Public Feedback

You mentioned that rezoning Knoxville is being done with climate refugees in mind. Please explain this statement.

You have nothing about personal property rights. You are going down the wrong path.

Yesterday I became aware that City of Knoxville is doing a project called "Knoxville Recode." If I understand, this is a project to update the zoning ordinances for the city. If this is true, I would like to talk with you or whomever would be the proper person to ensure Downtown Island Airport has an "Air Overlay Zone" identified in the update. Has Downtown Island Airport already been considered in the project? If not, the Federal Aviation Administration requires airports to have proper planning and zoning around their facility. This project seems to be the right time to add an Air Overlay Zone in the ordinance.

Yes, I have a lot to add to the survey. I suggest the following for Knoxville:1 - more careful zoning2 - watch out for over building3 - why no underground utilities? (oh, I know, they are more expensive.)4 - too many cars, poor traffic control5 - watch out... it's becoming a really ugly city6 - residential areas should sty residential

Would like sidewalks in neighborhoods other than downtown to promote security and community. Also, get rid of the ditches that line almost all of the streets in south Knoxville. Either that or annex us so we don't have to pay taxes to pay for the rest of the city's sidewalks and proper water management (no more ditches dug in people's front yards). Put it in the code to require city neighborhoods to have sidewalks.

With the recode of Knoxville, will employees be allowed to work at a home based business?

With the growth in South Knoxville, particularly the Sevier Heights area, we need sidewalks badly. Walkers on Sevierville Pike have to walk in people yards, the ditch and/or the middle of the road. In many places there is no where to go if cars are coming. Many times a day, people who live in apartments on Redbud walk down the street to the bus stop or convenient store and cars need to veer to avoid them.

With all respect and gratitude to my neighbors who have worked so hard for so many years to make this neighborhood what it is, and to fix up and restore the beautiful old houses in Fourth & Gill, I'm a fan of mixed use urban neighborhoods. I would like to see zoning that encourages diversity by including affordable housing options, and small businesses. I am also hopeful that the rezoning will encourage green space within this dense urban area, and make it a priority to encourage native plant varieties for beauty, connection to place and more diversity of the non-human kind.

Will we be able to have our 16 foot camper parked in our driveway? Also, is the land in front of our house going to be developed, it's full of sink holes. One final question, is Rohar Road going to be extended, right now it's a dead end. We like the way our street is now. Thank you for reading my comments.

Will the update include any new sections using form based code?

Why is the comment period so short and over the Holidays? Is Donald Trump now our Mayor and we'll just push this through lickety-split while no one is watching? I've read a few comments on draft #4 with its over 700 changes and one theme appears over and over and over again: there hasn't been enough time to read it! This isn't Congress, this isn't the Trump Administration--this is LOCAL. We need more time to discuss such huge changes. An H1 effort in Parkridge spanned FIVE YEARS of continual meetings, planning, debates, door-to-door knocking, mailers, flyers, everything short of writing it in the sky with an airplane (which Councilman Brown insisted would still result in someone saying they never heard about it) and yet it was smacked down by Mayor Rogero for needing "more discussion time". If FIVE YEARS isn't long enough for a neighborhood of a few hundred acres, how is the measly 7 months this has been public (since the June 2018 release of the maps--everything before that wasn't very useful for the public) long enough for a city encompassing 104.2 square miles? The obvious answer is that either the public doesn't know what it wants and the City needs to tell us what we want or the public wants something contrary to what the Mayor, Mr. Lyons, and the political/developer machine want.What's the rush? Parkridge was told that we have plenty of time to go block-by-block over many years to protect affordable housing; Knoxville already has a zoning code that's worked well enough for 50 years so there's no desperate need to install a zoning code. City Council didn't have a problem pushing the Parkridge H1 off onto a new Council but now the excuse for the rush is so that the next council won't have to deal with it. A project this monumental should take place over several sitting City Councils. I am saddened that is has become just a political plum for an outgoing administration.

Why is Knoxville so segregated? We're a very diverse city, yet certain areas seems to be reserved only for the upper class. It has become popular to have some wealthy neighborhoods in underprivileged communities, such as 4th and Gill, however those families probably don't dare send their children to the failing public school. Most probably opt for a magnet school or private school. Our community members help determine the success of our schools. The school system can't be solely blamed for failure when the only family's they serve are facing some form(s) of disparity. If we could integrate our low income families to wealthier neighborhoods and encourage our wealthier families to move to communities other than Farragut, Karns, and Powell (and actually send their kids to the zoned public school) then perhaps we could truly thrive as one united city that can celebrate true diversity. We can't claim to want equality if we don't want those facing disparity to be our neighbor. Perhaps we need to rethink what determines property value. It's unfair that someone of low income can't afford the exact same house or apartment located in east knoxville if it were located in a neighborhood in west knoxville). Maybe business should be given incentives for opening up stores and offices along roads like Magnolia, Clinton highway, and Chapman Highway. I'm not sure about government making so many restrictions on someone's property, but it would be nice if these roadsides were kept up as well as Kingston Pike, Lovell Rd, and Emory Rd. Overall, I think our city needs to improve on being more integrated and cohesive.

Why did medical/dental office get changed from P to S in C-N?

Why am I getting this paper after the fact of all workshops are done and over with. Why am I getting this way after this is done. I received this letter on March 5, a little too late for people to know when actions have been done. Why didn't you send this out before everything started.

While the current Recode map is improved, there are some issues that still need to be addressed in the oldest neighborhoods (those with houses 100± years old). If houses in these neighborhoods are slated to be made into multi-family units, there MUST be required oversight from professionals who have demonstrated knowledge with older home construction. It is in no one's best interest to continue to demolish houses that become condemned because of "renovations" made by using construction techniques that are not adequate or appropriate for these older homes. The current flurry of "renovation" activity by "flippers" in these neighborhoods (Parkridge is one example) is showing that City codes enforcement is not able to prevent structural damage to older homes. There already is a proposed lawsuit because the exterior walls are collapsing on a house in which the framework was compromised by removing load bearing walls and collar ties.Not only is this problem frightening for the new occupants/owners of such unsafe houses, it is frightening for the older neighborhoods that have struggled to rebound from serious blight created by derelict and condemned houses. The history of neighborhood decline that led to condemnation and subsequent demolition of many older homes was directly related to dividing these older homes into multiple apartments. The structural integrity of houses often was compromised by cutting holes in floor joists and rafters for the sake of running multiple pipes, vents, and wiring to accommodate multiple bathrooms, kitchens, and HVAC systems in houses that originally were built without these kinds of modern conveniences - even for one family. Floor plans also were changed to make apartments, porches were enclosed (even sleeping porches, aka balconies), and additions tacked on to make additional rooms. Anyone who has seen, or worked on, one of these houses knows that there either was little to no oversight from codes enforcement, or adequate codes did not exist when such changes were made.A requirement that before a building permit is issued, an architect or engineer (or both) has to sign off on any plans that propose dividing a house that was constructed as single family home and is 80 or more years old, or is a contributing structure in a National Register of Historic Places District, is one way these problems might be lessened. There simply MUST be a process for someone with demonstrated knowledge about older house construction to review plans (including a site visit) proposed for the substantial changes that have to be made to safely create multiple apartments in these very old houses. In addition, there is a need for opinions from two engineers as to whether or not one of these old homes has to be demolished. Very few of them were built with the kinds of foundations that are used today and some are being unnecessarily demolished because some engineers do not know about the older methods.

While not specifically a zoning issue, I continue to be perplexed at the non-existent curbs and gutters in Knoxville, even on some of our most used and busy arterials. Why can't a substantial portion of the annual budget be designated to care for this?

While I encourage the redevelopment of existing facilities and mixed-use development, I don't think that government should go as far as to regulate landscaping and actual architectural expression in building materials. For example, having an area of mixed use development that requires street level windows or retail is okay, but don't require the building look just like every other building on the block. Also, pedestrian and bike corridors are great where feasible, but if the expense is too great or right-of-way too narrow or restrictive, then there should be exceptions. In other words, encourage it where it's feasible and makes sense, but don't write it into the code everywhere and create an economic burden.Thanks for requesting input!

While I am likely in favor of whatever progressive ideas and goals Recode Knoxville is proposing, I thought the survey was biased. Rather than appearing open to the various ideas and opinions that respondents and the public might have, for several questions, the survey taker was asked to agree or disagree with seemingly positive improvements. If the intent of the survey is to gather the ideas from respondents about different municipal ideas and proposals, then ask for the ideas those respondents might have, or set up a fair Likert scale to gauge one's interest in various ideas. For example, take this question: "Do you support expanding corridors, which were originally [but it read "thoughtlessly"] made for cars, in order to support transportation for bicycles and pedestrians?" It forces someone with a different perspective to disagree, which is an unfair set-up. Instead, a more fair question would ask, "Do you favor future corridor development that favors vehicles or non-automotive transportation?" In this way, the respondent can offer a response to a question that genuinely requests their ideas and opinion.Just something to keep in mind for future survey development. If you truly want others' honest opinions and ideas, then ask for them. Insinuating appropriate or inappropriate responses through biased instrument construction is unlikely to get others on your side.My two cents.

Where can you find the definitions and permissible uses for the new proposed zoning?  I can only find the old ones on Recodeknoxville.com.

when will you answer my questions? When will you send me a newsletter? When will you have a clear recording of the community meeting? When will you be placing project documents in the library in the project docs link? When will the media contact be answering my questions as well? Separate from this form6/22/2017screenshotting this

When new apartment complexes, subdivisions, or other large projects are considered, PLEASE take into account the existing infrastructure. I live off of Bluerass Road in west Knoxville. In the past couple of years, we have had a large subdivision put in on Mourfield Rd, which caused damage to that road (small, 2 lane, no shoulder, windy, and steep), and caused us to go from only having power outages in weather situations to having weekly and occasionally daily power outages while they were building that subdivision. Now there is an apartment complex going in on Emory Church Road that is causing even more issues. We have frequent power outages during construction. Emory Church Road is not a large enough road to accommodate the traffic. The road has almost been destroyed by the construction equipment, and they are in the process of adding a traffic light because of the increase in traffic. That traffic light project has been TERRIBLE. My child attends preschool at West Emory Presbyterian Church, at the corner of Emory Church Road and Westland Dr. The project took over 2 months, rules were not followed, the parking lot was destroyed and partially blocked for nearly a month, and the workers were just plain rude. The light still isn't up, but the turn lane on Westland has been re-painted to accommodate when the light is in effect, making it very difficult to turn left onto Westland. All this to say....the infrastructure should have been addressed BEFORE any of these projects were approved and started. The LCUB substation on Westland Dr. needs to be larger to accommodate the new buildings so that existing customers didn't have to experience 2 years of frequent power outages. The roads should have been widened and supported before construction equipment destroyed them. The light should have been installed before construction on the building projects began.

When is the next meeting?

When businesses use food trucks they should be required to provide electrical hook-up to stop the generator noise. Some food trucks are obnoxiously loud.

What is going to happen with chicken coop rules. Has anything been decided?

What does zone RN-1 mean?

What does this even mean? "Our current zoning ordinance is very rigid and in some cases prevents neighborhoods from achieving their full potential. An updated ordinance can protect the things we value about our neighborhoods and commercial areas while allowing the kinds of smart, sustainable growth that will move Knoxville Forward" What is the definition of full potential, and give me three neighborhood examples of full potential. You're telling me that we can't build sidewalks in neighborhoods? Is this the "full potential?" What are three examples of "smart" growth in a neighborhood in Knoxville. What are three examples of "sustainable growth" in a neighborhood here.

what areas are being rezoned

We recently had a chance to review the second draft of the ordinance, specifically the portion regulating "Food Truck Parks" - Article 9.3 (L). As written, there are several provisions in direct conflict with our existing operations and the new requirements are considerably different from MPC's previous draft of an ordinance for a "Mobile Food Unit Park", which guided the development and approval of our project last year.We are concerned not only for our existing business, but also the ability for future "non-conforming" businesses to have a path to compliance. We have attended several of the public meetings about ReCode, so we're up to speed on the process.

We need to preserve our neighborhood. Please follow the informed recommendations of the OLPNA.

We need to make sure that any commercial or multi-family development includes sufficient parking. People do not come to places where parking is a problem.We appear to have some bike lanes that extend only one or two blocks and do not connect to other bike-friendly roads, such as the bike lane on Knoxville zoo drive. These seem pointless. We need to think about usefulness when we create bike lanes.

We need more not less affordable housing in Knoxville. According to the City and County’s most recent Community Block Development Grant reports, more than 21,000 low to moderate income families in Knox County are paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs. These families live under constant stress of eviction. This high number indicates a crisis in affordable housing in our community. From other information I have gathered, based on growth projections for the city, we need to be building between 3 and 5 affordable housing units per day in our community by 2040. The proposed map put forth by the City Council and the MPC as a result of the ReCode process appears to reduce the potential to build affordable housing in Knoxville. I urge the City Council and the MPC to redesign the map. I appreciate the thoughtfulness in including higher density housing along the corridors, but the drastic reduction in the orange and tan areas of the current map is concerning. I urge the City Council and the MPC to think more carefully about how to encourage affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. I urge the City Council and the MPC to returning some of the orange areas to the zoning map and to include areas on the map which allow for RN3 and RN4 zoning, two new categories created during the ReCode process but not used in the proposed map.

We need more not less affordable housing in Knoxville. According to the City and County's most recent Community Block Development Grant reports, more than 21,000 low to moderate income families in Knox County are paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs. These families live under constant stress. This high number indicates a crisis in affordable housing in our community. From other information I have gathered, based on growth projections for the city, we need to be building between 3 and 5 affordable housing units per day in our community by 2040.The proposed map put forth by the City Council and the MPC as a result of the ReCode process appears to reduce the potential to build affordable housing in Knoxville. I urge the City Council and the MPC to redesign the map. I appreciate the thoughtfulness in including higher density housing along the corridors, but the drastic reduction in the orange and tan areas of the current map is concerning. I urge the City Council and the MPC to think more carefully about how to encourage affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. I urge the City Council and the MPC to return some of the orange areas to the zoning map and to include areas on the map which allow for RN3 and RN4 zoning, two new categories created during the ReCode process but not used in the proposed map.

We need more not less affordable housing in Knoxville. According to the City and County's most recent Community Block Development Grant reports, more than 21,000 low to moderate income families in Knox County are paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs. These families live under constant stress of eviction. This high number indicates a crisis in affordable housing in our community. From other information I have gathered, based on growth projections for the city, we need to be building between 3 and 5 affordable housing units per day in our community by 2040. The proposed map put forth by the City Council and the MPC as a result of the ReCode process appears to reduce the potential to build affordable housing in Knoxville. I urge the City Council and the MPC to redesign the map. I appreciate the thoughtfulness in including higher density housing along the corridors, but the drastic reduction in the orange and tan areas of the current map is concerning. I urge the City Council and the MPC to think more carefully about how to encourage affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. I urge the City Council and the MPC to returning some of the orange areas to the zoning map and to include areas on the map which allow for RN3 and RN4 zoning, two new categories created during the ReCode process but not used in the proposed map.

We need more not less affordable housing in Knoxville. According to the City and County's most recent Community Block Development Grant reports, more than 21,000 low to moderate income families in Knox County are paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs. These families live under constant stress of eviction. This high number indicates a crisis in affordable housing in our community. From other information I have gathered, based on growth projections for the city, we need to be building between 3 and 5 affordable housing units per day in our community by 2040. The proposed map put forth by the City Council and the MPC as a result of the ReCode process appears to reduce the potential to build affordable housing in Knoxville. I urge the City Council and the MPC to redesign the map. I appreciate the thoughtfulness in including higher density housing along the corridors, but the drastic reduction in the orange and tan areas of the current map is concerning. I urge the City Council and the MPC to think more carefully about how to encourage affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. I urge the City Council and the MPC to returning some of the orange areas to the zoning map and to include areas on the map which allow for RN3 and RN4 zoning, two new categories created during the ReCode process but not used in the proposed map.

We need more affordable housing options around downtown and creative thinking to make more healthy density a reality. Sustainable households are more important than boom and bust cycle property appreciation schemes.

We need more affordable housing in Knoxville. Please vote to zone RN-4 one-quarter mile along KAT bus core and local routes. This will permit by right the development of small multifamily housing (2-8 units) throughout the city.

We need MORE affordable housing in Knoxville, particularly RN3 and RN4! We have over 20,000 of our families paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs. I'm hopeful that as our community leaders, you recognize we clearly have a crisis in affordable housing in our community. Instead of being a responsive, conscience-centric approach, the new proposed map from the ReCode process appears to actually reduce the potential to build affordable housing in Knoxville!! Please, please redesign the map! Let's Recode in a manner that honors our community and seeks to serve all of our citizens. RN3 and RN4 would encourage more affordable housing in already-existing neighborhoods, which would be a GOOD approach. Thank you for including the Orange along the more accessible corridors, however we still need more of the higher-density zoning, too. Knoxville is a wonderful place to live, let's make that true for all of our families.

We need more affordable housing in Knoxville not less. Someone who thinks that we need less is truly out of touch.

We need Amtrak and Southwest Airlines! More trains to connect to Nashville, Chatt and Atlanta.

We have owned our property in Fountain City since 1983. When we purchased this property, it had a rental unit, complete with separate utilities, and continues to be so to this day. We have rented out this small basement level apartment on numerous occasions during these years. Our neighborhood is zoned EN, and it appears from the matrix that this rental is not within the zoning requirements. Our home was built in 1946, and the earliest records we have found notes this apartment has been in use since the early 1950's. I would appreciate a clarification on this use.

We have intentionally applied and been granted re-zonings of a number of properties around the downtown perimeter from C-3 to C-2. The proposed zoning is C-G-3. The reason we had these properties re-zoned was due to no to insufficient parking. These properties need to be zoned DK requiring no parking. Examples are 300 West Fifth Ave. and 3 through 23 Emory Place. Please comment. Thank you,

We have evaluated the current draft and respectfully submit the following comments regarding office development in the City of Knoxville:The document would be easier to navigate if all the office districts were collocated; preferably in the commercial district.Clinics and medical office buildings should be a permitted land use within the OP district.Thanks for the opportunity to comment,

We do not need anymore apartments / condos in Inskip. We need more traffic calming and more police presence.

We desperately need sidewalks to connect neighborhoods to each other and to commercial districts for food and entertainment. We also need to bury utilities instead of cutting down trees around the utility lines. This is a never ending cycle. If we make the initial investment (albeit an expensive one) it will pay off in the long run. Obviously the annual expense of tree trimming will be less but it will add value to community both aesthetically and will attract more businesses in the long run. We want to keep Knoxville beautiful and if we keep massacring trees this is not possible!!

We are very surprised by this decision to change 4th and Gill from from Single Family/Duplex (as we are now) to allowing Multi-family and Townhouses. We are in a historic district and have all worked hard to make our neighborhood a desirable place to live. It has been a lifelong commitment for many people in our neighborhood. It seems very random that only our area was selected for this change. Old North Knoxville and many other surrounding areas continue to keep the same zoning they had before. Maybe this change was made in error or maybe it was just made at random but it doesn't seem to be very thought out at all. We would appreciate more information on why this change is happening and the benefits and/or reasons for the change.

We are the Owners of Central Filling Station - the existing food truck park on N Central. We recently had a chance to review the second draft of the ordinance, specifically the portion regulating "Food Truck Parks" - Article 9.3 (L). As written, there are several provisions in direct conflict with our existing operations and the new requirements are considerably different from MPC's previous draft of an ordinance for a "Mobile Food Unit Park", which guided the development and approval of our project last year.We are concerned not only for our existing business, but also the ability for future "non-conforming" businesses to have a path to compliance. We have attended several of the public meetings about ReCode, so we're up to speed on the process.Is someone from MPC able to meet with us to discuss our concerns?

We are currently zoned R1 and with the latest map, it changes us to RN2. So what does that mean exactly and what are the differences from the R1 we currently are zoned.Thank you!

We are at 8701 Unicorn Dr. Right now we are zoned commercial. The current proposal has us going to mixed use. Will that make the taxes for this property go up?

Waterfront code SW2 isn’t supposed to be only residential. Please review SW vision document & drafts language for consistency.

Very displeased at the lack of opportunity for meaningful input when Wellsley Park Apartments were developed across the street (Wellsley Park Rd.) from our subdivision. City officials told us we would have an opportunity for input before site/building plans were approved, and some City officials did meet with us; but it was clear that by the time we were allowed input, the skids had already been greased and the developer's plans were merely a hair's breath away from approval. So our input was perfunctory only--officials at the City just checking off the box--without really listening to or considering our concerns. Among those were building height, traffic and parking, and landscaping. It was criminal that beautiful, mature birch and magnolia trees,which our subdivision had paid for years to maintain, were just bulldozed in constructing the apartments. No consideration was given by the developer to alternatives to save or transplant any of the existing beautiful landscaping along their side of Wellsley Park Rd. This should not be allowed to happen again. Thank you.

Various comments protest prospective rezoning on the basis of the commenter's own judgment about how somebody else's property "should" be used--as enforced by law. For example, one resident states that the city should stop trying to "up-zone" areas eligible for historic or conservation overlay. In fact, the only person who should be deciding how a specific piece of property should be used is the owner of that property, the one with the right of use and control over that property. All zoning laws should be phased out.

Upkeep of side walks is tearable in Knoxville especially in the Ft Sanders area. They are broken up, blocked by brush, low hanging branches, cars parked on them.

Trolleys or public transportation connecting both Downtown North/Happy Holler and South Knox Waterfront to downtown. Encourage small business uses in neighborhoods - neighborhood caf?, bookstore, maker and/or encourage entreprenuership by allowing small biz use in a homes (Apple started in a garage).

Trees Knoxville's mission is to preserve and increase the urban tree canopy on the private and public land of Knoxville and Knox County. The board of Trees Knoxville has voted to endorse the following statement:The benefits of trees and landscaping are well known. A few of these assets include beautification of public spaces, reduced stormwater runoff, reduction of air pollution, and cooler ambient temperatures and shade - both of which enhance walkability. The current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot.Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.Landscaped buffer zones between parking lots and residential development should be 15' wide rather than 10' wide.Tree selection is tied to a list of approved trees maintained by the City Tree Board. To insure high quality, a similar list should be specified for the selection of shrubs, grasses, ground covers, etc. Both lists should be tied to landscaping requirements throughout the Recode ordinance. Thank you.

TOPIC 3.27:  HP HILLSIDE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT:  8.5, B., Applicability, page 8-8.  "These regulations apply to all lots within the HP Overlay District, with the exception of existing single-family homes and existing lots of record for a single-family dwelling existing as of the effective date of this Code." REQUEST:  Define "lots of record".QUESTION:  Does the underlined language, which was added in Draft 3, provide a large loop-hole?  Does it mean that, for instance, a 10-acre lot zoned RN-1 (R-1), with a Hillside Protection Overlay at the effective date of the code, is exempt from the regulations, and can be excavated without regard to Hillside Protection?  Following excavation, can the 10-acre lot be subdivided into smaller lots? If so, there would be no meaningful hillside protection of large residential parcels.  What is the rationale for this significant change?8.5, A., Purpose, Page 8-8.REQUEST:  The “Purpose” statement refers to the word “development.”  In order to make it explicitly clear what is meant by “development” and how the Hillside Protection Overlay Zoning District applies to the protection of property, please add to the end of the Purpose section 8.5, A. the entire definition of Development as defined in Article 2, 2.3, Page 2-6 as follows:  “Development.  The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure, any mining, excavation, landfill or land disturbance, or any alteration of land.”8.5, D. Site Plan Review, page 8-8.  "All development of property zoned residential within the HP Overlay District is subject to site plan review per Section 15.5."QUESTION:  Is site plan review intended to only apply to property zoned "residential", and not to property zoned office, commercial or industrial?Please see Community Forum comments regarding Section 15.5, Site plan review TOPIC 3.18, 10-31-18.TOPIC 3.28:  GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS:  10.1, E., Utility and Maintenance Easements, page 10-1. REQUEST:  Define "utility and maintenance easements"  QUESTION:  What is prohibited?  All structures--principal and accessory?  Are temporary structures permitted? QUESTION:  What is a "stormwater pond"?  Are all stormwater facilities prohibited or just retention and detention ponds?TOPIC 3.29:  ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES:  10.3, T., Outdoor Sales and Display (Accessory), page 10-11. QUESTION:  "These regulations apply only to outdoor sales and display located on the lot."    Should it say "....on the lot with the principal use." T. 1. applies to all Retail Goods Establishments in all nonresidential zoning districts, as long as the merchandise is customarily sold on the premises.The outdoor sale and display of merchandise in the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-G (General Commercial) zoning districts should be more tightly regulated. REQUEST:  Consider limiting Outdoor Sales and Display (Accessory), in both the N-C and C-G zoning districts.  Consider adding language similar to T. 5. c. and d, for N-C and C-G zoning districts.The existing C-3, General Commercial zoning district, which lines many of Knoxville's arterials, does not allow outdoor display of merchandise (Article IV, 2.2.6, D. 8) and the language specifically regulating each use makes clear that the C-3 zoning district is meant to be indoor retail and uses.  (Article IV, 2.2.6).  In fact, that is the clear difference between C-3 and C-4 (Article IV, 2.2.7) zoning districts.  The C-1 zoning district limits the range of commercial uses. (Article IV, 2.2.4).Related to TOPIC 3.29:  PURPOSE STATEMENTS, ARTICLE 5, 5.1, A. Commercial Districts, page 5-1.REQUEST/QUESTION:  A. 1.  C-N:  Define "commercial uses" and "service uses".   Is it supposed to say "retail and personal service" as stated in C-G?A.2. C-G:  The Purpose Statement should make clear that indoor uses are intended in this district.We would be happy to discuss these topics along with anything in our previously submitted responses at any time.Sincerely,Larry Silverstein, ChairpersonCommunity Forum

Too many parks and greenways, You should do full studies of what age groups, and how many people use these facilities. The streets were made to drive on. Fix the pot holes. Pave the roads, they are in terrible shape. Stop wasting money on bicycle lanes, and unnecessary landscaping.Stop bringing in outside "experts" from big cities that don understand what the taxpayers really want

Today’s issue: The Use Matrix does not include Educational Facilities- primary or secondary or Government Office/Facility as uses allowed in the INST zone.  This is not consistent with the INST Purpose Statement or with the proposed zoning map. There is an easy fix: make a few more Ps on the use matrix in the INST column. On the other hand, some government facilities are more industrial. Most of the City public works facility is proposed as I-H (though some is I-G), as are the two KUB wastewater treatment plants and the City solid waste facility. The County Public Works facility on Baxter, the KUB shops on Middlebrook, and the KAT shops at Fifth and Jessamine are zoned I-G. I think these facilities should have industrial zoning, but for the sake of consistency, the TDOT facility at the Strawberry Plains Pike exit, the KUB water plant (Sandis Lane), the National Guard facility on Sutherland, and the County Parks shop at the end of Booth Street should be zoned similarly (I would suggest I-G). And there are probably a few more out there.And if we take this approach, the INST Purpose Statement should be revised to exclude these industrial institutions:  “The INST Institutional District is intended to accommodate federal, state, county, and municipal governmental operations with the exception of those operations that are industrial in nature, and campus institutional uses…”

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

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

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

To Whom It May Concern:My address is going from RP-1 to RN-1.I don’t see any references to RP-1 in your cross-references.  Can someone elaborate?  So, there is not an Planned Residential any longer?  Or the commercial areas will have their own zone now?  So, there will not be any new commercial development on our RN-1 zoning?  (we hope).

To whom it may concernI am a resident of Knoxville and spend a lot of time in east Knoxville. I am really glad to see the work being done on Magnolia but I am definitely against changing the zoning along Magnolia to single family. I think this will create many hardships for people living in this area and even impact transit service.Thank you for taking this into consideration.

To the Recode Knoxville team:I recently attended a Recode Knoxville meeting on August 23, 2018 at TVUUC. The MPC staff answered many zoning questions to the best of their ability. What they could not answer is why the rush to make these major changes. Gerald Green of MPC said the driving force was developers and the Mayor. Affordable housing was also in this mix of reasons for zoning changes.I am very concerned about the R-1 and R-2 proposed zoning changes for Sequoyah Hills. There is nothing in the proposed zoning to protect our neighborhood from additional outbuilding for Airbnbs or Short Term Rentals. We already have Long Term Rentals for UTK students with their cars parked on the streets. Not a good situation for our neighborhood. Now this rush to rezone is going to result in more disruption to a lovely neighborhood. I urge you to delay this push to rezone the City of Knoxville until there has been more time to learn about and question these proposed changes. Rezoning driven by developers is not in our community's best interests.

To MPC StaffThe Fourth & Gill Neighborhood Board of Directors opposes the proposed revision of our neighborhood zoning as found on the 2nd draft map of Recode Knoxville and would request that MPC staff revise the mapping and return to a recommendation of RN2 for Fourth & Gill as depicted in the first draft map. This request comes after an almost unanimous vote by the Directors. We feel that RN2 most closely reflects our current R1A status and would like to transition to the new code in that fashion. We have also asked neighbors to respond directly with comments to your website. Please contact me if you have any questions.

To follow up on our meeting two weeks ago, we have attached a revised draft of the ReCODE language concerning Mobile Food Unit Parks. Most of the revisions came from combining the previous MPC draft ordinance and the ReCODE public draft v2.0. We also removed any redundancies and brought the terminology in line with the City's existing MFU Ordinance.The only substantial changes we have suggested are:1.) Removing the min/max lot size requirement from the MPC draft ordinance. The maximum number of MFUs per parcel should sufficiently regulate the density of MFUs and the types of lots that would be viable.2.) Removing the requirement for MFUs to leave the park at the end of each day from the ReCODE draft. The existing MFU ordinance already requires MFUs parked on private property to leave each day, and does not require MFUs to visit a commissary. The only instance where an MFU could legally remain on the private property where it operates would be at a permitted MFU Park, which will have been reviewed, inspected, and permitted by the office of Plans Review and Inspections. There will be a designated operator on site during all hours of operation to address any concerns or complaints. The health, safety, and welfare concerns of each MFU's food service operation are already regulated by the Health Department. We feel very strongly that the ability to offer longer term leases to individual MFUs within a permitted MFU Park is critical to their financial viability. 3.) Adding a requirement for all MFU Parks to provide shore power for all MFUs. We feel like this has been incredibly successful in eliminating any neighborhood concerns about these types of projects becoming a nuisance. Eliminating mobile generators keeps this use much more in line with the other uses permitted in commercial zoning districts and the development cost of providing the power should not be prohibitive. Please review and let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks again for taking the time to hear us out.

To follow up on our meeting two weeks ago, we have attached a revised draft of the ReCODE language concerning Mobile Food Unit Parks. Most of the revisions came from combining the previous MPC draft ordinance and the ReCODE public draft v2.0. We also removed any redundancies and brought the terminology in line with the City's existing MFU Ordinance.The only substantial changes we have suggested are:1.) Removing the min/max lot size requirement from the MPC draft ordinance. The maximum number of MFUs per parcel should sufficiently regulate the density of MFUs and the types of lots that would be viable.2.) Removing the requirement for MFUs to leave the park at the end of each day from the ReCODE draft. The existing MFU ordinance already requires MFUs parked on private property to leave each day, and does not require MFUs to visit a commissary. The only instance where an MFU could legally remain on the private property where it operates would be at a permitted MFU Park, which will have been reviewed, inspected, and permitted by the office of Plans Review and Inspections. There will be a designated operator on site during all hours of operation to address any concerns or complaints. The health, safety, and welfare concerns of each MFU's food service operation are already regulated by the Health Department. We feel very strongly that the ability to offer longer term leases to individual MFUs within a permitted MFU Park is critical to their financial viability. 3.) Adding a requirement for all MFU Parks to provide shore power for all MFUs. We feel like this has been incredibly successful in eliminating any neighborhood concerns about these types of projects becoming a nuisance. Eliminating mobile generators keeps this use much more in line with the other uses permitted in commercial zoning districts and the development cost of providing the power should not be prohibitive. Please review and let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks again for taking the time to hear us out.

Tiny homes need to be allowable. Currently they are not.

Though patches of RN-3 and RN-4 now occur on the map in the outer rings of downtown, most existing neighborhoods remain RN-2. I feel these neighborhoods should be zoned a higher density, like RN-3. However, if they are to remain RN-2, I believe they should permit duplex development by right. I suggest RN-2 AND RN-1 be modified to permit duplex development because they would allow increased (from that currently proposed) housing opportunities. The ReCode team has consistently proposed lower density in these neighborhoods than is currently permitted, which counter-acts many well-researched studies demonstrating that the "missing middle" housing is at the core of our nation's housing crisis. If this code is to be sustainably productive, it should permit some "missing middle" opportunity in these neighborhoods (Mechanicsville, Oakwood/Lincoln Park, etc).

This property has been in my family over 70 years. Since the property up to Stone Road on Chapman Highway is zoned commercially, is there a possibility that our property would ever be zoned commercially. I have viewed your proposed zoning and it looks like the zoning laws will stay the same (residential) Do I have this correct? Thank you .

This may be unrealistic, but I would like to see solar cells erected over parking lots before anyone goes out and covers potential productive farmland with them. I envision a grid of 16 - 20 ft tall poles, the whole thing stabilized with guy wires anchored around the perimeter, supporting solar cells to provide shade in the summer, and power without the need for additional distribution infrastructure. A solar farm elsewhere requires maintenance to keep down and kill vegetation that otherwise would take over (or else you have to pave the thing), and lines and right-of-way to bring the power into the city.

This is your chance to really make a positive impact on the future of our community. I have a Master's Degree in Bioregional Planning, but got too depressed by the field- essentially just bowing to developers, so I know a little bit of what you're up against. It's a delicate balance. I bought a new house in an old neighborhood 9 years ago and ride my bike to work every day. Infill development is critical- sometimes it happens from developers like it did in my case, but most often it needs to be encouraged and incentivized. Mixed use is key. Connectivity. Sidewalks, bike lanes or at least shoulders or bikeable roads, greenways. Do what needs to be done to make transit a more viable option for people. Developers need to pay into the infrastructure and should be required to have sidewalks or other connectivity. Limit dead-ends. People should have options of how to get to home and to work etc- both in terms of mode of transport, and in terms of which direction to take- not only one way in and one way out which is far too common in Knoxville and every community in this country. Thanks for your efforts. I'm happy to help how I can.

This is way too complicated. The sheer length of the Design Standards alone will drive away development and prolong the ability of staff to make timely decisions.I find it hard to believe that we're going to have Design Standards for single-family housing and fences now. The 34 pages of Design Standards has already run off a potential developer for a small M-F project in an O-1 zone. This is not realistic and the design standards being used work in high-density, heavily populated urban environments, where the additional cost can be justified by higher prices and rents, but not in this market. Nice job Knoxville...nothing brings a booming economic expansion to a grinding halt like new regulations...and right now, it is just painting a picture of uncertainty. No one can move forward with purchases for new developments, because they're unsure of what they may get hit with, when it comes time to develop the property.

This concerns a property that doesn't currently have an address, but is listed on KGIS Map as Parcel ID:107FG04101. It is on the east side of Hollywood Road, south of the I-40 right-of-way, adjacent to 617 Hollywood road in the Pond Gap community.In Ordinance No. O-124-2018, the City Council rezoned the property to RP-1 with one condition, and I want to make sure that the condition, SLPA, is carried forward to the new property. (reference MPC File No. 7-B18-RZ)

This comment pertains to E. Fifth Ave. in Park City, which is part of Knoxville's largest national register of historic places. I want to see increased density in this area, but without design guidelines to protect our historic structures, I believe RN-4 is an inappropriate zoning as it leaves the historic homes vulnerable to demolition and inappropriate alterations and the community with little voice for development of empty lots. I would fully support RN-4 if H-1 were also put in place. I would also support H-1 guidelines that provide an easy path for multi-family infill housing.

This allowance should only be for species native to Knox County.

These comments are submitted regarding the second draft of Recode Knoxville. Please refer to the attached letter.We agree totally with the comments and recommendations of the Community Forum and are providing an additional copy of those as well.Sincerely,Jamie Rowe

There's no public transportation past Cedar Bluff and it's difficult if you live out there and have a job in town. I would love to see it expanded and/or a commuter system for high volumn times from West and North to downtown.

There seems to be a popular trend to getting dogs and locking them up either in the house for longs hours or in a fenced yard with no care, exercise, or training. Who do I call when I am surrounded by barking dogs almost non-stop while folks are away and many times home leaving them unattended? I have two on one side, one on the other and four behind me-these are put out around 5:30AM and bark for sometime till they calm down and start up again anytime I am in my own back yard garden trying to work or enjoy it. While one set of neighbors has owned and adapted to stop theirs the other two won't respond to pleas or any amount of talking.And the one with one dog also has drunken parties on the screened in porch right outside my bedroom window along with dog running back and forth underneath it.Help!I have lived downtown all my adult life and until now everyone understood how to get along and be considerate of close living with neighbors. I do not know who to call and how to get anything done about this.Animal control came and they just lied and begged off and nothing changed.My quality of life as well as lack of sleep has lead me to almost sell and leave many times but who would buy a house when they come to look at it and hear all this noise!?

There is so much talk of Knoxville becoming a second-tier city, and we are on so many "best of" lists. We need to improve our infrastructure and overall appeal to keep up with this. Most of Kingston Pike is hideous, especially as you travel through west Knox. I strongly support sign and landscaping improvements. We should use cities like Charleston and Charlotte as examples. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

There is an issue with minimum lot sizes not matching existing lot sizes in the city. RN-3 and RN-4 are the densest residential zones near the corridors, and they are less dense than the historic city grid. There has been much talk about zoning by current use so that these houses will be conforming to the new code, but if you look at the only swathes of RN-3 and RN-4 just north of downtown and well within walking distance (surrounding Baxter @ Central and West end of Gill), the lot widths are 40', 42', 37', 30', (even 22'!) etc. Even in Fourth and Gill there are many lots less than 50' and are thus nonconforming. RN-3 and RN-4 both require 50' minimum for a single family. So as it exists, what appears to be the densest housing areas near downtown and within walking distance to jobs do not permit even single family development. I own a lot on Hinton Ave, on which I currently plan to build a duplex. With the current proposal, I could build no housing at all. I know of another planned development in this area, a quad-plex, which is currently permitted but would not be under the proposed ReCode. Even on this property, a block in from Central and over 60' wide, a maximum of only three units can be built. This result seems both counterproductive and contrary to the goals of your research. I have not reviewed this condition in other areas of the city, so please look closer at this issue elsewhere. It is difficult enough to find one lot for purchase in the area, so anticipating the combination of lots for greater opportunity is not viable. One solution may be to match the required minimum lot width with the existing grid in city neighborhoods, or allowing for an exception for historic widths. Another thought is that these areas near the intersection of Broadway and Central could become a commercial or I-MU district, which has no minimum width and now permits single-family, and matches the historic use of this area. Also, while checking the I-MU district for applicability in these areas, I noticed that single family and multi-family are permitted, but townhouses and duplexes are not. Is there a reason to dis-incentive the middle-density options?

There is a five-foot buffer strip on the west side of Sherrod Road, south of Mimosa that was left in the R-2 zoning when the eastern portion of the Kerns property was rezoned in 1982. The current zoning map very clearly shows that the R-2 zoning extends to the west side of Sherrod Road. The recode map does not show this. This was done at City Council, July 6, 1982. This was done to prevent increased traffic on Sherrod should access to the Kerns property be allowed from Sherrod Road. Sherrod road is a narrow, winding road that cannot take anymore traffic than that of the residents.

There are several empty old business that line all the way down chapman highway that could help boost the economy of this town if they were cleaned up and used to bring business (local and nonlocal). At a glance the majority of Chapman highway is run down and an ugly site to look at. If this area were to be cleaned up that could bring many new businesses and possible new places of residency could help give local residents and college students more options without having to sacrifice being away from businesses. This area is horrible and needs to be cleaned up!!

There are several C-2 buildings in the downtown perimeter (see north block of Emory Place) with no ability for parking. The proposed zoning is C-G-3 requires parking. Grandfathering will not protect redevelopment or casualty loss. I propose we add a zoning that corrects this condition. DK Perimeter or DK Annex which describes properties in close proximity to downtown requiring no parking. Most specifically Downtown North/ Broadway/ Central Corridor. Many of these properties were recently re-zoned to C-2 for this very reason. I do not think we should be asked to seek variances when we can fix the issue on the front end.

There are numerous pockets of residential in North Knoxville that contain viable low-mod income/ 1920s-1940s more affordable housing stock that are zoned Industrial, Commercial or Office. A quick scan of the Sector Plans show that these pockets are recommended to be utilized as MU or TDR or remain as LI. However, the largest area of intact housing zoned non-residential is just north of Parkridge between Hoitt and I-40, which is recommended by both the Sector Plan and the One-Year plan to be utilized as Heavy IndustriaI (HI). It is a residential cluster surrounded by warehouses. There is a shortage of low-to-mod income housing. Many of the industrially-zoned residential areas are zoned with an IH-1 Overlay- -which implies that there is an intent to protect the residential character within the industrial zones.Additionally, there are also some important contributing resources within the National Register and local historic districts that are zoned for non-residential use, possibly because they abut other commercial uses/districts or are utilized for multi-family, but most are being used for single-family housing. The properties include those located within the Old North Knox, Fourth and Gill, Mechanicsville and Edgewood-Park City H-1 overlays and the Fort Sanders NC-1 Overlay. Following is an internal link to the file that contains GIS maps of all these areas: G:shared1-HZCZoning Code updatesResidential uses zoned as non-residential in NorthKnox

There appears to be no accommodation for in patient services related to behavioral health/temporary incarceration in the definition of the Office District. Yet, the area that includes the properties owned and operated by Helen Ross McNabb at 3343 Dewine Road appears to continue to be defined as Office. Is it reasonable to assume that these activities will not be considered appropriate in Office districts in the future. If so, what District will they be permitted in?

The zoning change for my address goes from R-1 to RN-1. I know that R-1 means single family dwelling. What does adding the N do to that meaning? Also, if I wanted to subdivide my .97 acres and put a second dwelling on it, does or will my zoning permit that? I look forward to your response. Have a great weekend.

The two properties at 1702 (Parcel 082PG001) and 1704 Washington Ave. (Parcel 082PG002) are shown as R4, but should be R2 as the properties do not contain multiple units.

The survey is great. Glad we are starting to think "outside the box". It is likely that some survey takers will feel the questions lead to the desired responses. I felt that way but agree with where the questions led me.

The sidewalks in Fort Sanders, especially on Clinch and Laurel are cracked and crumbling. Cars are parked at yellow curbs, bus stops on Clinch.

The section 3. b. below requires front-loaded garages to be setback from the front facade no less than four feet in a RN1 zone. I know of many houses that have garages in front of the front facade. I don't see the need for this requirement. Would the hundreds of houses that don't meet this requirement be grandfathered in the adoption language of the ordinance when adopted?3. Garagesa. Front-loaded attached garages are limited to 40% of the width of the front building line. Garage width is measure between garage doors; in the case of garages designed with multiple garage doors the distance is measure between the edges of the outmost doors.b. Attached garages with front facing garage door openings must be set back from the front façade of the structure no less than four feet.

The recode should include More Affordable Housing.

The public currently has access to Draft 3 of the ordinance and map with an understanding that MPC workshops are being held in November to make changes to that draft. I think it is in the interest of transparency, due process, and the public benefit to allow at least 3 weeks for the public to review a subsequent draft before the MPC votes to push the recode plan to City Council. In addition, I believe it's both reasonable and necessary to offer 3 public meetings during this 3 week period for the public to ask questions and voice concerns about the next draft.

The properties 2214-2226 Riverside and 0 Mohawk, 2217 Mohawk, and 2315 Birdsong would be appropriate for an infill pocket neighborhood as described in RN-4 guidelines.

The properties 2214-2226 Riverside and 0 Mohawk, 2217 Mohawk, and 2315 Birdsong would be appropriate for an infill pocket neighborhood as described in RN-4 guidelines.

The properties 2214-2226 Riverside and 0 Mohawk, 2217 Mohawk, and 2315 Birdsong would be appropriate for an infill pocket neighborhood as described in RN-4 guidelines.

The properties 2214-2226 Riverside and 0 Mohawk, 2217 Mohawk, and 2315 Birdsong would be appropriate for an infill pocket neighborhood as described in RN-4 guidelines.

The properties 2214-2226 Riverside and 0 Mohawk, 2217 Mohawk, and 2315 Birdsong would be appropriate for an infill pocket neighborhood as described in RN-4 guidelines.

The properties 2214-2226 Riverside and 0 Mohawk, 2217 Mohawk, and 2315 Birdsong would be appropriate for an infill pocket neighborhood as described in RN-4 guidelines.

The presentation demonstrates a strong move in the right direction. Thank you for your time. I will be keeping up to date with further updates and I look forward to the change. If I think of any ideas or if I see any potential issues, then I will contact your organization and let you know. Thanks again!

The Park City Preservation Alliance (PCPA) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of the places, stories, history, and culture of the people of, in, and near Historic Park City, Tennessee.The PCPA Board of Directors have agreed on the following recommendations for ReCode:1. OS-1 should be retained as an option to conserve historic, archaeological, and cultural values of open space, rather than merged into the new OS that does not reflect these important land uses.2. The Historic Zoning Commission should be granted authority to allow variances for rehabilitation and habitation of documented historic accessory structures that may be non-conforming under new zoning ordinances.3. The Historic Zoning Commission should be granted authority to allow variances to permit re-building of the foundations of lost, documented historic accessory structures to allow future, code compliant construction of habitable accessory dwelling units.Sincerely,Park City Preservation Alliance Board of DirectorsPresident, Greta SchmoyerVice President, James WaldrupTreasurer, Ed StricklandSecretary, Tanner Jessel

The parcel on Brooks Ave between 2110 and 2116 should be zoned commercial also. As proposed, it renders 2116 practically useless  for commercial purposes because of its size and being isolated. The same issue arises regarding the parcel between 2110 and 2116, because no one would place a residence between these two commercial parcels.To stimulate light commercial development, and avoid another vacant and blighted property which would result in negative valuations: This parcel should zoned commercial.

The new zoning proposed in the areas surrounding Sterchi Elementary School will negatively impact our north Knoxville community. The school is already over crowded and students are attending classes in portables. The last portable taking the place of the basketball court. The influx of this multi family housing units will also create more traffic and commuting issues in the already backed up areas of merchants and cedar lane. It's important for our community to grow and flourish but also take care of it's already established residents and their children. By adding these multi family units and bringing in a possible 700 housing units it would change the Sterchi community and school for the worse. People move to this area to have a sense of community and I hope the city of Knoxville and MPC will understand the importance of listening to established residents on how these changes will impact them.

The need for sidewalks down broadway in fountain city is off the charts. Residents in scooters and those walking are at risk. So many businesses are very close, yet residents are forced to drive everywhere, increasing the need for parking and increasing heavy traffic snafus.

The latest draft has changed the zoning of the neighborhood I live in, Fourth and Gill, from RN2 to RN4. I very much oppose this and do not feel RN4 is appropriate for our neighborhood based on the majority of the use of the homes now and lot sizes. I request that we be put back to RN2.

The language supporting OS-1 (Open Space Preservation District) is still being dropped from the current ReCode draft 4 ordinance. This is a mistake. Attached are detailed comments on this issue. 

The Knoxville-Knox County Food Policy Council has NOT voted on a recommendation at this time and date. They individually have provided some general feedback to some City and County in advance of the deadline which I am summarizing below:They are supportive and in favor of changes regarding food, farmers markets, and urban agriculture as included. There were concerns about ambiguity of farm stands/seasonal produce stands and ensuring the language is clear and consistent in references. They also felt like it may be beneficial to have a presentation from the consultant on specific food-related items in the next phase.

The Knoxville Tree Board has had an opportunity to review the second draft of Recode Knoxville and we appreciate your incorporating some of our past comments in the redraft. Below are the comments that the Tree Board is providing on the second draft. The Tree Board looks forward to working with you on incorporating these comments as Recode moves forward. We have also had an opportunity to review the technical comments provided by Knoxville's Urban Forester and fully support these comments.City of Knoxville Tree Board Comments for Recode Knoxville Draft 2 1. Article 12 still needs to have an individual within the green industry (Landscape architect, Certified arborist, horticulture specialist, etc.) review plans and insure compliance. This is a position that many communities such as Nashville and Chattanooga has in place. The purpose of having this position is not to ensure aesthetics of the landscaping but to minimize costs of having to replace improper landscaping, ensure the economic and community benefits of landscaping are achieved through the design, and prevent unnecessary costs to utilities and the City from improper designs. This position allows engineering and building inspectors to review items of their expertise and allow the landscaping being review by the right professional as well. 2. 12.2.D Alternative compliance measure should include measure to allow mitigation or compliance off site if determined significant hardships exist to get compliance. This is likely something that all parties would agree to and is not considered any additional regulation or reduction in regulation. Many communities allow developers to pay into a bank to have trees or landscaping installed in alternative locations to meet the public and environmental benefits of landscaping.3. Section 12.9 should have similar language as the Tree Protection ordinance in defining the Tree Preservation Zone. 4. 12.9 Focus of preservation should be about groups of trees and not individuals. See purpose of this entire zoning code. Article 1.2.G "Preserve open space and natural areas, reduce traffic congestion, utilize existing infrastructure and resources, and preserve quality of life". 5. 12.9.B should allow for 100% of the screening to be form existing trees if conserved. This would allow for groupings of trees to be preserved on sites, while still meeting the objectives. Need to stop thinking only about aesthetics. 6. 12.9 How do you ensure survivability if bonds are being removed from the Article. If landscape is not bonded, can bonding requirement be shifted over from other parts of a development to ensure compliance?7. Is there any reference to the Tree Protection Ordinance? This should occur as there are also requirements within a development that occur in the TPO that all need addressed and overlap this zoning code.

The houses along Claiborne Place in the Edgewood Park Neighborhood have a lot of character. Unfortunately, they don't have the historic overlay to protect them. Please rezone the houses along Claiborne Place to RN-2. These houses also add to the serenity of the park, the library, and the senior center. I don't understand how allowing higher density housing along this street would preserve the character of these houses and the neighborhood.

The following is feedback from Forest Heights Neighborhood. We have created a focus group of neighbors (including both FHNA board members as well as other neighbors not representing the board) to analyze and discuss the proposed ordinance and how it affects our neighborhood. The members of the committee were: Jim Pryor, Amy Hathaway, Martie and John Ulmer, Joe Hickman, Leslie Badaines, and Amy Midis. Thank you!Uses Permitted in the RN-1 District:1. Home Occupations is broadly defined in the proposed ordinance and specific standards previously used to in the current ordinance to differentiate Home Occupations from Home Offices have not been incorporated into the draft. We feel that the current definitions and their standards for both Home Office and Home Occupation should be added to the proposed ordinance. 2. The definition of a Group Home should be more detailed and should be allowed only as a special use in all residential districts.3. The existing draft permits Day Care Homes in all residential districts. The State currently regulates Group Day Care Homes (8-12 unrelated children) and Family Day Care Homes (5 - 7 unrelated persons up to age 17). Our existing ordinance defines "Day nursery: private" as having 6 or more unrelated children, therefore allowing fewer that 6 children by right. We request that the Day Care Homes be defined in the new zoning ordinance as 6 or fewer children, and a separate classification of Day Care Homes be defined and allowed only as a "Special Use" in all residential districts. Zoning Request for 4002 - 4216 Sutherland Avenue:1. The properties from 4002 Sutherland Avenue west to 4216 Sutherland Avenue are currently zoned either Residential or Office. Since residential houses in Forest Heights are located across the street from these properties, the intensity of the use of these properties directly affect our neighborhood. We recommend that the businesses currently zoned O-1 retain their "O" or Office zoning and the single family residences are zoned the same residential zoning designation as our neighborhood. Administrative Modifications:1. The Zoning Administrator is given authority in 15.4C to grant a 10% or less modification to any zoning district dimensional standard in this Code. We request that for modifications granted in residential districts, that the adjoining neighbor who could be affected by this approval be notified in advance of its approval. This is most important with regards to setbacks and maximum height restrictions.

The following is feedback from a focus group created from the members of the City of Knoxville Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC). The focus group members were Rob Glass, Anna Compton, Molly Conaway, Jennifer Reynolds, and Amy Midis. Thank you!Comments Regarding Recode KnoxvilleNeighborhood Advisory Focus GroupMembers: Anna Compton, Molly Conaway, Rob Glass, Amy Midis, Jennifer Reynolds1. We feel that the minimum lot square footage for the EN-1 residential district should be reduced from 22,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. (Article 4.3, Table 4-1)2. We feel like allowing ADUs on lot sizes of 5000 square feet is too small, and recommend the lot size be increased to a minimum of 7000 square feet. (Article 10.3B)3. The existing draft permits Day Care Homes in all residential districts. Since no specific standards are provided regarding this use, it appears that regulatory control of these businesses is by the State of Tennessee. We would like to see the draft include local standards for Day Care Homes in the ordinance and not let the State dictate the intensity of this use. Furthermore, we would not permit day care homes that allow more than 6 children not related to the owners. (Article 2.3)4. We like the idea of non-residential reuses being allowed in the new draft, however, we would like to see the new buildings be updated to new code standards, as well as installing buffers to help distance the property from residential properties. (Article 9.3W)5. We request that the Class B buffer require one evergreen ever 10 feet, and not ever 20 feet. (Article 12.9C)6. We request more graphs or pictures in the ordinance to visualize the concept of ADUs. (Article 10.3B)

The entire streetscapes section has been deleted, with a note that it "should" be moved to the subdivision ROW standards. What if any plans have been made to do this? I acknowledge that this section has problems, but a better solution would be to leave it in Recode and then come back and rework it as needed rather than to just delete it with a vague promise that it will go elsewhere.

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

The City should help to educate the public about the importance of adaptive reuse and other preservation-related topics and activities. The message should include 1) the idea that everyone benefits from preservation activities ("It's not just for do-gooders"), and 2) preservation is good economics -- that it attracts people and businesses, and that it is cheaper to reuse/repurpose than to tear down and rebuild.The City's education effort would reinforce and support the work of other preservation-minded entities (like Knox Heritage, neighborhood organizations, and committed individuals). This broad-based education program is important because the issues are complex, and many (most?) people are not actively involved with them and may not understand them. This is a legitimate role for government.

The city has gone overboard with sign regulation, governing out of fear of billboards and distractions to our scenic beauty so much so that it has paralyzed ALL signage. Those fears can be regulated and managed without stopping practically all signage. I am an adminstrator at a large church in the city that hosts and provides many community and educational functions for the neighborhood and city. Yet we have to resort to temporary vinyl banner signs to promote because of the fear of electronic billboards in the city. There should be a governmental/non-profit category that would allow information center boards with lots of rules/regulations about no scrolling/flashing, brightness, change rate, etc. but still be ALLOWED. Much like the Knoxville Convention Center message board, more of a power point type display with full color and decent resolution. This category could include the grandfathered Civic Coliseum and the Convention Center and be used by churches and Boys/Girls Clubs, Knoxville Museum of Art, etc. We are not selling cigarettes or lottery tickets but providing information to the community for the betterment of all.This has become an emotional/political hot potato topic and it shouldn't be. Let us be a trial/test case. We have money in escrow from a generous donation for such a sign, but have been waiting for a break in the moratorium/no exceptions climate to seek our chance to put up such a sign. We would love to be a part of this conversation.

The Broadway Corridor Task Force respectfully submits our general comments/requests regarding the Zoning Code below. We have compiled a formal document (which may be more legible with diagrams and text formatting) that also include our parcel and/or "area specific" comments which have been submitted/requested within the Draft 1 map over the past few weeks. We will send this complete document via email this evening (September 20th), once complete. Thank you, James Ryan & Kyle Anne Lang, BCTF Co-ChairsCOMMENTS OF SUPPORT:We support:- The allowance of mixed-use (residential over commercial/office) along the Broadway Corridor. - Build-To-Zones along Broadway in order to encourage a more 'urban edge' along the corridor, as well as force parking to be located at the side, or more preferably the rear of buildings.- Current landscape buffering requirements between commercial and residential properties. - Commercial Design Standards (especially in relation to the Broadway Corridor)- CN designation for properties along E Woodland, across from Physician's Regional Medical Center. (904 E Woodland; 1034 E Woodland)- CN designation used as a buffer between high density (and/or DK zoning) and single family residences, as well as appropriate pockets along a commercial corridor.- Reduced parking requirements for pedestrian-oriented zones (however request additional reductions, see below)GENERAL COMMENTS: Parking Requirements related to Transit and/or Transit Oriented DevelopmentIn addition to current parking requirement reductions as associated with C-N and certain C-G zones, we would ask MPC and Recode to consider a parking reduction for developments within a certain distance to a public transportation stop/center (IE the Broadway Shopping Center) to encourage more Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use Development.? Office Space Inconsistent Setbacks, Change to C-G-2Office zoning along Broadway (and other urban corridors) should have minimum front, side, and rear setbacks that match adjacent Commercial parcels. C-N, and C-G-1, 2 and 3 all allow no minimum front setback or 0' - which would create strange conditions along corridor where one parcel may be Commercial and an adjacent one Office. This would not allow for a consistent 'urban edge' along the street, where one building may have a 0' setback, and then the adjacent building is required to step back 15' just because it is Office zoning. In looking further into the differences between Office and C-G-2 zoning, we see no reason why Office zoning is necessary along Broadway, and even noticed some non-compliance with proposed Office Zoning (for example, Independent Living facilities zoned Office that does not allow this use). Therefore, we request all currently proposed Office zoning along Broadway be zoned as C-G-2. In general, the BCTF questions whether an Office zone is a redundant zone to the new OP zone, since Offices are a compliant use within the C-G zones.If for some reason this change is not possible, we suggest an Office Zone subsidiary for urban corridors (such as O-2 or O-Urban) that has no minimum front setback, to allow for office zoning adjacent to C-N or C-G parcels to have the same setback, as well as allow no minimum interior side setback to allow for zero-lot lines when adjacent to Commercial zoning. We also request that the build-to zone match any neighboring property - in Broadway's case, generally C-G-2 - therefore a 0' to 10' build-to-zone. Potential allowances could/should be made for existing churches and historic residences that have been converted to office functions - however this may need to require historic overlays.Affected Office Properties Along Broadway (and Woodland):815 N Broadway; 215 Bearden Place (current use noncompliant as office); 901 N Broadway; 949 N Broadway; 826 N Broadway; 830 N Broadway; 834 N Broadway; 1207 N Broadway; 1216 N Broadway; 1303 N Broadway; 1323 N Broadway; 2909 N Broadway; 3101 N Broadway; 3111 N Broadway; 3127 N Broadway; 818 E Woodland; 1306 N Broadway; 2921 N BroadwayInstitutional ZoningCurrently institutional zoning does not have a 'build-to' requirement, and requires a 20' front and corner/side setback. This creates a similar condition to the above-mentioned Office zoning setbacks. For institutional parcels within an urban area or along an urban core (such as N Broadway) we request an institutional zone that has no front setback, but a 'build-to' requirement that would force new construction to align with the building face of adjacent C-G or Office properties. This would also force parking to occur behind or to the side of a building, as opposed to in front of it.Additionally, the Task Force has reservations related to the allowance of Homeless Shelters on Institutional-Zoned parcels. Due to the nuances related to N Broadway with relation to the Homeless, we request that Institutional Properties along N Broadway (especially the current Physician's Regional property) prohibit homeless shelters. Height Restrictions & Step-Back RequirementsWe believe maximum building height should be less related to zone (as in O, C-G, C-H), but where a parcel is located on the map, IE distance from downtown. In general, we would recommend that the maximum building height remain taller (or unlimited) downtown, and then step down outward from downtown accordingly.We recommend adding a height restriction to CG-3, perhaps 85' with review process if requesting over 85' and 130' maximum with review. The gap between C-G-2's 70' maximum height and C-G-3's unlimited maximum height seems too extreme. An intermediate is necessary, while limiting the unlimited height restriction to DK zones seems more appropriate.We request C-G-2 (or anything above 4-5 stories, or an appropriate height) to have a 'step-back' requirement, similar to the Cumberland District - whereas any floors above a certain height are required to step back. This will avoid the 'tunneling affect' along the corridor, and is similar to what larger cities like New York City enacted.I-MU Design StandardsI-MU should require Commercial Design Standards when redeveloped as mixed-use properties. Not allowing such standards would create a loop-hole for I-MU properties developed as mixed use as opposed to CG or DK zones. We recommend landscape screening requirements for commercial and/or office zones where the rear of the property abut a residential district. We recommend requiring infill commercial to align with existing building frontage/datum established by existing urban (pre-1950s) development.Parking Requirements related to C-G-2 and C-G-3Currently proposed is parking requirement reductions for pedestrian-oriented zones, which we agree with. However currently there is a 10% parking reduction for C-G-2, and a 20% parking reduction for G-G-3. We have requested and agreed with current proposals for C-G-2 along N Broadway namely due to the reduced height restraint - which is more in-keeping with a pedestrian oriented zone as opposed to unlimited (or taller) height restraints. If anything, these taller buildings will require more parking to serve their uses adequately, so it seems the reduction percentages are backwards - in that C-G-2 should allow a higher reduction than C-G-3, or it not at least the same.Therefore, we request C-G-2 allows for a 20% parking reduction to be equal to C-G-3. If this is not possible, we would request a separate C-G-3 subsidiary zone that maintains the higher parking reduction, while creating a lower height restriction.Homeless Shelters within C-G ZonesWe request the removal of Homeless shelters from the C-G zones, believing that their allowance within C-G and C-R zones is sufficient, if not more appropriate.Floodway Overlay ZoningThe current 'Floodway Overlay Zoning District' is noted as being "established to meet the needs of the streams to carry floodwaters of a 500-year frequency flood," however the map overlay district does not reflect the 500-year flood plain. We ask that you update your map to show the accurate 500-yr flood overlay (see below) to allow current and future property owners an accurate representation of where they will be able to construct new buildings and/or renovate existing structures that may be within the 500-year floodplain. Because a large portion of properties along the Broadway Corridor are within the 500-year floodplain, we ask the MPC, ReCode, and the City of Knoxville to create and/or utilize any possible zoning or administrative tools to allow for redevelopment within the flood zone, or at least more effectively communicate to property owners the restrictions they are faced with.As a result of potential miscommunication between the City, FEMA, and property owners, many are easily confused regarding current regulations, since their properties may have been constructed before the 500-yr floodplains (and therefore current restrictions) were established.

The board of Ftn. City Town Hall, Inc. agrees with and supports the request of Community Forum regarding Agenda Item 5, 11-A-18-OA- Consideration of the Comprehensive Update of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance. We are asking for a postponement from the January 10, 2019, meeting of the Planning Commission to the February 14, 2019, meeting.The last draft was only available online December 17, 2018, with hard copies available December 27, 2018. During this busy season of the year, it is not practical for neighborhood groups to be able to meet for extensive periods of time to discuss this important document that affects every parcel of property within the city limits. We could not possibly have written comments within the time period allotted, which was January 4, 2019.We certainly intend to offer comments as soon as possible.There are many substantive changes from Draft 3 to Draft 4. The time that Commissioners, the Stakeholder Committee, and the public has had for review has not been long enough for a thorough review.Please don’t vote to accept this document in its present form. We must get this right. Our neighborhoods are in great part what makes Knoxville so special. It is too far-reaching and too important to adopt and then “hope” we can amend the document in problematic areas to prevent damaging impacts to our neighborhoods and even commercial areas.Again, we are asking for Agenda item 5 to be postponed until the February 14, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.Sincerely,Board, Ftn. City Town Hall, Inc.

The biggest impediments to sustainable growth in the current Knoxville code seem to be a series of overly prescriptive historic zoning overlays, a general lack of flexibility in terms of incremental growth and mixed use development. The historic zoning overlays, as currently written, exacerbate gentrification, and disallow the natural variation of architectural detailing and styles that should occur over time. A simpler form based code, which would generally maintain consistent massing, volumes and setbacks would go a long way toward incentivizing reinvestment in lower income historic neighborhoods at a price point that would minimize the massive shift in house prices that occurs when owners are forced to build oversized, imitative pseudo-historical single family houses.Similarly, the code currently restricts both mixed use and the inherent incrementality of growth which it allows. Even in historic neighborhood commercial centers, which have multi-story buildings which would have been mixed use, owners are restricted to commercial or residential use. Which again facilitates gentrification, as owner-operators that historically could have lived above their shops, must currently pay for a commercial space and a home. And usually, the affordable housing, and affordable commercial spaces are not in walkable neighborhoods, nor are they near each other, thereby further reinforcing the car dependent nature of current development patterns, and restricting opportunities for economic advancement by placing a de facto 'car tax' on anyone seeking to start a business.The new code should reflect historic realities, not myths. Real, functional, livable neighborhoods require a mix of both housing options and building types - with owners allowed to meet market demand by building, adding onto, and subdividing buildings and properties, instead of relying exclusively on large developers and tax subsidies to create multi-block, monolithic 'mixed-use' mega structures which tend to cater exclusively to the affluent. Further, healthy neighborhoods should be allowed to grow and change over time, both stylistically and socio-economically, rather than being forced to maintain an imaginary snapshot of one currently 'desirable' period in the neighborhood's history.

The benefits of trees and landscaping are well known. A few of these assets include beautification of public spaces, reduced stormwater runoff, reduction of air pollution, and.cooler ambient temperatures and shade - both of which enhance walkability, The current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot.Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.

Thanks for your work on this draft, I am generally supportive of the new language and structure, and hope it will help promote sustainable and equitable growth for years to come. As a Public Health Educator focusing on food access in Knox County, most of my comments have to do with food-system related uses and language.Food Pantries: I would like to see them permitted in more districts as a principal use. Restricting them as an ancillary use to places of worship, social service centers, etc. hampers their ability to combat food insecurity in nimble, efficient ways.Food Truck Parks: I approve of this new principal use, though it would be nice to see it permitted in additional districts, either flat-out, or by special use.Market Gardens: Please make it easier to locate market gardens in residential districts, either by allowing them as a principal use, or making the special use conditions/fees more manageable. The majority of market gardens will inevitably spring up in residential areas (backyards, vacant lots, etc), but a cumbersome special use application process will deter many would-be urban farmers. I fully support the environmental performance standards, but I think many of the concerns regarding the occurrence of market gardens in residential areas have to do with traffic generated by on-site sales, which should be covered under the Farmstand temporary use permit. We need to encourage the production of food and the generation of small-scale local economy and business everywhere we can! Codes enforcement can keep these sites in compliance without creating so many hoops for these gardeners to jump through on the front-end.Neighborhood Nonresidential Reuse: I am very supportive of this addition because of its potential to help address food access in residential areas, and to stimulate innovative and convenient mixed-use neighborhoods.Farmers Market: I approve of this new temporary use, though it would be nice to see it permitted in additional districts.Farmstand: I approve of this new temporary use, but would like to see it allow year-round sales, either by allowing a 12 month permit period, or allowing for re-application immediately following permit expiration. Season-extension equipment (referenced in this draft) and a generally temperate climate make year-round vegetable production a viable, and often vital, practice. This is evidenced by the proliferation of winter-season farmers markets, and year-round CSAs offered by local growers. These benefits should be extended to urban producers and market gardeners as well.Composting: I recognize that much of this language is dictated by state regulations, but wherever possible, I would like to see composting made more accessible and convenient on both the residential and municipal scale. Food waste is America's dumbest problem, and language that can promote, or at the least get out of the way of, composting activities should be supported. Item 4 "enclosed or contained" in the composting section is contradictory to the previous three items "bins or piles". Piles are a viable and convenient method of composting but are not "enclosed of contained".I am supportive of the language regarding: Apiaries, Aquaponics and Hydroponics, Chicken Coops (though I would like to see the hen ordinance made less expensive and complicated), High Tunnels and Greenhouses, and Low Tunnels and Cold Frames.I am very supportive of the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units to the code. In light of the affordable housing crisis both locally and nationally, ADU's offer a great alternative option for affordable housing in a market that is swiftly pushing out many low-income renters, as well as offering income generation for homeowners and increasing urban density.I am very supportive of the landscaping requirements for new development.I almost certainly did not cover all the topics in this draft that affect food access, but hope that any changes to the code promote a healthy and sustainable food system in Knoxville and Knox County.

Thanks for the opportunity to make some preliminary observations on the regulatory process.One recommendation that I would make is to publish the comments that are received during this initial effort to receive input.Secondly, I would urge you to prepare an overview of existing conditions throughout the City of Knoxville, RE: residential, commercial, industrial, recreation and related land uses, either characterized by "Small Area", and / or "District", by noting, for each identified geographic area, allocation of land uses by type, density, age, total population, etc., but including the primary transportation links to surrounding "districts" and "small areas".Thirdly, characterize each of the areas by trends over the past 20-30 years, RE: growth (population, dwelling units, density), changes in land use types, and traffic conditions.Please consider making this information available on-line, so that the public may review, compare and contrast changes which have occurred throughout the City, and to make some reasoned response through later stages of the planning and regulatory development.

Thanks for speaking with me at the Saturday Recode community meeting. As per your request I am sending you an email regarding my questions and points. I indicated to you I had read the entire draft ordinance and generally liked it, but did not think any one zone encompassed the full amount of current uses and desirable future uses in some of the current central city sector plan zones, specifically I am talking about some of the MU-SD districts that currently have a mix of what would be considered RN-4 to RN-6, O Office, and C-N Neighborhood Commercial uses under the new ordinance. I indicated I thought it was desirable for the city and the property owners for this to continue. I like the idea of fostering small neighborhood markets or cafés which makes the neighborhood nicer and gives the residents the ability to walk to some small scale basic retail services. I suggested a simple solution would be to make some of those MU-SD districts RN-6/C-N neighborhood commercial, for example, as it would cover the existing uses and control future growth according to the design standards in the new ordinance. You would not need to change anything regarding the proposed table 9-1: USE MATRIX as in my theoretical district you would look down the RN-6 column and C-N column and those are the permissible uses, of course you would need to meet all of the design requirements for the use you wanted. I chose C-N because according to the Matrix everything allowed in O Office is allowed in C-N so those current and future uses are covered. As I have consistently stated I like the idea of redoing the zoning ordinance code to make it more simple and clear and don't mind design standards but do not support decreasing my current property uses or future uses that I am allowed under the current zoning ordinance, I don't think that is good for me or the City as it looks to the future.We also discussed Table 4-1 and that RN-4 had a minimum lot width of 50 feet but RN-5 and RN-6 had a minimum lot width of 60 feet. Perhaps it is a typo, but in any event, I stated they should all be 50 feet. Additionally, we discussed section 4.3 that requires multi family housing in RN-4 zones to be on only corner lots. Knoxville already has successful examples of where multi family dwellings are in the middle of a block amongst single and 2 family dwellings and are less obtrusive overall for the block then a corner location. Knoxville will benefit from fostering a heterogeneous mix of dwelling units ranging from single family to multi family within these MU-SD districts, which I recognize each has different characteristics and will require different variations. These varied housing types will attract and provide housing to a wide socio-economic range of people, plus the density will help support C-N businesses. Having traveled to other cities these types of neighborhoods are dynamic, very attractive, and walkable. Having design standards, as the new ordinance does, will make these varied uses fit together in an aesthetically pleasing manner.Thank you and the planning group for your consideration of my prospective. I look forward to any feedback you and the group can give me.

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

Thank you for working to update the code. Many of the revisions are needed and welcome. However, I strongly object to the change to RN 4 for the Fourth & Gill Neighborhood. I have lived at 722 Luttrell St. since 1991. I love my neighborhood - the people, the old houses, the green spaces and large trees. We cannot have more density in living spaces or more traffic on our streets and maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. In the past we had a problem with people speeding down Luttrell St., but the calming circle on Caswell and Luttrell has slowed the traffic. Speed on Gill Ave. is still a problem (at least 2 dogs have been killed), and I understand that it cannot be slowed because it has to remain open for emergency vehicles. More families with small children have moved into our neighborhood, which is wonderful. We must work for fewer cars on our streets instead of increasing the traffic. We also must save the small green spaces that we have. They are used for play by children and dogs. Don't open our neighborhood to developers who want to make a buck at the expense of our neighborhood.I agree that there is a crucial need for more affordable housing. I represented low income clients on housing issues when I worked as a staff attorney with Knoxville Legal Aid. The need is even greater now than in the past. My house has a rental apartment in it, which it had when I bought it.My apartment has been a Sec. 8 unit, and it worked out well for both my tenant and for me. I am also pleased to tell you that the Fourth & Gill Neighborhood has a Housing Cooperative owned and managed by low income people. The Housing Cooperative was established in the 1980s when gentrification came into our neighborhood. There are 7 houses with 12 units in the Coop. In addition, several people in the neighborhood rent a room or apartment at below market rent in their homes. As a possible solution, I suggest that the City of Knoxville work with HUD to provide an incentive to home owners all over the City to make their rental units subsidized (Sec.8), which will increase the affordable housing available in Knoxville.I also suggest that the City explore increasing/expanding public transportation and make buses available for all (without charge) so that all people can travel freely throughout our City, and even expand the transportation throughout Knox County.

Thank you for working to make the zoning & code easier to understand. The presentation was very helpful & clear. Good work! I am particularly interested in protecting residential areas from industrial buildings (maybe with more than just buffer green spaces) & revising buildings. I hope the new zoning code can help with fragmentation in the cityl. I am also concerned with what it would look like if the community wanted to fight a PUD. How easy would that be? I hope easy. Thank you!

Thank you for the very informative meeting last night (11/26), it is apparent that many hours have been spent on this project. I am the VP of Edgewood Park Neighborhood Association (EPNA), and we currently have 7 apartment complexes and 1 condominium complex within our boundaries. In addition to these, there are several duplexes and quads interspersed. My opinion is that EPNA is currently maintaining a neighborhood with a plentiful supply of multi-family homes and I ask that we don't add any more.However, as an Atlanta transplant, I see the value of mixed-use projects along our corridors and I endorse them with your wise oversight. Same goes for the many industrial spaces that are vacant.Thanks for your efforts, I personally understand your struggles.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the second draft of Recode Knoxville. Many of the regulations in the proposed code succeed in streamlining the permitting process and providing design flexibility. The proposed code should also: protect and promote residential character; establish a transparent, interactive development review process; and ensure that our overall community is attractive.Ensure that existing and proposed residential development promotes a sense of community.1. Home Occupation - in addition to the proposed regulations there should be a size limit (25% of habitable floor area) and a limit on public visits (by appointment only which can be achieved by not advertising the address). There is no restriction on the number of public visits. No stipulation as to adverse impacts (noise, light, smell, vibration)2. Day Care Homes - the standards in the existing code should be maintained. As written there is no limit on # of children and no requirement to maintain residential appearance or character. 3. Kennels - the typical limit of five dogs/cats prevents residential animal hoarding. As proposed, there is no limit.4. Accessory Dwelling Units - as written, this standard will entice investors to bid on properties, construct a second dwelling unit, then rent both units out thereby driving up the market price of residential property and degrading the stability and social fabric of neighborhood community. This escalating value of real estate lessens the availability of affordable/workforce houses. By requiring the homeowner to live on the property, the home owner has a revenue stream (helpful for moderate or low-income families) or lodging for family or caretakers, close control of the property, an on-site contact for neighbors should complaints arise, and disincentivizes rapid increase of market rates (investors would not want to live on the property).5. Multi-family - provide simple design standards to avoid a shoe box appearance; such as façade modulation, variation in texture or color, and porches/balconies/decks.6. Consistency - EN has a minimum lot size of 22,000 sq. ft. per Table 4-1. EN with a HP overlay has a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. (6 du per acre) Table 8-1. "Table 8-1: Density and Land Disturbance Limitation establishes the maximum residential density ." Why would HP allow greater density?7. Garage Sales - how frequently can an owner have a garage sale until it becomes a business?Establish a transparent, interactive development review process.1. Expand the flow charts to include appeals.2. Require posted signs to be clearly visible by two-way traffic on each right-of-way contiguous to the property.3. The required 12 days for sign posting should not include holidays as people are more likely to be away.4. Provide notice to neighborhood associations.5. Special Use Conditions should also be able to address use impacts such as hours of operation, noise, etc.6. Provide mailed notice of applications for Administrative Decisions to contiguous property owners and post a yard sign.7. For Special Use approval note that this does not set a precedence.8. For Variance Approval Standards add: The Applicant did not create the situation; and, Other options involving a lesser variance has been considered.9. Extending nonconforming walls should require a variance processEnsure that our overall community is attractive.1. Cell Towers should not be a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. This district is "intended to provide for an environment of integrated residential development and small-scale commercial and service uses, predominantly serving nearby residential neighborhoods." Town Hall East was able to successfully deter a proposed cell tower in the Burlington commercial center due to notice of public hearing process.2. Increase the likelihood that required landscaping will survive either through a two-year landscape maintenance bond or irrigation.

Thank you for taking comments! I have only been able to attend one meeting, and have only quickly reviewed the draft - so I have limited comments to offer...but I appreciate being able to do so. I think mixed use makes sense in many areas, especially when run-down commercially zoned buildings could/would be a viable option for housing - hopefully that doesn't mean traffic jams for neighborhoods or trashy parking/eye sores. It would be nice if green-scaping were required for more of the commercially zoned buildings and multi-unit residential buildings. I love sidewalks, trees, and small businesses. and...this may be more of a side-note, but the abandoned Walmart/Shoe Shoe/Cato strip malls with massive parking lots distress me...they are everywhere, I know, and other businesses try and come in to the space, but it still just leaves a sad crater in the areas where they land. ...that and all the easy money/check into cash joints littering Chapman Highway & Broadway, keeping folks in a debt spiral... can we zone those out of all areas, all towns...everywhere? ! :Thank you for the space to comment!

Thank you for providing a space for additional comments. I strongly encourage more sidewalks, especially in the gap areas where sidewalks appear for a distance, then stop, or there is a gap between existing sidewalks. I'm sure others may have a similar situation, but my neighborhood is located within a short distance to the a) sidewalk on Francis Rd in one direction, and b) in the other direction, the sidewalk on Middlebrook Pike. However, I am trapped because the roads to get to those sidewalks are extremely curvy and narrow, and are hazardous for cars at times, much less a pedestrian or cyclist. If only the gap were filled, the residents in my area could travel by sidewalk in one direction to Cedar Bluff and beyond, and in the other direction, utilizing sidewalks and greenways, all the way to Volunteer Landing and beyond. The possibilities really excite me, except for the gap which completely changes the picture. Also, the closest bus stop is at Amherst/Middlebrook or Francis/Middlbrook and I have seen walkers risk their lives walking on the road until they reached a sidewalk leading to the bus stop.I know there are many priorities, thank for allowing me to voice my opinions. Thank you also for looking to the future and helping to make Knoxville an even more wonderful city.

Thank you for hosting the event in Burlington & providing opportunity for input. I live in Holston Hills & what I see in version 2/draft 2 on ridgetop protection is not developed enough. We need to take advantage of the canopy & habitat of these ridges. As development intensifies this will be even more important.

Thank you for changing our street to RN-2 in draft 3 of the map. I can breathe a sigh of relief for my little house.

Thank you for allowing us to actively participate in offering comments and feedback. I live in Fountain City. We are .50 miles from Fountain City Elementary and Gresham Middle School on Grove Drive, which means that we are in what is called "parent responsiblity zone". Our daughter would like very much to walk to school, however the sidewalks stop less than halfway to our home from the schools. The road is narrow with a ditches and many use it as a cutthrough from Rifle Range to Broadway. People drive fast through the stretch were we live and it is dangerous to walk. We walk as a family and it is not a comfortable walk until we get to a sidewalk. There are children living in Grove Park Subdivision who would benefit from a sidewalk as well. Please consider ensuring there are sidewalks within the parent responsibility zones throughout the city. This would be a blessing for those of us who have students as well as the general community who enjoy walking without fear of launching into a ditch to avoid the oncoming traffic.

T 5-2 and T 6.2 (maybe other places?) Roof design in the table eliminates roof surfaces that produce glare. This is not well defined or described. For a low slope roof, we should want, encourage or even require a roofing material with a Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 78 to reduce Urban Heat Gain and increase energy efficiency. To achieve this with a membrane roof, one will need to use a white or possibly tan roof. On low slope roofs we need to allow white. On steep slope roofs > 2:12 we may want to encourage a much lower SRI of at least 29. I suggest removal of the "reflective roof surfaces that produce glare are prohibited."

SW-1 should still be listed in residential district ??? tableSouth Waterfront districtsPg. 7-37.5SW District std.A.  Subdistricts established1.  SW-1 subdistrict (residential only) please add insert2.  SW-2 subdistrict add (residential only)Pg. 7-5B.  UsesOn 1. C.  the subdistrict SW-1 should not be allowed in SW-1 as educational facilities, preschool/kindergarten is traffic & more cars than allowed as an example for an office during the meeting.Only signage allowed in SW-1 is house address & also in SW-2 no electronic signs are allowed stationary or on vehicles!

SW South Waterfront District. SW-1 is not commercial, nor is SW-2.But SW-1 is only low density residential now and therefore SW-1 should be listed in the new code under A. Residential District even though the % of land use is not equal If listed under commercial - this would be abused and is questionable in this code. This comment has been made several times in public meetings Homeowner living in SW-1

Support residential over businesses for live-work or condo ownership, in downtown as well as surrounding areas such as Broadway and Central Avenue, especially including areas around Happy Holler. Reduce parking requirements in areas well-served by public transit and with bike lanes. Reduce the need for surface parking lots by supporting shared parking areas.

Such a drastic change in zoning across the whole neighborhood would be de-stabilizing and be a real set-back to the progress that has been made over the past 35 years. I would argue against changing the zoning to RN-4 across the entire neighborhood and advocate for keeping RN-2 for most of the neighborhood. Having a strong residential neighborhood so close to the urban center, surrounded by other types of zoning, is a rare gem. It should be nurtured and supported, not subjected to large-scale zoning changes.

Standards for detached vs attached ADUs should be more stringent.The primary dwelling should be owner-occupied.There should be dedicated parking required for ADUs. Many city streets will not handle additional street parking well. On many narrow residential streets, when cars are parked on both sides of the street, it's not possible for a fire truck to pass through, setting up a dangerous situation. Street parking is also unsightly and more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians.Minimum lot size for detached ADUs should revert to 7500 sf (or higher) as specified in Draft 1.The maximum number of bedrooms allowed should be 2.It's important to determine if the infrastructure can accommodate an additional dwelling before a permit is issued.

Some random comments.Suggested editsOn the Use Table, the OS Parks and Open Space zone includes cemeteries, marinas, and golf courses and other private uses that are not necessarily recreational. Not all of these uses are captured in the description in 7-2. I suggest editing the description to include all of these various uses.Funeral Homes and Crematories are now separated on the Use Table, but still lumped together in the Definitions.Map commentsSomeone will probably catch this, but the only zone that allows airports is I-H (which seems appropriate to me), but Island Home Airport is zoned INST on the draft map.Probably a moot point since we have limited regulatory authority over them, but is INST the best zone for the National Guard facility on Sutherland? Because of the outdoor storage of equipment (and maybe indoor storage of munitions), seems to me like an industrial zone might be more appropriate.It seems inappropriate to locate C-N zones adjacent to other commercial zones. This has been cleaned up on Sutherland, but the intersection of Dutch Valley and Bruhin is a patchwork of commercial zones, including C-N. There is a large patch of C-N on Woodland next to C-G-2 and INST. I don't know if there are other places like this.Just My OpinionsMore of the districts that abut the river could allow marinas as special uses. RN-1 (maybe), I-H, AG, O, OP, C-H, and INST should be considered.The Definition of marina can be interpreted to include docks for individual houses (boat docking or storage with no size threshold). If that is the intent, they need to be allowed in RN-1 since they are already plentiful in some R-1areas. If that is not the intent, the definition needs to be tightened up a little to include a minimum size.Can we do something contextual with maximum heights, such as adjacent zone, topography, view shed, shade shed? This might help sell the idea of taller buildings to those who are dubious about the idea.It seems like you should be able to put a multi-story office building in an O zone. Even when used as a transition/buffer adjacent to a residential area, 3 or 4 stories might be appropriate depending on context. The current regs allow 45' non-residential buildings in O zones, so the new 35' requirement is going backwards.I think the 35' height limit is too restrictive in many cases.Townhouses in RN-6 and RN-7 (and maybe RN-4 and RN-5) should be allowed to go to three stories (45'?). Three-story townhouses are common in other cities and seem entirely compatible with a zone that allows 65' multi-family dwellings.Also, consider three-story dwelling-over-business in C-N, depending on context.C-G-1 and C-H-1 have 40' max height. Is that enough for 3 stories, or just enough for an assertive facade or high ceilings?

Some predictions of automobile trends show decreased parking needs due to a change in the way we will use self driving cars. Lower ownership could lead to decreased parking requirements. This could happen within the next 10 - 20 years. It would be helpful to make sure we have a flexible code that can adapt to this change in behavior. We may need 40 parking spots for a restaurant now, but may not need to require that many in the future.

Some friends and I met up to discuss the rezoning survey and came away with a few questions and recommendations:-We need education on zoning in general, even as design professionals we?re not clear how zoning, sector plans, small area plans, and others work together. For example, does this zoning overhaul take into account the corridor plans the city has already developed with public input? -Overall, what can zoning do to promote equity and affordability throughout Knoxville?-Accessory Dwelling Units seem to be a great tool for combating affordability issues. However, we were concerned how the question on the survey was worded as it sounds like those accessory units would be regulated to family only (children and elderly parents.) Does that mean that renting of those units would be regulated? If so, that doesn?t help the affordability aspect.-Can affordable housing minimums be mandated along corridors that are being redeveloped. It makes most sense to put affordable housing on the main bus routes. So can it be incentivized to build it where the city is spending the most money on redevelopment?-Can rent stabilization programs be part of zoning? Or is that another process? A good example is Ian Lockwood and Toole Design Group?s work in West Palm Beach, Florida. -Can grants or low-interest loans for home repair be part of zoning? Or is that another process?-Can transit and bikes be part of zoning? Or is that another process? -We like the idea of neighborhood identity but does that pigeonhole a neighborhood into never changing?-Can parking requirements be more flexible? Like shared parking, or requirements for multiple parking lots to be linked so that cars don?t have to enter and exit the corridors multiple times to go to one store to the next (something like a sub-network of streets.)These are all questions we discussed, I?m not expecting an answer to all of them immediately but these are the types of things we would like to see addressed (or know if they can be addressed in the Recode Zoning)Thanks for taking public opinion into account.

So as a cyclist in Knoxville I notice that it's very unfriendly mainly due to there is nowhere to park a bicycle at basically any business. If they do the bicycle racks are in horrible places like the bicycle racks at Walgreens in Bearden where it's literally 10 feet from Kingston pike. Either that or I have to literally walk my bicycle into the store and leave it somewhere at the front while I shop or walk it with me.I would love to see a building code that required a bike rack up against the building for Knoxville.Walgreens bicycle parking http://imgur.com/1HBcaBs

Sky Ranch Airport (3539 Alcoa Highway) retains its AG zoning (currently AG-1). It needs to change to something that allows airports (currently only I-H).

Since the majority of lots in the RN-2, 3, & 4 areas do not meet the minimum lot sizes in RN-2, 3, & 4 for multifamily 2-4 units, the new zones should reduce the minimum lots sizes. Existing lots should be able to be developed with 2-4 unit buildings with the new zoning.

Shouldn?t use categories be separated by impact not type: retail establishment & convenience store (with gas) has a very diff visual & traffic impact than book stores.PUD ? consider formal approval of concept plan so developer has some certainty before committing $ to prelim plan.Very glad code is being reworked. It?s impossible to figure out! Re-subdivided lots vs tax parcels. See past Planning magazine article.

Several recommendations were made regarding landscaping requirements in response to the first draft, but unfortunately they weren't incorporated into the second draft. Adequate landscaping provides numerous environmental, economic, health (physical and mental), aesthetic and social benefits to a community.We would like to see the following provisions included in the new ordinance:Interior Landscaping of Parking LotsThe current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot. Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.Landscape Bond:In regard to compliance with Landscape Ordinance requirements, based on discussion with those professionally qualified to understand both the value of proper landscaping for any development and the challenge of achieving compliance, the two-step LANDSCAPE BOND makes a lot of sense. The city of Chattanooga successfully employs this process. 1. PERFORMANCE BOND: This allows developers six months after issuance of the C O to install landscaping to offset the disadvantage of completing projects in late spring or summer months and to assure reasonable growth conditions. 2. MAINTENANCE BOND: This would be applicable during the two-year period following the project's completion and include a reasonable time period for proper landscape care to assure healthy plant material. The Maintenance Bond is released after two years, contingent on satisfactory inspection by a qualified professional, such as a landscape architect licensed in Tennessee and familiar with the design intent. Without a maintenance bond a lot of landscaping will not be adequately cared for and will die. Two years of proper care will greatly increase the survival of installed landscaping.Since the city operates on a complaint driven system and is chronically short staffed when it comes to enforcement, I don't have a lot of confidence that it will be successful at requiring developers to replace landscaping. It also places an unfair burden on citizens who would be responsible for tracking and reporting landscaping that needs to be replaced. In my experience, this also requires follow-up phone calls and emails by the citizen. Mitigation Fund or Tree BankRecode should include some form of mitigation for the destruction of trees by developers, perhaps along the lines of how TDEC operates its stream and wetlands mitigation program. In the case of tree protection, the ordinance could specify that for each tree destroyed over a particular dbh, X number of trees of 2" caliper have to be planted; or, a value of the destroyed trees could be established and the developer pay the equivalent value into a mitigation bank, with the city using the funds for planting or landscaping projects.Thank you.

September 13, 2018Dear City Council Members:We are writing on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Knoxville/Knox County (LWVKKC), an organization with more than 200 members. Our comments address Draft 2.0 of the proposed zoning code, using the League's adopted principles and positions as their basis. We don't address Draft 1 of the zoning map, other than to say that technically it is well-done and easy to use. LWVKKC supports this much-needed zoning code update, with its streamlined reorganization and concise presentation of complex material. The League also supports two key goals implicit in the proposed code: (1) addressing the growing need for affordable housing in Knoxville, and (2) encouraging less reliance on personal vehicles for mobility.Nevertheless, LWVKKC has two significant concerns with the proposed code: (1) Although affordable housing and vibrant, stable neighborhoods are supposedly part of the vision for Knoxville, some measures in the proposed code - unless revised - may work against that vision. (2) In an effort to achieve greater administrative efficiency, short shrift is being given to citizen's right to know about and comment on land use decisions that affect them.Our specific comments are summarized below. Detailed versions of these comments are attached, organized by the articles in which they occur. ______________________________Hillside Protection Overlay. The HP Overlay should apply to all types of districts - residential and non-residential - as it did in the 2011 Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan adopted by City Council. Infill Housing Overlay. To foster affordable, compatible housing in older neighborhoods scattered around the city, we should keep the Infill Housing overlay.Accessory Dwelling Units. To add to the stock of affordable housing in Knoxville while minimizing disruption of stable neighborhoods, ADUs should have two restrictions: (1) their use as short-term rentals should be prohibited, and (2) in EN, RN-1, and RN-2 neighborhoods, they should be limited to owner-occupied properties. Required Notice of Public Hearings and Meetings. Required notice of a public hearing/meeting should include information on how to submit written comments.Administrative Modifications. The Zoning Administrator should send notice of a request for an administrative modification to abutting and adjacent property owners, allowing them 10 business days to comment before the decision is made. Immediately after the decision is reached, they should be advised of (a) the decision made, and (b) their right to appeal it. Planned Developments. Neighborhood associations, business associations, potentially affected property owners, and other members of the public should get notice of the proposed project early in the process, as soon as a concept plan has been developed. Their opportunity for comment should not be limited to the preliminary plan stage. They also should get notice of the staff review for "substantial compliance" prior to MPC's review and approval of the final plan. __________________________While still a work in progress, the proposed code is an important step forward. Thank you for all your effort on this monumental task.Sincerely,Linda MaccabePresident, LWVKKCMary EnglishLand Use and Environment Chair, LWVKKC

Seems to me that Zoning serves only one meister: fear. In cities like Asheville, vacant city lots go for $30k or more. We can't even give them away here. I look forward to the day when we stop using armed force and instead use peaceful means to engage diversity.

Section 6.1 of Draft 4 says that the I-MU zoning district is intended to allow a mix of light industrial uses and a variety of compatible commercial as well as residential uses. Great! But the draft also says that "this mix is intended to promote the reuse of older, character-giving structures that may no longer be suitable for their original industrial purposes " I hope that I-MU can be used for other settings as well.. A mix of craft industrial with commercial and residential may be desirable outside of downtown Knoxville in buildings intentionally designed for this purpose,

Section 5.4: Design Standards- Issue: What does 'substantial repair or rehabilitation' mean? "The following design standards apply tosubstantial repair or rehabilitation meant to remedy damage or deterioration of exterior façade"- Remedy: more clearly define when design standards would come into play; define 'substantial repair or rehabilitation'Table 5-2: Commercial Site Design- Issue: Surface parking location requirements are incompatible with current and reuse/redevelopment of many lots in O, C-N, C-G-2, C-G-3 districts (ex: L-shaped commercial strips, businesses that need loading/truck facilities on the rear of the lot). "Surface parking may not be located between the principal building and the front lot line. Parking must be located to the side or rear of the principal building [in O, C-n, C-G-2, C-G-3 districts]."- Remedy: Remove this as a requirement and instead use it as a possible incentive in Section 5.3.B and other incentive sections. Staff has recommended incorporating current parking requirements without change; this would be a significant change.8.4 Hillside Protection Overlay Zoning District- In order to facilitate reuse and redevelopment of small-scale and larger-scale commercial/industrial areas, apply this overlay only to residential zones.Table 9-1: Use Matrix- Issue: "Bar" and "Restaurant" were combined into "Eating and Drinking Establishment" and "Restaurant" was removed as "P" in O and C-N districts. This will transform numerous restaurants from "P" to "S" in C-N (ex: Plaid Apron in C-N, Sequoyah Hills neighborhood) and create nonconformities in O district. It could create more pushback when an "Eating and Drinking Establishment" is requesting "S" in C-N in the future.- Remedy: Remove "Eating and Drinking Establishment" and reestablish "Bar" and "Restaurant" as separate uses.- Issue: "Medical/Dental Office" was downzoned from "P" to "S" in C-N. These are currently "P" in C-N.- Remedy: Return to "P" use in C-N.Parking and Landscaping- Please keep with staff recommendation that existing parking and landscaping requirements be incorporated into Recode, and that the landscaping bond be removed.15.D.3.h Planned Development- Issue: More clearly define "affordable housing" set-asides.- Remedy: Provide a threshold of rental or purchase price based on existing market and population data or government guidelines. Do not require "affordable housing" to be government-approved/subsidized.16.2.D Nonconforming Use- Issue: "Discontinuation or Abandonment" as it currently reads is unclear and does not reflect general market conditions for reuse and redevelopment of real property.- Remedy: Provide a definition for "Discontinuation or Abandonment", increase "six months" period to at least 18 months to reflect commercial property general market conditions, and add in a language that being "actively marketed for lease or sale" is not considered "Discontinuation or Abandonment".Thanks for considering my comments. This is not an easy task.

RN-5 is the appropriate zoning for this property given existing use and conditions in immediate proximity.

RN-5 is the appropriate zoning for this property given existing surrounding land use and conditions within proximity.

RN-4 is the appropriate zoning for this given existing use conditions of this property and proximity to other multi-family along E Scott.

RN-4 is the appropriate zoning for this given existing conditions of this property and proximity to other multi-family along E Scott.

Rezoning codes should include mandatory sidewalks to meet ADA standards. KAT stops should include landing pads so that wheelchairs can load and unload safely.

Restore design-standards for single family residential.  These are not overly onerous to comply with or to enforceMany communities require these and more

Residents in a neighborhood in Fountain City are confused and full of questions and concerns regarding the recoding in our neighborhood. Primarily, everyone I have contacted had no idea this was happening. Obviously this project was not properly communicated to the general public. I found out about it when reading the Fountain City Focus and reading an article that listed the information about the meeting on 8/30. I looked at the recode Knoxville website and couldn't believe it when I saw the amount of activity that had started last year. I looked at the list of meetings and open houses and the angrier I became. Obviously the project team was able to discuss this and get input from several organizations and companies. You managed to open direct communication with the black and latino special interest groups so they could get everything they wanted. But you couldn't be bothered to notify the property owners who pay the taxes and whose neighborhood is directly impacted. To make matters worse, you didn't even notify the residents whose property is being recoded in a negative way. Shame on you!!! As an example of good public communication, when KUB is doing work that impacts residents they put a flyer in every mailbox weeks before the work is scheduled to begin to notify them. This is what you should have done!!This project is a perfect example of the government making their own decisions, getting input from those who have something to gain, and completely disregarding the taxpayers and how they are impacted.

Residential neighborhoods such as R1 and SW1 need to be protected from encroachment of non-residential. Old homes need to be saved for their character as residential and stay residential. Parking restrictions in those neighborhoods that will have impact from non-resident traffic need to move forward with MPC and Council. Building heights and setbacks restricted to retain a neighborhood's character. STR not allowed or only by homeowner living on premise or in house as was stated in public meetings and generally accepted to control STR in residential areas such as R1 and SW1. There needs to be minimum parking requirements added to the FBC as commercial is already removing parking from their places of business, which pushes parking into places that should not have to deal with the spaces these business are removing from their locations. They are not sharing parking with other commercial but removing parking because there is no minimum required parking. This is a main issue with FBC and multi-use.

Require dedicated parkingMore stringent standards for detached vs. attached ADU’sRestore minimum lot size to 7500 sf for detached ADU’sMaximum number of bedrooms for detached should be 2 bedroomsOwner occupancy of primary dwelling

Regarding the Commercial Corridors question: single family housing should not be encouraged in the corridor but commercial with residential above is a great way to keep neighborhoods safe and convenient for multifamily dwellings.Regarding height increases: 45' does seem a bit low but I would not want to see the heights increased by very much - the human scale is very important to maintain when attempting to encourage pedestrian friendliness (which is a form of equal opportunity design).

Regarding Home Occupation and Quick Pick and Retail Goods Establishment:A smart attorney told me years ago that you cannot be restrictive by being permissive.The definition of Home Occupation is: "Any commercial activity carried out for economic gain by a resident, conducted as an accessory use in the resident's dwelling unit.""Retail Goods Establishment" is indeed a use listed in the Use Matrix. So too is "Personal Service Establishment" (beauty shop, tailor) and "Office." Just as, I assume, Recode contemplates "Personal Service Establishments" and "Offices" be allowed to operate as a Home Occupation, I think "Retail Good Establishments" would also be allowed to operate. However, all must operate within the standards for Home Occupation.The list of permitted and prohibited home occupations in the existing ordinance is helpful.I honestly think a quick pick would be allowed under the proposed ordinance.I'm also referencing a letter on a home business operation. Please see the paragraph at the end of page 1: "The actual business of the company---mechanical repair and services---is being done elsewhere, off site. If clients were dropping off equipment at this address, the equipment was being work on in the garage, and then being picked up by a client at the home after repair, that would classify as a business being run at this address. However that is not the case. The multiple inspections by Plans Review have confirmed this..."The last paragraph on page 3 acknowledges "occasional employees", etc.Never mind the fact that "Contractor's office..." is a permitted use in C-3.

Regarding development and Greenspace, there is a need for additional signage on the Mountain Bike Trails in our great city whether on the trails or more notes on the maps. Regarding Landscaping, we want to insure the grass is cut so no neighbor has to deal with a resident who owns a property but rarely visits it and thus it is not maintained. The city of Knoxville should have a list of owners or neighborhood contacts, main contact number accessible through 311 if the landscape codes are violated often. There is a 2-3 week window to reach the violator, however, some residents or owners may not currently be reachable and when they return, they receive a bill from the City for having mowed their yard. I do not blame the City in any way and thank them. Responsibility involves checking on your property, possibly having a neighbor contact you if you live out of town. No one wants a neighbor with tall grass, weeds and all the insects and mosquitoes that may take up residence due to neglect in the city limits especially.Possibly, some of these suggestions can be incorporated into a new City Map if you design a new Map of Knoxville. With the National Bike Race that was in Knoxville this weekend.I believe we will have the National Bike Race here again in 2018 and 2019 and possibly this can be advertised more. We had great positive views from the recent race, now lets step it up Knoxville to have more of the "Tour De France "as the "Tour De Knoxville" supporting local businesses, out of town racers and the community. I would recommend to add distances for walking trails throughout the city starting with miles 1.0, 1.5, 2. 0 etc. Initially, depending on Budgets, it could be every 2.5 miles for signage or the trail length each way posted or add to maps. Possibly a 4H,Girl or Boy Scout, or Sorority Project. At Iams, people with dogs, bag up their stools and leave the bagged stools on the side of the trail. Possibly, a few more trashcans or an incentive to return it to the beginning or end of the trail noted on the trail map. Caution: We are thankful, responsible pet owners do bag it up. As a pet owner, knowing your dogs digestive trac will help when they have stools. For example, beagles have a 5 hour trac. Congratulations to all our Mayors, City Staff & Employees, Businesses, Farmers Markets, City Events and the people who work, live, donate and make Knoxville what it is today. Remember, we grow, you grow, we all benefit. For residents who do not work and want to help the City, you may wish to get out and Volunteer for an area you enjoy. Support your local and Small businesses with shopping to keep them here. Too much on-line shopping, does not help our beautiful city. Knoxville and TN has done better than other cities and States through the recession because locals reinvest in Knoxville and in TN. Walk the Mall on a rainy day for exercise and possibly to buy something to help grow Knoxville's tax dollars to help pay for making Knoxville an even better city. Enjoy the Outdoor Benefits! Welcome visitors who also grow our TAX dollars by staying in local Hotels and eating at our Restaurants. Knoxville has more restaurants per capita than any other city.And of Course, we have the VOLS!

Regarding commercial buildings along the main corridors, glass should be highly transparent on the main floor, and non-residential use should be either required or highly encouraged using whatever zoning tools are available. The buildings should be at least built in such a way as to allow non-residential use on the main levels in the future.Required materials should be durable and sustainable. No vinyl and especially no vinyl windows.I do not think the use of paint colors should be addressed in the code (see 5.4B). There are plenty of examples of monochromatic buildings that are beautiful and interesting because of varying types of building materials, etc. In fact, the new apartment buildings at the south end of the Henley St. Bridge (not the orange and gray one, the one across the street on the east side) vary in color so much that from afar it looks very busy, even though the colors are not bold. Furthermore paint colors can be changed and thus shouldn't be considered a part of the structure.Bike racks should be required for commercial and multifamily residential.Multifamily courtyard apartments such as common in Chicago on city corners should be allowed (there are actually also many examples of these in Fort Sanders and East Knoxville) in high and moderate density neighborhoods, with high quality of materials (brick mostly) and good form so it is a contributor to the neighborhood fabric.Thanks to MPC for all your work on this.

Regarding ADU's, I know enforcement of ordinances is not the purview of Recode, but I am in favor of ADU permits being granted *only* to owners who occupy the primary structure. I understand they may sell to someone who will lease out the entire property, but I do believe that initial barrier will prevent many issues.Regarding the South Waterfront, this zoning has not been revisited for about a decade. While I agree with the vast majority of the provisions in that code as they stand and would like it adhered to, what we are seeing is "zoning by variance" where developers are requesting variances because the ordinance is so, in their opinion, outdated, and the City is granting these variances for the same reason. This undermines the public process that should exist. If numerous variances are going to be granted at will on every project, then the entire code needs to have another look and a new code adopted.

Recode Single Family Design StandardsScenic KnoxvilleEarlier drafts of Recode included minimal design standards for single family homes. We would like to see them included back into the Code. Similar standards are very common in the zoning codes of other cities. They encourage thoughtful planning, preserve community character, ensure that homes are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and they preserve, protect and enhance the city's historical, architectural and aesthetic resources. Design standards are what make people proud to call their house a home, and we believe everyone is entitled to feel this way, no matter what neighborhood they live in or whether they're a renter or owner.1. We would like to see the review and approval of all design standards specified in Recode come under the purview of Knoxville-Knox County Planning (formerly MPC) staff rather than Plans Review and Inspection. As professional planners we believe they're in the best position to carry this out.2. We would like to see the following standards included in the code.Single Family Dwellings1. On lots less than one acre in lot area, a dwelling must have a primary entrance from a façade facing the street. The front entry must be a dominant feature on the front elevation of a home and an integral part of the structure, using features such as porches, raised steps and stoops, and/or roof overhangs. 2. Windows, entrances, porches, or other architectural features are required on all street-facing facades to avoid the appearance of blank walls. 3. A 30% minimum transparency requirement applies to all street-facing façades and is calculated on the basis of the entire area of the façade.4. Front-loaded attached garages are limited to 60% of the width of the front building line or 24 feet, whichever is greater. Garage width is measured as the width of a garage door; in the case of garages designed with multiple garage doors, the distance is measured between the edge of the outmost doors.5. Front-loaded attached garages must be set back a minimum of five feet from the front building façade line. This façade building line does not include architectural features, such as bay windows or porches.

Recode Knoxville Since your favorite word is "sustainability," how about you implement the total opposite of what FPL is doing in Florida with Solar. FPL is not allowing homeowners to own their own solar power. Homeowners have to connect it to FPL. This is a bunch of hog wash. You nor anyone else owns the power of sun. Since the City of Knoxville and KUB are really the same org. You have the power to do this. I'll see what you guys have come up with at your next public meeting.

Received your "Notice to Property Owners" dated 2-25-19 in which you provide a website to check on the zoning status of specific properties. recodeknoxville.com>participate>map feedback. There is no such tab! How about some transparency on this issue?

R-2 “right” should be retained in older, poorer neighborhoods like Vestal, rather than go to RN-2 “special use” by permit, which could require impractical design criteria.

Question-Why are some areas within the same are are coded R! and others are coded R2. My property is located on Michaels Ln and is coded as R1. What is the difference between R1 and R2 coding codes?

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

PUT THE ORANGE BACK!

Put the orange back in!! We need more and not less.

Put Back to Orange

PUT BACK THE ORANGE. Knoxville needs more multi family housing not less. You are prioritizing higher income folks and not pushing Knoxville to be a city that prioritizes the vast need for affordable housing. I've been to meetings and you are always citing comments from West Hills or Sequoya Hills, or Fountain City and not referring to comments made at the Urban League meetings from Burlington residents from East Knoxville residents and you actively tell them you are not recording their comments despite the fact that a forum or meeting could be their only way to provide a comment. PUT BACK THE ORANGE and stop excluding low income folks' comments.

Put Back The Orange.

Put Back the Orange, Put Back the Orange, Put Back the Orange...we need more - not less - affordable multi-family housing in Knoxville. Put Back the Orange.

Put back the Orange, but not just for expensive high rise condos, build more affordable housing!

Put back the Orange! Multifamily housing should be a prominent part of our city's future - multifamily housing tends to be more affordable, it is environmentally more responsible than building more suburban sprawl, and it allows for density levels that do more to support walkable communities and thriving neighborhood businesses. Taking out multifamily zoning would be a step back for Knoxville; 21st-century cities NEED residential density.

Put back the orange! and prioritize poor and working class people.

PUT BACK THE ORANGE!

Put back the orange!

Put back the Orange

Put back the orange

Preservation for older neighborhoods is important to me for the OLPNA.

Preservation for older neighborhoods is important to me for OLPNA

Points I'd like to cover based on questions asked in the survey.I believe there needs to be a mixed use provision for the downtown area if the code hasn't already been updated. I'm thinking along the lines of commercial on ground floor and residential above.Some means to encourage smaller commercial spaces. For example, limit a Walmart or Kroger mega-store from opening in a downtown area and instead encourage smaller grocery and retail stores.Curb the amount of advertising on roadsides, much like the town of Farragut does. Signs limited in size, limited in height, etc.I voted against the 'historic tree' preservation mainly because of the ginko trees that line certain roads. I hate those things and the Bradford pears that started cropping up in the 80s. I'm not against old oaks and the like, just the "fad" trees some landscaper decided to add on a whim that later turn to be a nuisance.Thank you for your time and attention.

Please: "put the orange back" in your planning process!

Please, we need affordable housing! vote for help!

Please! Vote this current Recode proposal DOWN, NO, REJECT!! Thanks

Please zone RN-4 one-quarter mile along KAT bus core and local routes. This will permit by right the development of small multifamily housing (2-8 units) throughout the city.

Please review the concept that there are many multi-family houses in 4th & Gill.  As an example when I search under my address at 1015 Luttrell St. 4 apartment units show which has no been the case since 2005.  Also if you search 1003 Luttrell or 942 Luttrell St. the database shows multiple apartment units which has not been the case since 1990-92 time frame.  In the early 80’s 4th & Gill worked with MPC to change our zoning from R2 to RIA to encourage the development of single family restored properties in the emerging historic district.  We have made tremendous progress since that time.  The proposed change to RN4 puts us back to where we were zoning wise 30 years ago.  RN-2 as originally proposed in earlier drafts is the appropriate zone for the Fourth & Gill historic district.  Place multi-family on the corridors on the edges.

Please review the calculation of Adjacent Average Grade, used in defining building height in section 2.4D1. The calculation of this grade is ambiguous and Peter Ahrens suggested at a recent Recode meeting to submit a comment for MPC staff to shore up this definition. Thank you

Please re-instate design standards for single family dwellings (on lots of one acre or less) that were recommended in an earlier draft of ReCode. Raising the standards would make a substantial difference in the aesthetics of new neighborhood development. Landscaping requirements for parking lots is another area of concern. It appears that some of the proposed landscaping requirements in ReCode have now been deleted. Please consider how important landscaping is to the appearance of large areas of asphalt! A good example of landscaping done well is the WestTown Mall parking area. Many years ago a local woman with vision, Maria Compere, advocated for the planting of many trees around the perimeter, in the medians, and other areas of the parking lot. Without her determination on this issue, the Mall would not have the beautiful mature trees that it now has - something which has helped to soften and beautify the hard edges of the rectangular-shaped buildings. Please consider the importance of improved landscaping requirements and consider the Landscape Bond provision which would require 2 years of proper care by the developer, once trees and other vegetation are planted. The Bond would insure that plantings would receive adequate care, so they can get established and thrive. Improved ReCode standards is Knoxville's BIG chance to improve the look of our city for a long time to come. Thank you.

Please put back the orange. Keep it. We need flexibility for affordable housing. I wish everyone could have the option of single family dwellings. However that is not possible nor wanted. We need zoning maintained for duplexes, four plexus, etc. as well as developments with 100's of units for affordable housing.

Please put back the orange! More, not less, affordable housing is needed. Thank you.

Please put back the orange areas on the map. This is supposed to be VOL country right? Need more orange. Thanks!!

Please protect the character of neighborhoods by providing appropriate "buffer" zones between residential and all others. Please ensure that definitions of the types of uses in a particular zone are not open to interpretation (especially by someone who no particular knowledge of the "use" in question.

Please make sidewalks mandatory.

Please leave the Codes as is for Established Older neighborhoods. I am opposed to the Recode proposal.These established neighborhoods define Knoxville and would be horrible for that to change.They give character and define much of he history of Knoxville.The Recode proposal would destroy this history. Many folks move to Established Neighborhoods for the coding it now has. The coding and lot sizes and architect style attracts folks to these locations.A Recode is not good.

Please increase the lot size for duplexes to above 7500 sf. Most of our neighborhoods in the inner city have lot sizes of 50'x150. A duplex is too much building for that lot size and would decrease the chances of existing dwellings to convert to single family housing.

Please increase opportunities to allow multi-family housing to be developed in Knoxville.

Please help us to preserve the Kesterwood, Oak park, Gibbs Road area from changes in the current zoning. The Jacksboro pike Corridor has deteriorated to the point where I will no longer walk the area. I cannot allow my grandchildren to be on bikes without me outside watching them. Section 8 housing, homelessness, and crime have escalated to the point where I no longer recognize my neighborhood. I have lived on those two streets for 22 years and now feel unsafe. Theft is rampant and prostitutes stroll the area between the firehall at Essary to the overpass on Old Broadway. Please help save our neighborhood and preserve property values. Please!! Thank you!!

Please halt any zoning change to allow multi level structures in residential areas, like Clairborne st in Edgewood park neighborhood. The only way these structures can be built is to tear down some beautiful vintage houses along Claiborne tp make room for these structures and parking lots. This is a horrible idea to change the code to allow this. This code is very unfriendly to areas that are not designated historic zones. Those areas are protected from tiny lots & tiny buildings too. Isn't this discrimination to allow code changes like this in non historic zones? This density model needs to stay downtown where those who want density can live. Others like me prefer to have more green space from my neighbor.

Please find attached the Knoxville Branch NAACP comments on the Recode Knoxville zoning map, as approved by the Executive Committee on 8/28/18.

Please don't rezone Parkridge. I am a victim of domestic abuse. I need affordable housing that is not in the unsafe housing projects.

please do not rezone the 4th and Gill neighborhood to allow for Multi-family dwellingsthank you,

Please do NOT recode the north-bound lanes of the James White Parkway! We do not need a linear park to replace the north-bound lanes of the James White Parkway. We need highway speed access to downtown and I-40, not more parks! It is deplorable that our city administration is choosing to destroy what our tax money previously funded (and for which several residents lost property through imminent domain purchase) to make South Knoxville the playground of the city. If you really want public opinion on this you would ask for a city wide vote on parks and bicycle lanes versus more sidewalks and better roadways!

Please do not change the zoning on the parcel at 725 Sterchi Ridge Way to allow 27 units per acre. The apartments being built there are of poor construction. The added population density would be a burden on the neighborhood. The school is already beyond capacity. There are no services in the neighborhood and public transportation is poor. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is not on the developer's payroll would think that this is a good idea.

Please consider zoning 1200-1222 West Fourth to CG2 to match that of adjacent parcels and permit same purpose development.

Please consider zoning 1005-1001 University Avenue (parcel ID: 094FG002) to neighborhood commercial. This parcel contains a non-conforming commercial building currently, and a neighborhood commercial zoning would allow for better development along a major thoroughfare in Mechanicsville.

Please consider the impact recoding the Knoxville new zoning code upon low income housing and families. A diverse Knoxville will be a healthy Knoxville for all. Thank you.

Please consider taking ADU issue off the table & get the basic ordinance passed.  Then re-visit ADU’s later.

Please consider rezoning of the following buildings in the ONK neighborhood in order that they be more appropriately zoned for their current and/or best uses.1) 400 E Scott- This property has 24 units on a 24,000 sq ft lot and should be zoned RN-6 due to density.2) 428 E Scott- I propose that the commercial building at 428 E Scott be zoned RN-6 to support high density residential redevelopment at the same level as 400 E Scott.Additionally, there are several existing apartment houses on the same street that are not zoned appropriately for their current uses:401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue should be zoned RN-4 to support their current multifamily use Thank you.

Please consider more flexibility and guidance for building tiny or very small homes in blighted areas as a way to increase affordable housing.

Please consider leaving the comment period open until, at the very latest, after the Five Points meeting in October. Neighbors need to time to review the map and learn about zoning changes. I think it would be beneficial to wait until after the holidays to bring it before City Council.

Please advise whether this project will review for purposes of potential modification, the process for changing existing zoning and the use on review process. Will the roles the MPC and the Chief Building Official of the City of Knoxville, as well as the definition in the Code of Ordinances be subject to review/discussion.

Per my voice message, we believe the property (Parcel ID 095KA01002) that we own at 2106 Mohawk Avenue should be shown as I-H instead of MPC’s proposed I-MU. This zoning would then match our adjacent MBW Water Plant current property zoning. Thank you.

People definitely care about good landscaping and design standards where they live. These have been omitted and they are important. A house needs to be seen as a house from the street--windows, porches, other details. Front loaded garages need to be limited to 60% or less. We are a city that wants good design, landscaping, lighting that shows we care. Thank you.

Parking lots 5,000 s/f and above should have perimeter landscaping requirements and lots 10,000 - 20,000 should also have interior landscaping requirements.

p. 5-2 C. #1 run-on sentence (FYI)general question: Can we require sidewalks for new and/or redesigned commercial buildings and multi-family dwellings?p. 5-24 D. 5. b. "period of up to one year" Why do they need a whole year? If the problem is the wrong season or bad weather for planting or perhaps the plants aren't available, having up to one year is excessive. I believe six months is adequate, which roughly equates to two seasons. I was imagining if I lived across the street from the new construction that had a whole year to put up vegetation buffers, and I waited through all the seasons without any forward progress. p. 8.8 8.5 C. Is it customary to use the 500-year flood levels as the standard for how new construction might contribute to flooding now? Why not use a more recent standard, such as 100-year? p. 9-3 A. 3. "Animal care facilities must be located?" The sentence needs to be corrected.p. 10-6 G. Since you are referring to a city code, you may want to keep the same language found in the code (domesticated chickens, henhouse, chicken pen). Personally, I call them "backyard chickens" and a "coop."

Our neighborhood, Tazewell Pike-Beverly Station Neighborhood Coalition, would like to voice our objections to at least the 2 items listed below:1. Accessory Dwelling Units- we feel at least SOME zones, preferably existing zones of R-1, R-1E , and EN-1 and EN-2, should be excluded from the proposed permitted use of an accessory dwelling unit. If implemented that provision has the potential to completely change the character and density of our neighborhood. Also, our roads are not equipped to carry that additional traffic and there are no mass transit stops within easy walking distance. We like the large lots and open spaces- that is one reason we bought homes here.2. We supported office zone O-1 for some structures to be used as a buffer and transition between commercial and residential. If restaurants are allowed in office, you have defeated the purpose for office zone. We would have tried our best to fight the rezoning to office in several areas near our homes if we had any idea that restaurants would be allowed. Please do NOT allow restaurants in the office zone.We bought our homes depending on the zoning that was in place and hopeful that any changes in zoning would serve to only enhance our neighborhood, not completely change it and possibly alter it forever.We are disappointed and upset about these 2 proposals in the recoding. This is NOT a step forward for our neighborhood- it is 10 steps backward!Jamie Rowe,President, Tazewell Pike-Beverly Station Neighborhood Coalition (R-1 with an NC-1 overlay)

Our home at 5112 Mountaincrest and our attached undevelped lot at 5113 Ridgemont have the HP designation in the December draft. It appears on Section 8.9 that both properties would be grandfathered except that both lots would be subject to the maximum land disturbance limitation.Questions - 1. Please confirm that both properties would be grandfathered per 8.9.2. What % grade is assigned to each property?3. What constitutes "land disturbance"? I would like to understand how the draft language will affect the future use of our property at 5113 Ridgemont - could a house be built? If not, the value of the property would be greatly reduced.Thank you

Original and established names for Holston Hills Sunset Roads either side of Chilhowee are Sunset Road East and Sunset Road West. The maps should read so accordingly. Hillside protection should extend completely from Sunset Road East to Marilyn Drive without omission. "Unit B" for address "5410" not only does not exist but on the map appears some distance northwest. "EN" designation for "Established Neighborhood," absent other description, would seem to comply with normal English usage and common sense.

One of your stated missions is to recognize the growing changes in Knoxville demography. Current County land just south of the City boundary (south of Knob Creek (off Martin Mill); north of John Sevier Hwy.; east of Knoxville Hwy. (Hwy 33); and west of Chapman Hwy.) comprises increasing-density residential that allows outdated County-zoned (and dangerous) uses. Commercial firing-range for sighting of guns is allowed (high powered rifles). Commercial dump truck operation is allowed where loaded dump trucks run curvy Martin Mill Pike continuously. A lot of septic drainfields are old and, new and old, should be added to city septic.This should be addressed but don't know if this review would include this.

One concern I have coming out of the recent presentation is the recommendation for keep the general commercial code for both suburban and urban development. I am not exactly sure how to do it, but I think we need an urban commercial code for places like Central, potentially MLK, Sevier, Sutherland, parts of Kingston Pike and Broadway, which would be significantly different than the traditional C3 suburban code. I would appreciate your thoughts.This article highlights the problem. http://insideofknoxville.com/2017/09/a-plea-for-preservation-of-a-building-and-a-struggle-for-the-soul-of-central/An historic overlay probably would not be appropriate for Central, but we need some type of guidelines to keep it developing in an urban style, rather than suburban. How can a one size fits all approach work?Marshall StairCouncil Member

On the Recode handout of the zoning overview for neighborhood B. Commercial Districts (9.5% of land use) SW south waterfront district. SW-1 is not commercial, nor is SW-2 but SW-1 is only low density residential now and therefore SW-1 should be listed in the new code under as A. Residential District even though the % of land use is not equal. If listed under commercial - this will be abused & is questionable in this code. This comment has been made several times in public meetings. Homeowner living in SW-1

On the 1400 block of Woodbine, a few of the "last" shotgun houses in Knoxville still stand. Zoning these RN-4 invites demolition. There has been a request to please avoid placing higher density zoning on areas eligible for historic districts, because higher density base zoning could create an incentive to demolish historic single family homes where H or NC zoning has not been enacted. The 1400 block is eligible for H or NC overlay, as per the 2016 MPC Study on Edgewood-Park City Historic District. Please see: http://www.preserveparkcity.org/2018/07/historic-zoning-saves-workforce-housing.html and http://www.preserveparkcity.org/2018/09/knoxville-lost-first-black-neighborhood.html.

On page 5 of the survey (Design and Landscape Standards), I wanted to provide more details of my personal opinions. While design standards can be good, they can also severely limit the character of a place. I believe that the standards that could be introduced would be more along the lines of "You should plant 'this many' trees or have 'so many square feet' of landscaping. It should NOT restrict species, layout, or design of the landscape. The same principle applies to architectural elements. While there is good reason to require street-level storefront windows in certain development zones (corridor intersections to encourage street-front walkability and commerce), materials/design should NOT be prescribed. Architects and Landscape Architects should be given freedom to be creative. nnThe purpose of these rules would be to make sure we avoid the same mistakes made over the last 50 years with automobile-focused development, not prescribe uniformity throughout the city. Certain zones could or should require design elements to promote a healthy development, but should not prescribe every material/detail. That is where you counteract the character, vitality, and originality that new zoning codes would be trying to achieve. The most vibrant and memorable neighborhoods have diversity and character, not consistency.nnWe aren't trying to make cut-and-paste suburban housing tracts in our city centers, but active, healthy, and unique places for our residents to live, work, and play.

On October 31, 2018, Community Forum submitted its initial response to Draft 3 of Recode Knoxville. It included Comments on 23 topics. The deadline to submit comments on Draft 3, for consideration for Draft 4, was subsequently extended until November 16, 2018.

Attached, is Community Forum's Supplemental Response to Draft 3, which contains Comments on three additional topics numbered 3.24, 3.25. and 3.26. These topics involve Accessory Structures and Uses, Outdoor Storage of Commercial Vehicles, and Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles.We would be happy to discuss these additional Draft 3 topics, along with any of our previously raised topics, at any time.Sincerely,Larry Silverstein, Chairperson

On behalf of the Knox County Democratic Party Progressive Action Committee, we would like to submit the attached comments on ReCode Knoxville Draft One.Please let us know if you or your team members have any questions on our submission.Thank you, Progressive Action CommitteeKnox County Democratic Party

On behalf of the Knox County Democratic Party (KCDP) Progressive Action Committee (PAC), we would like to submit the attached comments on ReCode Knoxville Map Draft 3 and ReCode Text Draft 4. We would especially like to point out our recommendation that the Planning staff seek out more lots to designate as RN-3 or RN-4, focusing on lots within a quarter-mile of core and local bus route stops that have no structures and/or that have non-historic structures that were built more recently, for example since 1980. We would be happy to partner with you and neighborhood groups to find such lots suitable for RN-3 or RN-4, and we look forward to following up with you about this. Below is the list of PAC members that ratified this comment submission: Emily Gregg - KCDP Chair & TNDP Executive Committee MemberAllie Cohn - PAC Co-Chair & KCDP Secretary and Executive Committee MemberMichael Davis - PAC Co-Chair & KCDP Executive Committee MemberSylvia Woods - PAC Steering Team Member, KCDP Executive Committee Member & Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee Member LaKenya Middlebrook - PAC Steering Team Member Elizabeth Rowland - PAC Steering Team MemberMoira Connelly - PAC Steering Team MemberMatt Sterling - PAC MemberPlease let us know if you or your team members have any questions on our submission.

On behalf of the Knox County Democratic Party (KCDP) Progressive Action Committee (PAC), we would like to submit the attached comments on ReCode Knoxville Map Draft 2 and ReCode Text Draft 3. Below is the list of contributors and/or ratifiers of these comments: Core Drafting and Research Team:Elizabeth RowlandMatt SterlingMoira ConnellyIdea/Feedback Contributors:Michael DavisSylvia WoodsRatified Final Draft:Linda Haney - KCDP Vice Chair Allie Cohn - PAC Co-Chair & KCDP Secretary and Executive Committee MemberMichael Davis - PAC Co-Chair & KCDP Executive Committee MemberSylvia Woods - PAC Steering Team Member, KCDP Executive Committee Member & Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee Member LaKenya Middlebrook - PAC Steering Team Member Elizabeth Rowland - PAC Steering Team MemberMoira Connelly Matt SterlingLouise SeamsterPlease let us know if you or your team members have any questions on our submission.Thank you, Elizabeth Rowland

On behalf of the Knox County Democratic Party (KCDP) Progressive Action Committee (PAC), we would like to submit the attached comments on ReCode Knoxville Map Draft 1 and ReCode Text Draft 2.Below is the list contributors and/or ratifiers of these comments: Core Drafting & Research Team:Elizabeth RowlandMatt SterlingMoira ConnellyIdea/Feedback Contributors:Michael DavisBryan Hill CharLee HowardRatified Final Draft:Linda Haney - KCDP Vice Chair Allie Cohn - PAC Co-Chair & KCDP Secretary and Executive Committee MemberMichael Davis - PAC Co-Chair & KCDP Executive Committee MemberSylvia Woods - PAC Steering Team Member, KCDP Executive Committee Member & Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee Member LaKenya Middlebrook - PAC Steering Team Member Elizabeth Rowland - PAC Steering Team MemberMoira Connelly - PAC Steering Team MemberMatt SterlingLouise SeamsterBryan HillWe'd also like to bring to your attention a Democratic Television (DTV) episode that we did explaining ReCode Knoxville to viewers.Please let us know if you or your team members have any questions on our submission.Thank you, Elizabeth Rowland

On behalf of Scenic Knoxville, I am submitting the following feedback about Lighting Standards for Exterior Lighting:Lighting standards discourage excessive lighting, minimize glare and light trespass, protect neighbors from the adverse impacts of stray light, create a safe environment in the hours of darkness, and contribute to ensuring dark skies where people can enjoy the beauty of the observing the stars and planets.The proposed Lighting Standards for Exterior Lighting (section 10.2) needs performance standards to address issues of light trespass onto neighboring properties. In particular, there needs to be a measurable standard for the footcandles allowed across an adjacent residential district property line.As written, the current section 10.2 only provides performance standards that:A. Require cut-off luminaire with a cut-off angle of 75 degrees or less that shields the light from an observer 3.5 feet above the ground at an abutting lot line, andB. Freestanding luminaires (i.e. a light pole fixture) are 15 feet away from residential lot lines, max height of 20 feet in non-residential, and 15 feet in residential districts.The issue is that there's nothing about the intensity - the brightness - of the light fixture and how much light is permitted to cross the property line (trespass!) onto a neighboring property. An example: under the current regulation, a very bright light pole could be installed in a parking lot for a commercial business that is adjacent to a single family residential property. The exterior lighting would be fully compliant if it was 75 degree cut-off, 20 feet in height, and 15 feet from the property line. However, an extremely bright light (say 10,000 lumen fixture) would still shine directly onto the ground 13.6 feet onto the residential property due to the 75 degree cut-off angle. That bright light would reflect off the ground (especially if it's a lightly-colored surface such as a concrete driveway) and onto the adjacent house.We would like to see the following outdoor lighting standards included in the code.Light Trespass. All outdoor luminaires shall be located, adequately shielded, and directed such that no direct light falls outside the parcel of origin or onto the public right-of-way. The total lighting on a property must not trespass (exceed) 0.5 footcandles measured at the property line.Implementation notes: This is the performance standard applied to the lighting plans submitted under 10.2.A.1, which requires lighting plans for all non-residential uses, multi-family, and townhouse developments. It is also the measurable performance standard that a property would be held to if a complaint is filed. No expectation is made that this is verified at night as part of the permit / inspection process.House Side Shields. Outdoor lighting fixtures closer to the lot line than the mounting height of the fixture, measured perpendicular to the lot line, adjacent to residential areas, shall have internal house-side shields. Implementation notes: House side shields are available for many fixtures. This is a requirements-input standard that the lighting design, required as part of 10.2.A.1, would include. It could be verified during inspection, and would be enforceable if a complaint is filed.Flood and Spot Lamps. Flood or spot lamps shall be aimed down no higher than 45 degrees to the horizontal (halfway between straight down and straight to the side) when the source is visible from any adjacent residential property.Implementation notes: Primarily a standard that can be enforced in the event that a dispute occurs with a neighboring resident regarding bright lights.Color Temperature: Cooler outdoor light sources (greater than 4,000 Kelvin) will be prohibited and warmer light sources (e.g.2,000 - 4,000 Kelvin) shall be utilized.Implementation notes: This is a requirements - input standard for the lighting design, and could be enforced if a complaint is filed.Additionally, the exception to the Outdoor Recreational Facilities (section 10.2 C. 3.) should have a performance requirement on how long the lighting can remain on after the event. An improvement would be to add text such as "The main lighting shall not remain longer than fifteen (15) minutes following the end of the event. A low-level lighting system shall be used to facilitate patrons leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime maintenance, and other closing activities. The low-level lighting system shall not exceed three (3) foot-candles at the property line."Implementation notes: Probably complaint-driven, but gives guidelines for operations and for design of new facilities.

Oh....this is located on page 9-10, "H. Dwelling - Manufactured Home, 2. Specific Standards":
"...b.  A  perimeter  wall  of  solid  masonry,  concrete,  or  other  material  approved  by  the  Building  Official  must  be installed  around  the  base  of  the  dwelling....”
See what I mean?
It is normal and usual for just plastic type skirting to be put around the base of the dwelling.
Thanks!

Official questions for the boards and committees for Recode Knoxville1. What kind of Input, consulting, training, email or other documents, regarding RecodeKnoxville (rezoning), are coming from the ICLEI global network?2. How will you prevent mis-identification of wetlands?3. Have you looked to New York where there is high density living, but no affordable housing?4. Which outside entities may possibly provide credits, tax breaks or any funding to the city and its citizens for following the new code.5. Does the city of Knoxville get any credits or any type of funding for creating high density living?6. Does the city of Knoxville get any credits or any type of funding for creating high density living for lower income levels.7. Will Knoxville have complete control over building or will any outside entities (government or NGO's outside of Knoxville) have a say?8.? What is the current percentage of open space in Knoxville?9.? Will the City of Knoxville have to meet the requirements of a sustainable community?? 10.? Does the city of Knoxville have to meet any rezoning codes for any reason?

Of recent interest to me is utility poles. We are beginning to have an epidemic of double poles and in some case triple poles as non electric lines fail to move to replaced poles. In many cases there has been no change in poles replaced multiple years ago. A solution needs to be found to resolve this issue. I would recommend credits back to the landowner of the double pole location paid for by the non- moved lines.Second, Is there any zoning regulations for the colors attached to utilities lines. AT&T is placing orange tags all over the city which are ugly. Who is to stop somebody from putting fluorescent yellow or purple next. If they are covered by zoning regulation and have not gotten permission please have them stop. The colors are for AT&T convenience. Black with white letters would work just as well.It might be nice to remind the citizens and law enforcement about the laws associated with obstructing a sidewalk.

Oakwood-Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association Recode ConcernsDraft 2 text, Draft 1 MapSeptember 17, 2018Oakwood and Lincoln Park (OLP) are historic trolley-line suburbs originally developed in the early 1900s with single-family homes. The streets are narrow and many lots do not have driveways. As a result, streets are further constricted by on-street parking. With the majority of lot sizes ranging from 5000-7500 square feet, RN-2 is clearly the most suitable designation for this area, particularly for the interior section of the neighborhood. OLP currently has a diverse mix of Single-Family and Multi-Family housing that will be grandfathered in with the new code. With the new Mixed Use Zoning along commercial corridors, more Multi-Family housing can be accommodated along the neighborhood perimeter. Zoning designations such as RN-3 or above in existing small lot neighborhoods have the potential to cause more parking and traffic issues, as well as worsening storm-water problems. Some streets already experience storm water issues, such as East Springdale Avenue, Banks Avenue, Henegar Street, and Watauga Avenue at Freemason Street. Additionally, it was noted over 12 years ago that the corrugated metal culvert west of Central Street has a limited life span. Increasing density without upgrading infrastructure will further stress our aging storm-water systems. Please see the Oakwood Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan at https://archive.knoxmpc.org/plans/smallarea/ow_lp2006.pdf, page 22). OLPNA board members are in agreement with the Neighborhood Advisory Council Focus Group that a 5,000 square foot lot size is too small for ADUs. This could be changed to 7,000 or 7,500 square feet minimum lot size. Many OLPNA members have expressed concerns about ADUs in general, with one neighbor suggesting ADUs belong only on owner-occupied lots as a best practice. Neighborhood members are also concerned about the timing of the next phases of the Recode project. While Recode has been discussed for many months, it was only recently that the maps came out for comparison. It is important that the hearings regarding Recode not go before the governing bodies of MPC and City Council during the holidays when there will be minimal public interest or input. Since the original focus of Recode was commercial, with a later addition of residential codes, it is time to slow down the process so that residents of Knoxville may be fully informed going forward. Thank you for the extension of the comment period and your consideration of the above concerns.Sincerely,Deborah Thomas President, Oakwood-Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association

Not just new but renovated buildings along any corridor should be required to have a buffer whether trees, bushes, or a well maintained attractive fence. Alley ways between buildings and residential are usually unkept. Some vegetation, trellis work or partial fencing could help between residential and other uses. Strict regulation of noise from both music, parties or food trucks generators, commercial docks and smoke from any source that intrudes into residential should not be allowed.There are some reuses that should not be allowed in old buildings. But, a restaurant is a more intrusive use than a warehouse just in looking at the operating hours. While a homeowner may work during the day and not notice a warehouse during the day. The restaurant business hours of operation occur during the residents evening down time or kids bedtime. Anytime alcohol is part of the picture there is high likelihood of loud voices and inappropriate language. Lighting is becoming an issue as added street lighting occurs along with signage and lighting added as decoration at night. Car noise, fumes, and parking with people coming and going is intrusive to a family quiet time so operating hours should be restricted. The type of business is very crucial to residential stability.The reuse of an existing building should fit with the neighborhoods character. This does not mean there should be a bar on every corner. No industrial. Enough parking to stop parking carryover on to residential streets. if code requires a building height of 4 stories there should be a clause that 4 is a recommendation but if development wants less height say 2 story that would be allowed, but not higher. Supporting infrastructure, sidewalks are the developer's responsibility since many want TIFs or PILOT breaks for 20-30 years at taxpayer expence on pensions, road maintenance and other services.ADUs and STR should be restricted to only homeowner occupied with off street parking. in EN, RN-1, RN-2, and SW-1. With no subletting greater than the allowable number on the lease per unit or fire code/ occupancy limit.

Noise ordinance is directly connected to zoing. We need to anticipate the growth of popularity in the growth of outdoor entertainment and provide spaces and flexible permitting for that.

Need to work on roads rather than making bike lanes and sidewalks. Since you have screwed up Moody Avenue by making it a 2 lane road I have seen far more car wrecks than I have seen people riding bikes. Crazy. I have talked to a lot of people who feel the same way. Also need more speed enforcement everywhere in the city. Especially Chapman Highway.

My wife and I have been on a scavenger hunt for information for the last year since relocating to Knoxville from Boston, hoping to bring our brand to join the thriving art community in The Old City. Today we finally gained clarity on how our business would fit into the current zones of the City of Knoxville. We hope to support local artists through consistent art shows and artist retail branding as well as volunteer for events and give back to the flourishing artisan community through outlets such as fund raising and scholarships. Unfortunately, the most profitable source of income through our business model is high quality tattooing and tattoo studio management, mainly from the high income/low overhead cash flow associated with our proven model. We learned to our surprise today that tattooing (C3) is scarcely mapped in the Downtown/Old City, which we found unusual in comparison to the locations of our other tattoo studios as well as inconsistent with the development of other US cities we have worked and networked in. We are reaching out to multiple organizations and connections such as realty groups and local businesses in search of our next step in growing and giving to our community. Can you offer us any advice or contacts that could lead to information that would assist us in changing the current ordinance of the Central Business District to include Art Galleries that offer tattooing? We look forward to planting our roots in Downtown Knoxville where we plan to stay and raise our son and give back to our community.

My son will be starting Kindergarten this year. I love being active and it makes me sad that I live so close to the school, but I can't walk because there are no sidewalks! The area is growing and there is not a lot of parking. If there were sidewalks throughout the community I think there would be a lot more people walking and biking and leaving their cars at home. Thanks for your time!

My question/comment concerns Section 1.4.G. Previously Approved Planned Districts. I did not find Planned Districts in the definitions so, please update that. Also, I did not see a PD overlay included in the map or referred to in the 3rd revision. Will that be developed to identify these areas?

My property is proposed to move from R1 to RN-1. There are 2 dwellings on my property. Will the second dwelling be grandfathered into the RN-1? Is there anything I need to do to make sure it is grandfathered in? Thanks.

My properties 6721 & 6727 Campbell Lane located off of Callahan Drive are currently zoned RN-1 and planned A-1. I am planning on having an equipment rental/sales business on these properties. which zoning should i seek? the property already neighbors another commercial property. thank you!

My impression of the survey, which is only my impression, is that it is skewed toward approval of higher density development which would benefit commercial developers more than residents. It is also rather vague. In theory I might like the idea of a more flexible approach to the size of a lot needed for a residential building, for example. However, if a builder wants to put a house on the tiny lot next door to me as an "infill" I would object. There is nothing in the survey about truly affordable housing, or about preventing the duplication of downtown redevelopment efforts into the Magnolia corridor, which would price many residents out of the area. Mixed use is great, but maybe not if it means a Starbucks below and pricey condos above.Although I feel there should be more landscaping requirements and architectural guidelines, I think they should not be a burden on an individual homeowner such as myself. We need creative solutions which take the needs of the elderly, low income and disabled into consideration., with much more input from these residents. Local homeowners and very small business owners need affordable programs to help repair and enhance their properties.When it comes to improving neighborhoods, let's not forget the mostly unattractive buildings for seniors, low income such as Love Towers. If real estate developers want to profit in our city, they should be wiling to contribute to the welfare of all its residents, not just the wealthier elements. Gentrification needs to be addressed in an open, transparent way and more options developed for lower income citizens to purchase their own homes or perhaps have cooperatively owned apartments.

My husband and I are building a house in South Knoxville on Atchley Street that will be our primary residence. I have heard about the city's master plan of the South Knoxville Waterfront and specifically the Bell Tower Walk which is on axis with Atchley. My concern is that with the I-G zoning following the old rail tracks, the Bell Tower Walk will be limited in the future and the residential district above will be disconnected from the pedestrian friendly area below. As a stakeholder in the neighborhood, I think the SW-3 zoning should continue up Atchley Street at least to Yarnell Ave to reinforce the power of that axis and be in place for future development. Regardless of whether Atchley remains predominantly residential or the Bell Tower Walk eventually moves up the hill, having SW-3 would prevent an industrial development from cutting off the neighborhood from the riverfront or the Tower Walk from being visually terminated by industrial buildings. I think this will be especially important once the Rails to Trails path is installed and large groups of people are going to it right at that point. Finally, the river is visible up to Yarnell and there is a clear connection to what is the SW zone. I think the pattern already in the plan that has SW-3 on the North end of Atchley, should continue up the hill. I appreciate the effort you all are going to and the energy everyone is putting into improving our city!! Thank you!

My hope for Recode is to lower the barriers of entry for small-scale, community based development of affordable, efficient, and sustainable dwellings optimizing the density our existing neighborhoods.A few suggestions for doing so... Allowance ADU's: -if ADU's remain contentious in some neighborhoods.. perhaps they could be allowed in RN-1, 2, 3, 4, etc. and not in EN. -if contention remains consider utilizing the model ADU code developed by leading experts in the field (available at AccessoryDwellings.org)After ADU's, a duplex is the lowest hanging fruit for small-scale community-based development. Consider lowering barriers of entry to duplex development, its a great tool increase sustainable density & diversity within existing neighborhoods. Suggestions as follows... 4-2: Consider revising "Minimum Interior Side Setbacks" to allow for small-scale development of duplex properties. Many communities that could benefit from additional density provided by a duplex contain 50' lots (and sometimes less). As written, side setbacks of 20' are counterproductive to a feasible shotgun duplex. Height requirements limit a stacked duplex. Design restrictions limit a "front/rear" duplex where both doors must face the frontage road. Less restrictions will be needed to fully utilize duplex development as a tangible solution for density & affordability.Also, what would be the requirements for special allowance of Duplex in RN-1, RN-2?Additional Comments: 4-2: 4.3.C.1 - Why would multi-family dwellings be LIMITED to corner lots only? What about double or triple interior lots, etc.? 9-15: W. Neighborhood Nonresidential ReUse - consider new builds and/or structures for Non-residential use at certain intersections within residential districts. Increase the availability of neighborhood stores, increase diversity, decrease auto-dependence, etc. 10-4: 8. Accessory structures cannot contain cooking facilities or plumbing? This seems heavy-handed and not conducive to resilient, adaptable structures. Garden shed, painting studio, pool house, etc. Plumbing + bathrooms should be at the owners discretion. 11-6: Dwelling - Two-Family = 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit... total of 4 for a duplex. Consider REDUCING to 1 per dwelling unit to not further hinder small-scale, community-based development.

My concern is that there are still many city residents that are just not aware of Recode and how it will impact them when the changes are finally made. I respectfully ask that instead of trying to push it thru in December, that City Council make the wrap up date sometime in March or April of 2019. That gives City residents more time to get involved and give input. I also ask that the Infill Design Guidelines be kept to help preserve the character of our fragile older neighborhoods.

My comment regards the properties in north Knoxville near Fountain City at 725 Sterchi Ridge Way and the adjacent parcel with the address "0 Sterchi Ridge Way." The current zoning is RP-1 (1-6 DU/AC) which allows a maximum of 6 Dwelling Units per acre. The proposed zoning is RN-5 which will allow a maximum of 27 units per acre. This property, totaling 29+ acres, is owned by an Alabama-based real estate management company and will definitely be developed. In fact, some apartments have already been constructed and my understanding is that more are on the horizon to equal 130 units. These higher-density apartments have apparently been allowed on RP-1 zoned land by taking into account the total acreage and concentrating the allowable number of units for the ENTIRE property in one small section. This interpretation of the regulations was obviously cleared by someone, but it is far from following the spirit of the current zoning which aims to establish a residential area with much lower density. It appears to the careful observer that the owner is biding time, waiting for a likely zoning change to build out the rest of that acreage with more than four times the amount of units that are currently allowed. I understand the need for multi-family, affordable housing in Knoxville. I am not opposed to having such housing near my home and neighborhood. There is already quite a bit of "RN-5" type housing around the Fountain City area. My concern regarding this particular property is that the proposed zoning is significantly denser than today's zoning. Based on 29 acres, the current zoning allows for 174 units or dwellings on the property. The proposed zoning, if maxed out, would allow 783 dwellings or families. The neighborhood school, Sterchi Elementary, (separated from this property by only a private drive) is already considerably overcrowded. The school is using multiple portable units to try to accommodate the students. The latest was placed on the outside basketball court. Auxiliary services like speech therapy are being conducted in the hallways. If 600 or more additional families live on that 29 acres, education at Sterchi Elementary will clearly suffer.I am also very concerned about the impact on traffic. Long lines of vehicles back up on Cedar Lane/Merchants Drive heading west toward I75 and east toward Broadway during every morning and evening rush hour. To avoid sitting through two or three rounds of the traffic light at Merchants and Central Avenue Pike, I make sure to leave my house by 7:00am. Other neighbors try to avoid that congested on-ramp altogether by going down Inskip Rd./Bruhin Rd. and jumping on I275. But that too gets backed up if you get there after 7:25am. The introduction of 600 or more households to this area will exacerbate the already frustrating tie-ups. As I said before, I anticipate that this property will be developed further. I ask those who will ultimately decide to take the proposed RN-5 designation off the table, and replace it with one that will result in a more appropriate number of dwellings for the area. Please apply a designation that will enhance our neighborhood without choking the traffic and over-extending the elementary school.Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this!

My comment is in regard to trailers/RV's.The current code, Article V, Section 8 C, states that:"On each lot, a total of two (2) (one (1) from any two (2) of the subsections listed below) of the following vehicles may be parked or stored per household living on the premises, and said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet in length or nine (9) feet in width; and further provided that said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not be parked or stored for more than forty-eight (48) hours unless it is located behind the front yard building line:1.Recreational vehicle.2.Hauling trailer.3.Boat trailer."In the proposed code 11.12 B"Recreational vehicles must be located within the interior side yard behind the front building line or in the rear yard. If stored in the interior side or rear yard, the recreational vehicle must be located at least ten feet from any lot line and screened from view from any public right-of-way by a solid fence or wall. If the recreational vehicle is screened by an existing structure or landscape so that it is not visible from the public right-of-way, it is considered to meet these requirements. Temporary storage tents and tarps for recreational vehicles are not considered screening and do not meet these requirements."I have a few concerns about the new code:1. There appears to be no limit to the number, or size, of RV permitted, as long as it/they are properly screened from the public ROW. 2. What about trailers that do not meet the Recode definition of a RV? Cargo trailers, utility trailers, equipment trailers, etc.3. Why is parking behind the front building line no longer considered adequate, the new screening requirements seem excessively restrictive?

My comment is in regard to trailersThe current code, Article V, Section 8 C, states that:On each lot, a total of two (2) (one (1) from any two (2) of the subsections listed below) of the following vehicles may be parked or stored per household living on the premises, and said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet in length or nine (9) feet in width; and further provided that said trailer, or recreational vehicle, shall not be parked or stored for more than forty-eight (48) hours unless it is located behind the front yard building line:1.Recreational vehicle.2.Hauling trailer.3.Boat trailer.In the proposed code 11.12 Recreational vehicles must be located within the interior side yard behind the front building line or in the rear yard. If stored in the interior side or rear yard, the recreational vehicle must be located at least ten feet from any lot line and screened from view from any public right-of-way by a solid fence or wall. If the recreational vehicle is screened by an existing structure or landscape so that it is not visible from the public right-of-way, it is considered to meet these requirements. Temporary storage tents and tarps for recreational vehicles are not considered screening and do not meet these requirements.I have a few concerns about the new code1. There appears to be no limit to the number, or size, of RV permitted, as long as it/they are properly screened from the public ROW.2. What about trailers that do not meet the Recode definition of a RV? Cargo trailers, utility trailers, equipment trailers, etc.3. Why is parking behind the front building line no longer considered adequate, the new screening requirements seem excessively restrictive?

My apologies. I forgot these questions:After zoning updates, how will "enforcement" or compliance with same be guaranteed? Can/will zoning decisions STOP being left up to ONE person to decide upon?Right now, laws/regs/codes are NOT enforced nor complied with, with no reasons nor excuses given. What can communities do to force State, county and city government to become fully knowledgeable about same and more importantly, REQUIRE that they COMPLY with same?We can write these things forever, but they do nothing if they are ignored. Correct?

Mr. Green, On behalf of the Knox County Democratic Party Progressive Action Committee, we would like to submit the attached comments on ReCode Knoxville. Please let us know if you or your team members have any questions on our submission.Thank you,Progressive Action CommitteeKnox County Democratic PartyProgressive Ideals and Recommendations for ReCode Knoxville

Mr. Green,Attached please find follow-up comments to your August 24th meeting with members of Fountain City community organizations and a request for more debate on Recode Knoxville. We on Gibbs Drive and others throughout the Fountain City community look forward to working with MPC staff and city representatives on producing the best possible zoning ordinances for Knoxville's future.Sincerely,Gibbs Drive Historic Neighborhood Association

Most large to medium cities have stricter landscaping standards than what Recode is proposing. Those standards are not difficult to enforce. Stricter landscape standards will be a benefit to Knoxville economically, environmentally, and socially.Native and Drought Tolerant species should be required, not encouraged. No one does the "encourage" line items. The line has no teeth.All parking lots over 5,000 sf should have perimeter landscaping requirements.Lots of 10,000 sf or greater should have interior landscaped islands.A mitigation fund or tree bank should be required. If existing trees of a certain caliper are destroyed in development, X number of 2" cal. trees need to be planted on site or given to the city for planting.A landscaping bond similar to Chattanooga's should be required.

More sidewalks! More trees! More renewable energy! More mass transit routes and options! Mixed use zones for residential + commercial! More bike lanes! More green spaces for public use! I love the direction we are heading, and I love Mayor Rogero - keep up the great work and continue improving our city!

More multi-family housing is needed in Knoxville . . . Put back the ORANGE!

Many of the choices were of necessity broad, and do not allow for nuances.As a starter I would like to see a specified definition of what constitutes a dwelling unit. I believe citizens buy and build in a location based on zoning, but we are seeing existing zoning being over turned or re-interpreted. Surely we can create a great viable, and vibrant city without destroying existing communities.

Many great cities have landscaping standards that are much stricter than the ones proposed in Recode. We know from their experiences that these standards are not overly onerous either to carry out or to enforce. Knoxville can and should do this, too. There are numerous environmental, economic, aesthetic and quality of life benefits to enhanced landscaping. We believe the following standards should be included in the new ordinance.Interior Landscaping of Parking LotsThe current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot.Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.Landscape Bond:In regard to compliance with Landscape Ordinance requirements, based on discussion with those professionally qualified to understand both the value of proper landscaping for any development and the challenge of achieving compliance, a two-step LANDSCAPE BOND should be include. The city of Chattanooga successfully employs this process.1. PERFORMANCE BOND: This allows developers six months after issuance of the C O to install landscaping to offset the disadvantage of completing projects in late spring or summer months and to assure reasonable growth conditions.2. MAINTENANCE BOND: This would be applicable during the two-year period following the project's completion and would include a reasonable time period for proper landscape care to assure healthy plant material. The Maintenance Bond is released after two years, contingent on satisfactory inspection by a qualified professional, such as a landscape architect licensed in Tennessee and familiar with the design intent. Without a maintenance bond a lot of landscaping will not be adequately cared for and will die. Two years of proper care will greatly increase the survival of installed landscaping.Since the city operates on a complaint driven system and is chronically short staffed when it comes to enforcement, we don't have a lot of confidence that it will be successful at requiring developers to replace landscaping that has died. It also places an unfair burden on citizens who would be responsible for tracking and reporting landscaping that needs to be replaced. In our experience, this often requires follow-up phone calls and emails by the citizen.Mitigation Fund or Tree BankRecode should include some form of mitigation for the destruction of trees by developers, perhaps along the lines of how TDEC operates its stream and wetlands mitigation program. In the case of tree protection, the ordinance could specify that for each tree destroyed over a particular diameter, X number of trees of 2" caliper have to be planted; or, a value of the destroyed trees could be established and the developer pay the equivalent value into a mitigation bank, with the city using the funds for planting or landscaping projects.Thank you.Scenic Knoxville

Many alleyways in the north Knoxville area have become unsafe havens for criminal activity within residential neighborhoods. I have an alleyway behind my house that runs the length of several neighborhoods and it has become unsafe to take the trash out at night or walk my dog in these areas. I have witnessed drug use, violence, and illegal drug sales in the alleyway and have reported the issues to Knoxville PD.I would like to see stricter traffic laws enforced in alleyways that prevent anyone and everyone from using the alleyways for their illegal activities. More lights in the alleyways would make them safer or even just signs posted prohibiting certain activities or bringing attention to surveillance in the area could help improve the safety of alleyways in Knoxville. On the subject of lighting. It would be great if, with all the new construction happening, if better light pollution techniques could start to be applied to newer structures and layouts. The night sky is important for human health and Knoxville currently ranks very low among night sky friendly cities. We should start thinking about the future now and applying techniques to reverse our light pollution output. Thank you for considering my thoughts and concerns.

Main items that concern us the most in our neighborhood are1. ADUs in ALL residential zones and the sizes of ADUs allowed, as well as the fact that neither home ust be owner occupied. We've been told in meetings with MPC that people for and against ADUs are equally divided, but after talking with many (over 10) large neighborhood groups across the city- I have yet to find one neighborhood group in support of ADUs. Please let us know which neighborhoods like this idea and then let's see what kind of compromise could be reached. We think ADUs destroy the fabric of established neighborhoods, increasing the density and defeats the purpose you are trying to achieve. Homes will be more expensive with a second home on the property and it is doubtful those homes will be rented to the people who you are trying to help. In essence, with property values raised- the people will be forever renters. From our research ADUs tend to work better in walkable neighborhoods with reliable close transit. Neither one of those criteria are met in many of our neighborhoods. Also, by opening it up to ALL residential districts, you have nop idea how many ADUs will be built- we can't write an ordinance on "I don't think that many people will actually build an ADU"- which is what we have heard at at least 2 meetings. Additionally, most cities have quite a few restrictions regarding ADUS, they are limited to certain zones, and especially the largest size (1200 square feet) is a much smaller requirement in other cities.2. Home occupation definition-"any commercial activity carried out for economic gain..." and (10-9 P) the removal of standards and permitted and prohibited uses from existing ordinance.3. Removal and changes in wording in MANY definitions4. We were told that "RN-1 and RN-2 are EXACTLY alike except for lot size" but that isn't accurate. RN-1 for 2-family home -requirement of 15,000 sq ft in lot size and in RN-2 for 2-family home-requirement is 10,000 sq ft. In a lot of neighborhoods homes with 10,000 sq ft are being lumped together with 5,000 sq ft lots. By right, the 10,000 sq ft lot could be subdivided and then a second home plus 2 ADUs could be built and all four homes could be rentals with no requirement for homes to be owner occupied.submitted for Tazewell Pike-Beverly Station Neighborhood (presently R-1 NC-1 overlay)

Loved this survey. It was easy but I do wish there were a few more examples of what was being discussed. Such as parking regulations, i.e. commercial shops are required to have 5 spaces per 1000 feet, should this regulation be increased? For the most part I was able to understand what was being discussed but examples always help. Good job advertising on Facebook, this helps and I will share! 😉

Love the inclusion of Riverscape Standards and Stream Buffers in the South Waterfront (SW) district. Since the Tennessee River is such an important natural asset to our community, wouldn't it make sense to apply similar standards for all riverscape and streams in the City? Most streams have unfortunately already been developed, but applying these type of standards across the City would provide a means of protecting our waterways during future development/redevelopment, and a vision for caring for our natural resources. It is also just a smart development practice from an aesthetic standpoint to allow public access to river frontage instead of cutting people off with streets and buildings.

Looking to the future--I would like for the planning commission to re-consider zoning provisions that allow crematories at funeral homes. As a resident of Fountain City, I am appalled and still outraged at how the city MPC, permitting, and City Council handled the Gentry-Griffey funeral home's supposedly secondary use permit for a crematory addition. Apparently no one at the city checks to see if cremations are indeed the secondary use. Gentry-Griffey (owned by an LLC) contracts with several counties to cremate remains of indigents and remains from the medical examiner's office. According to my daily look at the Sentinel's obit pages, Gentry-Griffey doesn't do many funerals, so how could they stay in business if cremation is not their primary business? If Gentry-Griffey's cremations are not secondary, but primary, should their permit not be revoked and a fine imposed? The new zoning provisions passed a few years ago (after the hurried, non-public approval of Gentry-Griffey's 24 hour, 7 day a week permit was issued and then opposed by a citizen group in Fountain City) now allow crematories at any funeral home, no matter the zoning, I can imagine that we could have a couple more crematories in Fountain City (in that there are several funeral homes here) and we could then kiss Fountain City's neighborhoods' ambiance goodbye. Such a shame the current state of this zoning puts us in! My biggest problem with Knoxville's zoning is that it is not enforced. Inspections and reports should be made, especially in cases of secondary use permits.As to your survey, some questions/proposed responses were ambiguous. I tried to respond in a way that reflects my view that neighborhood integrity should be honored, businesses should have to respect residents' reasonable wishes (as to appearance, addition of or re-purposing of commercial buildings, addition of multi-family buildings, to name a few.Thank you for providing the survey. I am signing up for the newsletter.

Least restrictive zoning should be applied to center city neighborhoods with high rental property occupancy (often African American people with limited income) so as not to displace them through gentrification.Sidewalks, lighting, green spaces are all important.Craft dwellings (live upstairs/shop downstairs) should be permitted where it does not compromise character of neighborhood,Mixed use/re-use of vacant buildings in keeping with character of established neighborhoods should be considered.Revitalization/re-development of East Town needs urgent attention.Hillside protection overlay should not make owner occupied renovation/addition a difficult process.Supporting Burlington revitalization is a priority.More clarity is needed around opportunity for Tiny Homes as accessory dwellingsThank you Urban League for helping to make this process more understandable.

LANDSCAPING STANDARDSMany great cities have landscaping standards that are much stricter than the ones proposed in Recode. We know from their experiences that these standards are not overly onerous either to carry out or to enforce. Knoxville can and should do this, too. There are numerous environmental, economic, aesthetic and quality of life benefits to enhanced landscaping. We believe the following standards should be included in the new ordinance.Interior Landscaping of Parking LotsThe current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot.Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.Landscape Bond:In regard to compliance with Landscape Ordinance requirements, based on discussion with those professionally qualified to understand both the value of proper landscaping for any development and the challenge of achieving compliance, a two-step LANDSCAPE BOND should be include. The city of Chattanooga successfully employs this process.1. PERFORMANCE BOND: This allows developers six months after issuance of the C O to install landscaping to offset the disadvantage of completing projects in late spring or summer months and to assure reasonable growth conditions.2. MAINTENANCE BOND: This would be applicable during the two-year period following the project's completion and would include a reasonable time period for proper landscape care to assure healthy plant material. The Maintenance Bond is released after two years, contingent on satisfactory inspection by a qualified professional, such as a landscape architect licensed in Tennessee and familiar with the design intent. Without a maintenance bond a lot of landscaping will not be adequately cared for and will die. Two years of proper care will greatly increase the survival of installed landscaping.Since the city operates on a complaint driven system and is chronically short staffed when it comes to enforcement, we don't have a lot of confidence that it will be successful at requiring developers to replace landscaping that has died. It also places an unfair burden on citizens who would be responsible for tracking and reporting landscaping that needs to be replaced. In our experience, this often requires follow-up phone calls and emails by the citizen.Mitigation Fund or Tree BankRecode should include some form of mitigation for the destruction of trees by developers, perhaps along the lines of how TDEC operates its stream and wetlands mitigation program. In the case of tree protection, the ordinance could specify that for each tree destroyed over a particular diameter, X number of trees of 2" caliper have to be planted; or, a value of the destroyed trees could be established and the developer pay the equivalent value into a mitigation bank, with the city using the funds for planting or landscaping projects.

LandscapingI would like to wholeheartedly endorse the call by Scenic Knoxville for stricter landscaping standards in the new zoning code. Parking lots are a necessity, but the kind of visual ugliness they introduce into the urban scene can be ameliorated by islands of vegetation and the plantings help to balance out the negative environmental effects of the automobiles parked there. Likewise their recommendation of Performance and Maintenance Bonds is sound, since without such guarantees there is no protection against substandard installation work or neglect of maintenance. Last year Town Hall East secured an agreement with Dollar General that they would install landscaping at their new store of Boyds Bridge Pike. They spent money on installation but do not seem to have expended a penny on upkeep since then, and crabgrass obscures the low growing shrubs. Transparency.I am concerned that issues surrounding notification of neighbors for use on review that have been raised by the Community Forum and League of Women Voters have not been resolved in a way that insures the greatest transparency and a required degree of community participation in reaching a decision.Accessory Dwelling UnitsPlease continue to push for the automatic right to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit as included in Draft 3. Owner occupancy of one of the units would be an acceptable limitation.Thank you for your hard work in this process.

LANDSCAPE BOND:In regard to compliance with Landscape Ordinance requirements, based on discussion with those professionally qualified to understand both the value of proper landscaping for any development and the challenge of achieving compliance, the two-step LANDSCAPE BOND makes a lot of sense. 1. PERFORMANCE BOND: It essentially allows developers six months after issuance of the C O to install landscaping, to offset the disadvantage of completing projects in late spring or summer months, to assure reasonable growth conditions and released upon satisfactory compliance, as determined by a landscape architect familiar with the design intent. 2. MAINTENANCE BOND: Applicable during the two-year period following the project's completion and including a reasonable time period for proper landscape care to assure healthy plant material following that period. The Maintenance Bond is released after two years, contingent on satisfactory inspection by qualified professional, a landscape architect licensed in Tennessee and familiar with the design intent.

KUB trims the trees along the side of the roads and cuts a lot of the trees in half because of the power lines. I understand the reasons for this but you can clearly see that the remainder of the tree that is left is now a hazard to the community. Perhaps the answer is to re due the power lines in heavily populated ares underground.

KP-SHA board has adopted the following positions on the ReCode proposals. KP-SHA represents one of the oldest established neighborhoods in Knoxville. We support the maintenance and improvement of the residential qualities of the Kingston Pike-Sequoyah Hills community, including immediately adjacent areas of Knoxville.KP-SHA bylaws mandate cooperating with governmental units and civic organizations to further community interests, maintain the integrity of the Scenic Highway concept, promote appropriate zoning and deed restrictions, and oppose community deterioration and development of multi-family dwellings.The ongoing ReCode initiative offers many positive opportunities for Knoxville's future growth and development. Members of the neighborhood and the KP-SHA Board of Directors are actively participating in the ReCode process. However, some of the changes in ReCode appear to threaten the character of the KPSHA neighborhood and raise concerns that are important to the KPSHA community.The following positions identify these concerns and represent the views of the KP-SHA Board of Directors:- The KP-SHA neighborhood should retain the existing character of the present R1 zoning definition as a low density, single family neighborhood.- The KP-SHA area should be considered for EN (Established Residential Neighborhood) zoning.- The KP-SHA neighborhood should be zoned to exclude the introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).- The KP-SHA neighborhood should be zoned to exclude the introduction of two family dwellings (duplexes), regardless of lot size.- Zoning along the Western Plaza to Northshore corridor should not allow unlimited height buildings.

Knoxville, is a growing city that has maintained a community type environment. I hope to see the redevelopment of existing structures, new green areas, more bike and walking trails to connect communities. Develop Knoxville in much the same way the downtown area is being redeveloped. Provide incentives for developers to use local business to build and construct, keep the money in our area.

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

Knoxville needs more, not less affordable housing. Please restore the orange zone.

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

Knoxville needs more affordable housing. Do not change the zoning.

Knoxville needs more affordable housing, not less. I urge the City Council and the MPC to returning some of the orange areas to the zoning map and to include areas on the map which allow for RN3 and RN4 zoning, two new categories created during the ReCode process but not used in the proposed map. Thank you.

Knoxville needs more affordable housing! I think there is a myth that multi-family housing units bring down property values (a racist/classist belief to begin with) and the assumption is people in expensive neighborhoods will somehow rise up if an apartment building or a duplex is too close to their fancy house. I live in a fancy neighborhood in the Rocky Hill area and I want other families to be able to afford to live here too and send their kids to our excellent elementary school. I support multi-family units in this area, I support ADU's, I support duplexes built on a single lot, I support allowing developers to use vinyl siding to lower costs. My $300,000 house has vinyl siding on three sides - it looks very nice it would be fine on the whole thing.When a multi-family unit was proposed a 2-3 years ago on Wallace there was backlash and complaints of how terrible the traffic would be. Those units went in and traffic is fine but those units are still outside the price range of most families. We need options.I am a homeowner and I want to live in a city that supports all citizens and provides opportunities for lower income families to have options. Give Knoxville more orange!

Knoxville is striving to become a greener City, but that cannot really happen as long as 97% of trips are made by car. Transit, biking and walking must be much more strongly encouraged. This is a safety issue, an air quality issue, and a climate change issue. Transit, while somewhat improved, is still not a viable option for many. Buses are in the same traffic as private autos and therefore do not provide a time advantage. With few exceptions, buses do not come into neighborhoods. I live inside the city limits of Knoxville, but the nearest bus stop is more than a mile from my house. Buses, or perhaps feeder buses should get with in 1/4 mile of residences, at least in the city. West of South Northshore and South of Kingston Pike biking is not an option for most because of heavy traffic.nnnnSo let's take the lead in reducing auto trips and becoming a greener, safer, more livable city.

Knoxville is not the only ET municipality or county that needs zoning and subdivision requirements need updating but Knoxville it the one of the rare ones who can afford the process. I hope when you complete your effort, you can do an assessment of what you have learned in the process and evaluate what measure can be done to reduce the cost or better pave the way of community engagement. A helpful lessons learned would be nice and sharing your changes to be reviewed for application to more rural communities surrounding Knox County.

Knoxville is a scruffy city, and part of what's kept it that way are the many locally-born, grown, and owned businesses. An updated zoning code will spur increased development in Knoxville and, inevitably, will raise rent and property prices. The new code should set standards for ensuring that a reasonable percent of rents and properties remain affordable for the small-scale folks who've made this city unique. I grew up around Greenville, SC and watched as it transformed into the tourist destination it is today. However, one of the biggest complaints about Greenville from locals and tourists alike is that it is too "corporate." Unless we plan ahead to keep rents and properties affordable, both for retail and for housing, Knoxville will make the same mistake. Let's keep it scruffy, even while we work to make it a livelier place for all of us to live.

Knoxville has a Tree Protection Ordinance. Is there a reason why this wasn't included in the Recode draft? Also, rather than saying invasive plant species aren't allowed, can the ordinance link to a list of invasive species and state that anything on the list is prohibited?

Knoxville and our surrounding neighbors would greatly benefit from a stronger lighting code. Light pollution obscures the natural beauty of our skies and wastes so much energy. Let's position our city as a leader, not only for our local regain but in the Southeast as well, protecting the night skies and reducing energy consumption by including stronger restrictions in the outdoor lighting section. As we continue to develop the Urban Wilderness, this facet of our zoning code is something we must consider.One of the best model ordinances is the Pattern Outdoor Lighting Code, a model ordinance proven to reduce light pollution and energy use. Help Knoxville lead our region in reducing lighting pollution! The Pattern Outdoor Lighting Code can be found here: http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/WPdev/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CBL-POLC-standard-v2.0.pdf

just received a letter from recode Knoxville. does any of this include a sidewalk or bike lanes in my area near adair park?

Just finished a quick reading of Draft Four and I noticed several issues that conflicts with fire safety and American with Disabilities Act.After the Gatlinburg Wildfire, the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, TN State Fire Marshall, TN Division of Forestry, U.S. Forrest Service, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Appalachian Resource Conservation and Development Council, and the National Park Service are all promoting FireWise community planning to reduce wildfires. The current draft mandating landscaping is in conflict with FireWise standards, putting many residents in danger. A few examples of dangerous conflicts are:Requiring far too many trees near residential home. FireWise minimum standards states that trees canopies should be separated by a minimum of 10' to reduce fast spreading canopy fires. Shrubs should be separated by two times their height and if under a trees canopy by three times its height. These distances are based on a flat plane. If structures are located up slope from the landscaping the distance increases as the slope increases. The requirement that townhouses have landscaping along foundation and to screen outdoor equipment is a high risk. If the equipment malfunctions or sparks it could quickly set a wildfire. After the Gatlinburg Wildfire there were several seminars in the area on planning a FireWise Community. Many of the state and federal departments listed above provided presentations. While the state didn't seem ready to mandate FireWise at this time, it was understood that insurances companies may cancel some policies in high fire risk locations. In mixed-use districts the new codes mandates commercial on the first floor while restricting residential to the second floor or above. There are no requirements for elevators therefore the handicapped and seniors will be unable to live in that district. Draft Four has more than 700 changes, I stopped counting after 700. While many are single word changes, sometimes it major changes to a specific zoning. In December, MPC postponed hearing the new ordinance for 30 days. It's scheduled for January 10, 2019, that's 28 days. MPC also notified the public by email on December 20, 2018 that Draft Four was posted. With comments closing on January 4, that allows the public exactly 15 day to read the proposed ordinance and make comment, while many are spending the Christmas holidays with family.

I've noticed that that new commercial developments especially on Broadway in Fountain City, don't have adequate parking. These locations include the ones w that have Panera Bread, Fed-Ex, Chop House, Salsaritas and the newest one next to Chick-Fillet. It's difficult to find a parking space at certain times of the day.

I've been told that builders of new developments are not required to install sidewalks. This, to me, doesn't make any sense. I feel like they should be required to be built at the time a new development is put in place. This cost should NOT fall onto the city. As a current resident of Sequoyah Hills (and former resident of Holston Hills), I lament the fact that so many of our neighborhoods aren't more pedestrian friendly. The addition of sidewalks to new neighborhoods might free up some money to add sidewalks to older neighborhood like Sequoyah and Holston Hills and others that were in existence before the importance of sidewalks was realized.I've often wondered if it wouldn't be possible to improve walkability in some neighborhoods by changing traffic patterns on some roads. You could convert roads that are currently 2-way into be one-way roads. I feel like this could work, for example, in an area where there are 2, 2-way roads running parallel to one another (both lacking sidewalks). You could perhaps make each road one way (one now becomes south-bound only, while the other becomes north-bound only.) The now unused lane on each road is repurposed as a "pedestrian lane". We live on Arrowhead Trail in Sequoyah and I could see this working nicely in combination with Noelton Drive. Neither of these roads have sidewalks and it definitely prevents most people from walking to the local groceries and shops. I would imagine this would have to be less expensive than putting in sidewalks and it wouldn't necessarily increase traffic on either road. Perhaps it is less of a hassle, as well, with regards to getting the neighbors to agree to it as well because you wouldn't be taking away any of their front yard to convert to sidewalk... just a thought!Thanks for seeking out our opinions on recoding the city. Knoxville has come such a long way in the 12 years that I've lived here... let's keep up the amazing progress!!! Improving walkability in neighborhoods and pedestrian access to local stores and shops will be such a boon to the city... less cars on the road, healthier citizens and an even more desirable place to call home!

I'm fine with multi-family units in residential areas as long as stricter regulations are enforced to keep slumlords from renting out to people who sell drugs or partake in other criminal lifestyles. The neighborhood I live in has been plagued with an increase in crime rate these past 6mos and it always traces back to rental properties and the section 8 houses in the area. People here are now afraid to let their kids and animals go outside in fear that they'll be shot by stray bullets from the battles going on between different crack houses that have started considering themselves as part of gangs and then the police don't show up for hours, if at all. I bought my house 2yrs ago and am now starting to regret putting roots down in Knoxville.

Ive seen that there are a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look like they could be zoned more appropriately for their location.

1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density
2. 428 E Scott- I think 428 E Scott should be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

It's essential that we add sidewalks and traffic calming measures to our neighborhoods, particularly those used heavily by commuters who are not as concerned with following traffic regulations (one way, stop signs, etc.) as they rush to and from work.

It would be very difficult to outlaw the practice of Tree Topping for the entire community. However, it may be possible to outlaw the practice in the H-1 Historic Overlay Zones of the city. Topping in the sense of old time round over cutting of branches, removing most, if not all of the crown of trees in a manner not consistent with International Society of Arboriculture ANSI rules pertaining to tree pruning.-This practice devalues trees and properties.-This practice shortens the lives of otherwise healthy trees.-This practice opens healthy trees up to future decay, rot, and hollow. -The practice is not considered proper tree work within modern practices.-This ordinance would pertain to all trees, of all sizes except fruit trees being pruned for fruit production.It also would exempt old trees being vetranized in an effort to save them. This would be done with the authorization of the Knoxville City Arborist on a case by case basis.

It was easy- best practices, I think, were answers of "yes" or "very important."

It is well known that we are not just in need but are desperately in need of affordable housing in Knoxville. Please put the Orange Back on our map to increase areas for affordable housing.

It is extremely important to my sense of wellbeing as a Knoxville resident that we emphasize different modes of transport, including facilities for pedestrian, bicycle, scooters, busses and potentially other public transport.i fully support the COKs sidewalk investments and moves towards mixed use neighborhoods.

it is difficult to answer some questions because, like many things, it's a matter of degree. the devil is in the details.for instance, do i favor design controls? it depends on the degree. i certainly favor some, as long as they establish guidelines and allow flexibility, but i do not favor controls if they specifically tell me that i have to plant an oak tree, for instance, or i have to use red brick. it's okay, in my opinion, to say you must have so many trees, that they be native species, and a min. size, but it is not all right to tell me i have to plant a white oak and nothing but a white oak.anyway, i took a chance and said 'yes', but others with the same feelings might just as easily say 'no'.

It has come to our attention that the Community Forum has requested Agenda Item 5, 11-A-18-OA, Consideration of the Comprehensive Update of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance, be postponed from the January 10, 2019, meeting of the Planning Commission to the February 14, 2019, meeting. The Knox County Democratic Party Progressive Action Committee fully supports such a postponement for reasons similar to those outlined in the Community Forum letter. We urge you to make such a postponement.

It has come to my attention that two buildings in the ONK neighborhood look as if they should be zoned more appropriately for their use,1) 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density2) 428 E Scott- We would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.Additionally, there are a few apartment houses that we think have been zoned inappropriately on the same street.3) 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned. (RN-4 supports smart, higher density redevelopment in a residential area.)

It has come to my attention that two buildings in the Old North Knoxville should be zoned more appropriately for use.

1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density.
2. 428 E Scott- 428 E Scott should be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

Knoxville is rapidly growing and I believe this is an excellent space to put higher density apartments in due to the surrounding businesses and developments. It is in great proximity to the mountains, downtown, and campus and would attract a lot of working people looking to maximize their potential in Knoxville. I hope that this is helpful in your processes and meetings. Thanks!

It has come to my attention that two buildings in the Old North Knoxville neighborhood look as if they should be zoned more appropriately for their use,1) 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density2) 428 E Scott- 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment. Additionally, there are a few apartment houses that I think have been zoned inappropriately on the same street.3) 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zonedThanks,

It has come to my attention that two buildings in the Old North Knoxville neighborhood look as if they should be zoned more appropriately for their use,1) 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density2) 428 E Scott- 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.Additionally, there are a few apartment houses that I think have been zoned inappropriately on the same street.3) 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned

It has been brought to my attention that there have a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look as if the should be zoned more appropriately for their use. 1) 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density2) 428 E Scott- We would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.3) 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

It has been brought to my attention that there are some lots in the Old North Knoxville neighborhood that could be zoned more appropriately for their current use. 1) 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density2) 428 E Scott- We would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.3) 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.I appreciate the effort you all are going to and the energy everyone is putting into improving our city!! Thank you!

It has been brought to my attention that there are a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look as if they should be zoned more appropriately for their use.

1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density
2. 428 E Scott- I think 428 E Scott should be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

It appears OS-1 is being dropped from ReCode. I think that means we are losing a valuable type of zoning that conserves cultural landscapes and archaeological sites. OS-1 is notably different from OS-2 and what it's being replaced with (OS). While OS-1 so far primarily been applied to golf courses and interstate medians, it has a lot of potential that someone not coming from a historic preservation / natural resources conservation perspective would miss. It is not as restrictive as a "Natural Area" and not limited to parcels of 1 acre or more. It is also appropriate for and compatible with low-density residential parcels that intersect the hilltop protection overlay, such as the home I live at on Chestnut Ridge. Current definition from Municode - note item 5 in bold (my emphasis added):This open space preservation district is established to provide areas in which the principal use of land is devoted to the preservation and protection of recreational and conservation open space. The district is intended to preserve, and enhance land as permanent open space that contributes to the creation of a network of lands that provide safe and enjoyable areas and routes for non-intensive recreational opportunities, is protective of natural resources, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The district is consistent with and intended to implement the Park, Public Institutional, Open Space and Environmental Protection land use classifications of the Knoxville - Knox County General Plan 2033 , or its successor documents.B. Permitted principal and accessory uses and structures. The following uses shall be permitted in the OS-1 (open space preservation) district:1.Horticulture, floriculture, forests and woods, community gardens.2.Houses.3.Recreational open space, such as parks, playgrounds, golf courses and country clubs, cycling, hiking and equestrian trails, parkways, hunting preserves, camps and resorts, fishing lakes, and greenway and blueway corridors.4.Conservation open space, such as watershed protection areas, public water supply points, lakes and reservoirs, wildlife management areas, and significant natural areas.5.Historic and archeological sites.6.Accessory buildings, structures and uses.7.Wireless communications facilities, subject to the provisions of article V, section 20.OS-1 is entirely appropriate for cemeteries and other archaeological sites. The new "OS" drops out recognition of the value of landscape conservation and archaeological sites.The new "OS" zone combines the "old" OS-2 primarily intended for parks (and incompatible with housing, and indifferent to archeological sites or cultural and scenic landscape values):The OS Parks and Open Space Zoning District is intended to create, preserve, and enhance public open space to meet the passive and active park and recreational needs of the City. The OS District provides for both improved and unimproved park and recreation lands. Facilities may include, but are not limited to, structures or other active, playoriented facilities such as playgrounds, recreational fields, ball-fields, sport courts, and dog parks, cultural facilities such as museums and libraries, and associated accessory facilities such as recreation and community centers, park administrative offices, and restroom facilities.Source: https://recodeknoxville.com/documents/library/drafts/draft2/chapters/Article%207-Special%20Purpose%20Districts.pdfYou can see below there is an improvement where "OS" has been applied to Cemeteries in Park City (incidentally, some cemeteries such as Shieldstown Cemetery at 1933 Linden Ave, Stephens Cemetery at 1405 McCalla, Vance Cemetery on Bethel, Good Citizens Cemetery at 830 Addison, ad Eastport Cemetery off Wilder Pl on Fuller have been forgotten (Eastport is not marked in KGIS Parks layer, although an "underground railroad site" at 1021 Fuller is. I can individually comment on those using the "feedback" utility on those specific parcels (I in fact already commented on the Shieldstown lot) but it will take quite a lot of work and I thought it would be easier just to talk to you about these parcels.It's possible to look at the "Parks" map on KGIS to find all these hidden parcels / historic sites. It looks like Temple Beth-El cemetery at Linden and Winona has both H1 and OS zoning, but the underground railroad site at 1021 Fuller only has H1. Even with the new OS zoning, as currently defined its utility seems centered on parks and ball fields. It drops out the earlier language and uses from OS-1 concerning landscape and natural area and archaeological site preservation. While it goes without saying a cemetery is not a ball field, the new zoning code should not try to merge these two distinct land uses (see below - Dr. Walter P Hardy Park merged with Mt Calvary Cemetery, Bethel Civil War Cemetery, Potters Field Cemetery, and Odd Fellows Cemetery.I'd like to get your thoughts on this and possibly run it by Carol Evans with Legacy Parks and maybe other environmental conservation oriented civic groups.I have submitted feedback on my own home (zoned RN2 in recode and intersecting the hilltop protection overlay) the following comment:Parcel is in the hilltop protection overlay should be zoned OS-1 under the existing code, "The district is intended to preserve, and enhance land as permanent open space that contributes to the creation of a network of lands that provide safe and enjoyable areas and routes for non-intensive recreational opportunities, is protective of natural resources, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. " An OS-1 equivalent should be made available to conserve natural resources in the hilltop protection overlay while also permitting existing uses and compatible uses as permitted under existing OS-1.This also relates to Chestnut Ridge's history as "Chestnut View Park," important to African American heritage, and to the scenic values of our forested ridgetops.I feel this is something Park City Preservation Alliance can formally offer a position on. Ideally, a join statement with other conservation-oriented groups could be formulated. However, I wanted to run these initial ideas by you as I feel there is a strong connection between OS-1 and cultural resources and landscape values that are connected to historic preservation. I believe it would be a mistake to merge "OS-2" focused on recreation and "OS-1" that has the potential to reflect landscape, cultural resource, and historic preservation values. OS-1 has not been used to its full potential; the full potential will be lost if it is merged with OS-2 as "OS" in ReCode.

Is this project related to City of Knoxville or Knox County building codes?

Is this a commercial project only, or will you be incorporating the equally outdated residential property zoning plats in the project? Property ward maps do not match property deeds and the result can be over $2,000 for a resident to pay for a surveyor and mpc updates, just for the city to update its own records. Thank you ahead of time for your response.

Is there anything in the new planning regarding noise in residential districts? I don't believe current ordinances are adequate.

Is there a way to download the draft version of the new zoning map?

Interior Landscaping of Parking LotsThe current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot.Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.Landscape Bond:A two-step LANDSCAPE BOND should be included. The city of Chattanooga successfully employs this process.1. PERFORMANCE BOND: This allows developers six months after issuance of the C O to install landscaping to offset the disadvantage of completing projects in late spring or summer months and to assure reasonable growth conditions.2. MAINTENANCE BOND: This would be applicable during the two-year period following the project's completion and would include a reasonable time period for proper landscape care to assure healthy plant material. The Maintenance Bond is released after two years, contingent on satisfactory inspection by a qualified professional, such as a landscape architect licensed in Tennessee and familiar with the design intent. Without a maintenance bond a lot of landscaping will not be adequately cared for and will die. Two years of proper care will greatly increase the survival of installed landscaping.Since the city operates on a complaint driven system and is chronically short staffed when it comes to enforcement, we don't have a lot of confidence that it will be successful at requiring developers to replace landscaping that has died. It also places an unfair burden on citizens who would be responsible for tracking and reporting landscaping that needs to be replaced. In our experience, this often requires follow-up phone calls and emails by the citizen.Mitigation Fund or Tree BankRecode should include some form of mitigation for the destruction of trees by developers, perhaps along the lines of how TDEC operates its stream and wetlands mitigation program. In the case of tree protection, the ordinance could specify that for each tree destroyed over a particular diameter, X number of trees of 2" caliper have to be planted; or, a value of the destroyed trees could be established and the developer pay the equivalent value into a mitigation bank, with the city using the funds for planting or landscaping projects.Storm Water SystemsGenerally, and specifically as pertains to Chapter 7.G. Storm Water systems should be required to conform to TDEC's MS4 NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Runoff, i.e., developments should retain the first 1" of rain within the site.Hillside ProtectionRecode should include at least a reference to the city-adopted Hillside Protection Plan.

Interested in seeing lots of mixed use zoning. Protection for streams and river environment. Native plant landscaping. Public transit, walkability, bike lanes.

Increasing the Reflectivity of Structures Could Reduce High Temperatures in CitiesI've been wondering whether it is feasible to include within the zoning codes requirements for reflective roofs. It certainly would help with urban heat island effects. See below.Recent research has shown that cities, which absorb drastically more solar radiation than the countryside, would benefit from coloring dark surfaces with light gray or white materials. For instance, black asphalt reflects only four percent of the sunlight that strikes it, while grassland and white snow can reflect up to 25 and 90 percent, respectively. In New York City, this "urban heat island" effect can increase temperatures 1-3 degrees Celsius warmer relative to rural areas. Research by the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that by raising the reflectivity of a city's roofs from 32 percent to 90 percent, the urban heat island effect would decrease by a third, reducing maximum daytime temperatures by an average of 0.6 degrees C. Additional studies have found that "cool roofs" could reduce temperatures by 1.8 degrees C in other cities. Urban heat islands can also cause nighttime temperatures to remain high, placing stress on vulnerable populations in need of a recovery period from blistering daytime conditions.For more information seeYale Environment 360https://e360.yale.edu/features/urban-heat-can-white-roofs-help-cool-the-worlds-warming-cities

In wracking my brain regarding HOW to "encourage" the city to abide by and ENFORCE their own zoning laws/ordinances/regs/codes, so that zoning updates will "mean" something, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT A FINE OR PUNISHMENT FOR LACK OF ENFORCEMENT AND/OR COMPLIANCE BY THE CITY OF KNOXVILLE CAN BE INSTITUTED?This is a serious issue. The City has a bad habit...or several.Citizens need a method, an easy one, other than expensive lawsuits, to pursue when the City goes off on its own with regard to non-enforcement/non-compliance by THEM.I have proof of this problem, if needed.Thank you.

In the presentation used at the City Council worksop, the distribution of residential lot sizes by square footage shows that most lots are conforming based on minimum area. Although this is great, it does not tell the entire story of how many lots will be non-conforming. Can you please put together a distribution of lot sizes by width? There are many lots in the inner city that are smaller than the minimum 50' width. Many homes in Beaumont, Mechanicsville, Lonsdale have small lot sizes, and homes that use a very large percentage of the lot width. With the required side setbacks in the draft, we are setting ourselves up to build skinny homes that do not fit the neighborhood, and also result in less incentive to build on smaller lots because. I suggest something that looks at, for currently existing lots, allowing minimum side setbacks of the primary structure in residential areas, to take into account the average of the blackface. Or make setbacks a % of the lot if the width is within 35-50'. Something that will reduce the number of nonconforming lots when taking into account width. These type of lots are in some of the poorest of our neighborhoods and we can't afford to create disincentive to invest in new structures. Not everyone will have the time/money to jump through hoops of BZA to get setbacks waived on small lots.

In the first two Recode drafts, minimal design standards for single family homes were included (see p. 9-12, Section 9.3.J). These were inexplicably dropped from the third draft. These standards are not onerous to comply with or to enforce and should be put back into the ordinance. Many cities include design standards in residential neighborhoods, demonstrating that this is feasible.

In the first draft, 4th and Gill was designated RN2. Now we are RN4.Many of us have spent a lot of time, energy, and money to return apartments back to their original status of single family homes. I would hate to see RN4 work against everything we've done to this point.

In reviewing the December 2018 draft of the Recode Knoxville ordinances, I noticed the following:On Page 9-10, it refers to Nonconforming Manufactured homes being found in Article 16. It appears to be in Article 17....not 16. Correction needed?"... 3. Nonconforming Manufactured Homes See Article 16 for regulations regarding nonconforming manufactured homes, including single-wide manufactured homes. ..." Also on Page 17-2, what does that last sentence in the below paragraph even mean? "...If a single-wide manufactured home is replaced with a multi-sectional manufactured home, it cannot be replaced with a single-wide manufactured home...""...E. Nonconforming Single-Wide Manufactured Homes Existing nonconforming single-wide manufactured homes in any district may be replaced with a new single-wide manufactured home. The replacement single-wide manufactured home may be a larger square footage so long as the manufactured home meets required setbacks. In a manufactured home park, the can maintainsfollowing the setbacks are required: a setback of ten feet from all streets and/or access roads, there is a minimum 20 foot clearance between homes or for homes parked end-to-end, the end-to-end clearance is a minimum of ten feet, and there is a minimum of 20 feet from any permanent structure. When located on a single lot within a district, it must meet all the setback requirements of the district. If a single-wide manufactured home is replaced with a multi-sectional manufactured home, it cannot be replaced with a single-wide manufactured home...."Also, manufactured home in a park (here in Knoxville, anyway) is enclosed on the bottom by SKIRTING, not those permanent cement type enclosures that you have listed. Addition or clarification needed? Or are you changing that? It might be cumbersome on mobile home park owners to get PERMISSION each time they install a new home here. Thank you.

In response to the general consensus circulating... "If duplexes aren't being built, the market doesn't want/need them, so why are we trying to allow more of them?"For R1: Duplex allowed on Review w/ lot size minimum of 15,000 sq.ft.Most R1 neighborhoods are typically auto-oriented (non transit friendly) & suburban with larger homes on larger lots. The need for duplexes in those areas is low and naturally their occurrence is low. The assumption that the market signals are influencing the development of duplexes is likely true in most suburban R-1 zones.On the contrary, Oakwood, a walkable & transit-friendly neighborhood, is a mixture of R1 (IH-1) & R2. Lot sizes range from < 5000 sq.ft. to 7500+ sq.ft. A new duplex would require multiple lots, therefore they aren't done. There are however, many older duplexes that exist currently as represented by the"checker-board" of R1/R2 on the current zoning map. Building new would require up-zoning, special approval, and variances... therefore they aren't being built. For Oakwood, the market's need & desire has no way to respond because a duplex is, by-default, prohibited.[Moving forward RN-3 more appropriately represents the development pattern of Oakwood, and would allow more by right development & less special use approval for duplexes.]- - -R1-A: Duplex permitted by right w/ lot size minimum of 10,000 sq.ft.This district is well represented in our central-city neighborhoods. It is specified as"low to medium density" but"nearly 70% of lots [Zoned R1-A] do not meet the required 7,500 sq.ft. minimum lot area." (pg. 12 ReCode Technical Review Report) So although a duplex IS permitted on paper, it is prohibited in practice... as we see with Old North. Old North is another walkable & transit friendly neighborhood, with the the majority of lots being under the 10,000 sq.ft. required for a duplex. Again, the market's need & desire is unable to respond because a duplex is, by-default, prohibited.An abundance of multi-family structures at various scales exist currently in most of our R1-A transit friendly neighborhoods. These areas need a closer look and a smaller paintbrush to more appropriately zone them to reflect the development patterns that currently exist within them. We must ensure that our central-city neighborhoods are not a static ecosystem, but rather a dynamic one. We must ensure they're able to evolve over time, not radically, but incrementally.. to ensure they're meeting the needs of those who are currently there as well as those who will be there in the future.- - -R-2: Req'd lot size is 7500 sq.ft. for the first dwelling + 1500 sq.ft for each additional dwelling. Therefore a duplex would require 9000 sq.ft.This district is "medium-density" yet still not conducive for a duplex. "50% of the lot sizes within the R-2 district do NOT meet the required 7500 sq.ft. minimum lot standard." (pg. 12 - ReCode Technical Review Report) so very rarely would we see 9000 sq.ft. available for duplex construction. Again, duplexes aren't (and cannot be) built without special circumstance or multiple lot aquisitions, at which point it's more favorable to build two single family homes.A duplex is Small-Scale Development 101... an incremental step towards meeting the demand for housing within our transit-friendly neighborhoods. They're as easy to build & finance as a single family home (from a codes & lending standpoint). A duplex even provides opportunity & incentive for owner-occupancy, empowering more folks to invest & live in the neighborhoods they love. A duplex easily blends in with it's surroundings and provides housing opportunities at a scale that currently isn't available (and hasn't been allowed) within our transit friendly neighborhoods.The lack of recent Duplex construction/conversion is not based on market trends, citizen desires, or lack of profitability. This deficiency is directly tied to our present Zoning & Lot size requirements. To move Knoxville in a positive direction, it's imperative that we allow this age old tool of incremental development to be used once again within our transit friendly neighborhoods. ...and do so without a 2 space per unit parking minimum!Thank you for the consideration,

In regards to the recode project: 1. I am not in favor of allowing apartment buildings or duplexes or 4-plexes in existing ordinary residential neighborhoods. 2. I am not in favor of allowing overnight or weekly rentals of ordinary residences--- this should be allowed only in existing or future motels or hotels.

In recent years the continued growth in Knoxville has reduced the distances between commercial and residential areas. This has resulted in unreasonably loud, unusual and unnecessary noise from refuse collection (from dumpsters) in commercial areas that impact residential areas. The attached proposed change seeks to limit this refuse collection to times that will minimize significant impact to families and children while allowing collection in more commercial areas.If you would have questions about this proposed change or need examples of where and how this will improve the quality of life in Knoxville please contact me.Proposed Change to Knoxville Tennessee Code of Ordinances

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

In attending several of the meetings, it was mentioned that there would be no changes to the Cumberland and South waterfront codes since they had both been newly created and publicly vetted. However, there have been changes and I feel the property owners should be alerted to those changes so they could see what impact it may have on development / investment plans. Why not leave them as they were? At quick glance it appears height, set backs and even sign ordinances have changed and I haven't had time to delve into all the details so it leads me to believe there is enough reason to send out postcard alerts to those affected so there may be more feedback since these areas where thought to be not changing at all.

If you cannot tell by the current homeless crisis in this city, the elimination of multi-family housing is definitely not what we need. The new zoning code needs the same or more amount of space for these types of dwellings so that we may be able to get people off the streets and into a home. Put back the orange.

If we're going to encourage commercial development in neighborhoods and secondary streets, we should set local business, and have strict restrictions on corporate and national chains. I would love to have small markets or restaurants in my neighborhood, but I don't want another Dollar general or fast food joint, with big lights and obnoxious signage.nnAlso, if we're going to be redeveloping these corridors, can we install a municipal fiber optic system like Chattanooga has? It has done wonders for that city, and we could benefit from such a system in citizen connectedness and appealing to new, tech related industry development.

If the zoning for an existing multi apartment house is R-1A, will the new zoning of RN2 prohibit the house from being used as a multi apartment building?

If the zoning changes to allow extra residencies in an existing residence, will there be any oversight on how the rental properties are run?   Ex. If you have Section 8 housing voucher, your proposed space is inspected before signing the lease and biannually after that.  If I am not using a voucher, how will I not be taken advantage of by a terrible landlord who keeps a house in terrible condition, but I can’t afford anything else?

If downtown is the front porch of a community then Old North Knoxville is certainly primed to become Knoxville's living room. The historic 4th and Gill to its east provides a blueprint for what old north can become. And working to keep the growth going that direction should be at the top of the city's list. Pedestrian walkways from the new breweries and eateries popping up and expanding the bike lanes throughout Central Avenue will go a long way. Broadway could also use the same love. People my age want to live close to downtown. Being 31, old north can be the place that makes Knoxville boom.

I've lived in Knoxville most of my life. I grew up there, my parents live there, and a lot of my family, and I'm a land owner. Together we all own about 50 properties through Knoxville, and we are all adamant RVers.There's no greater way to get out and explore the country in my mind, and some of the best times of my life were travelling with my family throughout the country, which is why it is so painful for me to see so much animosity towards the RVing community.And I get it. A lot of RVs are unmaintained, and sometimes they are used by people whose only other option is to live on the street. It's an aesthetic thing where you don't want a shanty town, but that is changing.Millenials are moving towards tiny houses, tiny houses on wheels, and more and more jobs are becoming remote as we become a more and more digital society.This is especially true in California, where I am typing this right now actually for the weather. People are trending more and more toward a mobile lifestyle, and I have to say, it's quite amazing to be in your 20's travelling the country with a mobile office.So, this is why I'm asking to reduce the prejudice towards RVs in legislation. In my humble opinion, RV laws should be lessened, not tightened, and this will keep Knoxville on the cutting edge, like so many of the improvements that have been made already. There are so many good things in the Recode Knoxville that I'm excited about, which is why it is so devastating to see the laws towards RVs.If certain HOAs want to ban RVs or make them covered, I can understand that, but I ask that you please not make that a city law. In fact, it would be great if more areas and parks were designated to allow RVs and street parking.This will bring in tourism and attract people who are curious about living in Knoxville, but need to see more before they make the move.All in all, I think it will draw a diverse crowd of interesting people that add so much color to the city and the cities I've seen. There are lots of artists, photographers, videographers that I've met who travel the country in an RV or a conversion van who are very friendly and interesting people and generally avoid cities with a less than friendly attitude towards RV/van tourists.But if there must be restrictions, I would propose they be applied to older, not well maintained RV's. For instance maybe have a special permit required for RV's over 15 years old, which is what a lot of RV parks do anyway. There are retro and restored RVs that are older and still look really good. Have sections of public land dedicated for RVers so they don't crowd the streets. Allow RVs on commercial property, so there are more appropriate places for them to go, and maybe, if it's a problem require privacy fencing be built around it.As I said, many of the "trendy" cities are becoming more and more tolerant of a mobile lifestyle, and from what I've seen and experienced, it doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on the city. In fact, on the contrary, it seems to give the city new life kitsch value that has become the signature of Knoxville. In the past day, I've met 3 artists and one content creator "van life-ing", and one worked for a company called "outdoorsy.com" which operates almost as an AirBnb for RVs. The opens up a whole new tourism market that would otherwise be nonexistent, and Knoxville could be a part of that, just as one example of the creativity and diversity RVs/vans bring to the table.So, it is my utmost hope that the new ordinances for RVs will be completely redone if not removed, and I know I'm not the only one.

I've just reviewed the section regarding RV parking (at a residence) and wonder if anyone on the commission owns an RV? Although I do not store my 13'2" tall RV on my property as it won't fit, I have neighbors that can and do. Based on the requirement to "screen" RVs from public view (from the right-of-way) you are going to require VERY TALL FENCES/WALLS not to mention expensive. Are the commissioners the owners of fencing/wall companies??? The typical travel trailer is about 12' tall and would require at least a 12' tall fence/wall - either that or "hide" the RV in a storage facility (owner of those as well?) or sell it (RV or house). I'm fortunate to be able to afford such luxury of indoor storage, but I doubt the typical RV owner can or is willing to do so. My issue is more with what my(our) neighborhood is going to look like with, say at least half-dozen, homes with 12' tall fencing, just to hide their RV. I'm sorry, but I'd rather you hide some of the ugly cars from sight than a well cared for RV. Since my home is "down the hill" from a right-of-way street, my back yard can be seen from above and would require, by my estimation, a 40-50 foot tall fence/wall to "hide" an RV from view. I and others feel you are trying to weed out RVs and/or RV owners from Knoxville in an effort to beautify Knoxville residential areas. Again, I do not store my RV at home, although I would rather do so. I have thought about relocating to a home where I could expand and store the RV at home, and am now seriously considering it, HOWEVER, I am no longer looking in/around Knoxville or Knox County - our politicians have run me off. I'm glad Knoxville is looking to tell America that RVs, RV owners, and the like are not welcome here - I'll spread the word from a more RV friendly county. Regards!

I've been looking at several soon to be C-G-2 properties with an eye on building a dance studio and a recording studio. I appreciate the idea of changing from setbacks to build to lines to make the construction more pedestrian friendly and more attractive. There were a couple of things, though, that I noticed and wanted to comment about.First Floor Fenestration:The 50% fenestration between 2 and 10 feet on the front is potentially burdensome. While windows are desirable for retail and even office, they can cause security and privacy issues for other types of businesses. The added expense of windows, just to cover them up for privacy, or find ways to prevent sound leakage is a bit much. The 35% on the frontage, as it is for other commercial types seems more reasonable.Building Materials:Excluding steel siding, except as an extra decorative element (of 25%) discounts its advantages as a siding. Steel is 100% recyclable, and it doesn't require much (if any) painting for regular maintenance, and it doesn't rot or crack. Forbidding metal as a major siding choice makes sense for, say, a 4 story apartment building, but there are other types of structures (like dance studios or recording studios) that benefit greatly from having high ceilings and large open spaces. A single story of between 14' and 20' would be the norm, and metal would be a good choice for more than a decorative element of the facade. I've seen multiple buildings of about that height in the area soon to be zoned C-G-2 (on Martin Mill) that have textured concrete block on the first 5 feet or so, with metal siding the rest of the way up, and I think it looks great. Maybe allow a larger percentage of metal, say, 50%? Or possibly allow metal on structures under 25' high if there's something else used on the first 5'? Design over 100 feet (notes included in diagram not on chart):There are certain architectural elements that are required to break up walls over 100'. "Color Change" is listed in the B section of the diagram C-G-2 DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS on page 5-7, and it isn't listed on table 5-2.Build to lines for small properties bordering multiple streets:This is an area where there might be some unintended consequences. I'm looking at some commercial properties that are long and skinny (50x200), and are bordered by Martin Mill, Drinnen, and a very small street (no more than a driveway, really) called Brady. It's my understanding that this would require a build-to to within 20' each of these lines. I'm wondering if some more guidance could be given in an instance like that. Could this be an instance of having a required build-to to no more than TWO of the property lines?

I'm writing because of your role on the Recode Knoxville Advisory Committee. Have you looked up in the night sky lately and noticed how few stars are visible? Light pollution obscures the natural beauty of our skies and wastes so much energy. Knoxville's initiative to redo the zoning code is the perfect opportunity to create zoning restrictions that position us as a leader in protecting the night skies and saving energy. As we continue to develop the Urban Wilderness, this facet of our zoning code is something we must consider.Will you propose to the Advisory Committee, City leaders, and the City Council that Knoxville's new zoning include a section based on the Pattern Outdoor Lighting Code (POLC), helping Knoxville to lead our region in reducing lighting pollution?Thanks for your time. I look forward to your response!

I'm not sure if this fits in the purview of the zoning work you're doing...but I'd love to see the city offer incentives/take actions to encourage adoption of more sustainable behaviors. I'm thinking:- Make the 20 best parking spots in all city-owned garages EV only parking spots- Create a PACE financing program- Work with KUB to implement an excellent net metering program with highly favorable rates for Knoxvillians who add solar to their roofs over a designated period of time. In other words, if I add solar to my roof between now and, say, the end of 2021, KUB buys my excess power production or production at peak demand times for $.20/KwH. And then some personal peeves/requests:- Somehow make it so I could actually walk easily from Sequoyah to shopping centers on Kingston Pike without feeling like I'm putting my life at risk! Getting from the Sequoyah side of the street to the opposite side of Kingston Pike is really a hair raising experience. And then walking on the sidewalk beside Kingston Pike always makes me feel like I could get plowed over by a driver at any minute (no barrier between the traffic and me).- Find a way to encourage/incentivize homeowners to turn OFF their programmed lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems when it's raining!- Bring back curb-side glass recycling- Find a way to encourage/incentivize composting

I'm just writing to express my support for having higher density zoning in the Fourth and Gill neighborhood. I understand the concerns of some of my neighbors regarding multi-family housing and its impact on our existing historic single family homes. Certainly, there could be some blocks that are zoned RN2 to provide more protection, but I would encourage all empty lots within the historic district to remain RN4 (or RN 3 at a minimum). Additionally, areas that border the historic district or lie in between the district and major roads like Broadway, Central and 5th Avenue should be RN 3 or RN 4. Our neighborhood already has great examples of townhomes and small multifamily buildings that really add to the character and the diversity of residents that live here. Let's continue that tradition.

I'm forwarding the comments we've come up with for submission from the Oakwood Lincoln Park Neighborhoods Association. (View Comments) We would also like to suggest that the comment posting be open for another few weeks as many residents are just now hearing about Recode and are still trying to assimilate all the information. Thank you.

I'm excited about Camiros being hired for this work. I enjoyed their presentation and am looking forward to the process. I hope that Knoxville will adopt a new zoning ordinance that will protect and provide for open space, promote mixed-use and resource responsible development, facilitate re-use and infill development and encourage density near our city center and along transit corridors. Thank you for this process and project

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

I'm concerned about maintaining the existing character of residential neighborhoods. I'm particularly concerned about detached ADUs. I think the requirements for detached ADUs should be much stricter than those for attached or incorporated ADUs. The minimum lot size should be triple or 4 times as large. I also think the maximum dwelling size proposed should be smaller than 1000 sq ft and the maximum number of bedrooms allowed should be one or two rather than three. A minimum of one additional dedicated parking space should also be required.I understand the need for additional affordable housing in the city, I think that existing ADUs should be grandfathered as they are more likely to be used for affordable housing. New construction of detached ADUs is less likely to become affordable housing and more likely to become short term rentals. This would change the character of the neighborhood and might reduce the property values of adjacent properties. More research Is needed to determine if this has happened in other cities before these are allowed.Many older neighborhoods have homes set further back on the property. I think over time these older homes will be torn down and rebuilt closer to the front of the property to accommodate construction of an ADU in the back. Although some of these ADUs might become affordable housing and some will house family members, many will become short term rentals.Changing the setback and additional ADUs will change the existing character of the neighborhood.Increased density can be achieved through other means, such as through mixed used.

I've attached the official comments from the Knoxville-Knox County Food Policy Council regarding ReCode, please let me know if anything needs clarification. Thanks for all your work on this!

I would prefer to see current single family neighborhoods retain their single family neighborhood status. Multifamily homes, apartment and condo complexes, and commercial buildings have destroyed the character of existing neighborhoods like Fort Sanders. I don't want that to happen in the area just north of downtown: LIncoln Park/Oakwood, Old North, Fourth and Gill, North Hills and its environs.

I would love to see infill housing that encourages alternative inexpensive living arrangements. Many city lots could contain 2 "tiny" or shotgun homes. Some examples of these have been in existence for 100 years. See: single lot on Woodbine with two old shotguns. I can get the address. It takes nothing away from our historicity to allow this to occur again.

I would like to write in favor of ADUs being allowed in the Recode plan. They can provide alternatives to affordable housing, which we so desperately need in Knoxville.

I would like to suggest Knoxville consider developing and implementing some form of mitigation for the destruction of trees by developers, perhaps along the lines of how TDEC operates its stream and wetlands mitigation program. In the case of tree protection, the ordinance could specify that for each tree destroyed over a particular dbh, X number of trees of 2" caliper have to be planted; or, a value of the destroyed trees could be established and the developer pay the equivalent value into a mitigation bank, with the city using the funds for planting or landscaping projects.Harvey Broome GroupSierra Club

I would like to see the matter of an owner-occupancy requirement for ADUs given more discussion, at the very least for EN, RN-1, and RN-2 neighborhoods. Previously we have been told that this is not enforceable, but many other cities do enforce this requirement or at least have it on the books. Not doing so opens up our neighborhoods to opportunistic developers who may or may not care about the impact they have on neighbors. Citizens who chose to make the biggest investment of their lives in the city did not expect their beautiful "single family dwelling" neighborhoods to be potentially doubled (or more) in density by a mere stroke of the pen. In my opinion, this issue alone should be put to a referendum, but I understand this is highly unlikely. I make this appeal here to ask that you please give further thought to allowing the taxpayers a little more control in protecting their investment in this city, both monetary and sentimental.Thank you.

I would like to see the comment period extended for this phase. There is still a meeting scheduled in October for the Five Points Community. I think neighbors need more time to view the maps and learn about zoning. I am also concerned about the timing of the passage of Recode. I do not think it should be going to City Council until after the holidays.

I would like to see stronger formal standards in the form based codes to (1) ensure quality development, and (2) drive mixed use development in the redevelopment districts. I see too much leeway in the standards that allows a "race to the bottom" mentality to prevail. For example, if a material standard includes the language "or other similar material," 10 out of 10 developers are going to use a lower quality material. Furthermore, looking at Baptist Hospital, I think a huge opportunity was missed to create a vibrant, "downtown-feeling," mixed-use development. While the vision plan and code may have given the impression that any eventual development of the site would be meet this vision, the formal standards in the code were unable to deliver on that. I am also disconcerted by the fact that the City is willing to variance the Code into oblivion for the larger developments. I am in favor of having a very strong and more substantive form-based code, and I would like the City be more faithful to the standard for granting variances in the redevelopment districts.

I would like to see lower minimum lot sizes across the residential zones to increase density & affordability; I would also like to see the number of family units allowed in each zone increased to allow more density & affordability. I would specifically like to see the RN-1 lot size NOT increased to 10,000 ft. I'm in favor of the mixed-use proposals.

I would like to see changes to Montgomery Village. I would like to see a revitalization to be compaerable to the other revitilazation going on In South Knoxville.I would like MV to be privatized and perhaps redeveloped as college housing or senior housing. I would like to see more patrol in the area as well. As a resident who has to drive through it to get to my home in Knox Co, I have seen a decline in safety, asthetics, and over all negelect to the area. I am a concerned citizen who greatly wants to see that area redevelop and grow.

I would like to see a sidewalk from the Rocky Hill shopping center to Rocky Hill School. There is so much school traffic on that road and the road is not very wide. I think a sidewalk would be very helpful and make the road a lot safer.

I would like to have more information on the rezoning in Park City in Knoxville and when public meetings will be held.

I would like Parkridge to get whatever zoning more affluent, less diverse historic center city neighborhoods seem to be allowed to lobby the city for without being accused of being racist or classist. I'm all for increased density but do not understand why we have to sacrifice our historic districts for it? Aren't there plenty of other places "orange" could go that are still convenient to transit and jobs and yet perhaps just on the borders of our national registered historic districts? A very small percentage of the total area of Knoxville is taken up by these districts. I also think people who live in these neighborhoods and professional planners should be the ones to make these decisions, not whatever political group or developer thinks they have the best solution for neighborhoods they may not even live in (that may be based on extremely biased information). There are already much smaller lots here and quite a lot of multifamily housing as well as outbuildings that could be converted into ADUs, probably more than a lot of other neighborhoods in Knoxville. I do not believe opening up these center city historic neighborhoods to even more multi-family will allow for more affordable housing, but more luxury type apartments, which I'm not sure anyone but the developers want to see. I chose to live where I live because after decades of renting I wanted a historic home in a diverse historic neighborhood with the ability to walk and bike more and drive less and not contribute to more urban sprawl. Yet I wanted to be able to have a garden but not waste fossil fuels on a huge and pointless lawn. I am sure a lot of my neighbors were also motivated to buy or rent where they did for a a lot of these reasons and I think it is pretty sad to change the zoning in a way that could change the character of their street, the lighting in their yard, their parking and traffic situations all because other folks think East Knoxville should "do as we say and not as we do." But I guess it's the wealthier less diverse less dense neighborhoods that get to tell the other neighborhoods that they are the ones responsible for our housing crisis. It's easy to be dismissive and call someone a "NIMBY" but I'm fairly sure most everyone has opinions of what goes into their backyard, whether it's a luxury apartment complex or a sewage treatment plant etc. That happens when you invest your time and money into your home and neighborhood and actually have to live with the consequences of other people's decisions. I trust that our leaders and professional planners can come up with solutions that can preserve our nationally significant historic districts AND increase density and offer more affordability.

I would like a conversation concerning absentee landlords in residential neighborhoods, or anywhere for that matter. Run down properties and dead beat renters are currently affecting the property value in my neighborhood. I would just like to see some accountability for landlords that have no interest in our neighborhoods. Thank you!

I would encourage you all to share more information on the recode site about the future issues we are facing. With independent studies about likely population growth of our City (not the county) if we assume the status quo. Make sure a majority of the people agree there is a problem before you ask us to approve your solution. Many of the proposed solutions will promote increased density that is is apparent but we should not assume that is a goal of the residents of this city.My immediate issue is with ADU. If allowed they should not be allowed without the owner living on the property. If that is not enforceable then they should not be allowed.

I wish to amend my previous statement. This credit should be allowed only for tree species that are native to Knox County or non-natives specimens that have an established history of use over many decades without any demonstration of colonization, reproduction or invasive tendencies. Non-natives should only be allowed when passing this very high hurdle. An example of a tree that should be allowed for the credit would be a bald cypress, a weeping willow, or a white cedar. Examples of non-natives that should not be allowed are any of the non-native mulberries, princess tree, and those terrible little European hornbeams that are popping up everywhere (they are showing invasive tendencies!!). Knoxville should get its house together in regard to being a "real" tree city and start focusing on native species of trees, flowers and grasses, reclaiming roadsides and small woodlot spaces to promote pollinator and wildlife habitat. We have serious invasives problems and need to get real about it. In 40 years, the precious "urban wilderness" is going to be a deadscape of non-native vines and shrubs. Your forest is dying all around you and you don't notice, because everything is green. Deal with the kudzu patches, the wintercreeper, the privet and bush honeysuckle, the English ivy, etc, etc., or watch your forests die.

I wish to address the vague terms used throughout the draft and the authority of MPC to decide on a case by case basis how these restriction apply. Modern technology can measure noise, light, and other environmental conditions with precision. Throughout the draft, noise, glare, vibration, and other environmental conditions are restricted based on "what is detectable by normal senses outside the lot or unit." Knoxville should follow most modern cities by measuring noise limits using decibels and light limits measured by lumens or foot-candles. Another issue is the micromanagement of building design. Throughout the draft, commercial and residential building are restricted by: building materials permitted, location of primary entrance, minimum windows required, garage location, and much more. Residents located in a Historic Overlay are hampered by the bureaucracy of a government board instead of a community association. Great historic cities such as Charleston, SC and Savanna, GA are sustained by community associations using deed restrictions, not government bureaucracy. Primary entrances for residents in mixed use zones must face the primary street while parking must be located in the rear of the building. Property owners should have the option of locating entrances to satisfy tenants desires. Carrying groceries from a back parking lot to a front entrance can be a struggle for residents, especially during severe weather. A minimum amount of transparency (windows) is required on front facade of buildings. This conflicts with energy conservations standards which recommends window size be based on building orientation to the sun. Some businesses may desire an interior view much different from the outside.In closing, our codes need updating, but more time for public vetting would ensure the system will work. Spending a year to draft over 200 pages behind closed doors and expecting the public to review it in a few weeks is unreasonable.

I was very excited when I saw a whole section in the survey for "sustainability." But we need more! There should be credits and/or incentives for new and old buildings to incorporate greener building practices and design buildings that use less energy (LEED). If there are any current zoning codes that restrict the use of solar panels, solar water heaters, rain barrels etc. in residential or commercial areas, these codes should be revisited. Homeowners and commercial sites should be able to generate their own energy and use natural resources to help fuel their lives.

I was made aware that the street I live on is being considered for re-zoning. I would like to express my concern about this change. I am opposed to the change of changing Kesterson road to RN-2. . I do not want my street to be changed from RN -1 to RN-2. I feel that the change will decrease my property values, as well as the possibility of homes being converted into apartment buildings. One of things my neighbors are proud of is that we are single dwelling homes. I feel that I live in a very safe neighborhood, but if homes are able to be multiple dwellings, I feel that safety could be a concern. Please consider not changing our street & neighborhood zone.

I was disappointed to see that design standards had been removed from the Recode proposal. Most other cities have design standards for single family homes. What was initially proposed is not unduly burdensome and really makes a lot of sense to maintain the beauty and compatible development in our community. Design standards protect existing homeowners as well as new developments. Please consider reinstating design standards for single family homes and other residential zones.Further, I would like to see stricter landscaping standards codified in Recode as endorsed by Scenic Knoxville and other organizations and individuals.

I wanted to emphasis that historical sites should be considered for preservation and protection as well as older trees/etc. Reusing and maintaining structures and trees already present should be prioritized over razing an area and starting anew.

I want to see far more density in this zoning Recode. We need far more housing, especially within the 4 mile radius of downtown. Increasing building heights, and adding ADU's in existing neighborhoods is vital in order to achieve this. Moving to single family only perpetuates segregation within our city. Thank for your efforts, but we.need. more. Housing options!

I want to encourage the rapid implementation of "Complete Streets." It is very important to me that other forms of transportation besides the car be a strong component of the new zoning proposal. I would like to see pull-off areas for KAT buses (especially on Broadway). btw: KAT is doing a great job, and, yes, I do frequently ride the bus. A matter which really concerns me: WHY does KUB wait until a street has been paved before it begins digging up the street for utility work (Central Street seems to be the exception!) Surely the KUB engineers know where underground water lines are?!?

I want to commend Recode for the work it has done and express my support for what it has proposed for Sequoyah Hills. I've lived in the neighborhood for approximately 25 years and at one time was an officer on the neighborhood board and I think Recode strikes a great balance between preservation and thoughtful and deliberate change.

I walk anywhere I can from my house in Old North, and I often have my kids with me in a stroller. Lately I've noticed a lot of urban development and repurposing of defunct businesses, which I applaud. Efforts like this make the city more livable and enjoyable. I've also noticed that in many projects (such as the construction on Depot at the Regas site), huge mature street trees that I came to appreciate and love for their shade have been cut down. I think incentives to work around existing trees are a great idea, as it will easily take 50-100 years to replace a tree that may have been in the way for a short-term project. Seeing a long, hot sunny stretch where there were once spreading old limbs is discouraging. And sweaty. Trees also lend an established, well-cared for feeling to cities, and we lose a lot when we lose mature trees. Thank you for your time.

I understood this update was to correct the vague codes including noise and light pollution. Light and noise are both measurable today and many cities have standards based on zoning. The new codes has exempted streetlights and sports fields which is moving in the wrongs direction. Streetlights are for lighting the streets, not bedrooms or inside restaurants. New cutoff lighting is being used by many new developments, but their effects are ruined by streetlights and now sports fields.

I think this is a great effort! I was chair of the city's BZA a few years back and the Code does need to be thrown out and replaced in whole. During my tenure we gave variances for add-ons in Fourth and Gill simply because the owner would otherwise be obligated to follow setbacks designed for West Hills. We granted a number of reduced parking variances that have had no adverse consequences in the intervening years. The variance process, however, is ultimately not a good method for getting the right results for the city. It is expensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. I'm glad the city is undertaking this important initiative.

I think these changes will make everything easier and more clear. I wish I had some constructive criticism, but everything looks great.

I think there needs to be more enforcement of existing codes. For example, landscape screening is supposed to be required between a loading zone, and a residential area. Unfortunately, that's not enforced, and residents suffer the health consequences because of it. I go outside and see dump trucks and construction vehicles parked within feet of my home all day and all night. It sure doesn't look or smell "green" where I live.

I think the 3 houses on Gratz St. between Gill and Caswell should be zoned historic residential instead of commercial. They face inward towards the neighborhood and would provide more of a buffer. In fact, all the historic property along Gratz should be zoned residential to provide more of a buffer between Broadway and the neighborhood, in my opinion.

I think that sidewalks and walkability around the city are crucial, especially in neighborhoods where people live and need to have a safe place to walk along the street. They should be well-lit, regularly patrolled, and have crosswalk buttons. I've seen so many people almost get hit or cause an accident trying to walk along or cross Chapman Hwy. An emphasis should also be placed on connecting existing sidewalks within neighborhoods where there are gaps. My husband and I like to take walks around our neighborhood, and there are areas where we have to walk through people's yards because the sidewalk ends and then doesn't start again until a quarter mile up the road.

I think that ALL of papermill should have bike lanes and sidewalks. there's a small portion of sidewalk that goes from pond gap elementary to elevation apartments, and then again at coleman road to the greenway, but you have to walk on the sides of the road otherwise -- this is especially bad on the portion of papermill after i-40, you basically can't walk or bike to mckay's books or whole foods because the road is so narrow and just drops off on the edges, I wouldn't bike there...if someone isn't paying attention, you're in the ditch.

I think putting used merchandise outside of your business is very trashy looking. It affects all businesses that are surrounded. I'm not a big fan at looking at used strollers, baby beds, numerous bicycles, and other used baby merchandise everyday. Also automobiles that haven't moved in years. In my opinion it makes the whole area look bad. Just my personal and business opinion. Thank -you. I would also like to know what the current amount of items you are aloud to display outside of ones business.

I think one of the most important things to consider in the development of new ordinances is the impact they will have on poorer neighborhoods. Renovation of old buildings is important when it leads to safer structures and vitalized neighborhoods, but when the cost of that is the well-to-do driving out the poor no good has been accomplished.

I think Knoxville needs to do more to promote local and regional resilience to natural and man-made disasters, such as encouraging more household gardening (i.e. Victory Gardens) and edible landscaping (both in neighborhoods and shared green spaces). Other initiatives such as green roofs to help reduce urban heat signature and community gardens to help produce high quality, local food and promote a sense of place and belonging in urban areas that tend to foster a solitary lifestyle.

I think it is ridiculous that you would change the rules for boat storage. It is already very hard to find a place to keep your boats and doing this affects lower income people substantially. Leave this up to the HOA's. If they think it is a problem, then let them address it, and RVs. Also, this seems to be a little short sighted when your consider all of the boat manufacturers that are headquartered in and around Knoxville. Seems like we would do everything in our power to support this industry and jobs. Making boat ownership increasingly difficult does not support this industry. I see no problem with the way the laws are now.

I think a concerted effort needs to be made to widen all secondary and connector roads. They are dangerous to foot traffic, bicycles, and automobile traffic. To have the percentage of such narrow roads and absolutely no shoulders is, in my opinion, restricting not only commercial and residential growth but also restricting other means of travel/commuting aside from auto, e.g. biking and walking for fear of getting run over.

I thank the committee for their continued efforts to overhaul Knoxville's aging zoning. I also thank you for addressing the many concerns and questions raised in this process.I write to voice a concern, shared by many of my neighbors, about the most recent revision of the Recode, in which Fourth and Gill was changed from an R2 to an R4 zone. The neighborhood is a unique historic neighborhood that has been revitalized through the efforts of homeowners and developers. These individuals have worked diligently to restore houses that were separated into apartments back into single-family dwellings, and have met with much success. By keeping the neighborhood zoned R2, for single-family home and duplexes, this continues to encourage the ongoing trend to maintain houses and restore them to their historic configurations. While there are still some houses that are divided into apartments and multi-family dwellings, this is increasingly not the case for the neighborhood. We, the home owners in Fourth and Gill, want to discourage the division of historic houses and encourage the decades of effort made to restore the many century-old houses in the neighborhood.For these reasons, I respectfully ask the committee to change Fourth and Gill back to an R2 zone, for single-family homes and duplexes.Thank you.

I support the effort to "raise the bar" in ordinances concerning landscaping and development, specifically as they apply to requiring developers to landscape parking areas and to contribute toward a mitigation fund or tree bank. I understand that staffing limitations make enforcement difficult, but having it on the books is at least a first step toward being a good steward. Thank you!

I suggest that all new commercial buildings be required to be LEED Silver certified in order to be constructed. This requirement would follow other major cities in creating green standards that other cities will soon emulate. I would also encourage amending section 10.3 K to encourage/mandate the use of renewable energy in supplying power to electric vehicle charging stations.

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

I strongly oppose the proposed RN-4 zoning throughout North Knoxville, and specifically in the Belle Morris neighborhood. I have invested significant amount of time, energy, and money into refurbishing my home on Coker Ave from a condemned house that sat empty for 12 years. The answer to the creation of multi-family housing is not the destruction of single family homes, many of which are historically significant, but rather the expansion of multi-family housing along commercial corridors or on industrial properties that were historically commercial or residential, and the utilization of residential space above commercial. Please rezone these parcels to RN-2 (or to match the surrounding RN zoning).

I strongly oppose recoding the 4th & Gill neighborhood to allow for the conversion of homes into multi-family units and townhouses. I am concerned that this will negatively affect the historical integrity of our neighborhood.

I strongly object to the rezoning of the Fourth and Gill neighborhood from "Single Family/Duplex" to "Multiple Family/Townhouse". Many individuals and families have been working/investing for decades to build the fabric of this neighborhood into a strong, tightly knit community. I, for one (and I know many agree with me), would like to keep it that way. From a pragmatic standpoint, we don't have the parking to support this new zoning anyway. Thank you for your consideration.

I strongly believe house owners should be able to use their houses as they see fit. It is not government's business to regulate who lives in your house. I think ordinances restricting occupancy would prove unconstitutional if challenged. I also think short term rental such as Air B&B should not be restricted.

I speak on behalf of the Sierra Club's ~1,000 members who reside in Knoxville. We thank you for the opportunity to comments on the proposed ordinance and provide the following comments:1. Article 3 - This may or may not be the appropriate place, but since it contains Special Purpose Districts and Overlay Districts, it seems fitting. The proposed Ordinance contains no reference to, or any part of, the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan. The Plan was adopted by City Council and incorporated into the General Plan in 2011. In 2017, the City determined that, except through Use on Review, and the Use on Review Development Plan process in Planned Zoning Districts, (Planned Commercial, Planned Residential, Shopping Center), the City's adopted Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan could not be enforced. The reason given for why the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan could not be enforced is that the Plan had not been codified. The failure to codify the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan left the Use on Review Development Plan process in Planned zoning districts as the only enforcement mechanism. Therefore, the removal of the existing planned zoning districts results in there being no mechanism to enforce the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan. The City Administration should immediately support and the City Council should prepare and adopt a Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Ordinance so that the adopted plan can be enforced. 2. Article 11 - The current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 5,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot. Additionally, we recommend lot sizes be calculated in terms of parking slots rather than square feet; this would be easier for developers, and the public, to interpret. Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.In general, there should be a greater emphasis on stormwater management (as well as shade distribution) when considering the placement of landscaping in parking lots. Better stormwater treatment can ultimately reduce costs to developers.Plans Review and Enforcement - This is a major concern to everyone. Ultimately, enforcement will be determined by the will of the city administration and staffing, no matter what's written into the ordinance. We think it's important to have a credentialed professional staff oversee the approval and enforcement of landscape plans. Tree selection is tied to a list of approved tree species maintained by the Tree Board. However, shrubbery selection is left to the developer, although native and naturalized plantings are recommended. To insure high quality, we would like the ordinance to tie selection to an approved list of recommended shrubs, grasses, ground covers.3. Article 12.10 - This Article as written is inadequate. We would like to see the current Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 14) incorporated into the proposed Ordinance.

I seem to remember a graphic that was used in one of the presentations I saw that showed how the city defines the space in a residential yard. The graphic showed the front and back yard as well as side and standoffs etc. I can't seem to find that graphic now. If it is no trouble and you can find it easily, could you send that to me.Is that going to change in the recode? If so what will the new definitions be?

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

I see from the map that my property and that of my two neighbors is almost entirely covered with the Hillside Ridgetop Protection Zone. What does that mean for us? Can we still cut and plant new trees? The property of one of my neighbors is entirely level. Why would it be included in the HP zone?

I respectfully disagree that existing noise ordinances are sufficient to address the needs of mixed use development, and I strongly believe that you must include certain noise issues as part of your conversation.I am writing to you after contacting at least 20 others, from codes enforcement to the police department to the mayor’s office to every city council candidate. The noise ordinances as they are written have an exemption for HVAC units. The Tennessee Theater runs theirs at all hours of the day and night at a volume that is twice as loud as a construction site with heavy machinery running (I have video with decibel readings to show this.) The volume is at a threshold identified in federal standards as causing hearing damage, and yet it is allowed to run at any time of day for any amount of time. This would not be allowed in New York City or in other places I checked.I needed to get a hearing test due to tinnitus and headaches caused by this noise, and the only way to sleep is to use earplugs and a sound machine at the same time (plus a vibrating alarm clock so I don’t oversleep.) After a few days of earplugs, my ear canals will be raw and near-bleeding. I have invested $3k on sound blocking shutters and will still have to invest another $15k in acoustic retrofitting with no guarantees. I have impact statements from numerous neighbors regarding their own stress levels/health, their inability to use expensive balcony retrofits ordered at purchase, and their need to make expensive architectural changes to their windows.I’ve lived in urban environments for over 20 years, including large cities. I have many nice things to saying about moving to Knoxville, but I cannot recommend living downtown when people ask because of a general failure to control noise and light pollution here. Knoxville needs to take these seriously in mixed use development if it wants to be successful. My neighbors and I would be happy to discuss these issues with you, and other challenges that have arisen in our building, which is part residential and part commercial. I realize my email is quite long, and I appreciate your time in reading it.

I represent the Norwood Homeowners Association. At the meeting of 9/18/18 the general discussion centered on the effort to gerrymander Zoning changes to allow developers to increase apartments in already over represented areas. The changes appear to be intended to limit input of concerned persons whom will be living among these changed areas. As an attorney I am aware that once the zone changes to allow the project, developers will not be limited or controlled. Indeed the number one issue is that promises made at the MPC level by developers are not enforced by MPC with no mandatory finish dates. Highlighting problems is the inconsistent application of variances based on personalities vice rational defended process. At this time my organization is not supporting the changes as the entire effort to create "affordable housing" is undercut by zones designed to maintain high cost housing and focus apartments to limited areas which are deficient in infrastructure, roads, utilities, and schools.As imperfect as the existing system is, the citizenry has some concept of the process. This new program appears to be an effort to ultimately limit ability of small individual tax payers to object to damage to their ownership rights. This is the unsaid result of an apartment complex constructed beside your home, all the intended outcome as stated at this site.

I recently purchased a home. The map indicates that it is going to be rezoned from residential to commercial. Is this going to change my taxes or affect my utilities in any way? Does it affect my property value?

I received a message making the following points which seem to make a lot of sense to me:The City should zone RN-4 one-quarter mile along KAT's core and local street bus routes. This would permit by right the development of small multifamily housing (2-8 units) throughout the city. Benefits of this will include:

• Developing more affordable rental property opportunities throughout the city. 53% of Knoxville are renters, and the number continues to rise
• Reducing the pressures of displacement within the Central City by increasing the housing supply throughout the city.
• Growing a stronger bus system by increasing density along bus routes.
• Responding to the need to reduce everyone's carbon emissions through greater reliance on public transportation.
• Increasing access to opportunity by building small multifamily housing near where people work

Please consider the comments above during the Recode Knoxville process. Thank you.

I really believe we should keep the 4th and Gill neighborhood zones for single family and duplexes. Ours is a unique neighborhood that would be lost if it is flooded with apartments and condos.

I really appreciate the change being proposed for my home/lot section of the neighborhood.  It is, in effect, a ‘down-zoning’ from R-2 to RN-2.  My neighborhood, South Haven, has a lot of variety in housing choices – multi-family to single family which I appreciate.  However, I don’t want all small, relatively affordable, single family houses to disappear, just because the lots are less expensive & may be easier to develop large, multi-family housing on.  Thank you!

I put in my address in on your recode site & it came up with 5 apartments:429 Apt. 1, 429 Apt. 2, 429 Apt. 3, 429 Apt 4, 429 Apt 5This is a single family home with no apartments. There have never been apartments at this address. I have lived here almost 23 years. When I purchased the house, it was a single family home. Please correct. I don't want this to affect my taxes.Perhaps my property has been confused with 419 Noelton Drive which has 5 apartments. One of which was added without being permitted. Will this address still be allowed to have apartments under the new codes? I hope not. This house, divided into apartments causes parking and trash problems. Thank you.

I own two empty lots in South Knoxville at 2308 Atchley Street that I plan to build a primary residence on one of. I have looked at the City's master plan of the South Knoxville Waterfront and specifically at the Bell Tower Walk which is on axis with Atchley. My concern is that with the I-G zoning following the old rail tracks, the Bell Tower Walk will be limited in the future and the residential district above will be disconnected from the pedestrian friendly area below. As a designer myself, and stakeholder in the neighborhood, I think the SW-3 zoning should continue up Atchley Street at least to Yarnell Ave to reinforce the power of that axis and be in place for future development. Regardless of whether Atchley remains predominantly residential or the Bell Tower Walk eventually moves up the hill, having SW-3 would prevent an industrial development from cutting off the neighborhood from the riverfront or the Tower Walk from being visually terminated by industrial buildings. I think this will be especially important once the Rails to Trails path is installed and large groups of people are going to it right at that point. Finally, the river is visible up to Yarnell and there is a clear connection to what is the SW zone, I think the pattern already in the plan that has SW-3 on the North end of Atchley, should continue up the hill. Thank you very much!

I own the property at Spence place in the Island home neighborhood.It is a through lot bounded by Spence place on the south and the Tennessee river on the north.My lot is 132 ft wide, 429 ft deep. The house is set back 40 ft from the road, the attached carport is set back 26 ft from the road. The east side set back is 5 ft for the carport and 50 ft on the west side.It seems to me It should be classified as RN-1 not RN-2.It seems to me that all of the parcels on the north side of Spence should have been designated RN-2 since they meet the size and set back requirements of RN-1.

I own the parcel above and do not want it rezoned RN1. It borders a high traffic road so it will not support single family homes but will need townhomes or some other type of higher density product to be viable. We purchased the property under RP1 designation which allows for 23 units on this property. Rezoning as proposed will negatively affect value of the land.

I own property on Sherrod Rd and it has the small green dots with Hillside and Ridge Protection.  What does that mean to the property owner?

I own a house at 131 E Glenwood Ave currently zoned R-2 as are most of the houses in the 100 block of E Glenwood Ave on the north side of the street. The proposed zoning is RN-1 which is not comparable to R-2 and harmful to comforming duplex owners in the block. I request MPC consider rezoning to a more comparable R-2 zoning such as RN-3 RN-4 or RN-5. Surrounding comparable properties that justify RN-3 to RN-5 zoning:Directly across the street is Brownlow Loft Condos proposed to be RN-5 104 E Glenwood - a boarding house with several different residents each renting rooms and sharing a kitchen and bathrooms109 E Glenwood - a multifamily apartment house with several different apartments - 4 or more131 E Glenwood - a duplex125 E Glenwood - a duplex short term rental - the basement apartment is primarily rented on AirBnbThank you for your consideration.

I notice that a portion of my property, that includes about half of my house, falls within an area designated HP. I can't find any definitive resource regarding HP online, except references back to 2008-2011. I'm interested in what restrictions the HP designation will place, both on me as an established homeowner and on the newly developed apartment complex abutting my property. Can you point to a resource so we may understand what's about to happen to us?

I need clarification please as to how Knoxville Recode will effect this property. This house was built in 1918 has been well cared for and was zoned commercial/resident long before I acquired it. It is not used as commercial property and has not been so in at least 50 years (if ever ?) Taxes are astronomical due to commercial zoning. I am an investor and it is my goal to make a positive impact in any community that I invest in. The struggle is real.

I moved to Knoxville from Austin. I love many things about Knx, but one is that it is still affordable. With any development, I want to make sure low-income residents are not only able to afford housing, but able to afford housing in desirable neighborhoods close to where they work and near public transportation. No one wants a skyline of cranes, but responsible development is good. I'd like to see more bike lanes and neighborhood beautification projects. I think small-scale business operations should be allowed in single-family zones, but should work with neighborhood associations and the community for input. For example, an urban farm, beauty shop, mechanic, etc. New businesses should have to meet landscaping requirements that include greenery. Perhaps this could be incentivized if the new business is small or in an area that is economically depressed. No McMansions. Thanks!

I love my house in 4th and gill..We were in the process of establishing a winter home , Husband died 2012. I love my house,but I am still resolving property elsewhere.

I love living in Knoxville. The parks, bicycle lanes, greenways...everything is lovely here. Thanks for all you do.

I looked over the draft, and have the following suggestions:1. Define “Blank Wall” There are several great buildings with blank walls, that have designed texture and material patterns, etc., but no windows.2. Define if an alley or highway (i.e. other than roadway) is a ROW. This has to do with the portion of the code that indicates if a façade is visible from a ROW, then ……3. Define how far such a ROW view would be. Example, if I can view a building from a higher grade 5 blocks away, while I am in an alley, then is that “visible from ROW”?4. In DK-H district, set a minimum first floor to second floor dimension. Traditional buildings ranged in 18’ to 20’ +/-5. If a building is on a sloped street, then does the ground level regulations apply to the entire area of the sloped street, or only the very bottom portion of it?I will review in more detail in the next few days and will share anything else that I can think of.

I live on Highland Drive in the fountain city area. There is increasing traffic both in volume and driving well over the speed limit. There are no sidewalks. Highland ends @ Broadway which is another terrible blighted area for pedestrians. I realize sidewalks on Highland would be an expensive endeavor. What if Highland became a one way thoroughfare? There are plenty of connecting side streets that could lead to the adjacent streets which could flow in the opposite direction. One lane on Highland could be widened and the remainder could be cordoned by some type of post barrier to provide a walking/ bicycle way. This would provide access to Broadway for a huge number of residents. We would also have better access to our neighborhood Adair Park (one of the City's prettiest). This is thinking outside of the box, something I realize is tough for most government officials. Could this idea at least be shown to our wonderful Mayor for her consideration? We desperately need some help out here in the far Northern boundary of our fair city.

I live in South Knoxville, and I want to voice my robust support for allowing accessory dwelling units on existing properties.

I live in Sequoyah Hills. There are currently large commercial developments occurring on the north side of Kingston Pike, which I'm fine with. I think they are doing a good job of providing more affordable housing in the area and creating attractive (physically and financially) symbiotic venues for commercial activity. However, there are rumors of a land grab in the works for the south side of Kingston Pike, west of the intersection with Noelton Dr. If these residential areas are zoned for commercial or multi-family housing, I fear (with good reason) the housing values of all the homes in Sequoyah Hills will take a large hit (10% - 30% based on some bank of the envelope calculations). I would strongly oppose any Knoxville politician/administrator that would approve these areas for anything other than single family dwellings.

I live in a historic neighborhood in Fountain City currently zoned R-1 where permissive rezoning rules have allowed commercial encroachment. significantly increased traffic, and detrimentally altered the way of life on my street. Therefore, I am voicing opposition to allowing accessory dwelling units in R-1, even under the special use permission. I am also voicing opposition to permitting restaurants in office zones as outlined below.1. Accessory Dwelling Units- After attending the recent Recode Knoxville open house, I learned that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are proposed for current zones R-1 (new zone RN-1). At a minimum, new ADUs should be prohibited from RN-1 as they have a extremely high likelihood of altering the character and driveability of single-family neighborhoods. As has been shown in the past, garage apartments, mother-in law suites and similar ADUs become permanent structures once the capital expenditure to build or renovate accessory space has been made. This means a permanent increase to housing density and a permanent increase to traffic and possibly to on-street parking. A temporary structure for special needs cases would be acceptable, but not rezoning to permit ADUs. Tennessee law currently allows for TEMPORARY housing to be constructed on any qualifying residentially zoned land to care for an elderly/needy relative. Once the need no longer exists, the law requires such special needs structures to be decommissioned. 2. Our neighborhood supported office zone O-1 for some structures to be used as a buffer and transition between more heavily used commercial and our residential neighborhood. There are more than sufficient suitable locations for restaurants in Knox County without jeopardizing residential areas by allowing restaurants in an office zone. Restaurants have significantly higher traffic throughput and extended business hours in evenings and weekends than offices and would, therefore, not provide an adequate buffer to residential neighborhoods. Please do NOT allow restaurants in the office zone. This would not provide an improvement to the zoning in Knoxville. Quite the opposite!

I just filled out the survey. 1) dramatically reduce parking required2) mandate and retrofit neighborhood connectivity, especially for pedestrians3) require sidewalks everywhere4) require road design standards that force slow traffic. Require developers build calm streets in the first place. 25mph MAXIMUM design speed.

I just built a auto sales and service facility on my property. The recode doesn’t appear to be for auto retail. Please review this and call me.

I hope that you will consider extending the deadline for comments on the recent drafts. I have reviewed the ordinances, attended events and contributed comments on the previous drafts, and I find the ReCode work to be very important. I would like to review and comment on the recent draft but I will be traveling from the 20th-30th, leaving little time for me to review and comment, and I will be unable to attend any of the community meetings. I realize this may be a personal issue I will need to work around myself, but I write because I may not be alone in finding the timeline for these comments to be very short. Thank you.

I hope that MPC and the City really think hard about how this recoding of Knoxville will ultimately effect the people that live on the east side(Park City).Just to create density for the sake of more housing may do more harm than good. East of downtown has at this time very little to offer anyone that is low income.There are few jobs and the ones that are available are minimum wage, which at the rate of cost of living two people making minimum wage can not afford housing. There are no grocery stores, its a food desert, unless you have your own transportation. And now that St Mary's has closed there is no medical provider on the east side of town. And none of this is going to change because for any business to locate in any area they are going to look at the median income, so if the city keeps concentrating low income in the 6th district we are not going to attract any future businesses. The city and county need to spread out the low income density across the area so these people will have the availability to be able to help themselves out of their current situations. there was a study done to test the effect of the zip code inwhich you were born, born in a poor zip code you are pretty much doomed.MPC and City, think long and hard about what your are about to do, the effects will last for decades!

I heard that the developers will fight back about design standards. Please hold strong because the city needs to be more beautiful to match the surrounding hills and valleys. I encourage trees and landscaping at all new projects, less parking and parking in the BACK of buildings, buffers between buildings and between roads and buildings or parking, open spaces in all zones, and required landscaping.I believe affordable housing is important so I encourage duplexes in residential zones. ADUs should be allowed with proper setbacks and design standards. Vinyl should be allowed because it is a cheaper material. I support re-use of existing buildings including allowing offices in residential homes and other mixed-uses. I'm very glad to see the hillside/ridgetop included in this draft and want it kept and perhaps strengthened. I want sidewalks required in new developments. I want alternative transportation encouraged because I cannot currently walk easily to any store, especially on Chapman Highway. I want commercial zoning on the main arteries in Knoxville to have design standards that will increase the aesthetics of the city. We have way too many cheap looking strip malls and individual stores with large parking lots that are seldom used.I am concerned about the variance and approval process. It looks like the Zoning Administrator has a lot of power to make final decisions. I want community and neighborhood input to be seriously considered when changes are needed to this new zoning. I heard that massage services were forced out of my neighborhood years ago and I think that type of service should be allowed. For my Lake Forest neighborhood, I don't understand why the minimum lot size is suggested to be increased to 10,000. I like our small lots. Thank you.

I have very little respect for some of your building code officials. In my previous experience of renovating 3 houses in Knoxville, some of them are pompous kings in their own little areas of code enforcement. One told me he could tear down a house in an area where we were trying to redevelop 8 houses. He could do it because it was condemned because the absentee owner would not cooperate with code enforcement or sell the property, or answer any mail concerning his empty house. The fact that it would affect the development of the rest of the properties meant nothing to this man. One plumbing inspector refused to give a CO for one of the 8 houses because the toilet was 1/2 inch too close to the toilet in a half bath. That was the only thing keeping the owner from obtaining the CO. 1/2"! I truly believe that if code enforcement had been more flexible there would be 8 renovated Victorian houses on W. Baxter, instead of everything torn down in the entire block of houses except for two little little houses. What a waste. I have heard similar horror stories from people trying to remodel or renovate buildings. I wonder that any investors have ever finished any projects in this town.

I have some general feedback about Draft 2 that I want to share. 1.) I would like to see some basic community planner terminology added to the definitions list to make the document more readable for average citizens. Terms like corridor, node, overlay, and mixed-use development are not normal conversational terms and using them without defining them makes the document less accessible to the public.2.) I am also curious why CU and SW are their own special zones? This sets a precedent where each mixed-use development or corridor development would get a unique zone. I know one of the goals is to simplify the current ordinance and so I do not understand why these properties could not be zoned as SD (Special District) or something more generic like that. 3.) I hope the updated ordinance will make it easier for people to walk or use public transportation. I would love to see a change made to our current policies so that new bus stops are built with safety and dignity in mind. There are several bus stops in my neighborhood where people waiting to catch the bus must stand in a ditch. I would love to see new development built with public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure in mind. A covered waiting area that is handicap-accessible would make a big difference in the perception/attitudes around our public transportation system. 4.) I think the addition of the Institutional zone and the Hillside Protection overlay are two great additions to the current ordinance. They make the map easier to use and understand. Thank you for all of your hard work! I am excited to see the final product!

I have reviewed the 2nd draft of recode Knoxville and think that there is a need to bring a couple of technical issues to the forefront. These are specific technical issues that I have identified and may cause issues during the regulatory phase for both those who have to review the policy and those implementing the policy on their projects. I understand that according to the “Policy Issues” document that it is proposed not to change or increase any more landscaping requirements, but these items listed below should be simple technical items that need addressed to make the code work.The following are items for amendment in Article 12. Landscape Public Draft 2.0 that should be considered.12.3.A.3 The use of species native or naturalized is required. Drought tolerant species are encouraged. I would suggest that this reads “The use of native and drought tolerant species are encouraged.” Invasive species are addressed in the following line and the recommended species list has trees that are not native but are also considered non-invasive. By keeping the line as is, we eliminate many of the plants on the recommended species list and move towards more difficult regulatory policy. “Naturalized” species in the green industry and in ecology tends to have more of an “invasive” meaning (such as the Bradford pear) and should be eliminated. This should place emphasis on native but still allowing those non-invasive exotics to be used in tough environmental conditions.12.3.B.2 No plantings may be installed to impede waterflow. This doesn’t make sense and I don’t know where to begin. The main reason to have landscaping is for water quality and quantity control. I read this and it seems to be counterintuitive to the purpose of landscaping code. If a stormwater concern, maybe best to be addressed in a stormwater regulation and probably already is. My recommendation would be to remove.12.4.A Need to delete the word “diameter.” This section is strictly discussing caliper which is a measurement of diameter and those in the landscape industry should understand. The last part of the section “ANSI accredited Horticultural Standards” should read “American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1)”12.9.C.1 Within the drip line of any protected tree, there may be no cut or fill over a four inch depth unless a qualified arborist or forester has evaluated and approved the disturbance. This sentence disqualifies the entire section of “Preservation”. If 4 inches is graded or filled the tree dies. You may be able to disturb about 20% depending on the species, health, etc. but allowing up to 4 inches of either grade or fill is completely off from any literature or peer-reviewed research. First, we need to define the “Tree Protection Zone” of a tree (see next comment). The sentence should read “Within the tree protection zone of a tree, there may be no cut or fill material unless a Certified Arborist has evaluated and approved the disturbance will not impact the health of the tree. The term “forester” needs to be removed as it is a very general term without any professional credentials or experience to back up an understanding of tree preservation.12.9.C.2….and no closer than 6 feet from the trunk or one-half of the drip line, whichever is greater. This again is not accurate and not enough to preserve a tree. This is very vague and cannot work across all trees of different sizes and species. I good analogy would be requiring all people to run an 8 minute mile in order to keep their driver license. It just does not make sense. I would delete this phrase and define the “Tree Protection Zone” in a separate section prior to 12.9.C.1.12.9.C (section needs added) Tree Preservation includes the preservation of the trees root system within the Tree Protection Zone. (this can be defined in definitions or as follow). The Tree Protection Zone is determined by measuring 1 foot in radius away from the trunk of the tree for every inch in diameter at 4.5 feet in height. No more than 10% of the Tree Protection Zone may be disturbed with fill or grading work. Any impervious area within the existing Tree Protection Zone does not need to be included in preservation measures.Also, I met with the Tree Board and am working on pulling together a list of comments and will forward them as soon as they are complete. Most are not technical issues, but some may overlap the above and others are in addition. Please let me know if there are any questions.Kasey KrouseUrban ForesterCity of Knoxville, TN

I have reached out to KAT, UTK, and the North Knox Chamber, but received no response from anyone. I would love to see a strategic express route park & ride for UTK & downtown added in the Northeast. I have suggested a partnership with East Towne mall which could aid traffic to the mall and has ample parking. Otherwise a North Broadway location in the general area of Kroger would also be ideal.

I have now been to two of your public meetings. Both meetings combined had maybe 90 people. When I talk with my neighbors almost 100% are completely unaware of this radical transformation of the city. Even if they would find out, the complexities of the code changes preclude comprehension for the average citizen. No hard data is presented about the impact of these changes on property values and city services. The presentation team "sells" the concept and obfuscation rules. If they were to spell out explicitly that the "Single Family Residence" will be dead throughout the city after these changes and that all residential properties will be zoned as "duplex," the majority of tax payers would be outraged.

I have lived in Snohomish, WA (Centennial Trail) and Hudson, OH (Ohio and Erie Canal and connecting trails). My kids and I really enjoyed the trails to walk and bike, especially when we could access them directly from our house, without having to load up bikes. I don't have the vehicle space to load so many bikes in one trip, so we never used the trails here, except to walk on. I wish we had more opportunities to get around town here.I work at UT Medical Center. I believe a first priority should be to make a trail accessible from the KAT bus or for people to bike to work, without fear of getting run over on Cherokee Trail.In the same breath, I have concerns about forging new trails. A former railroad bed borders my backyard, directly from a park. If the city decides to utilize that space, how will my property be protected?

I have lived in my house for around 14 years. Fourteen LONG years in relationship to dealing with the Historic Overlay. For every repair I have done it has been a mostly stressful and painful process-in spite of the fact that everything I have done was costly, above and beyond what was required, and only added to the preservation of this property. To me the system is tedious, disjointed and feels like it punishes the people who take on these houses. There are also unrealistic expectations and definitions about what it means to "preserve" something. If we do not reset this system these houses will become too costly and much to stressful to maintain. Materials and people to do the work are becoming harder and harder to find and when time is of the essence when a repair needs to be made-it runs the risk of more damage occurring while boards argue over appropriateness. Contractors do not have time to go before boards to seek approval and homeowners may not use the proper language to get approval. Each neighborhood is unique, each house built with the particular tastes of the original owner. To impose overly specific stylistic standards uses much to broad a brush and many times may be incorrect anyway as personal tastes came into play when homes were originally built and may've been changed over the years by original owners. I have followed the endless loop of paper trails, fees* and time wasted while I waited and watched my place on the contractors schedule get lost only to end up at the beginning of the process to be able to do what I'd intended in the first place. *FEES-some of these serve no purpose other than to support the office of the Historic Zoning Commission. I was forced to pay an extra fee just to replace my gutters. I upgraded the gutters, by the way, because of the horrible storms we'd been having, which is why they were being replaced and when I was given the window of time allowed before my permit would expire I had to explain the obvious-"The gutters will be replaced when we have several dry days and the contractor is available.To do so any other time may cause damage to my property." Such a ridiculously common sense fact should never be an issue. I love my house and my neighborhood but I will never buy another home under Historic Overlay-PERIOD.

I have great concerns about the rezoning of my street, Hedgewood road. I have only lived here since November 2017. I searched for 2 years to find a nice, quiet family neighborhood in my price range in Fountain City. It is my understanding that my road as well as the neighboring roads, Kesterson and part of Kesterwood will be rezoned from R-1 to RN-2. What exactly does this mean for us? I read that multiple familie homes/duplexes will be allowed. I am sorry but that is not what I want in my neighborhood. My fear is this will bring more short term renters, people less invested in the area. And why are only those three streets being rezoned when other attching streets are not? Is there already an agenda in place for these streets? How will going from a residential single family street to an urban area affect my property value? Will rezoning affect my taxes? This rezone is not something myself of any of my neighbors want and as tax payers we should have a say. Please help me understand how this rezone will help me and my neighbors.

I have concern in the code where if an existing building decides to remodel over 50% then the parking change goes into effect and may not be financially feasible for the building or shopping area and thus the tenant would go elsewhere leaving some of the anchor tenant type buildings left in disrepair or not remodeled for changing trends or marketplace. 16-1 : Also concern on the 6 months abandonment clause causing a building to loose non-conforming status and in most cases it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, to get a tenant in 6 months and if buildings built with kitchens and restaurant layout for instance, it might actually cause more to stay vacant. If our building on 4th ave. went vacant 6 months, being made of concrete and some front parking, it would need torn down and rebuilt - if I am reading it correctly. Some areas with pocketed office buildings, not really in nodes - I feel the zoning doesn't apply where buildings need to push forward and park in rear (such as Montbrook area behind downtown west). Building facade material restrictions in C-Gs - I feel needs some tweaking as far as percentages on the building - what if styles change?

I have commented on the last two maps without response and hope to receive it this third time. The empty lot (0 e fifth Ave) next to 2080 e fifth Ave is incorrectly labeled as the Parkridge Community Garden. The garden is across the street in the open lot, which has been given the correct proposed zoning for such a space. As the owner of the incorrectly labeled lot, I am concerned about liability on my property if something were to happen to someone who mistook it for public use.

I have a question regarding multi-tenant housing numbers. According to the code C-G-2, how many people can reside in an apartment of the same family-last name? If not the same family-last name?Thank you.

I have a few requests for specific areas of Knoxville. First, I would like to see more small homes (some might say tiny homes) built close to the city on existing home lots on the south knox waterfront areas. These small lots once held a large number of trailers, and would now be better suited to have small homes on each lot, as they would be affordable, make sense in the small space, and be easily accessible to downtown for the hip and urban youth of today. Second, we could use more high density housing in old industrial type buildings. Converting these spaces into modern lofts seems to be the norm, and it is cleaning the neighborhood up in a way that conventional apartment complexes do not. It would save the current structures and facades, and allow more dwellings inside a current space. Such as at 428 E Scott. It would great for it to be zoned RN-6 to hold a larger number of small families and singles that work and want to play downtown. Also, at 400 E Scott it should be also zoned RN-6 level as it already has something like 24 units in such a small area. I have lived in both South and North Knox for many years, and am concerned that if we do not allow things like small houses on small lots and multi-family high-density housing in old reclaimed industrial sites, we will lose many people to West Knoxville, where it looks like every other town in America. Let us keep Knoxville with the charm it currently has, and keep its residents closer to downtown so they can live, work, play, and spend their money downtown. We will all prosper because of it.

I have a concern which was identified in the first draft of the RECODE Knoxville that could impact West Hills. The concern is regarding the changing of the zone for the area on Middlebrook where Tennova was to build. The recode Knoxville seems to be a backhanded way to change allowed land usages without input from impacted neighborhoods. Several other concerns with the recode draft include:- Less restrictive Accessary dwelling unit (ADU) requirement in residential neighborhoods.- Zoning changes without specific notice of changes.- Expanded allowable land uses in certain zones.- Increased administrative challenges for impacted citizens and neighborhoods to challenge proposed changes to allowed land use.- A rush to obtain city council approval of the recode to meet an arbitrary project schedule at the sacrifice of resolution of identified issues.I am opposed to the changing of the Zoning of the hospital property from “Office" to "Office Park” for the reasons identified above.

I had a chance to look at the CN-2 and CG-2 guidelines. It does look like the C-2 would be more appropriate to the buildings on North Fourth as it allows for a setback. But both zonings require 50% of the first floor to be glass. I realize you can address this in the historic zone, but what about the [eligible for designation as historic] houses next to the Karm store if they undergo major rehab? Has this been discussed?How is the setback determined since the chart says between 0' and 20' in Commercial zones. Will historic zoning prevail in H-1?Consider CN-2 for Sassy Anns at 820 N. 4th because it was a former restaurant.Why SW-1 on one side of Scottish Pike and SW-2 on the other at location east of Railroad tracks?

I got this email after taking a survey about zoning. I wanted to comment that I live near kingston pike and moved to my neighborhood because there was a bus stop nearby. However, about 6 months after moving into my house, the bus route changed. I now have to walk a little farther to catch the bus, but that's not really the issue. The big issue here is that I live in a residential area very close to businesses on kingston pike, one of Knoxville's busiest roads, that I cannot get to safely because there are no sidewalks. There are some areas that barely even have shoulder to walk in. I have to walk though someone's yard to get to Kingston pike because someone's house along kingston pike has so much foliage on the ground that you have to walk IN kingston pike around the foliage. It is very unsafe and discouraging.I do not drive, and I think it isn't good to require people to drive in this city. It creates more traffic and accidents because people who should not be driving are, because there are no other options. It is not fair to those who cannot afford cars or those unable to drive.I walk to my dentist appointments on S Peters Rd., just a 20 minute walk from my house, but it's a little nerve wracking because there are many spots where I barely have any space to walk safely. More sidewalks make the city safer and healthier. I have lost weight by exercising and walking more. I think it's kind of sad that many people have to first drive to greenways to walk. There is a greenway near where I live, but I cannot get there safely due to lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. I have biked there, but being near an interstate ramp also makes me nervous when I try. Is also like to be able to bike to the greenway safely. I can understand not having sidewalks in residential areas, but it is necessary in mixed residential and business areas to connect the two safely with sidewalks. Fortunately I work downtown and I'm very happy that there's plenty of sidewalk there. Sorry if this was long, but I wanted to voice my opinion and frustrations. I hope there are others like me wanting safer ways to walk in the city. Thanks for reading.

I find it odd that your survey didn't include any questions relating to the short term rental issue. The proposal as it exists will be a disaster for R1 neighborhoods. Additionally, I found the survey extremely biased and leading in nature. Personally, I couldn't give two cents about sustainability and don't think my tax dollars should could be used to fund projects that are designed to combat, so called man made global warming.

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

I feel that a couple of the questions did not have adequate answers. For question # 1 I would have answered, "should not occur" rather than what was listed. Some neighborhoods are already zoned inappropriately for multi-family dwellings when they were designed to be single family. This is particularly detrimental in older neighborhoods, such as ours, which has inappropriate small apartment buildings that don't blend in with older, historic homes.Additionally, the allowance of free standing buildings for adult children or aging parents would depend upon many factors, such as lot size, size of existing structures, etc.

I feel like the environmental section was a bit short. We know that we need to be drastically reducing our carbon emissions in order to sustain life on this planet! There should be more environmental regulations on new buildings and retrofits of older buildings. Also, how there wasn't anything specifically on how this project is going to address gentrification. There are many homeless people in this city and when people can no longer afford to live in their homes, the situation will only get worse. There was no mention on affordable housing or expansions of shelters and of community services.

I fear that beauty is often removed from development plans because of cost. However, the most beautiful developments include the original trees and have thoughtful landscaping. Knoxville has too many rows of houses that look all the same and often you can see how the hill was cut down to clear space for those developments. Now is the opportunity to keep natural features and make green space a part of the original design plan for residential and commercial development. Of course developers want to make the maximum amount of money and will cry that they can't provide affordable housing or development without cutting down all the trees, flattening the hillsides, and making new houses out of ticky-tacky. But their concerns are not more important than the citizens who live here and love this town and want to keep the natural beauty retained. Thank you.

I don't know if there is any relationship between the type of data you are interested in and my thoughts on Parkridge. It seem that a small group of people are trying to represent the whole neighborhood in saying we need to adopt the H1 codes. The H1 would support the desires of those who already have nice property while putting struggling neighbors, who already have limited housing opportunities,at a disadvantage. I moved into this neighborhood because of the income and ethnic diversity, which would be compromised if we began prioritizing property over people. Most of our housing is not of a historic nature worthy of special protections, and I am grieved that a small number of people is trying to change the environment for others of us who have moved into invested in the neighbor looking for something different. Thank you.

I don't understand the reasoning in rezoning the entire 4th and Gill neighborhood from R-2 to R-4. I can understand the logic of multifamily zoning along corridors to act as a transition into established neighborhoods, as I see being done on Magnolia on the new map, but not the rezoning of an entire neighborhood. I also don't see that type of rezoning in surrounding historic neighborhoods, so why 4th and Gill? We worked long and hard many years ago to become R-1A, or R-2 as it is called in the Recode. This would be a huge step backwards, in many eyes. Please reconsider this decision.

I do NOT want my neighborhood rezoned. I do not want you to tell me that I cant hire anyone in my homebased business. I do not want you to pack as many people as you can into one spot. I do not want you to make all roads like Cumberland - that I avoid like the plague now. Just stop already.

I do not understand what hillside protection (code HP) means, as opposed to established neighborhood. (Code EN)

I do not understand the need for some of these drastic changes and especially the need to push it though at full speed. I fear many do not yet know about it or do not understand it. I have lived in Sequoyah Hills for 50 years and am a longtime active member of the Kingston Pike Sequoyah Hills Association. Over the years we have fought off many threats to the neighborhood at great expense of time and money. These new codes will be very destructive to R1 neighborhoods. I can't believe anyone thinks it would be good to be like Green Hills in Nashville with tear downs rampant and new little subdivisions on every lot. The traffic there is unbearable. Knoxville is very affordable comparatively and we are surrounded by counties with low populations. Is this all about money?? My husband and I fully support the letter sent to you from KPSHA. Specifically,I don't support ADUs and especially if the principal residence is not owner occupied and no provision for off street parking( 1 space, per BR in ADU). Duplexes should not be allowed in R1 neighborhoods. I have been told the minimum lot size would be changed to 5000 sq ft. Surely, that can't be true. I do not feel you have the interests of neighborhoods and their citizens at heart. Please reconsider some of these things and stop the rush to change.

I do not believe that a city should be a HOA. Restricting RV parking to the side yard is, I assume, because of how it might look to a neighbor. I can say that a beautiful Winnebago is prettier to me than someone's Hummer or minivan or fancy car. It can't be for obstructing views, because your language indicates that if it's screened then that is just fine. So what I'm hearing is that if you have a ton of money it's okay, but if you are middle class you can't have the same pleasure of going out camping for the weekend. Please rethink this legislation and provide some reasonable opportunity for all to have the ability to welcome rver's to their properties. I'm currently caring for a family member for a month while they recover from surgery. Your 7 day requirement and not allowing me to hookup to public utilities would make it difficult to keep my cats warm and housed in the RV, while caring for my family.

I do have concerns as to the RN4 coding will play into the H-1 overlay process......not sure what the multi-family /townhouse would look like in relation to our H-1 overlay or is that something that would not pertain to an H-1 Overlay area ??

I currently live in a R1 zoned neighborhood, per the recode map, the proposed new zone will be RN 2. What is the difference between RN 1 and RN 2?

I commented earlier on my objections in the new codes proposal. At that time, I was not aware of the proposal to reduce the minimum lot size to 5000 square ft. It was well hidden even when I was looking for it after it was called to my attention. This would open the door to rampant tear downs and small new subdivisions in Sequoyah Hills and some other neighborhoods. You would make this more financially attractive thus destroying the beauty and consistency of neighborhoods and take away our ability to oppose it. Part of the recoding seems to be against maintaining the integrity of existing neighborhoods. I am told it would make it easier for BZA and MPC reducing variances, etc. One size cannot fit all and you are paid to do these jobs by we, the taxpayers. Please reconsider this. I failed also to object to unlimited heights on the Scenic Hwy, Kingston Pike. I believe the current standard is adequate and we do not want a tunnel down the pike like Cumberland Ave. What you done there is a tragic mistake not only visually, but making negotiating traffic nearly impossible. I hate to think of ambulances trying to get in after struggling recently to get to an appointment at Ft. Sanders! Thanks for extending the comment period.

I can't help wondering what side of the fence the team is on:* Congress for the New Urbanism - developing vibrant communitiesOR* Landscape Urbanism - promoters of expansive open spacesI tend to side with the New Urbanists. Landscape Urbanism turns its buildings away from the street in favor of frontages that consists mostly of greenery. Unless there is tremendous density, human beings will not walk. Some of my responses may be inconsistent with my favor of New Urbanism...because I want it both ways. I'll have to go with discouraging me from driving a car - electric or otherwise.Somehow we have to reconcile the habit driving our cars with the need to walk and take public transportation. We now have clusters of big box stores that cater to cars. I have heard people new to Knoxville buying houses in the outlying areas expressing that they are good as long as a Walmart is nearby.I share my friend's feelings about the tragic landscape of highway strips, parking lots, housing tracts, mega-malls, junked cities, and ravaged countryside that makes up the everyday environment where most Americans live and work. While rezoning Knoxville codes may be a complex ambition, keeping the outcome consistent with CNU values might go a long way toward connecting people in their homes and businesses. I had a wonderful childhood neighborhood experience at Petzold's Market Chicago, Illinois - where my father's family lived on the second floor. I would like the City of Knoxville to promote this type of community business.

I believe that there should be more consistency between section 10.3 (F) CARPORTS and section 10.3 (N) GARAGE, DETACHED. First, does section 10.3 (F) apply to detached carports only, or attached and detached carports? Clarification there would be beneficial.Second, why must a carport be set back from side lot lines 10 feet whereas a detached garage requires no setback from side lot lines? I would think application of setbacks for these structures would be consistent with each other. It may be that each could be addressed in a consistent manner with regard to Table 10-1, Permitted Encroachments as unenclosed porches (similar to a carport) and sheds (similar to a detached garage).Thanks

I believe new sign ordinance or variances should be investigated, specifically addressing the individual personality, architecture and history of each neighborhood.

I attended the workshop held in Fountain City on May 17th and was favorably impressed with the overall direction of the Recode effort. In general, I am supportive of the continued inclusion of the areas supportive of urban agriculture and food (expressed separately through comments with the Food Policy Council). Specifically, I am in support of the Accessory Dwelling Unit/lot proposal and of the increased/enhanced landscaping requirements. Thanks for everyone's efforts on this major project.

I attended the last work shop on 1/3/19 for the recode, I do have some issues with the latest draft. My area has been rezoned back to RN2, but the lot size for a duplex has been lowered from 10,000 sqft of lot space to 7,500 which is the standard size lot in most historic neighborhoods. I do not have an issue with someone wanting to build a NEW duplex that would fit into the character of the neighborhood. But my fear is that we will go back decades inwhich every foot of building space will be converted into "living" area, porches and balconies, will be converted into bedrooms and bathrooms as in the past. We here in Parkridge have spent years trying to over come this exact same type of over crowding and destruction of the historic fabric of our neighborhood. With only small portion of Parkridge protected by a historic overlay and no in fill housing guidelines, we would be damned to repeat our very bad past history. Parkridge would is better suited for RN3 like other historic neighborhoods like 4th and Gill.Also on a technical note, I noticed that under the minimum interior side setback has been changed to a minimum of 20', on a 50' wide lot, as in most cases in historic neighborhoods that would limit the buildable area of 30' wide. I think as it stands now, the minimum is 5', and minimum of 12' combined.

I attended the informational session at the Chamber on 8/21 and found it helpful in understanding the information. I do have a couple of comments and questions.1. As far as the unlimited height restrictions go, this might be a scary idea to some neighborhood residents, without a further explanation. As I understand it, developers would be subject to review and approvals for the design plans, including height, is that correct? Is there a public component to that review? 2. I like the idea of being able to add additional dwellings on one lot or to build on small lots to assist with infill in the City and help with the housing crunch (this is sort of old-school, isn't it? But it seems it would really work). I think it is important to emphasize that mixed use residential can be added to commercial zones but not the other way around (is that indeed a correct interpretation?).3. Contrary to an opinion I heard expressed at the Chamber meeting, I believe that "walkability" is not just a buzz word but is an extremely important component of making our City livable for all. The idea that people don't want to or need to be able to comfortably walk along a state highway in the City just doesn't make sense to me. The transit routes with the highest ridership travel the main corridors (state routes) and people have to be able to walk to the bus stop and to their destinations when they get off the bus. I have walked the block along Kingston Pike near Shrimp Dock (referenced at the meeting by Mr. Hill) many times and I do not agree with his assessment that this is something people don't want or need to do. They do it every day now and could enjoy it more with "walkability" improvements.4. I did not really understand Mr. Hill's comments about not being able to place an L-shaped strip center on property with parking in the rear and that trash bins, etc. would be visible to people parking in the rear. It seems to me that bringing some imagination to bear on how a shopping center is designed could address many issues. My 2 cents. Thank you for all you do!

I attended the city's recent workshop on sustainability & liked the idea of developing the West Town site using the existing retail structure for that purpose while adding to its sustainability by building above the parking lot & existing structure. That site won't be viable if the amount of parking is reduced. Lack of convenient parking is a key factor in business survivability across the city.nnZoning codes regarding landscaping shouldn't be so restrictive as to dictate types of plants except as to tree height and root spread. Lawns are a luxury and substitute ground cover should be acceptable.nnCodes regarding lot sizes should be flexible enough to take into account today's tiny houses movement.

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion about the city zoning codes. However, I know I likely made some poor choices when filling out the survey due to my ignorance of the repercussions these choices would have on the larger picture. I do not like the idea of having tall structures or buildings along Broadway, but if it promotes better public transportation discourages some of the unattractive commercial buildings that we see around town, I might reconsider. One of my more pressing concerns is the profusion of check cashing establishments in our area (Fountain City/North Knoxville). These "businesses" prey on the people in our city who are not financially stable or fall on hard times due to a crisis. I would like to see Knoxville tell these types of businesses that they are no longer welcome. There are numerous cities across the country that have banned or regulated the number of check cashing, pay day loan, and title pawn businesses. Knoxville should become one as well.

I applaud the City of Knoxville and the Metro Planning Commission on this survey. I am excited to see where our city and county go in the development of a walkable, livable, and more active downtown. I am not familiar with the current code, but it would seem to be advantageous to ensure mixed-use buildings and adaptive reuse receive the highest priority. Perhaps the most pressing issue hindering downtown's growth is its copius amount of surface level parking. If there is any way to discourage owners from keeping these properties as wastes of space, or rewarding those who have decided to develop it into usable urban space, I would encourage it. Thank you for continuing to make a better urban life for the residents of our area.

I apologize for not having the time to give more specific feedback, but I wanted to send a few comments. I support the allowance of ADUs in the zoning. They are an important, responsible, and effective means to increase density and provide affordable housing stock. I support the landscape requirements as I feel they are important to improving/maintaining life quality in our city. I support the neighborhood commercial zone, particularly because it may open up opportunities for increased food access in areas that currently may have poor access to quality food options. I hope to be able to offer more specific feedback on the next draft. Thank you for your efforts. I am generally pleased with the direction of ReCode Knoxville. One area of concern is the potential elimination of the Downtown Design Review Board. I think this board process allows public input into projects that might otherwise have little public notice or oversight. I would prefer to see the DDRB continue to exist.

I am writing you with dismay about how the current 2nd round draft of Recode Knoxville handles the long studied, community-based, community-requested South Waterfront Form-based Code. I participated in the public discussions and feedback as part of the Round 1 of Recode Knoxville. At that time I was told explicitly in a public meeting in regards to a question about the current, existing form-based codes used in Knoxville that there wouldn't be major changes to current form-based codes used in Knoxville, only clean-up on the edges where ideas hadn't solidly been hammered out in the code.The current 2nd round draft of Recode Knoxville does not appear to hold to the statement made at that meeting. I'm concerned to see major changes being proposed, including some that go against the very intent of what the SW code was set-up to accomplish.Form-based code districts should be dealt with individually if any changes are made. That's the very nature of form-based districts. They're customized, specialized and unique. The form-based code for each district is meant to "fit like a glove" to address the particular development opportunities for that district, and has to be handled accordingly at every step. That clearly includes revisions. A board, sweeping update to the entire Code, such as Recode Knoxville, is not the appropriate place to dig into the guts, the thrust of the South Waterfront Form-based Code and muck around.The South Waterfront Form-based Vision Plan and Code included months of work and community involved meetings. The community was engaged in the process and had embraced the adoption of the code at it's completion. The public was endorsing an urban, pedestrian-friendly connected community that provided public access to the river. Below are a few examples of how the 2nd Round of Recode Knoxville glosses over these facts and preverts the intention of the South Waterfront Form-based Code:The prohibited-use section has been deleted. We need to keep the few prohibitions listed in this section, such as heavy industrial. This is critical to a successfully grown community where people want to live and engage.

• The prohibition on gated communities has been deleted. Gated communities go against the intent of the South Waterfront Form-based Code's goals of an urban, pedestrian friendly, community with a sense of place. Gated communities negatively impact connectivity, and can diminish access to the river. This prohibition was strongly supported by the South Knoxville community and needs to remain in the code.
• The off-street parking section has been deleted and replaced with a reference to the general parking section in the Recode document. Unless that section includes a prohibition on parking lots in the front, which I doubt, this prohibition needs to remain in the code. Front parking lots are not part of an urban, pedestrian-friendly community. Also, the original code has different parking max/mins for each of the seven SW districts. Deleting all the parking-related code deletes the different parking max/mins for each of the seven South Waterfront districts. We need those in the South Waterfront code because parking min/max requirements can't be determined by use in a form-based code.
• The provision setting the maximum block size perimeter has been deleted. This provision was included to prevent superblocks, which are not what the South Waterfront code intended to build an urban, pedestrian-friendly community. Superblocks have a negative impact on connectivity, and can diminish access to the river. This provison needs to stay in the code.
• The 70 foot river buffer has been deleted. This was strongly supported by the community and well-vetted before the code was adopted and needs to remain.
• The entire streetscapes section has been deleted. If we are treating the South Waterfront streetscapes like all other streetscapes in Knoxville, then the South Waterfront will lose it's opportunity to be a unique district with it's own pull and character to help strengthen and diversify Knoxville. This section need to remain.

Thank you.

I am writing as a long-time resident of the West Hills Community. I have lived in West Hills for more than 50 years. I value the historical and cultural significance of our community and am hoping you will take steps to preserve our zoning.Please don't allow my neighbors to build structures for alternative housing in their back yards. Please don't allow my neighbors to park their motor homes in their driveways.Please don't open us up to greater housing density.West Hills is an important part of the West Knoxville community. We need your help in preserving the continuity of our well-kept neighborhood with its large spacious lots, mature trees and play areas.Thanks for your help!

I am wanting to confirm that if my property is rezoned to RN-4 from I-G, that I will still be able to use the property for I-G.

I am very much opposed to the zoning of this neighborhood being reversed from R-1 to R-2. This neighborhood of cottages has been intact as single family dwellings since it was built in the 1940’s. The property was formerly a dairy, and the land was carefully planned to host family homes. The streets were laid out in curves to give an expanded view, the foundations and chimneys where built on site, the windows manufactured in Cookeville, and the rest of the construction was prefabbed up north and brought to the site and put in place.This little neighborhood has been intact as home to families since it was created. Several years ago, when I moved into 3935 Briargate Ave., I found out that the neighborhood was zoned R-2. With help and encouragement from the Historic Association and some members of city council and the Bearden Council, several of us in the neighborhood, formed a neighborhood association to promote unity in the neighborhood, clean up the neighborhood and set about seeing about changing the zoning from R-2 to R-1. After several months of creating interest and good will in the neighborhood and lots of very hard work, we presented our request to City Council and the MPC - the request was voted on twice by and passed unanimously. To go backwards would be detrimental to this historic neighborhood and would set it up to be in jeopardy and undercut the sincerity of purpose to keep it intact. The little neighborhood association that began as seven hopeful neighbors in an open carport on the corner of Tobler and Greenleaf has grown into a full fledged association that meets regularly at the little Baptist church a little ways up Sutherland and has just elected the next roster of officers. This is progress that supports the best of Knoxville, and it would be a mistake to this area and the unity of this neighborhood to reverse the zoning back to R-2.

I am very much against the proposed RN-4 zoning for Claiborne Place that would allow low rise multi family structures. If allowed, these buildings would be out of character for that street as there are mostly bungalows with beautiful architectural features. The only way these multi family structures could be built is to tear these beautiful historic homes. The Edgewood Park Neighborhood is doing a wonderful job of preserving & revitalizing this area, so it would be most helpful if the City would encourage our effort to stand with us to preserve homes/areas like Claiborne Place . If this zoning RN-4 is kept, the incentive would be to tear down these unique houses. My family and neighbors want to do all we can to protect the beautiful structures in this area- these type structures are why our area is so desirable! We need your help to make it RN-1.

I am very excited about, and completely support, this effort. Communication of over-arching goals needs to be stronger: Maybe you need a preface or rationale that isn't there. Rationale for ReCODE KnoxvileThe population in Knoxville and Knox County is projected to grow by 30% in the next 20 years: does this mean 30% more sprawl? 30% more roads? Knoxville needs to have new ways of accommodating growth, with more diverse residential and housing options. Current zoning codes are outdated! Right now in a neighborhood center such as Fountain City or Bearden, a four story mixed use building with a ground floor commercial use, such as a restaurant or hair salon, and upper level condos is against the current zoning codes. The big change in ReCODE Knoxville is to allow "mixed use" buildings (with commercial tenants and residential units) on specific "nodes" or "corridors" in existing Knoxville neighborhoods.ReCODE Knoxville also allows for a much greater diversity of residential and housing options: mixed use commercial and residential zones in exisiting neighborhood centers, smaller minimum lot sizes in some areas, accessory units (granny flat, loft rental) in some areas, and more flexibility in set-back and encroachment requirements for some areas. Explain why form based codes are a good idea? COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC DRAFTPage 1-1 Purpose:ADD: "Provide for a greater diversity of residential / housing options"Page 5-1 C-N: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning DistrictCould you call this C-N: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT? (or even MU-N: Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District). "Commercial" is a single-use concept, with subset definitions, from the 1950's zoning approach. Mixed use is the BIG MESSAGE, C-G: General Commercial Zoning DistrictCould you call this C-G: GENERAL COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT? (or even MU-G: Mixed Use General Zoning District) "Commercial" is a single-use concept, with subset definitions, from the 1950's zoning approach. Mixed use is the BIG MESSAGE, Page 5-13 MaterialsThis is highly problematic. I think other architects will weigh in on this, The majority of new structures are based on panel systems, with insulated aluminun panels, terracotta, innovative cement-based materials, innovative synthetic materials. Are these "metal sidings? exposed aggregate / concrete / Plastic .Review process:I have been a member of the Downtown Review Board and feel that the workshops and approval process has resulted in a flexible approach to interpreting basic standards and in improving the quality of permanent new structures in our downtown.I support MPC Staff Review for ReCODE Knoxville . However, I believe that the staff should be empowered to refer some decisions to a "Mixed Use Review Board". Further, ALL projects that exceed $4,000,000 or 4 stories for neighborhoods or commercial centers (C-N / MU-N or C-G / MU-G) should be mandated to present to a "Knoxville Mixed Use Review Board"---This is NOT the Downtown Review Board, but similar. Based on my experience on the Downtown Review Board, this will result in better projects. Any perceived "delay" because of the time needed for these reviews should be understood in the context of approving new construction that might easily last for the next 30-50 years. Another few months for review insures good decisions for the long term. There is so much detail in the proposal, it is hard for the average citizen to understand the big picture and the implication of all the detailsSPECIFIC SITESKingston Pike corridor in BeardenThe "anchors" of the Kingston Pike corridor in Bearden, Western Plaza and the intersection with Northshore, should remain as CG-3.The area south of Kingston Pike (Ashes Wine, Krogers, Aldi's, Talbotts, Buddy's BBQ, etc, should remain as CG-3The area north of Kingston Pike between the "nodes" of Western Plaza and Northshore, should be CG-2. These properties about low scale development along Sutherland Avenue. Most of Sutherland Avenue is now CG-2, and this area should be as well.

I am very disappointed in the latest zoning map for my street, it has gone from RN-2 to RN-4 which will allow for multi family structures. All of fifth Ave is on the National Resister and and is already has a mixed use of single family homes along with some originally build multi family homes. Actually there are already 16 multi family homes along Fifth Ave, not counting the number of houses that have been converted to multi family homes. Parkridge has been undergoing years of reclamation from a multitude of chopped up rental houses owned by absentee land lords, which led to the blighted condition of just a few years back. Now the city is wanting to reintroduce the same conditions on this fragile neighborhood that almost led to its demise years ago.When this whole recode thing started the majority of the neighborhood residents were ok with ADUs on owner occupied proprieties, but to come now and shove multi family housing structures down our throat is a little more than disheartening, coming from a 20+ resident that has restored 4 condemned houses and has been involved in my neighborhood and city.

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

I am very concerned about the ADU and duplex provisions in the recode project relative to the Sequoyah Hills area where I live. I believe that these provisions will in the long term have a substantial negative effect on the character of the neighborhood and associated reduced property values. On-street parking increase is very negative and a special concern. I support the Sequoyah-Kingston Pike Neighborhood Association position on the recode in our area.thank you.

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

I am reviewing the proposed zoning of my neighborhood (North Hills) and it looks as though a majority is proposed RN2 and the remainder is RN1. I am trying to understand the difference between the two and also understand why a small portion of North Hills is proposed to be zoned differently as RN1? Why is the whole neighborhood not treated the same? I own several homes in the neighborhood and 2 would be in the proposed RN1 and the other in RN2- right across the street. Looks as though the RN1 will be more restrictive with low density and RN2 will be low to medium. I have a garage at my home. If i decided to add an apt to the current structure would i be able to do that in RN1? Seems I would in RN2? I also have and extra lot next to one of the homes i own in proposed RN1. Would it be able to be developed in either zone? Seems setbacks would be similar. Im not looking at developing the lot but trying to understand the differences.

I am requesting the committee reconsider the proposed changes from RN-2 to RN-4 for the 4th & Gill neighborhood. We are a strong community with diverse housing options with the current RN-2 destination.The increases in allowed square footage from 10,000 square feet for 2 family to 40,000 square feet for multi-family would drastically change our neighborhood. I suspect there are developers already eyeing available properties to build new buildings. Or perhaps there are already plans to buy existing houses, tear them down, and build these 40,000 square foot structures. Yet our neighborhood multi-family housing that has been vacant for 20+years.Many people have worked hard for over 40 years to restore the 4th & Gill neighborhood to its former beauty and strength. A grand-father status could be given to the existing multi-family homes maintaining the current square footage designation. This would maintain the character of our neighborhood.

I am not pleased to learn that manufactured homes will be allowed in Holston Hills. 

I am largely in support of the current version of the re-code zoning document (including the ADU provision). I agree with the proponents, the current zoning is outdated for a 21st century city. If we want to keep up with the pack then we have to get our land use sorted out; more density, walkability, transit, livability. Sadly, I think most people want this, but few are willing to change anything to get it. The tools are there and recode provides them. If Knoxville leadership folds to a few noisy citizens focused on the past, then I'm out of here. I'll move to a city that focuses on the future. I live in Sequoyah Hills and I'm a member of the KPSHA board (though I speak for myself on this comment).

I am just now finding out about recode Knoxville. I saw it on my kub bill. Why did they not send out letters to every postal address about this subject and the survey? I am watching the video of the stakeholder advisory committee and hearing them say they sent out e-mails and posted it on there web site.They said they wanted better response from people. How many peoples e-mails do you have and how do you expect to get them? How many people are going to know about your web site? What about people that don't have internet? So again I ask,Why did they not send out letters to every postal address about this subject and the survey? Or did they and I missed it? Thank You for your time.

I am interested in the project timeline. I was not able to access it from the web page. I would like to know when the next draft will be available for review, dates / times and locations of upcoming public meetings, and the projected date for the final draft.

I am happy that the city has embarked on this endeavor. The country is beginning to move away from the outdated development patterns of the last 70 years. We need to plan and work for an increase in residents over the next several decades. As population increases so does median income, productivity, and economic opportunity. We should hitch our sails to urbanization and a return to city living. But we must do this in an equitable, inclusive, and sustainable fashion. I think Recode is one of the best opportunities to achieve these goals. I am happy to see the goal of increased density across the city and more specifically along our corridors. I am a strong supporter of the ADU's in all zones idea. With strong building and size standards this is a way to add residential units within our constrained borders without having to dramatically change anything. My back window overlooks Magnolia Ave and sadly right now it is all sprawl. I have a proper view of probably 400 parking spaces that sit at average capacity of less than 5% when you consider overnight hours. We need to come up with creative ways to share parking on our corridors in order to support more intense, around the clock activity. Mixed use is another change that I whole heartedly support. The idea of apartments over retail is long-overdue. We have limited acreage in our city and the only way to continue to grow is up. My biggest concern with this whole process is the blanket alteration of neighborhoods like mine on E 5th Ave without the protections that will allow, no force! development to conform to the current aesthetic standards. I am not a stickler for keeping everything exactly how it is now, but I want to see better protections for historic structures and the prevention of demolition of our remaining beautiful housing stock. Lastly, I think that the whole city needs to be more inclusive to increased development. I see large stretches of Kingston Pike that were not upzoned for more intense development. This is and will remain one of the employment centers of the region. We need to allow for more intense development and density along Kingston Pike to attract more residents and use it as an economic springboard to a higher standard of living and upward mobility.

I am firmly against the rezoning of any R1 neghiborhoods being rezoned to the new R2 zoning. You stated that the only difference in the new classification was lot sizes. I seriously doubt that is the only reason this change is needed. Reclassification for property tax hike maybe. Leave our neghiborhoods alone.

I am definitely in favor of the recode as one much needed measure to address the crisis in affordable housing.

I am concerned with the speed that this is moving forward. Due to traveling for work, I have not been able to attend any meetings but based on what I have read, I think it needs further discussion and input. Some specific areas of concern I have include: removing the requirement to comply with long range and other plans, especially removing the Hillside plan requirements from zones other than residential. There are many areas in the city where slope is a concern on industrial and commercial sites and I am opposed to removing the Hillside plan from these zones. Also, it should not be up to legislative discretion as to whether or not to comply with the plans. This will cause a great deal of difficulty for anyone trying to appeal a zoning or Use on Review in court. Another area of concern is accessory units - these should be required for either the main home or the accessory unit to be owner-occupied. While I am supportive of the idea, I believe it is a necessity that the person renting out the accessory building be living on the property. Another area I am opposed to in the proposed new code is the idea of removing planned zones and allowing developers to negotiate with MPC staff without a public process. This should not be allowed to happen.

I am concerned with the speed that this is moving forward and I have not been able to attend any meetings. I am opposed to in the proposed code is the idea of removing planned zones and allowing developers to negotiate with MPC staff without a public process. This should not be allowed to happen. This feels like it is being railroaded through without enough discussion or explanation to the public.

I am concerned that zoning districts which allow for affordable housing have deceased in the new rezoning plan. I especially would like to see more areas which allow for RN3 and RN4 zoning, two new categories created during the ReCode process but not used in the proposed map. This type of housing avoids problems associated with huge housing profects. The RN3 and RN4 units foster more personal and close knit communities and allow for residents to be a part of regular neighborhoods. These units are also a good size which provide smaller developer companies opportunities to build them. Thank you.

I am concerned that multi-family housing is being decreased in the Recode process and encourage city council and the MPC to redesign the map and Put the Orange Back.

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

I am concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Knoxville. We need more opportunities for housing that meets a variety of needs and budgets. Please, please consider bringing back the orange. We need creative solutions to the housing crisis - not more of what we already doesn't address the issue.Please bring back the orange.

I am concerned about the current proposed rezoning map. It looks like there is a lot less area allowing multi-unit dwellings. I can understand why people might object to huge apartment buildings and massive development, but where are the RN3 and RN4 zoning areas. Buildings with small numbers of units would fit into neighborhoods very easily, without changing their character. They would also allow more houses that could be affordable to hard working people whose wages are closer to the minimum wage.

I am concerned about how the recode will affect property values in Sequoyah Hills, in particular mine which is one of the most affordable (and smallest) homes in the neighborhood. While it's not a perfect solution, I think what would alleviate quite a bit of my apprehension is to move all the proposed RN-1 and RN-2 parcels to EN parcels.

I am concerned that the new map has less affordable housing when more is needed. Please reconsider and add the orange areas back.

I am COMPLETELY against any short term rentals being allowed in R-1 residential neighborhoods. That would NOT BE A GOOD THING!

I am an urban farmer in East KnoxvilleURBANAG: The current permit is $100 for a farmstand for a 9-month season. We have food access issues in Knoxville, and in order to make food more accessible ? lay farmers/backyard farmers should be able to set up a stand to sell for free. Wave a profit requirement ? if you gross> $500(?) you have to pay, but let hobby farmers provide food to their neighbors. Consider incentives for food production in urban neighborhoods. Not just community gardens, but market gardens. Consider property tax breaks for people growing food in the city, similar to how rural areas have agricultural designations. Particularly on empty lots that are purchased from the city.H1 (historic overly and design guide) My neighborhood is in this process of approval by MPC/City Council. Should the process be suspended until this Recode is complete? They seem very duplicative. We are spending great amounts of time, money, & energy resources to create/debate something that may be changed significantly. I have a lot of questions about the AG special purpose district! ?Farmland? is now inside residential areas in urban settings!

I am alarmed to see the proposed reduction of land that can be used for multi-family housing development. We are already facing an affordable housing crisis in Knoxville and can ill-afford to lose the ability to develop additional multi-family units.

I am against the rezoning proposal because it dramatically increase the traffic on cedar lane and further overcrowding of sterchi elementary. It would also reduce the property values of single family homes in the area.

