[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",5967100,"mediaKeyId","5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34","parentId",5899272,"title","Planning staff recommend limits on grading, deny blanket road-radius variance for Asheville Highway concept plan","audioSeconds",1032,"startMs",162000,"endMs",1194000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34&start=162&end=1194","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34/thumbnail_162000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5967100/Tennessee/Planning-staff-recommend-limits-on-grading-deny-blanket-road-radius-variance-for-Asheville-Highway-concept-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5967100-805bdc27ee9154ade4d462c06bd92d65/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197342&Signature=kvv3tHlTY~V83foCiRvhwkqBE~gkdXr7-ZhenGBnvBkDzh3QJ6js5MZhDSzHAz8juWw3vCXwIJyp69F2X3OYxaD5mlOR88dN4sYq4TdUADpwijl9OGfmWfYH7OfOqPHIoeLVMwSQkJzqFKuckwdeyxgE79pfdVoLx3n~vK~aFfrPLNK2l5T5hQ-~g4vL7OP-~gZ7j6HMPwDIOGUNg7CVMIDwHIiLIc04oKrEToXyHU-KCaGRB9HkSGsgf9xIQEjV9p5cRcKyEFrM1F2k8P8K6KdkNAJOtD0Um-acJAd2X9Bo9GBsSRSCdYobxSya0w7q1W9JvtmD-3WlZvOHo7X2vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Knoxville, TN","date","2025-09-30T19:42:54Z","article","A concept and development plan for a multi-lot commercial project on property near the intersection of Asheville Highway and Governor John Sevier Highway drew detailed scrutiny from planning staff on grading, road design and environmental safeguards.

Mike, planning staff, said the application includes a development plan and “is really just looking at the roads and land disturbance or or grading for the site.” He described the site as largely in the planned commercial zone with CA zoning nearer Asheville Highway and said the plan shows new road extensions, three requested variances and about 16 lots and outlots.

Why it matters: staff recommended denying one major variance — a blanket reduction of intersection radii from 75 feet to 25 feet — because it would be unsafe or impractical for commercial deliveries and long‑term maintenance. Staff were willing to consider narrower approvals for some locations but said the blanket 25‑foot proposal was not acceptable without further engineering review. Mike said staff is comfortable with two requested variances tied to vertical curves.

Most important facts: staff flagged the proposal’s potential disturbance within a 150‑foot buffer measured from the riverbank. The master plan for the site included conditions that required development‑plan applications before land disturbance of previously undisturbed areas and allowed a rough‑grading permit only predicated on an approved erosion and sediment control plan. Planning staff recommended that the eastern, less‑disturbed hillside portion remain undisturbed until the applicant submits either a plan with reduced grading or a remediation plan for the graded hillside area.

Environmental and engineering checks: staff called out condition number 11 in the packet, recommending a Phase II environmental site assessment be completed and coordinated with the state brownfields remediation program. Mike said the applicant is “moving forward with that phase 2, working with the state, brownfield remediation program,” and that the Phase II requirement “may or may not be struck before the planning commission meeting” depending on engineering and remediation progress. Condition number 12 in the staff packet warned applicants that moving ahead with rough grading before final development‑plan approval would be “at your own risk.”

Road design: staff described four new roads and noted two internal driveways that are better reviewed at the subsequent permitting stage. Because commercial outlots could generate delivery vehicle activity, staff cautioned that the smallest radii (25 feet) could be problematic for maintenance and for larger vehicles. The applicant later offered modified radii — 50 feet in some places and 25 feet in others — and staff said engineering review will determine whether the revised plan is acceptable.

What remains unresolved: staff asked the planning commission to decide whether to permit additional disturbance within the 150‑foot riverbank buffer now or require a later development plan showing reduced grading/remediation. No formal vote was recorded during the briefing; the item was set for the planning commission meeting later in the week.

