Minutes - Knoxville-Knox County Planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/jul09min.pdfFrom LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). b. Rezoning 6-S-06-RZ From PR (Planned Residential)

The Metropolitan Planning Commission met in regular session on July 9, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in the Main Assembly Room, City/County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee. Members:

A Mr. Trey Benefield, Chair * Mr. Stan Johnson A Mr. Robert Anders, Vice Chair Mr. Michael Kane Ms. Ursula Bailey Mr. Nate Kelly Mr. Bart Carey Mr. Robert Lobetti Ms. Laura Cole Ms. Rebecca Longmire Mr. Art Clancy, Chair Pro Tem Mr. Jack Sharp Ms. Rachel Craig Mr. Wes Stowers A Mr. George Ewart

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

1. ROLL CALL, INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Rebecca Longmire announced Trey Benefield and Robert Anders

were not attending today’s meeting and need to appoint a Chairman Pro Tem. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (CRAIG) WERE MADE TO APPOINT

ART CLANCY AS CHAIRMAN PRO TEM. MOTION CARRIED 10-0.

Mark Donaldson introduced Dr. Nate Kelly as a new Planning Commissioner replacing Dick Graf.

* 2. APPROVAL OF JULY 9, 2009 AGENDA.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT.

* 3. APPROVAL OF JUNE 11, 2009 MINUTES

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT.

4. REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENTS, WITHDRAWALS, TABLINGS AND

CONSENT ITEMS.

Automatic Postponements read

Minutes

July 9, 2009

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

MPC Minutes July 9, 2009

Page 2

Postponements to be voted on read MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (STOWERS) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE POSTPONEMENTS 30 DAYS AS READ UNTIL THE AUGUST 13, 2009 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 10-0. POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED.

Pamela Smith, 5609 Ridgefield Road, 37912. Asked if No. 47 was going to be

heard. Chair Clancy stated it had already been postponed. Ms. Smith asked if they would get another postcard. Mr. Buz Johnson agreed to send out postcards to the neighborhood again next month.

COMMISSIONERS STAN JOHNSON AND MOSE LOBETTI ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.

Automatic Withdrawals Read WITHDRAWALS REQUIRING MPC ACTION None REVIEW OF TABLED ITEMS

KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS 1-C-08-SC Request closure of Frazier St. between E. Magnolia Avenue and E.

Fifth Avenue, Council District 4. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 3-A-08-SC

Request closure of Evans St between Bonny Avenue and south to terminus at parcel 081PC003, Council District 1.

BUTLER HOMES ON GLEASON DR. - BUTLER HOMES & CONSTRUCTION a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SG-08-C Northwest side of Gleason Dr., north of Ashton Ct., Commission

District 5.

b. Use On Review 1-J-08-UR Proposed use: Attached residential subdivision in PR (Planned

Residential) District. HARRISON SPRINGS - EAGLE BEND DEVELOPMENT a. Concept Subdivision Plan 4-SC-09-C Southeast side of Harrison Springs Ln., northeast of Schaeffer Rd.,

Commission District 6. b. Use On Review 4-D-09-UR Proposed use: Detached dwellings in PR (Planned Residential)

District. HENRY DAVENPORT FARM RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 18 8-SB-08-F


Page 3

South side of Woodlawn Pike, east of Southwood Drive, Council District 1.

ISAIAHS LANDING RESUBDIVISION 8-SR-08-F South side of S. Mall Road, south of East Towne Road, Council

District 4. U FINAL PLAT OF HAYNES PROPERTY 8-SGG-08-F Northeast side of Ridgewood Rd., northeast of Edonia Dr., Council

District 4. DAVIN AND STURM RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1R2 10-SQ-08-F South side of Kingston Pike, south of Walker Springs, Council District

2. HARDIN VALLEY CROWN CENTER RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3 & 4 11-SO-08-F South side of Hardin Valley road between Schaeffer and Iron Gate,

Commission District 6. LECONTE VISTA 11-SP-08-F Kelly Lane near intersection of Kodak Road, Commission District 8. HART PROPERTY 12-SH-08-F East side of S. Molly Bright Rd, south side of Asheville Hwy.,

Commission District 8. BEN H. MCMAHAN FARM RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF TRACT 1 2-SO-09-F Intersection of I-40 and McMillan Road, Commission District 8. U COVERED BRIDGE AT HARDIN VALLEY PHASE 5 3-SJ-09-F Northwest side of E. Gallaher Ferry Road, northeast of Rustic Bridge

Trail, Commission District 6. OLIVER A. SMITH Northeast side Lake Heritage Way, southwest side I-140, southeast of

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

Medical, and Related Services). PROPERTIES DIVERSIFIED, INC. Northeast side Central Avenue Pike, northwest side I-75,

Commission District 6. a. North County Sector Plan Amendment 8-B-08-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to C (Commercial). b. Rezoning 8-E-08-RZ From RB (General Residential) to CB (Business and Manufacturing).


Page 4

VICTOR JERNIGAN North side Thorngrove Pike, east side Atchley Ln., Commission

District 8. a. East County Sector Plan Amendment 8-D-08-SP From A/RR (Agricultural/Rural Residential) & PP/OS (Public Parks &

Open Space) to LDR (Low Density Residential). b. Rezoning 8-H-08-RZ From A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). SHERRILL HILL COMMERCIAL 11-E-07-UR South side of Kingston Pike at Market Place Blvd. Proposed use:

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

REVEIZ CUSTOM HOMES, LLC 11-J-07-UR North side of Hardin Valley Rd., west of Westcott Blvd. Proposed

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

LISA HOSKINS 4-F-08-UR Northwest side of Merchant Dr., northeast side of Scenicwood Rd.

Proposed use: Afterschool day care facility and family life center in R-1 (Low Density Residential) & R-2 (General Residential) District. Council District 5.

ITEMS REQUESTED TO BE UNTABLED OR TABLED MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO TABLE

ITEM 12A&B. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. ITEM TABLED. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO

UNTABLE 8-SGG-08-F AND 3-SJ-09-F AS READ. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. ITEMS UNTABLED.

CONSENT ITEMS Items recommended for approval on consent are marked (*). They will

be considered under one motion to approve. Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. 550 West Main Avenue. Ask that Item No.

11 be removed from consent. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (COLE) WERE MADE TO

HEAR THE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCLUDING ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED 12-0.

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

APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCLUDING ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED 12-0. APPROVED.


