minutes - knoxville-knox county planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/dec07min.pdfmpc minutes...

The Metropolitan Planning Commission met in regular session on December 13, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in the Main Assembly Room, City/County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee. Members:

Mr. Randy Massey, Chair Mr. Dick Graf A Mr. Robert Anders Ms. Kimberly Henry Mr. Trey Benefield Mr. Stan Johnson A Mr. Bart Carey Mr. Michael Kane Mr. Art Clancy Mr. Robert Lobetti Mr. Herbert Donaldson Ms. Rebecca Longmire Mr. Ray Evans, Vice Chair Mr. Jack Sharp A Ms. Mary Slack

* Arrived late to the meeting. ** Left early in the meeting. A – Absent from the meeting

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

* 2. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 13, 2007 AGENDA

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT.

* 3. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 8, 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

Mr. David Harbin: Requested Item No 14A&B to be postponed 30 days MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE

POSTPONEMENTS 30 DAYS AS READ INCLUDING ITEM NO. 14A&B R&R

M inutes

December 13, 2007

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

MPC Minutes December 13, 2007

ASSOCIATES ON GREENWELL DR. UNTIL THE JANUARY 10, 2008 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED.

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

POSTPONEMENTS 60 DAYS AS READ UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 14, 2008 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. 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. U CHERRY STREET TOWN HOMES 3-SD-07-C Northeast side of Washington Ave., east of Mundy St., Council District

6. 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.

U HEIRS OF JAMES M. & MILDRED PARKER CLAPP 4-SB-07-F Southeast side of E. Emory Rd, east of Tazewell Pike, Commission

District 8. THE MENCER PROPERTY 7-SG-07-F At the terminus of Donovan Lane, east of Fox Road, Commission

District 5. COPPERLEAF 9-SO-07-F Northeast side of Heiskell Rd, northwest of E. Copeland Dr, Commission

District 7. 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.

OLIVER A. SMITH Northeast side Lake Heritage Way, southwest side I-140, southeast of

Westland Dr., Commission District 5. a. Southwest County Sector Plan Amendment 6-H-06-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). b. Rezoning 6-S-06-RZ From PR (Planned Residential) and CA (General Business) to OB

(Office, Medical, and Related Services). ITEMS REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM TABLE – (Indicated with U) MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO

UNTABLE CHERRY STREET TOWN HOMES 3-SD-07-C AND HEIRS OF JAMES M AND MILDRED PARKER CLAPP 4-SB-07-F. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. ITEMS UNTABLED.

TABLINGS – (Indicated with T) Read None CONSENT ITEMS Items recommended for approval on consent are marked (*). They will

be considered under one motion to approve.

KIM HENRY RECUSES FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON THE CONSENT LIST. Mr. Luke Weber 2214 Tooles Bend Road, Item No. 91 Forestbrook Development want to

hear it. Ms. Sandra Gammon want to remove item 91


Ms. Evelyn Williams No. 89 Northshore Commons remove Dr. Brian 1921 Orange Avenue, Helen Ross McNabb Center No. 98 remove MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE

TO HEAR THE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ. MOTION CARRIED 11-0-1.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCEPT 89, 91 AND 98. MOTION CARRIED 11-0-1. APPROVED AS AMENDED.

Ordinance Amendments: P 5. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 11-A-07-OA Amendments to the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance creating a

new Office-Residential zoning district providing for a mix of uses that are complementary in scale to adjacent neighborhood housing.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 6. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 12-A-07-OA Amendment to Article 4, Section 26, D-1 Downtown Design Overlay

District, of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance changing the Downtown Design Review Boards' appeal process and the status of the MPC representative on the Board.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 7. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 12-B-07-OA Amendments to the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance, Article 5.10

Signs, Billboard, and other Advertising Structures and related sections regarding regulation of dynamic displays on signs and billboards in Knoxville.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Option C and postpone for

further consideration of EMC. Mr. Mark Donaldson: The use of digital technology to create dynamic

or changeable displays on billboards is being considered in cities and counties throughout the country. We are looking to amend the city ordinance only. Knox County currently allows the use of this type of technology relying on State law. Currently there are several dynamic display billboards in use today in Knox County. The proposed amendments will result in no new billboards. There is currently a prohibition against any new billboards in the City. We are talking about making changes to existing structures. There is currently a


law suite in place that is on hold pending the results of our process to look at amending the code. Mayor Haslam assembled an advisory study committee to make a report and recommendation. He has forwarded those recommendations to us and asked MPC to make a recommendation which is required because our sign regulations are imbedded in the zoning ordinance and City Council requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission. We have held three public meetings. For the public in general late in October, a work session with City Council in mid November and earlier this week a work session with the Planning Commission. We have heard from two opposing points of view. Those in opposition to billboards in general are in opposition to dynamic display in billboards. They see the conversion to this new technology as extending the life of existing billboards, increasing the distractions along the highways resulting in decreased safety, increasing energy consumption, increasing cost of billboards in the event they have to be bought out with road expansion. They will make the point that billboards are just not needed and cause visual blight that detracts from local economy. The other side wants to allow this new technology on existing structures to convert sign area making the claim that dynamic displays can be properly regulated to minimize distractions, that there is no direct causal tie with safety and dynamic display, that other distractions mute any impact that could be caused by dynamic displays, that the dynamic billboards are cleaner with less light pollution that spot lighted boards and that they present increased opportunity for advertising that is good for the economy. Staff found that there are studies that show that billboards in general do contribute to driver distractions. Billboards are meant to attract attention and distraction presents some safety hazards. Dynamic displays with changeable message can contribute to even greater distractions and that these distractions add to existing environment such as roadway conditions and primarily in car distraction, such as cell phones, eating and makeup. We are also seeing increased distraction along our highways with on-premise signs which are currently allowed in the City under Electronic Message Centers which are proliferating. The current regulations need upgrading. They allow movement on the sign, scrolling messages, both of which have been demonstrated to add to distraction from driving. On premises signs can be seen from interstates and arterial highways as well. When we balance all the factors we believe there is merit to allowing this new technology to easily update signs. The advantages weigh favorably against any possible safety concerns if property regulated. Sign owners should be allowed to use the latest technology. We have offered three options.

Option A provides for an outright prohibition of dynamic display on

existing advertising signs. It eliminates use of any technology other than physically removing and replacing the sign area including a prohibition on rotating tri-vision panels as well as any current or


future technology. Recognize that local governments may enact regulations that are more restrictive than state and federal regulations. To adopt this option the Commission needs to find that it is not feasible or necessary to demonstrate a direct causal relationship between dynamic displays and road safety, but that these displays contribute to the general distraction and complexity of driving environments which could result in decreased driving safety. It becomes a matter of common sense that billboards present safety issues and contribute to visual distractions and blight.

Option B presents the opposing view that provides appropriate

regulations for the modification of lawfully existing advertising signs to dynamic display sign area. This option follows lead of Mayor’s Advisory Committee except for a few deviations. While the Committee recommended that dynamic displays, if allowed, be allowed along interstates and all of the major arterial roads in City, staff recommends that they be place in use only along the interstates. Added a regulation on minimum size of text to ease the reading by passing motorists and added a provision to require a freeze regulation so that a display is frozen in place in the event of malfunction of the boards. Definition of dynamic display included in Option B does not include the use of rotating tri-visual panels or any other moving parts. Images would be changed only through digital style technology. Summary of proposed regulations: One being locations along interstates only, minimum spacing of 4,000 feet between dynamic displays, maximum display area of 678 feet, static hold time of 10 seconds, instantaneous transition from one image to another with no fades or special effects to transition from on static image to another, display itself has to remain static with no video, no animation, no moving images, no continuation of message from one message to the next and complete messages only. This places a minimum text size of 15 inches on any text, requires freeze in event of malfunction. Current digital or electronic technology displays must come into compliance with operational regulations imposed. Option B presents a way to regulate brightness by simply coming to agreement between city officials and billboard operators and providing for an appeal process if they do not agree. We believe this style of regulation represents different surrounding environments on individual boards that makes it impossible to come up with a numerical standard for brightness for all areas. We considered two other options to control brightness. One was to simply a regulate a maximum measure for daytime and nighttime as measured in nits. Another style of regulation would be create a graph which correlates brightness with ambient illumination for each of the colors in a display. We considered that and decided on proposal in your backup. If decide on Option B, in addition to these regulations there is a real need to address on premises signs and adjust their operational to more closely conform to what is being proposed for advertising signs and billboards and adjust inequity between the two styles of signs.


