Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infill Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves three adjacent infill houses on Divide Street with site tweaks requested
Summary
The Downtown Design Review Board approved three new single-story primary residences on Divide Street (cases 2D25IH, 2G25IH and 2H25IH), with staff conditions to revise parking location, retain rear trees when possible and add shade trees; one lot’s front setback was recommended to be revised to align with adjacent new construction.
The Downtown Design Review Board on April 16 approved three adjacent infill houses on Divide Street — cases 2D25IH (3343 Divide), 2G25IH (3335 Divide) and 2H25IH (3339 Divide) — subject to staff-recommended site-plan revisions including avoiding front-yard parking, adding walkways to the street, and retaining existing rear-yard trees where possible.
Lindsay, Knoxville Knox County Planning staff, described the three proposed primary structures as mostly one-story on the street-facing facade with an additional basement level exposed to the rear because of steep lot grades. Each house was described as roughly 25 feet wide and 73 feet 8 inches deep with front porches that meet guideline depth (8 feet 8 inches) and driveways accessed from Divide Street; staff said final site plans should revise parking to avoid the front yard and include native or naturalized shade trees in front and rear yards.
Board members discussed parking logistics on the steep lots and tree retention. The applicant, Dave Madden of 3735 Parker Harrison Way, Knoxville, said the slope requires access from the lower rear street and that remaining trees "that aren't touching them" will be left in place. Cameron Bolen, AIA representative, suggested the site could be a candidate for higher-density development in the future but did not move to change the current proposal.
The staff report said one house (3339 Divide) should have a revised front setback so the three houses present a more aligned block face; the board recommended the final site plan provide the exact revised setback measurement to staff. Staff also noted long areas of blank siding on one rear massing and asked the board to consider whether an additional window should be required for the left elevation.
All three applications were approved by motion "per staff recommendation"; the board recorded no formal amendments beyond the conditions included in the staff findings.
