minutes - knoxville-knox county planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/feb07min.pdf ·...

The Metropolitan Planning Commission met in regular session on February 8, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in the Main Assembly Room, City/County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee. Members:

A Mr. Randy Massey, Chair Mr. Dick Graf * Ms. Susan Brown Ms. Kimberly Henry Mr. Robert Anders *

** Mr. Stan Johnson

Mr. Trey Benefield A Mr. Chester Kilgore A Mr. Art Clancy Mr. Robert Lobetti Mr. Herbert Donaldson A Ms. Rebecca Longmire Mr. Ray Evans, Vice Chair Mr. Jack Sharp Ms. Mary Slack

* Arrived late to the meeting. ** Left early in the meeting. A – Absent from the meeting Vice Chair Ray Evans served as Chair in Randy Massey’s absence.

1. ROLL CALL, INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Buz Johnson called the role. Mr. Trey Benefield led the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.

* 2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 8, 2007 AGENDA

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT.

* 3. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 11, 2007 MINUTES

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT. 4. REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENTS, WITHDRAWALS, TABLINGS AND

CONSENT ITEMS. Automatic Postponements read Postponements to be voted on read

M inutes

February 8, 2007

1:30 P.M. Main Assembly Room City County Building

MPC Minutes February 8, 2007

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE POSTPONEMENTS 30-DAYS AS READ UNTIL THE MARCH 8, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 9-0 POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

POSTPONEMENTS 60 DAYS AS READ UNTIL THE APRIL 12, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 9-0. POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED.

Automatic Withdrawals Read WITHDRAWALS REQUIRING MPC ACTION

None

REVIEW OF TABLED ITEMS KNOX COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 10-A-04-OA Definitions and development standards for adult oriented establishments,

including, but not limited to, bookstores and motion picture theaters, and changes to related sections

LAKEVIEW POINT 1-SC-05-C West side of Fredonia Rd., north of Merchant Dr., Council District 3. ROSEBAY PLACE 8-SB-05-C East side of Rosebay Rd., south of Garden Dr., Council District 4. ANDREWS POINTE - GARY ANDREWS a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SH-05-C South side of Westland Dr., southwest of S. Northshore Dr, Commission

District 5. b. Use On Review 12-G-05-UR Proposed use: Detached single family subdivision in PR (Planned Residential)

pending & F (Floodway) District. SOUTH GROVE 1-SH-07-C Southeast side of Mountain Grove Dr., southeast of Chapman Hwy., Commission

District 9. WILLIAM H. HARRELL PROPERTY, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1R 1-SF-04-F Southeast side of Buffat Mill Rd., Council District 4. HATAUB SUBDIVISION 6-SY-05-F West side of Hickory Creek Rd., north of Everett Rd., Commission District 6. HILL PROPERTY 4-SG-06-F Northwest side of Greenwell Rd., northeast of Pedigo Rd., Commission District 7. EMORY PLACE 4-SX-06-F Northwest side of E. Emory Rd, southwest of Bishop Rd, Commission District 6.


VARNELL PROPERTY ON DERRIS DRIVE 5-SP-06-F North side of Derris Drive, East of Wrights Ferry Road, Commission District 4. PROPERTY OF J. RONALD SCHOOLCRAFT, JR. 7-SU-06-F Southeast side of Northshore Drive, southwest of Terrace Woods Way, Council

District 2. ROY VANDERGRIFF PROPERTY 8-SH-06-F East intersection of Dan McBee Road & E. Emory Road, Commission District 8. SHOREWALKER PLACE, LLC 7-F-05-RZ South side Middlebrook Pike, southeast side Broome Rd., Council District 2.

Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential). NORMAN SHAW 4-H-06-PA Northwest side Asheville Hwy., southwest of Grata Rd. One Year Plan

Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). Council District 6. GEORGE WADSWORTH 12-B-06-RZ North side Clinton Hwy., west of Murray Dr., Commission District 6. Rezoning

from A (Agricultural) to RB (General Residential). ITEMS REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM TABLE – (Indicated with U) None TABLINGS – (Indicated with T) Read Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr.: Asked for Victor Jernigan, Item 57 to be heard. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO TABLE

ITEMS NO. 16A&B. MOTION CARRIED 9-0. TABLED CONSENT ITEMS Items recommended for approval on consent are marked (*). They will

be considered under one motion to approve. KIM HENRY RECUSED FROM VOTING ON THE CONSENT LIST. STAN JOHNSON ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. Chair suggested Item 82 to be heard after item no. 10. Don Dobson: Item No 26 be removed from consent. Bob Becker: Item No. 80 off consent. Charlotte Davis: Asked No. 49 be removed from consent. Dogwood Hills. Craig Whitehead, Thorngrove Pike. No. 20 and 72 removed from consent.


MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO HEAR THE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCEPT REMOVE ITEM 82 AND HEAR AFTER ITEM 10 AND REMOVE 26, 80, 49, 20 AND 27. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCEPT REMOVE ITEM 82 AND HEAR AFTER ITEM 10 AND REMOVE 26, 80, 49, 20 AND 27. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. CONSENT ITEMS APPROVED.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE KNOXVILLE SOUTH WATERFRONT MIXED USE AREA AND FORM BASED CODE ( Identified by map and written description in the offices of MPC.) 5. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 10-B-06-OA Consider approval of amendments to the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance

to establish form based zoning regulations for the South Waterfront Area, including the creation of SW1 thru SW7 districts, and to revise related zoning text and references for definitions, signs, parking and landscaping, loading and storage, lighting, legal nonconformities and other related requirements and standards.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to the City of Knoxville Zoning

Ordinance in two motions. ROBERT ANDERS RECUSED FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON ITEMS 5-10. Mr. Dave Hill: Senior Director, City of Knoxville, South Waterfront Director. Last meeting these were postponed and an oversight committee meeting was held

January 31, 2007. Handed out a memo dated Feb 8, 2007. You have draft No. 6. In the memo I summarized the changes from the January 11 MPC meeting. We made some changes at January 31 oversight meeting and they are on page 2 of the memo. As part of the public record I also noted the outstanding issues that the South Waterfront Committee made recommendations on, some of the other concerns voiced by Arthur Seymour and others he represents, and comments from some residents that live in the Mimosa, Jones and Atchley neighborhood asking for change from SW3 to SW1. For reasons of insufficient majority from affected property owners, we decline to recommend that change to you. There are issues relating to height, regulating plan streets and overall development capacity that the oversight committee and other participating citizens have declined to make a recommendation to make those changes. The primary reason folks do not want to see changes in heights and development capacity is there are several opportunities to find flexibility within the code. First opportunity is to have some discretion as far as administrative review as regards to setbacks. The other item of flexibility is the alternative compliance review. That would mimic a use on review procedure. It deals with redevelopment of a new project or a legal nonconforming industrial structure. Tried to strengthen opportunities for the legal nonconforming uses to be able to have an avenue for review. Tone of that section is to have an applicant who feels they can meet the spirit and intent of the regulations come and say I cannot meet the letter of the law but I think I meet the quality expectations. Third we do intent to create an SW-8 district to allow project specific proposals to come


as a rezoning application to both MPC and City Council affording the public a chance to review these proposal as they come forward. There is flexibility. We have made a lot of revisions to this code. We are trying hard to respond to all the concerns. We think we have it pretty much complete. We recommend approval.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr.: On behalf of five industries Holston Gases, W. S.

Trimble, Rinker Materials, Knox River Warehouse and Specialty Metals. We want to be partners in this project and want it to succeed. The first thing that concerns us is you are doing a general rezoning of an area where you are creating nonconforming uses of a lot of the property owners. Two the ordinance, when we raise specific development potential, we are told they are going to amend it with SW-8 and that will take care of you. We hope it will be in there and take care of us. We have reduced a lot of issues we were concerned about. One is on January 31st the clarifications Mr. Hill gave me afterwards, turned in for the record. I think this satisfied part of our concerns. We are asking you today to consider 5 amendments. First is the road issue. There are roads in the plan that are identified as proposed roads only. With a little tweaking of the language, which I just handed you, I think my client’s concerns will be satisfied. If one of the industries seeks to expand or reconstruct after a casualty, we do not want a proposed layout of a road preventing that. We are not trying to destroy the figure 8 road alignment. If we went to rebuild we do not want people to tell us there is a road going through our property and you cannot rebuild. What is wrong that with saying “the layout of roads and streets are shown for presentation purposes only. Actual location and configuration will be determined at the time of redevelopment of the properties.” The City has basically said that so far so let’s just put it in there. SW-7 includes Holston Gases and Marathon Oil. We are asking for changes 70 feet down to 50 feet on the setback and building height maximum delete from 70 feet and add 150 feet. These are all at river level. The consultants report showed rather square block buildings up and down the waterfront. Why not allow circular buildings with 13 to 15 stories with river views for everybody rather than 1/3 of the building. With SW-4, same on river setback and allow 70 feet to be 100 feet. With that we are happy with the plan and will support the code. Ginger Baxter has a presentation showing how these changes will allow more developable property on the Holston Gas property.

Mrs. Ginger Baxter: 3901 Sam Cooper Road We are not trying to come in and make an 11th hour change. We have also been in

meetings with consultants and planners over the past year. We feel like on height and setback and roads, we have not really been heard. I am speaking for 10 acres directly on the riverfront east of the Gay Street bridge. You have these maps I gave out at Agenda Review. The current property is 10 acres. We expect to own this business and property for the next 50 years. We want to support the community and plan. We like the greenway and bell tower walk. We look forward to pedestrian friendly retail if the market dictates at some point on our property. We believe that development would benefit entire community when the market is ready for it. We do not have plans other than to operate Holston Gases we have now. We are asking for some tweaking to give us the flexibility to do a variety of things in the future. We are in the SW-7 zone which is mostly our property and asphalt plant. Showed an overlay with the waterfront plan as of today. Talked about the proposed river road and a green grassy knoll. The plan allows us 3 acres


of building site. We are not required to move and we have no plans, when you look at this plan it is not very likely that Holston Gas will move in the near future. Reducing our possibility down to this, we would not be able to do anything but continue on with what we have right now. The next transparency, with the changes in height, setback and the ability to move the road, this is a different idea. The grassy knoll would be good place to put the tower. You could do a taller building up against the bank and there would be more view-shed than there is now. Again the market is not there for that sort of plan right now, if it were it would provide for same greenway corridors, tower and possibly a marina. We do not know what the market would be in 20 years. We are asking for flexibility to have these. The road as shown here does not bisect our property as much. I realize there is going to be a review process and maybe a SW-8 zoning. We would prefer to get this right to in the beginning and want to support it from the beginning. I am asking for the amendments especially for Holston Gases 1-3 property.

