[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6208200,"mediaKeyId","3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2","parentId",3749427,"title","Planning office outlines $8.3 million budget, UDO and comprehensive plan work for coming year","audioSeconds",242,"startMs",1027245,"endMs",1269305,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2&start=1027&end=1269","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2/thumbnail_1027245.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208200/Tennessee/Planning-office-outlines-83-million-budget-UDO-and-comprehensive-plan-work-for-coming-year","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208200-fda0cfae0bace2078f3d23364d13f70d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198954&Signature=LMAUaaHr5r1bB3NUukOiHXHADfOVfS8j88hnwzssT9eqpXXnAv~3CGF8OFCuOfxlOGPyesZd2jMdBKCoHkfDhjtJmIe-AsqbNwXyKzKrlIAmngxLfv8cT6jtYCiAFqH7C9pG54~dsUM0ryh4QtTppfTaCLH0pbIEPQD8ESSS29OwAFzlCE9soD1v3jdk2UVsNtKUpXhPiBgNmDx8S~iakE6gvMXBoVarIw6P3HjbdSmJgEVtBAOIFx3A-AXvO9CXuQLJmzgf7jonW~E~ix4XMCOWuVWHxIJFhvXfZ3G5uZSGJXQ~qhj8ryXp185PwWtk23NmkY5hbZLOBcydv1c29w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Knoxville, TN","date","2025-06-11T00:27:54.847Z","article","Planning staff presented the office’s recommended operating budget and work program, highlighting the upcoming Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) project and a multi‑year update of the City of Knoxville comprehensive plan.

Amy, planning staff, said the office developed a balanced budget with revenues and expenditures of approximately $8,300,000. She described funding sources: combined appropriations from the city and Knox County represent about 33% of total revenue, with the city’s appropriation about 19% and Knox County’s about 14%. Fee revenues account for roughly 8% of projected revenue and grant reimbursements about 49%; staff noted many of the grant reimbursements are pass‑through funds to other jurisdictions.

The nut graf: staff said modest increases in expenditures would support major work items on the program — notably the UDO and a comprehensive plan update — while grant‑related expenditures are projected to drop from about $4.1 million to roughly $2.0 million because some funds the office manages will be transferred to another entity.

Amy described several upcoming program items: work on the UDO; review of design guidelines through the Design Review Board; two neighborhood overlay requests (Gibbs Drive and Lindbergh Forest); transportation improvement program updates; revamping staff reports for clarity; and a citywide vacant property inventory to include Knox County. She said the comprehensive plan kickoff will start later in the year and likely span multiple fiscal years.

The Executive Committee reviewed the budget and recommended approval, Amy said. Commissioners asked whether the split between city and county appropriations is administratively set; Amy replied those percentages are determined by the jurisdictions and that staff typically request increases tied to specific projects or staff support.

Ending: staff emphasized conservative budgeting and the forthcoming public materials for the UDO and comprehensive plan work; no formal adoption vote was recorded during the agenda‑review segment, but the Executive Committee’s recommendation was reported to the commission.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning R 399 250610 Agenda Review","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff presented a balanced operating budget of about $8.3 million, described funding sources (city appropriation ~19%, Knox County ~14%, combined appropriations ~33%), and highlighted major work items including the Unified Development Ordinance and a multi‑year comprehensive plan update.","taxTitle","Planning Meetings, Knoxville City, Knox County, Tennessee","taxId",72439,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208205,"Taco Bell plan in Bearden recommended with conditions including archaeological review of historic cemetery",386,2332800,2718835,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2&start=2332&end=2718","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2/thumbnail_2332800.jpg","/articles/6208205/Tennessee/Taco-Bell-plan-in-Bearden-recommended-with-conditions-including-archaeological-review-of-historic-cemetery","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208205-f1a00a6babce8963c33ad6a0660d0503/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198954&Signature=Bxhr6mtIs982DSbHHPD8IE4UN9qOFYyriSZTNoIxyP1sKgk-gD81M1G0u2g0JlNdaXO-a11wAoZUh4LKwFpMMabW24xUJcmxXST4c2EceeXf1jTgBwoFR4ZjyOAkwIaUwh97GLGJBF5uqX-4RWJ-TqPNWke8YTsxrsqQ-qtX-fsKY~jv4~xCypHJcZ35HJkA0W56FncVwhx5h46vjmaU3c3000nxrJSXFYVVtGAbtlgNXFBf8emjg634XsX~Z8osabXWjtUKic4NlMB1EYdYgj7CUh9d87A7jsEDDkjSW1KlsEntnXM0d3nBrVS36PRwGQRKjyGt7crV3WIa3AhILA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff recommended approval of a special‑use application for a Taco Bell with a drive‑through on Kingston Pike in the Bearden area, with conditions intended to protect pedestrian access and address a historic cemetery on the site.

Mike, planning staff, said the drive‑through triggers Planning Commission review in the CG‑1 zoning district. Staff recommended 10 conditions, notable among them: restricting the Kingstom Pike driveway exit to right turns only; providing a concrete pad and seating at the adjacent CAT bus stop so future covered shelter elements can be accommodated; and conducting an archaeological investigation to determine whether graves exist outside the currently mapped cemetery boundary.

