Minutes. March 13, 2008

Transcription

1 Minutes March 13, :30 P.M. Φ Main Assembly Room Φ City County Building The Metropolitan Planning Commission met in regular session on March 13, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in the Main Assembly Room, City/County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee. Members: Mr. Trey Benefield, Chair Mr. Stan Johnson Mr. Robert Anders, Vice Chair Mr. Michael Kane A Mr. Bart Carey Mr. Robert Lobetti Ms. Laura Cole Ms. Rebecca Longmire Mr. Art Clancy Mr. Nick Pavlis A Mr. Herbert Donaldson Mr. Jack Sharp Mr. Dick Graf A Mr. Wes Stowers Ms. Kimberly Henry * Arrived late to the meeting. ** Left early in the meeting. A Absent from the meeting 1. ROLL CALL, INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Buz Johnson called the role. Mr. Robert Anders led the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. * 2. APPROVAL OF MARCH 13, 2008 AGENDA THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT. * 3. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 14, 2008 MINUTES THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT. 4. REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENTS, WITHDRAWALS, TABLINGS AND CONSENT ITEMS. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (ANDERS) WERE MADE TO APPROVE POSTPONEMENTS 30 DAYS AS READ UNTIL THE APRIL 10, 2008 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE POSTPONEMENTS 60 DAYS AS READ UNTIL THE MAY 8, 2008 MPC MEETING. MOTION CARRIED POSTPONEMENTS APPROVED.

2 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Automatic Withdrawals Read WITHDRAWALS REQUIRING MPC ACTION MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO WITHDRAW ITEM47A&B DAVID HARRELL, 1-G-08-PA & 1-R-08-RZ. MOTION CARRIED WITHDRAWN. REVIEW OF TABLED ITEMS KNOX COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Definitions and development standards for adult oriented establishments, including, but not limited to, bookstores and motion picture theaters, and changes to related sections LAKEVIEW POINT West side of Fredonia Rd., north of Merchant Dr., Council District 3. ROSEBAY PLACE East side of Rosebay Rd., south of Garden Dr., Council District 4. WILLIAM H. HARRELL PROPERTY, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1R Southeast side of Buffat Mill Rd., Council District 4. HATAUB SUBDIVISION West side of Hickory Creek Rd., north of Everett Rd., Commission District 6. HILL PROPERTY Northwest side of Greenwell Rd., northeast of Pedigo Rd., Commission District 7. EMORY PLACE Northwest side of E. Emory Rd, southwest of Bishop Rd, Commission District 6. VARNELL PROPERTY ON DERRIS DRIVE North side of Derris Drive, East of Wrights Ferry Road, Commission District 4. PROPERTY OF J. RONALD SCHOOLCRAFT, JR. Southeast side of Northshore Drive, southwest of Terrace Woods Way, Council District A-04-OA 1-SC-05-C 8-SB-05-C 1-SF-04-F 6-SY-05-F 4-SG-06-F 4-SX-06-F 5-SP-06-F 7-SU-06-F U THE MENCER PROPERTY 7-SG-07-F At the terminus of Donovan Lane, east of Fox Road, Commission District 5. COPPERLEAF Northeast side of Heiskell Rd, northwest of E. Copeland Dr, Commission District 7. 9-SO-07-F Page 2

3 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 RESUB. OF PART OF THE BEREAN BIBLE CHURCH PROPERTY AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY Prosser Rd north of I-40, Council District 4. BEACON PARK PHASE I South end of Chandler Road at Rogers Island Road, Commission District 5. NORMAN SHAW Northwest side Asheville Hwy., southwest of Grata Rd. One Year Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). Council District SC-07-F 11-SQ-07-F 4-H-06-PA OLIVER A. SMITH Northeast side Lake Heritage Way, southwest side I-140, southeast of Westland Dr., Commission District 5. a. Southwest County Sector Plan Amendment 6-H-06-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to O (Office). b. Rezoning 6-S-06-RZ From PR (Planned Residential) and CA (General Business) to OB (Office, Medical, and Related Services). ITEMS REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM TABLE (Indicated with U) MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE TO UNTABLE THE MENCER PROPERTY 7-SG-07-F. MOTION CARRIED ITEM UNTABLED. TABLINGS (Indicated with T) Read MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO TABLE ITEM NO. 8 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 3-A-08-SC. MOTION CARRIED ITEM TABLED. CONSENT ITEMS Items recommended for approval on consent are marked (*). They will be considered under one motion to approve. KIM HENRY RECUSES FROM DISCUSSION OR VOTING ON THE CONSENT LIST. Mr. Lynn Redmond. 6 & 72 confirmed not on consent list. Item No 13, Brackett Road removed from consent. Item No. 65 King Properties removed from consent. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO HEAR THE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCLUDING ITEMS Page 3