Option C provides another approach to address each of the goals of opposition. Provides greater equity between on and off premise signs by allowing appropriate regulations for both in using dynamic display and provides incentive for billboards operators to achieve an enhanced dynamic display by reducing the number of overall billboard structures in the City. This style is the way to achieve the goal of those that want to see billboards go away and addressing the desire of those that want to use latest technology. Option C offers comparable operational requirements for on premise dynamic displays that we now call Electronic Message Centers and off premise signs we now call billboards. Regulations would be comparable to Option B except 1) reduce spacing between signs and in exchange decrease the amount of sign area for dynamic display to 35% of total sign area and establish a minimum static time at 1 minute between change in image. Accompanied by an incentive program to allow enhanced dynamic displays on billboards along the interstate highways could be enhanced to 100% of the sign area with a minim hold of 10 seconds if billboards with sign area equal to two times the dynamic display are permanently removed. Billboard sign area on signs greater than 378 sq ft is pledged to remain in its current status with no dynamic display ever. We realize that Option C brings in a whole new group interested in on premises signs. Staff recommends postponement for further consideration of Option C until we are able to create and administer a process that allows for input from commercial interests that have interest in on premises signs and that we can more fully explore those criteria for enhanced dynamic display incentive programs. Ask that you consider that as our recommendation.

Chair Massey: Giving Option A, B & C 5 minutes each. Mr. Art Clancy: I wanted to make a motion to postpone without

giving us our right to support all options. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE

TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE JANUARY 10, 2009 MPC MEETING.

Option A: Mr. Jim DeRopp: 4126 Maloney Road, Dynamic signs should strike

fear into every heart. Concern that I have is hinged on community standards. Dynamic signs work well in Los Vegas and Pigeon Forge. I speak on behalf of Option A because I think we still can save our city from this blight. It would only take one dynamic sign to take away from our scenery such as churches. Option B and C would take a lot of policing to check brightness and illumination. We have illuminations today for safety’s sake like in gas stations that the neighborhood can hardly sleep by them. Give consideration of the standard of what we want Knoxville to come to. Why do we need to cow down to technology and say we have to give the sign people a


chance to use the technology. Some places do not need the technology. We do not need dynamic signs in this community.

Ms. Charlotte Davis: 104 Crawford Road, Read letter from Ann and

Jim Harter who could not be there which is in the Commission package. Ann and Jim have spent hours on the cause to stop billboards in our community. Pointed out that we are acting like we have no other choice for digital billboards. Contend that it is a quality of life issue for our community. Why are we being asked to accept a recommendation of an industry-dominated committee?

Mr. Jean Burr, 3621 Maloney Road, Option A is the only one to

consider. When we are doing the things to make Knoxville a better place to work, it seems inconsistent for us to turn our thoroughfares and interstate highways over to the advertising industry. What can we possibly gain as citizens by having digital billboards when we know there are studies from the Federal Highway Administration that they could become serious hazards? If you get to the point to discuss negotiations with the industry, I hope we can address this again.

Option B. Mr. Gregory Isaacs, 440 Cherokee Boulevard. A digital display is a

computer generated static image. Nowhere have we heard the name dynamic. It is not intermittent; it is not flashing and has nothing to do with on premises signs. Tennessee General Assembly said that a digital display is entitled to all the legal rights of a billboard and it involves property rights and commercial speech. We need to realize we are talking about a business that is a partnership with a landowner and a permit holder and sign company. We have people that their sole income is outdoor advertising. In terms of regulating you can go to Tri Cites, Bristol, and Kingsport and they have digital display, as well as Chattanooga, Cookeville, Nashville, Memphis, Jacksonville McMinnville and others in Tennessee with 40 other states. Issue is spacing intervals. We talked about safety. I challenge the opposition to cite one wreck caused by digital display. It is not based in fact. The national Highway Traffic safety Administration has done exhaustive studies. These are property owners in your community wanting to run a business. In Knox County and can run this business. Amber alerts are preeminent. In the first 22 hours is critical in a kidnapping and the law director is positive to this technology. You can put someone’s image on instantaneously. If you prohibit this technology we are prohibiting this community from having a safety net that impacts all of us. Mayor Haslam has a study committee and we studied digital inside out. The idea was to come up with a compromise. B is a compromise. We are being regulated more strictly than State law and than under the County. It is a compromise that allows everyone to win. If you want space control, you have option B. We have waited patiently for a year and one half. We need you to vote today and not postpone it. If then we are


going to open this up under law and we are going to have billboards unregulated like Pigeon Forge. We are asking for a reasonable restrictions on commercial speech and property rights. If you vote for B and vote today the City of Knoxville will win, the opposition will win, the pro-digital components will win. About 55 people stood in support.

Option C No comments. Dick Graf: I agree with the motion on the floor. I think we as

Commission came into this process too late to understand what we are voting on. We want a really good workshop that would show examples. It does not rule out Option A or B. We need another really good workshop on this.

Ms. Rebecca Longmire: There seems to be a problem with the

definition of dynamic display and we need more time to look over it also.

Mr. Joe Hultquist: City Council. I have had some email exchanges

concerns whether the study committee acted in violation of the State Sunshine Law and that could impact deliberations today. Mr. Steve Wise could advise you.

Mr. Steve Wise: If some other body violated the Sunshine Law, this

body cannot fix it. We are in compliance. Mr. Ray Evans: I am of the opinion that an electronic sign is

distracting and the City has worked so hard to beautify and clean up areas and then we talk about putting up electronic signs. I encourage fellow commission to think about the restrictions in C, then I would vote for A. State of Tennessee allows dynamic or digital signs. You have a lot of rural areas and other concerns. We need to think about what is going to make our City attractive. We do not need that kind of signage to get business messages across. Personally I am against Electronic Signs. We have gone way too far. We need consistent regulation to comply with both.

Mr. Michael Kane: I concur with Mr. Evans. I support delay if that

includes all options. I do not feel that we had adequate time to evaluate from all parts of the community.

KIM HENRY CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. CLANCY AND LONGMIRE AMENDED MOTION TO 60 DAYS MOTION CARRIED 11-1. POSTPONED. P 8. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 12-C-07-OA


Amendment to the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Section 25, IH-1 Infill Housing Overlay District, to clarify that the Infill Housing Design Review Committee has the authority to approve lot sizes.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Alley or Street Closures: * 9. LONNIE JONES AND PATRICK FULTZ 12-A-07-AC Request closure of Unnamed alley between Middlebrook Pike and

deadend, Council District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 10. KIMBERLY DAVIS 12-B-07-AC Request closure of Unnamed alley between Valley Avenue and New

King Street, Council District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Street or Subdivision Name Changes: None Plans, Studies, Reports: None Concepts/Uses on Review: * 11. JAMES M. & MILDRED PARKER CLAPP 5-SL-07-C Southeast side of E. Emory Rd., southeast of Findhorn Blvd.,

Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 5 conditions.. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 12. WILLOW CREEK - GRAHAM CORPORATION a. Concept Subdivision Plan 5-SM-07-C South side Maynardville Pk., west side of Quarry Rd., Commission

District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny variance 1 and approve the concept

plan subject to 8 conditions.


THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Use On Review 5-B-07-UR Proposed use: Commercial development in PC (Planned Commercial) &

F (Floodway) District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for up to 454,000

square feet of commercial/retail space as shown on the development plan subject to 2 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 13. COVERED BRIDGE AT HARDIN VALLEY, UNIT 3 REVISED -

CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT GROUP a. Concept Subdivision Plan 10-SE-07-C East end of King Post Trail, east of Covered Bridge Blvd., Commission

District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Concept Plan subject to 7

conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Use On Review 10-D-07-UR Proposed use: Detached residential subdivision in PR (Planned

Residential) District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 51

detached residential units on individual lots for Unit 3 subject to 2 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 14. R&R ASSOCIATES ON GREENWELL DR. - R&R ASSOCIATES

PROPERTY GROUP, INC. a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SA-07-C Northeast side of Greenwell Dr., northwest of Crystal Point Dr.,

Commission District 7. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 12-D-07-UR Proposed use: Residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential)

District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 15. MPM DEVELOPMENT CO., IRWIN RD. - MPM DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SB-07-C


Northwest side of Irwin Rd., northeast of Oakmeade Rd., Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 8

conditions. Mr. Arthur Seymour Jr. 550 West Main Avenue on behalf of the

applicant. We agree with the conditions. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. APPROVED.

b. Use On Review 12-E-07-UR Proposed use: Residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential)

District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for up to 32 detached

dwellings on individual lots as shown on the development plan subject to 2 conditions.

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


* 16. REALIGNMENT OF BEAVER RIDGE RD. 12-SC-07-C Intersection of Beaver Ridge Rd., and Oak Ridge Hwy., Commission

District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 5

conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 17. SCRIPPS NETWORK 12-SD-07-C North of Sherrill Blvd., east of Pellissippi Pkwy., Commission District 5 &

Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 9

conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 18. HARDIN VALLEY CONRAD 12-SE-07-C South side of Hardin Valley Rd., southwest of Westcott Blvd.,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 9

conditions.


THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 19. EVERETT WOODS - BENCHMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SF-07-C Northeast side of Everett Rd., north of I-40, Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 12-I-07-UR Proposed use: Residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential)

District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Final Subdivisions: P 20. HUNTER'S RIDGE, UNIT 3 6-SL-07-F 2/14/07 West side of Stony Point Road, north of Kay's Ridge Lane, Commission

District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 21. HANCOCK ESTATES 6-SKK-07-F 2/14/07 Southeast end at terminus of Lyngate Blvd., southeast of W. Beaver

Creek, Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 22. RESUB. OF PART OF THE BEREAN BIBLE CHURCH 10-SC-07-F PROPERTY AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY Prosser Rd north of I-40, Council District 4. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 23. COVERED BRIDGE, PHASE 3, RESUB. LOTS 41-51 10-SO-07-F East end of King Post Trail, east of Covered Bridge Blvd., Commission

District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

* 24. EMORY VISTA RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7R & 8R 11-SA-07-F East side of Mountain Vista Lane, north of W. Emory Road,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


P 25. DALTON, BLOCK & MALONE PROPERTY 11-SO-07-F West side of Bales Road along Beryl Lane, Commission District 7. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

P 26. BEACON PARK PHASE I 11-SQ-07-F South end of Chandler Road at Rogers Island Road, Commission

District 5.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

* 27. HARRISON SPRINGS, UNIT 2 11-SU-07-F Southwest side of Thompson Road, southwest of Kentwell Road,

Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

P 28. DEWAYNE WHITT PROPERTY 11-SW-07-F North side of Wood Road, northeast of Majors Road, Commission

District 8.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

* 29. WALKER PROPERTY 11-SX-07-F South side of Solway School Road, west side of Solway Road,

Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

P 30. WALKER SPRINGS CENTER RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1R2 11-SY-07-F & ADDITIONAL TRACTS South side of Kingston Pike, southwest of Gallaher View Road,

Council District 2. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 31. RIVER ISLAND UNIT 1, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 37 & 39 12-SA-07-F Terminus of River Island Blvd., south of Kodak road, Commission

District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 32. WORLEY WINDS 12-SB-07-F West side of Shipetown Road, north of Mascot Road, Commission

District 8.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 33. COMMERCIAL BANK 12-SC-07-F Northwest side of Murray Drive, northeast of Pleasant Ridge Road,

Council District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 34. KENNY PIPE AND SUPPLY, INC. RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 12-SD-07-F North intersection of Branner Street and Scott Avenue, Council

District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 35. VERNON STINNET PROPERTY RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 12-SE-07-F East side of Carmichael Road, northeast of Oak Hollow Road,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 36. ARDEN CONNELL SUBDIVISION 12-SF-07-F West side of Curtis Road, north of Kodak Road, Commission District

8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 37. JOHN AND BETTY GREEN PROPERTY 12-SG-07-F Northeast side of Wrights Ferry Road, south of S. Northshore Drive,

Commission District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 38. MARLEE PARK RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 25, 26, & 27 12-SH-07-F South intersection of Annalee Way and Marlee Park Blvd.,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve.


THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 39. BROOKSMONT ESTATES 12-SI-07-F North side of Early Road, west of Henge Point Lane, Commission

District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 40. UNDERWOOD PROPERTY 12-SJ-07-F Northwest side of Ball Camp Pike, west of Amherst Road, Commission

District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 41. WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO PUBLICATION 12-SK-07-F * 42. SILER PROPERTY 12-SL-07-F Northwest side of Scenic Drive, northwest of Navaho Road, Council

District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 43. BISHOP RIDGE 12-SM-07-F Northeast side of Bishop Road, southeast of North Meadow Blvd.,

Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 44. SHANNON VALLEY FARMS UNIT 5 SECTION A 12-SN-07-F Northeast side of Murphy Road at Horsestall Drive, Commission

District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 45. SHANNON VALLEY FARMS UNIT 4 SECTION C 12-SO-07-F South side of Luttrell Road north side of Jade Pasture Lane,

Commission District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 46. GOOSE LANDING RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 3 12-SP-07-F


Southwest side of W. Gallaher Ferry Road northwest of Hickory Creek Road, Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve final plat. Mr. Tom Brechko: This was before you a month ago to subdivide the

existing lot into three with all lots having access to an existing joint permanent easement. We have a revised plat which still includes subdivision into three lots. Difference is that this one actually has frontage to a public street. The proposed plan will continue to have one lot served by the existing easement. One of the other two lots has frontage on the public street. The third lot will include an easement within that property out to the public street. It meets the requirement for subdivision. No additional lots would be served by the joint public easement.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. I received a request from Mr. King who

represents at least one owner to postpone. On behalf of the applicant I said I would not oppose postponement if they would reach a resolution of the neighborhood dispute.

Mr. Steve Wise: If you are acquiescing then postponement not an

option. You have to ask for it. Mr. Seymour: We were merely acquiescing. Mr. Luttrell: Applicant. I have a neighbor who has a concern. I

welcome the opportunity to address that concern with my neighbor since we live with the neighbors. We are requesting postponement.


POSTPONE UNTIL THE JANUARY 10, 2008 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. POSTPONED.