End note: staff emphasized that although a development plan accompanies the concept submission, “there’s nothing that’s been technically approved yet,” and any final approval will need to reconcile road geometry, grading limits and outstanding environmental testing.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning R 399 250930 Agenda Review","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff briefed commissioners on a concept and development plan for a commercial-oriented parcel near Asheville Highway and Governor John Sevier Highway, recommending denial of a blanket intersection-radius variance, limiting new grading within a 150-foot riverbank buffer and requiring further environmental review before broad disturbance.","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},5967092,"City staff propose higher multifamily heights in RN‑5 with protections for adjacent single‑family homes",363,1262000,1625000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34&start=1262&end=1625","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34/thumbnail_1262000.jpg","/articles/5967092/Tennessee/City-staff-propose-higher-multifamily-heights-in-RN5-with-protections-for-adjacent-singlefamily-homes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5967092-c645a7f8ea541b9b942e62ca0d273ad9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197342&Signature=Yk-AGtzZYPgKuCmGmDz3rFe80E6dafS4B3CVKvnCqiimC46K8gxrVR~al~ThLOHuRuQZtPnr~F-xrAyXyugbwIf7~4chUN9fPe7tOb28aFJWGPBZz-HE1HhK6VT~fGasV0~219czUmKJMA3UmP1sqmzahoAKAuKgnqn8N241vG4AaRwVzQVkMqTGkMpEjGx0gUQEEw3FNKuk6YV6PAqgbeU5AwluA2PPPJ5Of76BQ~UXKnCtHz7CieCDku~sV5LUNzTvO2dHa9Oe7uRA3WcgMYapfk-mJnySIomqj7RRfDnjVNNJ57ZA8TymewrwSI-oq4X1wwDjKWVHJw4Z-sUstg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bridal Barrie, plans review and inspections department at the City of Knoxville, outlined proposed amendments that would increase allowable multifamily building height and adjust dimensional standards in the R N 5 residential district.

Barrie said the proposal would increase multifamily maximum height in RN‑5 from 35 feet to as much as 55 feet in appropriate locations, but would limit height to 45 feet where RN‑5 property is adjacent to single‑family residences. \"This will allow density to develop more from a vertical standpoint where it's appropriate,\" he said.

Key changes and protections: the draft would raise front setbacks to 35 feet for buildings over 35 feet tall (aligning RN‑5 with RN‑6 standards), increase interior side setbacks from 10 to 12 feet for lower buildings and add a sliding additional setback for buildings over 35 feet (one additional foot of setback for every two feet of height over 35 feet). For buildings 55 feet tall, the interior side setback could reach a maximum of 22 feet.

Scope: staff said there are 975 parcels zoned RN‑5 across the city and that roughly 56% of those parcels would meet RN‑5 lot area and width requirements to qualify for multifamily development under the proposal. Barrie framed the changes as making RN‑5 more consistent with adjacent RN‑4 and RN‑6 districts and said the proposal also caps height adjacent to single‑family homes to protect neighborhood character.

Questions from commissioners addressed context and history. Barrie said RN‑5 was created during a recode and incorporated portions of earlier R‑2 and R‑4 districts, which historically capped heights at 35 feet; RN‑6 corresponds to the old R‑3 district and allows greater height. He advised commissioners to review the memo and table in the staff packet and to raise questions at the upcoming public hearing.

End note: staff asked commissioners to review materials ahead of Thursday’s meeting and to consider how proposed height and setback changes balance additional multifamily capacity with protections for adjacent low‑rise neighborhoods.

","City planning staff presented ordinance amendments to raise maximum multifamily building heights in the R N 5 residential district from 35 feet to up to 55 feet in many locations, while capping heights at 45 feet where RN‑5 abuts single‑family homes and adding setback increases for taller buildings.",{"_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},5967082,"Commissioners revisit Keck Road rezoning after city council remands EN district consideration",261,2538000,2799000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34&start=2538&end=2799","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34/thumbnail_2538000.jpg","/articles/5967082/Tennessee/Commissioners-revisit-Keck-Road-rezoning-after-city-council-remands-EN-district-consideration","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5967082-d049cc6ec465670f971ea642770b852e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197342&Signature=PdyDgWuCHtIGZHHd1UcvUND7dLG-yj3lG-m5yaHxe6g32qHKFljZSL2LdDX4augu2tWEAm19nnIouRg7qzvSIqvONGa2a2ZhxF6TeWW9TlEDShslD7rZsfhOc7NMftuciw6nHvneNP10LL3xX01ujCXsukRTFVf1Z-iEvfEsSlRM~QeBBYEMS0KHWuKI4aG1CP87a-QflMt5nYk4ukptF-AfvQMiqPHxawcGEiWNym1IVZW~-NnrCFKrYw6dvExvqgDUgA0hiEA4VrOUwEbZqT0geG4zqkmdI4uBEYOJFmuigpMqzOIBVIiRZ1WHNw9IwfvW7EK4n~~LrTU7JXRfUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jessie Hillman and planning staff briefed commissioners on a remanded rezoning case for a 1.38‑acre Keck Road parcel that originally sought RN‑1 single‑family zoning. The city council remanded the case for the planning commission to consider the EN (established residential neighborhood) district as a potential alternative.