4 13A&B BRACKETT FARMS AND 65 KING PROPERTIES. MOTION CARRIED MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ EXCLUDING ITEMS 13A&B BRACKETT FARMS AND 65 KING PROPERTIES. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. Ordinance Amendments: MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 P 5. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 11-A-07-OA Amendments to the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance creating a new Office-Residential zoning district providing for a mix of such uses that are complementary in scale to adjacent neighborhood housing. 6. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 2-A-08-OA Amendments to the Knoxville-Knox County Minimum Subdivision Regulations revising language dealing with appeals of concept plans and subdivision plats in the City of Knoxville, consistent with state law. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments. Mr. Mark Donaldson: These amendments are in response to a recent court case and the order rendered by Judge Rosenbaum that a provision within the subdivision regulations that provided for an appeal of the concept plan to City Council was unconstitutional under the State constitution. The amendments take that provision out of the subdivision regulations. Concept plan is the first step in platting a piece of property in order to subdivide it into multiple parcels. It is not the same as the development plan that is the final step in several of our zoning districts. It is a completely different process and subject to completely different rules and regulations. We are merely reflecting the opinion and the order rendered by the Court. Mr. Lynn Redmond: 5246 Oak Hill Lane President of Norwood Homeowners Association. We ask that you vote no on this and item no. 72 and ask that these remarks be made a part of Agenda Item no. 72 also. We think there is more involved than housekeeping. There was an LHL case in which Judge Rosenbaum did make a decision regarding appeal rights. There are other cases involved that have a different, contrary opinion. In our community a developer filed an application to do a subdivision. It was approved by MPC and we appealed it to City Council. City Council then turned down that approve. The developer sued City Council in Changers court. A main part of the lawsuit against City Page 4

5 Council was that that they did not have the right to hear these appeals coming up from MPC. Chancellor Weaver ruled against the developer especially against the part where City Council does not have power to appeal. That case has been appealed to the State Supreme Court of Appeals by the plaintiffs. Whatever the decision at the Court of Appeals, and this will probably go to the Supreme Court for final settlement, that will be the controlling law. Circuit Court would be considered inferior to the State Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. It only makes sense to wait until this other case moves through the courts before we give away appeal rights. That is one of our rights in Knoxville to appeal decisions to their elected representatives. If court decisions go against this provision of City Law then that would be the time to clean up the language and not before. Mr. Steve Wise, MPC Attorney The proposed changes are in response to Cartreff decision which dealt with the fact that the appellant process in Knox County, which is peculiar and the only City in the state that had the peculiar process. The court has spoken that the basis for that distinction from the general ordinance is unconstitutional. The existing appeal referenced is in front of Court of Appeals right now. It arises out of appeal to City Council from a BZA ruling, which arises out of a zoning ordinance which is separate and apart from subdivision regulations. There is a final judgment that has not been appeal and therefore is the law of the case that appeals of subdivision decisions are not to go to legislative bodies, but are to go to Chancery Court. The developer and homeowner s association were the parties to the final judgment. MOTION (CLANCY) WAS MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Redmond: That case never went to BZA that case went directly from MPC to City Council to Court. I think that the case in the courts right now will be the controlling court case. Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr. 550 West Main Avenue. The Cartreff decision involved only the Minimum Subdivision Regulations of Knoxville and Knox Co. The City of Knoxville is unique in allowing appeal from this body to the legislative body to review your actions regarding subdivisions. The court held that that was unconstitutional and that it was special legislation that violated the State constitution that permited those appeals to go to the City Council of Knoxville. City Council and City of Knoxville were party to that case. After that case, City Council nor City of Knoxville did not appeal. Mr. Swanson and Mr. Kiser, then City Law Director, concurred that the Subdivision Regulations did need to be amended to take out the right of appeal. I am also involved in the case Mr. Redmond referenced. That involves not the subdivision regulations, but the zoning ordinance. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Page 5

6 Whether or not the City Council has the authority to hear appeals from this body regarding a use on review. That is in the Court of Appeals at this time and will be briefed in the next 60 days. That was Camden Realty and did not involve the subdivision regulations. Mr. Buz Johnson: Item No. 72 is the changes to the Admin Rules to be consistent with the Subdivision Regulations and involve subdivision only and not use on review. Mr. Clancy: How is it possible that our decisions can be appealed when they are not legislative decisions? We recommend to a legislative body. Mr. Wise: You operate in two different arenas. You operate under the zoning ordinance and they are all appealed to the legislative body. You also serve in a quasi judicial role when making decisions under the subdivision ordinance. Logic tells you that is not appealable to a legislative body. But as a result of a moratorium placed on subdivision without sewer in West Knox County in early 1970, the State legislature was solicited by the local governments to create that appellant right to the legislative bodies. The way it was enacted it applied to a County that fell within a certain population parameter. It is facially unconstitutional. Most people felt like it was unconstitutional, but did not want to deal with it and felt it would go away. About 2 years ago the County finally got fed up with subdivision appeals and went to the State and got themselves removed from the process. The City was happy doing subdivision appeals. Now the court has spoken it is clearly unconstitutional. Now we will look just like all any other municipality in the State of Tennessee. LONGMIRE SECONDED MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. MOTION (LONGMIRE) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO HEAR ITEM NO. 72 AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED MPC Minutes March 13, Consideration of amendments to MPC s Administrative Rules and Procedures revising language dealing with appeals of actions regarding the Minimum Subdivision Regulations. 2-F-08-OB STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Mr. Mark Donaldson: Our Administrative Rules reflect the same administrative process as diagramed in the Minimum Subdivision regulations. As we amend the subdivision regulations we need to amend the Administrative Rules to a comparable process. Page 6

