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.

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

Showing 0-25 comments of 86

Draft 1 Map Vs. One Year/sector Plan

Hello, thank you for posting the maps this week, and for the tool that allows one to compare the proposed map with the current zoning. Would it be possible to implement a way to compare the proposed map with the 'One Year/Sector Plan'? It appears a great deal of care went into boundaries/lines on the 'One Year/Sector Plan' and a number of the plans did not make their way into the proposed map. Namely ? there are numerous residential districts in North Knoxville (many of which are historic) that are now being rezoned to Commercial or Office. I would implore you to take a look at these neighborhoods more closely ? though some may seem like strange 'out of place' pocket residential neighborhoods, in many cases they are all that's left of previously thriving neighborhoods that were once more connected to one another. Once the current code was implemented in the 1960s, many of these parcels were redeveloped as commercial or industrial, or taken over by the city and redeveloped ? which left the remaining residential pockets disconnected from one another. If anything, rather than rezoning the pocket residential neighborhoods to commercial and decimating even more of our historic housing stock, I would recommend that you take a look at KGIS aerial maps from the 1930s and 1950s and consider rezoning parcels that were once residential but redeveloped for industry/commerce back to residential, to allow developers/architects to develop those properties back into much needed city-core residential units.
Staff Reply:
We've added the tab that allows comparison of the Map Draft 1 and the adopted Sector Plan (land use plan). This interactive map can be accessed directly using this link: https://maps.knoxmpc.org/MapSeries/recode.html?appid=daa100e704b44ea7825e3202943f9fcd&entry=3

Hedgewood Road 37918 Rezone

I have great concerns about the rezoning of my street, Hedgewood road. I have only lived here since November 2017. I searched for 2 years to find a nice, quiet family neighborhood in my price range in Fountain City. It is my understanding that my road as well as the neighboring roads, Kesterson and part of Kesterwood will be rezoned from R-1 to RN-2. What exactly does this mean for us? I read that multiple familie homes/duplexes will be allowed. I am sorry but that is not what I want in my neighborhood. My fear is this will bring more short term renters, people less invested in the area. And why are only those three streets being rezoned when other attching streets are not? Is there already an agenda in place for these streets? How will going from a residential single family street to an urban area affect my property value? Will rezoning affect my taxes? This rezone is not something myself of any of my neighbors want and as tax payers we should have a say. Please help me understand how this rezone will help me and my neighbors.
Staff Reply:
The RN-2 is intended to remain a single-family neighborhood. Below is a brief description: RN-2 Single-Family Residential Neighborhood accommodates development of single-family homes on relatively small lots with smaller setbacks. The only difference between the proposed RN-1 and RN-2 is the minimum lot area, lot width, and setbacks on the properties adjacent to a corner. Duplexes are currently permitted in the R-1 district through a special review process by the Planning Commission and this has not been changed in the proposed RN-1, RN-2, or RN-3 districts.

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.

Northwest Hills Proposed Zone Rn-2?

To whom this may concern:As a home owner in Northwest Hills, I'd like to understand the reasoning behind switching the zoning from single-family homes to RN-2, especially considering surrounding areas are zoned RN-1.Already, homes are being rented to college students and people are parking on both sides of the street, basically restricting it to one-way traffic.The street is less than 30ft wide, which per city code 1962, 26-1307 suggests that street parking be limited to one side of the street.
Staff Reply:
The RN-2 district is a single family designation which permits the same uses as the RN-1 district, as noted on the attached table. 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.

Comment Period

Please consider leaving the comment period open until, at the very latest, after the Five Points meeting in October. Neighbors need to time to review the map and learn about zoning changes. I think it would be beneficial to wait until after the holidays to bring it before City Council.
Staff Reply:
The reason for the comment deadline is to enable City and MPC staff and the consultants (Camiros) to address comments through revisions in the next draft of the updated zoning ordinance, which is scheduled to be completed in early October. The schedule for the completion of the zoning code update is stipulated in the contract between the City and Camiros, which was approved in December 2016 and states a completion date of October 2018 for the project. While the work of Camiros likely will be completed in the near future, there is no mandated schedule for adoption of the updated zoning ordinance. Public comment will be encouraged and welcomed throughout the adoption process, which includes public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. These comments will undoubtedly result in revisions to the proposed zoning ordinance and zoning map as they move through the adoption process.Although there is a deadline for comments to enable them to be addressed in the next draft of the updated zoning ordinance, please know that all comments are important and will be accepted and addressed as staff continues to identify needed revisions to the draft ordinance.

Recode Map

Is there a way to download the draft version of the new zoning map?
Staff Reply:
The new map, along with tools to compare the existing zoning and provide comments, are available for online viewing.