Hillman said the applicant did not request EN and declined staff’s suggestion to consider it. \"The applicant did not agree to revise their request to the EN District,\" Hillman said. Staff recommended against applying EN to an isolated single lot because EN’s purpose is to apply design standards across an entire, highly connected neighborhood; rezoning one parcel to EN could create an outlier and potentially reduce neighborhood cohesion.

Scope and rationale: staff noted EN emphasizes neighborhood compatibility and has design standards for transparency, garage location, building mass and street facing elevations. Hillman and other staff argued that many existing homes along Keck Road do not align with EN standards; applying EN to a single lot “runs counter to the zoning district's purpose,” staff said in the packet.

Commissioner remarks: commissioners questioned whether council had been given the impression that EN was the applicant’s preferred solution at the earlier hearing. One commissioner noted the parcel is very close to the city line and abuts county‑zoned properties, reinforcing staff’s concern that EN is intended for contiguous neighborhoods rather than isolated parcels.

Next steps: staff said the planning commission’s options at the upcoming hearing are to recommend RN‑1 again, recommend EN (if members find it appropriate), choose another applicable zone, or deny the request. No formal action was taken during the briefing.

End note: staff reiterated that their analysis is unchanged and encouraged the commission to consider the property context, Keck Road’s narrow substandard street conditions, and the EN district’s neighborhood scale when forming a recommendation to council.

","A 1.38‑acre rezoning request on Keck Road drew renewed discussion when city council asked planning to consider the established‑neighborhood (EN) district as an alternative to the applicant’s requested RN‑1; staff told the commission the applicant declined EN and staff continue to discourage using EN for a single isolated parcel.",{"_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},5967088,"Planning staff clarify new single‑family attached use, shared‑driveway rules and subdivision limits",317,1893000,2210000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34&start=1893&end=2210","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34/thumbnail_1893000.jpg","/articles/5967088/Tennessee/Planning-staff-clarify-new-singlefamily-attached-use-shareddriveway-rules-and-subdivision-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5967088-4439c4569808662e75f65818b4aad51a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197342&Signature=LIpzdCa7mhbYLTWyTJbIkTb9zQDyfSB3aQOSwkLLVchSQLephuyFADqTQfNl8Us5ySjaXxMX4AOXtofx7mqJOm95oBRMSbtNdzgqGPyVobRURLQYJVYSGovjXqrr1ryFWukyFSTm2DgR38LC2McChaTOUNk97chNidYwwMw846BUXvEpccvWDr7oDP5k7GslcAw4K6HyPl6TYdQXKB-6RRpNjhkSsQ4nyoiUFyURjer870kO5-Tj5Gm-U~2bKl89801PNPrkJEG9GpHbEuTK5ai6qyQypzFOFgAoc9zU236gkOlXPrKW5dszstZzjDHoKV5aeoqMvb~1zxSlSnwKiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jessie Hillman, planning staff, presented revisions to an ordinance creating a new single‑family attached dwelling type (two units) and explained changes made after the case was remanded by city council.

What was proposed: Hillman said the revision restores an attached‑house type that existed prior to the 2020 recode and would permit a two‑unit single family attached dwelling in applicable zones, subject to special‑use review in RN‑1 and RN‑2. She explained the main substantive changes since the prior draft: removal of garage/carport requirements for shared driveways to reduce cost barriers; clarification that shared driveways need not be located precisely on a party‑wall line so they can be placed off the party wall to serve both units; and clarity that a shared driveway can be as narrow as 10 feet before it flares for parking (per table 11‑7).

Subdivision and conversion limits: staff added provisions to prevent narrow lots created solely to accommodate the single‑family attached use from becoming nonconforming lots available for other uses. Hillman said, \"lots created for the single family attached use, which only conform to this use, are only permitted for that use.\" She also said a duplex can be converted to a single‑family attached dwelling and subdivided only if the duplex meets all single‑family attached standards at subdivision time.