7 MOTION (JOHNSON) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 P 7. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 2-C-08-OA Amendments to the City of Knoxville Zoning Ordinance regarding parking in front yards. Alley or Street Closures: T 8. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 3-A-08-SC Request closure of Evans St between Bonny Avenue and south to terminus at parcel 081PC003, Council District 1. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. Street or Subdivision Name Changes: None Plans, Studies, Reports: * 9. CITY OF KNOXVILLE ONE YEAR PLAN 2008 UPDATE 3-A-08-OYP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the update. Concepts/Uses on Review: 10. EVERETT WOODS - BENCHMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. a. Concept Subdivision Plan 12-SF-07-C Northeast side of Everett Rd., north of I-40, Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1-13, Deny variance 14, and Approve the concept plan subject to 13 conditions. Mr. Billy Fulgum Hardin Valley Rd. We would like reconsideration of items 3 & 4. We feel like requirement on No. 3 is in excess of the current requirements for the subdivision process. This is the wrong place to address it as far as the concept plan or construction plan. It is a process of the home itself. It is process of homeowners and suggest a better place to put this requirement would be on the building permit itself. Then maybe No. 4 could stand on its own and be included with No. 3 being a requirement for a building permit. There is some severe topo on the site of 70 or so acres. To address the grade issue, we have about half the site reserved as open area and it will be completely Page 7

8 undisturbed. We provided a preliminary grading plan per staff recommendation which shows that the subdivision will work as planned and will not have extreme conditions. That is the purpose of doing the preliminary grading plan. We did that in excess of the normal requirements to show that the subdivision will work. It is logistically unfeasible for this developer to do this. The developer I am working for will develop the property and sell the lots to home builders who will build the homes on the lots. He will have no idea about the footprints, foundation walls and specific drainage around the building. It goes back to whoever is building the home. If we run into situation where a site retainer wall is needed, that will be identified up front as part of the normal process. Anything as far as home construction would be speculative at this point. Feel like it is an undo constraint. Mr. Tom Brechko: As we have fewer and fewer development tracts that are flat and we get into steeper slope sites, we are starting to run into problems. We are finding that the lots and the access to those lots with cut and fill create problems for the person who purchases that lot and builds a home on it. This is not the first one, we did it about 2-3 months ago on Chesterfield Subdivision where there were similar situations. We are trying to address when we see grade issues that at design plan that they provide more detail on these lots. At that point engineering would determine specific lots because of design issues. What they were proposing is a d design where you come in more at grade with your driveway. You create a garage over a high basement or two lower levels and this gets into more building costs and issues such as design of retaining walls and such. We are trying to set a process that at design plan they do a more detailed grading plan of the site. Engineering has some flexibility in the wording of this condition as to whether they provide all lots or whether they provide all lots and the scale. On the plat when they identify lots that are potential problems, that those would have to be dealt with in detail when building plans come in. A lot of developers will do a subdivision of lots and then sell it and they have the problem and cost with building something that is accessible. We are trying to address that up front. This is notifying anybody that buys the lot that they are going to have a lot more cost associated with building a house on it. Mr. Clancy: Is that not a marketability problem? That is the developer s problem? Mr. Brechko: We have been on a site when there was a very steep driveway and surveyors were trying to determine grade because people cannot from driveway to lot or garage. We have ordinances that look at the subdivision in creating the lots, and building the road system. We have a permitting system that looks at the buildings. At this point there is nothing that looks at how you get between the two. We are trying to deal with these problem sites. We MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Page 8

9 are saying they can be engineered, but it is identifying them as costly to build on. It may be an individual buying a lot and have a lot of costs they did not realize. This puts them on notice of the grade problem. Ms. Longmire: What do you do put a sign on it that says do not build here? Mr. Brechko: The recommendation is when specific lots are identified as problem lots, they are just identified on the plat. Someone doing due diligence would recognize this as a potential problem. We put in conditions on plats regarding access and would be the same. Ms. Laura Cole: Staff recommended a lower density, but County Commission approved a higher density? Yes Mr. Dick Graf: If your intent is to build a predetermined layout like a condominium site, then you could do work you are being asked to do. If just putting them out for sale, they do not know what the footprint is or how the guy builds and what they want to do. A lot of subdivisions do not go in exactly the way they are laid out. When you start working you look at the grade you make adjustments or changes due to conditions. It is one thing to look at a contour and then be standing on the site and looking at it. This is not right. I would not be opposed to making a notation that all the houses in this subdivision may require retaining walls or engineered footings. I do know what else you are going to do by asking them to do all the work they are not going to use other than put a note on the plat. Mr. Kim Henry: To add a conditoin to the approval of subdivision plat does not seem appropriate. I would like to hear from the County. Ms. Pionke: County Engineering. Problem with developments on steep slopes is the fact you could have developer sell his property to different builders. If two lots front one street and two lots front another street, you could end up with drainage problems because one builder does what he wants on his lot and does not coordinate with other three builders on the other lots. The other more serious problem is the actual additional engineering that needs to be done on the foundations on front end. Roy Braden with Codes is here. We are starting to get foundation failures because the builders are not doing their job up front and we are having to go in and engineer on the back side what should have been done in the first place. We are trying to ask that as part of the design plan that we realize the grading on the site will give you a building pad for what you need to do. After that if more needs to be done those lots will be identified on a final plat so a builder or home owner who buys the lot will know there is going to be more due diligence on those lots. This will help engineering and help building codes folks. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Page 9