Mr. Ray Evans: Asked Mr. Seymour about the changes he proposed. Mr. Seymour: SW-7, page 4.7-5, building height max. Change that to a

maximum of 150 feet. River buffer setback at 4.7-4 SW-7 change river buffer from 70 feet to 50 feet.

Mr. Monty Stanley: 3029 Davenport Road. In favor the code. The code is the result of over 19 months of planning by consultants, city, 4

neighborhood organizations and property owners. Process was open and everyone had a change to be hard. Implementation will be an asset for the City. Opportunity exists for Knoxville to set an example to the country as a whole in urban design concepts. The road that seems to be a controversy will be necessary with the new development. We agreed that we did not want to widen Sevier and Blount Avenues.

Ms. Diane Conn: 704 Hickman, Old Sevier Community Neighborhood Community We need to get the code passed as written. A lot of thought has gone into this and

we need it passed without amendment. That would change it materially. We want it the way it is now.

Mr. Greg Cobelton: 2101 Spence Place, Island Home Oak Park Ask you approve these items. If a property owner wants to do something different

from the code is option of appeal or another option of design use under SW-8. There has been enough public discussion of that that we can all be sure it will happen and be folded into the code. Several property owners area already to proceed with these guidelines. We should move on with this and approve the code.

Ms. Linda Rust: 1720 Earl Avenue, Southhaven Neighborhood Association Take the advice from the Oversight Committee, our City government and the

community that this is what we want. We had a long, involved public process and this is not just a few people making the decisions. People have been able to express their opinions. We need to have a process that balance the needs of all stake holds including all those that live there.


Mrs. Carole Allen: 2129 Spence Place, 37920 Ask you to pass the codes as written and value the time and input into it. Mr. Hoyle Gill: 6614 Sherwood Drive, one owner of Knox River Warehouses I have been to every meeting. A lot of the issues that Mr. Seymour brought up to

you, I have been talking about at the meetings with Mr. Hill, the mayor and consultants. A lot of these changes have fallen on deaf ears. We are the process, but need the changes.

Mr. Seymour: If we get these amendments in here, this will sail through City

Council. Mr. Joe Hultquist: 2240 Fisher Place, Member of City Council I do not think anyone should assume anything will sail through City Council. A lot

of work has gone into this. We are going to have in place alternatives means to deal with the concerns that have come up. Urge you to pass it as it is today.

Ms. Kim Henry: Want clarification on eliminating the river road. Mr. Seymour: We just need language on alignment. We have run into problems

when roads are proposed and you try to get a building permit. Mr. Trey Benefield: It has been a truly impressive process with all this work. Any

consideration of amendment has been taken very cautiously. I appreciate how rare it is to see a community so involved and powerful. As a consultant, it appears there is a small amount of room for compromise.

Mr. Mark Donaldson: We received a hand out from Mr. Seymour on the floor

area ratio should be doubled from 3 to 6. In addition to doubling the height they are requesting we double the floor area in that district.

Mr. Hill: I think what the intent is. The idea of going to 150 feet or 100 feet is

commensurate increases in the number of stories and floor/area ration should be considered part of that entire package. That is what I understand the intent to be. We have three measurements that deal with development capacity. You have the maximum building height, number of stories, and floor/area ratio. If you talk about maximum building height and you recommend changes, either the commission can specify the stories or FAR or staff can make that conversion.

Mr. Evans: That is why I asked for clarification he has on his proposed

amendment in SW-7 going from 70 feet to 150 feet. In fact SW-7 is 50 feet plus 10 plus 10. He said he wanted to change the 50 to 130 which would be well over doubling the height of the building.

Mr. Stan Johnson: Can amendments be done in a per case basis and bring it

back to this Commission.


Mr. Evans: There is an alternative compliance code that allows anyone who want to do something differently to bring it back to this body. Today one of the first concept plans has 5 variances. That process is in place in the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Trey Benfield: I do not think that we should make rules that we know we

are going to break. We should make rules that specify the intent we want to enforce.

Mr. Donaldson: The intent of the alternative compliance is to allow design

changes, but not to change the base factor of the zone district which is the floor area ration. Somebody could present an alternative plan for the maximum floor area but could not exceed that.

Ms. Henry: Asked about SW-8 zone. Mr. Hill: The intent is to balance what we call “as of right” standards for building

heights, number of stories, FAR so that somebody could come in and takes care of platting and get a building permits. We are trying to eliminate discretionary review when possible. The idea of an SW-8 would not be designated to any particular property. In order to be able to go higher it would be considered a rezoning case and go to MPC and City County and the minimum information requirements the way I envision it would be that they would have to show architectural elevations and perspectives and have a specific development project in mind. If you want to go higher and more intense, you allow some level of public input during public hearing process and allow design quality to speak for itself rather than having to stick with “as of right” standards.

Mr. Art Clancy: If we pass this as it is right now or with amendments, SW-8

would have to come back before us and then go to City Council as another approval process? Chair said yes.

Mr. Benefield: I feel that SW-8 is not before us today and it should not enter into

our discussion that much. Mr. Stan Johnson: What happens if they decide not to change any of their

structures as they are now? Does it ruin the plan? Mr. Hill: No. The plan has to be patient. Marathon Oil we talked about may be

there forever. We do not presume the plan will take place exactly as on the paper. There are measures taken in the code and ordinance amendments to strengthen and clarify the issues addressing legal nonconforming uses and legal nonconforming structures. If an industrial property owner wants to expand, suffer lost or decide to voluntarily tear down their existing buildings, they can still keep that use and continue with that use on the property.

Mr. Evans: Three issues are whether the road configuration is for illustrative

purposes, river buffer setback and building height. Mr. Benefield: I have given this considerable thought on a motion.


MOTION (BENEFIELD) WAS MADE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF KNOXVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, ESTABLISHING SOUTH WATERFRONT DISTRICTS, SW-1 THROUGH SW-7 AND ARTICLE 4, ADDING SECTION 27 THE SOUTH WATERFRONT FORM BASED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1) THE FLEXIBLE ROAD ALIGNMENT ILLUSTRATED IN THE REGULATING

PLAN IS SHOWN FOR CIRCULATION INTENT ONLY. ALIGNMENT WILL BE FINALIZED WHEN PROPERTIES ARE REDEVELOPED.

2) MINIMUM WIDTH OF RIVER SETBACK IN SW-4 AND SW-7 SHOULD

BE CHANGED FROM 70 TO 60 FEET. 3) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE SW-7 DISTRICT SHOULD BE

CHANGED FROM 50 FEET AND 4 STORY PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 1 STORY MAXIMUM WITH 10 FOOT SETBACK TO 100 FEET AND 9 STORY PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 2 STORY MAXIMUM WITH 10 FOOT SETBACK. THE RESULT IS A MAXIMUM OF 120 FEET OR AN 11 STORY BUILDING. MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN SW-4 SHOULD BE CHANGED FROM 50 AND 4 STORY MAXIMUM PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 1 STORY MAXIMUM WITH 10 FEET SETBACK TO 70 FEET AND 9 STORY MAXIMUM PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 2 STORY MAXIMUM WITH 10 FOOT SETBACK. THE RESULT IS A MAXIMUM OF 90 FEET OR 9 STORY BUILDING.

4) TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL DISTRICTS SHOULD BE

CHANGED TO THE FOLLOWING: A. ONE TREE OF A MINIMUM 2 INCHES CALIPER IS REQUIRED FOR

EVERY 5 SURFACE PARKING SPACES TO BE PLANTED IN REQUIRED ISLANDS OR MEDIANS.

B. TREE REQUIRED FOR SURFACE PARKING MAY BE COUNTED AGAINST THE MINIMUM 8 TREES PER ACRE OPEN SPACE.

Mr. Evans: Is it your intent to say that the circular pattern remains, but the actual

alignment can be engineered when the property is developed. Benefield agreed. Ms. Henry asked to hear from the representatives to see if they could live with

the changes. Ms. Diane Conn: 704 Hickman Street Mr. Benefield’s tree planting plan seems to envision surface parking lots and that is

not what is envisioned. They are going to be under the building parking garages. That would be silly to say 5 parking spots and then plant a tree.

Mr. Benefield: As it is stated it only says one tree per parking space, therefore if

it were in a garage and you had 300 parking spaces you would have to plant 300 trees. I am proposing 1 tree per 5 spaces of surface parking. If there is surface parking.

Mr. Hill Surface parking is permitted in any district. Economics will probably drive

it toward structure parking. It was probably a typo and we are getting rid of.


Mr. Seymour: I think we can live with the amendments. HENRY SECONDED BENEFIELD’S MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1.

APPROVED. Mr. Benefield made a motion for the second part of Item 5, 5.b: MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO AMEND

ARTICLES 2, 5 6 & 7, AMENDING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, REFERENCES TO NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES OF LAND AND ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE SOUTH WATERFRONT FORM BASED DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED.

At the suggestion of Mr. Dave Hill Items 5.a and 5.b were consolidated into one

item and the motions were consolidated together. MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (CLANCY) WERE MADE TO

CONSOLIDATE ITEMS 5.A AND 5.B AND APPROVE THEM INTO A SINGLE ACTION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED.

6. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 1-A-07-OYP Consider approval of amendments to the Knoxville One Year Plan to establish a

new SW Mixed Use District I and SW Mixed Use District II within the existing SW Mixed Use District and to list zone district regulations as allowed zoning regulations in the SW Mixed Use District I and SW Mixed Use District II.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED. 7. CITY OF KNOXVILLE (REVISED) South Waterfront Mixed Use Area, as identified by map and written description in

the offices of MPC. Council District 1. a. One Year Plan Amendment 10-K-06-PA To reclassify property in the mixed use area as either SW Mixed Use District I, or

SW Mixed Use District II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendment to the City of Knoxville One Year

Plan, reclassifying property as South Waterfront Mixed Use District I and South Waterfront Mixed Use District II

MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED.


b. Rezoning 10-Y-06-RZ To rezone property in the proposed SW Mixed Use Area I to an SW zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the South Waterfront Districts Sw-1 through

SW-7 as shown on the South Waterfront Regulating Plan. MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED. 8. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 1-A-07-MRP Consider approval of amendments to the Major Road Plan to establish new

functional street classifications and include new street design standards, required rights-of-way and a revised map showing a proposed future street pattern for the South Waterfront Mixed Use Area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Mr. Trey Benefield: The maps referenced in this Major Road Plan are the

regulating plan that include the “flexible road alignment” and it is amended as noted earlier.

MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

THE MAJOR ROAD PLAN AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED.

9. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 1-A-07-OA Consider approval of amendments to the Knoxville-Knox County Minimum

Subdivision Regulations to establish new street classifications and right-of-way standards and other related requirements consistent with the Major Road Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED. 10. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 1-A-07-OB Consider approval of amendments to the MPC Administrative Rules and

Procedures to designate a South Waterfront Zoning Coordinator and to include necessary review procedures for proposals within the South Waterfront Mixed Use Area and the necessary schedule of fees for such reviews.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED.

SUSAN BROWN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. Ordinance Amendments:


Agenda was amended earlier to move and hear Agenda Item 82. Star Properties at this time on the agenda. 82. STAR PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC 12-G-06-UR Northwest side of Sevier Ave., southeast side of Council Place. Proposed use:

Medical Office Building in R-3 (High Density Residential) & C-4 (Highway & Arterial Commercial) District. Council District 1.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for the proposed 2-

story medical office building, with a total building area of 40,000 square feet in the R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning district, subject to 9 conditions.

Mr. Jeffery Swilley: 2226 Lyons Bend Road, 37919. Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr.: In the minutes for Item No. 88 last month Doctor Swilley

explained his predicament at that time. Commission had postponed this for a month. We do not have an agreement with the City on partnering on this property yet. Discussions are continuing, but no agreement. He and his group need to go forward on this project. They are asking for approval per staff. If it is approved and tomorrow an agreement is reached to partner with the City, then they will be back with a new plan. He is being held in limbo. They bought this property from Baptist and need to go forward.

Dr. Swilley: We have a deed restriction and a lease that is running out. We have

been meeting with the city for 6 months and met with the homeowners last week. We are in agreement with the City, but there is still no agreement with the City. This is our backup plan in case things fall through.

Mrs. Carole Allen: 2129 Spence Place, 37920

We are not opposed. Ask for postponement. At last months meeting asked for one month postponement. When it was postponed it was done with stipulation was the doctors continue conversations with City and that they meet with interested neighborhood residents. There is optimism and concurrence by the City and the Doctors that by March 1 it will be evident as to whether both sides can get what they want on this property. Meeting with neighborhoods only took place two nights ago. Residents express importance of the South Waterfront plans. Residents asked the Doctor to postpone this and continue to talk with the city and they refused stated they wanted to have this plan in their back pocket. Their ownership of these parcels dates to November 26, 2006. It has been obvious to them that the property codes would change. Site plan is fine under the current rules, but flawed in its compliance with the waterfront vision plan. Neighborhoods residents were willing to compromise on several points. If the doctors would continue to have talks with the City civic use and garage instead of the massive number of surface parking places. Also wanted them to change building location toward Sevier Avenue to comply with the mainstream vision plan principles. Other than there agreement to talk about the garage anything else that would help this more closely comply with the vision plan was rejected by them. The doctors are meeting tomorrow to see if there is additional private development that might be possible in addition to the medical building. Ask you to respect those who believe in the South Waterfront vision plan and allow the site plan to be the intended use of the property. At next months meeting the neighborhood promises our support of the plan if talks fail by March 1.

Mr. Henry: We talked potentially revising the site plan whether the form based

codes got passed or not. Have you started revising the site plan?


Dr. Swilley: We spent a lot of money to have the architectural plans you have before you. Do not want to spend more money on something we do not know if is going to happen. We are meeting to discuss the possibility of condos there. We need to get agreement with city. I have been working on this property for two years. We are willing to work with the City and will meet tomorrow. Sometimes things do not happen if there is no funding there. Our practice is essential to Baptists Hospital’s survival.

Mr. Art Clancy: I do not think the residents of South Knoxville will find another set

of landowners that have the means to and the will to develop the plan we have today. Give them an opportunity to secure there alternate plan. It is a business decision. They need to be able to do this.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Ms. Kim Henry: What are the doctor’s intentions if talks break down March 1,

2007? Then you build what is on the site plan, which is not in compliance with the ordinance we just passed.

Dr. Swilley: We are not going to be building March 1st. t is going to take time to

draw up plans. I would think it would take several months to draw up the plans for the building. Our goal for us financially is to do something great and big and condos are what we want to do. If next week the City does not have the money for the next couple of years, then we have no choice but to build our building and have our patients come see us. We have patients that need us and we are committed to them.

Mr. Dave Hill: City of Knoxville. On behalf of doctors and willingness to talk with

us, we have been in negotiations and are getting used to once a month 7:00a m meetings with the doctors before they make their rounds. They do not have to do that. I think they are excited about the vision plan and see the potential for what could build up around them and want to be part of it. What we are trying to do is asking them to move their medical office building to one side of the site, subdivide off a piece of land, sell it to the City for a civic use or some other urban density type of development and at the same time we have a parking garage envisioned for that site. We are trying to figure out what happens to the doctor’s parking if we take away parking on one side of the site. There are footers and foundation costs we are trying to iron out. We have some recent estimates that have been provided by Barber McMurray. We are going through the numbers and trying to analyze and make a counter offer. If we cannot reach agreement in the net two or three weeks, I feel like we are going to yanking the doctors around forever. We have to make a determination on whether it is economically feasible or not. We are going to get off the dime within two to three weeks.

Mr. Trey Benefield: Asked about discussion to move building to one side of

property and using the other for parking, at least initially. Is there a problem with that plan?

Doctor Swilley: Ideally we need to be as close to the hospital as possible for

emergencies. We were willing to do whatever. We think a nice park will be a good thing. The cost to build that building at the east was going to be quite expense because of the topography. We sat down the developers and they felt the best place for us to be would be the center and discovery center next to the hospital and that way we would only need one story for parking. We are okay with that as long as we are made whole.


Mr. Hill: The building would be vertical to the water at intersection of Dawson

Street and Sevier. Mr. Benefield: I would like to approve that plan and not this plan. Ms. Allen: The other night we had the building moving from the western corner to

the eastern corner with a civic use building. It was supposed to be three stories, it is only going to be two. We said okay that is alright even if it is not the way it is in the form based code. The thing we hate is surface parking and not moving those parking spaces unless the city builds a garage. On March 1 the City will decide what they are going to do. We think delaying until next month will allow the best picture before you.

Mr. Evans: They submitted the plan before the form based codes and they do not

have to meet those with this plan. If the design changes and they submit a new plan, that will make a difference.

Ms Henry Can we add a condition that the applicant continued to work through

the process with the City and put a time frame on it? Mr. Donaldson: You would have to be very specific about types of changes to the

plan that you would be looking for so that staff could see a new plan and say oh year that is what they had in mind.

Ms. Henry: What is the next step if everything is worked out? Do they have to

come back before us again? Mr. Mark Donaldson: By the time of that next meeting we could have a new zone

for that property which would not allow them a use on review. If we postpone it, this application stays alive for further discussion.

Ms. Brown: If we approve this today it goes to city council? Mr. Donaldson No use on review authority lies with the Planning Commission.

Once approved they could literally apply for a building permit immediately. Ms. Brown If either side is appealed then it goes to Council. In the process the

City has worked out a different site plan with the physician group, different than what we sent forward, does Council have the authority at that point in time to approve or not approve a different plan if it is not what is before us today?

Mr. Donaldson: On a use on review the code reads that City Council considers an

appeal denovo, which means they get a fresh look at it and are not reliant on the record that has been created.

Mr. Wise: I would suspect as a practical matter they would send it back. They not

have a practice of manipulating use on review without allowing the Planning Commission to take a first stab at it.

Mr. Brown: Asked Mr. Hill if the negotiations were successful and it meets

everyone’s goal, was he thinking it would have to come back before MPC. Mr. Hill: Our ultimate goal in moving the building would be compliant with the

south waterfront code. The only thing missing would be if it were two stories instead of the minimum three stories. We would basically be a co-applicant with


the doctors to get them what they need. We would need a development agreement to understand the financial transaction and then we would have to subdivide off a piece of the property so that we could close the sale with the City. The part that is ironic is we are asking for more development intensity rather than less.

Mr. Clancy: This is a timing issue. If the city does not come to agreement with

the doctors and all this does not happen, then by postponing we are penalizing people that want to work with this vision plan. If the City cannot find the funding, then we are putting a hardship on people that want to work with us. If we approve it today and they are going forward with the intention that the City is going to find funding for the discovery center and they are going to get the plan done, then we are giving them their best win-win scenario. Postponing it does not seem to benefit anybody except people that absolutely want a discovery center there. We do not know that that is going to happen. We do know there is going to be a doctor’s office there if we quite penalizing the doctors who have worked with us. That is why I made the motion to approve per staff so that we can get them in a position where they are not going to be lose-lose.

Mr. Evans: If this is approved and if the plan is changed and if the South

Waterfront codes are approved between now and then, most likely the new plan would have to be resubmitted under those new codes.

MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. P 11. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 7-C-06-OA Amendments to the Knox County Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section 5.51, EC

Employment Center Zone, amending subsections regarding uses permitted, site development standards and administration.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 12. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 2-A-07-OA An amendment to Article 5, Section 6, of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance

regarding access to lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 13. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 2-B-07-OA An amendment to Article 5, Section 7b, of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance

to clarify that within all residential zones driveways may be approved across from T-intersections.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Alley or Street Closures: None Street or Subdivision Name Changes: * 14. E-911 2-A-07-SNC


Change Unnamed easement to 'Pollard Hill Way' between Jim Loy Drive and dead end, Commission District 8.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Plans, Studies, Reports: None Concepts/Uses on Review: W 15. KL REAL ESTATE CORP - WEST GALLAHER FERRY RD. 12-SD-06-C West side of West Gallaher Ferry Rd., north of Hickory Creek Rd., Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. T 16. WESTLAND FOREST - EAGLE BEND REALTY a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SF-06-C South side of Westland Dr., east and south of Montacres Ln., Commission District

4. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. T b. Use On Review 12-H-06-UR Proposed use: Detached Residential Subdivision in PR (Planned Residential)

District. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 17. VILLAGE AT HARDIN VALLEY - MICHAEL BRADY INC. FOR JIMMIE DOSS & JAMES PINKSTON a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SH-06-C North side of Hardin Valley, northeast of Bryant Ln., Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 12-I-06-UR Proposed use: Commercial development in PC (Planned Commercial) TO (Technology Overlay) District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 18. SUTTON GLEN 1-SA-07-C East side of Sutton Ln., north side of I-40/I-75., Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance 1 and the concept plan subject to 7

conditions. Mr. Scott Williams 6918 Yellow Oak Lane. On behalf of W. D. Properties Mr. Mike Visul 224 Kennon Road Ask denial or postponement to circulate petition against it. Currently experienced

development for over a year from another developer. If this is approved Kennon Road will received a total of 29 new vehicles daily up and down the street. It is


not adequate for this amount of traffic flow. The existing developer is using Kennon Road as a construction driveway and heavy trucks throughout the process. Do not see how the new developer could do it differently. Kennon Road has become rutted on the lower section. The upper section is not 17 feet wide all the way up and needs to be widened before any more development. Developer proposed these last minute changes to concept plan dated 1/22/2007. They put the sign up on February 1st at the top of Kennon Road and the sign was moved for some reason. Ask for denial or postponement.

