Minutes - Knoxville-Knox County Planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/jan07min.pdf · District 2. Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential)

The Metropolitan Planning Commission met in regular session on January 11, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in the Main Assembly Room, City/County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee. Members:

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

** Mr. Stan Johnson

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

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

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

* 2. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 11, 2007 AGENDA

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT.

* 3. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES

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

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

KIM HENRY RECUSED FROM VOTING ON THE POSTPONEMENTS.

Minutes

January 11, 2007

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

MPC Minutes January 11, 2007

Page 2

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE TO APPROVE POSTPONEMENTS 30-DAYS AS READ UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 11-0-1. POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE POSTPONEMENT 60-DAY AS READ UNTIL THE MARCH 8, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 11-0-1. POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED.

Automatic Withdrawals Read WITHDRAWALS REQUIRING MPC ACTION

None

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

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

LAKEVIEW POINT 1-SC-05-C West side of Fredonia Rd., north of Merchant Dr., Council District

3. ROSEBAY PLACE 8-SB-05-C East side of Rosebay Rd., south of Garden Dr., Council District 4. ANDREWS POINTE - GARY ANDREWS a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SH-05-C South side of Westland Dr., southwest of S. Northshore Dr,

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

(Planned Residential) pending & F (Floodway) District. WILLIAM H. HARRELL PROPERTY, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1R 1-SF-04-F Southeast side of Buffat Mill Rd., Council District 4. HATAUB SUBDIVISION 6-SY-05-F West side of Hickory Creek Rd., north of Everett Rd., Commission

District 6. HILL PROPERTY 4-SG-06-F Northwest side of Greenwell Rd., northeast of Pedigo Rd.,

Commission District 7. EMORY PLACE 4-SX-06-F Northwest side of E. Emory Rd, southwest of Bishop Rd,

Commission District 6.


Page 3

VARNELL PROPERTY ON DERRIS DRIVE 5-SP-06-F North side of Derris Drive, East of Wrights Ferry Road,

Commission District 4. PROPERTY OF J. RONALD SCHOOLCRAFT, JR. 7-SU-06-F Southeast side of Northshore Drive, southwest of Terrace Woods

Way, Council District 2. ROY VANDERGRIFF PROPERTY 8-SH-06-F East intersection of Dan McBee Road & E. Emory Road,

Commission District 8. SHOREWALKER PLACE, LLC 7-F-05-RZ South side Middlebrook Pike, southeast side Broome Rd., Council

District 2. Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential).

NORMAN SHAW 4-H-06-PA Northwest side Asheville Hwy., southwest of Grata Rd. One Year

Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). Council District 6.

GEORGE WADSWORTH 12-B-06-RZ North side Clinton Hwy., west of Murray Dr., Commission District 6.

Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RB (General Residential). ITEMS REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM TABLE –

(Indicated with U) None TABLINGS – (Indicated with T) Read MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE

TO TABLE ITEM NO. 27 SOUTH GROVE. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. TABLED

CONSENT ITEMS Items recommended for approval on consent are

marked (*). They will be considered under one motion to approve.

Ms. Citizen: Asked Item 72 be removed from consent. Item No 26 Eagle Bend Realty Item 64 a & b removed Item No. 21 removed Woodson Trail R. W. Graf Inc.


Page 4

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO HEAR THE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCLUDING ITEMS 21, 26, 64A&B AND 72. MOTION CARRIED 12-0.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCLUDING ITEMS 21, 26, 64A&B AND 72. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. CONSENT ITEMS APPROVED.

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

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

a. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to Articles 3

and 4 Chair Massey grouped items no. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 as one

discussion item. MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO

GROUP ITEMS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10 TOGETHER FOR PURPOSE OF HEARING AND DISCUSSION

Robert Anders recuses from discussion and voting on these items.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. 550 West Main Avenue. We are not for or

against. We will be asking for a postponement. We have been handed some changes that will make it better. Ms. Olson has some other issues.

Mr. Dave Hill: Sr. Director of South Waterfront Development We did hand out some more paper. We had both an oversight

committee meeting and an evening community meeting yesterday. In that handout we gave you a summary of the primary issues that we heard. Then we have provided staff recommended changes if the items are approved that the motion should include the changes. There are modifications to some of the standards, definitions that are city wide, and some typographic errors so they could be made part of any motions. We have been going after the South Waterfront project in terms of the Vision Plan for more than a year and one half. The Vision


Page 5

Plan was adopted in April and the Form Based Development Code is in direct response to and intended to implement that vision plan. We have steadfastly maintained access to the documents either through the web site, individual meetings and community and oversight meetings. We have bent over backwards to get comments from every body. We have narrowed the number of issues being discussed down to a handful. In the past few months we have been going over and over it to make sure we have it right. There is a provision in the primary the Zoning Ordinance which affects Articles 3 and 4 of the Zoning Ordinance that says we have to come back in a yeas time and provide a performance assessment of the code. We feel we need to get it out there and see how it operates and be prepared to make changes after a year’s time or as needed.

COMMISSIONER STAN JOHNSON ARRIVED TO THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.

Mr. Monty Stanley: 3029 Davenport Road The form based codes is a result of a thorough and open process.

Residents, business, City official and other community members have had a chance to have their opinions heard. A consensus has been reached. Change is not easy, but it is coming. Is it going to be haphazard approach or organized and something that we can look back on and be proud of?

Ms. Rachel Craige 2222 Island Home Blvd I served on the Oversight Committee. Countless hours have been

spent on the vision plan and form based code by all the stakeholders--property owners, developers, community, businesses, regulators, etc. Ask that you approve the code as Dave has presented it to you. Oppose a postponement. We have some projects in the pipeline and we need to get the codes in place. If we do not get the codes in place, some will go back and file an application under the old code. We will then start getting the kind of development we would rather not have. The overwhelming consensus of the oversight committee was to pass this today.

Ms. Linda Rust 1720 Earl Ave., Southhaven Neighborhood

Association President We share some of the waterfront on the development. This has

been a very inclusive process with an open door policy. Express my concerns that we not postpone today in order to get a planning process in place.

Grant Rosenburg. 1207 Fulsome Avenue Member of advisory committee as well. I think form based codes

are going to enhance South Knoxville. What you have is a reasonable compromise to allow reasonable development in the south Knoxville area.


Page 6

Mr. John Gumport. 2934 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta Codeveloper of City View project in south Knoxville. Support the

form based zoning code. I am going to apply for modifications because the code does not perfectly address my project. I support the overall code and the passage of the code. We can review those changes after the passage of it.

Mr. Joe Hultquist. City Council Member You have a letter requesting the Commission consider amending

the boundary of the SW-6 District to included the eastern parcel of the City View development. Consider this only technically so it can be revisited at a later date. I am not asking you to make that amendment today. This needs to move forward. Encourage you to adopt it as it is today.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr: On behalf of 5 property owners. Holston

Gases, W. S. Trimble, Rinker Materials, Knox River Warehouses and Specialty Metals. 4 out of these 5 control a substantial portion of the waterfront. These are all industrial uses that employ over 600 users. Although the form based code is said not to address uses but only form, streetscape, etc., it does regulate all of these users. These properties upon enactment of this ordinance immediately become nonconforming users and subject to the restrictions that apply to nonconforming uses. All are key to the Vision Plan and redevelopment of the South Waterfront. Goal of the plan is to have these properties developed into non industrial uses such as restaurants, hotels, residences, offices, etc. For this to occur a developer purchasing those properties will have to be able to pay them enough money to purchase property to relocate and move their businesses. Holston Gases with tanks is difficult to move. Permitting and finding another site are all difficult. Code must be done in such a manner to have flexibility to redevelop property to be able to relocate or to sell at a price to allow a property owner to relocate. We are asking that this matter be postponed 30 days. Two of our issues may be addressed with the changes given us ten minutes ago. I want to sit down with my clients to review them. We want to see al the changes at one time. We need them incorporated in the book. We have spent a lot of time like the oversight committee and been to about every public meeting that has occurred. The city has delayed getting this to you on the agenda. We are on the 5th edition of this book which has to be over 100 pages. You are being asked to approve a 6th edition with today’s amendments. We think it is only fair the property owners be given 30 days to review and comment before the next meeting. I do not think we will be in complete agreement, but at least we will know what our issues are before the next meeting and we can give you a handout in time for you to consider our changes. For this project to work, if these 5 properties are not redeveloped, the Vision Plan will never be


Page 7

realized. We ask that we be allowed to review the proposed amendments. That we be allowed to propose our final changes. Make this code right so that redevelopment of these properties will occur as the vision plan envisions.

Ms. Martha Olson; 601 Augusta Avenue I have concerns that some of the issues of the neighborhood

have not been addressed. We have been at the meetings and have not had a chance to review the changes until the meetings. A lot of people do not have computers. A lot of people said this is still way over their head. Petition is from the neighborhood. We are opposed to high density development next to our homes. One of the glaring problems is we have a SW-1 zone to protect our neighborhood. Now we are looking at a zoning that could allow up to 11,000 sq. ft building on a double lot in our neighborhood with no maximum number of units. We need to get this out to people to discuss this. I am hoping we can get some concessions from the city to maintain our primarily single-family residential neighborhood. We have had a lot of homeowners purchase property and there will be a lot of revitalization. I am afraid the code is going to favor the absentee owners who have let their property run down. They can sell out for big money and put in multi-unit dwellings. Some people have been there for years. I am asking for a delay to work with the City to address issues. We have issues with no minimum parking in the high density zone. We have no way to know if we are going to be overrun with cars and the high density development. We need to get more physical copies into the neighborhood so they can read it.

Mr. Hoyle Gill. 6614 Sherwood Drive. One of owners of Knox River

Warehouses I have gone to every meeting. I think the form based zoning is

solid and good. The meetings have been a moving target. Just as today we were just handed another revision. We are asking time to get the City document complete with the changes and get it out to people to look at for 30 days. I think we are close, but we want to be closer than 70 or 80%.

Mr. Dave Hill: I wish we had documented all the revisions we

made thus far. At every opportunity we have tried to make a win-win situation. At any point that we could make change that would not be detrimental to the vision plan, we tried to make the changes. We intend this to be a win–win for large business and property owners. There are really two primary issues I do not think will be resolved in 1 to 2 months. There is a balanceing act on what is a compatible level of height and bulk for the neighborhood areas and what is an appropriate level of height and bulk and floor space that should be afforded to waterfront owners so they can have a profitable project. We have analyzed both issues for 3 months. If you decide postponement is worth


Page 8

consideration, I would as how we are going to resolve that issue. I do not see a lot of moving on the part of consultants or city recommendations. As Commission you are asked to be a deciding body as City Council is the ultimate deciding body. Maybe these revisions to the ordinance are revisited by the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Mr. Trey Benefield: Asked about parking. Concern expressed

about maximum parking. How is the commercial market and financing is going to respond to parking. What would happen if parking is inadequate? Would it overflow into the residential areas?