10 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Mr. Roy Braden Knox County Bldg Official, City County Bldg, Suite 547 Problems that come out building on steep slopes is substantial foundation failures and drainage problems. Building code that Knox County adopted in 2006, there are changes in that code that requires houses to built so far from slopes. In this subdivision this would not happen so they cannot meet the code. The code says that the Building Official can approve something other than that. What I would accept is an engineers design. That is all we want is a note on the plat that the people buying these lots would have to have engineering design for their footings, foundations, retaining walls, and such. Mr. Benefield as if he felt that this engineering should occur at subdivision design stage or when the houses are being designed. Mr. Braden I assume it says that these lots would require design on the houses foundation so that whoever buys the lot would have to provide that at the time of the building permit. Mr. Kane: You talked about drainage issues in terms of siting houses. Would the foundation wall design that plan be conveyed to the final plat? It sounds like developer puts in a detailed lot grading and foundation wall design plan and then when it goes to final plat it just says here are problem lots and doe not say you have to follow the ones reviewed and approved. Mr. Brechko: Initial plan at the design plan stage is an overall grading plan identifying that there are areas that there are foundation wall that would be needed. It is more of a generalized plan that looks at problem lots in the subdivision. At the design plan engineering will identify which areas they have to be more specific and from that point they identify specific lots that need more engineering data. The second part of No. 3 deals with further breakdown and more details on specific building sites. The specifics as to what they will have to do will differ from lot to lot. Mr. Kane: Those concerns at the time of final plat how are they conveyed other into a final plat. Mr. Brechko: When they submit their building plan for a specific site, then it is determined what you need for a specific site. If we were dealing with a subdivision with wide lots, there are a lot of things you can do with access, but when you are dealing with lots 75 to 80 feet wide and having to build close to the road, there are not as many options where they can place the building on the property. Ms. Henry: This is jumping the gun on a process that staff has started to look at steep slope development regulations. Are we sure Page 10

11 we want to jump out on a single subdivision and enforce something that may be changing in the future. How many subdivisions do we get that the initial developer does not take through construction? Mr. Dan Kelly: We have to jump in at some time. We are not necessary singling this developer out we have used this approach previously. Every month for the last number of years we continue to see steeper and steeper property proposed for development. You hear backlash from people about clear cutting and making the building sites work. On basis element of the subdivision regulations is that we create buildable lots. In order to have a buildable lot you have to have a buildable site. There has to be a site on the lot that you can place a house. This is getting to you prove to use that you have a building site on the lot. Otherwise why would we be recommending approval of the lot. Once the lot is created there is almost a guarantee. Right now there is not a real connection between subdivision process and building permit process without a number of different things that are required. We are trying to bring these two processes into harmony. We are basing our recommendation on some basic general language in the subdivision regulations. These are things we feel that because of the types of projects we see every month that we need to get into in some form or fashion. There is a section in the subdivision regulations called the Hillside Regulations. They are very hard to apply because over 50% of the entire site has to have a grade exceeding 25% before they can be applied. Basically the steeper the property the larger the lot has to be. Right now people are trying to put 70 foot lots on properties that do not have much grade. If you put a 70 foot lot on a property with 25% grade, then you have a problem. We are going to get into possibly into grades on driveways because of the situation we have right now. We have lots where builder have built and you have to hit the driveway sideways because if go straight then your car drags off the road or into the garage. All of that is a reflection on the work that we do. Mr. Clancy: It seems like we are trying to do the codes administration job. I want Roy to be able to tell them you need an engineering letter to get this done. I think Mr. Graf is right. A notation on the final plat is sufficient. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (GRAF) WERE MADE TO APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN WITH CONDITIONS EXCEPT CONDITON NO. 3. Mr. Fulgum: As far as steep driveways and narrow lots is one reason provide preliminary grading plan to show that we will not have steep driveways. Mr. Anders: What do you think this would add to your costs ballpark? MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Page 11

12 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Mr. Fulgum: I do not disagree with conditions, but where they are placed. The timing of them. Probably $5,000 a lot. Mr. Benefield I do not think it is about money, but at this point they are not able to say what house is going to go on this lot. Designing retaining wall would be almost impossible. Mr. Brechko: Part of the reason for the condition is that we do not know how many lots. The grading required at the design plan stage is to get a better idea. From preliminary grade plan they are showing how they think they are going to approach access to the property. All we are looking at in the design plan is more detail in grading plans and whether or not there are any foundation wall type issues. The specifics are dealt with at the building stage. All they are dealing with is a more detailed grading plan at the design plan stage for drainage and everything. If there is a problem with that one wording, I would recommend on condition 3 you remove the one reference to foundation wall design that required the more detailed grading plan. From that we can identify which ones are more problem lots that the details of the foundation walls will be dealt with. If you eliminate condition 3 would have to modify condition 4 because it refers to condition no. 3. Mr. Graf: This sounds good until you have to work with it every day. What you are putting on the backs of people that have to follow through is a whole lot of work. If all you are asking for is you submit a detail as to what kind of wall and that is general and not hard to come up with. Codes is going to want to know that when you come in for a building permit. The inspectors will not take responsibility to say this is acceptable. You have to provide an engineering letter. That is not hard nor the most expensive thing to do. He is trying to give you a foundation plan and you may not need anything, but a retaining wall plan. It is all hypothetical until it is built. Mr. Anders: Concern is protection for the general public. Lots of time people buy a lot and then get a builder and they find out then what they have to do in detail. A good solid notation on the final plat should suffice. Ms. Longmire: If we approve the concept plan, we can still put a notation on the final plat that says buyer beware of these lots? CLANCY AND GRAF AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN AND VARIANCES SUBJECT TO 13 CONDITIONS EXCLUDING CONDITON NO. 3 AND MODIFYING CONDITION NO. 4 TO REMOVE IDENTIFIED IN CONDITION 3 ABOVE. Page 12

