 11.12 B

"Recreational vehicles must be located within the interior side yard behind the front building line or in the rear yard. If stored in the interior side or rear yard, the recreational vehicle must be located at least ten feet from any lot line and screened from view from any public right-of-way by a solid fence or wall. If the recreational vehicle is screened by an existing structure or landscape so that it is not visible from the public right-of-way, it is considered to meet these requirements. Temporary storage tents and tarps for recreational vehicles are not considered screening and do not meet these requirements."

I have a few concerns about the new code:

1. There appears to be no limit to the number, or size, of RV permitted, as long as it/they are properly screened from the public ROW. 

2. What about trailers that do not meet the Recode definition of a RV? Cargo trailers, utility trailers, etc.

3. Why is parking behind the front building line no longer considered adequate, the new screening requirements seem excessively restrictive?

Part Deux:

I agree that RV's should be located in the interior side yard behind the front building line or rear yard, but why ten feet from a lot line? A shed can be built five feet from the lot line, but a boat has to be ten feet from it? Why the ten feet requirement?

The screening requirement is overly restrictive for the entire city. There are many lots in the city that due to many factors (lot size, topography, access, etc.) it is impossible to locate the RV somewhere that is screened from view from a right of way. To comply with the new zoning code many property owners would have to pay to store their RV somewhere else, leave it as is and risk fines, or move somewhere that does not have such restrictions. The screening requirement should be removed from Recode and be left up to HOA's and the like.

Drive through most any neighborhood in Knoxville and you will see homes with boats and campers parked next to them, West Hills, Lincoln Park, Parkridge, Marble City, Sequoyah Hills. Across the entire city you will find examples of people storing their RV's on their property without screening. 99% of those are not any more of an "eyesore" than the cars and trucks in the driveway. A full size Sprinter type van with commercial logos all over is permitted without screening, but a boat is not? There are other examples like cargo and utility trailers that would not fit in the definition of Recreational Vehicle that would also be permitted.

Staff Reply:

Reconsider The Recode

We need more not less affordable housing in Knoxville. According to the City and County’s most recent Community Block Development Grant reports, more than 21,000 low to moderate income families in Knox County are paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs. These families live under constant stress of eviction. This high number indicates a crisis in affordable housing in our community. From other information I have gathered, based on growth projections for the city, we need to be building between 3 and 5 affordable housing units per day in our community by 2040. The proposed map put forth by the City Council and the MPC as a result of the ReCode process appears to reduce the potential to build affordable housing in Knoxville. I urge the City Council and the MPC to redesign the map. I appreciate the thoughtfulness in including higher density housing along the corridors, but the drastic reduction in the orange and tan areas of the current map is concerning. I urge the City Council and the MPC to think more carefully about how to encourage affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. I urge the City Council and the MPC to returning some of the orange areas to the zoning map and to include areas on the map which allow for RN3 and RN4 zoning, two new categories created during the ReCode process but not used in the proposed map.
Staff Reply:

Recommend Changes For Sequoyah Hills

Here are the changes I am recommending for Draft 3:- Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) permits will only be issued to owner-occupant RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.- ADU permits will require one off-street parking space for every ADU bedroom in addition to the existing parking for the primary residence.- Remove the "special use" designation for "Dwelling 2-Family" use for RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.- Restore the 85' building height maximum to the C-G-3 parcel requirements.Here's why I'm making these recommendations:- RN-1 and RN-2 make up all the single family parcels in Sequoyah Hills and these recommendations attempt to ensure those properties are not bought up by investors and split up without regard to the neighborhood and without consequence to the property owner.- I understand and support the need for ADUs to provide for unique family situations and the urge of some residents of Sequoyah Hills to provide affordable housing for young parents to be part of our school district. I believe my recommendations will not interfere with these priorities.- The C-G-3 height requirement would apply to Western Plaza's zoning. This would still be in violation of paragraphs a.1.A and a.1.B of Title 54 Chapter 17 Part 1 of the 2017 Tennessee Code, which protects Tennessee's scenic highways and state law would supersede the zoning code, so in effect, the 85' would never be reached.- My deep, dark fear is that our neighborhood will be taken over by investors that chop up the real estate like they have in Fort Sanders.- I bought my house in Sequoyah Hills because I saw a "for sale" sign in the yard when I ran by it training for the Knoxville Marathon. I strongly believe that one of the common goods that raises the value of all our properties and increases the quality of all our lives is the walkability of Sequoyah Hills.
Staff Reply:

Recoding Residential Areas

Question-Why are some areas within the same are are coded R! and others are coded R2. My property is located on Michaels Ln and is coded as R1. What is the difference between R1 and R2 coding codes?
Staff Reply:

Recoding Questions

My wife and I have been on a scavenger hunt for information for the last year since relocating to Knoxville from Boston, hoping to bring our brand to join the thriving art community in The Old City. Today we finally gained clarity on how our business would fit into the current zones of the City of Knoxville. We hope to support local artists through consistent art shows and artist retail branding as well as volunteer for events and give back to the flourishing artisan community through outlets such as fund raising and scholarships. Unfortunately, the most profitable source of income through our business model is high quality tattooing and tattoo studio management, mainly from the high income/low overhead cash flow associated with our proven model. We learned to our surprise today that tattooing (C3) is scarcely mapped in the Downtown/Old City, which we found unusual in comparison to the locations of our other tattoo studios as well as inconsistent with the development of other US cities we have worked and networked in. We are reaching out to multiple organizations and connections such as realty groups and local businesses in search of our next step in growing and giving to our community. Can you offer us any advice or contacts that could lead to information that would assist us in changing the current ordinance of the Central Business District to include Art Galleries that offer tattooing? We look forward to planting our roots in Downtown Knoxville where we plan to stay and raise our son and give back to our community.
Staff Reply:
Tattoo studios are included in the Body Modification Establishment use (See Article 4, Section 2.3 Definitions). The Use Matrix (See Chapter 9 of the draft ordinance) outlines in which districts the that use is permitted by right or by special use.

Recoding North And South Knox

I have a few requests for specific areas of Knoxville. First, I would like to see more small homes (some might say tiny homes) built close to the city on existing home lots on the south knox waterfront areas. These small lots once held a large number of trailers, and would now be better suited to have small homes on each lot, as they would be affordable, make sense in the small space, and be easily accessible to downtown for the hip and urban youth of today. Second, we could use more high density housing in old industrial type buildings. Converting these spaces into modern lofts seems to be the norm, and it is cleaning the neighborhood up in a way that conventional apartment complexes do not. It would save the current structures and facades, and allow more dwellings inside a current space. Such as at 428 E Scott. It would great for it to be zoned RN-6 to hold a larger number of small families and singles that work and want to play downtown. Also, at 400 E Scott it should be also zoned RN-6 level as it already has something like 24 units in such a small area. I have lived in both South and North Knox for many years, and am concerned that if we do not allow things like small houses on small lots and multi-family high-density housing in old reclaimed industrial sites, we will lose many people to West Knoxville, where it looks like every other town in America. Let us keep Knoxville with the charm it currently has, and keep its residents closer to downtown so they can live, work, play, and spend their money downtown. We will all prosper because of it.
Staff Reply:

Recoding For Knoxville Question

I had a concern about the new recode regulations for Knoxville. I am concerned primarily with the work of artisans. I am wondering if these new zoning regulations would limit the ability of talented artisans from engaging in their art. As you are probably aware the work of artisans not only contributes to society in a major way, it can be a free speech issue as well. I would hate to see artists of meager means who are unable to afford moving to a zone that fits their skills be penalized. I am concerned about segregation of the artist community, which includes some poor and disadvantaged youth of all racial groups. We would not want zoning to keep these young people from obtaining a better life through art, due to zoning concerns. I am wondering if you would consider a special addendum to your zoning regulations to protect the artists in this city from the awful possibilities of segregation and discrimination that could occur in overzealous enforcement of zoning. There was a blacksmith at one time in the Mechanicsville area, who I don't think is currently working. But, I think of all the beautiful things he made, how he contributed to our city with his work as an artist. What if the zone had limited his ability to create such art? His life was improved by the income he was able to make, lets not let his legacy die and lets not limit our young people from becoming all they can be by engaging in those art skills with zoning regulations that limit their engagement in art. 

Staff Reply:

Thanks for your comments regarding providing opportunities for artisans to work in Knoxville and not limiting these opportunities through zoning. The proposed zoning update addresses this issue in two significant ways. The first is by allowing craft industrial, a use designation that would include artisans, in all commercial districts. The space limit for this use is 8,000 square and the designation and use permission are designed to allow opportunities for an artisan or group of artisans to have a space where they could produce and sell a variety of artisan made items. The second is by expanding opportunities for home occupations, which would permit a person to work in their home, provided the impacts of the work do not adversely affect neighbors. There are some limits proposed for home occupations - only one employee, occupy no more than 25% of the home, limited signage. Representatives of neighborhoods have requested that the limitations on home occupations be tightened to reduce potential impacts on neighborhoods. You may want to contact your Council representative to advocate for these provisions that would benefit artisans.

Recoding Buildings In North Knox

Hello! I live on Gratz Street in 4th and Gill with a few other tenants.It has been brought to our attention that there have a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look as if the should be zoned more appropriately for their use.
  1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density
  2. 428 E Scott- We would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
  3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.
We hope our comments help! We just want what's best for this community we love!
Staff Reply:

Recoding

BRING THE ORANGE BACK !
Staff Reply:

Recoding

I feel that a couple of the questions did not have adequate answers. For question # 1 I would have answered, "should not occur" rather than what was listed. Some neighborhoods are already zoned inappropriately for multi-family dwellings when they were designed to be single family. This is particularly detrimental in older neighborhoods, such as ours, which has inappropriate small apartment buildings that don't blend in with older, historic homes.Additionally, the allowance of free standing buildings for adult children or aging parents would depend upon many factors, such as lot size, size of existing structures, etc.
Staff Reply:

Recode's Impact On South Waterfront Form-based Code

I am writing you with dismay about how the current 2nd round draft of Recode Knoxville handles the long studied, community-based, community-requested South Waterfront Form-based Code. I participated in the public discussions and feedback as part of the Round 1 of Recode Knoxville. At that time I was told explicitly in a public meeting in regards to a question about the current, existing form-based codes used in Knoxville that there wouldn't be major changes to current form-based codes used in Knoxville, only clean-up on the edges where ideas hadn't solidly been hammered out in the code.The current 2nd round draft of Recode Knoxville does not appear to hold to the statement made at that meeting. I'm concerned to see major changes being proposed, including some that go against the very intent of what the SW code was set-up to accomplish.Form-based code districts should be dealt with individually if any changes are made. That's the very nature of form-based districts. They're customized, specialized and unique. The form-based code for each district is meant to "fit like a glove" to address the particular development opportunities for that district, and has to be handled accordingly at every step. That clearly includes revisions. A board, sweeping update to the entire Code, such as Recode Knoxville, is not the appropriate place to dig into the guts, the thrust of the South Waterfront Form-based Code and muck around.The South Waterfront Form-based Vision Plan and Code included months of work and community involved meetings. The community was engaged in the process and had embraced the adoption of the code at it's completion. The public was endorsing an urban, pedestrian-friendly connected community that provided public access to the river. Below are a few examples of how the 2nd Round of Recode Knoxville glosses over these facts and preverts the intention of the South Waterfront Form-based Code:The prohibited-use section has been deleted. We need to keep the few prohibitions listed in this section, such as heavy industrial. This is critical to a successfully grown community where people want to live and engage.
  • The prohibition on gated communities has been deleted. Gated communities go against the intent of the South Waterfront Form-based Code's goals of an urban, pedestrian friendly, community with a sense of place. Gated communities negatively impact connectivity, and can diminish access to the river. This prohibition was strongly supported by the South Knoxville community and needs to remain in the code.
  • The off-street parking section has been deleted and replaced with a reference to the general parking section in the Recode document. Unless that section includes a prohibition on parking lots in the front, which I doubt, this prohibition needs to remain in the code. Front parking lots are not part of an urban, pedestrian-friendly community. Also, the original code has different parking max/mins for each of the seven SW districts. Deleting all the parking-related code deletes the different parking max/mins for each of the seven South Waterfront districts. We need those in the South Waterfront code because parking min/max requirements can't be determined by use in a form-based code.
  • The provision setting the maximum block size perimeter has been deleted. This provision was included to prevent superblocks, which are not what the South Waterfront code intended to build an urban, pedestrian-friendly community. Superblocks have a negative impact on connectivity, and can diminish access to the river. This provison needs to stay in the code.
  • The 70 foot river buffer has been deleted. This was strongly supported by the community and well-vetted before the code was adopted and needs to remain.
  • The entire streetscapes section has been deleted. If we are treating the South Waterfront streetscapes like all other streetscapes in Knoxville, then the South Waterfront will lose it's opportunity to be a unique district with it's own pull and character to help strengthen and diversify Knoxville. This section need to remain.
Thank you.
Staff Reply:

Recode: Draft 2 Comments

Bring back the Orange by better utilizing the newly created RN-3 & RN-4 (as well as RN-5 where appropriate) districts that more appropriately represent the existing development patterns of the neighborhoods where it was removed. Projected population growth will necessitate "Orange" neighborhoods along corridors & with access to transit.This is inline with ReCode Section 1.2 Purpose statement - to promote economic development that balances the needs of current & future economy; utilize existing infrastructure & resources. Down-zoning current R-2 to proposed RN-2 reduces options for medium density redevelopment and doesn't reflect the existing development patterns. This reduction also further promotes financially irresponsible development patterns, leading to more sprawl, traffic, and infrastructure expenses without increasing the tax base to support it. This reduction goes against the vast amount of experts that have been brought into our community as speaker. (i.e. Joe Minicozzi, Chuck Marohn, Jana Lynott, Jeff Randoph, and more). Dwelling Design Standards: Single & Two-FamilyAs written, we're moving in the right direction. Standards MUST be objective & easy to understand and navigate. There are still some subjective wording within the standards that should be clarified. A Design Standard "Checklist" would be helpful. The Downtown Design Review Board could be used as a model to be duplicated for areas with Historical significance comprised of unbiased professionals.ParkingToo restrictive for Duplex (as written requires 2 spaces/du = 4 spaces). Requirement should consider number of bedrooms I.e. Duplex w/ a 2 bedroom unit + 1 efficiency unit. How does the code interpret a 40' single-width driveway.. 3 spaces? Need more clarification for what will actually be required to meet residential parking space requirements.ADUsAs written, Lot area minimum of 5000 sq.ft. is excellent & best practice. As written, Allowing attached or detached is excellent & best practice. Side setback of 8' and rear setback of 10' are too restrictive for small lots. In areas where ADUs are most needed (in or near transit-oriented development) residential lots often range from 50 x 100-150 feet. A 10' setback requirement makes detached ADU placement extremely challenging on small lots. In walkable urban neighborhoods, setback requirements should be kept to a minimum to enable detached ADU development: 5 feet is a reasonable setback requirement for such lots. As written, ADU setbacks are more restrictive than the setback for other comparable accessory structures, such as garages. Setback regulations for detached accessory structures may also consider tiered standards based on the detached structure's height, to protect light and air for adjacent lots. Basic design standards such as no low windows or doors are allowed within the sides of the structures that are within 5 feet of the property line. This nuanced, tiered setback approach protects neighboring properties' light, air, and privacy while affording smaller lots the same development entitlements as larger lots. It is the same development standard that applies to garages and other accessory structures.Limits to Max gross floor area.Capping ADU size is useful at responding to market needs for smaller dwellings. A reasonable cap should be smaller than the primary structure. However, adequate cap size would allow for two people to comfortably live. We need to ensure that ADUs can be at least up to 600 sq. ft. Many cities have a floor area ratio between the main house and the ADU that restricts the ADU to 300â€" 400 sq. ft. That does not work for someone who is fifty-five and has lived in a single-family home for decades. 300-400 sq.ft. doesn't work for a couple who is going to have a kid and going to live a normal life with friends and family that come and visit. A home that is 600 sq. ft. can function as a real home by the standards of what people want & expect from a home. The cap SHOULD NOT be tied to the existing floor area ratio of the primary structure.For example, a standard 800 sq.ft. post-war cottage (abundant in our urban neighborhoods) shouldn't be restricted to a 320 sq.ft. ADU. With current building codes not allowing sleeping lofts, it's quite difficult to adequately provide all that is necessary for a dwelling within such a small space. The cap SHOULD BE tied to Lot Size (as written) not to exceed the primary dwelling. A 600 sq.ft. ADU should be allowed on a 5000 sq.ft. lot even with an 800 sq.ft. primary structure. The 40% cap of primary dwelling should be removed from the code.Omit or clarify the subjective statement #9. The ADU must be designed so that the appearance of the primary structure remains that of a house.As written, no additional parking requirement is excellent & best practice.
Staff Reply:

Recode: 4th & Gill

I strongly object to the rezoning of the Fourth and Gill neighborhood from "Single Family/Duplex" to "Multiple Family/Townhouse". Many individuals and families have been working/investing for decades to build the fabric of this neighborhood into a strong, tightly knit community. I, for one (and I know many agree with me), would like to keep it that way. From a pragmatic standpoint, we don't have the parking to support this new zoning anyway. Thank you for your consideration.
Staff Reply:

Recode, Zone Map

I am very disappointed in the latest zoning map for my street, it has gone from RN-2 to RN-4 which will allow for multi family structures. All of fifth Ave is on the National Resister and and is already has a mixed use of single family homes along with some originally build multi family homes. Actually there are already 16 multi family homes along Fifth Ave, not counting the number of houses that have been converted to multi family homes. Parkridge has been undergoing years of reclamation from a multitude of chopped up rental houses owned by absentee land lords, which led to the blighted condition of just a few years back. Now the city is wanting to reintroduce the same conditions on this fragile neighborhood that almost led to its demise years ago.When this whole recode thing started the majority of the neighborhood residents were ok with ADUs on owner occupied proprieties, but to come now and shove multi family housing structures down our throat is a little more than disheartening, coming from a 20+ resident that has restored 4 condemned houses and has been involved in my neighborhood and city.
Staff Reply:

Recode, Zone Map

I attended the last work shop on 1/3/19 for the recode, I do have some issues with the latest draft. My area has been rezoned back to RN2, but the lot size for a duplex has been lowered from 10,000 sqft of lot space to 7,500 which is the standard size lot in most historic neighborhoods. I do not have an issue with someone wanting to build a NEW duplex that would fit into the character of the neighborhood. But my fear is that we will go back decades inwhich every foot of building space will be converted into "living" area, porches and balconies, will be converted into bedrooms and bathrooms as in the past. We here in Parkridge have spent years trying to over come this exact same type of over crowding and destruction of the historic fabric of our neighborhood. With only small portion of Parkridge protected by a historic overlay and no in fill housing guidelines, we would be damned to repeat our very bad past history. Parkridge would is better suited for RN3 like other historic neighborhoods like 4th and Gill.Also on a technical note, I noticed that under the minimum interior side setback has been changed to a minimum of 20', on a 50' wide lot, as in most cases in historic neighborhoods that would limit the buildable area of 30' wide. I think as it stands now, the minimum is 5', and minimum of 12' combined.
Staff Reply:

Recode Workshop, Regarding Multi-family Zoning & Kta/kat

In preparation for the ReCode workshop this evening, please see the attached PDF signed letter

Staff Reply:

Recode Vote

I urge you to move forward with the Recode process on Monday. I am so sick of the fear mongering from those who claim to have had no public process for this vote. It feels like a coordinated campaign, most likely funded by those who have the most to lose from the new code, namely developers. Don’t let those who fear change deter you. 

Staff Reply:

Recode Updates

MPC made changes to Recode at their June 13, 2019 meeting before approving it and passing it on to City Council. When can the public expect the current version to be post?

Staff Reply:

779 results found
Comments per page 10 | 25 | 50 | 100 View All Export to CSV