Mr. Dave Hill: There is no minimum parking requirement in the

SW-1 neighborhood zone and we have suggested that there be a minimum of one dwelling space per parking unit. Expressed as maximums most are maximum number of parking spaces per square feet. In the short term we believe that as development occurs there will probably be surface parking provided on adjacent lots much the say City View is going to put interim parking on their lots. Some of the questions are we understand you want to reduce the number of surface parking spots, but while we are developing our project how can you guarantee we will have transit access or transit stops. Think you will see the provision of some ancillary surface lots early on and new as it takes off you will see the creation of new curbside or on-street parking because they are proposed almost every throughout the South Waterfront as part of the street sections. There are also two separate parking garages anticipating public participation in their construction. We want to have connections provided by KAT with more expensive transit options in the future. As far as impact on financing, I think there is a demonstrated concept of the maximum parking found throughout the nation. I find it hard to believe it is not a workable system.

Ms. Kim Henry: Have there been any developers asked to review

this for implementation n as far as parking. Mr. Hill: We have at least 4 sites we have been working with

actual site designs. So far we have not seen a maximum parking be a problem with someone saying I cannot provide parking needed.

Mr. Dick Graf: Mr. Seymour or Mr. Gill did not bring up their

concerns. You said it would not be resolved in 30 days, but in 60 to 90 days. I agree that without those businesses it may not be a project as you envision. How can you not address their concerns?

Mr. Hill: This is a 20 year plan and nobody is going to force

anybody to do anything. I do not see it has adversarial when we


Page 9

are trying to balance the overall community viewpoint in terms of the adopted vision plan. Adoption of the South Waterfront code is going to greatly increase the market value of their property. There has to be an economic reason for them to development their property, else they will keep there businesses the same. It is going to have to have public input and improvements. We are not sitting here saying we have to address their concerns in order to have them move out. That is not the way we are trying to work this. Based on studies we have done on certain sites, there has been a considerable amount of development potential available.. We are trying to balance with some of the new protection, access to water, height expectations. There is no perfect answer with a standard measure We try to balance and seek consensus.

Mr. Ray Evans: In the handout it mentions a potential for creation

of SW-8 what is that. Mr. Hill: Was looking for relief valve and mentioned it to the

oversight committee yesterday. We now have zones SW-1 through SW-7 assigned to different character areas. Without having any other way to have additional height and density this says that is all you get. Rather than challenging somebody to come and try to find a creative way to do a really good project that might become an iconic architectural structure for the South Waterfront. It would at create an avenue that trigger discretionary review and would give a review process for somebody that has a project that they want approved. Do not make them go for a variance. Let them go through regular validation of their project.

Mr. Evans: Asked about 70 foot setbacks from the waterfront.

Does that eliminate any kind of improvements such a patio rather than a structure above ground?

Mr. Hill: Yes. We anticipate they are going to have to have access

rights to the water. Property rights are going to be more subject to some city property owner agreement rather than regulations.

Mr. Evans: Section 4 calls for a review of this plan within a year.

If there is a reasonable consensus that something needs to be changed, is there a process to amend this before the one year period?

Mr. Hill: Yes. We will come to you with changes and any property

owner can seek a zoning change. Mr. Evans: I think the meetings are an effort to find a middle

ground and to be open. We have been handed other changes and I usually do not like that. In this case it is an effort to continue to look for things that can be adjusted that will meet most of the


Page 10

people’s concern. Concept of form based zoning is good. There will constantly be changes as we think about it. I do not think we will be at 100% of people agreeing. I think we need to decide if this is something we need to get started, to implement and then adjust and make better as time goes forward.

Mr. Henry: Is there anything we will vote on today that would not

proceed to City Council? Is there a reasonable expectation that between now and second reading tentatively scheduled for January 30 there is any way to resolve issues with Mr. Seymour’s clients?

Mr. Hill. The Administrative Rules do not go to Council. We will

continue to try to work these things through. I would not be willing to say there is a strong likelihood that this ordinance is going to stay in the same form once it reaches the council level.

Mr. Seymour: I do not think there will be 100% agreement, but I

think we could. Whatever you pass today will not get resolved by next Tuesday when it is scheduled to go to City Council. There are changes being made today. This is the largest area ever being considered by form based codes in the Country. I think we need to get a little better than 80% there. Mr. Prinz, real estate director for Rinker Material, had a couple of issues. He looked at their property from the perspective of development. They have this on a fast track and my clients are not in on it yet.

Mr. Art Clancy: A lot of work has been done on this. The form

based code is a test philosophy we are trying out. It is a 20 year project that will benefit everybody in Knox County. The five major landowners have a problem with it. I think we would be remise to push through without at least trying to get some of their questions answered and give this more of a chance to be successful.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE

TO POSTPONE 30 DAYS UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MPC MEETING.

Mr. Hill: We are likely to schedule a workshop with Council. If

postponed in 30 days, would the Commission to be involved in discussions and in that process? Commission agreed.

MOTION CARRIED 10-2-1. POSTPONED 30 DAYS. b. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to Articles

2, 5, 6 and 7


Page 11

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 10-2-1. POSTPONED.

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

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to the City of

Knoxville One Year Plan MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE

TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 10-2-1. POSTPONED.

7. CITY OF KNOXVILLE (REVISED) South Waterfront Mixed Use Area, as identified by map and

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

Use District I, or SW Mixed Use District II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to the City of

Knoxville One Year Plan, reclassifying property as South Waterfront Mixed Use District I and South Waterfront Mixed Use District II.



b. Rezoning 10-Y-06-RZ To rezone property in the proposed SW Mixed Use Area I to an

SW zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve South Waterfront Districts

(SW-1 through SW-7) as shown on the South Waterfront Regulating Plan



8. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 1-A-07-MRP Consider approval of amendments to the Major Road Plan to

establish new functional street classifications and include new street design standards, required rights-of-way and a revised map


Page 12

showing a proposed future street pattern for the South Waterfront Mixed Use Area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to the Major

Road Plan. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE


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

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to the

Knoxville-Knox County Minimum Subdivision Regulations MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE


10. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 1-A-07-OB Consider approval of amendments to the MPC Administrative

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to the MPC

Administrative Rules and Procedures. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE


Ordinance Amendments: P 11. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 7-C-06-OA Amendments to the Knox County Zoning Ordinance, Article 5,

Section 5.51, EC Employment Center Zone, amending subsections regarding uses permitted, site development standards and administration.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Alley or Street Closures: * 12. BILL KENNY, JR. 1-A-07-AC Request closure of Unnamed alley between Branner St. and alley,

Council District 4.


Page 13

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve closure subject to any

required easements. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 13. DOWELL SPRINGS CO. 1-A-07-SC Request closure of Old Middlebrook Pike between Southwest side

Middlebrook Pike and southeast side Middlebrook Pike, Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve closure subject to any

required easements. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Street or Subdivision Name Changes: * 14. E-911 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT 1-A-07-SNC Change W Fourth Ave to 'Richards Street' between deadend west

of Richards St. and east segment of Richards St., Council District 6.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 15. E-911 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT 1-B-07-SNC Change King St. to 'Ogdon Street' between W. Depot Ave. and

deadend. Council District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve ‘Ogden Street”. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Plans, Studies, Reports: * 16. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 1-A-07-SAP Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue Corridor Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt and forward to City Council for

adoption. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Concepts/Uses on Review: P 17. KL REAL ESTATE CORP - WEST GALLAHER FERRY RD. 12-SD-06-C West side of West Gallaher Ferry Rd., north of Hickory Creek Rd., Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 14

P 18. WESTLAND FOREST - EAGLE BEND REALTY a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SF-06-C South side of Westland Dr., east and south of Montacres Ln.,

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

Residential) District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 19. VILLAGE AT HARDIN VALLEY - MICHAEL BRADY INC. FOR JIMMIE DOSS & JAMES PINKSTON a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SH-06-C North side of Hardin Valley, northeast of Bryant Ln., Commission

District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 12-I-06-UR Proposed use: Commercial development in PC (Planned Commercial) TO (Technology Overlay) District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 20. SUTTON GLEN 1-SA-07-C East side of Sutton Ln., north side of I-40/I-75., Council District 2. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 21. WOODSON TRAIL - R.W. GRAF, INC. a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SB-07-C Southeast side of Woodson Dr., northeast of Spring Creek Rd.,

Commission District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 8

conditions. COMMISSIONER DICK GRAF RECUSED FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON THESE ITEMS. Mr. Dave Harbin: 4334 Papermill. On Behalf of Mr. Graf. We are in

agreement and ask for approval. Mr. Greg Massey: 5004 Spring Creek Road This case has been appealed in Chancery Court in Knox County,

Case No. 158129-1, filed on May 20, 2003. It has been appealed. You decisions need to be considered by the Chancellor or maybe Supreme Court.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (BENEFIELD) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0-1. APPROVED.

b. Use On Review 1-E-07-UR


Page 15

Proposed use: Attached and detached residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential) District.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the plan for up to 18 attached

dwellings on individual lots and 23 detached dwellings on individual lots subject to 2 conditions.

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

ARPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION 12-0-1. APPROVED.

P 22. CHRISTIAN SPRINGS - SPRADLIN PLACE DEVELOPMENT,

LLC. a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SC-07-C Southeast side of Maloneyville Rd., southeast of Stair Dr.,

Commission District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Use On Review 1-G-07-UR Proposed use: Detached residential development in PR (Planned

Residential) District. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 23. MICAH DRIVE 1-SD-07-C Northeast side of Micah Dr., northwest of Salomone Ln., Commission

District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the concept plan subject to 6

conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 24. HARBOR COVE AT TIMBERLAKE, UNIT 5 (REVISED) 1-SE-07-C West end of Shoregate Ln., southwest of Reflection Bay Dr. west of

Pelleaux Rd., Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance 1 and the concept

plan subject to 9 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 25. DON DUNCAN SUBDIVISION - DUNCAN CONSTRUCTION a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SF-07-C North side of Choto Rd., southeast of S. Northshore Dr., west of

Nighbert Ln., Commission District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1 & 2 and the

concept plan subject to 10 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Use On Review 1-I-07-UR Proposed use: Detached Residential Subdivision in PR (Planned

Residential) & PR (Planned Residential) Pending


Page 16

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to

52 detache4d dwellings on individual lots subject to 3 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 26. CARPENTER RIDGE, UNIT 2 - EAGLE BEND REALTY a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SG-07-C West side of Carpenter Rd., north of W. Emory Rd. and Ridgewalk

Ln., Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1 & 2 and the

concept plan subject to 10 conditions. Ms. Vikki Curtis: 6405 West Emory Road My property is being adversely affected by development across from

me. PASSED OUT PICTURES WHICH BECOME A PART OF THESE MINUTES along with statement. Read from statement. There are unresolved issues from two developments near my property such as drainage, water and mud. Mr. Davis has made promises but not all issues have been fulfilled. Mr. Davis was very cooperative with most of the issues, but that has recently changed. He should be required fulfill his current obligations before he is allowed to start other development. My objection is erosion caused by tremendous amounts of swiftly moving water coming from Carpenter Ridge which will be compounded by another subdivision built higher on that same ridge, settling along the sewer trench line which was cut across my yard, finalization of deed work for my property describing new boundaries and utility easements, and large amounts of mud which are draining across my property and being dumped into Beaver Creek. Do not feel State and County codes are being enforced. Ask that you postpone until these issues are resolved.