13 Mr. Clancy: That will make it read. Including a notation on the final plat identifying the specific lots that will require design plans designed by an engineer registered in the State of Tennessee for footings, foundation walls and retaining walls and fill material used for the support of footings, foundation walls, retaining walls and ongrade slabs prior to issuance of a building permit. That way the notation is on there on the final plat. The general public will have a buyers beware. The developer will have to do due diligence to get a buildable lot in order to market it and will have noted on the plat that you will have to have an engineer to get this approved in order to get the permit. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 b. Use On Review 12-I-07-UR Proposed use: Residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential) District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 128 detached residential dwellings on individual lots subject to 1 condition. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (LONGMIRE) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. P 11. BUTLER HOMES ON GLEASON DR. - BUTLER HOMES & CONSTRUCTION a. Concept Subdivision Plan 1-SG-08-C Northwest side of Gleason Dr., north of Ashton Ct., Commission District 5. P b. Use On Review 1-J-08-UR Proposed use: Attached residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential) District. P 12. BRIAR TOWNE - SDG, INC a. Concept Subdivision Plan 2-SB-08-C South side of Asheville Hwy., east of Boundary Ln., Commission District 8. P b. Use On Review 2-F-08-UR Proposed use: Detached residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential) District. Page 13

14 MPC Minutes March 13, BRACKETT FARMS - LEGACY BUILDERS a. Concept Subdivision Plan 3-SA-08-C North side of Brackett Rd., northwest of E. Emory Rd., Commission District 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve variances 1-5 and approve the concept plan subject to 10 conditions. Mr. Stewart Hanline: 6607 Brackett Road I sent you a letter at previous meetings and several items were addressed in the report on this plan. Five years ago we opposed a development on Emory Road because of the amount of traffic that it would generate through our neighborhood. I was assured they were going to build an access road to avoid a slope. I could tell that slope was impossible. They assured us they would and they did not do it. Once it is built it is difficult to change. This time I am making a case of traffic on Brackett. Brackett Road is a small road that is used as a short cut. Cars come through there at excessive speed and it is not designed as a two way traffic road. The report says it is 18 to 21 feet wide and I doubt if it is 15 feet wide. They say the average daily transit on the road now is 96 per day and projecting in per day. With the development would increase to 363. That is a 75% increase. I have to walk across the road to get to my mailbox and it becomes four times more likely that someone is going to run into me or one of the kids. I have no objection to the development. Good luck to the slopes. Report makes reference to several crashes on Emory Road for people coming into Brackett Road. Brackett Road and Bell Road is a blind intersection. Most of the people are probably going to drive out into Bell Road because that would be the direction to approach the Walmart being built. Now traffic on Emory Road at Maynardville is 11,770 vehicles and projecting in 2012 that will be up to 13,536. I do not think that took into account the building of Walmart which will increase the traffic 5 to 6 times more. At the current time there are 42 houses and most have 1 acre of property or more. Before we accept the plan someone should take responsibility for improving the highway before they build this. Another thing was the water. My rates went up 60% last year. The developer needs to pay for this rather than me and the other people that live there. Mr. Robert Campbell: 7533 Taggart Lane We did have a preliminary traffic study done. There are several roads that have more traffic than we want on them. The property slopes and has a top and bottom area and we are trying to stay away from the slope in the middle. We made the lots bigger 90 to 100 feet wide by 100 plus feet deep to get away from the situations that we just discussed. The road has been measured several times Page 14

15 and engineered and is 18 to 20 feet with a double stripe, which generally indicates the County s acceptability. Where the stop sign is going to be at the curve, we will be able to slow traffic. Most people into Halls will go down Brackett to Emory Road. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Ms. Longmire: Is it the three way stop that you have concerns about not being followed up on? Mr. Hanline. Three people have driven through the fence. If you are coming down that hill there needs to be speed bumps to get them to slow down. When coming from the other direction from Brackett, it is a blind corner. Ms. Longmire I think the three way stop will help your situation. Mr. Hanline Can we include the speed bumps for road calming? Ms. Pionke: County Engineering. We have traffic calming in subdivisions and not on a major road such as Brackett. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 b. Use On Review 3-D-08-UR Proposed use: Detached residential subdivision in PR (Planned Residential) District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 69 attached residential dwellings subject to 2 conditions. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED * 14. KARNS CROSSING 3-SB-08-C North side of Oak Ridge Hwy., east and west sides of Karns Crossing Ln., Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Concept Plan subject to 6 conditions. Final Subdivisions: * 15. BROWN & WHITTLE SPRINGS ADDITION 11-SV-06-F Northwest side of Mineral Springs Ave northwest of Whittle Springs Rd, Council District 4. Page 15

