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.

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

Showing 101-106 comments of 106

Medical Dental Office

Why did medical/dental office get changed from P to S in C-N?
Staff Reply:
P is for "Permitted use" and S is for "Special use", which is essentially equivalent to the current use on review process. Medical office was changed from permitted to special use in neighborhood commercial because it is currently not allowed at all in the C-1 zone. Some medical offices can be big operations that may not be appropriate for all neighborhood oriented locations.

Adus- Hot Topic

Hello, I attended the meeting last night and was saddened to see so many people asking questions in an aggressive and combative way. I think this is largely fear-based and would like to find out what we can do to allow property owners the freedom to have ADUs, even for personal use or for family, while addressing the (often overblown) concerns some have for "doubling the population density", etc. Is it possible to include restrictions such as "Main dwelling is owner occupied only", and also implement some parking restrictions so our narrow streets don't become congested. We're already dealing with several traffic issues as it is in Sequoyah Hills. Would these restrictions fall under the zoning that you are doing, or would that be something for another department? I know people are focusing on STRs, but I see ADUs as beneficial. It would allow someone to rent out a garage apartment to a grad-student or a young couple to help maintain an older home. While I'm not opposed to STRs, I think that that is an issue that should be discussed separately, as one doesn't automatically mean the other. This "fear of strangers" in our neighborhoods is a little ridiculous, but requiring "owner occupied" would help, because most people don't want to deal with strangers in their backyards, basements, etc. Thank you for all you're doing in helping Knoxville prepare for the future.
Staff Reply:

R-! Changes

I am strongly against the proposed changes to the R-1 zoning. Especially as it relates to ADU's and "Design Facade Requirements". I built my home in a low density single family neighborhood because thats how I prefer to live. Allowing multiple dwellings on a single lot will double the density and congestion in my neighborhood with increased number of cars parked on the streets. It would turn the neighborhood into an Air B&B context with complete strangers coming and going at all times potentially effecting our safety. I thought the city was supposed to "provide safety and security". If the city wants to propose such radical changes it should be put to a public vote or referendum. Let the neighborhoods decide for themselves and not some government bureaucrat !
Staff Reply:

C-g-3 District: Maximum Building Height

In Draft 2 of the code, the maximum building height for C-G-3 districts was changed to Unlimited. The Bearden Village Council has discussed this change and is strongly opposed to it. We request that you restore the 85' maximum shown in Draft 1. Virtually all of the commercial corridor through Bearden Village, from Western Plaza to Northshore Drive, is designated as C-G-3 in Draft 1 of the zoning map - a much larger concentration of C-G-3 zoning than anywhere else in the city. We think an 85' maximum building height will adequately accommodate dense development while retaining some of the current character of Bearden. If a taller project with special features comes along, the "planned development" approach described in the draft code remains an option. Mary EnglishPresidentThe Bearden Village Council
Staff Reply:

Current Zoning Proposal Violates Of Fcc Ruling Prb-1

The current Knoxville zoning proposal in section 10.3 C.1 and C.2 regarding the regulation by municipal authorities of Amateur Radio antenna height and support structure height is in contravention of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in FCC PRB-1, issued 9/16/85. The legal cite is 101 FCC 2d 952 (1985) and it can be found on the FCC Web page:PRB - 1 (1985) (https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service/prb-1-1985)To summarize: FCC regulations have the force and effect of federal statutes and are binding on the states as well as agencies of local government, including local zoning authorities. These regulations contain three general requirements: 1) local zoning authorities may not prohibit Amateur Radio communications and 2) local zoning authorities must provide reasonable accommodation for Amateur Radio antenna requests; and 3) local land use regulations affecting Amateur Radio antenna facilities must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish a legitimate municipal purpose.Limiting an antenna support structure height based on the height of a building where the tower is located is in contravention to PRB-1, as proposed in the Knoxville zoning document.Limiting an Amateur Radio antenna to a specific height above the roof of a building it is installed on is in contravention of PRB-1, as proposed in the Knoxville zoning document.The drafters of the proposed ordinance need to have some one from the city law office read and understand PRB-1. There have been numerous challenges brought in court versus municipalities that have been successfully decided in favor of Amateur Radio operators in the intervening years as a result. An example from 1987, where a municipality was successfully sued by a resident re: PRB-1 violation and not only won the right to erect his antenna system, was awarded $13,800 as plaintiff:Thernes vs. Lakeside Park-Consent Decree, Order and Final Judgement (http://www.qsl.net/k3qk/thernes2.html)Many municipalities have solved this by including language in zoning regulations that says antenna towers or support structures or antenna heights in residential must conform to FCC PRB-1 or have even adopted it as part of zoning regulations. 23 states have adopted PRB-1 laws so far - as have numerous local governments. A Bing or Google search for PRB-1 will bring up relevant information.
Staff Reply:

Recode Knoxville "housing"

I feel that a variety of types of housing is necessary to accommodate people, but consideration should be taken in where they are placed. For example, I would not want a duplex or apartment building next to my house.
Staff Reply:

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