Page 5

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

new R-4 (Residential/Office) District providing for a mix of such uses that are complementary in scale to adjacent residential neighborhoods.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 6. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 8-A-08-OA Amendment of the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance adding Section

4.2 (Cumberland Avenue District) to the proposed Article 4, Section 4 (Form Districts) to establish development regulations and standards for the area described in the Cumberland Avenue Corridor Plan. Council District 1.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 7. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 5-A-09-OA Amendments to the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance, Article 4,

Section 3.9, TC-1 Town Center District, changing provisions relative to permitted and prohibited uses, height, parking, development plan requirements, administration and related ordinance provisions.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 8. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 5-B-09-OA Amendments to the Knox County Zoning Ordinance, Article 5,

Section 5.91, TC Town Center District, changing provisions relative to permitted and prohibited uses, height, parking, development plan requirements, administration and related ordinance provisions.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Alley or Street Closures: P 9. W & L PROPERTIES 4-A-09-SC Request closure of eastern 10 ft of Park Village Rd. ROW between

Fox Lonas Rd. and southern property line of parcel 004.02 (survey on file, approx 195'), Council District 2.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 10. GARY MITCHELL 6-A-09-SC Request closure of Ramsey St between Western Avenue and

Blackstock Avenue, Council District 6.


Page 6

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the closure, subject to any required easements, including the Fire Department's needs (May 11, 2009 letter), and meeting the three conditions specified by the City of Knoxville Engineering Department in the attached letter dated July 6, 2009.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Street or Subdivision Name Changes: None Plans, Studies, Reports: 11. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 6-A-09-SAP Magnolia Avenue Corridor Plan and associated amendments to the

Central and East City Sector Plans. Council Districts 4 and 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Magnolia Avenue Corridor

Plan and amendments to the Central City and East City Sector Plans and forward the plan to City Council with a recommendation for adoption

Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. On behalf of Mr. Brandon who owns 3

pieces of property off Willow and Randolph Street. I raise issue if you look at City Engineering memo on form codes it states that with the number of vacant buildings in this corridor that creating more stringent standards does not appropriate. The functionality of form-based districts in this area is unproven. Those that advocate form-based zoning claim that it is easier to do. We have no experience in this city with it. We adopted it for the South Knoxville Waterfront and there have been only 3-4 permits issued. I suggest that before we rush into form-based zoning for Magnolia Avenue area, we wait and see what the experience is in south Knoxville. I had one instance with a business that was expanding and doing interior renovation and it turned out to be fairly easy. If we had started doing anything to the outside of the building, we would have had a huge amount of red tape. I do not see a lot of money coming in the area because of economic conditions. Suggest there are a number of things the City can do in the area with existing resource. First is law enforcement and 2nd is routine services provided for other areas.

Mr. Brandon: I have 3 buildings that are all I-3 heavy industrial with

a lot of electricity coming into them. It has been report on this sheet as vacant and underutilized. I do not know what the definition of underutilized is and would like to know that. We use them for storage and for my purposes. One purpose was as the city requested me to put my stuff somewhere else and they went in those buildings. If the zoning is changed, this is a financial burden on me because I bought them as I-3 buildings and need to remain I-3. It is some of the heaviest buildings in the area. It is not so much


Page 7

buying and selling buildings, if you get the building what is it going to cost you to replace it. I have had several people trying to move me out. I need the buildings and I want to keep them and use them. We have a problem with the homeless in the area. The City has a problem with them. The homeless are taken care of better than the citizens that own the property they tear up. I had to rewire one building, because the homeless stripped the wire out. On Willow Avenue they wanted to put in diagonal parking. This would just about lock me out of my building. I have trouble with 18 wheelers coming in there parking there when they are not supposed to be there. I would not like to see diagonal parking. There is too much traffic and I have been almost t-boned coming out of my property. Value of these buildings is about $750,000. It was reported in the survey that 90% of people in the corridor had been contacted and were approving all these things. I must have been the 10% not contacted. It was something about the stakeholders and citizens that approved this. What is the definition of a stakeholder? Is that a property owner or someone trying to use Federal money to get this done?

Mr. Nick Della Volpe: 5216 Crestwood Drive, Town Hall East.

Magnolia Corridor study has been going on for several years. There have been at least 3-4 public meetings advertised in the press and the plan and draft plan have been advertised. We have been working for years on improving the corridor. The plan does not change the zoning or affect his building directly. He may have some special issues about his building, and they can be addressed. This is a plan for how to attack the overall corridor and make it better for the citizens of Knoxville and you should approve it.

Ms. Becky Longmire asked Mr. Brandon if he attended any of the

meetings. He said he attended 2 of them. Mr. Michael Kane: When you go from existing zoning to form based

zoning, what I the process for existing buildings and nonconforming use.

Mr. Donaldson: This is a plan that sets the stage of future actions.

One of those actions could be to create a form code for this area. In that event there would be public meetings during the formulation of the code as well as when we apply it to specific geography. Form codes are tailor made for a particular area and reflect the condition of the shapes and forms of the buildings out there. A form code for this area would reflect the characteristics of the buildings already in place. Once adopted any existing buildings do receive legal nonconforming status. With a form code we care less about use and more about the characteristics of a building so that a building that is currently is used for industrial could continue to be used for industrial. Or it could be changed for another use without going


Page 8

through a zoning change. All of this would be further down the road. This plan simply sets a set of actions to carry the plan forward.

Mr. Kane: In terms of an existing building and if someone wants to

redevelop property, would there be more controls put upon it at that time based on the form code?

Mr. Donaldson: The form code that we have in place now for the

South Waterfront and the code we are considering for the Cumberland Avenue both have provisions for alternative compliance where in the case of a nonconforming building they are allowed to go through a process to meet the intent of the code to the maximum extent possible or to make a good effort to meet intent of the code. On Cumberland we are actually working on a table whereby at various thresholds you would be required to meet a certain set of requirements but not all of them and have a couple of trigger points within the range of 0 to 100%. There are ranges for legal nonconforming buildings as well as uses.

Mr. Stan Johnson: I support the plan if we do all the things that are

in it, especially the socioeconomic issues on Magnolia. We have to be able to put this plan to work. Asked about the socioeconomic issues.

Mr. Donaldson. There is a recommendation that the city create a

task force to look at all the socioeconomic issues out there such as, crime, raising incomes in the area. During the public meetings there was particular focus on prostitution along the corridor. We have a good model in place with Broadway and 5th Avenue taskforce that resulted in good work including support for revised codes along a form based coding format.

Mr. Johnson stated he would like to be a part of that taskforce. Mr. Bart Carey: Mr. Brandon’s issues are his buildings and parking

issues. If this had gone through on consent today, would he still have chances to remedy these situations?

Mr. Donaldson: This is a plan and is not changing the zoning. To

rezone we would have to go through another public process. Another recommendation the plan makes is looking at reducing parking requirements by reducing them significantly for commercial properties. The finding that is overall in the city we require way too much parking resulting in a lot of unused asphalt that could be used for leasable space. There is also a recommendation to take a look at parking and generally try to reduce it.

Mr. Brandon: I am not against a lot of this being set up and fixed

right. I think there is a little bit too much grandioso and think the money could be spent better in other places. My buildings do not


Page 9

have vacant asphalt for parking and I had to buy a building next to it for parking. Parking needs to be looked at real close and they need to work with the people that it is affecting. A lot of people have not heard anything and are not consulted.

MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (CRAIG) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Seymour: Once this is passed with form based zoning in there,

the train is in motion. When you see lawyers advocating new laws, you can be sure it increases the demand for lawyers. When you see planners advocating for a new form of regulations such as form based zoning, it is going to require more planners and more planning, which is going to result in more red tape. Before we jump into form based zoning, you need to consider that.

MOTION CARRIED 12-0. APPROVED. Concepts/Uses on Review: T 12. WILLOW FORK - GRAHAM CORPORATION a. Concept Subdivision Plan 11-SJ-08-C Southeast side of Maynardville Hwy., southwest side of Quarry Rd.,

Commission District 7. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. T b. Use On Review 11-H-08-UR Proposed use: Retail subdivision in PC (Planned Commercial) & F

(Floodway) District. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 13. CIRCLE LANE EXTENSION 5-SB-09-C East end of Circle Ln., northeast of Westfield Rd., Council District 2. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 14. GOVERNORS LANDING - COTTAGES AT GOVERNORS

LANDING a. Concept Subdivision Plan 7-SA-09-C Northwest side of E. Governor John Sevier Hwy., southwest of

Holbert Ln., Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1-6 and concept plan

subject to 14 conditions. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 10

MOTION () AND SECOND () WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED -0. APPROVED.

* b. Use On Review 7-A-09-UR Proposed use: Attached residential subdivision in PR (Planned

Residential) District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised development plan

for up to 128 attached and detached dwellings on individual lots as shown on the development plan subject to 3 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. MOTION () AND SECOND () WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED -0. APPROVED. Final Subdivisions: W 15. GRAYSBURG RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 21-23 AND DR 4-SS-09-F TROY BAGWELL FARM P/O LOT 3 East side of Susan Renee Lane, south of Elna Marie Drive,

Commission District 8. THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 16. PAUL VICKERS AND JACK JAMES SIMPSON PROPERTY 5-SC-09-F South side of McCall Lane, east of Prospect Road, Commission

District 9. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 17. OAKLEIGH UNIT 3 5-SU-09-F Northeast side of Amherst Road, north and west of Mossy Oaks

Lane, Council District 3. THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. W 18. HANNAH W SWAN'S ADDITION TO KNOXVILLE 6-SJ-09-F RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 33 & 34 East side of Proctor Street, west side of Orange Avenue, Council

District 6. THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 19. MARLENE MILLS PROPERTY 6-SO-09-F North side of W. Raccoon Valley Drive, southwest of Crisman Road,

Commission District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve.


Page 11

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 20. HOLLIFIELD PROPERTY 7-SA-09-F Intersection of Wood Smith Road and Barnard Road, Commission

District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 21. DENTON PROPERTY 7-SB-09-F Southwest side of Bakertown Road, north of Ball Camp Pike,

Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 22. MAPLE SUNSET APARTMENTS 7-SC-09-F Northeast corner of E. Inskip Drive and Maple Road, Council District

2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 23. EDWARDS PLACE UNIT 2 7-SD-09-F Thompson School Road north of Emory Road, Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 24. CONOCO BREADBOX TRANSGLOBAL GAS & OIL 7-SE-09-F COMPANY, INC. North side of Middlebrook Pike, west side of Piney Grove Church

Road, Council District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 25. SPREADING OAKS UNIT OF CHEROKEE HILLS 7-SF-09-F RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1-3 Intersection of Scenic Drive and Oak Hurst Drive, Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 12

* 26. ELK RIDGE PHASE 1 7-SG-09-F Southeast side of Kimberlin Heights Road at Terminus of Aaron

Lane, Commission District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 27. MCCALLIE SCHOOL PROPERTY RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 7-SH-09-F 17R4 South side of Gill Avenue and west side of Gratz Street, Council

District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 28. THE LYLE FARM RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1, 2R1, & 2R2 7-SI-09-F Northwest side of W. Beaver Creek Drive, northeast of Martingale

Drive, Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Mr. Tom Brechko: This is a resubdivision of 3 parcels into 5 lots.

There is an existing church that is one lot. Denial is based on the need for variance for sight distance requirements for the proposed joint permanent easement that would serve the 4 residential lots. We have no objection to the JPE variance as far of the corner radius. We do not recommend approval of any of variances until the issues are addressed. Existing driveway already has a sight distance problem by regulation. There is a requirement that the sight distance for any private or public road has to be 10 times the posted speed limit. In this case the requirement is 400 feet. To the southwest there is only 340 feet of sight distance. It has not been our practice to recommend approve of variances to sight distance.

Pastor Warren Bittle: Beaver Creek Baptist Church 3900 West Beaver

Creek. We have been there since 2005. Our church capacity is 166 seats. We minister to the community and churches. We take heavy equipment out weekly. Some is nearly 20 feet long towered by a 1988 Ford pick up truck. On a 20 foot trailer we do a 20 foot teacup and pull out of this driveway all the time. Never have we had an issue going in and out of the property. There are no trees. We are in a blighted economy and to continue to minister to the community and may need to sell off one of these lots. If you take average car traveling 10 miles an hour and the length of a car to stop, even if they were speeding it would take 60 feet. We have 340 feet. All traffic coming from east bound is from secondary road, which is Harrell Road. West bound traffic is most of the traffic from Clinton Highway and there is 400 feet there. There is no logical explanation


Page 13

to fit this situation to enforce the 400 feet variance. There are no vision problems, no trees. We have 14 acres we mow and that old truck does not take the tractor out very fast and never had a problem. To add 4 more lots with 4 more residences seems absurd to say that would be an issue in this case. Hopefully we will not have to sell any of them, but need that done.

Ms. Becky Longmire: Asked if pictures were taken from the

driveway. Asked if opposition from community. Mr. Bittle: Yes and one I took from a car window. There is way more

stopping time than is needed. Even if they are going 80 miles per hour and take a few feet to see you, there is still plenty of time to see you. It takes 20 to 30 feet to get onto the oncoming traffic. It adds to the distance because you are not really exiting perpendicular and taking a left. You exit gently to the left. No opposition from the community.

Ms. Rachel Craig asked County Engineering about the request. Ms. Cindy Pionke: County Engineering consistently asks that they

meet the full sight distance requirements. It is a matter of safety from our perspective and liability. We always ask for the full recommendation for sight distance which in this case is 400 feet..

Mr. West Stowers asked if there was any way to add the 60 feet. Mr. Bittle: All of the property uses that one exit. I may move into

one lot to use it. There is not other 60 feet available to more it. 400 feet is a number drawn out of the sky.

Mr. Stowers: Asked if different distances based on density. Ms. Pionke: Based on the posted speed limit. It is the corner sight

distances for what it takes to pull out from a driveway onto the street you are trying to access.

Mr. Bittle: So it does matter if 4 lots or 500 lots. We already have

166 seats that people can be in the church pulling out. We finished church in 2005 and have been using it since. If I thought one person would be injured, I would not request this.

Mr. Longmire asked how long they had been using the exit. Mr. Bittle: We have been using it since we finished the church in

2005. It was used for years before that with no problems. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (STOWERS) WERE

MADE TO APPROVE VARIANCES 1 & 2.


Page 14

Bailey No Carey Yes Clancy No Cole No Craig No Johnson Yes Kane No Kelly No Lobetti No Longmire Yes Sharp No Stowers Yes MOTION FAILED 4-8. MOTION (COLE) AND SECOND (BAILEY) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DENY. MOTION CARRIED 8-4. DENIED.

* 29. WESTLAND FOREST RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20-25 7-SJ-09-F South side of Westland Drive west of Morrell Road, Commission

District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 30. CARTREF ADDITION 7-SK-09-F South side of Sherwood Drive, west of Westland Drive, Council

District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 31. RANDLES C. SOLOMON, JR. PROPERTY 7-SL-09-F North side of Brickyard Road, south of Copeland Drive, Commission

District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 32. OLIVER, HOPSON, & EVANS PROPERTY 7-SM-09-F Northwest side of Gamble Drive, southwest of I-75, Commission

District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING.


Page 15

* 33. GEYLAND HEIGHTS RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 23-25 7-SN-09-F Southwest side of intersection of Candora Road and England Drive,

Commission District 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 34. SIX FORTY CENTER RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 7-SO-09-F Southeast side of Hinton Road, southwest side of Shoppers Lane,

Council District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 35. AUTUMN WALK RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 59-61 7-SP-09-F South side of Autumn Path Lane, north of Dry Gap Pike, Commission

District 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. 550 W Main Avenue. Mr. Davis was here

several months ago asking that a concept plan for this subdivision be changed to add other lots. It was voted down. He is asking for resubdivision of these lots. It will not change the lot number. He meets all the requirements of the subdivision regulations. His opponents will complain about the road, which has defects, but has nothing to do with the road. He has a lawsuit pending against the Rogers Group for that. They will complain about other things in the subdivision. What his opponents do not realize is they are partners with him. He is trying because of recent bank actions to save this subdivision. He is approved for 61 lots. He has built 12 units and sold 4. He has tried to reduce prices. He is trying to change the lot size to build a different product on the lots with the same brick, vinyl, 30-year roofs, etc. He hopes to sell more homes so that this subdivision can stay alive. If they keep fighting him, they will end up in partnership with SunTrust Bank in the end. He is simply trying to change the mix of the lots in there and meets all the requirements of subdivision regulations. If you deny it, we need to know why he does not meet those requirements.

Mr. Oliver D. Ferguson: 1411 Autumn Path Lane. 37918.

Representing the homeowners. The homeowners were present on May 14 and pleased with your decision to deny a new concept plan. It seems like he is trying to downsize to build smaller cheaper condos. He is reducing the size of the condos by 7 feet width and omitting porches. We know that smaller cheaper condos will reduce our property values. We feel the reason the new condos are not


Page 16

selling is much beyond economy. Mr. Davis is not keeping the present complex in viable condition that will attract buyers. Some of the problems brought up at the May 14 meeting have been addressed, but a lot still needs attention. Mr. Davis made a small attempt to repair the road at the entrance to the development. Ashley Field nor Autumn Path has been worked on. The 4 new units he is building on Ashley Field are defective. Concrete slab is cracking all over with cracks at least 4 inches apart. Mr. Davis has had many cracks cut out and probably repour the concrete. Front load bearing walls on all 4 units are 14 inches off the foundations blocks in a 15 foot span yet the building continues. I saw the rejection notice from building enforcement posted for these two items yet codes office has no record of the failure of inspection. There is a requirement for the 400 foot line of sight. Autumn Path has less than 100 feet line of sight when you pull out. We homeowners of Autumn Walk Condos ask denial.

Mr. Seymour: Mr. Davis is trying to address the issues. The sight

distance is incorrect and was approved incorrectly several years ago. This road should be closed and this gentleman and his neighbors cannot be get out onto Dry Gap Pike. No issue he raised is the basis for turning down a subdivision plat. We are not dealing with the zoning ordinance where there is legislative discretion. We are dealing with does he meet the subdivision regulations of Knoxville-Knox County. He does. If not please advise us in what respect they do not meet the requirements and Mr. Davis will revise the plat and have back here next month.

Chair Pro Tem Clancy reminded Commission they have to give the

requirements for denial. Mr. Michael Kane: We have 3 lots and now they are all smaller.

What got bigger? Common area. Subdivision owns the common area. Can the common area be subdivided at a later date?

Mr. Seymour: Mr. Davis is the declarant under the covenants and

restrictions. As soon as he can sell enough lots to get out from underneath it, he will turn over to the neighbors. You denied an addition in lots two months ago. Mr. Davis is resigned that he is going to get no more than 61 lots.

Mr. Steve Wise, MPC Attorney, Typically the subdivision restrictions

reserve the right for developer or declarant person to make adjustments up to certain percentage. 75 percent is the normal percentage. Sometimes it is tied to period of time subsequent to the first sale. In almost every instance, the developer will retain the right to manipulate the lots until he get his initial investment out. Only way to know is look at the declaration of restrictive covenants.


Page 17

Mr. Kane: Common areas would have to come back to MPC to subdivide the lots. The advantage then is the idea is to the get lots smaller so they can sell. He is not going to be doing anything with the common area, but turn it over. I do not understand the advantage of the smaller lots. I am trying to figure out the logic and why.

Mr. Seymour: In the real estate market there are two types of units

that are selling-- the lower end and top end. He started in the $220,000 and now offering $180,000 trying to get other people in. He is having some interest at that level. If reduce the lot size, you can reduce the size of the home and reduce the cost. He is trying to get rid of excess inventory.

Mr. Kane: He is not creating value on the remaining property that is

now in the common area. It still does not make sense to me. He does not gain from adding to the common area.

Mr. Seymour: He hopes to gain sales which benefits the bank. Mr. Feguson: Reason he is doing this is to get back to the failed plan

in May. If you look at the failed plan in May you will see that those three lots are that size and that position. All he has to do is add them 3 at a time until he gets his 71 up there.

Mr. Clancy: He is not going to get the 71 units. We decided that last

time. Ms. Becky Longmire : You said the units to be built are lacking a

front porch and screen porch in the rear. Is that a violation of the subdivision requirements you have? There is nothing that says a particular type of unit was to be built in that subdivision.

Mr. Ferguson: No. Just verbally. When we bought our units we were

told they were all going to be identical. Mr. H. R. Davis: 145 CC Camp Road, Norris, TN The new plans do not have front porches and rear porches. When

you buy a unit people compare price per foot. It cost the same money by the foot for the exterior which I do not get paid for. I would love not to change anything, but you just cannot do it at this time. Most developers are going smaller. It will have the same brick, the same mortar cover, the same roof, and vinyl, just no front porch.

Ms. Longmire: I am talking about looking the same. Mr. Bart Carey: I understand trying to drop price in square footage.

There is speculation as to why you want to reduce lot size. If you reduce lot size and free up common area space, as controlling


Page 18

interest for that common area space you could apply at a different day and maybe before a different board for additional lots. The improvements would be worth more money on a larger lot than on a smaller lot. That may be speculation on my part. We still do not have our hands around why you would shrink lot sizes and think you are going to get more money for doing that.

MOTION (LONGMIRE) WAS MADE TO DENY. Mr. Wise: There are only 2 reasons to turn down a final plat. One it

does not comply with subdivision regulations or it does not comport with the provisions of the approved development plan.

LONGMIRE WITHDREW HER MOTION TO REVIEW THE

DEVELOPMENT PLAN CLOSER Mr. Kane: If lot size is not part of the approved development plan,

then what is part of it? There are lot sizes on the plan. Ms. Longmire: The table gives the lot size on the final approved plat.

What he is asking us to do is change the lot size. This is what we have already approved. My reasoning is we should not change what we have already approved. I believe to the best of my ability that the lot size is written in square feet. We approved a certain number of lots and a certain size of the lots. I do not see a reason to change what we approved.

Mr. Wise certainly better than no reason at all. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE

MADE TO DENY FINAL PLAT. Mr. Wes Stowers: I still do not see what is gained by reducing the

lot size. Mr. Dan Kelly: To me the reduction in the lot size would be he is

going with a narrower unit. These buildings are attached. If you have an attached unit and go with a smaller unit you need a smaller lot to put them on. The width is what is being reduced and not the length. If you deny the plat, you probably also need to suggest that there are issues with changes in the architecture with regard to the porches and screened porches and the lot sizes. Development plan means use on review. A planned residential development you approve a plat that creates the lot and approve a use on review which permits you to put something on those lots. They are dealing with the reduction in the lot size. Therefore what was originally approved as a on use on review can no longer go on the lots as they are requesting.


Page 19

Ms. Longmire: If we approve this smaller lot size, he would have to come back with a different use on review. Staff is of the opinion that the changes that are proposed are not significant and that the reduction in lot size and the size of the unit is not that significant of a change from the approved development plan. You as a planning commission can differ from the staff. You can say no you are wrong, this is a significant change in the development plan and if you want to go this direction, you need to submit a revised development plan along with this new plat.

Upon roll call the Planning Commission voted as follows: Bailey No Carey Yes Clancy No Cole Yes Craig Yes Johnson Yes Kane Yes Kelly No Lobetti No Longmire Yes Sharp Yes Stowers No MOTION CARRIED 7-5. DENIED. Rezonings and Plan Amendment/Rezonings: P 36. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY OF

KNOXVILLE 8-O-08-RZ Area generally described from White Avenue to Lake Avenue

between CSX Railroad Corridor and Seventeenth Street (See Map), Council District 1. Rezoning from C-3 (General Commercial), C-7 (Pedestrian Commercial), O-1 (Office, Medical & Related Services), O-2 (Civic & Institutional) and R-2 (General Residential) to Cumberland Avenue Form District.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 37. THE PAVILION AT HUNTER VALLEY FARM, LLC (REVISED) Northwest side Hunter Valley Ln., northeast of Keller Bend Rd.,

Commission District 4. a. Southwest County Sector Plan Amendment 5-A-09-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) & SLPA (Slope Protection Area)

to O (Office) & SLPA (Slope Protection Area). THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P b. Rezoning 5-A-09-RZ From A (Agricultural) to OB (Office, Medical, and Related Services).


Page 20

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 38. DELBERT E. & JANA W. MORGAN 5-D-09-RZ Southeast end Holston Dr., north end George Bounds Rd., southwest

side Holston River, Council District 4. Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to RP-1 (Planned Residential).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve RP-1 (Planned Residential)

zoning at a density of up to 4 du/ac. Mr. Robert Campbell: 7523 Taggart Lane. We have had several

meetings with the community and have a letter with conditions as we move further. We ask your approval with what we have worked out with the community.

Mr. Nick Della Volpe: 5216 Crestwood Drive, Holston Hills, Our group

Town Hall East did meet with the developers engineer and had discussions with them. We have tried to work with them with the understanding they are going to try to address quality so fit in with other homes. Issue is traffic with Holston Drive as an only outlet. Have a letter which is in the record. We would rather work with the developer to preserve the quality and address pedestrian issues. In that spirit we hope to work with them when it comes to the second phase. There is another road called Sanders Road and may be an opportunity to relieve some traffic by connecting George Bounds Road with Sanders Road.

Ms. Beverly Atkins: 5813 Holston Drive. I have talked with the City

Engineer and he says once this development is compete will be additional 300 plus daily trips in front of my home. Together that would mean over 700 daily trips in front of my home. This is a quiet low density area. This is not a deep lot. Most homes on Holston in the 37924 zoning are not very deep and that traffic would be very detrimental. How legal is this letter developed by Town Hall East as far as Mr. Morgan following through with his plans? He is doubling the amount of dwellings in this area. This is a land locked area with the only way in and out is Holston Drive. City Engineer said 800 daily trips on a two lane road. The only reason I went along with the RP-1 is because I was told he could put 15 double-wides on that lot. That would not be something we would be interested in having in our area. These homes are 4 sided brick ranging in price from $100,000 to over $200,000 and you are going to put in substandard homes. I do not know how legally binding this letter is.

Mr. Donaldson: It provides us a check list for the next phase of the

zoning which is the approval of a development plan. We can check what is proposed to be developed on the plan against that letter and disclose any deficiencies or items that have not been provided at


Page 21

that time. In order to make it binding, it would have to be attached as a condition of the zoning which can be done.

Ms. Atkins: That would be something most of the neighbors would

be in agreement with. We are an elderly quiet neighborhood. If you put 800 daily trips by my house and that destroys any peace I will have. The only way in or out is Holston Drive. If there were a catastrophe beyond the overpass, you would have 80 plus families locked in there.

Mr. Campbell: If you want to make the letter part of the zoning, that

is what we intended. Those are conditions that would normally go through the use on review process. The 800 is for the units that are currently there plus the proposed not just from my development. We are proposing 32 units times is 320 daily trips. We might even have less units as we go through the use on review process. The issue of having a secondary access point is on the letter and part of the agreement. It benefits the development to get an access point to Asheville Highway. One of the benefits of this neighborhood is also the drawback. I understand one way in and one way out is a deterrent to crime because there are not multiple ways to come in and out. At one of the meetings they asked why would do what we said Mr. Morgan has owned this property for 5-7 years. As he started looking at it spreading lots over hillsides was not going to be a good issue. He wanted to consolidate this to the more flat parts of the development. If Mr. Morgan had been so inclined, he could have put something substandard on this property years ago. With RP-1 it does give the neighborhood the opportunity to have a review. You just denied a final plat based on it not matching up to its use on review.

Ms. Longmire: Asked if object to adding letter to motion for

approval. Mr. Campbell: That was the reason we signed the letter. The kind of

units proposed, 1,200 sq. ft. and 2-3 car garages with brick fronts, are exactly the price range and building range for that area.

MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE

MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ITEMS IN THE LETTER BE ADDED AS CONDITIONS TO THE ZONING.

Ms. Atkins: If there were another way out… The daily trips in and

out of that area are our biggest concern. These people who live in the newly developed area need to be able get to Asheville Highway without accessing Holston Drive. We were told he could put double wides. We do not want 15 double wides in an area with beautiful, brick homes. I am okay with adding the letter if he has to adhere to these things legally.


Page 22

MOTION CARRIED 10-2. RP-1 AT 4 DWELLING UNITS PER

ACRE WITH CONDITIONS APPROVED. Ms. Atkins: All of this concern would have been easily gotten

through had he been able to work with us prior to doing this. Nobody consulted us. That angers people and diminishes trust.

Break was taken and tapes changed at this time. * 39. EDDIE JOE BENNETT Northwest side Gillespie Ave., northeast of N. Sixth Ave., Council

District 4. a. One Year Plan Amendment 7-A-09-PA From LI (Light Industrial) to LDR (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MU-Mixed Use (LI-Light

Industrial and LDR-Low Density Residential) and recommend that City Council also adopt the One Year Plan amendment.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * b. Rezoning 7-A-09-RZ From I-3 (General Industrial) to R-1A (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ApproveR-1A (Low Density Residential)

zoning. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 40. KALEA DERRY South side Andersonville Pike, west of Eiffel Ln., Commission District

8. a. North County Sector Plan Amendment 7-A-09-SP From AG/RR (Agricultural/Rural Residential) to LDR (Low Density

Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve LDR (Low Density Residential)

for this site and recommend that Knox County Commission also adopt the sector plan amendment.

Mr. Buz Johnson: This is in the rural area based on growth policy

plan. The property is in an adjacent to other low density residential in terms of zoning and land use. Because this is in the rural area, the only time you can recommend planned residential at 3 dwelling units per acre it has to be an extension of the planned growth area. This property is very far from the planned growth area. However, we can recommend up to 2 dwelling units per acre in the rural area under certain circumstances. This request meets those circumstances. Staff has recommended planned resident. We cannot


Page 23

recommend RA because that also is not allowed by the growth policy. But we can recommend planned residential and we recommend up to 2 dwelling units per acre.

Mr. Billy Esperedo. 2238 Wilson Road, Apt B9, 37912 On behalf of

Mr. Derry of Ohoma Properties. They want to subdivide into 6 lots for single family homes.

Mr. Michael Kane: You said this is far away from the planned growth

boundary and since it is in rural we cannot do RA. What I am seeing is not too far away is RA zoning.

Mr. Johnson: We can assume the RA was there prior to the growth

policy plan. Mr. Kane: We have 2.98 acres and the most he could he could do is

2 lots if he subdivided it into one acre lots. Mr. Johnson: He can get a shade under 6 units. He can get at least

5 units. Mr. Brusseau: Under Agricultural zoning currently they could do 2

lots and under our recommendation, they could do 5 lots with a use on review approval in additional to a concept plan, whereas RA would allow 6 or possibly more lots without the use on review. Because of the presence of the RA, we tried to accommodate because it makes sense to allow some development there so we basically recommended a zone and density which is basically the maximum we can allow.

Mr. Kane: I do not see how this protects the rural residential or

agricultural. Mr. Johnson: You have to look at the surrounding development

pattern. There is planned residential at 1-4 dwelling units to the south and RA to the north and that development is going to be 2-3 dwelling units per acre.

Mr. Kane: You are always going to have somebody who is next the

more dense area. You have a dense area and a less dense area. If the planning was these others were in the more dense area, then you keep on building the face over farther and farther. Everyone is going to want PR at 2 dwelling units per acre.

Mr. Johnson: The pattern has already passed them. It is not like

they are on the edge of rural development. The low density development has already passed them. That is according to the sector plan, which shows the area to the north as low density residential.


Page 24

Ms. Rachel Craig: I notice there are steep slopes that need to be preserved. I assume another reason for PR would be to do development plans that take those slopes into account.

Ms. Becky Longmire: Rural may be a misnomer for the area. It is a

rapidly growing area. I think 0.5 acre lots are appropriate. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (CRAIG) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 10-2. APPROVED.

b. Rezoning 7-B-09-RZ From A (Agricultural) to RA (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential)

zoning at a density of up to 2 du/ac. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (CRAIG) WERE MADE

TO APPROVE PR AT 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. MOTION CARRIED 10-2. PR AT 2 DU/AC APPROVED.

* 41. FRANKIE ATKINS 7-C-09-RZ West side Tazewell Pike, north of E. Emory Rd., Commission District

8. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CA (General Business). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CA (General Business) zoning. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 42. LLOYD DAVIS, JR. 7-B-09-PA Southeast side Middlebrook Pike, northeast side E. Weisgarber Rd.

Council District 2. One Year Plan Amendment from LI (Light Industrial) to MU (Mixed Use) (Light Industrial, Office, General Commercial).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve MU-Mixed Use (LI-Light

Industrial, O-Office and GC-General Commercial) and recommend that City Council also adopt the One Year Plan amendment.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Uses on Review: 43. VULCAN LANDS, INC. 4-B-09-UR East & west sides of Graybeal Rd., south of Buttermilk Rd. Proposed

use: Mining and mineral extraction, quarry expansion in A (Agricultural) District. Commission District 6.


Page 25

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to expand the existing rock quarry as shown on their development plan subject to 12 conditions

Mr. Tom Hale: On behalf of Vulcan Lands, Suite 2500, First Tennessee

Plaza. Last month we presented a letter with a number of agreements that we had reached with the neighborhood group. Since that time we have met further with them and refined the agreements and made them more specific and have had a good working relationship with them and believe we have satisfied their concerns raised by their representative engineer, Keith Kirkpatrick.

Mr. Keith Kirkpatrick: 12605 Buttermilk Road. We met with Vulcan

and discussed many items which have gone to specifics. I represent a number of neighbors with about 12 people in the audience. We really do not want the quarry to expand. We do understand they need more stone and Knox County needs jobs. If you feel this expansion should be approved, we believe these concessions and staff’s recommendations would be an acceptable compromise.

Mr. Larry Bryant: 12407 Pittman Drive, 37932. I have been part of the

group meeting with Vulcan and they have been good. In the last meeting, I was told that you as MPC did not really handle anything about the health and safety of the community. I am within 1,000 feet of the new area and have been on Pittman Road for 5 generations. I am speaking for elderly and children and future residents. You have already approved over 100 new family dwellings. Only the economic climate has made it to where they have not been built yet. In May I had a lung scan where I had a glass like substance in my lungs which could be silica which comes off the blasting. Other people in the neighborhood have COPD. This looks rural, but it is not now. We are located at the I-75 and I-40 split and 20,000 heavy trucks come through there per day according to a UT air quality study. Pittman Road is in a very narrow valley; the same valley as Vulcan. When they blast, it comes up my valley. They say they are within the permit because they have a spotter who looks up for 5 minutes after a blast and logs it. My vehicles are covered with a black substance that does not spray off. I mentioned this and they were quite surprised. I have a new grandson. I have been told that you all and I cannot do anything about the future air quality. I called the air quality board yesterday and they did not know anything about this expansion, a Mr. McDonald. He is going to help me find out about our air quality. We need time.

Mr. Hale: I suspect what has been said to Mr. Bryant is there are

other organizations that regulate specific kinds of emissions and it is not your role to rewrite the regulations that the air board in the state sets. We attempted to be clear with what we will do and what regulates us so you can make it a condition so that the people in the


Page 26

neighborhood can have a basis to enforce it. You have it in writing in a very detailed form.

Mr. Mose Lobetti: Asked about frequency of blasts. Mr. Jack Lambert: 3001 Alcoa Highway, Knoxville Typically we blast a couple of times a month. We do not have two

blasts in a day. We may have a stripping blast and a production blast and that occurs about 2 times a month.

Ms. Becky Longmire: Told Mr. Bryant there MPC does not determine

the health of Knox County and there are other boards that monitor air quality.

MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (STOWERS) WERE MADE

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

44. U. S. CELLULAR CORPORATION 6-I-09-UR East side of Graves Rd., north of Ruggles Ferry Pike. Proposed use:

195' monopole telecommunications tower in A (Agricultural) District. Commission District 8.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for a 195

foot monopole telecommunications tower in an A (Agricultural) zoning district subject to 7 conditions:

Jackson Kramer, for U. S. Cellular, 800 S Gay Street With me is Chuck Burton, who is handing out materials including map

with location of eagles nest, Bald Eagle management guidelines and letter from U. S. Fish and Wildlife and a letter from U. S. Cellular environmental consultant. Our environmental representative is James Duncan with Terracon.

The application does not need variances from the zoning ordinances and it complies with the consultant showing we meet requirements. Much discussion is centered around bald eagle at the west bank of the Holston River. We would like to show that our site is on the east side of Holston River about 3,000 feet or more than ½ mile away from the eagles’ nest. U. S. Cellular has complied with all federal and local laws and requirements, in particular with the Bald and Golden Eagle Management Act. FCC rules require tower applicants to submit plan site to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife for review in conjunction with the Endangered Species Act. Although the eagle is not on the endangered species list, in making the initial submittal Terracon did make the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service aware that a Bald Eagle was cited flying in the area. In the U. S. Fish and Wildlife response, the only reference to the eagle is the statement that eagles are attracted to cell towers and suggested the use of migratory bird exclusion devices which U. S. Cellular had planned to utilize anyway. After last month’s meeting, Terracon again contacted U.S. Fish and Wildlife and spoke with Mr. Wally Brines in Cookeville and asked for additional correspondence. Mr.


Page 27

Brines’ response was the planned tower does not directly disturb the nest with the chicks and there was no need for him to provide further comments. When asked if there would be any impact on the eagle’s foraging habits, he stated the eagle was primarily a fish eater and removing some trees on the site would not affect its foraging. We intend to remove very few if any trees. He was also asked if it would be a hazard to the eagle itself. Mr. Brines responded because it does not utilize guide wires and was not lit that he did not anticipate that it would be a hazard to the eagle. He also referenced the U. S. Fish and Wildlife bald eagle management guidelines which outlines human activities. One recommendation is a buffer of 660 feet from the nest and we are more than 5 times away. They recommend that helicopter flights not occur within 1,000 feet of the nest and blasting not occur within ½ mile away. Our proposed activities are far less intrusive than a helicopter or blasting. We are willing to meet staff conditions and ask approval.

HANDED OUT MATERIALS and about 8 people stood in opposition. Ms. Terry Browning, 8305 N Ruggles Ferry Pike, 37871. My property

adjoins proposed site. Submitted document entitled “The impact of cell phone towers on house prices in residential neighborhoods”. Please remain objective to the concerns and issues we put before you today. MPC is supposed to follow the Wireless Communication Facilities Plan. According to the description in this plan, this site is considered an avoidance area, that means it is the least desirable site for two reasons. It is in a low density residential neighborhood and there is a slight ridge top involved. It is a large agricultural tract. Consider the value of the homes in this area close to the Holston River. The north side of Graves Road is waterfront property and south side is water view property. Homes in the area are priced from $300,000 to $1 million. Consider what these homeowners have done to add to the tax base to this part of the county. One Commissioner mentioned last week there was a cement plant and a landfill nearby and these are 3 to 4 miles away. We would be faced with diminished property values. Terracon is also mentioned in that document we gave to you. Your plan also states that the proposed facilities should not burden other properties with adverse visual impacts and the screening that USCC proposes will not do anything to lessen the visual blight because of the existing trees in the area, nothing exceeds 40 feet. It is a 195 foot tower with an 80 foot grade up Graves Road. This is roughly 275 feet and that is comparable to the two tallest office buildings in downtown Knoxville. The plan states that construction of new towers should be an operation of last resort and that collocation should be encouraged. There is an assertion that this tower is needed and no factual information has been furnished by the applicant stating as to why it is needed. Certain roads are indicated as to where there is a blackout area—Graves Road, Ruggles Ferry, Asheville Highway, Andrew Johnson Highway, Rutledge Pike. No, that is incorrect because we have contacted numerous people in that area, some U.S. Cellular customers, and they do not have problems with cell service. Why is there not a matter of record to show


Page 28

why there is a need for that tower in that location? Is that proprietary information? Do we have access to by the Freedom of Information Act. The site the way described by your consultant refers to the Four-way Inn site which is several miles away. With all the commercial up and down 11-W and 11-E, you would think there would be some other site that this tower could be located on and be conducive to the area and not an overall blight to the community instead of trying to locate off the main road. I am a federal employee and work with federal agencies. We have seen a tremendous increase in the number of cases coming into our office involving telecommunication towers. We suggest that a moratorium or freeze be adopted for 90 to 120 days to provide opportunity for review of this plan that was adopted in 2002, which is obsolete, that you may discover information that may change your minds. Landowners should have the right to use their land within restrictions and the government should not allow that to the determent of surrounding property owners. We request you deny or postpone this because documentation for changes to the agenda had to be submitted within 2 days before this meeting. They were not part of the record until this morning.

Mr. Kramer: As to need, U. S. Cellular does submit technical

information to Larry Perry, the independent consultant, and then he makes an independent judgment as to whether there is a need for the tower. He did determine we showed the need for the tower. As far as the wireless communications plan, I would point out it is not in an avoidance area. Both Mr. Perry’s report and MPC staff report point of this is consistent with the wireless facilities plan and refer to this as being located in an opportunity area because it is a large tract in an agricultural zoned area and the plan takes a neutral position on those monopoles.

Mr. William Hill, 708 Graves Road. I have lived there all my life and

own 60 acres. I used to adjoin Mr. Randolph’s property, but we sold off some of the original 150 acres for housing. Mr. Randolph has been in the community and his family built the original Graves Road. He is civic oriented and fair and intelligent. He studied this for weeks and months to decide what to do about it. The devaluation of property I do not see. The topography of the Graves Road/Ruggles Ferry area is up and down with a lot of trees. You may see the tip of this cell tower from the road, but you can also see hundreds of telephone poles also.

Ms. Becky Longmire: Asked about the opponent’s issue of why build a

tower when there is one already a little over a mile away. Mr. Kramer: I am not sure there is a tower located within a mile.

There are no other towers within a mile. There is one tower located outside the one mile radios that is located south of the intersection of Andrew Johnson and Asheville Highway. Collocating on that tower does not solve our coverage issues. We already have adequate coverage for


Page 29

that area and that will not solve coverage gaps that this tower will solve.

MOTION (KELLY) AND SECOND (COLE) WERE MADE TO

APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 11-1. APPROVED.

P 45. CEDAR BLUFF LAND PARTNERS, LLC 7-B-09-UR West side of N Cedar Bluff Rd., west end of Fox Lonas Rd. Proposed

use: Restaurant with drive thru window in CN (Neighborhood Commercial) District. Commission District 5.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 46. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, CONCORD 7-C-09-UR Northwest side of Westland Dr., southwest side of Emory Church Rd.

Proposed use: Temporary gravel parking lot for existing church in RP-1 (Planned Residential) District. Council District 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for a temporary

parking lot at the location shown on the development plan subject to 2 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. P 47. WIRELESS PROPERTIES II, LLC 7-D-09-UR North side of Clinton Hwy., west of Wallwood Rd. Proposed use: 180'

monopole telecommunications tower in C-4 (Highway and Arterial Commercial) District. Council District 5.

THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 48. U. S. CELLULAR CORPORATION 7-E-09-UR Southeast side of Andes Rd., west of Chert Pit Rd. Proposed use: 100'

monopole telecommunications tower in A (Agricultural) District. Commission District 5.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for a 100

foot monopole telecommunications tower with close mount antenna arrays in an A (Agricultural) zoning district subject to 6 conditions.

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Other Business: * 49. Consideration of extension of concept plan for Elk Ridge

Subdivision - 6-SB-07-C. 7-A-09-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the extension.


Page 30

THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 50. Consideration of extension of concept plan for the Rufus

Smith Subdivision on Childress Road - 8-SA-07-C. 7-B-09-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the extension. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 51. Consideration of revisions to fees for Historic Zoning

Commission. 7-C-09-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revisions to the fees. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 52. Consideration of extension of concept plan for South Creek

Unit 2 - 7-SC-07-C. 7-D-09-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the extension. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Adjournment MOTION (LONGMIRE) WAS MADE TO ADJOURN There being no further business, the Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting was adjourned in order at 3:45 P.M.

Prepared by: Betty Jo Mahan

Approved by: Mark Donaldson, Executive Director

Approved by: Trey Benefield, Chair NOTE: Please see individual staff reports for conditions of approval and the staff recommendation. These minutes are not intended to be verbatim transcripts.

Documents

Minutes - Knoxville-Knox County Planningarchive.knoxmpc.org/aboutmpc/minutes/jul09min.pdfFrom LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). b. Rezoning 6-S-06-RZ From PR (Planned Residential)