Mr. Scott Williams: My client has been in constant contact with the West Hills

Homeowners Association, which is a very vocal group. They are not here because we believe they are in full support of the current plan and its access. City of Knoxville Engineering Department preferred we come in off this route verses another route proposed early on. I cannot speak for any other developer that might have damaged the road. As far as I know that road is adequate for what we are doing. We do have staff’s approval on it.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (BROWN) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. P 19. CHRISTIAN SPRINGS - SPRADLIN PLACE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SC-07-C Southeast side of Maloneyville Rd., southeast of Stair Dr., Commission District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 1-G-07-UR Proposed use: Detached residential development in PR (Planned Residential)

District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 108

detached dwellings on individual lots subject to 2 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 20. RIVERWALK LANDING, UNIT 1 - RIVER WALK LANDING, LLC a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SI-07-C Northwest side of E. Governor John Sevier Hwy., northeast side of Grand Valley

Rd., Commission District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1-4 and the concept plan subject

to 9 conditions. Ms. Karen Nolt: 2647 Bafford Place, Greenway & Park Coordinator. Asked the

developer to contact me because it is in our greenway plan to have a greenway along here. It is not that I am going to force him. I would just like the courtesy to talk to him and see the likelihood. I would like to postpone this and talk to the applicant.

Mr. Wayne Whitehead: 709 Thorngrove Pike. President of French Broad

Preservation Association MPC conducted a study of the French Broad River Corridor and is currently

working with East Tennessee Design Center to create a watershed task force that will take a look at the assets, features and resources identified in the study and come up with a plan that will protect those assets and resources. This and another piece of property to be heard today are key pieces for the future of the


French Broad River Corridor because they will set the trend for future development along the corridor. We are not here to oppose, but to work with the owners for smart development, but have not had a chance to do that. We ask for a postponement in order to sit down with the engineers to explain to them the opportunities for conservation along the French Broad River.

Mr. Dick Graf: Condition number 6 and 7 says prior to final plat approval applicant

shall work with Knox County Parks and Greenways. These are things they need to do before final plat approval.

Mr. Tom Brechko: In September through November there had been rezonings for

all this property. There has been notification at that time. It was scheduled for last months agenda and because of issues regarding access. They were proposing two access points on Governor John Sevier Highway and recommended only a single access with some design details they had to correct. Postponement last month was so they could correct those issues which they have done. There is a walkway system and easement shown on the concept plan along the river frontage. They plan to at least provide that the residents within the subdivision. What we typically do on the greenway issue is place that condition that if the County feels It is important that they need to address that with the County before they come back with a final plat.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND (BROWN) WERE MADE TO APPROVE PER STAFF

RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. b. Use On Review 1-L-07-UR Proposed use: Detached Residential Subdivision in PR (Planned Residential)

pending District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 49 detached

residential dwellings on individual lots in Unit 1 of the subdivision, subject to 2 conditions.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND (BROWN) WERE MADE TO APPROVE PER STAFF

RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. Mr. Wayne Whitehead: I had asked for number 20 and 72 to be removed from

consent because we had not talked to the developer. I have had the opportunity to speak with the Clark’s and their engineer on item 72 we will not oppose it at that time.

A BREAK WAS TAKEN FROM 3:22 P.M. UNTIL 3:30 P.M. * 21 REGAL RIDGE - WALT LANE a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SA-07-C North side of Nubbin Ridge Rd., east of Ferncliff Wy., Commission District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance 1 and the concept plan subject to

10 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Use On Review 2-R-07-UR Proposed use: Detached Residential Subdivision in PR (Planned Residential)

District.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 16 detached residential dwellings on individual lots, with a reduction of the peripheral setback along the western boundary line (Charles Town Landing and The Summit property) to 15 feet subject to 3 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 22. BISHOP RIDGE - TOM LEACH a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SB-07-C Northeast side of Bishop Rd., southeast of North Meadow Blvd., Commission

District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 9 conditions. Mr. Joe Farowich: Cope Associates. On behalf of applicant. We worked with the

County and MPC and worked out all the issues. MOTION (BROWN) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. b. Use On Review 2-B-07-UR Proposed use: Attached residential development in PR (Planned Residential)

pending District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 27 attached

residential dwellings on individual lots subject to 4 conditions. MOTION (BROWN) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. * 23. KIMBERLIN HEIGHTS @ NICHOLS RD. - LARRY HOLT a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SC-07-C Southeast side of Kimberlin Heights Rd., southeast of Nichols Rd., Commission

District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance 1 and the concept plan subject to 7

conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Use On Review 2-E-07-UR Proposed use: Detached residential development in PR (Planned Residential)

District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 9 detached

dwellings on individual lots subject to 2 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 24. CAMPBELLS POINTE, PHASE 3 2-SD-07-C North side of Campbells Point Rd., north of Ridge Haven Ct., Commission District

8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance 1 and the concept plan subject to 6

conditions.


THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 25. OAKHURST RESUBDIVISION - KEN BOWMAN a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SE-07-C Southeast side of E. Beaver Creek Dr., east of Clinton Hwy., Commission District

6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1-3 and the concept plan subject

to 12 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Use On Review 2-Q-07-UR Proposed use: Attached residential development in PR (Planned Residential)

District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for up to 57 attached residential

dwellings on individual lots and 15 attached residential condominiums on lot 46 as shown on the development plan subject to 2 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 26. SNOWMASS (FKA: MPM DEVELOPMENT ON THOMAS LN.) - MPM

DEVELOPMENT, LLC a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SF-07-C West side of Thomas Ln., south of E. Emory Rd., Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance 1 and the concept plan subject to

10 conditions. Mr. Mike Turner: Applicant, 358 Ashton Drive Mr. Dick George 7349 Palm Lakes Drive in Palmer Hills Subdivision speaking for

residents We reject this due to the flooding we have had in the past. A few years ago they

had an addition to our subdivision and we had more flooding even though they put in a holding pond based on 100 year flood plain. We have even had flooding in some of the houses that back up to this area they want to develop. The sewer line overflows and raw sewage comes out the manhole covers. We have had a lot of excess water that comes through there. This will only make it worse. There are a lot of people opposed that were not able to be here.

Mr. Donald Dosset: 7330 Palm Lakes Drive We have water when it rains. The detention pond was approved but it still have

water and sewer problems. Sewage comes out of the manhole. There is a pasture where he is developing.

Mr. George: On the other side of this drainage area is a development that has

just been approved for condominiums by Daniel Cox. Here we have more coming and it will be a disaster.

Mr. Leo LeCamera: County Engineering We are aware of drainage problems in

Palmer Hills Subdivision. Which is why we put the stipulation in that we would require either over detention or offsite work to mitigate the existing problems. That is one of the conditions of approval.


Mr. David Harbin: 4334 Papermill Drive We have dedicated quite a bit of land for detention basins and problems. We

cannot solve their problems, but we will not make it any worse and try to help as much as possible. Sewer overflow is Hallsdale Powel and to get it approved.

Mr. Evans: Asked Mr. Harbin to get phone number and names of who to call on

their problems. Mr. Clancy: This could possibly help your problems. Hallsdale Powell is going to

have to improve the sewer if there are that many people connecting and it is already overused. They will share in the cost of that to some extent to get their house in. I am listening to your concerns and the increased development will make more money there to address the problems.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-1. APPROVED. b. Use On Review 2-F-07-UR Proposed use: Attached residential development in PR (Planned Residential)

District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 81 attached

and 2 detached dwellings on individual lots subject to 2 conditions. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-1. APPROVED. 27. CAGLE PROPERTY SUBDIVISION - SUNDOWN PROPERTIES a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SG-07-C East side of Copper Ridge Rd. north of W. Emory Rd., Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1-14 and the concept plan subject

to 11 conditions Mr. Scott Williams: For applicant, 6918 Yellow Oak Lane, 37931 Mr. Bill Conner: 3720 Copper Ridge Road We have a lot of water issues right there. SUBMITTED PICTURES OF WATER IN

THE SINKKHOLE AREA WHICH BECOME A PART OF THESE MINUTES. We have sinkholes with flooding out at my house. All I have seen says this road is 19 to 20 feet. Copper Ridge Road in front of my house is 15 foot 2 inches. It is a narrow road. MPC promised us when they put in Elizabeth Down they would widen the road and fix the road. This plan says Cannon and Cannon says we need a turning lane on Emory Road to get to Copper Ridge Road. I cannot imagine a 15 foot road and people wanting to put another 139 homes in there with 1600 something vehicles without fixing the road. Tell me whether they are gong to fix the road or not.

Mr. Thomas Brechko: When staff went out we measured the road width near the

proposed entrance and it was 19 feet. There may be other areas further north that is less. There was a traffic analysis and it indicates there is an impact and need for turn lane on Emory at Copper Ridge. It also identifies in the study that that is an existing deficiency. Most of the improvements that are done are at the entrance to the subdivision to the road. Very seldom is there any type of condition placed when dealing with some distance to another roadway. Staff discussed with County Engineering and TDOT about the need for improvement tn


Emory Road. It is a State road. There is nothing in the plans for improvement at this time. There is turn lane need but it is not in plans for State or County for now.

Mr. Conner: I am talking about Copper Ridge Road. You measured in a curve that

is 19 feet. Copper Ridge Road is not 19 feet in 15% of its entirety. I have a lease on the land that is applied for.