P 47. NATALIE ROBINSON PROPERTY 12-SQ-07-F Northeast end of Nighbert lane, northeast of Choto Road,

Commission District 5. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 48. VILLAGE AT SADDLEBROOKE UNIT 2 12-SR-07-F Northwest end of Saddlebrooke Drive northwest of Parrish Hill Lane,

Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 49. STONEWOOD CREEK PHASE 3 12-SS-07-F


East end of Stonewood Creek Drive east of Bud Hawkins Road, Commission District 8.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 50. FARMINGTON UNIT 2 RESUB. OF LOT 11 & LKM 12-ST-07-F PROPERTIES TRACT West side of Ebenezer Road, south of Bluegrass Road, Commission

District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 51. MARIETTA ADDITION RESUB. OF LOTS 66 & 67 AND 12-SU-07-F ACREAGE Northeast side of Divide Street, southeast of Bonny Avenue, Council

District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 52. ROBYN BETH RAILEY PROPERTY 12-SV-07-F East intersection of McKamey Road and Matlock Drive, Council

District 3. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 53. GRIFFEY PROPERTY 12-SW-07-F Terminus of Pitch Pine Drive southwest of Norris Freeway,

Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 54. HUMES ADDITION TO KNOXVILLE RESUB. OF LOT 18 & 12-SX-07-F UNNUMBERED LOT East intersection of Forest Avenue and S. Twenty First Street, Council

District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 55. TECHNOLOGY PARK WEST RESUB. OF LOTS 4R, PAR OF 12-SY-07-F LOTS 4 & 5, AND ADDITIONAL ACREAGE


South side of Technology Drive west side of Cogdill Road, Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 56. MCBEE PROPERTY 12-SZ-07-F South side of Lewis Road east of Andersonville Pike, Commission

District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 57. PARK REALTY & TRUST COMPANY RESUB. OF LOTS 82R, 12-SAA-07-F 88, PART OF LOTS 89 & 67R2 Southwest of Agnes Road, terminus of B Drive, Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 58. LOIS S. HOSKINS PROPERTY 12-SBB-07-F Northwest side of Choto Road, west of intersection of Channel Point

Drive, Commission District 5. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 59. LOYSTON HILLS UNIT 2 12-SCC-07-F Old Maynardville Pike at Loyston Road, Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 60. LOYSTON HILLS UNIT 3 12-SDD-07-F Old Maynardville Pike at Loyston Road, Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 61. LAURA G. & LARRY V. BAILEY PROPERTY 12-SEE-07-F Intersection of Brickyard road and Spring Street, Commission District

6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


* 62. EDWARDS PLACE UNIT 1 12-SFF-07-F Thompson School Road north of E Emory Road, Commission District

8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 63. VISTA DEI MONTE LOT 9 12-SGG-07-F North side of Carmichael Road west of Pellissippi Parkway,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 64. ROBERT J. HAUN PROPERTY 12-SHH-07-F Northwest side of Thorngrove Pike, northeast of Drinnen Road,

Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 65. FARRIS AND VANCE RESUB. OF LOTS 21-22 & PART OF 12-SII-07-F West side of Pequod Street north side of Mohawk Avenue, Council

District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 66. SONOMA PARK 12-SJJ-07-F Southwest intersection of Valley View and Knox Lane, Council District

4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 67. JACKSON ROAD DEVELOPMENT 12-SKK-07-F West side of Jackson Road, southwest of Windtree Lane, Council

District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 68. SHERRILL HILL 12-SLL-07-F


Kingston Pike at Market Place Blvd., Council District 2. * 69. WESTRIDGE MEADOW RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6 12-SMM-07-F VANOSDALE GARDENS Northwest side of Westridge Drive, southwest of Stockton Drive,

Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 70. EASTWOOD ESTATES UNIT 3 RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 12-SNN-07-F 40R2 & 40R3 At terminus of Ranger Lane northwest of N. Ruggles Ferry Pike,

Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 71. LEXINGTON COMMERCIAL PARK 12-SOO-07-F West side of Dutchtown Road, south side of Harding Drive,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 72. SOUTH GROVE PHASE 4 12-SPP-07-F North side of W. Marine Road, southwest of Chapman Highway,

Council District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 73. WILHOITE 12-SQQ-07-F Northwest corner of Chandler Road and Rogers Leland Road,

Commission District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Rezonings and Plan Amendment/Rezonings: P 74. 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. W 75. CONTINUUM COURTYARDS, LLC Northwest side E. Emory Rd., northeast of Fortner Ln., Commission

District 7. a. North County Sector Plan Amendment 10-A-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density

Residential). THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. W b. Rezoning 10-D-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 76. TERAZ INVESTMENTS Northeast side Western Ave., southeast side Blackstock Ave., Council

District 6. a. One Year Plan Amendment 10-K-07-PA From HI (Heavy Industrial) to MU (Mixed Uses) (HI-Heavy Industrial &

CBD (Central Business). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MU (HI-Heavy Industrial/GC-

General Commercial) designation. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 10-R-07-RZ From I-3 (General Industrial) to C-2 (Central Business District). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-3 (General Commercial) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 77. BILL HICKS AND BOB MOORE Southeast side Old Callahan Dr., northeast of Clinton Hwy., Commission

District 6. a. Northwest City Sector Plan Amendment 12-A-07-SP From O (Office) to C (Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-A-07-RZ From RB (General Residential) to CB (Business and Manufacturing). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CB (Business and Manufacturing).


THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 78. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES-KNOXVILLE, INC. 12-B-07-RZ Southeast side Metler Dr., northeast of Clinton Hwy., Council District 5.

Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-4 (Highway and Arterial Commercial).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-4 (Highway & Arterial

Commercial) Mr. Michael Kane: I have a concern with C-4 abutting a residential

area. I understand C-4 is the only zone that will allow what you want. The C-4 requires a 50 yard setback from residential areas. Are you going to request a variance from that setback?

Applicant: No. We just wanted to get the whole property zoned C-4. In

1988 MPC recommended approval and the owner did not follow through.

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


* 79. RAY CLARK Southeast side Whirlwind Way, southeast of Mascot Rd., Commission

District 8. a. Northeast County Sector Plan Amendment 12-B-07-SP From LI (Light Industrial) to A/RR (Agricultural/Rural Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve A/RR (Agricultural/Rural

Residential) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-C-07-RZ From I (Industrial) to A (Agricultural). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve A (Agricultural) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 80. RUFUS H. SMITH JR. & CO. South side Hardin Valley Rd., west of Westcott Blvd., Commission

District 6. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 12-C-07-SP From O (Office) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area) to C (Commercial)

and SLPA (Slope Protection Area).


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area)

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-D-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to CA (General Business). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CA (General Business). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 81. KEN SANDERSON 12-E-07-RZ South side Technology Dr., west side Cogdill Rd., Council District 2.

Rezoning from PC-2 (Retail and Distribution Park) / TO-1 (Technology Overlay) to C-6 (General Commercial Park) / TO-1 (Technology Overlay).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-6 (General Commercial

Park)/TO-1 (Technology Overlay). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 82. DAVID VELARDE 12-F-07-RZ Southeast side Merchant Dr., northeast of Pleasant Ridge Rd., Council

District 3. Rezoning from O-3 (Office Park) to O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related Services).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related

Services). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 83. BARBARA M. LEE 12-G-07-RZ Northeast side Oakmeade Rd., northwest side Irwin Dr., Commission

District 6. Rezoning from RA (Low Density Residential) to A (Agricultural).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve A (Agricultural). Ms. Barbara Lee: 7100 Oakmeade Road, Powell, 37849 My horse is boarded in Anderson County and they are selling off their

horses. I had to find a place to put my horse. I live on one acre. My first question was to my neighbor, Robert and Debbie Dennison, in the same yard. I told them I can take you to a horse field and you will see that odor is not bad, only if you are in the stall. She said if the others do not disagree, then it is okay with them. They were happy and in the mean time I talked to Neal Denton and Danny Bullington and Joe Hall about the feasibility of having a horse on one acre with a house in the middle. They said it was fine with plenty of room for a horse, but would


have to supplement with hay. I also talked with four different veterinarians and said there is a trend that upscale communities are zoning for horses because they are an asset to the community. Also gathered information concerning health of having a horse in the community. When questioned about horse’s liquid and solid waste they all agreed it is good for the soil like compost in a garden. As far as diseases, they are covered in the shots and vaccinations they receive yearly and annual coggins tests.

Mr. Randy Massey: It is not just how good you take care of your horse,

but what about someone that might move there later> Mr. Carl Walker 1304 Irwin Road, I represent a group of people that

signed a petition and Robert Dennison was the first signature on it. Mr. Dennison is down stream of Barbara’s property. Oakmeade is a down hill grade. Feces and urine will be driven downhill. I understand that she has them inoculated, but that does not keep them from being a carrier of tetanus. When it rains the creek overflows and water flows down Oakmeade. Almost every person on Oakmeade signed the petition. We do not want our property devalued by future abuses of this type of zoning. In summer and winter the ditch overflows and will deposit what is with it into the homeowners properties. Prior to sewers that property would not perk. Then the waste and feces is not going to perk as well. We do not want the smell, odor and health hazards. This is close to homes. We do not want the next owners to bring in pigs and chickens. There are additional homes going in near this also. My children play in the creek and we do not want them exposed to something that will hurt them.