Mr. Scott Davis: P.O. Box 315 All drainage issues will be addressed during development phase of

the project. Pictures were taken when we had 6 inches of rain in 24 hours. I no longer own any property in the adjacent subdivision. had an agreement to do everything that we could do for Ms. Curtis. I have tried to do everything I can to satisfy her. I sent her a copy of everything I agreed to and everything in addition to that. I always try to make the neighbors happy, but I was not able to do enough to make her happy. I tried to, but I failed. I paid her tap fee for 3 years. I planted Leland Cypress, I cleaned out her drainage ditch, I brought in extra dirt on part of her yard, I gave her landscape rocks. We built a road for her to allow coming into the back of her property. I deeded property to her. The issues of drainage will be addressed during design.

Ms. Pionke: Today is the first day that I have personally heard about

drainage problems. They are trying to get a meeting together this week. They have not come up with a date and time yet. I do know there were problems in regard to the 60 inch pipe under Oak Ridge Highway that was blocked prior to his development going in . County did not clean out because we do not maintain pipes in the State right of way. Mr. Davis did go in and clean it out and that should have been better. In regards to the heavy rain, that was


Page 17

close to a 100 year storm event, so I am not surprised about the picture.

Ms. Curtis: These pictures were taken this past Sunday. January 7,

2007. We had 1.75 inches of rainfall. That was not a significant rainfall. As these lots are behind me are being scrapped the water amounts are multiplying and causing quite an erosion pressure.

Mr. Ray Evans: Asked Mr. Davis if water in pictures was from

property to be rezoned or sold. Mr. Davis: That water comes from all the way up Carpenter Road.

There are high places going down the road. The property behind her I do not own any more. I did develop it.

Ms. Curtis: All the water from that subdivision flows into two

drainages on lot no. 1 of that subdivision, which is right behind my home.

Mr. Evans: If this is approve, there needs to be serious discussions

by Engineering and everyone on the property and the best solution. Ms. Curtis: The flow of water was always there, but it has greatly

increased since the development he did. The drainage system in place is not catching all the water, but overflowing onto Carpenter Road. I do not seem to be getting very far. TDEC agrees that is an enormous amount of water to be dumping onto one lot. They have agreed to meet with Engineering. I feel like further development needs to be put on hold and look further at retention.

Mr. Art Clancy: Why is there not a detention pond? Ms. Pionke: County hydrologist did not think a detention pond was

necessary for Unit I because one lot between that subdivision and Beaver Creek. And the once the drainage was unstopped under Oak Ridge Highway the drainage was working the way it was supposed to at that time. He opted to waive the requirement for detention.

Mr. Clancy: The water has always run over Carpenter Road since I

have known it and it always has. Ms. Curtis: Every since Mr. Wiznant took over there has not been silt

control fencing or water control. Mr. Hickman met with me and void it will be place by Monday or there will be a stop work order. It is my understanding that Mr. Davis is going to tie Carpenter Ridge Unit II with Unit I and the water is going to multiply again when he is finished.

Mr. Clancy: I think the water control that TDEC and the County are

going to require coming off the ridge will make it better. If it is going to be developed, Mr. Davis can do as good a job as anybody.

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

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: MOTION CARRIED 11-2. APPROVED.


Page 18

* b. Use On Review 1-J-07-UR Proposed use: Detached Residential Subdivision in PR (Planned

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

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

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-2. APPROVED.

A BREAK WAS TAKEN FROM 3:02 P.M. UNTIL 3:15 P.M. T 27. SOUTH GROVE 1-SH-07-C Southeast side of Mountain Grove Dr., southeast of Chapman Hwy.,

Commission District 9. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 28. RIVERWALK LANDING - RIVER WALK LANDING, LLC a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SI-07-C Northwest side of E. Governor John Sevier Hwy., northeast side of

Grand Valley Rd., Commission District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Postponed until the February 8, 2007

MPC meeting. MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. POSTPONED.

b. Use On Review 1-L-07-UR Proposed use: Detached Residential Subdivision in PR (Planned

Residential) pending District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Postponed until the February 8, 2007

MPC meeting. MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. POSTPONED.

Final Subdivisions: P 29. TAYLOR'S VIEW, PHASE II 2-SQ-06-F At terminus of Taylor's View Ln south east of Meredith Rd, Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 30. JAY G. SHERRED PROPERTY 7-SC-06-F

North side of Strawberry Plains Pike, east of S. Woodale Road, Commission District 8.


Page 19

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny variance and final plat Mr. Tom Brechko: The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot into 5

lots. There is already an existing drive that serves 3 houses on the property. Subdivision is result of family estate. As far as the easement design, they are requesting a variance to 25 foot gravel drive. They want to use an existing drive. Part of problem is driveway does not serve the back two lots of the subdivision. Applicant either has to construct a joint permanent easement or post a bond. They are asking for relief from that requirement

Mr. Bruce Sherrod: 7917 Strawberry Plains Pike, 37924 We are dividing this to settle the estate of our mother. There are no plans

to build on this property. The three existing houses are all that is going to be there. The two back properties are not going to be used. To run a 25 foot gravel driveway will cost thousands of dollars this family cannot afford. The lots in the back are not going to be developed.

Mr. Art Clancy: Why would you have to subdivide it for the estate? Mr. Sherrod: It was in the will to subdivide between the family. Mr. Randy Massey: Can you guarantee it will never be sold? Mr. Benefield: We are trying to figure out what this does for you. Mr. Sherrod: No I cannot guarantee it will never be sold. It puts the

property of the ones that live on it in their name. The other property is going to sit there as it has for years.

Mr. Massey: If it is sold, then it will not meet the requirements of an

easement for anybody to divide it up. The reason we have rules about accessing the property is you do not know what is going to happen 5 years from now.

MOTION (BENEFIELD) AND SECOND (EVANS) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. VARIANCE DENIED.

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

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. FINAL PLAT DENIED.

P 31. BROWN & WHITTLE SPRINGS ADDITION 11-SV-06-F Northwest side of Mineral Springs Avenue, northwest of Whittle

Springs Road, Council District 4. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 20

* 32. SERENITY HILLS 11-SEE-06-F North side of Berry Road, northeast of Goff Road, Commission

District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 33. MARTINEZ ESTATES 11-SFF-06-F

North side of Stock Creek, west of Neubert Springs, Commission District 9.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 34. OCTOBER WOODS, UNIT 3 12-SI-06-F Southeast side of Rising Road, northeast of Rosewood Road, Commission District 8. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 35. NICHOLSON LANDING 12-SM-06-F North side of E. Emory Road, east of Palmyra Drive, Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 36. WESTLAND FOREST, UNIT 2 AND RESUB. OF LOT 11 12-SN-06-F Westland Drive, between Morrell Road and Ebenezer Road, Commission District 4. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 37. ALDI, INC. 12-SZ-06-F Schaad Road at Pleasant Ridge Road, Council District 3. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 38. JAMES EDWARD QUICK PROPERTY 1-SA-07-F West side of McCubbins Road, south of Strawberry Plains Pike,

Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 39. SHIRLEY A. DUNLAP S/D, RESUB. OF LOT 1 1-SB-07-F Southwest side of Wrights Ferry Road, southeast of s. Northshore

Drive, Commission District 4.


Page 21

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 40. BILL & JAMES COLE PROPERTY 1-SC-07-F Northeast side of Clinton Hwy., north end of McClain Dr, Council

District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 41. WASSMANS ADDITION TO INSKIP, RESUB. OF LOTS 21-22 1-SD-07-F Southwest side of Inskip Road, north of Fair Drive., Council District

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 42. M A PARKER'S LAKESIDE ADDITION, RESUB. OF LOTS 1-7

AND PART OF 8 1-SE-07-F Southeast corner of E. Magnolia Avenue and Lakeside Street,

Council District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 43. WILDWOOD GARDENS RESUB. OF LOT 23 1-SF-07-F Northwest of intersection of Marston Lane and Remagen Lane,

Commission District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 44. JOSEPH TABERY PROPERTY 1-SG-07-F West side of Alcoa Hwy., northwest of John Sevier Hwy., Council

District 1. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 45. SHAHIN ASSADNIA AND BETH BONIFACE PROPERTY 1-SH-07-F Northwest side of Crenshaw Road, northwest of W. Martin Mill Pike,

Commission District 9. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 46. SHILOH GARDENS 1-SI-07-F


Page 22

Southwest side of Pedigo Road northwest of Emory Road, Commission District 7.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 47. WHITE'S ADDITION, RESUB. OF LOTS 9-12 1-SJ-07-F Northwest side of Bridge Ave., south side of Highland Dr., Council

District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 48. E. L. CARDWELL PROPERTY RESUBDIVISION 1-SK-07-F Southwest side of Western Avenue, southeast of Short Road,

Council District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 49. C. M. WOOTEN & P. H. MENDEL ADDITION RESUB. OF LOTS

15, 16R, & 22, BLOCK A 1-SL-07-F Southeast side of Cedar Larne, southwest of Fennel Road, Council

District 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 50. HANNAHS GROVE, UNIT 2, RESUB OF LOTS 12-14 1-SM-07-F Southeast side of Holly Berry Drive west side of Mistywood Road,

Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 51. THE FARM AT TRALEE 1-SN-07-F East side of N. East End Road southeast of Stringtown Road,

Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 52. PART OF WILLIAM & SHIRLEY SIMS PROPERTY 1-SO-07-F North side of Buttermilk Road, 2000' west of Marietta Church Road,

Commission District 6.


Page 23

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny variance and final plat Mr. Tom Brechko: Under the subdivision regulations anytime you

subdivide where the right of way does not meet the required standards, there is requirement for dedication of half of what is missing. The applicant is dedicating 25 feet and not the 30 feet to centerline. It is staff’s position that there is not a hardship and adequate property to do this.

Mr. Benny Mormon; Benchmark Asociates 10308 Hardin Valley

Drive. The existing documentation for there property is less than within 20

feet of the centerline. They are willing to make dedication up to the 25. Adjoining properties have sold. My client is not looking to sell for gain. They are looking to cut off a lot for them and make two lots for their children. It is not an avenue to make money or adversely impact the surroundings. The property will be served by a drain field and that could be an issue. At the time the road would be improved, it would be reasonable that sewer is available. If you had a developer to improve the entire tract and burden the county, they stand to generate revenue. That is not the case here. It does not seem fair when someone is doing something just for there family to dedicate a right-of-way that may not be used. This is not within the radar of being developed even within the next ten years. We are giving property to the County for no other reason than it meets the Major Road Plan. The Major Road Plan I use all the time. I have another property that was approved with a similar variance. The difference being that the road was recently improved in the last two years. The County bought 60 feet for a road. (Chair brought him back to this case.) Why ask them to dedicate something when it may not be used in the next ten years. I advised the client that if he were to do a development, yes then dedicate it.

Mr. Trey Benefield: How is the owner’s use going to be impacted by

not having that 5 feet of land? Mr. Mormon: The only thing is if the drain field failed and they

needed it. The adjoining property has a value of $3,000. They are already giving more than that in the 25 feet to centerline. I do not see how we can justify that much more when the property is not being developed for major development.

Mr. Kim Henry: The final plat is only for a small portion of the

property. You could set up a situation where the rest of it would have to dedicate the additional 5 feet and this only 25 feet. Asked the County on future plans.