I am a resident of West Hills writing to address the current draft of the recode Knoxville.A. I whole heartedly support the efforts to expand mixed use development that allows residential area above ground floor commercial property. I especially appreciate the value that mixed use development can have by bringing residential development to spaces that might otherwise have rolled up and been dead after business hours. Indeed, it was mixed use development that helped to restore the downtown to the thriving area that it is now. If similar mixed use (commercial below/residential above) growth can spread from the downtown, east, west, north and south along major arteries that would, indeed, be in the best interest of all within the city.B. I have great concern regarding the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's.) as the code is written currently. I am not completely opposed to the ADU's, but I do feel that they must have requirements that allow protections for neighborhoods and neighbors. My concerns are outlined below.As written, Recode Section 10.3.B would allow an accessory dwelling unit to be built in every residential zone in the city. As is, a home owner could convert a two-car garage to a rental apartment; the main living space of a house into a rental unit, and add a detached ADU to the lot as a third rental. How would the potential lack of off-street parking (resident cars not fitting in the driveway) impact neighborhood traffic or neighborhood safety relating to emergency vehicles travelling through the neighborhood? How would such a change in density impact water/sewer systems? What about houses not on the city sewer system, but rather with leaching fields? Do trailers meet the designation as an ADU? What recourses would neighborhoods and property owners have if such rental situations became nuisances?C. As written the Recode Section 10.3.B provides no protections for neighborhoods with regard to the possible disruptions that might arise based upon the addition of ADU's as rentals to neighborhoods. Observations & Suggestions:1. While the provision of ADU's as proposed does not provide for owner occupancy, the current code for Air B&B's does. It makes no sense that codes for ADU's would not provide the same protections for neighborhoods and homeowners that the codes for Air B&B's do. A cities' code system is a reflection of its values and should be consistent across the policies of all city units.2. ADU's in Knoxville should be allowed only if the home is owner occupied. At the most recent West Hills neighborhood feed back session it was stated by a city recode representative that it assumed that most or all ADU's would naturally fall into this category. If that is indeed anticipated, then codify this as a requirement. An owner-occupied clause provides protections, enabling a neighbor or neighborhood to address a problem situation through the court system if needed.3. City lots with ADU's should provide adequate off-street parking for both the primary residence and ADU occupants. This should not simply be assumed, but written into the city code.4. "Supporters of owner-occupancy, which is also required in Seattle and Washington, D.C., assert that the requirement promotes community stability and property maintenance." Stanford University Study: https://law.stanford.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/infranca_25_stan._l._poly_rev_53.pdf5. The fact that many cities have placed specific guidelines on ADU's is well documented and easy to research. Examples from 11 cities are listed below. Why isn't Knoxville following their lead?For example:

• Nashville allows ADUs only where duplexes are permitted.
• Atlanta allows them only in duplex and multi-family zones with 750 sq. ft. max.
• Decatur, Georgia, limits ADUs to 300 to 800 sq. ft., and to no more than two occupants.
• Franklin, Tennessee, limits ADUs to 800 sq. ft., under the same roof as the house, and two occupants, with off-street parking; detached units only on 2+ acre lots with special use permit.
• Memphis/Shelby County allows only 700 sq. ft. ADUs on lots from 10,000 sq. ft. to 1.5 acres; larger acreage can have bigger ADUs; must supply parking space.
• Salt Lake City requires an affidavit that home and/or ADU is owner-occupied and prohibits them where there is an existing home occupation or business use.
• Leadville, CO - ADU are allowed, but if they are as rentals, must rental duration must last at least 30 days.
• Philadelphia, PA - Allows ADU's limited to 800 square feet, and requires owner occupancy.
• Santa Cruz, CA - ADUs are allowed in designated residential zones as long as the property owner inhabits either the main house or the ADU.
• Austin, TX - Allows ADU's. Austin requires two spaces for a detached ADU, in addition to the two spaces required for a primary dwelling.
• Denver, CO - Allows internal or attached ADUs, as well as detached ADUs, Owner occupancy of either the ADU or the primary dwelling is required.

I am a resident of the 4th and Gill neighborhood. The residents have worked hard to restore this beautiful old neighborhood of single family homes. We vehemently protest the approval of this area for townhouses and multi-family units.

I am a relatively new resident of 4 & G, having bought an extreme fixer-upper in July of 2017. It was rental for years and in horrible shape. I've now spent about $100,000 and it's a credit to the neighborhood. I do not want the neighborhood's zoning to change to higher density. The whole history of these close in neighborhoods is simple - they were prominent, they declined and now they have come back or are coming back. A big part of the decline was the changing of large single family residences into multi-unit. During the last couple of decades, that has been reversed, restoring the neighborhood to its original pattern of human settlement. DON'T LET'S GO BACK. Everytime I have lived anywhere where there's been a problem house, it's typically been rental and with "young people" who like to party and drink. I want to live in a quiet residential neighborhood. I don't want to have to fight for parking, listen to somebody else's music at 1:00 a.m. I live here, I vote, I have invested - keep our zoning the same.

I am a real estate agent, past resident of Knox County, graduate of Knox County Schools, and a current owner of a duplex in Knox County. I find it onerous that duplexes are taxed as commercial property, especially considering that the property can not be used for any purpose that would ordinarily be considered a commercial activity. This needlessly increases the expense involved in owning such a property while making it difficult to provide affordable housing.

I am a property owner living in fountain city. My wife and I personally love the idea of being able to attach a handicap assessible unit to our garage to help our aging, disabled parents and friend. My father-in-law is getting to point where he can't walk anymore and our close friend is already wheelchair limited. Them living near friends and family is extremely important to all of us. That's why we hope the city council would not only consider but approve of the zoning that would make this possible.

I am a native and resident of Knoxville, and very proud to be from here. Actually, in technical terms for most of my life I have not lived in the city limits of Knoxville, and am currently living at my family's house where I grew up, in South Knox County off of Sevierville Pike. Nonetheless, my whole upbringing and the lion's share of my life has been in and around this city, which I love so much and have boundless affection for. I am only 30 years old, and I can say gladly how many good changes Knoxville has gone through as a community in my lifetime, and how many more good ones seem to be bubbling up- there is an enthusiasm and a pride in who we are and what we are capable of that is enormously heartening. I went to the introductory public meeting for Recode Knoxville, and was impressed by what I saw, both by the private consultants that the city is using, and by Mayor Rogero and the other city officials who were there. I was not aware that it had been 60 years (60!) since the city had set up its codes laws last, and it's definitely overdue to update them for the current age we're in. I am writing you guys about my general views and perspective of the kind of attitude I'd like to see the new codes laws have, particularly around land use and the urban landscape looks. I consider myself very passionate and concerned about the wellbeing and health of our natural environment, but for me that goes much farther and deeper than simply being an "environmentalist". I understand that the future of the human species and of people here in East Tennessee inextricably depends on how healthy and well balanced the whole ecosystem is. Besides all that, these mountains and rivers and valleys and ridges that make up our native landscape are unspeakably beautiful, and a wise community- such as Knoxville- should integrate that beauty and wholeness into how we imagine our city to look like and feel like in the future. I have traveled a fair bit, been in a number of other countries around the world, and in a lot of parts of the United States- as well as in many places around East Tennessee. There are a lot of different ways for cities and towns and human settlements to look and be laid out, and a lot of different ways for them to coexist in harmony with their natural environment. I would like to see a Knoxville of the future have a greater degree of openness and flexibility with, amongst other things, Urban Farming and agriculture, including small livestock (and I'm aware of the process recently in Knoxville around Urban Ag regs); intensive gardening and landscaping including in residential neighborhoods, especially native, perennial plants that benefit wildlife as well as people; edible landscaping; alternatives for wastewater treatment including greywater, composting toilets, neighborhood scale wetlands for biowaste; household and neighborhood scale rainwater catchment; small scale Urban forestry on private property, with proper guidelines; encouragement of local entrepreneurs in "green" land-based businesses, such as urban ag and gardening, plant nurseries, composting, high end products such as breweries using grains and crops grown in the city, or bakeries using flour made from grain grown in the city. Or even the flour/corn/grain mill itself! I understand that this is all extremely ambitious, and probably on the far edge of what is currently considered possible in urban planning amongst American cities. Nonetheless, I truly believe that in these times, we are all called to think well outside the normal "box" for what a city may look like or consist of, and after spending most of the last century designing almost everything around separation of uses- divided into residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc.- and around the car, it is time to take a different route. I am by no means an expert in Sustainable Urban design or planning, but I have been interested in these issues for a long enough time, and heard from a lot of people far smarter and more informed than me about what the possibilities are out there for transformation of our cities into much more holistically ecological, sustainable, and also beautiful places. Beauty, and natural beauty interacting with the beauty of human made landscapes, can never be discounted. Who wants to live in a city that has no beauty, after all.... even if the city is considered to be economically "successful"? I'm sure that there are a number of people currently involved in the design process who are already talking about these large issues of land use and sustainable design; I was very glad to hear that Brenna Wright of Abbey Fields Farm is on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee- I got to know Brenna a couple years ago when she was first starting her farm, and consider her a real leader in promoting new ideas about what the urban landscape could be, environmentally, socially, and economically. I mostly wanted to write you this message to really nudge the folks involved in this process to really take a look at all the possibilities for sustainable, ecologically wise design in the urban context, and to keep expanding the proverbial "box" of what is considered doable and viable. We've only got this one precious planet, so let's do our best to work together to make it a place that is a healthy, nourishing, and beautiful home for all of us. Thanks so much for reading!

I am a mother of 2. Would like to see more Jobs with good pay in the east Knoxville community. House, business for community. I think so old the old building could be remodel for classes, after school program, dance center or etc. If we could get more positive things good paying jobs maybe east Knoxville crime rate will go down.

I am a land owner who just found out my property is currently in the process of a overlay of hp. We were completely surprised by this and would like to talk to someone to explain to us exactly what this will mean to our property value and taxes if this is approved.

I am a commercial / industrial real estate broker. Below are my comments on the DRAFT Code.PAGE 1-3Pending ApplicationCan you remove the words "was deemed complete by the City". There is a significant investment of time and due diligence made on a property before an application.Page 5-4; Table 5-2Commercial Site Design requires all surface parking to be on side or rear unless in CH2 or CR2. Front door parking is a highly desirable feature for most commercial properties. Front door parking should be allowed in C G.Table 9-1 Use MatrixFor the sake of completeness please add . . .-Add "Heavy Retail, Rental, and Service"-Add "Concrete Batch Plant"-Add "Cement Plant" which is quite different from the Concrete Batch Plant above-Add "Call Center"-Add "Truck Stop and Refueling Facility"-Add "Truck Terminal"-Add "Construction Office with Outside Storage"-Add "Landscaper and Lawn Mowing Office with outside Storage"Page 10-1Please add to Site Development Standards requirements for eighteen wheel vehicles and semi trucks in regards to building access and turnarounds.Please add requirements for loading docksPlease add requirements for drive in doors

I agree with Recode Knoxville's goal to "help define the pathway toward construction of more affordable housing through out the city".What I do not agree with is the dramatic change of zoning for the Fourth & Gill Neighborhood between Draft 2 and Draft 3. Why? What changed? Nor do I agree with apparent targeting of the Fourth & Gill Neighborhood to carry the weight of the solution. The ENTIRE Neighborhood is Orange--no other neighborhood in the city --North, East, South or West, inner city or suburban, reflects this amount of change. Seems the "affordable housing through out the city" got overlooked. There is need for more information, explanations and rationals, discussions and public input.

I I am a resident of Sequoyah Hills and I would like to recommend some changes to the Recode Knoxville. Here are the changes I am recommending for Draft 3:Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) permits will only be issued to owner-occupant RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.ADU permits will require one off-street parking space for every ADU bedroom in addition to the existing parking for the primary residence.Remove the "special use" designation for "Dwelling 2-Family" use for RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.Restore the 85' building height maximum to the C-G-3 parcel requirements. Expand the Neighborhood Conservation overlay.Thank you for your attention.

How will the recoding affect taxes? Will they go up, even if we choose not to construct an ADU on our property? Will our current infrastructure be able to handle the increased usage of ADUs in residential neighborhoods? How will this affect property values in neighborhoods? What kind of standards will these ADUs be held to? There are quite a few questions that this website doesn't answer

How can putting more unity in small spaces be accommodated? i.e. home villages

How can putting more units in small space be accomodated? ie. home villages. How can affordable housing units be offered.

How can I voice an opinion of this rezoning. This will really create driving issues ...... children on school buses. We have enough traffic in the area now!

Hope you are holding up well under the buzz saw that is Recode. Attached is a scanned copy of the letter I hand delivered to you last week. Please feel free to distribute as desired.

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

Hi. I have owned a home in 4th and Gill since 2002. My husband and I bought the house when the neighborhood (and frankly all of downtown) was more blight than not. In fact the house directly next to us was abandoned (and frequently used by a local prostitute to conduct business) and the house on the other side of us was 5 apartments run by a local slumlord. Still we took a chance on the neighborhood because the houses had so much character and the proximity to downtown was delightful. Over the last 15+ year we have invested MORE THAN TWICE what we paid for the house back into the house - updating the interior and completely rebuilding the beautiful 2 story carriage house that was in our backyard. The neighborhood has grown with us, and we are so proud of what it has become. Houses that used to be cut up into many apartments have slowly, but steadily, been turned back into single family homes, and kids are abundant in the neighborhood again.If RECODE Knoxville was to convert our zoning to multi-family/townhouses, we would lose so much of the momentum, and frankly, the equity we have put into this neighborhood. In addition, the streets are already FULL with cars, and there simply is no more room for additional parking/cars that would be associated with additional residents.I implore you NOT to move us backwards.Thanks

Hi- I'm writing to request rezoning of property based upon current density established within an R1A district. Specifically, 400 E Scott is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density. It is not zoned appropriately in current map draft. Due to precedent established, I would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.Additionally, there are a few apartment houses that I think have been zoned inappropriately on the same street. Specifically 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue- These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott because they are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

Hi- I'm writing to request rezoning of property based upon current density established within an R1A district. Specifically, 400 E Scott is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density. It is not zoned appropriately in current map draft.Due to precedent established, I would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.Additionally, there are a few apartment houses that I think have been zoned inappropriately on the same street. Specifically 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue- These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott because they are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

Hi, I've heard that the businesses are moving out on East Scott and would like to put in a plug for making the building RN-6 for nicer residential apartments that would attract downtown lovers to our neighborhood. Thanks!

Hi,I recently was reviewing the prosed recode map and I have some great concern over the removal of the orange on the map. Duplexes and multifamily complexes create affordable housing and without them, it will greatly hurt our city. Fixed supply with growing demand will increase property values to the point where they are no longer affordable. This will hurt 2 groups in particular. Those new to the work force graduating college and the creative class. College students graduate from UT every semester and consider staying in our city and calling it home. The city is trying to attract new businesses to our town. It creates jobs, brings in new tax dollars and helps all in our city thrive. Without affordable housing for the new work force, many will consider a new city to move to and without that work force, businesses will find our city less attractive to call home. Our amazing creative class also needs a place to call home. We have embraced the maker's city branding and would like to create a space for creatives and makers. They need affordable housing close to their businesses downtown and R3 and R4 do that. Please consider bringing back the orange to the map.

Hi,I have a question related to the C-H Highway Commercial Zones. As currently drafted, would a mixed-use development with residential multifamily above a commercial ground floor be permitted in a C-H zone? I see in the Use Matrix that "Dwelling - Above the Ground Floor" is permitted in a C-H zone, but I don't understand whether that implies, multifamily, single family, etc.Thanks for the help!

Hi Recode Team,I am a REALTOR(R) who has been a silent participant in only two of the 67 meetings you have held. But I have interacted with the website weekly and I wanted to reach out and say thank you. You have a hard job and you know very well not everyone will not be pleased, however, when answering questions through the presentation and Q & A tonight, you all did a fantastic job explaining your good intentions for our city.Being a Knoxville native who has lived on small islands and in large cities, came back to my hometown with a different perspective on community growth. I understand what you are doing and have seen what poor planning can do. Our city will definitely benefit and once the vision begins to come to life, I think we'll see a shift in the mindset of those concerned about change. The fact of the matter is that change is here and you are doing a great job preparing our city to be the best it can be! Inner city to the suburbs, you all are going to make a purposeful difference for the future of Knoxville.Thanks again for advocating for all the citizens in Knoxville and embracing public feedback during the process. I am excited to see what is next.

Here's what I have:1. Most of the feedback that I'm getting from folks is that there's a disconnect between codes and the fire marshal (which isn't really cogent to this conversation). The general theme as that we need to make things as clear as possible and that the administrative folks all need to be on the same page.2. Overall, I am very optimistic that these changes will improve our city, so thanks for your work on contribution. Here is my feedback from reviewing the first Draft of ReCode:Overall, I am in favor of increasing higher-density options in RN-1,2, & 3 neighborhoods - with special use, if developed and designed properly. Over the long-term, I am concerned that a limited housing supply will drive up housing prices and decrease affordable/moderate-income living options, especially in neighborhoods closer to downtown. By including options for 3F and 4F-dwellings, higher density can be achieved gradually, without compromising the overall character of the neighborhoods. Specifically, 3 & 4-family dwellings should be grouped separate from other higher-density Multi-family units, and 3&4-family dwellings should be granted greater permissions in RN-1,2, and 3 Neighborhoods, but with some restrictions on design and location. This could be achieved by grouping 2,3,4-family dwellings together. Similar to the restrictions in 4.3 Dimensional Standards, C, about multi-family dwellings in the RN-4 District, 3 and 4-family dwellings should be granted similar permissions in RN-1,2,3 if they are on corner lots, adjacent to higher-density uses, with height and parking restrictions.3. PAGE 1-3, Pending ApplicationCan you remove the words "was deemed complete by the City". There is a significant investment of time and due diligence made on a property before an application.Page 5-4, Table 5-2Commercial Site Design requires all surface parking to be on side or rear unless in CH2 or CR2. Front door parking is a highly desirable feature for most commercial properties. Front door parking should be allowed in C G.Table 9-1 Use MatrixFor the sake of completeness please add . . .Add "Heavy Retail, Rental, and Service"Add "Concrete Batch Plant"Add "Cement Plant" which is quite different from the Concrete Batch Plant aboveAdd "Call Center"Add "Truck Stop and Refueling Facility"Add "Truck Terminal"Add "Construction Office with Outside Storage"Add "Landscaper and Lawn Mowing Office with outside Storage"Page 10-1: Please add to Site Development Standards requirements for eighteen wheel vehicles and semi trucks in regards to building access and turnarounds.Please add requirements for loading docks and drive in doors.

Here in the fall season with the Vols trying to get into the spirit for winning games, the Metropolitan Planning Commision is taking away the color orange from the community. One of the major problems in Knoxville - in Knox County - and in all communities across the country affordable housing is the major need for all cities and counties. By limiting so drastically the areas where multiple housing buildings can be be built, the Commission is building into the local community more homeless families and more families less able to afford the bare necessities for their families.Pleas think twice - then three times - then delay for a month and think again about how your decisions may affect the people living in Knoxville. Do you really want to make decent housing unavailable for more families in Knoxville and Knox County in the years to come. I hope that is not your desire.Thanks

Here are the changes I am recommending for Draft 3:- Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) permits will only be issued to owner-occupant RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.- ADU permits will require one off-street parking space for every ADU bedroom in addition to the existing parking for the primary residence.- Remove the "special use" designation for "Dwelling 2-Family" use for RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.- Restore the 85' building height maximum to the C-G-3 parcel requirements.

Here are the changes I am recommending for Draft 3:- Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) permits will only be issued to owner-occupant RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.- ADU permits will require one off-street parking space for every ADU bedroom in addition to the existing parking for the primary residence.- Remove the "special use" designation for "Dwelling 2-Family" use for RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.- Restore the 85' building height maximum to the C-G-3 parcel requirements.Here's why I'm making these recommendations:- RN-1 and RN-2 make up all the single family parcels in Sequoyah Hills and these recommendations attempt to ensure those properties are not bought up by investors and split up without regard to the neighborhood and without consequence to the property owner.- I understand and support the need for ADUs to provide for unique family situations and the urge of some residents of Sequoyah Hills to provide affordable housing for young parents to be part of our school district. I believe my recommendations will not interfere with these priorities.- The C-G-3 height requirement would apply to Western Plaza's zoning. This would still be in violation of paragraphs a.1.A and a.1.B of Title 54 Chapter 17 Part 1 of the 2017 Tennessee Code, which protects Tennessee's scenic highways and state law would supersede the zoning code, so in effect, the 85' would never be reached.- My deep, dark fear is that our neighborhood will be taken over by investors that chop up the real estate like they have in Fort Sanders.- I bought my house in Sequoyah Hills because I saw a "for sale" sign in the yard when I ran by it training for the Knoxville Marathon. I strongly believe that one of the common goods that raises the value of all our properties and increases the quality of all our lives is the walkability of Sequoyah Hills.

Here are some comments on the proposed ordinance concerning landscaping requirements.First it is important to have adequate resources including staff to review proposed plans and to enforce the requirements of any ordinance or the purpose and intent of the ordinance will not be accomplished. It is recommended that new staff be added to review and follow up on the landscaping requirements. This staff should have the required education and training to adequately ensure the compliance of all project plan to follow the requirements of the ordinance.How does this ordinance impact the existing tree protection ordinance and requirement for historic tree protection? If the new ordinance has been written to include the existing tree protection, then it doesn't provide adequate coverage. If the new ordinance wasn't intended to include requirement of the existing tree protection ordinance, then how will they work together?How does the new ordinance incorporate the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan which was adopted by City Council and incorporated into the General Plan in 2011?Is the requirement for 8 trees per acre adequate to sustain the goals of the city to maintain and protect the urban forest canopy? What information was used to establish this requirement?Screening seems to be the primary focus of the benefits of vegetation but there are many benefits provided by tree and shrubs and this should be included in the goals and requirement of the ordinance such as improved water management and air quality at a minimum.Alternative compliance should provide for other ways to meet the public interest in protecting and increasing urban tree canopy and the ordinance should include ways to bank these benefits by providing for methods to mitigate negative impacts that can't be avoided on site. An example would be utility requirements that trump preservation or planting requirements should be offset by purchasing credits to be used at other sites for the public good.When trees are preserved, the trees preserved should have adequate root protection to ensure survival and this requirement needs to be included in the ordinance.Important that the city's list of trees is included in the ordinance as a guide for tree selection and other list of the city should be included which indicate native species appropriate for Knoxville could be referenced as well for shrubs, flowers and vines.Long term maintenance and protection of required trees could be included or recommended to prevent future loss due to clearing and poor practices such as topping or poor mulching.The ordinance should look at lists of other plants like those considered invasive, recommended native shrubs, flowers, grasses and vines that the developer could use in planning their project similar to the list of recommended trees.The current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot. Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces

Here are a few more notes on the last version of the zoning map.Rule High (1901 Vermont) is proposed as RN-2, currently R-2. The Sector Plan says CI. It has not been an operating school since 1991 but is still owned by the County. I would suggest a zone that would allow redevelopment with mixed use or denser residential, maybe RN-3 or RN-4. I suspect that the school would not be salvageable, but townhouses would be cool.There is an oddball industrial area of about 35 acres at 117 and 119 Stone Road that was once a marble quarry. It seems unlikely that it would find a new industrial use. The Sector Plan says LDR. Part of it is currently a car repair shop or something similar with a residence; the rest is idle. I would suggest a zone that is more compatible with the low-density residential of the adjacent area, and it seems like a good opportunity for a housing development. I have no idea what the property owners would think of this idea.1601 Beaumont is a grocery store in RN-2 (currently R1-A). Looks like it should be neighborhood commercial (C-N).

Hello. I have lived in Knoxville for 8 years and in the 4th and Gill neighborhood for the last 6. I rent a house currently with my young family, and even though we don't own a house here, I still feel a part of the neighborhood community. I love the small close feeling I get living in this neighborhood, and it is definitely the best part of its charm. It's not just the architecture but the people who live inside it, and make it home. I know that if we recode our neighborhood to have more townhomes etc, we will loose our connectedness to the people we live around. I don't want that. My neighbors don't want that either. I have lived all around in my life, from metropolitan inner city to rural small towns and the suberbs. What we have here in this neighborhood and the surrounding Old North is unique, and should be preserved for future families and individuals. It keeps Knoxville feeling small while it grows, while still being connected to the city. We need more of this, not less. The breakdown of community itself has lead to many problems in cities around our country, and will continue here in Knoxville unless this is stopped. Please do NOT vote to recode our neighborhood!

Hello--I see by the latest map that the proposed zoning that includes my property may change to something called a hillside and ridge zone. Where can I read more about that details of that overlay?Thanks in advance for your assistance!

Hello--I'd like to submit my concerns about the lack of multi-family home zoning (R-3 and R-4) in the ReCode Knoxville plan. In their place, almost all proposed residential zoning is single-family. Single-family zoning restrictions are intrinsically linked with redlining, gentrification, greater environmental impact, reduced walkability, reduced access to parks and schools, and inhibition of the commercial centers (like grocers and pharmacists) that make neighborhoods both desirable and accessible. Single-family zoning also reduces the options available to renters, who are a quickly growing demographic across the millennial, Gen X and Gen Z generations. As Knoxville looks for ways to retain the young professionals graduating from the University of Tennessee and other local schools, maintaining access to the kinds of "middle housing" that yopros find desirable (i.e., duplexes or courtyard apartments--not the massive complexes that college students are looking for) will be key in keeping future leaders local. Renting is also a vital option for vulnerable populations such as single moms and refugees, many of whom may not meet the credit score requirements of large housing vendors, or who should have more options besides government projects.In general, it's important for the health of cities and communities to provide the zoning to support "middle housing" market demands. The 1930s zoning code supported this, which is why neighborhoods throughout North Knoxville in particular have Depression-era duplexes and small apartment buildings--all of which are nearly constantly rented, emphasizing their desirability. Doubling the lot size requirements for R-1 and R-2 zoning is acceptable, but the new R-3 and R-4 zones must be more heavily utilized to compensate.While the formatting of these messages doesn't allow me to provide in-line links to the research that supports these claims, I'm happy to provide a bibliography.

Hello-We live near Sterchi Elementary School where a developer is building apartments on property that is being considered for a zoning change to allow a higher density/acre.Our neighborhood cannot support additional students at Sterchi school or cars on Cedar Lane and Merchant Road.Please reject the option of rezoning this property.

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

Hello, I live in the 2400 block of E 5th ave.  I moved here 22 years ago and purchased a comdemined house and have spent many years and tens of thousands of dollars of money in restoring a 1895 victorian house.  I see that on the latest maps all of the south side of the 2400 block of E 5th ave is mapped to be zoned RN4.  I am not real happy with the possibility of multi family housing being build across the street from me.  We have also in the past years purchase a second condemined house on the same block and have restore it and use it as rental income.  If 20 years ago when I first came to Knoxville I would have not took the rise of purchasing and restoring two houses on this street if it was across the street from multi family housing.  It is extreamly unfair for the people that have come before and invested their time and money only to have the city to come along and start wholesale rezoning of their proprities which will end up decreasing property values.I am not opposed to higher density, but in the right areas.  These older neighborhoods were built with density in mind when they were established, so to impose more density will have catastrophic results.  Our neighborhood Parkridge is just now over coming the results of over density of the past when houses were chopped up into multifamily housing.  I heard a roamer of an idiotic plan that KTA/KAT was going to push a plan of extending multifamily zoning 1/4 from a bus route in order to increase bus riders.  I attended their last meeting and YES they voted to draft a proposal that as the city to do just that.  To arbitrarily carve out 1/2 swaths of the city just to make KAT more profitable is insane!I hope the city takes time to really study this new zoning issue.

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

Hello, please include the attached letter from Town Hall East, Inc. Board of Directors in today's workshop packet. Thanks!Sharon DavisTown Hall East, Inc.

Hello, I recently attended a meeting and am following up with some comments. My family and I work, live, worship, and attend school in the vicinity of the Magnolia corridor. I have a few suggestions below based on our experience of living life, operating a business, and owning commercial property in the area. I greatly appreciate your consideration of "industrial craft" designations. We looked for a year before finding an affordable building for our business size. In two months we have already added two full time positions and plan to add more within the year. We would be classified as industrial craft and would have been unable to afford (and didn't need) anything in an industrial park. At the same time, our business is in high demand. There are construction projects in Knoxville that cannot find highly skilled workers to meet their demand. Not considering the needs for skilled trade businesses and workers, would be detrimental to Knoxville's economy. The final document should consider how the zoning code affects businesses employing highly skilled workers (especially those with 1-10 employees). I would like to see lot coverage in the downtown neighborhoods increased from 30% to approximately 50%. I believe many existing single family parcels and the historical development pattern more closely resemble a 50% lot coverage. I know a number of people who have been prevented from building accessory structures such as sheds because of the 30% limitation. However, their neighbors have the original shed or carriage house and in combination with their principal structure, the lot coverage is at least 50% if not more. I support allowing accessory dwelling units. The infrastructure for high density is already in place and it should be taken advantage of. I believe parking concerns can be mitigated through limitations. On my street, we have several houses that have only one or two cars with two dwelling units on the lot. We also have a SF house with 7 cars (it has been this way for 10 years). This is an enforcement issue. Lastly, I wonder how the new zoning regulations will affect schools. Funding for urban schools should not be decreased due to "publicly funded sprawl." I hope that this zoning code does not overextend schools that are already at capacity and not supporting schools that are under capacity. I know this is a large, complicated, multifaceted issue, but still it's one to consider.I appreciate the time and effort placed in this process and look forward to the final product in a timely manner.

Hello,The Lighting Standards for Exterior Lighting (section 10.2) needs performance standards to address issues of light trespass onto neighboring properties. In particularly, there needs to be a measurable standard for the footcandles allowed across an adjacent residential district property line.As written, the current section 10.2 only provides performance standards that:A. Require cut-off luminaire with a cut-off angle of 75 degrees or less that shields the light from an observer 3.5 feet above the ground at an abutting lot line, and B. Freestanding luminaires (i.e. a light pole fixture) are 15 feet away from residential lot lines, max height of 20 feet in non-residential, and 15 feet in residential districts.The issue is that there's nothing about the intensity - the brightness - of the light fixture and how much light is allowed to cross the property line - to trespass - onto a neighboring property.As an example: under the current regulation, a very bright light pole could be installed in a parking lot for a commercial business that is adjacent to a single family residential property. The exterior lighting would be fully compliant if it was 75 degree cut-off, 20 feet in height, and 15 feet from the property line. However, an extremely bright light would still shine directly onto the ground 13.6 feet onto the residential property due to the 75 degree cut-off angle. That bright light would reflect off the ground (especially if it's a light colored surface such as a concrete driveway) and onto the adjacent house.There needs to be a measurement that can be standard. Examples for the light trespass levels allowed along residential property lines are:Huntsville: 1.0 footcandleNashville, Minneapolis: 0.5 footcandleGreenwich, CT: 0.1 footcandles for property lines of residential zones, 0.5 for business zonesBrookfield, CT, Pittsboro, NC: 0.5 for residential, 1.0 for commercialAsheville, NC: 0.5 footcandles for all districts (and a very comprehensive lighting ordinance at https://library.municode.com/nc/asheville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH7DE_ARTXIDEDEST_S7-11-10OULIST)Another good reference are the LEED guidelines for light trespass here: https://www.usgbc.org/credits/ss8The Town of Matthews has a well-written lighting ordinance: https://matthews.municipalcms.com/files/documents/UDOChapter609OutdoorIlluminationindividualsection1318115409101317AM.pdfSome suggested improvements that provide measurable, enforceable standards that address light pollution issuesLight Trespass. All outdoor luminaires shall be located, adequately shielded, and directed such that no direct light falls outside the parcel of origin or onto the public right-of-way. The total lighting on a property must not trespass (exceed) 0.5 footcandles measured at the property line.House Side Shields. Outdoor lighting fixtures closer to the lot line than the mounting height of the fixture, measured perpendicular to the lot line, adjacent to residential areas, shall have internal house-side shieldsFlood and Spot Lamps. Flood or spot lamps shall be aimed down no higher than 45 degrees to the horizontal (halfway between straight down and straight to the side) when the source is visible from any adjacent residential property.Color Temperature: Cooler light sources (e.g. 5,000 - 6,000 Kelvin) will be prohibited and warmer light sources (e.g.3,000 - 4,000 Kelvin) shall be utilized.The exception to the Outdoor Recreational Facilities (section 10.2 C. 3.) should have a performance requirement on how long the lighting can remain on after the event. An improvement would be to add text such as "The main lighting shall not remain longer than fifteen (15) minutes following the end of the event. A low-level lighting system shall be used to facilitate patrons leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime maintenance, and other closing activities. The low-level lighting system shall not exceed three (3) foot-candles at the property line."

Hello,Thank you for your effort.I am concerned that the proposed code seems to totally override existing residential uses downtown.Section 5.2.B. of the code states that multi-family dwellings are allowed only in the DK-B subdistrict of downtown?? Am I missing something? There is multi-family dwelling all over the downtown area. (Very little housing exists in DK-B, incidentally.) Encouraging people to live downtown has been a cornerstone of economic development for the past two decades. It's a key of how creative people and academics choose to relocate to Knoxville. What happens to the hundreds of families who live in proposed DK-W, DK-G, and DK-H sub-districts? I am a resident just north of downtown in The Mews Development on Magnolia, where I live with my husband and toddler. In the current plan, our development will be zoned DK-W. (Search 110 W Magnolia.) Prior to moving here, my husband and I lived for 10 years in a mixed-use development on Summit Hill drive--now proposed as DK-G. I'm just really confused. Thanks for any clarification you can share.

Hello,I'm concerned about how Black and Latinx stakeholders are engaged in this process. Is engagement equitable at this point? Also, I hope there is some serious social impact consulting seriously measuring along lines of difference pertaining to race, income, ability, etc. Transportation often widens inequity so I expect that to be a topic of public discussion and addressed in the plan as well. Thus far, I see buzz words about being green but nothing about social impact and explicitly measuring perhaps unintended negative consequences to what we're doing here.Thank you for your consideration,

Hello,I'd like for MPC to consider increasing the max height for industrially zoned land. As you are aware, all of the industrial land in the City of Knoxville is essentially improved. City's that don't have land for more development are starting to build multi-story industrial facilities. With the rise of e-commerce and same day delivery, there will be an increasing need for more warehouse distribution in the center of the population (vs suburbs or rural). Please read more here: http://product.costar.com/home/news/shared/1569932383.

Hello,As I understand it, Recode will remove the infill Housing Guidelines protecting my neighborhood, Oakwood-Lincoln Park. The guidelines that protect my neighborhood from improper building styles and help to protect the historic integrity of the neighborhood rather than blindly increasing density by decreasing lot size. This is a historic neighborhood with large trees and many large lots. It's on the rebound and it has some struggling areas, but we should protect it. This neighborhood should be protected under RN 2.

Hello! It has been brought to my attention that there have a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look as if they should be zoned more appropriately for their use. My thoughts and recommendations are explained further below:

1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density
2. 428 E Scott- I think 428 E Scott should be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

Hello! I live on Gratz Street in 4th and Gill with a few other tenants.It has been brought to our attention that there have a few buildings in the Old North Knoxville district that look as if the should be zoned more appropriately for their use.

1. 400 E Scott- This property is currently used at an RN-6 level (24 units on 24,000 sq ft lot) and should be zoned RN-6 due to density
2. 428 E Scott- We would like 428 E Scott to be zoned RN-6 to support higher density residential redevelopment.
3. 401, 319 and 424 E. Scott Avenue. These houses should be zoned RN-4 on E. Scott- these are already used for multifamily and should be appropriately zoned.

We hope our comments help! We just want what's best for this community we love!

Hello!I am a Knoxville-based Architect who has designed and developed several Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) projects in various cities throughout the country over the past decade. I have the following recommendations for the current draft ordinance in regards to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs):10.3(A)(4) : Increase the maximum height allowable for ADUs. Limiting the maximum height for all detached accessory structures (including ADUs) to 18' will effectively limit all ADUs to a single-story structure, which limits their feasibility on denser, urban lots near downtown, where they are needed most to positively affect housing variety and affordability. One alternative commonly used around the country is simply to limit the height of an ADU to that of the primary structure. This approach maintains the existing scale of residential development within neighborhoods, without limiting the ability to develop 2-story ADUs where they are appropriate and comply with all other development standards.10.3(A)(6) : Align the maximum building coverage for a single accessory structure with the maximum GFA allowed for an ADU.This provision is in practical conflict with several others. For example, on a 12,000sf lot, the maximum gross floor area (GFA) for an ADU would be 1,000sf (per 10.3(B)(7). But if the maximum height for an accessory structure is limited to 18', there is no feasible way to construct a 2-story ADU (see above). So if the maximum building coverage for a single accessory structure on that lot is limited to 750sf, the property Owner would only be able to build a 750sf ADU, missing out on 250sf of buildable area that would have been allowed otherwise.10.3(A)(7) : Allow the footprint of an accessory structure to equal the footprint of the primary structure.The previous ordinance drafts limited the footprint of a single accessory structure to the footprint of the primary structure. Draft 3.0 has reduced that to 75%. The total maximum building coverage on a lot and the maximum GFA of an ADU are already restricted by other provisions. For new development, this actually encourages builders to increase the footprint of primary structures to allow the possibility of maximizing the area of a potential ADU or other accessory structure.10.3(B)(7) : Eliminate the relationship between allowable GFA for an ADU and the GFA of the primary dwelling.Imagine two existing single-story houses adjacent to each other on identical 7,500sf lots. Existing House A = 1,600sf GFA. Existing House B = 1,000sf GFA. Based on the lot size and all other development standards, each Owner should be allowed to build an 800sf ADU. But if the GFA for an ADU is limited to 40% of the GFA of the primary dwelling, the Owner of House B would only be allowed to build a 400sf ADU on their property (which would make the project practically infeasible). If an ADU meets all other development standards, there is no logical reason to limit its size based solely on the size of the primary dwelling.Summary:On a cost-per-square-foot basis, ADUs are expensive to build. The reality is that they are a very niche building type that is not utilized often unless market forces make an area so unaffordable that ADUs present a viable alternative. In the jurisdictions where I have worked professionally, less restrictive design guidelines for ADUs did not result in a huge increase in the number of ADU projects permitted, they simply made ADUs feasible.The draft design guidelines, as written, are restrictive enough to discourage ADU development in downtown Knoxville. I believe that ADUs are a highly effective tool to sustainably increase density and stabilize housing costs as cities grow. I strongly encourage MPC and Camiros to reconsider these restrictions and to work toward creating design guidelines that are more likely to encourage ADU development in downtown Knoxville.

Hello Recode Team,My understanding is that stronger standards for landscaping and lighting are not being included because of enforcement concerns. I would like to suggest that MPC take over that role because it makes a lot of sense for them to do it.I hope you will reinstate design standards for residential areas as well.

Hello -Just wanted to say that I support Scenic Knoxville's sensible suggestions for changes and improvements with regard to new commercial landscape standards, lighting standards, and design standards for single family homes. None of these standards are very onerous, and would make significant improvements over time. Also, I would like to see the Hillside and Ridgetop standards remain in commercial and residential zones.Thank you for your consideration and your time, energy and efforts to improve Knoxville!

Having looked over the Recode book available at the library, here are my comments, in order of the numbers at the bottom of the page.4.4 EN zone - requires more than one finished floor, this ignores retirees who want to be in an estate type neighborhood and seek one level living. I understand specifications of more than 4 wall sections but feel 6 is a sufficient minimum if the variation is visible from the street.5.26 SW3 - Do not remove the section about "existing buildings will be encouraged for reuse". This is consistent with the march 2003 Vision Plan "feeling like a Main street and serving folks on both sides of the river, providing a place to buy a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread, meet friends for coffee..." "small markets and shops..." (page 30). I like the eclectic nature of the businesses on Sevier Ave and fear that new construction would have rents so high they would only house chain establishments. 5.27 SW2 - Your draft shows a minimum of 0 and maximum of 10 for the front setback. There is a section of SW2 on Scottish Pike east of the railroad that fronts onto a SW1 zone. A development with these setbacks would harm the "small town neighborhood atmosphere" found in SW1. I am requesting that the front build-to zone be changed to a minimum of 15' and a maximum of 20' in this area. The minimum build-to frontage is much higher than the other zones and should be reduced to 50 or 60%.8.3 NC district. I am glad you retained this as well as the historic overlay. 9.6 and 9.7 - I am very concerned about restrictions on vinyl siding to 15% for townhouse and apartment developments. Furthermore the materials on the front must wrap around to the sides. We need affordable housing for people to buy or rent without being restricted to subsidized housing. New construction is a way to provide energy efficient unsubsidized housing but it needs to use affordable materials. The effect of these restrictions is that entry level multi housing will be constructed outside the city limits, furthering traffic congestion. I have heard people say that supply and demand will create affordability. My mailbox is filled every week with letters and postcards from flippers wanting to turn affordable housing into unaffordable housing. If aesthetics are a concern along the corridors, that can be addressed in the corridor plans. 10.4 ADUs - I am generally in favor of ADUs but there are valid concerns about ADUs in the RN1 district. I am OK with ADUs in the EN district as these are owners most likely to have a housekeeper, caregiver or au-pair. I am fine with ADUs in the RN2, RN3, etc districts but they need to be counted as an additional unit and parking issues need to be considered, will there be enough street parking, etc. 12.4 to 12.6 - I like trees in parking areas and would prefer 1 tree to 20 spaces as opposed to 1 tree per 30 for the interior rows. The requirement of an island being exactly the size of a space is too restrictive, better to specify a minimum s.f. per tree in an island. Peremeter trees are good, I am concerned about shrubs on the peremiter making a parking area feel less safe. Groundcover in the islands is likely to look ratty and should not be required. Installation sizes of 4' evergreens and 1.2" caliper will give the trees a better chance of survival.12.9 - I like very much that you are encouraging existing trees to be saved.- 20% is a big change in grade. That needs to be redefined. Thank you for your consideration

Has there been any dialogue with Knox County officials about adopting a unified zoning ordinance? This would greatly simplify development document preparation within both Knoxville and Knox County and could still be administered separately as they are now. Also, has there been any talk of expanding the MPC to be a one-stop-shop for development submittals, with the particulars still farmed out to their respective county or city authorities? One of the things we have noticed as design professionals is that the Knox County ordinance generally does not 1) have enough districts, 2) is still written assuming a mostly rural county and 3) is just enough different from the city to be confusing. We have noticed that the City's ordinance 1) seems to assume 1950s and 1960s approaches to development in terms of parking, 2) has too many districts, 3) is not applied uniformly and 4) is not flexible enough to encourage the kind of mixed use and higher density development which would be more environmentally sustainable. Thanks!

Greater stricter ordinances needed on barking dogs where police can directly issue noise nuisance tickets. One barking dog can destroy the peace easily of people within a quarter mile circumference which can spell tens of people. No one wins including the dog that is only incessantly barking because it is neglected.

Graduated interior landscaping for parking lots between 5,000 & 20,000 sfLandscaped break every 10 spaces (vs 15) for lots greater than 20,000 sfTwo-tier bond process to ensure landscaping survives6-mo. Planting bond2-yr maintenance bond

Good Morning,We all know the importance of quality Infill, so I wanted to share some information regarding the role ReCode will play in providing it.This is an attempt to further identify potential issues & outcomes so we can collectively work towards better solutions for Knoxville.First, you'll find illustrations showing the feasibility of different types of Infill that would be allowed in each residential zone.Followed by potential solutions suited for the existing lot sizes we have available.Thanks for your commitment & contributions to this process. Reach out with any questions or feedback.

Good morning,Thanks again for all you both are doing, just wanted to share a quick snapshot of my neighborhood, Oakwood-Lincoln Park.I walked a 5x5 Block of OLP, looking specifically at Housing Diversity. It's abundant (see attached pdf).Not including the 62 units of Oakwood Senior Center, there are 40+ small-scale multifamily units.I'm reminded of the Strong Town's Strength Test as it pertains to this 5x5 Block...3.) Imagine your favorite street in town didn't exist. Could it be built today if the construction had to follow your local rules?4.) Is an owner of a single family home able to get permission to add a small rental unit onto their property without any real hassle?7.) Are there neighborhoods where three generations of a family could reasonably find a place to live, all within walking distance of each other?Currently, the answer to these questions is YES.With the proposed zoning + map.. the answer is NO.It's not hard to determine what pricing & affordability would look like in my neighborhood if these existing units didn't exist... and it's easy to imagine what pricing & affordability in my neighborhood will look like if we're not allowed to create more of them in the future.I suspect that similar results will be found in a majority of other blocks, both in OLP and the other neighborhoods that have been covered in the single family only blanket.I know this is difficult, but we cannot afford to move backwards with our zoning if we intend to move our city forward.

Good morning,Please find attached a letter on behalf of Fountain City Town Hall regarding ReCode Knoxville. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and as always for the work you do on behalf of the Knoxville community. Kelly EllenburgBoard Chair, Fountain City Town Hall

Good Morning Gerald & ReCode team-My apologies that these comments were not sent on Friday, I had it all ready to go Friday evening and intended to send when I got home, but it managed to slip my mind over the weekend.Attached is a marked up ReCode map and diagram of Belle Morris and surrounding properties, noting our overall comments/requests/recommendations for each individual parcel within our neighborhood boundary (which is a fluid line at this point) as well as contributing properties along the neighborhood's edge. Our team has spent a great deal of time going through parcel by parcel, studying the historical condition of each property, it's vicinity to other zones, ownership on KGIS, as well as restoration/redevelopment potential as we see (and hope) the neighborhood progresses over the next 10-20 years.We hope that you might carefully consider our recommendations as you finalize the ReCode map. We have not gone through online and marked each of these parcels (for time's sake) however can do so if you are needing further explanation/detail on specific parcels.

Good morning -More on PRB-1.  I will direct your attention to Tennessee code 6-54-130 as amended. (a) A municipality, including a city and lesser incorporated area, or a county may not enact or enforce an ordinance that does not comply with the ruling of the federal communications commission in “Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 FCC 2nd 952 (1985)” or a regulation related to amateur radio service adopted under 47 CFR part 97.(b) If a municipality adopts an ordinance involving the placement, screening or height of an amateur antenna based on health, safety, or aesthetic conditions, the ordinance shall:(1) Reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications; and(2) Represent the minimal practicable regulation to accomplish the municipality’s or county’s purpose.The current zoning proposal, as I outlined in my original message of August 10 below is in violation of PRB-1 and Tennessee state law.  

Good EveningThanks again for meeting with Kyle and me a few weeks ago to discuss ReCode and its affect on the Broadway Corridor. As you may have seen, we have been submitting map-related comments over the past few weeks. However as we discussed in our meeting, we compiled a document with all of our general code and map-related comments, and attached that document to this email.If possible, would you mind having someone on your team go through the attached document to make sure each of the comments (specifically, the map related comments) were submitted and/or taken care of? We spent a good amount of time getting all of these comments together and they developed over time so some of our previous comments may need to be updated, and we would hate for some of the comments to be lost (it became hard keeping track of what was submitted, and what was not).Thanks again for all of your hard work in coordinating this effort, and we apologize that we are submitting these comments right up against the deadline! If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me.Sincerely,Jimmy RyanKyle Anne LangBroadway Corridor Task Force

Good afternoon - I have read draft 3 of the proposed zoning code regarding proposed sections 10.3 C.1 and 10.3 C.2.I am again bringing the below issue to your attention.As written, and as I have informed you in previous emails referenced below, the zoning proposal as written is in contravention of Tennessee state law regarding the installation and use of amateur radio antennas in residential areas.Local zoning laws must comply with the Federal PRB-1 ruling, per Tennessee state code.  The proposed ordinances, as written, DO NOT COMPLY.  Please review the information below I provided to you in August.  I was told by email "I will be back to you with a reply soon" on August 16.  There has been no reply, and you have made no changes to the proposed regulations. There have been numerous court challenges over the past 30+ years regarding municipalities who have enacted regulations in contravention to PRB-1.  In fact, this is the very reason Tennessee code 6-54-130 exists: to prevent this from happening at the local level.Please have someone educate themselves about this issue.  The easiest path forward for Recode is to look at what other municipalities have done.  Most often they have language in the zoning code that mentions no specifics like heights, aesthetics, etc and says only that amateur radio antenna installations have to conform to PRB-1.

For zoning map comments, consider better wording for drop down options for "nature of your comment." The phrases containing "zone too intense/not intense enough" is ambiguous and the meaning of either is unclear. Are we talking about Intense regarding too much or not enough density... intense regarding too much or not enough restrictions?

First, thanks for addressing my last round of comments on the South Waterfront code section. Almost all of my concerns have been fixed. However, I noticed some changes in draft 4 which caused additional concern.Allowed uses in the SW2 in draft 4 do not include commercial. This is contrary to the SW code and would represent a major change. Although the narrative in the SW2 section of the SW code does suggest that acceptable uses include single-family, two-family, townhouse, and multi-family dwellings, in no place does it forbid commercial use. The intent of the Vision Plan (and later the code) was to have as much mixed use as possible. SW-1, because of the wishes of the existing neighborhoods, was the only district that was residential only.The SW parking requirements (page 11-5) are, charitably, messed up, and represent major changes from the code. The SW code was intended to discourage overbuilt parking areas and so listed parking maximums only.Draft 4 adds minimums for the SW district.It increases the maximum in SW3 and SW4 from 2/1000 sq. ft. to 3/1000 sq.ft. (Presumably, this would also include SW2 when commercial use is allowed).The minimums in some of the residential categories in draft 4 are actually HIGHER in the SW table than in the general parking standards. For example, the minimum in the SW district is 2/du for three-bedroom residential but in the general code it is 1.5/du. I prefer to see going back to the original code and eliminating parking minimums all together, but if they are going to be included, they certain should not be higher in the SW district than anywhere else.There is no separate dwelling- multi-family classification in the SW table. In the general code, the parking minimum is 0.67/bedroom for developments rented by bedroom. This is omitted from the SW requirements, which is a pretty big omission. Again, I'd be happy to see minimums go away in the SW section, but if they are to stay, this omission must be fixed.The original Hillside/Ridgetop Plan specifically excluded the SW district. I'm assuming that since we're codifying this now, the hillside/ridgetop zoning standards will also apply in the SW. If not, they should.I was under the impression that commercial areas were going to be included in the hillside/ridgetop standards but I don't see that in draft 4. I know developers are pushing back on this, but it's something that is really important and needs to be included.Finally, since I know you mostly only hear things people DON'T like, let me lend my full support for ADUs in all residential neighborhoods.Thanks again for the opportunity to comment.One additional comment. I am not comfortable with moving the streetscapes section of the SW code to an appendix, especially one I'm not yet seeing. What exactly does that mean?One more thing and I'm done: Site plan review should also be required in the SW2 district (section 15.5.C.2a in draft 4).