Mr. Williams: He is correct. There is a large sinkhole down near his and prior to

that sinkhole there would be a large detention pond to maintain the current drainage that goes to that sinkhole. With the amount of space reserved on my plan, we can hopefully reduce the amount of drainage to that sinkhole to aid him. Whatever we do we will be in compliance with any County ordinances on drainage. As for traffic, we had a traffic study done by Cannon and Cannon. Copper Ridge is a decent width county road from Emory Road to entrance to subdivision beyond that to the Anderson County line is where it does get far skinnier. The traffic study showed the great majority would be traveling back to the south to Emory Road. It does have a white stripe on both sides of the road which usually means a decent amount of width. With regard to lease my client would have to speak to that.

Mr. David Duncan: 408 Windham Hall Lane 37934 We are aware of the lease on the property. There currently is a court date set in

June to resolve this issue we expect by July 1 this will be addressed one way or the other. In my opinion it does not affect whether the concept plan is approved. I would affect our ability to start the development.

Ms. Sandra Connor: Bill Connor’s wife, 3720 Copper Ridge Road I realize there may be a turn lane needed at Emory Road because I sit in that

traffic every day getting my daughter to school. I do not understand how 139 homes can go into a subdivision that there is only one way in and one way out and say there is not going to be an impact. Many times over the past 27 years cars coming around that curve cannot make it and they plow right through our fence on the land we have leased.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (GRAF) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Upon roll call the Planning Commission voted as follows: ANDERS YES BENEFIELD NO BROWN YES CLANCY YES EVANS YES JOHNSON NO GRAF YES HENRY YES LOBETTI NO SHARP NO SLACK NO MOTION CARRIED 6-5. APPROVED. b. Use On Review 2-G-07-UR


Proposed use: Detached residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential) District.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 139

detached residential dwellings on individual lots subject to 2 conditions. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (GRAF) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 6-5. APPROVED. 28. HAMPTON COURT - EAGLE BEND REALTY a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SH-07-C West side of Bob Kirby Rd., north of Dutchtown Rd., Commission District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1-2 and the concept plan subject

to 9 conditions. Mr. Scott Davis: P.O. Box 11315 Knoxville, 37939 Mr. Ed Langston, 10022 McCormic Place, President of Clusters Homeowners

Association You have a letter from me in your packet. Bob Kirby Road is already dangerous.

Twenty report collision in one year at the proposed subdivision entrance. Six offset street intersections already exist with the area being proposed for a seventh offset street. Seventeen driveways exist along the same stretch starting at the intersection of Dutchtown Road and going north to intersection of Bob Gray. My letter had a photograph that showed a severe line of sight exists for the subdivision entrance street. PASSEDOUT COLOR PHOTOS DURING BREAK WHICH BECOME A PART OF THESE MINTUES. It is well known Bob Kirby is already problematic for safety; yet additional 400 plus daily vehicle transits will come from this proposed subdivision entrance location. School children would wait on the bus at this proposed entrance and as children already wait along Bob Kirby Road at the Knottingham Subdivision. Granting variance would increase traffic collisions and cause additional injuries or deaths. This variance is not minor. Requesting an exception from a 300 foot safety distance requirement down to 130 feet is asking for safety laws to be ignored. I do not understand how staff can say the proposed variances will not create a traffic hazard. Request that variance not be granted.

Mr. Herbert Young: 9912 Surrett Drive, my property abuts this on 3 sides I bought this property from Mr Buckner and he told me he had submitted three

times to MPC to develop that property off Bob Kirby and was turned down three times because of dangerous situation on the road itself. I do not see how variances would help. Other portion of that is, about 4 years ago we had extended rain and water backed up to the edge of my property and to the property down on Dutchtown Road. Developer came to ask me if I objected to his developing the property. I told him I did. He said at the time there was a problem and it did not meet regulations of water flow back down to Dutchtown Road. They are redoing Dutchtown Road and do not know what is being done as far as solving the water runoff problem.

Mr. Scott Smith: This property has been brought before you all three different

times. Two times it was with an access coming off Surrett Road which is to the west side of the property and that was denied. Then it was proposed for the east side with access point which did create a traffic hazard. I purchased property at apex of hill and allows for adequate site distance. There is a letter in your package certifying that sight distance is adequate right there. I purchased that


property just for the reason that it gave us adequate sight distance. Mr. Langston’s property next door is zoned at 6 units per acre with 180 plus units. If a traffic impact was created, it was prior to our being there. We are talking about 45 additional units. Straight across from him is an offset road that is 66 feet from his centerline. If he thought it was such a traffic hazard why would buy a piece of property in the subdivision if it created such a huge traffic hazard. His offset road is 66 feet. We are requesting a density less than 5 across the street and lower than the 6 units per acre next to us. We have certified sight distance.

Mr. Tom Brechko: There are two variances on the offsets. Quite off because of

the location of the property there is no way they can meet the standards. We do look at that situation when we go out in the field and look to make sure they have adequate sight distance and make sure there are no problems with interlocks or turning movements. The prime issue that has been a safety concern all along is sight distance. We discussed this with the surveyor. Initially where they proposed the entrance was a dip in the road heading north. They shifted the entrance in the revised plan that you have and they have sight distance well over 300 feet in both directions. We received a copy of the certification this morning.

Mr. LeCamera: County Engineering. We are satisfied that they have sight distance

at their entrance. The two variances do not line up with either road so they need the variances.

Mr. Clancy: Tom answered questions on variances. Mr. Langston’s property is a

lot higher density than the one proposed and in a worse place as far as tangent to other streets.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. b. Use On Review 2-H-07-UR Proposed use: Detached residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential) & PR

(Planned Residential) pending District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 45 detached

dwellings on individual lots subject to 2 conditions. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (BROWN) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-0. APPROVED. P 29. EDWARDS PLACE - MICHAEL C. RHODES, LLC a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SI-07-C Southeast side of Thompson School Rd., southeast of Karnes Rd., Commission

District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 2-K-07-UR Proposed use: Detached residential development in PR (Planned Residential)

pending District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 30. HIGDON DRIVE P.U.D. - MAC CARTENG - ACCURATE CONSTRUCTION a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SJ-07-C Southeast side of Higdon Dr., south of Oak Ridge Hwy., Commission District 6.


THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 2-L-07-UR Proposed use: Residential development in PR (Planned Residential) District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Final Subdivisions: P 31. TAYLOR'S VIEW, PHASE II 2-SQ-06-F At terminus of Taylor's View Ln south east of Meredith Rd, Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 32. ROBERT L. & MINNIE FAULKNER PROPERTY 11-SE-06-F Southeast side of Idumea Road, northeast of Hogskin Road, Commission District

8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 33. BROWN & WHITTLE SPRINGS ADDITION 11-SV-06-F (4/12/07) Northwest side of Mineral Springs Avenue, northwest of Whittle Springs Road,

Council District 4. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 34. OCTOBER WOODS, UNIT 3 12-SI-06-F Southeast side of Rising Road, northeast of Rosewood Road, Commission District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 35. WESTLAND FOREST, UNIT 2 AND RESUB. OF LOT 11 12-SN-06-F Westland Drive, between Morrell Road and Ebenezer Road, Commission District 4. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 36. ALDI, INC. 12-SZ-06-F Schaad Road at Pleasant Ridge Road, Council District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 37. JOSEPH TABERY PROPERTY 1-SG-07-F West side of Alcoa Hwy., northwest of John Sevier Hwy., Council District 1. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


P 38. SHAHIN ASSADNIA AND BETH BONIFACE PROPERTY 1-SH-07-F Northwest side of Crenshaw Road, northwest of W. Martin Mill Pike, Commission

District 9. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 39. SHILOH GARDENS 1-SI-07-F Southwest side of Pedigo Road northwest of Emory Road, Commission District 7. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 40. REGAL RIDGE 2-SA-07-F North side of Nubbin Ridge Road, east of Ebenezer Road, Commission District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 41. ROBERT A. JOSEPH 2-SB-07-F West side of Raccoon Valley Drive, south of Bills Way, Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 42. MCGHEE'S ADDITION 2-SC-07-F North side of Blackstock Avenue, east side of Richards Street, Council District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 43. WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO PUBLICATION 2-SD-07-F * 44. CHARLES E. PEMBERTON PROPERTY 2-SE-07-F South side of Dutchtown Road, north side of Floyd Lane, Commission District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 45. EAST POINTE LOT 3R 2-SF-07-F At south intersection of Strawberry Plains Pike and Huckleberry Lane, Council

District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 46. ARLINGTON RIDGE, UNIT 2, PHASE 3 AND RESUB. OF LOT 6 & 15 2-SG-07-F


Pleasant Gap Road east of Andersonville Pike, Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 47. ROY CORUM 2-SH-07-F South side of Fairview Road, west of Ridgeview Road, Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 48. WALLINGFORD ESTATES 2-SI-07-F Northwest side of Cunningham Road, north of Fieldview Lane, Commission

District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 49. DOGWOOD HILLS ADD. RESUB. LOTS 22, 23, 23R1 2-SJ-07-F South side of Laurelwood Road, northeast of Mockingbird Drive, Council District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. Mr. Scott Umstead: 6943 Yellow Oak Lane, 37931. On behalf of the applicant. Ms. Charlotte Davis: 104 Crawford Road, 37918 Representing neighborhood and Fountain City Town Hall Development along Mountain Crest Drive a number of years ago was beginning of

flooding issues in Harold Hills. Laurelwood is steep and winding and leads into Mountain Crest. The lot in question is a ravine 10 feet below street level and continues down a hill onto Mockingbird. Potentials for drainage and flooding onto Mockingbird are great. The ravine acts as a retention pond and collects runoff water from Mountain Crest and upper portion of Laurelwood. Neighbors say it collects a lot of water. Take away this nature’s retention pond and the water will flow onto other properties. Ask if this passes, and it probably will, that engineering look closely at the problems on this lot and see to it that the developer adheres to your recommendations.

Mr. Umstead: Lot has a constant slope from the road down to the back of the

property. There is no ravine. The two lots proposed is from one lot. Both lots conform to width, length and square footage. This replaces the original lot lines there prior to resubdivision of this southern portion of Mockingbird. It keeps the two original house sites that were originally there.

Ms. Davis: I am only going by what neighbors who have lived there for many

years told me that there is a ravine.


Mr. Tom Brechko: Staff and City Engineering identified the corrections needed for the plat to comply with the Subdivision Regulations and the zoning. The lots are over twice the minimum size required for that area. They are 135 foot average width. It does slope from front to back but goes all the way down to the next road and there are actually three lots behind that. It is staff’s position that it meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance.