Ms. Cindy Pionke: County Engineering. At this time we have no

plans to widen Buttermilk road. The Capital plan is only good for the year we are in because things changes.


Page 24

Mr. Mormon: Hardin Valley Road was widened recently by the

County to 3 lanes. It is hard to image they would need more than that.

Mr. Tom Brechko: We are dealing with the property to east along

the frontage. If a large development came behind there, there would not be any frontage that they would be dedicating right-of-way because they have subdivided the front already. A future development would not have control over the property where the right-of-way issue is.

Mr. Mormon: We would be willing to dedicate the remainder of the

property if it is ever developed. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (EVANS) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. DENIED VARIANCE AND FINAL PLAT DENIED.

* 53. RESUBDIVISION OF REGAN WOODS, LOTS 11-13 & 23 1-SP-07-F South side of Reagan Woods Lane, southwest of Andes Road,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 54. J. H. MAYFIELD'S ADDITION, RESUB. OF LOTS 19-20 & PART

OF LOT 18 1-SQ-07-F East side of Mayfield, north of Immanuel St., Council District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 55. CENTURY PARK, PHASE II, RESUB. OF LOT 3R 1-SR-07-F Dutchtown Road at Pellissippi Parkway, Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 56. ARLINGTON RIDGE, UNIT 2 1-SS-07-F At terminus of Deer Grove Way at northwest side of Pleasant Gap

Drive, Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 25

W 57. REPLAT OF STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1-ST-07-F North side of Kingston Pike, east side of N. Winston Rd, Council

District 2. THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 58. CUP O' KAFEE 1-SU-07-F Northeast side of Chapman Hwy., southeast of Blount Avenue,

Council District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Rezonings and Plan Amendment/Rezonings: P 59. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 3-R-02-RZ East side of Sherlake Ln., west side of Hayfield Rd., south of

Parkside Dr., Council District 2. Rezoning from No Zone to C-6 (General Commercial Park).

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 60. OLIVER A. SMITH (3/8/07) Northeast side Lake Heritage Way, southwest side I-140,

southeast of Westland Dr., Commission District 5. a. Southwest County Sector Plan Amendment 6-H-06-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Rezoning 6-S-06-RZ (3/8/07) From PR (Planned Residential) and CA (General Business) to OB

(Office, Medical, and Related Services). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 61. SPRADLIN PLACE DEVELOPMENT, LLC Southeast side Maloneyville Rd., east side Stair Dr., Commission District 8. a. Northeast County Sector Plan Amendment 12-C-06-SP From A/RR (Agricultural/Rural Residential) to LDR (Low Density

Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny LDR (Low Density Residential) Mr. John King: P.O. Box 2425 On behalf of the applicant. I have a letter dated yesterday to MPC

regarding this rezoning. Read letter of support which BECOMES A PART OF THESE MINUTES. He is surrounded on three sides and has no problem with 2 to 2.5 units per acre. This is part of a larger portion started out in development. South of the proposed area for rezoning was a portion of the property being developed in units and


Page 26

phases and was rezoned at 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. In working with the County and TDEC the developer ended up in foreclosure, my client ended up with the property and cured several problems. He now proposes to rezone to 2.5 units per acres to recover the cost of curing those problems. South of this the adjoining property is developed out at 1.3 dwelling units per acre. This density increase gives us an additional 20 lots to help with expenses. The reason you do not have opposition is people were glad to have someone fix the problems and deal with the property. We ask for 2.5 units per acre.

Mr. Ken Pruitt: Opposition is because of the growth Policy Plan

policies. The 3 units per acre was in place prior to adoption of plan. This has been designated rural residential to confine sprawl. An increase of 2 to 2.5 is not a lot of difference in the number of units. If you look at the surrounding development and available land, there is a lot of opportunity for a lot of property owners to request the same.

Mr. Rebecca Longmire: Is there a wetland there? Mr. David Harbin: 4334 Papermill Drive Yes, that is a wetland area with lots of creeks. That area will remain

protected as a common area. We will deal with that. We have stayed away from the back portion with the ridgeline as well.

Mr. John King: 2.5 units per acre is not out of line with RA at 10,000

square foot. Mr. Dick Graf: If you look at what is around it there is 3.3 and 2.5 is

not getting outside of any parameters that show this as dense. MOTION (GRAF) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). MOTION CARRIED 12-1. APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 12-Q-06-RZ From PR (Planned Residential) @ 2 du/ac. to PR (Planned

Residential) @ 2.5 du/ac. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny PR (Planned Residential) at 2.5

du/ac. MOTION (GRAF) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE PR (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) AT A DENSITY OF 2.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. MOTION CARRIED 12-1. PR UP TO 2.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE APPROVED.

* 62. OSCAR STILES 1-A-07-RZ Northwest side Andrew Johnson Hwy., north of Pleasant Hill Rd.,

Commission District 8. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CA (General Business).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CA (General Business). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 27

* 63. HAROLD RIGSBY Northwest side Grand Ave., northeast of Twenty Third St, northwest

of Twenty Second St., Council District 1. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-A-07-PA From O (Office) to HDR (High Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve HDR (High Density

Residential). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 1-B-07-RZ From O-2 (Civic and Institutional) to RP-3 (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve RP-3 (Planned Residential). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 64. J.M. GORDON Northeast side Oak Ridge Hwy., northwest of Bobcat Ln.,

Commission District 6. a. Northwest City Sector Plan Amendment 1-A-07-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) and SLPA (Slope Protection) to

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

(Slope Protection). Mr. Pruitt: I spoke to the applicant and he agreed with Planned

Commercial which requires him to come back to the Commission when it is developed.

Mr. Danny Britton: 5033 Lawoods Drive. We own property at 6543

Oak Ridge Highway and have power of attorney for property owner Billy Marshall Britton. Yes, we are concerned about what he proposes to put on this property.

Mr. Pruitt: If this is zoned to Planned Commercial it freezes it from

development until the owners come back to this body at a public hearing and shows exactly what they propose to do in what the uses are and how the buildings will be arranged. Under the current AG zone, it could be subdivided and have agricultural development on it.

Mr. Britton: I have spoke to Mr. Gordon and he spoke to me. We are

talking about being good neighbors. We know that there is some risk for us allowing this to go commercial. Concerns are what the specific plans are.

Mr. Evans asked if he were against the self-storage units. Mr. Britton: Personally I am not against the storage buildings. I have

an ideal of what he is intending to do from the website.


Page 28

Mr. Mathew Baker: 6531 Oak Ridge Highway. I am opposed because my house sits right in the middle of it. I am adding on to my house. With the storage units, there would not be any possible way to sell my house in the future. Feel that the traffic going in and out and eyesore of the storage unit would be a problem.

Mr. Art Clancy: I am against postponing it. As far as the traffic, if

you consider that it is going to be developed somehow that is about as low an impact as you can get there. He has to come back to us with something that we like.

MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (BENEFIELD) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE C (COMMERCIAL). MOTION CARRIED 13-0. C APPROVED .

b. Rezoning 1-C-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) to CA (General Business). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PC (Planned Commercial). MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (DONALDSON) WERE

MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) APPROVED.

65. MICHAEL SMITH Northwest side Dutch Valley Dr., southwest of Plummer Rd., Council

District 5. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-B-07-PA From LDR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny GC (General Commercial) Mr. Paul Garron: 4525 Bucknell Drive, 37938 on behalf of Mr. Smith He is running a small window and siding business out of his home.

He would like to move more of his office and equipment over to this site. If the commercial does not fly, we would be willing to settle for office zoning.

Mr. Art Clancy: You are not going to get General Commercial on that side of Dutch Valley in that area.

Ms. Charlotte Davis: Fountain City Town Hall Read letter from Michael Kane. Proposed zone is incompatible with

current uses. This would not provide a buffer. The proposed rezoning is incompatible and not consistent with the North City Sector Plan and One Year Plan. A few months ago MPC staff met with residents of Fountain City to discuss long range plans for the north sector. It was the unanimous opinion of those residents that Dutch Valley should remain a buffer between commercial to the south and residential to the north. Ask denial.

Mr. Ray Evans: This property is right in the middle of residential on

three sides. I do not think this is appropriate for commercial or office. It is my understanding that north of Dutch Valley was to remain residential and the one year plan does not call for commercial here.


Page 29

Ms. Kim Henry: Asked how Town Hall feels about office. Ms. Davis: We would prefer that it stay residential so that Dutch

Valley remain the buffer between residential and development. If it is rezoned office would be more appropriate.

Mr. Mike Brusseau: I discussed with Mr. Garron today and he would

be okay with office. There have been similar sites zoned office in the area and that serve also as a good transition to the residential in the rear. We are okay with office.

MOTION (SLACK) AND SECOND (GRAF) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE O (OFFICE). MOTION CARRIED 10-3. O (OFFICE) APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 1-D-07-RZ From R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-3 (General Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny C-3 (General Commercial) MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (SLACK) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE O-1 (OFFICE, MEDICAL AND RELATED SERVICES). MOTION CARRIED 10-3. O-1 (OFFICE, MEDICAL AND RELATED SERVICES) APPROVED.

66. WOODALL PROPERTIES, LLC East side Award Winning Way, southeast of Hardin Valley Rd.,

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

(Office) and SLPA (Slope Protection). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O (Office) and SLPA (Slope

Protection). KIM HENRY RECUSES FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON THESE ITEMS. Mr. Ken Pruitt: After meeting with the Technology Corridor he

amended his request by email requesting TP and SLPA as the land use designation and rezoning of BP and TO in lieu of OB. That was at the recommendation of the Technology Development Authority. The neighbors do not want residential uses there. The applicant and neighbors agree with that. This would extend the TP and BP to both parcels.

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

APPROVE TP (TECHNOLOGY PARK) AND SLPA (SLOPE PROTECTION). MOTION CARRIED 12-0-1. TP (TECHNOLOGY PARK) AND SLPA (SLOPE PROTECTION) APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 1-E-07-RZ From BP (Business and Technology)/TO (Technology Overlay) and A

(Agricultural)/TO to OB (Office, Medical, and Related Services)/TO (Technology Overlay).


Page 30

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve OB (Office, Medical and Related Services)/TO (Technology Overlay).

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

APPROVE BP (BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY)/TO (TECHNOLOGY OVERLAY). MOTION CARRIED 12-0-1. APPROVED. BP (BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY)/TO (TECHNOLOGY OVERLAY).

67. LISA M. BYRD Northwest side Tazewell Pike, northeast of Smithwood Rd., Council

District 4. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-C-07-PA From MDR (Medium Density Residential) to O (Office). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O (Office). Ms. Charlotte Davis: 104 Crawford Road on behalf of Fountain City

Town Hall Read letter from Michael Kane. Request denial. A use on review was

approved in 2003 to allow construction of the medical building. It is poor land use planning to allow changes to land use and rezonings every 2 years. That is unfair to active community interests. The current medical offices are economically viable and no hardship to warrant change to the current zone.