16 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 P 16. DEWAYNE WHITT PROPERTY 11-SW-07-F (5/8/08) North side of Wood Road, northeast of Majors Road, Commission District 8. P 17. GOOSE LANDING RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 3 12-SP-07-F Southwest side of W. Gallaher Ferry Road northwest of Hickory Creek Road, Commission District 6. P 18. NATALIE ROBINSON PROPERTY 12-SQ-07-F Northeast end of Nighbert lane, northeast of Choto Road, Commission District SMITHBILT, LLC PROPERTY 1-SC-08-F South side of Hardin Valley Road, west of Westcott Blvd., Commission District 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny variance 14 and deny final plat. Mr. Jim Hill 7745 Laberington Powell HANDED OUT A PICTURE WHICH BECOMES A PART OF THESE MINUTES. I want to make a correction. It is actually 5.36 acres and divided into 3 lots. Lot 1 does not have a problem. Lot 2 has two existing homes. Lot 2 has a concrete road and we are proposing to use as a joint permanent easement to serve these homes. We are only adding one lot which is 1.6 and my daughter starting to build on it. We can comply with 20 feet width on the area. Lot 3 we can comply with the driveway when the building permit is issued. If we could not get a fire truck up there was staff concern. A huge concrete truck goes many times up there when building a home and it is full of concrete. Then a fire truck should be able to get up there. I contacted Glen Wagner and he brought the chief of Karns Fire Department out and did not have a problem with fire truck getting up there. Mr. Tom Brechko: The subdivision is utilizing a joint permanent easement for access. Minimum standards for serving up to 5 lots is a 20 foot wide and paved when steeper grade. They are identifying they will widen it to 20 feet. Maximum grade for a joint permanent easement is 12% and we have considered variances for up to 15% Page 16

17 grade. In the documentation provided they identify that the grade is about 22% and County Engineering staff has found up to 30% grade on the road. When we discuss issues of access in to subdivision with steeper grades the Fire Marshall s office has stated that going over 15% grade creates problems for emergency vehicles. Our reason for denial is that this far exceeds the maximum grade for a joint permanent easement. Anyone that lives there and utilizes the road would have issues. We have regulations in the subdivision regulations so that we do not have problems after they buy lots and find out they have access issues. Mr. Clancy: You said you could comply with the 20 foot wide easement. Asked about the grade. Mr. Hill: As you go on up to the top of the hill it is very flat. We will be able to comply with the regulations up to the home. There is a turn around at the end. Where he is talking about the steeper grade to Lot 2 is where the grade is. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (JOHNSON) WERE MADE TO APPROVE VARIANCE AND FINAL PLAT. Ms. Longmire: Asked about if runoff from concrete driveway that steep would affect surrounding property. Your daughter may not live there forever. The minimum subdivision regulations are just that, the minimum. Mr. Hill: It is an acre and one half lot and that would not be a problem. We will be able to do the required grade on that lot. Ms. Pionke: County Engineering. The County is not in favor of approving this final plat. Dennis Irwin, inspector, went out and flagged as not being in regulation. I went out with the traffic engineer. If you have not been out there, it will wow you. The house on lot 1 from then on is very steep. Every time we have talked with Rural Metro and the Fire Marshall s Office they ask for nothing over 15% grade for fire truck equipment. Problem is because of the depth of the joint permanent easement off of Hardin Valley could not get the hoses to the homes. It was quite interesting doing it in a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Mr. Hill: You would be able to turn around at the end of the joint permanent easement at the hammer head. Mr. Graf: Asked if a hammer head in. The road goes about half way up about 560 feet. Asked about problem from getting there to hammerhead. Wannis Rghebi: Steepness is from 5 to 22%. From hammer head to building site would be 15% maximum. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Page 17

18 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 Mr. Hill: A concrete truck went up to build this house and did not have a problem getting up there. Mr. Graf: The new driveway you pour will have a 15% grade. Do not see a problem. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Anders Yes Clancy Yes Cole No Graf Yes Henry Yes Johnson Yes Kane No Lobetti Yes Longmire No Pavlis Yes Sharp Yes Benefield No MOTION CARRIED 8-4. VARIANCE AND FINAL PLAT APPROVED. A BREAK WAS TAKEN AND THE TAPES CHANGED AT 3:09 P.M. * 20. GOVERNORS LANDING 1-SK-08-F West side of E. Governor John Sevier Highway, south of Holbert Lane, Commission District 7. * 21. CREEKHEAD 1-SS-08-F Southeast side of Creekhead Drive, west side of Helmbolt Road, Council District 3. * 22. WELLS-WATSON PROPERTY 2-SC-08-F Hill Road south of Cabbage Lane, Commission District 7. P 23. REALIGNMENT OF BEAVER RIDGE ROAD AT OAK RIDGE 2-SD-08-F HIGHWAY Page 18

19 Beaver Ridge Road at Oak Ridge Highway, Commission District 6. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 P 24. BLACKBERRY FOREST 2-SF-08-F South side of Pedigo Road, north of Greenwell Road, Commission District 7. P 25. SCRIPPS CAMPUS 2-SJ-08-F (5/8/08) North of Sherrill, east of Pellissippi, west of Cedar Bluff, Council District 2. * 26. QUALITY MACHINE & WELDING COMPANY PROPERTY 3-SA-08-F RESUBDIVISION Southeast side of Ninth Ave, Gillespie and Fleming, Council District 4. P 27. JACKY & MICHAEL NEWMAN PROPERTY 3-SB-08-F (5/8/08) South side of Clement Rd, west of Jim Wolfe Rd, Commission District 8. * 28. FOUNTAIN CITY COMPANY RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF 3-SC-08-F LOTS 14 & 15 Northeast side of Gresham Rd, northwest of Campus Ln, Council District 4. * 29. BROOKVIEW TOWN CENTRE RESUBDIVISION 3-SD-08-F Northeast side of N. Weisgarber Rd, southeast of Brookvale Ln, Council District 2. * 30. THORNE 3-SE-08-F Terminus of Sellers Lane off Sherrill Lane, Commission District 5. Page 19