Special use and design review: Hillman noted that in RN‑1 and RN‑2 the single‑family attached use would require special‑use approval, enabling staff and the commission to impose conditions that enforce shared‑driveway layout and reduced pavement. Commissioners asked whether applicants seeking to subdivide would typically present subdivision intent at special‑use review; staff replied that applicants could, and that the special‑use process is the proper point to assess driveway and parking design.

Why staff recommends approval: Hillman said the amendment \"diversifies housing options and increases homeownership opportunity\" by enabling sale of individual units without a condominium regime and by restoring a housing type that previously existed in the code.

End note: The updated language removes an illustrative image and tightens principal use standards to address concerns about curb cuts, parking, and subdivision of narrow lots. The item will return to the planning commission for formal review and recommendation.

","Staff described edits to an ordinance creating a new two‑unit single‑family attached use, clarifying shared‑driveway standards, minimum lot width per dwelling unit and limits on later conversion or subdivision of duplexes that do not meet the new standards.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5967080,"County staff brief commission on 50‑lot Hill Road concept plan; buffer, TVA easement and disturbance budget emphasized",90,2929000,3019000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34&start=2929&end=3019","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899272-581d555c72ea53268f421bcff43dad34/thumbnail_2929000.jpg","/articles/5967080/Tennessee/County-staff-brief-commission-on-50lot-Hill-Road-concept-plan-buffer-TVA-easement-and-disturbance-budget-emphasized","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5967080-5e9341bc10317755f5bcdd5f5c2df61f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197342&Signature=gPECgI8s7l7yDr4M~BMR9J6ZwSx8G19Q04qPh9gE~8CS3xw-BOV7XiQDy13MVLrXaWGUm3M0J24euaLWe4mDB2N5JtPQGDv7DhSaN2vOZsz0HyTkz1oi6QVbTuchikGrOyUkmWBM4XRVhtD2d6vwtoU-bwWg~aogDMR7Szq7e5J3~8~6ttluBfs4JX7SpujJuXDcUIqo3aurCUNOhS3-L5Fv9A3riduGuTr5yyZAMphOxn~zM2BD20O-N-fN2FaKvsBD95Afrfo0l20QWqHacDYs~q6I69y-duCHYahi-ngdNxa1GjaXsxrIkO84AdZvqoSb8Z16jygxk~SzcUb42A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Miss Warner, planning staff, presented a concept and development plan for 50 single‑family lots on about 14.3 acres accessed from Hill Road north of Cabbage Lane.

Buffer and easements: Warner said the property is zoned planned residential at up to 3.75 dwelling units per acre with a condition requiring a 30‑foot nondisturbance buffer around the site perimeter except along the Hill Road frontage. Staff pointed out that some buffer area shown in blue falls within individual lots on the preliminary plan and recommended the buffer be placed in common area to prevent individual lot owners from clearing the perimeter trees. Warner also identified a TVA easement — approximately 150 feet along the rear of some lots — where no structures are allowed.

Hillside protection and disturbance budget: most of the property falls within the hillside protection area. Staff said the project is under the allowed disturbance budget by roughly 2.5 acres, but the grading plan did not show the proposed access route for a stormwater pond; staff added a condition to ensure the disturbance budget is not exceeded when pond access is routed and constructed.

Selective tree removal: Warner said selective removal of invasive species or hazardous trees would be allowed, and high‑visibility fencing would be used to verify limits of disturbance; that limitation would be noted on the recorded plat.

Next steps: staff said outstanding plan elements — pond access, buffer location and verification measures — must be resolved before final plat approval. The commission heard the briefing and will review the proposal at a subsequent meeting; no final votes were recorded in the briefing.

End note: staff emphasized the need to keep the 30‑foot buffer primarily in common area to prevent perimeter tree removal by individual lot owners, and to verify that stormwater access and grading remain within the approved disturbance budget.

","A concept and development plan for 50 single‑family lots on 14.3 acres off Hill Road was presented; staff reaffirmed a 30‑foot nondisturbance perimeter buffer (largely in common area), noted a TVA easement restricting structures, and said the project remains under the hillside disturbance budget by about 2.5 acres.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning staff recommend limits on grading, deny blanket road-radius variance for Asheville Highway concept plan

City staff propose higher multifamily heights in RN‑5 with protections for adjacent single‑family homes

Commissioners revisit Keck Road rezoning after city council remands EN district consideration

Planning staff clarify new single‑family attached use, shared‑driveway rules and subdivision limits

County staff brief commission on 50‑lot Hill Road concept plan; buffer, TVA easement and disturbance budget emphasized