Mr. Dick Graf: Are these at the end of a cul-de-sac? Was this in front of us two

years ago? Mr. Brechko: Two years ago the property was divided. There were 3 lots created

on Mockingbird. Mr. Umstead: There is no ravine. It goes on a slope. There is no drainage. I have

walked the property at least a dozen times. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO APPROVE.

MOTION CARRIED 10-1. APPROVED. * 50. POWER PARK, UNIT 2, RESUB. OF LOTS 1R & 6R-1 2-SK-07-F Alcoa Highway at Maloney Road, Council District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 51. R. HUGH STERCHI PROPERTY, RESUB. OF LOTS 4 & 5 2-SL-07-F Southwest intersection of S. Northshore Drive and Osprey Point Lane,

Commission District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 52. WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO PUBLICATION 2-SM-07-F P 53. VISTA DEI MONTE' 2-SN-07-F West side of Pellissippi Parkway, south of Hardin Valley Road, Commission District

6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 54. SOUTH GROVE PHASE 3 2-SO-07-F South side of Chapman Highway, south of Majestic Grove, Commission District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 55. PART OF WILLIAM & SHIRLEY SIMS PROPERTY 2-SP-07-F


North side of Buttermilk Road, 2000' west of Marietta Church Road, Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Rezonings and Plan Amendment/Rezonings: P 56. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 3-R-02-RZ East side of Sherlake Ln., west side of Hayfield Rd., south of Parkside Dr., Council

District 2. Rezoning from No Zone to C-6 (General Commercial Park). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 57. VICTOR JERNIGAN (REVISED) 12-K-06-RZ Northeast side Craig Rd., northwest side S. Northshore Dr., Council District 2.

Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve RP-1 (Planned Residential) at a density p to

3 du/ac. COMMISSIONER TREY BENEFIELD RECUSED FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON THIS ITEM. Mr. John King: P.O. Box 2425, 37901 On behalf of Victor Jernigan Victor Jernigan addressed this at Tuesday Agenda Review. As he wrote to the

Commission he has withdrawn his interest in pursuing development of this property and he outlined in that letter the reasons for doing so. He has requested that this matter be tabled. The basis of that request is that the owners of the property has other persons interested in development opportunities on it and they may be willing to develop more in keeping with staff recommendation of 1-3 units per acre than was Victor. He needs to table instead of withdraw so as to not be involved in the problem about not being able to reapply for Planned Residential at low density designation for a year. He asked as a courtesy to the owner to allow him to explore other opportunities that this matter be tabled. If someone wants to take it off the table, it would then have a subsequent meeting and advertisement.

Mr. Ray Evans: If this item is tabled, it requires one meeting to take it off the

table and cannot be heard until the following meeting. It requires two meetings to remove it.

ABOUT 30 PEOPLE STOOD IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr.: 550 Main Street. I am here on behalf of these people

who live on Craig Road. This is the basic reason they are opposed to a tabling. This matter started in 2003. This property has been down here on 4 different occasions. A subdivision was approved last spring. It has been replatted. In December the applicant brings you a rezoning request and asked for 60 day postponement to consider engineering and traffic issues. He is withdrawing from


the project and asks for this to be tabled so that the owner can fish for more people who might want to develop the property. It is developable right now. Reason we ask is to not table this is to give this property a rest for a year. It has been constantly coming up here. It has a for sale sign on it now as single family lots. Let them try that for now.

Mr. Brue Abernathy: 1117 Craig Road 37919 If the Commission tables it today, do we have right of appeal to City Council or

wait until this is settled before we can appeal. We are stonewalled if the Commission tables it?

Mr. Ray Evans: If it is tabled, it will remain on the table until the Commission

votes to take it off the table. Once taken off it will be heard at the following meeting.

Ms. Susan Brown: If this had been withdrawn and then there was a new

proposed developer, would they have to wait a year? Mr. Steve Wise: If they tried to submit the similar proposal and same zoning. It

runs with the property and not with the developer. Ms. Brown: When was the last concept plan approved for this site? Mr. Dan Kelly: The concept plan was originally approved in 2004. The current

property owner never filed a final plat and the concept plan ran out. He came back earlier this year and received reapproval of the concept plan he got approved in 2004 and has filed a final plat which is recorded. There is an approved concept plan and final plat.

Mr. Seymour: He has a for sale sign with platted lots. Mr. King: There is another proposed development that has final plat on it that is

not going any where. This was a request for a rezoning. We have both been through this a number of times Our request is in order to afford opportunities to look at alternative development capabilities at low density planned residential utilization. Victor requested 5.99 units per acre. He is not able to answer questions and negotiate over a time period that is reasonable and that is the reason he is no longer interested in pursuing this proposal. If somebody else comes in and wants to pursue a development proposal at a density of 2 units per acre, he would not be able to do so if this application is withdrawn or denied. If he wants to he would not be able to do so if this is withdrawn. Do not put people in the posture to ask for something they do not want just to get around your one year rule. Property owners would like the opportunity to try to utilize their property.

Mr. Seymour: Where is the property owner? If he needs this is he here? Mr. King: I am here on behalf of Victor. I have been asked by him to state the

position as relayed to him by the property owner.


Mr. Evans: We have an application where an applicant has withdrawn his interest in the property. We need to deny it.

Ms. Brown: Mr. Jernigan, who is a quality developer, is no longer involved in this.

The application is no longer before us. Mr. King: He has not withdrawn from the application. He has withdrawn from his

interest in trying to pursue it. The application is still there. We were asked to withdraw the application. We have declined to do so. We have asked that the matter be tabled. My comments so far have been directed to the issue of tabling and if not tabled, then can we discuss the rezoning.

MOTION (LOBETTI) WAS MADE TO TABLE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND Mr. King: Staff approved RP-1 at a density up to 3 dwelling units per acre. Staff

points out that other properties in the immediate area are developed with residential uses under RP-1. Under R-1 and RP-1 up to 3 dwelling units per acre is compatible with the intensity of the surrounding zoning pattern. At least RP-1 would require a return for use on review for any proposed development including the issue of density. If you deny this request, they are stuck for a year with not being able to do anything. If you approve it, they have to come back before you and you can address density at that time.

Mr. Seymour: Our clients disagree with the staff report. There is condo

development in the area bounded by Westland Drive and Northshore Drive. To the east is the end of planned residential property. From that point to Rocky Hill on the north side of Northshore Drive is all R-1 single family residential neighborhoods. They have maintained their integrity as single family residential areas and want to keep it that way. There are condos west of Rocky Hill. Craig Road connects Northshore Drive and Westland Drive. Craig Road is a substandard road. People using the condo development as proposed going east would have to go through Craig Road and go to Westland Drive to turn right basically. They want to keep it single family residential. He can come back with another configuration of his lots if he does not like the way it is platted now. He can develop it under R-1. Ask denial.

Ms. Susan Brown: Under the current approved plan, what is the density? Mr. Kelly: Do not know the answer for sure. R-1 is somewhere between 2-3 units

per acre on a lot size basis. Mr. King Your one year rule applies to denials or withdrawals. If you approve a

zone today and someone comes in and proposes a different density within that same designation, that could be considered.

Ms. Brown: If denied could the owner come back with a different concept plan

under the rules of their current zoning. They could come back with a different layout as long as it followed R-1 zoning guidelines and it would not come back for our review.


Mr. Kelly: Tom calculated density of present plan at 1.9 units per are. Mr. King The road is already there and the layout is there under what is currently

approved. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (BROWN) WERE MADE TO DENY. Upon roll call the Planning Commission voted as follows: ANDERS NO BROWN YES CLANCY YES EVANS YES JOHNSON YES GRAF NO HENRY YES LOBETTI NO SHARP YES SLACK YES MOTION CARRIED 7-3-1. DENIED. P 58. CAMDUN REALTY, I 1-L-07-RZ Southeast side Topside Rd., northeast of Alcoa Hwy., Commission District 9.

Rezoning from E (Estates) to PR (Planned Residential). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 59. DMP PROPERTIES, LLC West side Rocky Hill Rd., north of S. Northshore Dr., Council District 2. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-F-07-PA From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Rezoning 1-M-07-RZ From R-1 (Low Density Residential) to O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related

Services). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

COMMISSIONER STAN JOHNSON LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. 60. M & M PARTNERS East side George Light Rd., northwest side Rather Rd., east of Pellissippi Parkway,

Commission District 6. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 1-C-07-SP From TP (Technology Park) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area) to LDR (Low

Density Residential) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny LDR (Low Density Residential)


Mr. John King: P.O. Box 2425. On behalf of the applicant. Mr. Leon Tolbert: 10607 Rather Road Resident of Rather Road and it is narrow. Two cars cannot pass without going on

shoulders. I have to replace my mailbox once a year because cars hit it. Density along Rather is less than 1 dwelling per acre. Where Rather Road and George Light come out on Pellissippi Parkway is a very dangerous intersection. There is a planned interstate to come through our roadway through here. This would add insult to injury for our neighborhood.

Mr. Michael Brusseau: George Light Road crosses Pellissippi Parkway and this site

has access is Rather Road. Main reason for denial is because this site is proposed for technology park uses. We feel that it is appropriate site considering its exposure to Pellissippi Parkway and Oak Ridge Highway and the future Parkway when it is built. If you look at surrounding density and the 5 units per acre is not compatible with the neighborhood. Because of the technology park consideration putting a subdivision at this site could fuel potential opposition for future technology park development in this area. The Northwest County Sector plan does not propose to change for this site.

Mr. King: Monday at Tech Corridor Board meeting there was another interested

party, assistant pastor of True Light Church in support. This property has been in the corridor since it started and it has not developed. Between it and Pellissippi Parkway everything that is developed is residential use. The only thing that is not residential is to the south has a building on it that is Qualtros. The orange route will be coming through and take a portion of Qualtros building. When that roadway comes through the at-grade intersection of George Light Road and Pellissippi Parkway is eliminated. There will a bridge over Pellissippi Parkway with no access from George Light to Pellissippi Parkway. When that occurs that intersection goes away and then access to this property is to get off Pellissippi Parkway about a mile and one half back to Hardin Valley Road, turn to left, go under Pellissippi Parkway, turn to the right and follow Solway Road until it intersects George Light Road and turn right on George Light road, go over Pellissippi Parkway and get to the property. You say it is visible from these roadways. Network of roadways will make it hard to get to and develop. We propose residential development oriented toward Rather Road away from the steeper part. We proposed to the Tech Corridor Board that we propose to improve Rather Road from the point of our entrance to the point of intersection with George Light Road, which is approximately 900 feet, to County standards. That deals with the traffic issue. The traffic from there will be going to and from the Parkway. We are willing to deal with the issue on the width of the road. We appeared before Tech Corridor and made these requests and they approved our request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. We are not going to get 1-5 units on the property, but need flexibility.

Mr. Kim Henry: I agree that this is more appropriate for residential than business

park development. Nothing abut the property caused it to be zoned for business park other than its closeness to the parkway.

MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (CLANCY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). MOTION CARRIED 10-0. APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 1-N-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) / TO (Technology Overlay) to PR (Planned Residential) / TO

(Technology Overlay).


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny PR/TO (Planned Residential/Technology

Overlay) MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (BROWN) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

PR/TO (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL/TECHNOLOGY OVERLAY) AT A DENSITY UP TO 5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. APPROVED.

P 61. CAMPBELL PROPERTIES, LLC (REVISED) 1-O-07-RZ East side of Sam Lee Rd., south side proposed SR-475 center line, southwest of

Solway Rd. and Pellissippi Parkway, Commission District 6. Rezoning from PR (Planned Residential) / TO (Technology Overlay) at 1-2.5 du/ac to PR (Planned Residential) / TO (Technology Overlay) at up to 5 du/ac.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 62. SCOTT DAVIS (REVISED) Southeast side W. Emory Rd., southwest side Harrell Rd., west side Painter Farm

Ln., Commission District 6. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 1-D-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) and STPA (Stream Protection) to C

(Commercial) and STPA (Stream Protection). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial) limited to CN (Neighborhood

Commercial) and STPA Mr. Scott Davis: P.O. Box 11315, 37939 Ms. Viki Curtis; 6405 West Emory Road, 37931 Live across from this proposed commercial rezoning. This lies within the Painter

Farm Subdivision. I acknowledge that the Neighborhood Commercial is much more favorable, but I am still concerned about traffic at this dangerous intersection. There have been a number of accidents in the past 5.5 years and deaths. I understand that Sundown Property is adding more traffic to Emory Road. With that completion there will be an average daily increase of 3600 vehicles the next 6 months. With Sundown, less than 2 miles away that will increase that number again. You have a letter from Mr. Mike Walker that certifies to this bad intersection. There is not a place for commercial at this particular spot. One concern is we do not know how he is planning to access this property.

Mr. Davis: Last month when I applied for CA zoning I was not familiar with

Neighborhood Commercial zoning. I would have to come back to this body almost like a planned concept. I do not have a plan for access yet. With Neighborhood Commercial I would have to come back before you on anything we propose to do on the property.

Mr. Pruitt: Your review would be before the Codes Department. There are greater

setback requirements and State and DOT as well as Knox County would have to review curb cuts on Emory Road. Benefit of neighborhood commercial is reduced number and types of commercial activities to make it more compatible with surrounding immediately adjacent residential use. There is a greater setback and buffering requirement between this site and surrounding residential uses and some sign reduction.

Ms. Curtis: If approved is there any way to have further input on the plan?


Mr. Pruitt: Not if he complies with the requirements of the CN zone. If he goes for

a variance or deviation, he would have to go to BZA or come back to this body for subdivision review if he made some adjustment to subdivision plat layout itself.

Ms. Curtis: It is pretty wide open and allows for many things to go there. I think

the egress access is of the greatest importance. Mr. Evans: If we approve it, then the Commission does not have a say so about

the ingress or egress is. Mr. Pruitt can give you the number of the Engineering Department to keep in touch with them. Mr. Davis would probably be willing to keep you informed also.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. APPROVED. b. Rezoning 1-Q-07-RZ From PR (Planned Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CN (Neighborhood Commercial) MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. APPROVED. W 63. JAMIE DENISE HATCHER Northeast side Cheshire dr., southeast side Cresthill Dr., Council District 2. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-G-07-PA From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. W b. Rezoning 1-S-07-RZ From RP-1 (Planned Residential) to O-3 (Office Park). THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 64. JANICE HINES 2-A-07-RZ Northwest side Maryville Pike, northeast of Young Ave., Council District 1.

Rezoning from I-3 (General Industrial) to I-4 (Heavy Industrial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve I-4 (Heavy Industrial). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 65. ED SHERROD 2-B-07-RZ Southeast side Buffat Mill Rd., northeast of Ault Rd., Council District 4. Rezoning

from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 66. STEVE TODD 2-C-07-RZ East side Piney Grove Church Rd., south side Creekhead Dr., Council District 3.

Rezoning from A-1 (General Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve R-1 (Low Density Residential)


THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 67. WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO PUBLICATION 2-A-07-PA 2-D-07-RZ * 68. BOBBY AND HERBERT WHITE Northeast side Chapman Hwy., northwest side E. Hendron Chapel Rd.,

Commission District 9. a. South County Sector Plan Amendment 2-A-07-SP From A/RR (Agricultural/Rural Residential) to C (Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial) designation limited to PC

(Planned Commercial) zoning THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 2-E-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to PC (Planned Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PC (Planned Commercial) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 69. MICHAEL BRADY, INC. 2-F-07-RZ Northwest side Old Callahan Rd., northeast of Clinton Hwy., Commission District

6. Rezoning from CA (General Business) to CB (Business and Manufacturing). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PC (Planned Commercial) Mr. John Holch: Michael Brady, Inc. 7919 Cranley Road, Powell, 37849. Represent potential buyer of Knoxville Wholesale Furniture. We are under

contract to design a building for that property. Understand staff’s concern with the steeply sloping portion of the property. We have worked on property before and designed slope stabilization. There are 20 acres with only 8 acres usable. Slope in the back is not going to be disturbed and has vegetation is on it now. Property is being designed for a warehouse distribution center of retail sales for around 120 sq. ft. building. There is not room for anything else other than one small out parcel. Client has a time constraint and has a lease on his existing facility and needs to move forward with this. Plan on filing for a permit immediately. Feel like PC requirements for the development plan and covenants would place a burden on him to try to meet all of that that should not be required for that property.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr.: Represent the property owner Tim Graham Presently

zoned CA. Half of the property is all that needs to be rezoned. Because of time constraints we request that this go CB. It is right across the street from Mr. Graham’s development of Kroger and Target. He has restrictions on that property and restrictions he is imposing on his buyer. In interest of proceeding ahead, we ask that the front part of the property be zoned CB and the rest remain CA. It is not going to be developed and cannot be developed in the back. PC zone contemplates a number of businesses. We think CB would be more appropriate. We have a site plan that shows it at the 1200 elevation. Say about half or 12 acres possibly.

Mr. Ken Pruitt: Recommend PC because of the size of the track, the

environmental constraints because of slope and the fact that complete


development of a tract this size could have effect on carrying capacity of Old Callahan and its intersection with Clinton Highway. Types of uses that go here need to be carefully considered. Manufacturing wholesale activities as proposed would be acceptable, but CB is a wide open zone.

Mr. Graham: The only reason we want CB is the distribution warehouse

component of this 100,000 sq. ft building that Tim Harris and Knoxville Wholesale is going to have. It is kind of in a gray area. As it relates to the slope, Knox County Engineering does a good job as it relates to slope. We have a grading permit for the property for a different size building. The only reason we need CB is for the distribution warehouse. We have restrictive covenants. We have a 40,000 million dollar investment development across the street. Knoxville Wholesale is one of the best furniture store in Knoxville. Tim Harris is under time constraints for his lease that has run out. We have already begun grading and have a permit.

Ms. Susan Brown: If this request had been submitted for CB on 12 acres on the

front would that have changed staff’s recommendation? Mr. Pruitt: Staff has the liberty to still recommend Planned Commercial for a site

less than 20 acres. They are required to submit a development plan ensuring staff that it can function as designed under the Planned Commercial zone.

Ms. Brown: Seems like the use is determined and that gives me the comfort I

need for the CB zoning classification. Ms. Kim Henry: Asked about the slope protection designation. Pruitt says a

portion of the site is in the slope protection area on the sector plan. MOTION (BROWN) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE CB

(BUSINESS AND MANUFACTURING) ON THE FRONT HALF OF THE PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. APPROVED.

* 70. AARRON GRAY 2-G-07-RZ Northwest side W. Emory Rd., southwest of Carpenter Rd., Commission District 6.

Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) up to 5 du/ac. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 71. JAMES KERNELL 2-H-07-RZ Northeast side Heiskell Rd., northwest of Windstone Blvd., Commission District 6.

Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RA (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve RA (Low Density Residential) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 72. SUZANNE H. CLARK & AVERY LEON CLARK, JR. 2-I-07-RZ Northeast side Governor John Sevier Hwy., northwest side Old French Rd.,

Commission District 9. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) at a density up to

3 du/ac.


Mr. Butch Willoby: 10133 Sheryl Boulevard, Engineer for the project. Mr. Seymour: Wanted to remind the applicant and anyone that buys homes in

this area that Rinker has a quarry right across the road which has been there 25 to 30 years and that the ground trembles. They need to be aware of it.

Ms. Susan Brown: Appreciate Mr. Seymour pointing out that the quarry is there

and good idea to let perspective tenants know. MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (CLANCY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE PR

(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) AT A DENSITY UP TO 3 DU/AC. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. APPROVED.

* 73. ERMA JEAN WILSON/ REGINALD STACEY SUDDERTH 2-J-07-RZ Southeast side Asheville Hwy., northwest of Holston Dr., Council District 6.

Rezoning from C-3 (General Commercial) to C-4 (Highway and Arterial Commercial).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-4 (Highway and Arterial Commercial) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 74. STEVEN DIGGS Northeast side Heiskell Rd., northwest of E. Copeland Dr., Commission District 7. W a. North County Sector Plan Amendment 2-B-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to Low Density Residential. b. Rezoning 2-K-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) at a density up to

3 du/ac. Mr. Robert Campbell: 7523 Taggart Lane We believe that 5 dwelling units per

acres based on sewer and everything would make that a good use for the property. It is good developable land.

Mr. Ken Pruitt: This is unique in that it is shown as low density residential on

North County Sector Plan and rural area on Growth Policy. Under Growth Policy the maximum density staff can recommend is 3 units per acre. Only the property south and east of Copeland Road intersection with Heiskell is shown for low density residential development densities and the portion of that part of the county that this site is in is shown for rural and limits us to 3 units per acre.

Mr. Campbell: We understand the Urban Growth Policy and what the restriction

area. The intersection of Copeland and Heiskell is the limit of that. We are 0.2 of mile away from that with a great road, water and sewer. It is a shame not to be able to develop a piece that can be developed.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE PR

(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) UP TO DENSITY OF 5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. MOTION CARRIED 8-2. PR UP TO 5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE APPROVED.