Mr. Doyle Human 7101 Oakmeade Road, Across from her property. I

wrote a letter you have a copy of. I lived there 44 years and know what it is like. Passed around pictures of their yards. Kids play and dig in that ditch and play in the mud. The fence dividing the property is much closer to Mr. Dennison’s home than hers. Mr. Dennison has denied the things that she says. Captain John Humphries came to my house this morning and looked at the property and said there is no way a horse should be put on the property. You need a minimum of one acre to put a horse on and not with a house, storage building, dog lot, stable, firewood and swing set. If all of this is taken into consideration, then she will have about a half acre. A horse pulls grass up by the roots. By spring there will not be grass on that property. A horse needs room to run and will slide to stop.


APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Ms. Longmire: Across Irwin Road that is zoned agricultural already. Do

they have animals?


Mr. Human: Some do and some do not. Two people have horses from Irwin Road to the TVA line, they have acreage. Where those animals are is over 2 acres away and the water does not flow near them.

Ms. Longmire: If we zone this agricultural, can any farm animal be put

on there. Mr. Pruitt: Because of the size of the tract, the Health Department has

the ability to restrict the number of animals, but farm animals are allowed in the Agriculture zone.

Mr. Trey Benefield: Can we condition the zone to an individual animal

by name. Mr. Ray Evans: This is an awful small lot for a house and horse. There

is no way to keep grass on this. I do not think you ought to have one on a one acre lot, just because she has lost her boarding rights this is not appropriate. If she had 4 acres, that would be more appropriate.

CLANCY AND JOHNSON AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE

AGRICULTURAL ZONE LIMITED TO A HORSE KNOWN AS KITTY.

Upon roll call the Planning Commission voted as follows: Benefield No Clancy Yes Donaldson Yes Evans No Graf No Henry No Johnson Yes Kane Yes Lobetti Yes Longmire No Sharp No Massey Yes MOTION FAILED 6-6 MOTION (EVANS) AND SECOND (BENEFIELD) WERE MADE TO

DENY AGRICULTURAL. Ms. Kim Henry: Is it a good idea to zone it Agricultural or leave it as RA

is the question. Ms. Longmire: I do not think it is fair to the horse. Mr. Dick Graf: We had a horse in our neighborhood and the front yard

was always mud and it looked bad all the time.


Mr. Michael Kane: Do we have any applications for other developments

reducing the agricultural zoning in the area? Mr. Mark Donaldson: We approved a 32 unit subdivision to the east of

this with a concept plan. It is becoming more residential in the area. Mr. Ray Evans: There are several one acre lots in this area. This is a

residential lot and an entrance to a subdivision. There are alternatives as to what to do with her horse.

Mr. Stan Johnson: Asked applicant about misinformation. Ms. Lee: Those pictures of my yard are 10 years old. I French drained

the whole back yard since those pictures were taken. My back yard is not wet. The ditch that flows next to Oakmeade is up hill. It would have to go uphill to get into the ditch. There are horses all round us and right behind Mr. Human’s house. I gave you pictures of it.

Upon roll call the Planning Commission voted as follows Benefield Yes Clancy No Donaldson No Evans Yes Graf Yes Henry Yes Johnson No Kane Yes Lobetti No Longmire Yes Sharp Yes Massey No MOTION CARRIED 7-5. DENIED. A BREAK WAS TAKEN AT THIS TIME AND THE TAPE CHANGED. 84. NEW CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 12-H-07-RZ Southeast side George Williams Rd., northeast side I-140, southwest of

Hidden Glen Ln., Commission District 5. Rezoning from RA (Low Density Residential) to PR (Planned Residential).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) zoning

at a density of up to 5 du/ac Mr. Richard LeMay 10816 Kingston Pike on behalf of applicant. Mr. John Schoonmaker: 10044 Tan Rara Drive on behalf of Tan Rara

West Homeowners Association. Reason I am here is that I have been


assured that the proposed density of 5 dwellings per acre is set because it is only two acres and would not significantly affect the area. The surrounding is 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 du/ac. There are several parcels of 8 to 10 acres. We were concerned that others would use this case as a benchmark.

Mr. LeMay: We are in agreement with staff recommendation. Mr. Michael Kane: Why would this not be precedent setting? Mr. Schoonmaker: Staff said the only reason they went to such a high

density if look at the parcel only talking about 10 units that would not put much density on George Williams Road. That is why we wondered about fighting over a 2 acre tract or not be involved until 10 acres are involved. Because that is part of the Pellissippi Parkway they have an easement and I think they will really only be able to get 7 units. Down the road we want you to remember this is an isolated case.



Mr. Ray Evans: I think the density is too high. I am voting on this ONLY

because you can only get 9 units on this and would hope that it would not set a precedent.


APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AT A DENSITY UP TO 5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE APPROVED.

Mr. Schoonmaker: I wanted to recognize the time and effort that all of

you put on the Board and wanted to thank you and wish you a Merry Christmas.

* 85. SUSANNE PAINTER 12-I-07-RZ Southeast side E. Magnolia Ave., northeast side N. Mary St., 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. * 86. DUTCHTOWN LAND PARTNERS, LLC South side Dutchtown Rd., northwest side Floyd Ln., west of N. Cedar

Bluff Rd., Commission District 5. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 12-D-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to C (Commercial).


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O (Office) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-J-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to CB (Business and Manufacturing). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve OB (Office, Medical, and Related

Services) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 87. LAWRENCE WINSTEAD 12-K-07-RZ Southwest side Collier Rd., southeast of Fox Ridge Dr., Commission

District 6. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) at a

density up to 2 dwelling units per acre. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 88. ROBERT J. BENZ, JR., AND LAURA EDGE 12-L-07-RZ North side Hardin Valley Rd., west of Steele Rd., Commission District 6.

Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CR (Rural Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CR (Rural Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. (Accidentally heard item 91 before Item 89.) 89. NORTHSHORE COMMONS, LLC 12-M-07-RZ North end B Dr., northeast of S. Northshore Dr., Council District 2.

Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential), O-1 (Office, Medical & Related Services) and F-1 (Floodway) to O-3 (Office Park) and F-1 (Floodway).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O-3 (Office Park) and F-1

(Floodway). Mr. Edward Shultz: Ayers & Parkey, 111 Fox Road attorney for

applicant. Ms. Evelyn D. Williams, 522 Agnes Road. On December 23, 1955 we

moved into our house on Agnes Road. We were here many years ago when it was changed from residential. At that time an apartment was put on Agnes Road. What will happen to the value of our property, noise and traffic? We have office buildings all around us. In the last couple of years we have had several nice office buildings. I would like


to see residential areas maintained and a place for little old lady’s to live.

Mr. Schultz: This is one property zoned three different ways. There is

an island in the middle is zoned R-1 and we want to change everything to O-3. This is on the bank of Fourth Creek. There was a house on the R-1 and on the O-3 and they were torn down. The northern part has been commercial for a number of years. Property entrance is on Northshore and I am not sure that it would add congestion to the residential neighborhood behind it. As far as the not very apartment, our clients are going to build a high end office condo park with landscaping to shield the houses and will not sit empty. We have been cooperating with the Bearden Council and they are planning on a greenway along the bank of Fourth Creek which will be on part of the property and which will link up with the Lakeshore Greenway.

Mr. Ken Pruitt: O-3 was created to allow non-residential development

adjacent to residential. Restricts height of buildings to two stories or 35 feet and requires side and rear yards to be landscaped or in grass. Restrictions on uses are more and restricted to professional business offices. Attempt of the applicant is to have the same setbacks and requirements. The R-1 property was accessed off Northshore by Drive B which is recommended for closing by Council.