Ms. Lisa Byrd: 5235 Bent River Boulevard At the time it was zoned R-2, we wanted a medical office. I want to

change it to O-1. My husband rents on one side and another physician on the other side. If something happens to my husband I am left with not being able to rent that and will have to file for bankruptcy. I am trying to protect my interest to be able to rent to someone else. I was asking to be able to use it as a real estate office or insurance agent. We did this in the beginning to change to R-2 and not O-1 because the architect told us to do it that way.

Ms. Mary Slack: There is a beautiful office building there. There is

land behind it where an office building could be added at a later date. That is not in her plans presently. Office has come down Tazewell Pike in a beautiful way.

Mr. Kim Henry: Asked about the property in question. Ms. Byrd: I am not asking for the back property to be changed and

do not plan on it. There is a house on the back of it. MOTION (SLACK) AND SECOND (CLANCY) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 1-F-07-RZ From R-2 (General Residential) to O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related

Services). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O-1 (Office, Medical and

Related Services).


Page 31

MOTION (SLACK) AND SECOND (DONALDSON) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 13-0. APPROVED.

COMMISSIONER STAN JOHNSON LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.

68. PHIL SAVAGE Northeast side Western Ave., southeast of McKamey Rd., Council

District 3. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-D-07-PA From MU (Mixed Uses) (Office, Medium Density Residential) to GC

(General Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve GC (General Commercial) for

the southern half of the site only. Mr. Phil Savage: 156 Country Walk Drive, Powell. 37849 Mr. Ken Pruitt: This is a deep tract that extends back to single family

detached housing. In looking at the land use and zoning pattern, zoning the property only half the way back would be the best pattern. It does not include Mr. Savage’s part of the property in the commercial designation. The original request was for C-4 which we do not support because it allows outside display of merchandise and automobile sales and things which would lead to noise and lighting on the property beyond what you would see with a retail indoor establishment. We do support C-3 half way.

Mr. Savage: For 17 years there have been commercial buildings on

this property. Most all of the gymnastic facilities are on commercial property. We have a 20 year lease with Varsity Premier Athletics. We have cheerleading on the front and gymnastics in the back. We have the northern part and not the front part. We joined with the owner of the front parcel, Brian Allen, for the rezoning. We need more borrowing power to make capital improvements on our building. We have invested over $200,000 just to make it a master facility.

Ms. Rebecca Longmire: You have the back part. Technically you do

not need rezoning to do your business. Mr. Savage: We do not own the business. We are the real estate

owners. Ms. Longmire: So the only reason you are asking for rezoning on

both parts is to increase your borrowing power so that you can upgrade the facilities.

Mr. Savage: Banks look more favorably toward commercial

properties and want to change it to General Commercial. Mr. Graf: Is it a permitted use in the O-1 zone? Mr. Pruitt: Yes, it was rezoned for those two purposes.


Page 32

Mr. Ray Evans: The bank is going to loan you money based on the property and improvements. If you have a 20 year lease, then you cannot change the use. I do not see a reason to rezone it.

Mr. Clancy: He is trying to say if we zone it commercial, the bank

will appraise it as a piece of commercial property rather than a piece of office property and probably get a better appraisal just because of that. It pushes back into the neighborhood, but I do not see a problem.

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

APPROVE COMMERCIAL FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. UPON ROLL CALL THE COMMISSION VOTED AS FOLLOWS: ANDERS NO BENEFIELD NO DONALDSON NO CLANCY YES EVANS NO GRAF YES HENRY YES LOBETTI NO LONGMIRE YES SHARP NO SLACK YES MASSEY YES MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF MAJORITY MOTION (ANDERS) AND SECOND (BENEFIELD) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF COMMERCIAL TO THE FRONT ONLY. Mr. Dick Graf: It seems that we should deny the whole thing.

Because the guy down front does not want it. Or he wants it, but does not need it.

Mr. Brian Allen: 1304 North Shorewood Lane, Caryville, TN I am interested in seeing General Commercial on the front lot. UPON ROLL CALL THE COMMISSION VOTED AS FOLLOWS: ANDERS YES BENEFIELD YES DONALDSON NO CLANCY NO EVANS NO GRAF NO HENRY YES LOBETTI NO LONGMIRE YES SHARP NO SLACK NO MASSEY NO


Page 33

MOTION FAILED 4-8. MOTION (EVANS) AND SECOND (GRAF) WERE MADE TO DENY COMMERCIAL. ANDERS YES BENEFIELD YES DONALDSON NO CLANCY NO EVANS YES GRAF YES HENRY ` NO LOBETTI YES LONGMIRE NO SHARP YES SLACK NO MASSEY NO MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF MAJORITY Mr. Allen: It is two distinct different properties and businesses. It is

conceivable it could be two zones. All the properties to the west of the front portion are zoned commercial already. It is in keeping with the plans to zone at least the front half commercial. It is in keeping with what is going on.

Ms. Henry: Can we add Commercial on the mixed use designation

for the one year plan amendment for both parcels. MOTION (HENRY) AND (CLANCY) SECOND TO ADD COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE DESIGNATION. Mr. Pruitt: By going to Commercial with Mixed Use the applicant

would have the ability to go to some other office category as well as a general range of commercial C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 & C-6 or shopping center. Would set a trend for the other two parcels of ground in that mixed use area.

BENEFIELD CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. ANDERS YES BENEFIELD YES DONALDSON NO CLANCY YES EVANS NO GRAF NO HENRY YES LOBETTI NO LONGMIRE NO SHARP NO SLACK YES MASSEY YES MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF MAJORITY.


Page 34

MOTION (HENRY) AND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE TO APPROVE GC ON SOUTHERN PARCEL PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. GC ON FRONT PORTION APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 1-G-07-RZ From O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related Services) to C-4 (Highway

and Arterial Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-3 (General Commercial) on

the southern half of the site only. MOTION (HENRY) AND SECOND (GRAF) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. C-3 ON SOUTHERN PARCEL APPROVED.

69. JAMES R. CHRISTOPHER 1-H-07-RZ South side Seaver Dr., southeast of Francis Rd., Council District 3.

Rezoning from A-1 (General Agricultural) to RP-1 (Planned Residential).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve R-1 (Low Density Residential) Mr. James Christopher: Realty ExecutiveS, 109 Northshore Drive,

37919 Ms. Sherry Walsh: 7042 Seaver Drive next door I am not in opposition, but concerned. Seaver Drive it is a very

narrow road, if approved for more housing then more traffic. I also have concerns about drainage. I have 200 foot setback from Seaver and the water is considerable and horrible.

Ms. June Myer: 1601 Shilo Drive 37909 We are not in support of rezoning to develop condos. This is a very

residential area. We have 7 people here, all which surround the property. Seaver is a one lane road. If put 15 condos that road will not hold it. We are on septic. That property is used as our drain field. We are concerned about property value loss. It is one of the few areas that are wooded in the middle of Knoxville. This is all woods.

Ms. Judy Stretch: 7063 Seaver Drive I have a lot of flooding on my property. My crawl space gets filled

up with HARD rain. The traffic is real bad. Mr. Robert Rangle 1609 Shilo Drive Concerned about the traffic. We now have to enter yards of

neighbors to pass. Concerned about additional runoff and saturation of our soil as far as septic.

Mr. Christopher: On behalf of developer. He plans on putting a

privacy fence and a retention pond for the runoff. It will have curbs, sidewalks and street lights. He is also agreed to widen the road as recommended by staff where it will meet standards for the traffic to make it safe. There is a 60 foot right-of-way and could be widened to make two cars able to pass the way it should be. If we are not


Page 35

granted the 5.99 as requested, we would reduce the number to 5 dwellings per acre to 15 units which would lessen traffic to 180 cars per day traveling in and out. We want to work with the community. If we do not get the RP-1 then we will accept R-1. This gentleman is entitled to develop his property to highest and best use you will allow. RP-1 will allow condo or zero lot line homes, which we are considering.

Mr. Michael Brusseau: One of our main concerns was the road. The

R-1 we recommended as a compromise. There are other R-1 zonings on this road. That would limit him to doing detached dwellings on single lots of no less than 7500 sq. ft. It is hard to tell how many units they could get out of it. Depending on the engineering, even that may require widening of the road as the condos would.

Mr. Robert Anders: Asked if they intended to widen the road the

entire length. Mr. Christopher: The right-of-way would allow us to use the present

road bed and extend the road bed up through there to make it wide enough for two cars. It is presently 20 feet wide. We would need to widen the road bed 5-6 feet as long as we do not have to get property easements. We want them to be a welcome part of the community and a privacy fence will be provided. Drainage will be provided. We want to be a viable part of the neighborhood.

Mr. Dave McGinley: City Engineering Depending on the number of units, 18 feet would be the minimum

widening width. Mr. Brusseau: The road is only 14 to 15 feet wide. There is 35 feet

of right-of-way. Mr. Christopher: City Engineering reports there is 60 feet of right-of-

way. There is 30 feet on each side from the center of the road. We wanted to know if we would run into a problem of asking for a variance. We are in agreement of widening the road.

Mr. Brusseau: Engineering reports you can do an 18 foot pavement

and would most likely be required depending on the number of lots. Mr. Art Clancy: I think the zoning is the first step. Even though it is

neighborhood you have R-1 around you. You are on septic and sewer is available.

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

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF R-1 ZONING. Mr. Ray Evans: If we approve this based on your promise to

improve and widen Seaver Road, we need to remember that when you come back.

Mr. Christopher: It is possible to get 16 lots on there. This property

is 130’ by 700’ something. The City did show a 60 foot right-of-way.


Page 36

The engineer will draw up the widening as well as the subdivision concept. Everything will be done as you require.

Mr. Dick Graf: This appears to be a difficult piece to develop and

make it look like anything. It is long and narrow. Maybe it would look better if they had the RP-1 and make it a little denser here or there. That would give them flexibility.

One of first lady’s speaking: First concern is I am not familiar with

the developer and that is a lot of responsibility to put on a developer on such a small street. 30 feet on both sides would put it in the front door of the people across the street. I think they will put as many lots on it they want. They do not live there and are not looking out for our concerns. Could be postpone it and clarify the road and iron out the details beforehand.

Ms. Kim Henry: Designation in the major road plan is supposed to

be have 60 feet of right-of-way? Under R-1 we would see a concept subdivision plan and not a development plan for the roadway.

Mr. Brusseau: Yes we were just discussing that. We think that is

only thing the 60 feet could be based on because it is 35 feet or possibly less if measure it on GIS from north side property line to south side property line. It was probably a misunderstanding where the 60 feet came from. Regardless we should be able to do an 18 feet pavement there.

Mr. Christopher: Until you give us the zoning, we cannot get you a

plan. If you give us RP-1, we can give you a full concept of what we plan on doing. The developer will provide it and pay for it.

(Tape was changed at this point and begins tape 3 of 4.) Mr. Dick Graf: If we put it in RP-1 we could put it as a requirement

on the use on review that they wide the road from A to B. Mr. Brusseau: We considered RP-1 because of the greater flexibility.

Reason opted for R-1 is a compatibility issue. RP-1 allows attached units and R-1 does not. Attached units would not be compatible with the area. If they put in 6 lots or greater they would have to have public road standards. In R-1 could get 12 units.

Mr. Christopher: If we were granted RP-1, is there a stipulation that

we do single lot line homes and not attached? After talking to an attorney we would prefer to do the zero lot line homes than condos because of the legal issues involved. If it is 5 units or less we would not want to widen the road.