The nut graf: staff told commissioners there was evidence that headstones had been moved historically and limited documentation about the cemetery’s original extent; an on‑site archaeological and ground‑penetrating‑radar evaluation is intended to identify subsurface burials so state law procedures protecting graves can be followed.

Staff described site design details: the property would clear existing structures, orient a new single‑story restaurant toward Kingston Pike with a wrapping drive‑through lane, and provide landscaping and a 30‑foot vegetative buffer where required by prior rezoning conditions. The applicant agreed to the bus‑pad condition; staff said the pad should be sized so the transit agency could install a future covered stop if desired.

Commissioners asked whether state law requires the archaeological work. Staff said the study itself is not a state filing requirement but that state law prohibits disturbing burial sites; the archaeological investigation is meant to verify whether burials are present beyond the shown cemetery so any necessary protections or relocations can follow the statutory process.

Ending: staff recommended approval with conditions; commissioners discussed preservation and access features for the cemetery and asked staff to ensure any state‑required actions be followed if burials are found.","Planning staff recommended approval of a Taco Bell special‑use for a drive‑through in Bearden, subject to conditions including right‑turn egress onto Kingston Pike, a concrete bus‑pad, and an archaeological investigation around an 1800s cemetery to confirm whether burials extend beyond the mapped cemetery boundary.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208210,"Staff recommends denial of 4‑lot rural subdivision; commissioners debate how to secure open space",349,1540899,1890035,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2&start=1540&end=1890","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2/thumbnail_1540899.jpg","/articles/6208210/Tennessee/Staff-recommends-denial-of-4lot-rural-subdivision-commissioners-debate-how-to-secure-open-space","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208210-c5c164824eda76cee3d3ed54eb93a2f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198954&Signature=RQwYYWKzhnMf9VvvLcnitqWVdioZxL1TG53BNsP4oNCDf5oVKDFPiJu3q53hq52WxOsohES2Mz26KNltsJM1~t8I7h056mUMCpxJWgql994qQ3ABobV8OyuH3W29QZp6HiNWe4jF-weMYpYZoJGAqQ61eCFAGGZKUg0BlYJ0Ox5mr4bTBU9QAkcQDkItFccHNSIIV2yfKsUfZ3GTLg20Z2t4jM7fbqG1P4bIMDJr7d6gOr4JazraFpRq7-lVZ3S5iuOE8yXZ5ErMgGPIhcHtFzKtzyV5uk7Gi~ncYJ~Q4zJhlKd7ROI0mDRQ6bx3AYnRZ8fuLVhbyUEFh9~z9hAoqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff recommended denial of a proposed four‑lot subdivision on Hendron Chapel Road because the plan does not provide a dedicated clustered open space that satisfies the comprehensive plan’s rural conservation (RC) place‑type standard calling for preservation of roughly 50% of the site.

Samuel, planning staff, said the 2.84‑acre subject property is classified RC in the comprehensive plan and that the place type requires subdivisions to cluster development and preserve 50% or more of the site as open space. The applicant’s development plan included a note that each lot would retain at least 50% per lot, but staff said the plan does not create a separate, dedicated open‑space lot or cluster the homes to preserve a common tract.

The nut graf: commissioners spent an extended period discussing how open space should be defined and maintained for small subdivisions — whether a maintenance agreement or easement recorded in deeds could meet the comprehensive plan intent, whether homeowners associations are practicable for very small developments and whether the subdivision rules and the comprehensive plan need clearer alignment.

Commissioners asked whether maintenance could be enforced without an HOA and whether easements recorded on individual lots would be durable long term; staff said a maintenance agreement can be used instead of an HOA and that the maintenance obligation would typically be recorded in deeds so successive owners are subject to it. Samuel noted that the subdivision regulations treat a separate open‑space lot as the clearest way to make the area non‑buildable.

Commissioners raised practical questions about small open‑space tracts: who mows or removes fallen trees, whether agricultural use of preserved acreage (lease to a neighboring farmer) would meet the intent, and what the minimum parcel size should be before the 50% requirement applies. Multiple commissioners said these are implementation questions the office can address while drafting the Unified Development Ordinance to implement the comprehensive plan.

Staff pointed to a recent minor subdivision example where 50% open space was preserved by creating a labeled open‑space lot; staff said that approach makes the open space clearly non‑buildable on the plat. Samuel said the comprehensive plan does not define “open space” explicitly but the subdivision regulations contain a definition and staff’s interpretation is that conserved open space in the RC place type should be dedicated as a separate lot or common area.

Ending: the commission indicated the topic merits policy‑level clarification in the forthcoming Unified Development Ordinance; no final vote on the Hendron Chapel plan was recorded in the agenda‑review discussion but staff’s recommendation was denial.

","Planning staff recommended denial of a four‑lot subdivision on Hendron Chapel Road for failing to meet the comprehensive plan’s rural conservation open‑space requirement; commissioners discussed maintenance, easements, HOAs and whether current regulations need thresholds for very small subdivisions.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208215,"Knoxville planning staff to propose cottage‑court and middle‑housing code amendments",640,53875,693980,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2&start=53&end=693","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749427-92b6646b86d4d1a6d84796799e0b08c2/thumbnail_53875.jpg","/articles/6208215/Tennessee/Knoxville-planning-staff-to-propose-cottagecourt-and-middlehousing-code-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208215-721fd883152624b0ed5f9ab413cf71e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198954&Signature=FwBk9sAZT3dV5Yv-jxj1ZvyRkuqHncMtnFEFct7dzRW2ETevDnegfuffx0WeVT9UFL21WD7QcR6AMUgcUxHCiYoFe3ZBO72O~mkgk0MQBzIwlhE1t9mhaA73ylALG8ag~sv1WHkjJvbFqxyLOe94uLV-ZBF9eh7AEmPg-VKBhhQSCZtWKIF3Zbg4BVi~yRVbbIJRLza7-O3dDDWmOik1tBb938ikDi7ZMtfNKj-7-m2h~eVAdQz8LutAgoKIj3DFPhkAFaMIq9GRfjGqCyNVIBCvmW0X8n5w9vRXt6fECzCZ4gxZNdVNghfWuVrSxsa41-wgMavOCVhXOlHaMIXvKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented a set of proposed zoning changes intended to expand middle‑housing options while adding site and design safeguards, including a new cottage‑court standard and clarifications to Article 4.6 of the zoning code.

The amendments would add a cottage‑court housing type—small detached, house‑scale units grouped around a shared court—and change how “middle housing” applications are processed. Lindsey, planning staff, said the goal is to bring the standards to the Planning Commission in July and, if approved, to City Council in August.

The nut graf: staff said the package is designed to create an option for multiple primary structures on a single lot that fits existing neighborhood patterns while avoiding ad‑hoc lot stacking and other layouts that have caused compatibility problems.

Staff explained the cottage‑court concept as groups of one‑ to one‑and‑a‑half‑story small homes arranged around a shared open court, with parking accessed from alleys or clustered at the rear. Lindsey said the city worked with consultant Opticos to draft the cottage‑court standards and plans to apply them citywide in residential districts RN‑4 through RN‑7 rather than limiting them to transfer‑of‑development‑rights areas.

Key draft standards outlined by staff include minimum lot width and depth, limits on impervious surface, building size and height caps to preserve a small footprint, courtyard width/depth tied to unit count, and parking/access rules that keep parking out of the front courtyard. Staff said two‑sided cottage courts would start from a proposed 120‑foot minimum lot width, while a one‑sided layout could be possible on lots as narrow as about 75 feet; staff indicated a 150‑foot maximum is also under consideration.

The package also contains several clarifications and limits to the existing middle‑housing provisions in Article 4.6. Staff would clarify definitions for triplex, townhouse and multiplex; resolve conflicts between front‑setback encroachment rules and porch/stoop requirements; tighten articulation and design standards for long building walls; and remove some administrative variation options that staff found subjective or hard to enforce. Staff said Article 4.6 will be clarified so it cannot be mixed with base‑zone principal‑use standards in ways that effectively let single‑family projects cherry‑pick middle‑housing provisions.

To reduce administrative friction, staff proposed folding middle‑housing review into the regular city permitting portal so applicants file a single permit and planning review is integrated into that process rather than requiring a separate middle‑housing application and fee.

On location and compatibility, staff proposed excluding flag lots from the middle‑housing standards to prevent rear‑lot stacking that does not align with the streetscape. Appeals of staff decisions under the middle‑housing rules would go to the Design Review Board to assess block and neighborhood character. Staff also said only one middle‑housing structure would be permitted on a nonconforming lot of record under the proposed language.

Staff intends to post draft amendments online in mid‑ to late‑June for public review and bring them for a more detailed agenda review in July. \"Provided everything goes okay, they would move forward to City Council in August,\" Lindsey said.

Planning commissioners asked questions about whether cottage courts could be placed on lots with existing single‑family homes (staff said layouts currently assume orientation around a central court and are generally meant for vacant lots), minimum lot sizes, and the possibility of letting the Design Review Board hear exceptions in certain cases. Lindsey and other staff said they would return with more detailed drafts and criteria at the next agenda review.

Ending: staff emphasized the package is intended to balance additional housing options with neighborhood compatibility and that a more detailed public packet and draft code language will be posted online before the July agenda review.","Planning staff outlined proposed changes to City of Knoxville middle‑housing rules, including new cottage‑court standards, limits on flag‑lot development, administrative changes to Article 4.6 and a timeline to take measures to the Planning Commission in July and City Council in August.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning office outlines $8.3 million budget, UDO and comprehensive plan work for coming year

Taco Bell plan in Bearden recommended with conditions including archaeological review of historic cemetery

Staff recommends denial of 4‑lot rural subdivision; commissioners debate how to secure open space

Knoxville planning staff to propose cottage‑court and middle‑housing code amendments