Mr. Schultz: The closure of Drive B is still before Council. And there is

question about whether the road needs to be closed from our property line or all the way to Northshore.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (EVANS) WERE MADE TO


P 90. MJM DEVELOPMENT 12-N-07-RZ North side Stanley Rd., southwest of Clinton Hwy., Commission District

3. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 91. FORESTBROOK DEVELOPMENT 12-O-07-RZ North side Badgett Rd., east side Tooles Bend Rd., Commission District

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

density up to 3 dwelling units per acre. Mr. John King P.O. Box 2500. On behalf of the applicant. Ms. Sandra Gammon, 8851 Gammon Way, 37922. In opposition. Main

reason why is because it is going to create a hazard and fuel a dangerous situation. I learned that the proposed development is


planning on access via Tooles Bend. There is very limited vision in both directions at this stretch of road. Tooles Bend is a very narrow and winding road with dangerous intersection at Northshore. This morning I got behind a school bus and he literally had to go across the yellow line to go around one of those curves in the proximity of this new entrance. Disturbed that they are planning on putting 12 to 14 single family units on something a little over 4 acres in there. We feel it will ruin the rural integrity with that kind of density. We do not want a precedent set with density of too many units on one acre. Additional traffic will further clog Northshore Drive which is already backed up at Rocky Hill and Lyons View. There does not appear to be ways to widen Northshore since structures are built so close.

Ms. Barb McDevitt 8746 Amberly Drive. I was told they were going to

have access within 300 feet of where my house is. I see trucks and cars go off the road. Visually trying to get out of where I live, you cannot see anyone coming off Badgett. Against that much housing. It is a beautiful property with 200 year old trees. It is done very tastefully and it is very wooded. The road is very dangerous and children get off the bus there.

Mr. Luke Weber: 2214 Tooles Bend Road, I have lived on Tooles Bend

most of my life. It has grown and is extremely dangerous on that section of the road. You could not see this new entrance as you come over the hill and that is dangerous. Half of the traffic that accesses Tooles Bend comes through Badgett and was not counted.

Mr. King: Staff has noted that the scale and intensity is consistent with

surrounding area and sector plans and a logical extension of planned residential. We will be back with a development plan where issues such as traffic, lot layout, drainage and such are addressed. The applicant’s engineer has met with Knox County Engineering and Knox County Engineering can support variance to allow access to Tooles Bend and that it meets sight distance requirements. It is 4 acres with three dwelling units at a maximum of 12 units.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Ray Evans: Asked the distance between Amberly and Badgett. Mr. Brechko: Appears to be about 400 to 450 feet. Mr. Evans: There is no question that there is property up and down this

road that is going to be developed. There is an awful short distance between Badgett and Amberly. It is at a crest of a hill and a dangerous spot. This is going to be a tough piece of property to develop. If this is approved, I suggest that Knox County look at an entrance from Tooles Bend and not approve that entrance. This is a dangerous place and the density for this property is too high.


Mr. Clancy: I think it is up to the developer to get us a good concept

plan and be sure it is safe. Ms. Longmire: Which comes first, the development or the road

improvements? I do not think we can say because it is a dangerous road that we cannot rezone it.

MOTION CARRIED 10-2. PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL

APPROVED. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF PR AT 3 DU/AC. Mr. Evans: My concern was that Knox County Engineering was willing

to grant a variance. My concern, which may be addressed at use on review, is that this is not the kind of place to make a variance on sight distance.

Mr. King: It is an intersection distance variance. To achieve sight

distance it well may be within the intersection spacing situation. Mr. Evans The fewer units would be better in this situation. I would like

to see it at 3 units and more in line with the other units. Mr. King: That is reason for requested density. There will the

opportunity for this body to review use on review. Mr. Leo LeCamera: We have received a concept plan and done a field

review. Concept plan will be before you next month. The plan does show access coming off Tooles Bend Road. A field review was done and they thought it would be okay for variances for intersection separation from Badgett Road and Tooles Bend. Cindy did think this was better than massive grading on Tooles Bend. They did think there was sight distance both directions.

Mr. Clancy: If you give them 3 units it gives them the best opportunity

to develop it at its highest potential since that is the density all around it.

MOTION CARRIED 8-4. PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AT A

DENSITY UP TO 3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE APPROVED. 92. BUTLER HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC Northwest side Gleason Dr., northeast of Ebenezer Rd., Commission

District 5. a. Southwest County Sector Plan Amendment 12-E-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area)

to MDR (Medium Density Residential) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area).


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MDR Medium Density Residential Mr. Phil Butler: 42 Riverdale Knoxville. Mr. Larry Liverman: 8748 Heathwood Bend, Briarglen Homeowenrs

Association Area. Handed out materials. Representing Briarglen with 30 residents. We have a petition signed by all the residents. We have no problem with residential. Our typical plot is 1.45 units per acre. We have previous been surrounded by condos that sell for $175,000 to $200,000. Referred to the handout picture. There is a single family nearby which is not as close and has a lot of balance with a mix of stucco, brick and stone. Mr. Butler sent our homeowners a note that said he would comply with regulations and that they would be comparable home value. We would like to see a higher quality development with 3 dwelling units per acre. The topo drops 80 foot from the road. This is going to be a tough lot to build on and I do not think they can do that density.

Ms. Stephanie Allen 8819 Lennox View Way. I am against this becoming medium density due to increasing traffic.

Intersection of Gleason and Gallaher View is very congested. I think it should be lower than 5 units.

Mr. Doug McClean, 8803 Ashton Court, It needs to be low density. The traffic is too high. It needs to stay at

the lower density. It is a tough lot to build on. Mr. Phil Irwin, 8736 Heathwood Bend, President of Association. Low

density is important to us. Our neighboring neighborhoods are low density developments and we should remain that way.

Mr. Butler: We ask that the 6.5 units per acre be approved. This is

compatible with the scale and intensity of the surrounding area. Engineering and grading plans have been developed to control erosion and storm water issues. This development will be under the new State guidelines for requirements for stormwater and erosion control. The ponds we are doing will help reduce runoff into the creek behind this area. Design elements of brick, stone and shake siding are going to create a very attractive, pleasing product for the area. The existing areas have been zoned at this density. I made attempts to contact Briarglen residents and just now got their comments. I will be glad to share the design concept plans.

Ms. Kim Henry: Anderson Ridge shows up at PR at 1 to 6.5. Density of

Lennox View is 4.8 and across the street Lennox Court is about 8 units per the acre. I am bothered by the concept that a higher density is a lower quality product. I do not think we need to keep that part of the discussion as far as property values.


Mr. Dick Graf: When you line up 5, 6 or 7 in a row it is hard to be individual units. They have used every square inch of land for houses with a detention basin and that is it. It looks like wall to wall development. Asked about the one acre lot. When you look at Anderson Ridge, they are not individual and just lined up right down the street.

Mr. Butler: That will be retained by the current owners with a house on

it. That may be potential for inclusion in the future. Mr. Michael Kane: Is there a time when we can say the area is

overbuilt and this is going to be too much for the area. There are a lot of traffic and things going on and it is very dense. Sector plan calls for low density, but all the area has changed to higher density.

Mr. Massey: It is property owner rights. At what point do we say you

can’t do anything with it. Mr. Kane: That was an extreme interpretation of what I was saying as

far as being overbuilt. \ Mr. Ray Evans: Properties are LDR around it. What would be the

maximum density at LDR? Up to 5 units per acre. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO

DENY MDR. MOTION CARRIED 11-1. MDR DENIED. b. Rezoning 12-P-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) at a

density up to 6.5 dwelling units per acre MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (EVANS) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. PR APPROVED.


APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AT A DENSITY UP TO 5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE APPROVED.