Mr. Christopher: If the Commission approve R-1 and rule out the

RP-1, if the Engineer deems that more than 5 units is possible, that is what we will bring back. If not we will stick to the 5 units. At that point we would like to be able to not have to widen the road with 5 units because that is quite an expense. We will not be impacting the road that much with 5 homes. We can do it through a concept plan as a condition. Yes. When ore than one unit per acre then recommend it be widened.


Page 37

Ms. Opponent: It seems like he is taking and running with all this

and taking advantage. He says we will widen the road if you give us the zoning we want and if you do not, we will fill it up with as many homes as we can. We want a postponement.

Mr. Clancy: A postponement would not do anything. They need to

know what the zoning is to be able to come back with a plan and know what they are doing with more specifics. Let’s have something to talk about. Move on with the process and give you something to talk about. We have got to get us to that point. This will be a good thing and you will get the road widened.

Mr. Graf: Can we condition road widening in R-1? Mr. Dan Kelly: We can do it through the development plan or

concept plan. Whether that is appropriate for rezoning you need to ask Steve Wise, the attorney. When we have a subdivision that is more than one unit per acre and the road is less than 18 feet wide, we recommend that the road be widened in conjunction with City Engineering Staff.

COMMISSIONER BENEFIELD CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION CARRIED 10-2. R-1 APPROVED. * 70. CHARLES PILGRIM 1-I-07-RZ Northeast side Barrington Blvd., northeast of Penwood Dr., west of

Ebenezer Rd., Commission District 4. Rezoning from RA (Low Density Residential) to PR (Planned Residential).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) up to

5 du/ac.. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

COMMISSIONER RAY EVANS LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.

COMMISSIONER MARY SLACK LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. 71. FOREST OAKS PROPERTIES LLC AND BLAIR SCOTT

PROPERTIES LLC Northeast side Chapman Hwy., northeast of Stone Rd., Council

District 1. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-E-07-PA From LDR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial). Mr. John Blair: 110 Westfield Road, 37919 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O (Office) Mr. Joe Hultquist: 2240 Fisher Place, City Council Member This is an area that has always been zoned residential. It is difficult

to navigate because of the constrained part of Chapman Highway and safety issues. Chapman Highway Corridor Study recommends new more intensive development along the currently commercial


Page 38

zoned part of Chapman Highway back to Henley Street. Ut recommends that this remain residential to minimize traffic impacts. Ask postponement or denial.

Mr. Blair: Chapman Highway has been under study to put a turn

lane in there. There is a red light. It is dangerous for people coming out of apartment complex to take a left hand turn. We feel by developing this property, which is a quarry, we can force the city to do a 4-way light and get a turn lane put in. That would benefit everybody and solve some of the problems at this place. We would like the C-3 for the lower part and the rest in the upper office space and that would give you the buffer and help me market this property. Right now it has an ugly one room house on it with no use whatsoever.

Mr. Mike Brusseau: Staff feels commercial is not appropriate

because of the intensity of commercial uses that would be allowed as well as the commercial pattern. Do not have commercial on the north side. It is never good to put commercial next to residential. It is unlikely someone wants to put a single family home on this lot. We felt like office would give the applicant reasonable use and keep it consistent with the zoning pattern you have of medium density. O-1 is considered similar as far as intensity. O-1 in most cases can be less intense than R-2 especially because most offices close in the evening. It is a ridge that a big chunk was rock quarried out. Traffic is a problem for the area. The way the traffic signal is now is there are no lights facing the apartment development. It would be nice to get a shared driveway and get that light facing north also. It is possible if this were developed it could lead to that.

Mr. Art CLANCY: I think that Office is a good compromise. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-3. OFFICE APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 1-J-07-RZ From R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-3 (General Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O-1 (Office, Medical and

Related Services) MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-3. O-1 APPROVED.

72. TOM LEACH 1-K-07-RZ Northeast side Bishop Rd., southeast of North Meadow Blvd.,

northwest of Jennifer Dr., Commission District 7. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential).


5 du/ac. Mr. Joe Farowich: Cope Associates, 1136 Northshore Lane, Caryville


Page 39

Ms. Cynthia Elder 7638 Bishop Road, 37938 Representing a few concerned neighbors. Concerned about traffic

and the safety of kids who walk down Bishop Road. It was designed for a country road and is being used more and more. There are sink holes on the property and we understand the developer has plans for building on them. We are concerned about water runoff with more asphalt. We ask for a postponement so that we can get a better idea of what the contractor is going to do.

Mr. Massey: A postponement is not going to accomplish anything

because he is not going to take a risk to do a concept plan until he knows he can get the zoning.

Mr. Farowich: We asked for a zoning consistent with the

surrounding uses. We have done a little bit of work on the site. The sinkholes are not sinkholes, they are depressions. We will be proving water detention. We are on the agenda for a concept plan and use on review next month.


APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. PR APPROVED.


APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. PR (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) UP TO 5 UNITS PER ACRE APPROVED.

Chair Massey asked Mr. Farowich to give Ms. Elder his phone

number. P 73. CAMDUN REALTY, I 1-L-07-RZ Southeast side Topside Rd., northeast of Alcoa Hwy., Commission

District 9. Rezoning from E (Estates) to PR (Planned Residential). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 74. DMP PROPERTIES, LLC West side Rocky Hill Rd., north of S. Northshore Dr., Council District

2. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-F-07-PA From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Rezoning 1-M-07-RZ From R-1 (Low Density Residential) to O-1 (Office, Medical, and

Related Services). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 75. M & M PARTNERS East side George Light Rd., northwest side Rather Rd., east of

Pellissippi Parkway, Commission District 6. a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 1-C-07-SP


Page 40

From TP (Technology Park) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area) to LDR (Low Density Residential) and SLPA (Slope Protection Area).

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Rezoning 1-N-07-RZ From A (Agricultural) / TO (Technology Overlay) to PR (Planned

Residential) / TO (Technology Overlay). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 76. CAMPBELL PROPERTIES, LLC 1-O-07-RZ South and east sides of Sam Lee Rd., southwest of Solway Rd. and

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Mr. Buz Johnson: That was discussed at TTCDA board meeting

Monday and he postponed. We meet with him next week to go over options. Recommend postpone.


POSTPONE UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. POSTPONED.

* 77. DANIEL COX 1-P-07-RZ Southeast side E. Emory Rd., northeast of Palmyra Dr., Commission

District 7. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential).


5 du/ac.. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

CHAIR RANDY MASSEY LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME AND COMMISSION TREY BENEFIELD PRECIDED AS CHAIR.

78. SCOTT DAVIS Southeast side W. Emory Rd., southwest side Harrell Rd., west side

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

to C (Commercial) and STPA (Stream Protection). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny C (Commercial) Ms. Vikki Curtis: 6405 West Emory Road, 37931 We discussed earlier the development behind my home earlier. This

is in front of my home. He has applied to convert 1.81 acres of the Painter Farm Subdivision as commercial property for general business use. He is requesting access to this from West Emory Road.


Page 41

Mr. Pruitt: The property fronts on West Emory Road. We do not

know yet where his access will be. That will be done at the building permit stage. He would seek approval for whatever drive cuts he proposes from the County Engineering Department and also the State Highway Department on Emory Road. With the completion of several developments, named off several developments, those will all come into intersection of Carpenter, Harrell and West Emory Roads. That would increase the daily volume of traffic along West Emory Road to approximately 3600 additional vehicles per day. That is a tremendous change to the traffic. His previous plan to access Emory Road was denied by the State due to proximity to the Harrell Road and Carpenter Road intersection and the existing traffic along Emory Road along with the number of accidents and deaths that have occurred at that intersection. Commercial only stands to make the safety issue worse. I heard earlier it was never good to put general commercial next to residential. This is within the boundary of Mr. Davis’s subdivision called Painter Farms. Directly across the street are homes. You received a letter from Mike Walker who owns one of the commercial areas regarding the traffic issues at that intersection. We concur with the denial and your denial.

Mr. Scott Davis: P.O. Box 11315, 37939 PASSED OUT A PLAT MAP WHICH BECOMES A PART OF THESE

MINUTES. One of the concerns was the amount of buffer to the adjacent residential subdivision of Painter Farms. We have a natural 150 foot buffer with TVA power line easement. When the subdivision was developed, this property was separated out from the planned residential development because it is not conducive to residential use because it is on the corner of Emory Road and Harrell Road. It was brought to my attention earlier the Neighborhood Commercial designation. I request a 30 day postponement to amend my request.

Mr. Ken Pruitt: We do not know where his access would be at this

point. He will request approval from TDOT for access if on Emory Road.

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


b. Rezoning 1-Q-07-RZ From PR (Planned Residential) to CA (General Business). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny CA (General Business) MOTION (GRAF) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO


COMMISSIONER RANDY MASSEY RETURNED TO THE MEETING AND RESUMED AS CHAIR.

79. HARDIN VALLEY LAND PARTNERS


Page 42

Northwest side Carmichael Rd., southwest side Pellissippi Pkwy., southeast of Hardin Valley Rd., Commission District 6.

a. Northwest County Sector Plan Amendment 1-E-07-SP From MU (Mixed Uses), LDR (Low Density Residential) and SLPA

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny MDR (Medium Density

Residential) and approve LDR (Low Density Residential) and SLPA (Slope Protection)

COMMISSIONER KIM HENRY RECUSES FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON THESE ITEMS.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. 550 Main Avenue on behalf of applicant Mr. Michael Brusseau: A few months ago we had a large mixed use

designation proposal. This is at the south end of that. The north end of this proposal is where there is going to be a new road that goes from Hardin Valley to Carmichael. Lesser density recommended is because of the slope of the site. 67% of the site is over 15% slopes. Other reason is compatibility. It is very rural residential development. The area is going to change and that is why we support the 5 units per acres. If they stay off the slopes, you are going to get a higher perceived density anyway. If any more density is going to be considered, we would like to see a plan of how they intend to get 12 units per acre. Staff is of the opinion that there is no way to do that without leveling the site and possibly having extremely high buildings for that amount of density.

Mr. Seymour: Mr. Robinette is the principle driver for the large

development Mr. Brusseau spoke of and getting the road put in. This will be a 3 lane road with bike routes on it. This development was discussed with staff initially. We have asked for the moon. Until we get engineering done, we do not know. We talked about a preliminary site plan for the property. The 25% or greater slopes will probably not be built on. We do want to cluster the housing. It will be three story, a garage basement and two story town houses. Mr. Robinette is confident he can get well over 5 units per acre on this. We ask for Medium Density Residential.

Mr. Art Clancy: If we give you the MDR and give you something to

work with and expect you to come back with something that looks good and is not 8 stories high, what do you think you can do?

Mr. David Robinette: 37922 I have worked on a preliminary concept plan. There were three

different apartment developers looking at this and we settled on one with the contingency they get 12 units per acre. They have forwarded me their architectural plans and sent me prototype drawings. 12 units an acre can be accomplished without building something that is real steep. The main PR/TO portion is the top of the ridge next to OB/TO was approved at 14.5 units per acre. It is going to be 3 story, 20 unit buildings. The building footprints were roughly 200 feet long and 80 feet wide. We were lead to believe with the intense stuff down Pellissippi Parkway like the church, this would be compatible with the residential area with a good buffer.