* 75. RODNEY NAPIER, JR. 2-L-07-RZ


Southeast side Jennings Ave., northeast side Tyson St., Council District 6. Rezoning from C-2 (Central Business District) to C-3 (General Commercial).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-3 (General Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 76. JOHN WORLEY 2-M-07-RZ West side Shipetown Rd., south of Wyrick Rudder Dr., Commission District 8.

Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) at a density up to

3 du/ac. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 77. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 2-N-07-RZ Southwest side Chapman Hwy. southeast side Governor John Sevier Hwy.,

Council District 1. Rezoning from No Zone to C-3 (General Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-3 (General Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 78. WALT DICKSON North side Middlebrook Pike, northwest of Albany Rd., Commission District 3. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 2-C-07-SP From MU (Mixed Uses) to GC (General Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Rezoning 2-O-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) and OA (Office Park) to CA (General Business). * 79. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 2-P-07-RZ Map and description on file with MPC., Council District 6 & 1. Rezoning from

Current Zone to Current Zone with D-1 (Downtown Design Overlay) and adoption of Downtown Design Guidelines.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve D-1 (Downtown Design Overlay) and adopt

the Downtown Design Guidelines THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 80. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 2-Q-07-RZ Oakwood-Lincoln Park area as shown on map and description in MPC offices,

Council District 5. Rezoning from Current Zones to Current Zones with IH-1 (Infill Housing Overlay).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve IH-1 (Infill Housing Overlay) on current

zones Mr. Bob Becker: 125 East Columbia, Representing the Oakwood-Lincoln Park

Neighborhood Association


One individual had a question about the process on the 5th floor with City Permitting. We are going to work that out in the next couple of weeks. We recommend that this move forward.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. APPROVED. Uses on Review: P 81. LEMAY & ASSOCIATES 10-K-06-UR Northwest side of Hardin Valley Rd., northwest of Thompson Rd. Proposed use:

Condominiums in PR (Planned Residential) / TO (Technology Overlay) District. Commission District 6.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Agenda was amended to hear Item No. 82 after Item 10 on this Agenda. 82. STAR PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC 12-G-06-UR * 83. SITE, INC. 12-M-06-UR Southeast side of Hardin Valley Rd., southwest side of Castaic Ln. Proposed use: Planned Commercial Development in PC(k) (Planned Commercial) / TO (Technology Overlay) & PC/TO District. Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for the retail/office

center of 33,750 square feet in the PC(k) (Planned Commercial) and TO (Technology Overlay) zoning districts, subject to 9 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 84. CULLOM PROPERTIES 12-N-06-UR Northeast side of Norris Freeway, east end of Jessilee Dr. Proposed use: Signage

Master Plan in SC (Shopping Center) District. Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the sign master plan within the SC

(Shopping Center) district subject to 4 conditions. COMMISSIONER KIM HENRY RECUSES FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON THIS ITEM. Mr. Brechko: A monument sign was proposed last month. At that time

neighborhood residents suggested they reduce the height of the sign to 20 feet. They have submitted revised plan that shows the lower height. There is a slight increase in the total sign area by having to readjust the business signs on that. They also had to go before the BZA to get that one sign approved for all 4 to 5 parcels. Those variances were granted. Revised plan included two small internal monument plans inside the development identifying Home Depot and WalMart. Staff is recommending approval.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr.: on behalf of applicant Mr. John King: We are among the people that asked for redesign. We feel better

about it than before. We approve. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. APPROVED.


P 85. DENNIS & JANA WEAVER 1-N-07-UR Southwest side of Maloney Rd., northwest of Ginn Dr. Proposed use:

Condominiums in RP-1 (Planned Residential) & A-1 (General Agricultural) District. Council District 1.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 86. MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH & ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION OF

EAST TENNESSEE 2-A-07-UR Northwest side of Dandridge Av., end of Saxton Ave. Proposed use: Adult day

treatment program in R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. Council District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for operation of an

adult day treatment program within an existing church in the R-1 zoning district, subject to 4 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 87. AARRON GRAY 2-C-07-UR North side of W. Emory Rd., east of Yount Rd. Proposed use: Attached residential

development in PR (Planned Residential) & PR (Planned Residential) pending District. Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for up to 102 attached residential

units as shown on the development plan subject to 11 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 88. SANDY EVANS 2-D-07-UR Southwest side of W. Red Bud Rd., southeast of Sarvis Dr. Proposed use: Bakery

in R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. Council District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a home based bakery as a

home occupation at this location in the R-1 zoning district, subject to 6 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 89. SHELIA PROFFITT 2-I-07-UR (4/12/07) North side of Mineral Springs Av., east of Whittle Springs Rd. Proposed use: 3

detached dwellings in RP-1 (Planned Residential) & O-1 (Office, Medical & Related Services) District. Council District 4.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 90. ROY CORUM PROPERTY 2-J-07-UR South side of Fairview Rd., southeast of Napoli Blvd. Proposed use: Detached

residential development in PR (Planned Residential) District. Commission District 8.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for up to 4 detached dwellings

on individual lots subject to 7 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 91. DOYLE JOHNSON 2-M-07-UR


East side of Jackson Rd., north of Lucile Ln. Proposed use: Attached residential condominium development in RP-1 (Planned Residential) District. Council District 3.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 78 attached

residential units in the RP-1 zoning district, subject to 12 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 92. HOLROB-HOWARD NORTHSHORE PARTNERSHIP 2-N-07-UR South side of S. Northshore Dr., south of Wilshire Rd. Proposed use: Attached

residential development in R-1A (Low Density Residential) District. Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 24 multi-

dwelling residential units in the R-1A zoning district, subject to 15 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 93. ABTRACK DEVELOPMENT 2-O-07-UR East end of Wayne Dr. west of Shangri-La Dr., Proposed use: Attached residential

development in RP-1 (Planned Residential) District. Council District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 78 attached

residential units in the RP-1 zoning district, subject to 14 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 94. BANK EAST 2-P-07-UR South side of Hardin Valley Rd., southwest of Cherahala Blvd. Proposed use: Bank

in PC (Planned Commercial) & TO (Technology Overlay) District. Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for a 4,890 square foot

bank in the PC (Planned Commercial) and TO (Technology Overlay) zoning districts, subject to 6 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 95. JAMIE DENISE HATCHER 2-S-07-UR Northeast side of Cheshire Dr., southeast side of Cresthill Dr. Proposed use:

Extension of office uses in RP-1/RP-2 districts to include this lot for a modeling agency in RP-1 (Planned Residential) District. Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Office use for this residential structure

subject to 4 conditions. Ms. Jamie Hatcher: 1009 Misty Springs Road, 37902 (The meeting was stopped and the tapes were changed at this point to Tape 3 of 3.) Mr. Bill Proctor; 7125 Cheshire Drive, President, Deane Hill Neighborhood

Community Association This residential property is part of our subdivision. HANDED OUT MATERIALS

WHICH BECOME A PART OF THESE MINUTES. Discussed handout attachments- a


plot for the neighborhood, real estate listings. (Read from handout) 1) Uses on review should be compatible with the neighborhood. A modeling agency or dance studio is not compatible with the neighborhood. If clients show up there may be as many of 12 cars. Back on January 28 there were 5 cards parked in the driveway, 3 cars on the street and 2 cars parked across the street in a business parking lot. 2) A business under use on review should not significantly devalue residences in the area. That will devalue our homes when we go to sell later. 3) Business should not substantially increase level of traffic in the neighborhood. We already have problems with traffic. Uses on review are intended to 1) provide fore uses which are beneficial to the community. This is not a beneficial use to Deane Hill Subdivision. We dropped off a petition with 144 people of our 187 residents in opposition. 2) Provide appropriate provisions for the impact of such permitted uses. Parking problems would have to be addressed and resolved. Warranty deed has covenants that seem to restrict a business at this address. Read Covenant No. 4. This does not provide for changing a residence to a full time office. This seems it would also limit a large part of the yard for parking and it would change the character of the home to office and not residential. Eight to twelve cars parking on the streets every afternoon and Saturday and Sundays would be annoying. As far as amending such restrictions, we went through such a process when they built a Library. A majority of the homeowners would have to vote on the deed restriction modification. We are strongly opposed to a business with clients in our neighborhood.

Mr. Ken Pruitt: Under the provisions of the current zoning of Planned Residential

where the development is over 100 units and 20 acres in size, which this was part of the original Testerman holdings that includes an apartment complex and some single family lots as well as the Testerman’s office space on the northwest side of Crest Hill Drive, where those circumstances exist the owner may seek approval of nonresidential use on one acre of ground for 100 units. Testerman did that across the street. Ms. Hatcher is seeking expansion of that under the Planned Residential provision. Staff is recommending approval.

Ms. Denise Hatcher: When I first got this house, the real estate agent knew the

reason I bought it. After its purchase I realized my obstacles, now I have to deal with it. It does have a for-sale sign because the best case scenario would be for me to sell this home. Everyone says it is too commercial for a home. I want to get out of this mess. What about just a home office would be all I would do with studio somewhere else for the kids. There was one incident on January 28 where I loaned my house out to a friend and they had friends over. I was not there. It had nothing to do with my business. I apologize for disturbance and parking. I do not want to change it. I want to keep it a home setting. I do not need a sign. We do not have a dance floor. Kind of like a finishing school and modeling school. I would face the other way. I am willing to make any kind of compromise. I have not seen the petition. I was not sure that the petition was fair in stating exactly what I want to do. They think it is some dance studio. I feel like I have been pushed out before everyone was appropriately told what I was going to do.

Neighbor: Asked about changing the address.


Mr. Pruitt: She has a corner lot and could be addressed off either street. That would not have any impact other than to disassociate herself with Cheshire Drive if that is her current address location.

Mr. Henry: If we grant this and she sells this property, unless somebody comes in

with exactly what is shown on this development plan, then no one else could do another business.

Mr. Pruitt: You can condition it to be even more restrictive than just office uses as

well as this modeling agency. The site plan she has submitted to you is binding on the property.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-3. APPROVED. Other Business: (See Item 10 above) Adjournment MOTION (HENRY) WAS MADE TO ADJOURN

******************

There being no further business, the Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting was adjourned in order at 5:30 p.m.

Prepared by: Betty Jo Mahan

Approved by: Mark Donaldson, Executive Director

Approved by: Randy Massey, Chair NOTE: Please see individual staff reports for conditions of approval and the staff recommendation.

minutes - knoxville-knox county planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/feb07min.pdf ·...

Documents