Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Middle Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission postpones city’s middle‑housing rule changes after developers, realtors seek more time
Summary
Commissioners postponed proposed amendments to Knoxville’s zoning rules for middle housing by 30 days after developers, realtors and architects warned that new lot‑width language and removal of administrative variances could sharply reduce feasible lots for middle‑housing types on nonconforming parcels.
The Knoxville‑Knox County Planning Commission on July 10 postponed consideration of multiple proposed amendments to Knoxville City Code that would change how “middle housing” (duplexes, triplexes, small multiplexes and related forms) is regulated. The commission voted to delay for 30 days after housing‑industry representatives, architects and real‑estate stakeholders urged additional stakeholder review.
City staff told commissioners the amendments clarify definitions and align site standards across several articles in Appendix B of the Knoxville City Code. The staff report argued the changes would “diversify housing options and increase homeownership opportunity” by, among other changes, creating a new single‑family attached use (allowing individual sale of paired units) and clarifying standards for middle‑housing lot widths, projections, and administrative variances.
Multiple speakers from the East Tennessee Realtors Association and local architects said recent middle‑housing approvals relied heavily on administrative variances and on approvals for nonconforming lots of record. Maria McHale of East Tennessee Realtors warned that removing the administrative‑variance pathway and tightening lot‑width rules without compensating adjustments could eliminate a sizable share of parcels that had been feasible for middle housing. Architect Jonah Pruitt and developer R. Bentley Marlowe presented drawings showing how duplexes and triplexes had been successfully built on narrow, nonconforming lots and said a straight reduction in allowable lot width would prevent similar projects.
The city’s analysis presented by staff noted data showing a large share of nonconforming parcels in RN‑1 through RN‑4 would meet middle‑housing dimensions; staff also said the number of vacant lots that could accommodate larger multiplexes under the draft changes was very small. Commissioners were split: some said the code should be tightened now and then reviewed, while others warned that prohibitive lot thresholds would curtail an already small pipeline of middle‑housing projects.
After hearing the concerns, Commissioner Overton moved to postpone consideration for 30 days “to relook at stuff” and allow staff to work with stakeholders. The motion carried.
Staff told commissioners it will continue data analysis on nonconforming lots, lot‑width impacts and the precise interaction of the draft variance rules with existing nonconforming‑lot protections. Commissioners asked staff and industry to return with revised language that protects small‑lot opportunities for duplexes and multiplexes where the city intends middle housing to be available.
The postponement does not change existing code; applicants may still pursue projects under current rules. The commission’s action creates an explicit 30‑day review window for staff and community stakeholders to refine the proposal before the commission votes again.