First, thank you all for all the hard work on Recode. Knoxville has needed this for quite a while and I'm delighted to see it finally moving forward.I'm a resident of south Knoxville and a former member of the South Waterfront Advisory Committee who was very involved in the creation of the South Waterfront Vision Plan and Code. For weeks, I've had various people tell me that Recode wasn't going to make major changes to the SW code, so I've really not paid much attention to that section of the proposed new code. However, after reviewing Recode version 2, I'm very concerned to see that there are indeed major changes being proposed including some that violate the entire spirit of what the SW code was intended to accomplish.The creation of the Vision Plan and code included months of work and more meetings than I can count. The community was very engaged in this process. A lot of south Knoxvillians were originally wary of the entire endeavor but by the end of the process had embraced the adoption of the code. They were endorsing an urban (rather than suburban), pedestrian-friendly (rather than car-centric) connected community that provided maximum public access to the river. Most of my concerns about changes relate to these goals.

• The entire first section on prohibited uses has been deleted. Granted, we wanted a form-based rather than a use-base code, with maximum mixed usage. But we need to keep the few prohibitions listed in this section, such as heavy industrial.
• The prohibition on gated communities has been deleted. Gated communities are not urban, they are not pedestrian friendly, they don't create a sense of community, they negatively impact connectivity, and depending on where they are located they may diminish access to the river. This prohibition was strongly supported by the south Knoxville community and needs to remain in the code.
• The entire section on off-street parking has been deleted and replaced with a reference to the general parking section in the Recode document. Unless that section includes a prohibition on parking lots in the front, which I doubt, this prohibition needs to remain in the code. Front parking lots are not urban and they are not pedestrian-friendly. Also, the original code has different parking max/mins for each of the seven SW districts. Deleting all the parking-related code presumably deletes these differing standards as well. We need those in the SW code because since it's form-based, parking min/max requirements can't be determined by use.
• The provision setting the maximum block size perimeter at 1400 feet has been deleted. This provision was included to prevent superblocks, which are absolutely not what the Vision Plan envisions. Again, superblocks are not urban, they're not pedestrian friendly, they have a negative impact on connectivity, and depending on their location could diminish access to the river. This provison needs to stay in the code.
• The 70 foot river buffer (measured from the riverbank) has been deleted. This was thoroughly debated before the code was adopted and needs to remain.
• The entire streetscapes section has been deleted, with a note that it should be moved to the subdivision ROW standards. What if any plans have been made to do this? I acknowledge that this section has problems, but a better solution would be to leave it in Recode and then come back and rework it as needed rather than to just delete it with a vague promise that it will go elsewhere.
• The SW5 and SW7 front setbacks have been changed. I personally am okay with this change but it's one the community should be aware of.
• The entire signage section has been deleted. Perhaps most of this is covered adequately in the new sign ordinance which was adopted after the SW code. But again, the community should be aware of this and there should be a point by point comparison to make sure that nothing crucial has been deleted

Finally, I plan to share my comments with my south Knoxville neighbors who may not be aware of what's proposed. I also strongly suggest that a meeting in south Knoxville should be scheduled to go over all the proposed changes to the SW code since these are indeed major changes.Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

First, I would like to say that I am in support of the effort to overhaul the City's zoning ordinance. And, I appreciate the effort that has gone into that process to this point. I appreciate the solicitation of public input on many levels. I think many of the changes being pursued are good. I do think there are some critical issues that are not getting the attention they disserve.The vast majority of the City is already developed and will be "grandfathered" under prior codes, meaning the requirements of the new code will not apply to most current uses and structures in the City, except to the extent the new code requires compliance at some point in the future. I believe that fact is underappreciated by just about everyone involved in this process. I believe the mechanisms by which grandfathered properties will be brought into compliance in the future needs much more discussion and consideration, including the following:1. The triggers in the proposed code for eliminating nonconformity are not clear enough. The concepts of "change of use," "abandonment," creation of a "new nonconformity," and "increase in the degree" of a nonconformity all need much better definition. 2. Almost everyone can agree on a preference for more greenspace, more trails, beautiful landscaping, wider roads, sidewalks everywhere, aesthetically pleasing facades, fewer signs and billboards, larger setbacks, etc. They are all desirable goals. But they have a very substantial cost. Imposing these requirements on properties that are not yet developed might be reasonable - at least those owners understand the costs before they make an investment decision. But, in the case of previously developed property (again, the vast majority of the property in the City is developed), the cost of compliance is being imposed upon them. I have heard no conversation in this process about the potential cost over a period of years of bringing nonconforming properties into compliance with the new code. Surely that cost will be in the billions of dollars. How could decisions like these be made without ever even considering the cost and how that cost should be allocated? I would urge a thorough evaluation of the cost implications, and an open dialogue about how they should be allocated within the community to achieve the desired change.3. Without careful consideration, the requirements of the new code may very well have significant impacts exactly opposite those intended. If the cost of compliance with the new code is excessive, owners of previously developed properties will work hard to avoid triggering those requirements. That will result in worn out properties remaining stagnant longer. The new code should allow owners to make incremental, reasonable, cost effective steps toward compliance. If full compliance is mandated, it will almost certainly result in less properties being improved, and very likely an overall lesser quality of commercial property inventory than would have resulted if the code were not revised.4. Historical patterns of development were very different from those envisioned by the proposed code. In most cases, making fundamental changes in parking, buffer zones, significant increases in landscaping, building setbacks and building orientation will be extremely difficult to change, and in some cases impossible without completely demolishing all of the existing improvements. The new code should explicitly accommodate those and similar realities, while incentivizing incremental movement toward the new requirements.Addressing these issues will require a significant amount of additional time and effort. I believe that failing to address them could be much more costly for our community.

Finished reading draft 4. Looks good in particular I very much like the practical changes in Table 4-1: Residential District Dimensional Standards. Thanks

Fair housing laws already require that zoning regulations not be used to prevent or discourage development of housing for certain classes or types of people. It would be helpful, nonetheless, if the new zoning regulations include explicit language to remind people of those fair housing laws as they consider the implications of zoning requirements on any given proposal. The purpose of zoning regulations is to help make decisions about appropriate and compatible land use. Too often these decisions and deliberations are hijacked by those who are already in an area and would like to prevent others that they perceive as different from them to also be able to live there. The more explicit we are about how fair housing laws limit the use of zoning laws to keep 'those people' away (whoever 'those people' are this time), the less time will be wasted discussing factors that cannot legally be used to make zoning decisions.

Existing houses and buildings should have their amount of sunlight protected from new buildings either in front or behind them, therefore a new building across the street should not interfere with the amount of sunlight your house gets. A good example is the big apt. complex on the 1700 block of White avenue blocking the winter sunlight from coming in the windows of the old 'Hawkeyes" building across the street.Also, I would be in favor of 'low light' regulations for nighttime lighting both public and private. Flagstaff, AZ has done a good job at this.Thanks!

Enjoyed the presentation! Feeling hopeful. Consultants insprire confidence. Don't forget aesthetics. We want modern, forward thinking, environmentally sound and beautiful city.

ENHANCED LANDSCAPING STANDARDS - Recode KnoxvilleMany great cities have landscaping standards that are much stricter than the ones proposed in Recode. We know from their experiences that these standards are not overly onerous either to carry out or to enforce. Knoxville can and should do this, too. There are numerous environmental, economic, aesthetic, health and quality of life benefits to enhanced landscaping. Recent flooding due to heavy rains is a reminder of the importance of preserving green space to absorb rainfall and stormwater runoff. This will become even more critical as the city increases development to accommodate a growing population. We believe the following standards should be included in the new ordinance. They would apply only to new development. None would apply to single family residential development.Interior Landscaping of New Parking LotsThe current parking ordinance allows for reduced or no perimeter or interior landscaping for lots smaller than 20,000 sf. All new lots larger than 5,000 sf should be required to have some perimeter landscaping. Lots between 10,000 and 20,000 sf should be required to have graduated interior landscaping (smaller and/or fewer islands), depending on size of the lot.Lots larger than 20,000 sf should have a landscaping break every 10 spaces rather than every 15 spaces.Landscape Bond:In order to ensure correct installation and maintenance of landscaping, a two-step Landscape Bond should be required. Other cities successfully employ this process.1. Performance Bond: This allows developers six months after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to install landscaping to offset the disadvantage of completing projects in late spring or summer months to maximize reasonable growth conditions.2. Maintenance Bond: This would be applicable during the two-year period following the project's completion and would include a reasonable time period for proper landscape care to assure healthy plant material. The Maintenance Bond is released after two years, contingent on satisfactory inspection by a qualified professional familiar with the design intent. Without a maintenance bond a lot of landscaping will not be adequately cared for and will die. Two years of proper care will greatly increase the survival of installed landscaping.Since the city operates on a complaint driven system and is chronically short staffed when it comes to enforcement, we don't have a lot of confidence that it will be successful at requiring developers to replace landscaping that has died. It also places an unfair burden on citizens who would be responsible for tracking and reporting landscaping that needs to be replaced. In our experience, this often requires multiple follow-up phone calls and emails by the citizen.Tree Mitigation BankRecode should include some form of mitigation for the destruction of trees by developers, or when it's not possible to fulfill the required landscape standards. The ordinance could specify that for each tree over a particular diameter that's destroyed or not planted as required, a value of the destroyed or unplanted trees would be established and the developer would pay the equivalent value into a mitigation fund. The city would use the funds for tree planting or landscaping projects on public property elsewhere. Kasey Krouse, Urban Forester, has agreed to administer a Tree Bank for the city. A tree bank will level the playing field so all developers are responsible for similar landscaping costs.Prepared by:Scenic KnoxvilleTrees KnoxvilleThe City of Knoxville Tree BoardThe Knoxville Chapter of the American Society of Landscape ArchitectsSierra Club, Harvey Broome GroupAlso endorsed by:Town Hall EastForest Heights Neighborhood AssociationCommunity ForumThe Bearden Village CouncilThe Riverside 1 CondosHistoric Fourth and Gill Neighborhood OrganizationKingston Pike Sequoyah Hills Neighborhood AssociationBenefits of TreesTrees beautify our public spacesTrees increase property valuesTrees increase walkability by providing shadeTrees cool the ambient temperature up to 10? FTrees reduce air conditioning costsTrees promote ground absorption of rainfall and reduce stormwater runoffTrees reduce air pollution by absorbing pollutant gasesTrees block unsightly views and muffle noiseTrees encourage pride of placeTrees increase business revenue because shoppers stay longer in attractive and inviting commercial spacesBeauty is Good for People and Business

Either definition of OS needs to change (Special Purpose Districts section, https://recodeknoxville.com/documents/library/drafts/draft3/chapters/Article%207-Special%20Purpose%20Districts.pdf), or you need to keep the two separate OS2 (park and open space district) and OS1 (open space preservation district) definitions and zones from the existing code.There are multiple cemeteries and historic sites (Sheildstown Cemetery, Temple Beth-El Cemetery, Odd Fellows Cemetery, James White Fort, Fort Dickerson just to name a few examples) that are important for archaeology and anthropology; these and other sites should not be defined as supporting the "passive and active park and recreational needs of the city." Cemeteries and battlefields are not "recreation sites." The new definition in ReCode is a step down in sophistication from the existing OS-1 (OS-1 open space preservation district) definition: "This open space preservation district is established to provide areas in which the principal use of land is devoted to the preservation and protection of recreational and conservation open space." The existing Open Space Preservation District also supports accessory structures, such as caretaker cottages found at Bethel Cemetery.It makes sense to zone cemeteries and other sites important to archaeology and anthropology as OS, but merging the definition of OS-1 with OS-2 to create a new definition of OS that is clearly centered on "recreational needs" is both a mistake and a step backwards for Knoxville.

Due to the amount of homeless people in our communities, I ask that you do a second draft of the map that includes more opportunities for affordable housing.

Due to staffing levels devoted to the review and enforcement of zoning codes, the review of plans and their subsequent enforcement is a heavy lift for many municipal governments. Like most cities, Knoxville has opted to reduce this burden by reducing standards and operating on a complaint driven system. Another option would be to reduce the burden by allocating some of these responsibilities to qualified MPC staff. MPC staff already review design guidelines in certain zones. They are also willing to take on the review of landscape plans.This would make it easier to restore basic design standards for single family dwellings and for landscape standards to be upgraded to include more landscaping in smaller parking lots, a 2-year landscape bond and a tree bank.

DU/Ac Should be defined in the ordinance

Drive down chapman highway and look at it as a tourist would. It's not very attractive especially the area from the Henley street bridge through Colonial Village. Too many check cashing places. Can something be done about the old Park hotel building ? This is or was the gateway to the Smokies.

Downtown Island Airport (KDKX) has been operated as a General Aviation airport since 1938. The zoning of this parcel as an "Airport District" will acknowledge current use, as well as protect the ability of the Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority to continue aviation-related development and use on the site.Development within the FAA's Part 77 Object Identification Surfaces associated with Downtown Island Airport (KDKX) should be controlled. Penetrations into these surfaces by man-made structures or trees can be hazardous to air travel, and development in these zones should be monitored and controlled by use of an Airport Overlay Zone. This overlay zone will protect the viability of the airport as a business development asset for the City of Knoxville and as a regional resource. Airport Overlay Zones can encourage compatible uses in the areas near the airport as well as control height of structures and vegetation. The Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority will work to generate a map and language depicting a proposed Airport Overlay Zone.

Don't rezone schools, when you rezone your schools you're taking families out of their neighborhoods.Example if you live in SOUTH KNOXVILLE in 1991 they the school board rezoned, South Young, and we had a good school, South Young, and they rezoned it became South Doyle, and was moved out to the county, and Doyle High School was joined as South-Doyle High School ever since.When you move schools out of their neighborhoods, you make hardships on families, then you have to transport them by buses out of their neighborhoods, and if the principal wants to talk with a parent and that school is across town, out of their neighborhood, then its a hardship on the parent .I OPPOSE REZONING SCHOOLS

Does zoning apply or connect to taxing, city services provided, and ingress/egress?Why are community residents' questions solicited, and an email address provided, but nobody will respond?

Do you have a facebook page or other Social Media that can keep me updated as to what's being built in the area? or what is going on in the area? I often do not hear of anything going on along Rutledge Pike. Would be nice if "noise makers" i.e. KPD can provide notice when they are going through a recruiting class at the Cement Plant Road location. It seems that our area gets overlooked a lot!

Developers are allowed to build condos (separate buildings) based upon the zoned intensity. However, they are allowed to get away with dedicating only the main entryway/street to the city and all other streets classified as driveways. The USPS recognizes these side streets as residential addresses but the city only has to maintain the main roadway since the developer is allowed to designate the other streets, no matter how many, as driveways. The developer also is able to skirt the requirements of the city for a street and build these "driveways" narrower and without curbs. This is a sweetheart deal for the developer and really screws the residents.

Develop code that is more than "minimal"- let code reflect tougher standards so that variances are more difficult to ask for and have approvedAlso, don't make all neighborhoods alike- as in the survey- there are distinct areas that need to be cherished and preserved.Great ideas about landscaping- but after the initial build- who checks to make sure the landscaping is still in tact and being taken care of.Owners of apartment buildings should have specific requirements that must be adhered to- so neighborhoods don't have to complain and complain in order for things to change- for example- apartments on Jacksboro near Kesterwood, Oak Park, and Woodrush. An eyesore like that devalues the beautiful homes in the area.

Dear MPC,This letter is sent to you on behalf of the Parkridge Community Organization. Our neighborhood encompasses a large area of East Knoxville, bounded by Magnolia to the South, Hall of Fame to the West, Cherry to the East, and i-40 to the North. At this month's neighborhood meeting, neighbors discussed their concerns regarding the latest Recode draft, specifically the sections proposed as RN-4 and the proposed zoning on Magnolia of CG-2.Everyone in attendance agreed on one matter. We feel strongly that the proposed allowable building heights of 70 feet for the zoning along Magnolia Avenue and small portions of Fifth Ave. are inappropriate. Allowing buildings over the height of 40 feet will directly effect how residents along this corridor enjoy their homes and are able to continue using yard spaces for gardening, recreation, and privacy. CG-1 is a more appropriate zoning. CN appears to be the most appropriate zoning since there are residential buildings and homes along Magnolia Ave. Again, let me say everyone in attendance agreed on this matter.There are varied thoughts and opinions on the proposed zoning change to RN-4, which is in areas that are primarily single family homes with a mix of historic multifamily dwellings and converted duplexes. A few neighbors spoke in favor of the Bring Back the Orange campaign promoting more RN-4 zoning to increase density and affordable housing options. While we all agreed more affordable housing is needed, many residents are concerned that this zoning could actually make our neighborhood less affordable by encouraging real estate developers to take advantage of the neighborhood's proximity to downtown. Those who disagree with the proposal are also concerned about parking, citing the distance they currently have to park from their homes along Fifth Ave. as a problem they face now and the issues that have already arisen because of this. Many who disagree with the proposal of RN-4 stated they would have little issue if the area had a zoning design overlay to protect Knoxville's largest National Register district.Please reconsider the zoning for our neighborhood.Thank you,Lynne RandazzoPresidentParkridge Community Organization

Dear MPC Members:Few are aware that they inadvertently employ institutional bias, so when I look at the proposed changes, I am afraid that unwitting, unintended biases against those who desperately need decent, affordable housing will prevail for too long a period of time. Since it has been a near-50-year zoning period prior to this recoding effort, likely what happens now will be adversely affecting, and clearly, evidently, perhaps cruelly marginalizing those most in need of decent housing opportunities. A family with two minimum-wage-earning adults able to actually work 40 hours per week, has an annual income about $36,440 less than the median family income. Financial advisors say to spend only 25-30% of your income for housing monthly. That means $628-$754 per month for the most basic housing available. That leaves just about $400 per week (at 4.3 weeks per month) for food, transportation, minimal medical expenses, possible day care, school supplies, and clothing. Forget about entertainment, books to read, trips to the Great smoky Mountains: survival is all that is possible and there are very few, if any decent abodes for a small family that are just $628-$754 per month. The map I just saw of where and how much "ORANGE" appears on your map is shocking and just plain wrong. Please, please, please!: Let us NOT keep the NEXT generation trapped in the loop of poverty and feeling that one must always live at the base of the housing pyramid. Please, please, please, PUT BACK THE ORANGE and do not be guilty of keeping generations marginalized by unintended bias. Thank you

Dear MPC and recode Knoxville officials,I just heard that the "comment period" has been extended.I wanted to make it clear that our neighborhood and many others who have written are asking for the "entire process", the "timeline" of going before City Council etc. is what we are asking to be slowed down. It will take much more time than a "few extra days" to make sure neighborhoods are informed and able to make suggestions.I am trying to read as many pages as possible daily, but we have only had this hard copy for about 2 weeks.Please, let's don't rush this process. The city should have the best interest of residents as a priority, and it is NOT in our best interest to push this through before neighborhoods have had time to read and digest this material.Additionally, we call your attention to 2 articles written by Nick DellaVolpe on August 27th and August 29th for knoxtntoday.com that detail some very important issues about recode.Jamie RowePresident, Tazewell Pike-Beverly Station Neighborhood Coalition

Dear Director Green and MPC Staff:The following is a list of comments submitted by a Neighborhood Focus Group composed of neighborhood leaders from many different areas within the City:1. The existing draft permits Day Care Homes in all residential districts. Since no specific standards are provided regarding this use, it appears that regulatory control of these businesses is by the State of Tennessee. We would like to see the draft include local standards for Day Care Homes in the ordinance and not let the State dictate the intensity of this use. Furthermore, we would not permit day care homes that allow more than 6 children not related to the owners. (Article 2.3)2. Home Occupations (Section 10.3P): In Article V, Section 12 of the current City of Knoxville zoning ordinance, both home office and home occupations are defined. We recommend that the zoning code add the definition of home office and differentiate between both uses, allowing only Home Offices as a use by right in all residential districts.3. Approval Standards for Map Amendments (Section 15.1E): Line 3E reads that the “Metropolitan Planning Commission and City Council must consider the following standards …The consistency of the proposed amendment with the General Plan and any adopted land use policies”. City Charter requires that all zoning and map changes be consistent with the General and Sector plans. Our group insists that the wording be changed in this section from “consider” to accurately reflect the public’s intent to align these changes to the land use plans.4. For non-residential reuse properties, off-street parking is not required. They are not required to have on-premise parking. We recommend that MPC work with the Codes Department to address this issue, especially in older neighborhoods where there is no driveway or garages and residents are dependent on street parking for their vehicles.5. Planned Developments (Section 15.7): For neighborhoods which includes a multi-family development within its boundaries, traffic from these developments can create issues for residents living on these cut-through streets as well as limiting the walkability of our neighborhood due to fast traffic on narrow streets. We ask MPC to add language to limit the approval of planned residential developments whose traffic flow will ingress or egress onto interior residential streets.6. Accessory Dwelling Units (Section 10.3B): We were apprehensive of allowing ADUs as a right in all residential neighborhoods. We unanimously agreed that allowing a detached ADU as a “special use” as opposed to a use by right would alleviate the concerns of the group and possibly the fears of many other Knoxville residents. We support this change to the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, we feel like allowing ADUs on lot sizes of 5000 square feet is too small, and recommend the lot size be increased to a minimum of 7000 square feet.The following is a list of participants: Rob Glass - Harrell Hills (Northeast Knoxville), Jennifer Reynolds - Timbercrest (West Knoxville), Molly Conoway - Oakwood Lincoln Park (North Central Knoxville), Amy Midis - Forest Heights Neighborhood (West Knoxville), Anna Compton - Cumberland Estates (Northwest Knoxville)Thank you!

Dear Director Green and MPC Staff:The following are recommendations submitted from a Focus Group from Forest Heights Neighborhood. Thank you for your commitment to this project: Accessory Dwelling Units (Section 10.3B): Like many residents across Knoxville, the FHNA Focus Group was divided on the issue of whether ADUs should be allowed as a use by right in all residential districts. A majority of the group does not feel there will be many detached ADUs constructed in our neighborhood, and those homeowners who choose to add them will be situations where the homeowner would use the ADU for a dependent family member. The members of the focus group who oppose the ADU would be accepting of allowing the detached ADU being a “special use” as opposed to a use by right. Allowing these as a special use would alleviate the fears of our neighbors and possibly the fears of many other Knoxville residents. Therefore, we ask MPC to consider changing the ordinance allowing only detached ADUs as a special use in all residential districts.Flagpoles (Section 10.3K): The current draft allows three illuminated flagpoles at a height of 35”. We propose limiting the number of flagpoles to 1 per residence at a maximum height of 18”.Home Occupations (Section 10.3P): In Article V, Section 12 of the current City of Knoxville zoning ordinance, both home office and home occupations are defined. Our current R1-E zoning ordinance allows by right, home offices but not home occupations. We recommend that the zoning code add the definition of home office and differentiate between both uses, allowing only Home Offices as a use by right in all residential districts.Bed and Breakfast (Section 9.3B): The ordinance allows one parking space for each rented guest bedroom. It does not allow for off-street parking in front of the building. We appreciate these conditions, however, if a homeowner has 5 bedrooms available to rent, but only 3 parking spaces, the business will be restricted to renting only 3 bedrooms. How can codes enforce that only three bedrooms are being rented? Can the code’s department enforce a restriction on off-street parking being used by the operator’s guests? The Codes department has had little involvement in this area since there is only one bed and breakfast currently operating within the City. We request that the Codes department research further how to enforce restrictions on the number of rooms allowed to rent.Animals for Control of Invasive Species (Section 9.4A): We inquired over 5 years ago about the use of goats to control a steep section of our neighborhood where Kudzu has taken over and is impossible to control. This was not possible at the time, and we hope by adding this section into the zoning ordinance, it will give our neighbors a feasible option to control the kudzu on their property.Commercial properties along Kingston Pike in Bearden have new standards promoting parking in the back of the building. Our group supports the concept of parking being behind the buildings. It promotes slower traffic and more walkability in Bearden. In addition, in most cases, it is more attractive looking at a building than an empty parking lot!Approval Standards for Map Amendments (Section 15.1E): Line 3E reads that the “Metropolitan Planning Commission and City Council must consider the following standards …The consistency of the proposed amendment with the General Plan and any adopted land use policies”. City Charter requires that all zoning and map changes be consistent with the General and Sector plans. Our group insists that the wording be changed in this section to accurately reflect the public’s decision to align these changes to the land use plans.Planned Developments (Section 15.7): Our neighborhood includes a multi-family development within its boundaries. Traffic from this development has created issues for residents living on these cut-through streets as well as limiting the walkability of our neighborhood due to fast traffic on narrow streets. This development is aging and will need to be redeveloped within the next twenty years. We ask MPC to add language to limit the approval of planned residential developments whose traffic flow will ingress or egress onto interior residential streets.Submitted by: Leslie Badaines, Jarrod Chapman, Amy Hathaway, Joe Hickman, Jim Pryor, Amy Midis, John Ulmer, and Martie Ulmer

Dear City Council members:On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Knoxville/Knox County (LWVKKC), we are writing regarding the first draft of Knoxville's new zoning code. We applaud its bold vision: The new code will enable more density, more diverse and affordable housing, and more alternatives to car-based living.That said, we are concerned that the draft zoning code curbs opportunities for people to have input on land use decisions that affect them. Four key examples follow, with suggestions for a more inclusive, consultative approach.Permitted modifications. In Article 10.3 of the draft code, a number of uses and structures additional to the principal structure are described - notably, accessory structures, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and detached garages. For these additional structures, only building permits and other customary permits would be needed if the requirements in the draft code were met. Unfortunately, those requirements do little to protect abutting property owners.Per the draft code, ADUs and other accessory structures could be up to 18 feet tall and would require setbacks of only 5 feet from the side and rear lot lines (or no setbacks, in the case of detached garages). In the draft code, no notice to the abutting property owner is required.An abutting property owner should have prior notice and opportunity to appeal if an accessory structure, ADU, or detached garage is to be located partly within the otherwise-required setback specified in Article 4.3.Permitted encroachments. Article 10.4 lists several types of permissible encroachments into otherwise-required setbacks: for example, balconies, decks, bay windows, stoops, and unenclosed porches. The maximum encroachment is specified for each type.It appears that a permitted encroachment may enable other additions along the same side. A stoop, for example, could become the basis for enlarging that whole side of the structure into the setback. (See diagram accompanying Article 16.4; see also pp. 51-52 of https://recodeknoxville.com/documents/meetings/20180322_comm_meeting/presentation.pdf).If a permitted encroachment can enable additional encroachment, it renders meaningless the term 'required setback,' and it violates the justifiable expectations of the abutting property owner. At a minimum, that property owner should have prior notice and an opportunity to appeal if additional encroachment is proposed.Administrative modifications. According to Article 15.4, the Zoning Administrator could, upon a property owner's request, unilaterally approve 'a 10% or less modification to any zoning district dimensional standard in this Code' (p. 15-7). The approval standards listed in the draft code mainly concern the property's characteristics and its owner's needs but also refer to the public health, safety, and welfare (p. 15-8).Members of the public would have no notice of the requested administrative modification and no opportunity for input prior to the Zoning Administrator's decision. Property owners directly affected by the decision could appeal it, but they would have to file for an appeal within 30 days of the decision. How would they learn about the decision in time to file? That is not clear in the draft code.The Zoning Administrator should send notice of a request for an administrative modification to abutting and adjacent property owners, allowing them 10 business days to comment before the decision is made. They also should be advised of the decision and their right to appeal, subject to a 30-day deadline.Planned developments. Section 6 of Article 15 introduces a concept relatively new to Knoxville. As described in the draft code, a planned development (PD) is meant to encourage flexibility and creativity in land development and new structures. PDs would have a special approval process that might exempt them from some regulations while establishing other requirements. Per Article 15.6, PDs would be possible in all zoning districts.The PD process has three major steps: a concept plan followed by a preliminary plan and then a final plan. The preliminary plan is the crux of the process. The preliminary plan is reviewed by MPC, which sends it with their recommendation to City Council for their approval or denial. If the final plan is in 'substantial compliance' with the approved preliminary plan, MPC staff will recommend approval to MPC, which will then review the plan and approve or deny it.The same process would be used regardless of the type of zoning district. The sole specified opportunity for public input on a PD is at the preliminary plan stage.Presumably, planned developments are big deals with good or bad ripple effects. As such, neighborhood associations, business associations, potentially affected property owners, and other members of the public should get notice of the proposed project early in the process, as soon as a concept plan has been developed. Their opportunity for comment should not be limited to the preliminary plan stage. They also should get notice of the staff review for 'substantial compliance' prior to MPC's review and approval of the final plan.The League of Women Voters has a long tradition of advocating for two twin pillars of democracy: a citizen's right (a) to know, and (b) to participate in government decision-making. As you consider the draft code, please keep in mind the need for adequate public information and consultation on land use decisions, as well as the right to appeal when governmental decisions directly affect a property owner.Thank you for your service to Knoxville.Mary EnglishLand Use and Environment Chair, LWVKKCLinda MaccabePresident, LWVKKC

D. Discontinuation or Abandonment If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a continuous period of six* months**, the nonconforming use terminates automatically. Any subsequent use of such land or structure must comply with all regulations of the zoning district in which the structure or land is located. * strike "six" and insert "18"insert ", and is not actively marketed,"Add definition for "actively marketed" to 2.3 Definitions sections:Property is marketed continuously online through professional multiple listing services (example, Realtor.com, FlexMLS, Knoxville Area Associaton of Realtors Commercial Information Exchange, LoopNet, Costar, Zillow, etc) and/or signage indicating that property is for sale or lease.

Construction of Tiny houses and space should be allowed. This helps with different issues such as affordability and space.

Considering the "retail apocalypse" that is happening, it would be smart to loosen up restrictions on what can be done in the general commercial zones. The USA has more retail square footage per capita than any other country and that overbuilding is facing a strong market correction. The rise of Amazon and other online retailers is contributing to the contraction. In short, there are going to be a lot of empty buildings that were formerly retail stores. Allowing artisan studios and light manufacturing of all kinds might keep some of those buildings occupied. Loosening the restrictions would certainly provide more location opportunities for those employers, and make the commercial zones more diverse and interesting too.

Consider allowing Drive-Through Facilities in C-N as a Permitted (P) or at least Special (S) use. Given that restaurants, financial institutions, and personal service establishments (I'm thinking of dry cleaners) are allowed in C-N there will certainly be instances when a drive through could make sense.

Concern is that SW-1 is not listed under the general list of residential. SW-1 is residential (low density). Should It fall under or with the EN, RN, list?

Community Forum requests that Agenda Item 5, 11-A-18-OA, Consideration of the Comprehensive Update of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance, be postponed from the January 10, 2019, meeting of the Planning Commission to the February 14, 2019, meeting. Please see the attached file for full comments. 

Community Forum is submitting its first Supplemental Response to the first draft of Recode Knoxville.This Supplemental Response covers our 14th topic, Office Zoning District, (Article 5).Thank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Larry Silverstein, Secretary-TreasurerCommunity Forum

Community Forum is an organization with representatives from many City of Knoxville and Knox County neighborhoods. We frequently advocate on issues that affect the character and integrity of neighborhoods. Attached is Community Forum's initial Response to the first draft of Recode Knoxville. (View Draft 1 Response) The Response includes material on thirteen topics, including a Supplemental Topic on Manufactured Homes which appears at the end of the Response. Also included is a separate list of all of our Issues Presented for the thirteen topics we are addressing in this Response. (View issues list) Many of the issues identified impact the City's low density neighborhoods. We anticipate submitting additional comments as we continue our review of this draft, and additional Recode drafts, and as we review the comments of others. We wish to make clear that we support the Recode Knoxville project. Our objective is to work with others to improve the proposed ordinance. We would be happy to discuss the issues presented in this Response at any time and to respond to any questions you might have about our Response.

Community Forum is an organization with representatives from many City of Knoxville and Knox County neighborhoods.On May 10, 2018, Community Forum submitted its initial response to the First Draft of Recode Knoxville. It included material on 13 topics. On May 17, 2018, we submitted additional material on our Topic # 14 regarding the Office Zoning District. On August 14, 2018, Community Forum submitted a Response regarding standards for Approval of Rezoning in Article 15. That topic is also covered in this response. See Topic 18.Attached is Community Forum's September 13, 2018, response to the Second Draft of Recode Knoxville.Part 1: Includes material on 11 New Topics, numbered 15-25. Part 2: Includes material to Update the 14 topics, numbered 1-14, covered in our May 10 and May 17, 2018, responses to the First Draft.While we have not repeated in Part 2 everything previously submitted, we wish to call to your attention once again these very important issues which have largely not been addressed in the Second Draft. An example is the proposed entirely new concept of Planned Development and the process for using it. In our May 10 comments, we devoted 9 pages to this subject, and no changes have been made since the First Draft, and there has been no public discussion of it that we are aware of. We have received no response on this topic or on many others.For your convenience we have also attached a Compilation of our previous submissions.We wish to reiterate our earlier stated position regarding our support of Recode Knoxville. We have attended many public meetings, City Council workshops, and Stakeholder Committee meetings. Our members have talked with many members of the community, especially in our own neighborhoods, but also in others. We are doing our best to inform others about what is being proposed and what it means for our community. We are urging that others become engaged in the process. Our objective remains the same: to work with others to improve the proposed Ordinance, by comparing it to our existing Ordinance, and examining the impact proposed changes will have on our neighborhoods.We would like to discuss at your convenience, these issues as well as some non-policy, technical issues which we believe are also very important. It would be much more efficient to attempt to resolve any differences of opinion on these issues before the Third Draft is issued, and rather than having to try to do it when the entire proposed Ordinance comes before MPC and City Council in the future.Sincerely,Ms. Sue Mauer, ChairpersonLarry Silverstein, Secretary-Treasurer

Codes should discourage urban sprawl and encourage infilling as much as possible. Also, stormwater is a huge issue that needs to be carefully addressed in all development proposals. More bike routes to connect residential areas with downtown.

Code should be modified to allow work at home provisions regardless of the zoning provided no adverse impact on those living within the neighborhood including no additional traffic, no additional on-street parking, no additional visible storage or equipment on the property or along the street, no additional noise created by the business.Not sure if noise provisions are currently incorporated in zoning. If not they should be.I'm also not sure what provisions are currently incorporated to define and eliminate nuisances.

Climate Knoxville submits comments and background information on the current draft of Recode Knoxville.Louise GorenfloClimate Knoxville

City officials claim that the reason for recode is to help housing affordability by increasing density. According to "bestplaces.net" Knoxville's cost of living factor is 81.4 which is well below the the national average indicated as 100. They attribute this low factor to our LOW HOUSING COST which they give as 63. The State average is 73 which is still well below the National average of 100. The city then argues several conflicting points. They on one hand suggest Accessory Dwelling Units will lower housing cost then in the same breadth argue that no one will exercise their right to build one as past evidence suggests. They then argue folks can currently have a duplex under R-1 as a "use on review" but few people exercise that right. Given their arguments why then is there a need for ADU's? Furthermore to build a freestanding 1000 sg.ft. ADU would likely cost over $174,000.00 well above the current median single family house price in Knoxville. While the current zoning in R-1 does afford the possibility of a duplex the "use on review" feature is a critical deterrent from your neighbor/investor building a rental unit next to your home. You would have the right to protest the use change at a public hearing of citizens. To automatically allow ADU's givers the neighbors NO rights to protest. I for one love my low density single family neighborhood with my right of quite enjoyment. I do not want rental units or Air B&B's next to my home and the congestion that higher density brings. Go to Nashville to see what density has done to traffic and strained city services such as schools and look at how their home prices have skyrocketed!

City Council Members:Please find attached materials outlining feedback from our association and our residential and commercial Realtor members.1. ADU memo - MLS stats and research on other municipality's ADU ordinances and experiences2. Missing Middle Housing - a global issue in Recode residential zones where current R-2 zones have been downzoned to proposed RN-2. Current R-2 should be rezoned to proposed RN-5, as stated in the Recode Residential Comparison Chart, to keep existing uses available in those areas. Also, the Recode map needs to be looked at critically across all residential zones in Knoxville to return these middle-housing opportunities to those areas (A local example included in the handout is the Magnolia corridor where current R-2 was downzoned to RN-2.).3. Keep Knoxville Affordable - a handout I received from Matt Sterling, with input from other groups who are concerned about downzoning and lack of affordable housing (not govt subsidized housing, but rather, housing a larger segment of our population can afford). Population projections suggest that the larger Knoxville/Knox County area will need to add (conservatively) upwards of 3-5 housing units per day to meet these growth needs. 4. Residential Top Issues - compares the proposed RN districts and asks the question why do we have 7 residential districts? (this is not meant to be a comprehensive list but some of the most important issues)5. Commercial & Industrial Top Issues - a bullet point list of key issues found in commercial, industrial, and other non-residential zones (this is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but a list of the most important issues we've collected from the active Realtor and developer community). Also, the Use Matrix in Section 9.2 should be looked at more closely to ensure we are not creating a greater number of nonconforming uses in these zones. Many comments I have received concern not where Recode Permits or allows Special Use, but where it does not allow either of these. Look at the blanks, where there is not a "P" or "S" use listed, ask why that box is blank and should it be filled; what problems are we creating by leaving out "P" and "S" uses in various zones? The design standards in Recode are protective enough that areas around commercial development will be protected, the building and lot will function well and have an acceptable appearance no matter the use inside the structure, to a large extent.Recode is quite an undertaking and I appreciate your tireless work on this project. Sorry for sending this so close to the workshop time; informational gathering for Recode has been a tremendous effort as I know you are aware. I am happy to address any concerns and questions you may have. Please feel free to contact me anytime.Best,Jennifer Roche, JD, RCEGovernmental Affairs DirectorKnoxville Area Association of Realtors609 Weisgarber Road, Knoxville, TN 37919

Check 10-14 in the Draft 2.0, Section Z.2 c & d for typos. See below...c. Maximum height is the total height of the turbine system as measured from the base of the tower to the top. For [horizontal] axis turbines, the maximum vertical height of the turbine blades is measured as the length of a prop at maximum vertical rotation.d. No portion of exposed turbine blades (vertical [axis] wind turbine) may be within 20 feet of the ground. Unexposed turbine blades (horizontal [axis] wind turbine) may be within ten feet of the ground.

Certain groups argue Parkridge and other center city neighborhoods should be zoned for higher density use-by-right rather than higher density use-on-review.Because center city neighborhoods are established neighborhoods, what is actually being argued is that Parkridge and other center city neighborhoods should be re-designed from historic, single-family designs to new, multi-family designs.In effect, higher density use-by-right in Park City National Historic District invites demolition of affordable historic workforce housing to build new, more expensive housing.This outcome was in fact predicted by the Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission in 1960, when then-director Joe B. Whitlow told the Knoxville News Sentinel that "[w]hile much of the area will be reserved for continued residential use...the current tendency is to build larger houses on larger lots.... we have many applications for two or three lots to be re-subdivided into one lot," adding, "[a]s a result of Urban Renewal, the city will eventually gain in taxable property."Demolitions and new infill projects of the 1960s slowed as federal funding for urban renewal schemes ended. But private developers have continued the work of clearing and re-building older neighborhoods, one house at a time rather than blocks at a time.Absent prohibitions against demolitions and absent design guidelines that protect older, established neighborhoods, older homes are squeezed and abused until demolition to build new, more profitable projects becomes the most attractive path. This scenario has played out time and again in Nashville and in Knoxville.The board of directors of the Park City Preservation Alliance (PCPA) respectfully requests that MPC avoid placing higher density zoning on established neighborhoods eligible for historic districts. Further, the PCPA encourages the MPC to plan for greater density in areas of Knoxville with access to jobs, healthcare, schools, and other basic services sorely lacking in areas of concentrated poverty in Knoxville's center city neighborhoods.For more, please see the detailed history from the Park City Preservation Alliance linked here: http://www.preserveparkcity.org/2018/11/recode-map-draft-2-recommendations-for.html

Can you summarize the differences between the old code for R-1 and the new RN-2 in layman’s terms for me?  The same with C-G-1 vs. C3 ?I don’t understand some of the verbiage and how it may impact things if different.Also, am I reading correctly that in EN all new primary dwellings must have a 2nd floor ?  (4.4) and that parking is only allowed behind a house ? (4.4 b.1). Also,can you describe what a corner side yard is 11.3 - d.Have there been any public discussions about people’s RVs no longer on side of house etc. ?  And, I noticed a comment on use that Drive-thrus would be allowed on Cumberland - is that different than the new code adopted?  I thought there was effort to get rid of the curb cuts and drive thrus. ?

Can you summarize the differences between the old code for R-1 and the new RN-2 in layman’s terms for me?  The same with C-G-1 vs. C3 ?I don’t understand some of the verbiage and how it may impact things if different.Also, am I reading correctly that in EN all new primary dwellings must have a 2nd floor ?  (4.4) and that parking is only allowed behind a house ? (4.4 b.1). Also,can you describe what a corner side yard is 11.3 - d.Have there been any public discussions about people’s RVs no longer on side of house etc. ?  And, I noticed a comment on use that Drive-thrus would be allowed on Cumberland - is that different than the new code adopted?  I thought there was effort to get rid of the curb cuts and drive thrus. ?

Can you clariify: Does a zoning lot only include connecting lots that are within the same zone? Will this apply to commercial and office zones also, not just residential? Furthermore, the section addressing zoning lots, you mention that the City has an original ward map and a parcel map. Can you clarify what that means?

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

Can detail be provided on how specifically slope should be calculated for the purpose of determining Hillside Protection requirements?For example, should the slope be calculated from the lowest to the highest point of the lot, regardless of location? Or from the center of the rear lot line to the center of the front lot line? How specifically will this be evaluated and enforced by the city?For reference, I am asking because I am purchasing a vacant lot that falls under the Hillside Protection Overlay, and trying to understand what due diligence needs to be done surrounding this.Thanks for any advice you can give.

Can a variance apply to definitions?Table 14.1 Application SubmittalsAdd Infill, Downtown DesignTable 14.2 NoticeVariance - include mailed notice.Administrative Modification- include posting a sign and mailing notice to contiguous property owners. - This provides transparency,- Allows the Zoning Administrator to knowledgeably decide compliance with Section 15.4.E.3. "without substantial detriment to public health, safety, and welfare, and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zoning Map and this Code." How can there be a decision regarding public welfare without notifying the public?- If there is strong concern by the neighbors, then the application should be forwarded to a hearing body.And remaining Zoning Approvals that should require notice are:- Infill Housing -- Downtown Design - - Site Plan Review (when applicable)-Signs posted for a hearing- should be clearly visible to the adjacent right-of-way and by both directions of traffic. Signs should be posted on each right-of-way. I have a photo of a sign posted directly behind a light pole and of a sign posted amidst similarly sized campaign signs.163.F Extension of Walls for Nonconforming Single-Family and Two-Family DwellingsAllowing a building wall of the principle structure to be extended horizontally or vertically when it encroaches in a minimum setback is unfair to the adjacent neighbor and should require a variance hearing. Such expansion creates a sense of crowding and loss of privacy, denigrating the purpose of light, air and open space inherent in requiring setbacks. It also attacks the purpose and foundation of the variance process as it: 1) fails to establish whether the existing intrusion is legally nonconforming, 2) fails to provide any evaluation standard and public process 3) potentially exacerbates an existing annoyance with no recourse to the impacted party, and 4) does not provide an appeal process. It also contravenes Section 16.3.D Nonconforming Structure.Accessory Dwelling Units- per today's joint MPC/CC work shop discussion there are at least two ways to provide notice alerting second generation owners of property with an ADU: 1) file notice on the property title that the Accessory Dwelling Unit may have specific ownership regulations which need to be checked in the Knoxville Zoning Code and 2) property owners are supposed to declare known encumbrances in a declaration when listing the property.Why are kennels limited to Agricultural Districts? They should also be included in some of the Industrial and possibly commercial zones if they do not directly abut residential.Home Occupation and Day Care- why is limited Day Care not considered a home occupation? Child Care, tutorial lessons, and accountants/taxes are classic home occupations involving visitation. Visits to Home Occupations should be controlled to protect the neighborhoods sense of place. However, garage sales should be limited to avoid a constant "flea marker" commercial use. The restriction of 25% floor area is easily enforced through a simple code check.Cell Towers should not be permitted in Neighborhood Commercial Use as the NC purpose is to serve and blend with residential. And Burlington commercial area should be zoned neighborhood commercial.

C-G-1 should be used in areas near existing residential with the height limit of 40'. We don't want new commercial to be much higher than adjacent residential so use C-G-1 as a transition between residential and C-G-2.

By and large I am in support of the efforts to implement form-based code in the City. It seems the design standards as they read for the more dense areas of our city are geared towards encouraging the development of great urban spaces. It is visionary, and by and large I am supportive. I do hear the criticism regarding Affordable Housing, Accessory Dwellings, Environmental Overlay, and the Public Input Process. I hope the MPC takes these concerns to heart and considers how the changes will impact specific neighborhoods in each of these cases. Some questions:Can Ridgetop Protection get codified in this 'round? This is just guidance now, right? Can the new code also include provision for commercial areas on hillsides that are unsuitable for development? Can hillside preservation be incentivised? How lot size will impact development on steep slopes is still unclear to me. Along similar lines, where are the incentives for LID (Low Impact Design) and how might the code be coordinated with stormwater regulations/incentives for LID?Is there adequate provision for accommodating innovative land use of blighted properties? (Side lots, abandoned lots, community gardens, pocket parks, etc)Can you quantify in GIS the land area within the new classifications that can potentially be used for multi-family housing or affordable housing? How does this compare with the existing code? I think Mixed Use would incorporate some of the 'orange' that appears to be eliminated in the draft, but I am unsure since this may relate more to developer incentives (still relatively 'black box'). What exactly happens to Sector and Community Plans? And related, the public input process? I understand the MPC's interest in streamlining/efficiency, etc...it just seems once something leaves MPC with blessings it doesn't get much revisit from Council or Commission. I am often discouraged by how routine the Sector Plans are amended to accommodate development. Can you diagram the proposed public input process for the "new" code?Thank you again.

BRING THE ORANGE BACK !

Bring back the orange. The proposed map doesn't allow for affordable housing and increased density.

Bring back the Orange!!!

Bring Back the Orange! in our core neighborhoods by utilizing RN-3,4, and 5 zones to allow for a greater range of housing choices in walkable, bus-friendly neighborhoods. Please adopt appropriate zoning & standards to encourage good design, scale, and development in a manner that will protect our neighborhoods while still allowing them to evolve.

Bring Back the Orange! in our core neighborhoods by utilizing RN-3,4, and 5 zones to allow for a greater range of housing choices in walkable, bus-friendly neighborhoods. Please adopt appropriate zoning & standards to encourage good design, scale, and development in a manner that will protect our neighborhoods while still allowing them to evolve.

Bring Back the Orange! Our City NEEDS this and I know it can be done with good design and scale of development.

Bring Back the Orange Zones in our core neighborhoods, particularly close to the KAT bus lines, by utilizing RN-3,4, and 5 zones to allow for a greater range of housing choices in walkable, bus-friendly neighborhoods. Please adopt appropriate zoning & standards that will encourage good design, scale, and development in a manner that will protect our neighborhoods while still allowing them to evolve.

Bring back the orange in the Knoxville rezoning map. More ability to provide affordable housing is needed - not less.