Council approves changes to Knoxville's 'missing middle' rules; developers warn amendments could limit affordable options

Knoxville City Council approved amendments to the zoning code provisions governing middle housing (sometimes called missing middle housing), adopting changes to multiple sections of Appendix B of the Knoxville City Code. The council vote was 6–2.

Supporters on the council said the amendment clarifies how middle‑housing options are reviewed and addressed in specific zoning districts. But developers, local builders and a handful of planning commissioners warned the changes add “poison pills” that will curb the most economical building techniques for small‑scale multi‑unit housing.

What proponents and opponents said Developer and housing‑market speaker Parker Bartholomew argued that the changes would make it harder to build townhomes, triplexes and fourplexes under the residential building code and would push more projects into the commercial building code (the International Building Code), increasing costs and regulatory requirements (for example, triggering accessibility and multifamily standards). Bartholomew said the result would be fewer lower‑cost for‑sale housing units; he contrasted city affordable‑housing project per‑unit costs with smaller private townhome projects he said cost substantially less per unit.

Resident and land‑use critic Arventley Marlowe told the council the proposed text is poorly written, would prevent beneficial forms such as street‑facing townhouses on corner lots, and contradicts earlier council decisions that allowed firewall‑separated multi‑unit townhouses without mandatory sprinklers.

Planning staff response and next steps Planning staff noted the middle‑housing option remains voluntary (property owners can still build under base zone rules), and staff said they would return later in the year with targeted standards for corner lots (to allow multiple principal structures in some corner contexts) and other technical refinements requested by the planning commission. Staff said pocket‑neighborhood and cottage‑court options remain in the code as alternative paths to multiple smaller units on a single site.

Vote and immediate effect The council adopted the ordinance as amended; councilmembers recorded a 6–2 vote in favor. The changes amend Articles 4.6 (middle housing standards), 9.1 (general use regulations), 10.1 (general development requirements) and 14.6 (design review board powers) of Appendix B. Planning staff said they will continue to refine the code and bring further clarifications back to the commission and council.

Ending Developers called for a remand to planning to rewrite problematic language; planning staff said they will study corner‑lot provisions and return with refined language later in the year. Advocates for modest, more affordable housing units said they will monitor how building‑official interpretations and the code changes affect actual project approvals.