* 93. JOHN HANCOCK 12-Q-07-RZ Southeast end Lyngate Blvd., southeast of W. Beaver Creek Blvd.,

Commission District 6. 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. * 94-1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION North of Sherrill Blvd., east of Pellissippi Pkwy., Council District 2 &

Commission District 5. One Year Plan Amendment to be authorized by MPC from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial). Council District 2. 12-A-07-PA

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve GC (General Commercial) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 94-2 SCRIPPS NETWORK INC. North of Sherrill Blvd., east of Pellissippi Pkwy., Council District 2 &

Commission District 5. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 12-F-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) and OS (Open Space) to C

(Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-R-07-RZ From RP-1 (Planned Residential) to C-3 (General Commercial) and from

PR (Planned Residential) and OS (Open Space) to CA (General Business).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CA (General Business) and C-3

(General Commercial) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 95. WELLS CREEK, LLC South side W. Governor John Sevier Hwy., west of W. Dick Ford Ln.,

Commission District 9. a. South County Sector Plan Amendment 12-G-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density

Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MDR (Medium Density

Residential) Chair Randy Massey turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Ray Evans

and recused from discussion and voting. Mr. John King: P.O. Box 2425 on behalf of the applicant Mr. Victor

Jernigan. Last month the other acreage to the west were approved at PR up to 12 dwelling units per acre. It is luxury apartment complex. It


is the same information as discussed as the last meeting. We need to get this integrated into the project and then do traffic studies.

Mr. Mike Brown: 7320 Twin Creek Road, Vice President of South Doyle

Homeowners Association. In 1977 we started worked with the MPC on small area studies and have been active in every sector plan since. We had over 300 people involved in the study last year. We feel like this is a gross miscarriage of justice as far as the sector plan. We realize that changes will have to be made to the plan occasionally. We are talking about a major change that will affect our lives. We ask that this be postponed until we can do an update to the sector plan to prove there is a need. We have identified over 600 new housing units within a mile and one half of this property that are being or have been built. Add the 252 units more and up to 852 units. These 252 units will product 2222 road trips per day. Multiply that by 850 and how many road trips does that make all on one vastly overcrowded highway. John Sever is a traffic problem and traffic has doubled. The State has contacted the homeowners that they are putting in a turn lane. Not putting in the four-lane until 2020. The developer either controls or owns quite a bit. He had 17 acres and now adding 4.7 acres and then next month he may add more. Where do you stop? Who identified the need for 800 more units in the area? The people out there did not. I do not think you should add any more to this until the first part is heard by County Commission.

Mr. Michael Alexander: We request that the action not go forward. We

have heard discussions of densities of 1 to 3 and that seems to be a reasonable number. Twelve is a long way from 1 to 3.

Mr. John King: Throughout the entirety of Knox County 30% of housing

units are rental. That is not true in South Knoxville. This property located as it is makes good sense for apartments. Ask approval.

Mr. Victor Jernigan: 108 Stekoia Lane, 37912. Handed out photo of

what was approved last month. We are trying to create text book example of smart growth. Density would allow us to have one acre of planned neighborhood commercial for every 100 units. With the commercial component, we think we can get the traffic signal on John Sevier Highway. Once we get the zoning, we can finalize the design plan and will be able to engage Wilbur Smith to do a traffic study and will be able to identify who the commercial users will be.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Dick Graf: If the reason we are doing this is to accommodate that

one acre of commercial, we need to rethink this. I was supportive of the apartments last month because they are close to intersection of John Sevier and Chapman Highway. That is the same reason why you do not need a fast food, bank or restaurant there. Whatever


commercial you want is within 1.5 minute’s driving time. This is supposed to be a scenic highway. The reasons you had for apartments do not apply for putting a fast food or Weigels or whatever. The commercial is a bad idea.

Mr. Ken Pruitt: If the project ends up being 20 acres or greater and if

total number of units exceed 100, developer may ask at use on review stage of process for approval of commercial. It is a discretionary approval by this body. The thing you are considering today is PR up to 12 units per acre. Whether he comes back with commercial, we cannot know at this point.

Ms. Henry: The point of allowing the commercial within PR is to keep

the trips off the main highway. It is the concept of mixed use in creating a whole area of different uses where you can even walk to it. Commercial does not always equal lower quality.

Mr. Michael Kane: This is a big development. A large number of people

participated in the sector planning process. This needs to go through the sector plan process.

Upon roll call the Planning Commission voted as follows: Benefield No Clancy Yes Donaldson No Evans Yes Graf No Henry Yes Johnson Yes Kane No Lobetti Yes Longmire Yes Sharp No MOTION CARRIED 6-5-1. APPROVED. b. Rezoning 12-S-07-RZ From PR (Planned Residential) @ 1-5 du/ac and A (Agricultural) to PR

(Planned Residential) @ up to 12 du/ac. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) up to 12

du/ac MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO



APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 8-3-1. PR AUP TO 12 DU/AC APPROVED.


CHAIR MASSEY RESUMED THE MEETING. * 96. VICTOR JERNIGAN Northwest side McCampbell Dr., northwest of Washington Pike,

southwest of Murphy Rd., Commission District 7. a. North City Sector Plan Amendment 12-H-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) and STPA (Stream Protection

Area) to C (Commercial) and STPA (Stream Protection Area). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial) and STPA

(Stream Protection Area). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-T-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to CA (General Business). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CA (General Business). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 97. COVENTRY CREEK, LLC Southeast side McCampbell Dr., northwest side Washington Pike,

Commission District 7. a. North City Sector Plan Amendment 12-I-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to C (Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-U-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) & OB (Office, Medical & Related Services) to SC

(Shopping Center). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve SC (Shopping Center). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 98. HELEN ROSS MCNABB CENTER 12-V-07-RZ Southwest side Laurans Ave., northwest of Goforth Ave., Council

District 6. Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve RP-1 (Planned Residential) up to

5.9 du/ac. Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr., for applicant. Mr. Arthur Bryant who lives

across from the property asked for this to be removed. He advised that


he was not concerned with the zoning, but the site plan. We assured him that at the same time it was submitted he would get a copy also.

MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WEREMADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. PR APPROVED.

MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WEREMADE TO

APPROVE MOTION CARRIED 12-0. PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AT A DENSITY UP TO 5.9 DU/AC APPROVED.

* 99. BENCHMARK COMPANIES West side Fretz Rd., north of Hatmaker Ln., Commission District 6. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 12-J-07-SP From A/RR (Agricultural/Rural Residential) to LDR (Low Density

Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve LDR (Low Density Residential). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-W-07-RZ 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. * 100. KNOX COUNTY / PUBLIC BUILDING AUTHORITY (Revised) East side Dry Gap Pike, northwest side Rifle Range Rd. northeast side

Fountain City Rd., Commission District 7. a. North County Sector Plan Amendment 12-K-07-SP From LI (Light Industrial) & LDR (Low Density Residential) to PP/OS

(Public Parks & Open Space). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PP/OS (Public Parks and Open

Space). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-X-07-RZ From PC (Planned Commercial) to OS (Open Space). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve OS (Open Space). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 101. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 12-Y-07-RZ


Southeast side Parkside Dr., northeast side Cogdill Rd., Council District 2. Rezoning from No Zone to O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related Services).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related

Services) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 102. BENCHMARK ASSOCIATES, INC (REVISED) 12-Z-07-RZ South side Ailor Ave., east side Seventeenth St., 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. * 103. HERITAGE CONSTRUCTION Southeast side Byington Beaver Ridge Rd., southwest side Shady Oak

Ln., Commission District 6. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 12-L-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O (Office). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 12-AA-07-RZ From CA (General Business) to OB (Office, Medical, and Related

Services). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve OB (Office, Medical, and Related

Services). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 104. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 12-BB-07-RZ North side Kingston Pike, north of Fox Rd., Council District 2. Rezoning

from No Zone to PC-2 (Retail and Distribution Park). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PC-2 (Retail and Distribution Park) MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (BENEFIELD) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. APPROVED.

* 105. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 12-CC-07-RZ


Northwest side Callahan Dr., southwest side I-75, Council District 5. Rezoning from No Zone to C-4 (Highway and Arterial Commercial).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-4 (Highway & Arterial

Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 106. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 12-DD-07-RZ East and west side Cessna Rd., south of Sabre Dr., Council District 2.

Rezoning from No Zone to R-1 (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve R-1 (Low Density Residential). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 107. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 12-EE-07-RZ Northwest side Luscombe Dr., southwest side Bardon Rd., Council

District 2. Rezoning from No Zone to R-1 (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve R-1 (Low Density Residential). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 108. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 12-FF-07-RZ South side Ridgetop Rd., northeast of Shrewsbury Dr., Council District

3. Rezoning from No Zone to R-1 (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve R-1 (Low Density Residential). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Uses on Review: 109. GLENVIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 7-D-07-UR South side of Creekhead Dr., southeast of Silver Cloud Ln. Proposed

use: Remove the requirement to construct a walking trail along the detention basin as shown on the previously approved plan in RP-1 (Planned Residential) / F (Floodway) District. Council District 3.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the amended development plan

to permit the construction of a picnic shelter and other agreed upon improvements in lieu of the previously approved walking trail subject to 3 conditions

Mike Turner 358 Paxton Drive MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO



P 110. ISAKSON BARNHART - SHERRILL HILL 11-E-07-UR 2/14/2007 South side of Kingston Pike at Market Place Blvd. Proposed use:

Commercial Development in PC-1 (k) (Retail & Office Park), PC-1/H-1 (k) (Historic Overlay) District. Council District 2.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. W 111. CANNON & CANNON, INC. (JOHN RUSSELL) 11-I-07-UR South side of Hardin Valley Rd., southwest of Westcott Bv. Proposed

use: Commercial, office & residential development in PC (Planned Commercial) & PR (Planned Residential) pending District. Commission District 5.

THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 112. REVEIZ CUSTOM HOMES, LLC 11-J-07-UR North side of Hardin Valley Rd., west of Westcott Blvd. Proposed use:

Mixed Commercial Development in PC (Planned Commercial) District. Commission District 6.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 113. LITTLEJOHN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 12-A-07-UR Southeast side of Hardin Valley Rd., southwest side of Valley Vista Rd.

Proposed use: Bank in PC (k) (Planned Commercial) / TO (Technology Overlay) District. Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for a bank

in the PC (k) (Planned Commercial) & TO (Technology Overlay) zoning districts, subject to 6 conditions:.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 114. GLENN, LLC. 12-B-07-UR South side of Burlwood Rd., southeast of Pine Needle Ln. Proposed

use: Reduction of the required front yard setback from 25' to 24.5' in RP-1 (Planned Residential) District. Council District

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to reduce the front

yard setback from 25' to 24.5' as shown on the development plan, subject to the following 3 conditions:.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 115. NEELY REALTY PARTNERSHIP 12-C-07-UR Southeast side of Forest Ave., northeast side of S. Twenty First St.

Proposed use: Restaurant in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District. Council District 1.


THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 116. JOHN PIERCE 12-F-07-UR Northwest side of Maynardville Pike, northeast of Norris Freeway

Proposed use: Car wash facility in a shopping center outparcel in SC (Shopping Center) District. Commission District 7.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a car wash at this

location as shown on the development plan subject to 4 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 117. NMC PROPERTIES 12-G-07-UR South side of Fairmont Blvd., southeast of Gary Rd. Proposed use:

Duplex in R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. Council STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a duplex in the R-

1 (Low Density Residential) zoning district, subject to 4 conditions THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 118. U.S. CELLULAR CORPORATION 12-H-07-UR North side of Sam Lee Rd., northeast of Steele Rd. Proposed use: 195'

monopole telecommunication tower in A (Agricultural) District. Commission District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a 195' monopole

telecommunications tower in the A zoning district, subject to 6 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 119 CROWNE CASTLE USA C/O SCOTT B. SMITH 12-J-07-UR Terminus of Hayeswood Rd., southwest of Pine Grove Rd. Proposed

use: 190' monopole telecommunications tower in A (Agricultural) District. Commission District 8.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a 190' monopole

telecommunications tower in the A zoning district, subject to 6 conditions.

Mr. Jim Murphy 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203

Attorney for applicant. Mr. Mike McGinsy 1435 Hayeswood (14306) We have had trouble with land dispute. They cannot work on the tower

because no parking spaces. They have abused my property. There was a tractor trailer truck one time hung across my driveway. There was trash left on the site. I have tried to get the land dispute settled for


three years. They contacted me Tuesday night wanting to get together now that they are trying to get a new pole.

Mr. Tom Brechko: The tower is on the Bell South ATT property. Part of

the equipment encroaches on his property and fence. Part of the plan shows relocating the equipment off the property. They do not show the parking. To address some of this I would recommend another condition that “prior to any construction that they clearly mark all four property corners and create a parking area onsite off his property” so they will not encroach onto neighbors property.

Mr. Murphy: We recognize there is an encroachment and we will

remove the equipment shelter and fence off his property and onto the property subject to our lease. We will accept this additional condition of the parking. Part of this application is to make the property dispute go away with the relocation.

Mr. McGinsy: I think I ought to be compensated for encroachment in

the past. They go past their tower. They will need to show me where they are putting it. There is a water tank on one side, a cell tower on one side and a 50 foot drop on the back side.

Mr. Kane: I do not understand Mr. Perry’s report that this be denied

because of the potential of Tower farm porcupine they thing. I do not remember him indicating in T-mobile report that there would be a problem. Now this second report says he has a problem.

Mr. Brechko: The application last month T-mobile created the second

tower. Right now there is an approved tower from last month and an existing one they are replacing. There is an easement that extends down to the property where the tower is located.

Mr. Murphy: The carrier who has the antenna on the tower has had

construction crews who have trespassed. We have committed to Mr. McGinsy that we will work that out. That was not supposed to happen. We have two solutions. One is to park on the site and the other is to enter into an agreement with Mr. McGinsy for a larger easement. There has been some miscommunication and it has not been resolved. The construction is between the existing tower and water tank. The grading plan shows that the area to the east of the existing tower is going to be leveled off to put additional equipment shelters and is where we would site the cranes to install the new tower. To meet the condition Mr. Brechko suggested, there is an area on the west that we will have to expand to be able to turn around without going on his property and turning around.

Mr. Evans: I will take your statement that you will do everything

possible to not encroach.


MOTION (EVANS) AND SECOND (CLANCY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION INCLUDING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION MARK ALL PROPERTY PINS AND LOCATE THE PARKING LOT AND NOT BLOCK THE ROAD AT ANY TIME. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. APPROVED AS MODIFIED.

Other Business: 120. Consideration of election of MPC Officers for Calendar Year

2008. 12-A-07-OB Nominating Committee Recommendations: Mr. Dick Graf: Nominating committee consisting of Jack Sharp, Kim

Henry and myself, met. We are losing our Chair and Vice Chair. Nominating committee presents following nominees for calendar year 2008. Chair, Mr. Trey Benefield, and for Vice Chair, Mr. Robert Anders. The floor was opened for additional nominations. None made. Motion and second to elect by acclamation.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE TO

ELECT THE SLATE OF TREY BENEFIELD FOR CHAIR AND ROBERT ANDERS FOR VICE-CHAIR BY ACCLAMATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. OFFICERS APPROVED.

* 121. Consideration of extension of concept plan for Heritage Hills

Subdivision - 9-SD-05-C/9-C-05-UR. 12-B-07-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 122. Consideration of extension of the concept plan for Hampson

Place Subdivision - 11-SP-05-C/11-Q-05-UR. 12-C-07-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 123. Consideration of two-year extension of concept plan for

Wisteria Park - 12-SI-05-C. 12-D-07-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 124. Consideration of amendments to the City of Knoxville

Downtown Design Review Board Administrative Rules and Procedures changing the Downtown Design Review


Boards’ appeal process and the status of the MPC representative on the Board. 12-E-07-OB

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Adjournment MOTION (CLANCY) WAS MADE TO ADJOURN There being no further business, the Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting was adjourned in order at 5:05 P.M.

Prepared by: Betty Jo Mahan

Approved by: Mark Donaldson, Executive Director

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

minutes - knoxville-knox county planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/dec07min.pdfmpc minutes...

Documents