20 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 * 31. EDWARD SMITH PROPERTY RESUBDIVISION 3-SF-08-F Ball Camp Pike at Schaad Rd, Commission District 6. * 32. J B CHADWELL RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 2 3-SG-08-F South side of Howell Road east of Hudson Road, Commission District WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO PUBLICATION 3-SH-08-F * 34. KARNS CROSSING LOT 8 3-SI-08-F West side of Karns Crossing, north of Oak Ridge Hwy, Commission District 6. * 35. STEELE CROSSING 3-SJ-08-F South side Hardin Valley Rd, east of Steele Rd, Commission District 6. * 36. WEBB LANE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 2 3-SK-08-F Northeast quad of intersection of Webb Ln and Third Creek Rd, Council District 6. * 37. TERA'S POINT PHASE 2 3-SL-08-F South side of Emory Rd between Thomas Lane and Browns Gap, Commission District 7. Page 20

21 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 * 38. THE SHOPS AT MURPHY ROAD LOT 1 3-SM-08-F Southeast side of Washington Pike, northeast of Murphy Rd, Council District 4. * 39. BISHOP RIDGE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS SN-08-F East side of Bishop Rd, south of North Meadow Blvd., Commission District 7. P 40. DOWELL SPRINGS RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 4 & 4R2 Terminus of Old Weisgarber Dowell Springs Blvd., Council District 3. 3-SO-08-F * 41. FONTECCHIO LAKESIDE VILLAS RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 3-SP-08-F North side of Lake Ridge Dr, east of Spring St, Commission District 5. * 42. SOUTHEASTERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6R2 North side of Murdock Rd, east of Lovell Rd, Commission District 6. 3-SQ-08-F * 43. MARIETTA ADDITION RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 36 & 37 Southeast side of Bonny Ave, northeast of Divide St, Council District 5. 3-SR-08-F Page 21

22 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 * 44. RESUBDIVISION OF TALLULAH LLC PROPERTY 3-SS-08-F Southwest side of Parkside Dr, west of I-40, Council District 2. * 45. KNOX COUNTY KODAK ROAD PARK 3-ST-08-F Southeast side of Kodak Rd, east of Voltz Ln, Commission District 8. Rezonings and Plan Amendment/Rezonings: P 46. CITY OF KNOXVILLE 3-R-02-RZ East side of Sherlake Ln., west side of Hayfield Rd., south of Parkside Dr., Council District 2. Rezoning from No Zone to C-6 (General Commercial Park). W 47. DAVID HARRELL South side Fox Lonas Rd., northeast side N Cedar Bluff Rd., Council District 2. a. One Year Plan Amendment 1-G-08-PA From MDR (Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial). THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. W b. Rezoning (Revised) 1-R-08-RZ From RP-1 (Planned Residential) to C-6 (General Commercial Park). THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 48. AARON ROBERTS 3-A-08-RZ Southwest side Mayes Chapel Rd., southeast of Gordon Smith Rd., Commission District 7. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RA (Low Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve RA (Low Density Residential). * 49. JERRY A. DRAIN 3-B-08-RZ Northwest side Oak Ridge Hwy., southwest of Karns Crossing Ln., Commission District 6. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CA (General Business). Page 22

23 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CA (General Business). P 50. SOUTHERN DESIGN GROUP Northwest side Gamble Dr., north side Willow Way, Commission District 6. a. North County Sector Plan Amendment 3-C-08-SP From A/RR (Agricultural/Rural Residential)/SLPA (Slope Protection Area) to LDR (Low Density Residential)/SLPA (Slope Protection Area). P b. Rezoning 3-C-08-RZ From A (Agricultural) to PR (Planned Residential). * 51. PHILLIPS REAL ESTATE, INC. Northwest side Rutledge Pike, west of Transport Ln., Commission District 8. a. Northeast County Sector Plan Amendment 3-A-08-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to C (Commercial). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve C (Commercial) designation for all of parcel * b. Rezoning 3-D-08-RZ From RB (General Residential) to CB (Business and Manufacturing). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve CB (Business & Manufacturing) zoning for part of parcel zoned RB. * 52. BREAKTHROUGH CORP. INC. 3-E-08-RZ Northwest side Maryville Pike, southwest of Woodson Dr., Commission District 9. Rezoning from RA (Low Density Residential) to PR (Planned Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve PR (Planned Residential) at a density up to 3 du/ac. * 53. JIM SLYMAN 3-F-08-RZ Page 23

