The Knoxville‑Knox County Planning Commission on Oct. 9 approved several rezoning and development requests, denied a handful of higher‑density proposals and added conditions to multiple approvals addressing road widening, drainage and 30‑foot perimeter buffers.

The most consequential decisions were approval of a civic‑institutional land‑use designation and an institutional zone for a proposed CARM women‑and‑children campus on a former industrial site, and commission approval of several residential planned‑residential (PR) rezonings and development plans contingent on engineering conditions. Opponents at multiple hearings raised traffic, drainage and neighborhood‑character concerns; developers and applicants cited market realities, vacant industrial stock and demand for housing or social services.

Votes at a glance
- PR, 7 units/acre (William Dale Roten, 1‑acre parcel on Abner Cruickshank Road): denied per staff recommendation after neighbors said seven units on a 1‑acre lot would be out of scale. Motion to deny carried.
- PR, up to 6 units/acre (Worley Builders, ~5.5 acres, S. Gallaher View Rd.): approved; condition requires widening the western fork of South Gallaher View Road per Knox County Public Works. Applicant Ron Worley said county engineering will require necessary road work.
- OB office/medical (Sasha Cole, 1.42 acres, S. Gallaher View Rd.): approved per staff recommendation.
- PR, up to 2 units/acre (Benjamin C. Mullins, Baker Town Rd.): approved per staff recommendation with a 50‑foot buffer condition.
- RB general residential (Noe/Noah Sanchez, 1.66 acres, Breakville Rd.): denied; staff cited environmental constraints and a stream bisecting the site.
- PR, up to 5 units/acre (DSSD Development LLC, ~9.98 acres, Bluegrass Rd.): approved per staff recommendation after a neighbor voiced support.
- Messana Investments subdivision (multiple motions: variance, alternative standards, concept plan and development plan for up to 29 attached houses): all four motions approved; engineering confirmed fire‑code eligiblity for a truncated Road C without an AASHTO turnaround and acceptance of alternative standards.
- Masana Investments subdivision (variance + concept + development plan for 50 single‑family lots): approved with added condition requiring a recorded 30‑foot nondisturbance buffer easement on lots that abut existing single‑family properties (per the preliminary grading exhibit). Applicant agreed to add easement language to final plat.
- 6125 Riverview LLC commercial subdivision and variances (multiple variances; concept and development plan): commission denied a blanket intersection‑radius variance, approved two vertical‑curve (k‑value) variances and then approved the concept plan and development plan with amendments. Staff and applicant negotiated changes limiting grading in areas subject to a Phase‑2 environmental study and agreeing reforestation plans to be approved administratively prior to final permits.
- Ordinance amendment creating a single‑family attached dwelling type (new SFA definition): approved with clarifying language that the use is a structure of two attached dwelling units (maximum of 2) on separate lots; supporters said it creates a path to homeownership without creating townhome/condo ambiguity.
- Amendments to RN‑5 table (height and setback changes): recommended for approval by planning staff and approved by commission after discussion of neighborhood impacts (Fort Sanders and similar areas) and suggestions to study pocket variations.
- EN (established neighborhood) consideration for a site previously recommended RN‑1: commission declined to designate the site EN and reaffirmed earlier RN‑1 support; motion to deny EN passed.
- Sector/1‑year plan and rezoning (Cedar‑area mixed‑use request, applicant Ayo Architecture): commission denied the sector plan change, 1‑year plan amendment and the CG‑2 rezoning request per staff recommendation.
- CARM civic/institutional (former industrial site, Mitchell St./9th Ave): commission approved (three votes — sector plan, 1‑year plan, and rezoning to institutional), allowing the applicant to pursue development approvals for a proposed women‑and‑children campus. Todd Gilbert of CARM said demand is urgent: “Last week alone, we had to turn 10 families away.”
- RN‑2 request (David Nisley, Shelburne Rd.): denied; staff said RN‑2 would be inconsistent with neighborhood scale and lot patterns.
- Vocational/welding educational facility (industrial‑mixed‑use parcel on McCullough Ave.): special‑use approval granted for about 3,000 sq. ft. of welding/maker‑space with operating hours listed as roughly 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; staff noted the applicant supplied a plan of operations.

Discussion highlights and conditions
Commissioners and members of the public pressed developers on traffic and drainage repeatedly. On Worley Builders’ PR‑6 approval, officials required county engineering‑driven road widening of the western fork of South Gallaher View Road before final plat/permit work. At the Masana Investments hearings neighbors sought legal protections for a required 30‑foot perimeter nondisturbance buffer; the applicant agreed to record a 30‑foot nondisturbed buffer easement on lots that intersect the required buffer (per the preliminary grading exhibit, page 9 of the case file). For the large commercial project on Asheville Highway the commission approved two vertical‑curve variances but denied a blanket intersection‑radius variance; planning added a condition limiting grading in areas under a Phase‑2 environmental study (areas approved for grading will require demonstration at permit stage that they lie outside accepted Phase‑2/brownfield zones) and required reforestation/mitigation plans to be submitted and approved by staff before issuing grading permits.

Neighborhood voices
Opponents repeatedly emphasized small‑street safety and flooding risks. Linda Shone, a nearby homeowner opposing a PR‑7 request, told commissioners that “denial of this rezoning is in the best interest of our community,” saying a seven‑unit project would be out of scale on a 1‑acre lot. Neighbors near potential shelter and industrial reuse sites urged careful study; social‑service advocates and neighborhood leaders backed the CARM site as an urgent needed campus.

What comes next
Approved rezonings and plans will move to the appropriate legislative bodies (Knoxville City Council or Knox County Commission) where final action is required for many items. Projects with conditions — road widening, recorded nondisturbance easements, brownfield/Phase‑2 limitations and reforestation plans — must meet those requirements before Knox County Engineering or planning staff can issue final construction permits.

Ending
The commission handled a full agenda and several complex applications during a meeting that ran more than three hours. For projects with conditions, staff and engineering will now work with applicants on the technical revisions, easements and permits required before construction begins.