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.

52 results found
Comments per page 10 | 25 | 50 | 100 View All Export to CSV
Next 5 →

Showing 0-5 comments of 52

May 14, City Council Meeting For Rezoning Article 1

Please advise if recode Knoxville, Article 1 will be the only article discussed on May 14, 2019?  Will all 18 Rezone Articles be discussed at a later date for review of public opinion?  Please forward the dates and Articles to be discussed for each future meeting for the 2019 Rezone Articles? Thank you for your prompt response!

Staff Reply:

All articles will be discussed at the May 14 meeting.

Adu's Are Not Evil.

Members Recode Team,

I want to encourage those who have worked so hard on this and I hope that your work is not in vain. Please no not let a small but loud section of the population bring down progress. People who have watched this grueling process know that pushing it down the road or starting from scratch won't help. I just hope that there is flexibility in this code to evolve and adapt to a growing city and that we are not subject to the groanings of a few small minded citizens.

I've noticed all of this fuss over ADU's and I am tired of it. I am appalled at the close-minded thinking that an extra unit will have a catastrophic affect on the community. In fact, it is that very thinking that will hold Knoxville back as we try to grow. 

Does it not seem strange that in a time where we have the means to support safe and clean density, we are scared of a density level that our city was built? Is it also not telling that the most beautiful and well-liked areas of Knoxville are the most dense? 

DENSITY IS GOOD. As a designer who has studied architecture and urban planning in depth and in many cities, it irks me that people who have no bases of study for which to make an educated decision are restricting something that will be good for communities and home owners. 

Please, do not let misguided fear hurt this city's future. 

As for the current draft, I believe it is in the best interest of the city to change the following: 

10.3.B.1 : "When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the building codes, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases." This was omitted and although I don't see a reason why someone might need to diverge from the building code, there should always be room for special circumstances.. Why omit this?

10.3.B.2 : This entire point should be omitted. 1. An owner of a duplex may have a good reason to add an ADU and this should not be restricted. 2. My goodness, "Must be owner occupied" What good does that do to the community? Are there not countless individuals in this city who survive off income from rentals? Much of this city's revitalization has been a result of enterprising folks who flipped houses not for themselves but for others. Knoxville owes the quality of it's urban neighborhoods to these folks. Who's right is it to base the urban growth of a city off of whether a property is owner occupied? Please don't incapacitate future growth by restricting things like this. 

10.3.B.4 : Lot size restrictions. There are countless historic lots of record in Knoxville that are smaller than 5,000 sf but have a small house on them that would support an ADU plus be true to historic and appropriate for future density. 

10.3.B.8 : Again, we should not be controlling the square footage of a dwelling unit. What if it has a basement or upstairs that are appropriately scaled to the main house? This is a foolish blanket statement that does not take into consideration the high number of smaller (historical) lots in the city. 

If ADU's are an issue of different parts of the city wanting different things, I see no issue with dividing the regulation into districts, if the western population is afraid of density, let them keep their malls, and parking lots and live with the raising obesity, depression, and un-satisfaction that has been proven to come from being disconnected from a tight community. As for the neighborhoods around downtown, please don't restrict their growth. 

Staff Reply:

Typo On This Page

There is at typo on the submission page, "Use can this form to submit a comment or question for the project staff or send an email directly to"

Staff Reply:

Manufactured Homes

They apparently deleted completely the non-conforming paragraphs about manufactured homes in Article 17, but they left in THIS:

'On Page 9-10, it refers to Nonconforming Manufactured homes being found in Article 16, when it was in Article 17.

"... 3. Nonconforming Manufactured Homes See Article 16 for regulations regarding nonconforming manufactured homes, including single-wide manufactured homes. ..." '


PLEASE DELETE number 3 on page 9-10.

They also left in the "skirting" type required on manufactured homes.... EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT APPLY DOWN HERE. (Page 9-10, 2b)

Okaaaaaay! But trust me, mobile home communities are REQUIRING many owners to replace their skirting this year! Good luck fielding all of THOSE requests to be allowed to replace vinyl skirting with just vinyl skirting again instead! Bwahahaha

Staff Reply:

Single Wide Manufactured Homes

On page 9-10, it says:

" H.  Dwelling - Manufactured Home 

Multi-sectional manufactured homes may be used as single-family detached dwellings provided the following development criteria are met:..."

What about SINGLE wide manufactured homes? Are they addressed somewhere else?

Staff Reply:

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