Page 43

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

APPROVE MDR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SLPA SLOPE PROTECTION.

Ms. Longmire: How much slope will you to take down. Mr. Robinette: In TO you have 50 foot setback and that gets you

your 17%. In Hardin Valley 90% of the area is 15% grade. We will take some of the slopes down to get the footprint in.

UPON ROLL CALL VOTE THE COMMISSION VOTED AS FOLLOWS: ANDERS NO BENEFIELD YES DONALDSON YES CLANCY YES GRAF YES LOBETTI YES LONGMIRE NO SHARP YES MASSEY YES MOTION CARRIED 7-2-1. APPROVED. b. Rezoning 1-R-07-RZ From BP (Business and Technology)/TO (Technology Overlay), PR

(Planned Residential) @ 1-2 du/ac/TO, A (Agricultural)/TO and PC (k) (Planned Commercial, conditioned)/TO to PR (Planned Residential) @ up to 12 du/ac/TO (Technology Overlay).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR/TO (Planned Residential) at

a density up to 5 du/ac. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (GRAF) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1. PR/TO APPROVED.

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

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-2-1. PR 12 DU/AC APPROVED.

80. JAMIE DENISE HATCHER Northeast side Cheshire dr., southeast side Cresthill Dr., Council

District 2. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-G-07-PA From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny O (Office) Mr. Jamie Hatcher: 1009 Misty Springs Road, 37932 Mr. Phil Calhoun: 7820 Wellington Drive, 37919, My lot abuts this lot This puts a spot zoning into a long established residential

subdivision. Two years ago the City Council turned down a triplex. Cheshire and Cresthill are the boundaries of Dean Hill Subdivision. It


Page 44

would intrude into the subdivision. No one can guarantee in two or three years if this lot is sold again to another person who wants to put in office. That would be even more undesirable.

Ms Hatcher: When I purchased the home I was told I could get it

commercial. I like this home and neighborhood. I wanted to take my business into a home setting. I do not want signage. I cannot have a home based business with my number of employees. I want it to be a home where my customers can come into. I am will to work with the homeowners association. Any large scale event I have is always held off campus. I just want a space to have my employees who are on the phone through the week. I have no traffic. I understand he thinks I could sell it and things would change.

Ms. C. B. Wills, Autumn Ridge Realty It did not change agents. The agent changed companies. I have

been with Ms. Hatcher quite a while. She has the property back on the market. It is a very awkward house. The back of the house is to the residential neighborhood. This looks out on realty offices and to the left are huge apartment complexes. Dentists have called me wanting to use the house. It is not the neighborhood’s fault. We are hoping you will reconsider your denial. Families are not interested in this home because it faces commercial. Commercial cannot use it now.

Ms. Rebecca Longmire: Asked about the number of people coming

in. Ms. Hatcher: I have two full time and three phone people part time

people. The building would never have more than 15 people in it. It is only 3200 square feet. I want a home setting, but want to be welcome in the neighborhood I go into. We meet with the public one on one. We have small modeling classes and we sit down with the parents and discuss their needs. I would do away with the classes if that would help.

Mr. Pruitt: This was rezoned along with the Testerman apartments.

If you are inclined to support, you could under RP-1 zoning allow her to amend her request and come back next month as a use on review proposal to designate this ½ acre as an office use within the RP-1 zone because it is over 20 acres of planned residential zoning and there are over 200 units in the apartment complex. The Testerman’s got their original approved office building done under the RP-1 zoning in that scenario. I do not know if there is any support for that in the neighborhood. It is a way to get where this lady want to go without rezoning and giving the community that office and this activity is the only thing that it could be used for.

Ms. Hatcher: Does that mean we do not change anything and I can

stay there with this use. I talked to my council person about this and she suggested it be a transition with conditions.

MR. Pruitt: You would need to make us a list of the uses other than

your remodeling agency that in the event you chose to sell the property and to make it marketable to some others, like a dentist


Page 45

office or real estate office. They need to be restricted to office activities.

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

POSTPONE 30 DAYS TO REFILE HER APPLICATION. Mr. Dick Graf: I would have a lot more sympathy toward this motion

if I knew she was going to stay there rather than just keep the real estate sign in the yard and go on down the road. I would like assurance that was going to stay there.

Mr. Benefield: I would be more inclined to qualify it for a home

occupation. That way when she leaves then nobody could come in and continue any commercial activity.

Ms. Longmire: Asked about parking. Ms. Hatcher: Unfortunately Mr. Testerman is no longer her, but I

spoke to him about parking right across the street. Our hours are different than his. For the most part we have five cars can fit across the street. After my closing I realized my agent had mislead me and I put the For Sale sign up in the yard in case this is turned down. I cannot afford a $400,000 on top of my current residence plus lease.

Mr. Pruitt: A use on review will allow her to come in with a plan

where customers will park. You will receive a site plan that shows the existing structure and where parking is, how many it will accommodate and any sign restrictions. This would be under the existing RP-1 zoning.

MOTION CARRIED 9-1. POSTPONED UNTIL FEBRUARY 8,

2007. b. Rezoning 1-S-07-RZ From RP-1 (Planned Residential) to O-3 (Office Park). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny O-3 (Office Park) MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LOBETTI) WERE MADE TO


81. DENNIS J. AND JANA R. WEAVER 1-T-07-RZ Southwest side Maloney Rd., northwest of Ginn Dr., Council District

1. Rezoning from A-1 (General Agricultural) to RP-1 (Planned Residential).

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

to 5.9 du/ac. Mr. Emmett Buck Vaughn: 3509 Maloney Road, 37920 When we moved here I thought this project was a beautiful

property. The new zoning allows more density to go to the back area. The pie shape was set up as a parking area. The plan was approved and I endorse it. The condos are 3 to 5 stories. The closest thing that tall from where I live is all the way to UT Hospital.


Page 46

It is totally out of character for this area. I am opposed along with some of the neighbors who asked me to speak for them. It is so small you should not put condos on it. Maloney Road is a two lane rural road that goes to Alcoa Highway and you all know how dangerous that is. All the density will go up. I am not against him or his project. I just do not like some of the changes.

Mr. Bill Terry: 4112 Maloney Road Two years ago he tried to get a higher density and you turned him

down. He was supposed to build a sewage lift station on his property and had it moved to the City Park. There is a sewage lift station in our park. He was supposed to build a pavilion and he never did. He does not keep his word on what he will do.

Mr. John King: Speaking as a neighbor who lives there. I have stayed out of it until now. I do not want to talk about give

and take, which was mostly give on the part of the neighborhood to get his density to start with. There are a number of commitments made by the developer that have not been lived up to. We would like him to stick with what he started. Ask denial

Mr. Gordon Burkhart: 3513 Maloney Road, 37920, across the street. When I moved there I was told they were going to fix Alcoa

Highway traffic. This development was controversial because of the traffic issue. I was involved in meeting with Mr. Weaver as well as the prior developers. I looked at the condos, they are okay. The rest of the area is hideous. He has crude rip rap. His boat docks are across the entire bay. This area should be part of the greenway. Given history of this developer and present state of the project, ask denial.

Mr. Dick Graf: Need to look at if this is an appropriate site for

rezoning. We have 1.4 acres that they cannot build anything on that they want to rezone. There are three pieces of property that back up to this. Until they are included in the total development, they are not going to amount to anything. At some point somebody needs to acquire that land and put it all together to make a nice project. Right now he needs to clean it off and landscape it. Right now you cannot see the project for the big pile of dirt. The gentleman is right and trying to get more units in the back. He has already put in the utilities.

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

DENY RP-1. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. DENIED. * 82. DAVID WALLACE Southeast side Marion Dr., northwest of Essary Rd., Council District

4. a. North City Sector Plan Amendment 1-J-07-PA From MDR (Medium Density Residential) to O (Office). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O (Office). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 1-U-07-RZ


Page 47

From R-2 (General Residential) to O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related Services).

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

Related Services) THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 83. ROBERT MORTON 1-V-07-RZ Northwest side Old Callahan Dr., southwest side Barger Pond Way,

Council District 3. Rezoning from A-1 (General Agricultural) to C-6 (General Commercial Park).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C-6 (General Commercial

Park). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 84. WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO PUBLICATION 1-W-07-RZ * 85. DART LIVINGSTON 1-H-07-PA Northwest side Topside Rd., east side Alcoa Hwy. Council District 1.

One Year Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to O (Office).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O (Office). THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 86. JUNE AND RICKY JONES 1-I-07-PA Northwest side Cedar Ln., east of Parkdale Rd. Council District 4.

One Year Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny O (Office) Mr. Ken Pruitt: Denial is based on the property is surrounded by

medium density or low density residential uses and not compatible with the area.

Ms. Charlotte Davis: 104 Crawford Road, Fountain City Town Hall Referenced letter from Michael Kane. Agree with recommendation of

staff. Ms. June Jones, 1305 Cedar Lane, 37918 A large apartment complex is across the road on Parkdale. Across

from the apartment is R-2 empty land. Across the street from me is Mr. Moore, behind him are apartments, behind the empty land is another apartment. I am on an acre lot. I have people coming to my door at all times of the night. I am not connected to Cedar Lane or Parkdale. I do not feel like I am residential. This would be a great office for a doctor, architect or attorney. I am asking for office before somebody comes in and wants to do something bigger. It will happen at some point.


Page 48

Ms. Kim Henry: Asked if she had anything in mind for this. You want it more marketable to sell it?

Ms. Jones: Yes. There is an attorney that wants to stay in Fountain

City. They fixed the intersection. Mr. Jack Sharp: Your neighbors have called about the 4-5 cars in

your driveway. That has been a residential area as long as I can remember. The City is just now doing something about the older abandoned house. It is there because when they enlarged the intersection the people just left it abandoned.

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

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 8-2. DENIED.

Uses on Review: P 87. LEMAY & ASSOCIATES 10-K-06-UR Northwest side of Hardin Valley Rd., northwest of Thompson Rd. Proposed use: Condominiums in PR (Planned Residential) / TO (Technology Overlay) District. Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 88. STAR PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC 12-G-06-UR Northwest side of Sevier Ave., southeast side of Council Place.

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for the

proposed 2-story medical office building, with a total building area of 40,000 square feet in the R-2 (High Density Residential) zoning district, subject to 9 conditions.

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. On behalf of applicant. Dr. Jeffery Swiley: 2226 Lions View Road, 37919 I represent Star Properties, a group of internal practice physicians. Our mission was to

stay downtown at Baptist Hospital and practice medicine. There have been a lot of problems with Baptist as far as stability. About two years ago our mission was to take that property next to Baptist and develop a primary care office. We have our own ancillary centers, CAT scans, ultra sounds and 8 physicians and two assistants. We are in a building where our lease is going to run out. During the process of us looking at building on this property, I went to the first meeting on the South Waterfront Development and was interested in seeing there was a museum was on our property which I had not heard about. We talked with Dave Hill and have been working with the development team. We are on a time line with leases we have. Our deed has restrictions and we have to have a building built on the property within a certain amount of time. As a backup to protect ourselves we decided to do a use on review. As late as this morning we still did not know the details about the S Waterfront. When Baptist is going through such turmoil we need to make sure our primary care basis is there. This is a backup plan if this other does not go through.