All C-2 Zonings

We have intentionally applied and been granted re-zonings of a number of properties around the downtown perimeter from C-3 to C-2. The proposed zoning is C-G-3. The reason we had these properties re-zoned was due to no to insufficient parking. These properties need to be zoned DK requiring no parking. Examples are 300 West Fifth Ave. and 3 through 23 Emory Place. Please comment. Thank you,
Staff Reply:
In response to the concerns identified in your email and in conversations with you, we are drafting proposed standards for a Downtown 2 (Downtown "Lite") zone, with standards that would be appropriate for areas immediately adjacent to the downtown core that have developed in an urban fashion with little or no parking, mixed uses, and no setbacks.

Kingston Pike Sequoyah Hills Association

KP-SHA board has adopted the following positions on the ReCode proposals. KP-SHA represents one of the oldest established neighborhoods in Knoxville. We support the maintenance and improvement of the residential qualities of the Kingston Pike-Sequoyah Hills community, including immediately adjacent areas of Knoxville.KP-SHA bylaws mandate cooperating with governmental units and civic organizations to further community interests, maintain the integrity of the Scenic Highway concept, promote appropriate zoning and deed restrictions, and oppose community deterioration and development of multi-family dwellings.The ongoing ReCode initiative offers many positive opportunities for Knoxville's future growth and development. Members of the neighborhood and the KP-SHA Board of Directors are actively participating in the ReCode process. However, some of the changes in ReCode appear to threaten the character of the KPSHA neighborhood and raise concerns that are important to the KPSHA community.The following positions identify these concerns and represent the views of the KP-SHA Board of Directors:- The KP-SHA neighborhood should retain the existing character of the present R1 zoning definition as a low density, single family neighborhood.- The KP-SHA area should be considered for EN (Established Residential Neighborhood) zoning.- The KP-SHA neighborhood should be zoned to exclude the introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).- The KP-SHA neighborhood should be zoned to exclude the introduction of two family dwellings (duplexes), regardless of lot size.- Zoning along the Western Plaza to Northshore corridor should not allow unlimited height buildings.
Staff Reply:
In response to comments regarding the proposed unlimited height in the CG-3 zone, staff will be recommending a maximum height of 120 feet for the CG-3 district and the CG-2 district has a proposed maximum height of 70 feet.Staff is not recommending new EN districts as part of the zoning code update. The neighborhood could ask for this designation following the general code update. In response to such a request, MPC and the City would evaluate the request and the appropriateness of that designation for the neighborhood. Duplexes are permitted through a use on review by the current R-1 zoning of the neighborhood; the change with the proposed zoning would increase the minimum lot size required and add design standards for duplexes. Staff has heard a mix of comments regarding ADU's and this will be an issue on which City Council will have provide direction.

3812 Boyds Bridge Pike

3812 Boyds Bridge Pike is proposed C-N from C-1. I think you stated that this area should not be a C-1 designation in our last meeting. Which zoning would you deem most appropriate?
Staff Reply:
Given the location of 3812 Boyd's Bridge Pike at the edge of several neighborhoods and that it is accessed primarily by autos, C-G-2 may be a more appropriate designation than C-N. We will look at this zoning option.

Process Of Reaching The Citizens

I have now been to two of your public meetings. Both meetings combined had maybe 90 people. When I talk with my neighbors almost 100% are completely unaware of this radical transformation of the city. Even if they would find out, the complexities of the code changes preclude comprehension for the average citizen. No hard data is presented about the impact of these changes on property values and city services. The presentation team "sells" the concept and obfuscation rules. If they were to spell out explicitly that the "Single Family Residence" will be dead throughout the city after these changes and that all residential properties will be zoned as "duplex," the majority of tax payers would be outraged.
Staff Reply:
First, the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zone currently allows duplexes as a Use on Review. This can be viewed in the City's Code of Ordinances, Appendix B, Section IV, Section 2.1.1. Part C.10. A review of the City's older zoning ordinances shows that the provision for two-family housing units was introduced as an amendment in mid-1960's (Ordinance 3616, September 22, 1964). It should be further noted that the Established Neighborhood districts (EN-1 and EN-2) also permit duplexes as Use on Review, although with a specification that they property be located on a lot with two-street frontages. At present, if a property owner in an R-1, EN-1 or EN-2 zoned area wished to construct a duplex, an application is made to the MPC and a public hearing would be held. The new RN-1 and RN-2 districts propose a continuation of a similar procedure with the issuance of a building permit contingent upon a public hearing being held and approval by the Planning Commission.Second, an examination of MPC records for the period from 1992 to present show only a handful of instances where owners sought to construct duplexes within the R-1 zone. Over that 27-year period, there were a total of 54 applications with 32 ultimately receiving approval. On average, that equates to a little more than 1 duplex a year being approved in R-1 districts. Since 2015, only two applications have been made and both were withdrawn prior to the hearing. For reference, the R-1 district covers over 33,000 parcels in the City and represents about 53% of all residentially-zoned parcels.Third, in zoning districts were duplexes are permitted by right (without the requirement for a public hearing) new construction of this style of housing is slightly more common, but still represents a fraction of the housing stock constructed in the City. These zones include the R-1A and R-2 district where, on average, about 18 duplexes have been constructed annually over the period from 2005 to present.

Recode Knoxville -- Op Zoning Districts 10-8-18

Hi:I am a resident of West Hills and frequently travel on Middlebrook Pike, Weisgarber, and Lonas.In looking at Draft 1 of the proposed Maps for Middlebrook Pike, Weisgarber, and Lonas areas, I noticed that there are many parcels with a proposed OP (Office Park) zoning district. This includes the large parcel of vacant land which Tennova had planned to build a hospital, vacant parcels across Middlebrook Pike, and other nearby parcels that are either vacant land or have already been developed as offices. The Recode Use Matrix, Article 9.2 shows the Permitted Uses for the OP zoning district. OP includes Eating and Drinking Establishments, Retail Goods Establishments, and Food Truck Parks, among other things as Permitted Uses. Gas Stations are allowed as a Special Use. These uses are very different from what is presently allowed in Office zoning districts in our existing Ordinance.These types of developments would increase traffic considerably, and add additional noise and bright lights which will adversely affect West Hills properties which are adjacent to or nearby the Tennova property, and will adversely affect many West HIlls residents and others who use the already heavily traveled Middlebrook Pike/Weisgarber corridors.Office zoned properties have long been used as a buffer between residential and commercial properties and that should be maintained for these type properties under Recode.Therefore, I request that Eating and Drinking Establishments, Retail Goods Sales, Food Truck Parks and Gas Stations be removed as Permitted Uses or Special Uses in the Office Park zoning districts. In addition, Eating and Drinking Establishments should be allowed only as Accessory Uses to serve the employees and clients of that office building, along with standards that the restaurant not be a free-standing building. It should only be accessible from within the building.Thank you for your consideration.
Staff Reply:

Ag Designations

Can the AG designation be reviewed to break down uses when surrounded by RN-1,2,3? Lot sided by. Size of plot. AG-1, AG-2?
Staff Reply:

Multi-family Housing Zoning

Knoxville needs to be zoned for more affordable, multi-family housing.
Staff Reply:

Proposed Recode Map

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. 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 return 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:

More Affordable Housing

Knoxville needs more affordable housing. Recent surveys indicate that 21,000 citizens of Knoxville pay more than 50% of their income for housing. The people who live and work in our city deserve affordable housing. If we can't get employers to pay a wage that allows people to afford their housing, we can certainly provide opportunities for housing through other means. Put the Orange Back!
Staff Reply:

Recode New Zoning: Put The Orange Back.

Put the Orange Back, please. Knoxville needs more affordable housing, not less. Too many families in our community are paying 50% or more for their housing monthly. This ratio is unacceptable and puts these families at high risk of homelessness. Please revise this proposal.
Staff Reply:

Recoding

BRING THE ORANGE BACK !
Staff Reply:

Affordable Housing Rezoning

I see the upcoming recommendations for rezoning as very disturbing for the city. How can we keep affordable housing for so many in Knoxville who need it? The changes will make a great deal of trouble for many who barely make it in their current homes. If evicted, which is unfortunately often, where would they go? What could they do for their children? THINK ABOUT THAT, not the opportunity for more expensive residential areas. Also remember that there are many places for expanding the city, particularly out west.
Staff Reply:

(no Title)

I'm concerned about the proposed rezoning's effect on affordable housing in Knoxville. Thank you for your efforts to increase businesses and mixed-use. However, I'd like to see more of the urban neighborhood and general residential classes (RN-2, RN-3, RN-4, and RN-5), especially near major roads. The people who can afford to live in a single-family residence are also the people who can afford one or more cars to get them where they need to go. They can live in the suburbs. There needs to be multiple family units near the KAT bus routes. Please put back the orange. Thanks.
Staff Reply:

Affordable Housing

Thank you for your work on the zoning maps. However, I am concerned that we are seeing less areas that allow for affordable housing in our city. The lack of affordable housing is becoming a crisis in Knoxville, and here at Cokesbury United Methodist Church we are interacting with families every day who are struggling to find affordable places to live. Please reconsider the zoning and allow for more areas of "orange" for affordable housing of various types to be built.
Staff Reply:

More Affordable Housing

The recode should include More Affordable Housing.
Staff Reply:

Bring Back The Orange!

I am very concerned about the proposed recode of the MPC. The proposed changes will make it even more difficult for moderate income folks to build affordable housing. It is unacceptable for folks to spend 50% or more on housing in our community. Thank you for giving my concerns serious consideration.
Staff Reply:

Landscaping Requirements

I strongly support very rigorous, mandatory landscaping requirements. This is a wonderful NPR podcast that outlines the public health and safety benefits of green and trees: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646413667/our-better-nature-how-the-great-outdoors-can-improve-your-life.
Staff Reply:

Comment On Rezoning

I am concerned that it appears that areas for multi-family housing is being greatly reduced. In a city that is struggling with affordable housing for everyone, it seems that this is counter-productive. Please allow more room for multi-family housing, not less.
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:

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