24 West side Fox Rd., west of Donovan Ln., Commission District 5. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to OB (Office, Medical, and Related Services). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve OB (Office, Medical & Related Services) MPC Minutes March 13, TODD HOWARTH Southeast side Westland Dr., southwest of Vista Oaks Ln., Commission District 4. a. West City Sector Plan Amendment 3-B-08-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENY MDR (Medium Density Residential) Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr: On behalf of applicant. Under the recommended density we could do 12 units and under the requested 16 units. This is a difference of four units. This property has no environmental constraints. Presently this property has 4 single family detached homes on it. Our proposal is 16 town homes. Right now there are 4 driveways onto Westland Drive and we propose one driveway. This is located within the urban growth bound and is perfect infill property. Mr. Howarth has talked to the neighbors and they are in support. Most property around it is low density residential about 15 feet to the east there is property zoned up to 8 units per acre. This is within the urban growth boundary and we ought to look at a little more density. 6.7 is appropriate we could get 12 units per acre. Although not in the boundary of city, it is in an area that is well built up. We will not have to rezone farms as much as in the past if you stick with your policy to promote infill development within the urban growth area in the county. Ask your approval of MDR and requested density Mr. Mike Brusseau: This is coming back to us in 2006 we recommended 5 units per acre and County Commission reduced the density to 4 units per acre. There are densities greater than 5 units per acres within 1500 feet. We feel infill can be done with less than 6.7 units per acre. There are higher densities spread around Westland Drive. The West City Sector Plan was just redone this past year and designated this area as low density residential. Mr. Michael Kane: Did the owner or developer participate in the sector plan process? I think it goes both ways even if a developer or someone is just interested in property for a certain use. I encourage more participation in that process. Page 24

25 Mr. Seymour: No, he did not participate in the Sector Plan process. MOTION (ANDERS) AND SECOND (CLANCY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 b. Rezoning 3-G-08-RZ From PR (Planned 1-4 du/ac to PR (Planned up to 6.7 du/ac. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve an increased PR density of up to 5 du/ac. MOTION (ANDERS) AND SECOND (CLANCY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE PR (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) AT A DENSITY UP TO 6.7 DU/AC. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. P 54. DR. STEVE COPELAND 3-H-08-RZ Northwest side Millertown Pike, northwest of Amelia and Spring Hill Roads, Council District 4. Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to O-1 (Office, Medical, and Related Services). P 55. PJC PROPERTIES, LLC (REVISED) South side Strawberry Plains Pike, west of E. Governor John Sevier Hwy., Commission District 8. a. East County Sector Plan Amendment 3-D-08-SP From LDR (Low Density Residential) & STPA (Stream Protection Area) to LI (Light Industrial) & STPA (Stream Protection Area). P b. Rezoning 3-I-08-RZ From A (Agricultural) & F (Floodway) to PC (Planned Commercial) & F (Floodway). * 56. CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT 3-J-08-RZ South side Western Ave., west side Tennessee Ave., Council District 3. Rezoning from I-3 (General Industrial) to O-2 (Civic and Institutional). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve O-2 (Civic and Institutional). Page 25

26 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 * 57. SOUTHEASTERN DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. 3-K-08-RZ West side Fox Rd., north of Castleglen Ln., Commission District 5. Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to OB (Office, Medical, and Related Services). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve OB (Office, Medical & Related Services). P 58. METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION 3-L-08-RZ Westmoreland Heights area (See map on file), Council District 2. Rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-1EN (Established Neighborhood). Uses on Review: 59. SHELIA PROFFITT 2-I-07-UR North side of Mineral Springs Av., east of Whittle Springs Rd. Proposed use: One detached dwelling in RP-1 (Planned Residential) & O-1 (Office, Medical & Related Services) District. Council District 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for one detached dwelling on this 2.82 acre site as shown on the development plan subject to 6 conditions. MOTION (CLANCY) AND SECOND (HENRY) WERE MADE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED. P 60. REVEIZ CUSTOM HOMES, LLC 11-J-07-UR (5/808) North side of Hardin Valley Rd., west of Westcott Blvd. Proposed use: Mixed Commercial Development in PC (Planned Commercial) District. Commission District 6. * 61. NEELY REALTY PARTNERSHIP (Revised) 12-C-07-UR Southeast side of Forest Ave., northeast side of S. Twenty First St. Proposed use: Dwelling units and a restaurant in conjunction with a food market/grocery store in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District. Council District 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for 5 dwelling units & a restaurant in conjunction with a food market/grocery store in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district, subject to 9 conditions. Page 26

27 MPC Minutes March 13, 2008 * 62. SIGN-CO, INC. 1-F-08-UR West side of N. Seven Oaks Dr., north side of Kingston Pk. Proposed use: Directory sign in SC-3 (Regional Shopping Center) District. Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Master Signage Plan for Windsor Square Shopping Center to include a development directory sign on the Kingston Pike frontage as shown subject to 5 conditions. W 63. SIGN-CO., INC. 1-G-08-UR North side of Kingston Pk., west of N. Seven Oaks Dr. Proposed use: Pylon sign in SC-3 (Regional Shopping Center) District. Council District 2. THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN THE MEETING. * 64. ROBERT BEDWELL 2-B-08-UR East side of N. Gallaher View Rd., south of Broome Rd. Proposed use: Apartment development (404 total units) in RP-1 (Planned Residential) & RP-1 (Planned Residential) pending District. Council District 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the development plan for up to 52 additional apartment units subject to 8 conditions. 65. KING PROPERTIES & DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 3-A-08-UR Northeast side of Dewine Rd., northeast side of Fleetwood Dr. Proposed use: Reduce the required peripheral setback along the southern and eastern property lines from 25' to 15' to enclose porches on previously approved plan in RP-1 (Planned Residential) District. Council District 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised development plan, subject to 4 conditions. Ms. Karen Shultz: 941 Executive Park Drive. Representing CrossCreek Apartments. We request that you continue the 25 foot setback and feel that is close enough to us. We have a nice serene apartment and would like to keep it that way. Mr. Robert Campbell: 7523 Taggart Lane. On behalf of applicant. A lot of people are looking to buy condominiums are looking for a closed addition on the back. The regulation allows us to put porches that Page 27