Mr. Monte Stanley, 3029 Davenport Road, 37920


Page 49

We are not opposed to a doctor’s building. They have not met with the community yet. We have a lot of concerns that need to be addressed regarding this building and as to how it will affect the South Waterfront. Would like to have a 30-day postponement to get some of these issues worked out.

Ms. Rachel Craig: 2222 Island Home Boulevard, Linda Rust of the South Haven

Neighborhood wanted to speak and left We appreciate them wanting to be in South Knoxville. Concern is the neighborhood

has not been into the discussions. This is a key piece of property for the South Waterfront. It would be the first thing you see as you head up the waterfront. Think of it as the gateway to the waterfront. Whatever is done there needs to be done well and it needs to fit in with the plans. This plan as currently submitted just does not do that. City Council adopted the Vision Plan some time ago. The plan does not confirm to the Vision Plan. If it is not postponed, there will be an appeal filed on it. We would like a month’s postponement so that talks can take place.

Ms. Carol Allen. 2129 Spence Place Ask postponement so owners and developers can have discussions with the adjoining

neighborhood in hopes that this can comply with the already postponed form based codes. South Knoxville residents would hate to have haphazard development. We want it done well. There are South Waterfront owners that want to build under these new codes. Want it to be done so we are proud of it.

Mr. Joe Hultquist. 2240 Fisher Place, City Council Member I have met with the doctors and am hopeful about their plan to invest in South

Knoxville Waterfront area. I agree with the postponement. There are people who want to be sure that the intent of the South Waterfront plan be carried out. I would like to see discussions rather than this come to Council on appeal. Nothing is resolved yet, but we can get there. They will end up with a better development than under this proposal. We are working hard to be sure they do not run out of time. An appeal is a month’s delay itself. Chances of somebody challenging a denial of use on review and succeeding in court are not good

Ms. Kim Henry: I understand that one of the issues is that the museum is not included

in the site plans. Is there a way to work that into the design? Has the City approached the property owners about purchasing that property?

Mr. Seymour: The city is talking about purchasing a portion of the property. I do not

think the funding is available yet. The city is looking for it. If the City purchases the portion they are talking about, this all goes away. If they do not Dr. Swiley and his group are out on the street before they get their building built They want to do the deal with the city.

Mr. Hultzquist: We are negotiating. They have been good about their intent. Dr. Swiley: I doubt we can work it out with the City in the next 30 days. I have met

every time they have asked us to meet and canceled patients today to be here. Mr. Anders: I went through the same thing of looking at the Waterfront Plan and

realizing we were not on it. How big a difference is it between form based coding and what they are proposing? Is it traumatic or is it small?

Dr. Swiley Medial office buildings require much more parking than average. We want

our patients to be able to drive up there. With the new form based codes, it mentions 2 parking spaces for 1,000 square feet. Which will make it difficult for us to do what we want with that. That is one of the issues


Page 50

Mr. Hultquist. Part of the package the city is putting together is a major structured

parking facility. A 3 leveled parking deck underneath a Civic Facility. We are going through discussions about how to make that work. The first phase would be acquisition of part of the property from the doctors and leasing it back to them for surface parking in the interim until we start the project. The pinch domes in in phase II when the project is under construction and that surface parking is taken away and the parking deck is not there. We are talking about how to work that out. The City buying or leasing property across the street for temporary parking across Sevier Avenue. Third phase would be the parking deck and at that point they would have structured parking with zero grade out of the weather and direct to their building.

Dr Swiley: We are excited about this. Lots of people are telling us that this project is

not going to happen. This is a back up plan in case things fall through with the City. Mr. Benefield asked if could work with 30 day postponement. Mr. Seymour: They are in a crisis now. If Mr. Hultquist can get the other issue worked

out with the city all the rest we can take care of Dr. Swiley: These guys just come into town every month or so. You wait and talk

about and wait and they come back and you talk again. It is taking a long time. As far as planning, the cost of a building is locking in rates.

The tapes were changed at this point to begin Tape 4 of 4. Mr. Hultquist: You have my commitment and their commitment to make sure this is a

high quality project. Our consultants are working with their architects in working through the issues. I will not ask for a postponement next month.

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

POSTPONE 30 DAYS UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. POSTPONEMENT.

P 89. SITE, INC. 12-M-06-UR Southeast side of Hardin Valley Rd., southwest side of Castaic Ln. Proposed use: Planned Commercial Development in PC(k) (Planned Commercial) / TO (Technology Overlay) & PC/TO District. Commission District 6. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 90. CULLOM PROPERTIES 12-N-06-UR Northeast side of Norris Freeway, east end of Jessilee Dr. Proposed

use: Signage Master Plan in SC (Shopping Center) District. Commission District 7.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. W 91. GEORGE JASON RENNICH 1-A-07-UR Southeast side of Hardin Valley Rd., northeast of Elm Grove Ln.

Proposed use: Rebuilding a detached residential home in PR (Planned Residential) District. Commission District 6.

THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 51

* 92. JOHN SPINA 1-B-07-UR Northeast side of Andersonville Pike, northwest side of E. Emory Rd.

Proposed use: Self storage facility in CA (General Business) District. Commission District 7.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for a self-

service storage facility in the CA (k) zone subject to 7 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 93. CRAIG BARNETT & TRACY BENSON 1-C-07-UR Northwest side of Kingston Pike, northwest of Towanda Proposed

use: Beauty salon as a home occupation in R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the beauty shop as a home

occupation in the R-1 zone subject to 7 conditions. Mr. John Brock: Realtor. PASSED OUT PHOTOS WHICH BECOME A

PART OF THESE MINUTES. Mr. Jim Bletner: 3819 Glenfield Drive, 37919, for Kingston Pike

Sequoyah Hills Neighborhood Association This property is located next to the Montessori School to the west,

Western Plaza to the west and the dangerous intersection of Lyons View Pike to the west and Noltan Drive. To the east we have the Sequoyah Gardens which is still under development. Driveway is for this property is directly across from Towanda Trail which makes it more congested and dangerous. Concerned about safety with school. Second point is change in character to the neighborhood to commercial. Think there are contradictions to restrictions. Plan says three cutting stations, two drying stations and two washing stations. That seems like a lot for just two people working. They anticipate 15 people a day. If a minimum time is 30 minutes to 2 hours and at 8 hours and two people 30 minutes each, the most would be 16. Seems as if it is designed for a lot more than the spots you have restricted it to. There are 5 that currently occupy the building in Homberg Place. I do not see that they meet the size requirements which would be 138 feet.

Mr. Thomas Brandon: P.O. Box 10324, 37919 Own house next to them, the house cattycorner and behind the

house on Kingston Pike. I am opposed to this. Demarcation of commercial has always been at the Montessori School west and not east. This has always been a residential area. Consider this a serious safety problem. I have seen lots of serious wrecks up and down that hill. Think this should stay residential.

Mr. John Brock, Realty Executives, for the applicants The last use for this property was a two doctor, psychologist property

with patient loads for over 9 years. It is still R-1. These folks have owned a shop in Homberg Plaza for 10 years and are downsizing. They intend to make their personal residence on second floor of this home. This home is 98 years old and qualifies for historic register and happens to be one of the few brick homes remaining on Kingston Pike. This is the ugly duckling and needs a new party hat. It


Page 52

is a quiet low density business without any signs only open Tuesday through Friday with just two stylists.

Ms. Kelley Schlitz: A home occupation as subordinate to the primary

use only approves up to 25% of the house for occupation. Applicant is using about 24%. They comply with those regulations. In the R-1 district home occupation is use on review and a beauty salon is an approved home occupation. Usually beauty salons do not make that much traffic.

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

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Bletner: Asked if Kelley has seen the drawing of the square

footage. There are a lot of passage ways and areas that may or may have not been included in what they give you. That only gives you 200 square feet and add 524 feet. Then added that only gives you 724 square feet on the house. They list it at 2154 square footage. The calculations need to be rerun by someone independently to check the 25%.

UPON ROLL CALL VOTE THE COMMISSION VOTED AS FOLLOWS: ANDERS YES BENEFIELD YES DONALDSON NO CLANCY NO GRAF NO HENRY YES LOBETTI NO LONGMIRE YES SHARP NO MASSEY YES MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF MAJORITY. Mr. Brock: Do not know where his square footage comes from.

There is some finished attic space and basement space. The owner says it is over 2600 square feet.

Ms. Nancy Hawn: Owner, 198 Lakeside Acres, Louisville It is over 2600 square feet. That is what is said on the listing. Mr. Brock: County records show it as 2090 square feet before

upstairs or basement was finished. Mr. Clancy asked about the parking spaces. Mr. Brock: those parking spaces were prepared for the psychologists

who had there office there for 9 years. Ms. Schlitz: We eliminated condition No. 5 on Tuesday on parking. Ms. Longmire: I never was in a beauty shop where you could not

purchase gel or something.


Page 53

Mr. Brock: If you were a customer there you could purchase things to follow up your visit. They do not have walk in sales and no signage.

MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ANDERS YES BENEFIELD YES DONALDSON NO CLANCY YES GRAF NO HENRY YES LOBETTI NO LONGMIRE YES SHARP NO MASSEY YES MOTION CARRIED 6-4. APPROVED. * 94. BAHMAN KASRAEI 1-D-07-UR Southeast side of Sutherland Ave., southwest of Lebanon St.

Proposed use: Dry goods store/art gallery and restaurant in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District. Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a dry goods

store/art gallery and a restaurant in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district, subject to 6 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 95. BRIAN EWERS 1-F-07-UR South side of Woodrow Dr., south end of Mount Pleasant Rd.

Proposed use: New Sanctuary for an Existing Church in R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. Council District 5.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a new church

sanctuary in the R-1 zoning district as shown on the development plan subject to 6 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 96. DEREK HINKLEY 1-H-07-UR Northwest side of E. Emory Rd., southwest of Thomas Ln. Proposed

use: 3 detached residential units in PR (Planned Residential) District. Commission District 7.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to

3 residential lots under the PR (Planned Residential) zoning district, subject to 4 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 97. FOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 1-K-07-UR Northwest side of Parkside Dr., northwest of Mabry Hood Rd.

Proposed use: 5 residences on top floor of proposed 14-story office


Page 54

tower (Art. 4 Sec. 9 D.1). in C-3 (General Commercial) District. Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for 5 residences on

top floor of proposed 14-story office tower in the C-3 zoning district (Art. 4 Sec. 9.D.1) subject to 6 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 98. DENNIS & JANA WEAVER 1-N-07-UR Southwest side of Maloney Rd., northwest of Ginn Dr. Proposed use:

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

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Other Business: (See Item 10 above) Adjournment

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

MOTION (CLANCY) WAS MADE TO ADJOURN There being no further business, the Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting was adjourned in order at 7:26 p.m.

Prepared by: Betty Jo Mahan

Approved by: Mark Donaldson, Executive Director

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

Documents

Minutes - Knoxville-Knox County Planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/jan07min.pdf · District 2. Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential)