Thu
Feb 1 2007
02:44:pm
Report on South Waterfront Oversight Committee Meeting
By: Rachel  shortURL

The Oversight Committee meeting last night was well-attended, both by members and by onlookers (many of whom spoke to the committee about various issues).

In order to carefully listen and evaluate all proposed changes, the meeting lasted 4 hours. It was 4 hours of hard, thoughtful work by all participants, and I couldn't help being struck by the comparison to a meeting that took place earlier in the day (and we managed to get through 4 hours w/o one single recess - imagine that!)

In the end, the committee (which is an advisory body) agreed (after including a few caveats and questions to be resolved) with the recommendations of the project consultants. Changes requested by five property owners represented by Arthur Seymour to raise building heights (from 70' to 100' in the SW-4 district and from 60' to 150' on the Holston Gases property) and to eliminate the setback requirement on upper stories of the tallest buildings were rejected. The committee also agreed to recommend keeping the size of the river buffer at 70' (the land owners were asking for a decrease to 50'), and rejected a request to eliminate the new River Road from the Holston Gases property.

The property owners also requested removing the maximum lot size requirement. This is set at 3 acres in order to prevent "superblocks" and support development of an urban street grid. The Committee also rejected this request in favor of retaining the maximum lot size.

The committee did agree to increase the maximum parking #s in some districts, but kept the maximum parking requirement (thus ensuring that #9 will call us fascist).

From memory, I can count 18 Committee members present and I may be leaving out one or two. On some issues there were one or two dissenters, so the consensus was not unanimous, but it was solid to overwhelming.

There were a few other technical and more narrow issues addressed, which I'll be happy to spell out for anybody who's interested.

The new version of the form-based code will be available tomorrow, Feb. 2. I presume it will be available on the City website, since every previous version has been published there. This is the version that will go to MPC on Feb. 8.

BTW, MPC Commissioners were invited to attend last night, especially since they postponed the code at their last meeting in order for the proposed changes to be addressed. Sadly, only five of the fifteen showed up. Thanks to Ray Evans, Trey Benefield, Herb Donalson, Art Clancy, and one other Commissioner who I can't identify.

If MPC approves the code on 2/8, it will be on Council agenda for first reading on 2/13.

Hayes Hickman covered the story for the KNS, and sat through all 4 hours, so kudos to him as well.

Topics:
127
vote
Bill Lyons's picture

As a member of the

Submitted by Bill Lyons on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 3:12pm.

As a member of the oversight committee I too was impressed with the quality of the deliberations and the good work of the consultant team. As Gemini says, the next steps are to MPC and then to city council. The process and the product have been and continue to be most impressive. I especially appreciate the work of the community members who have volunteered countless hours of their time. And hats off to my colleague Dave Hill for his patience and his leadership.

R. Neal's picture

I'm glad to hear that the

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 5:04pm.

I'm glad to hear that the height and setback restrictions were preserved at least by the oversight committee.

One thing I've been curious about is why the landowners are requesting the changes in the first place.

Presumably Holston Gases et. al will relocate (and be "made whole" as Bill Lyons said one time), so why do they care?

I'm wondering if, say, Holston (Baxter?) already has an interested buyer/developer, but either a) the deal is contingent on lifting these restrictions, or b) they will be able to get more for the property if the restrictions are lifted.

Not suggesting anything untoward or conspiratorial, just curious. Either scenario would make sense. Either might influence MPC and Council going forward in terms of a quick sale and/or maximizing property tax potential.

bizgrrl's picture

From the KNS article: Yet

Submitted by bizgrrl on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 5:18pm.

From the KNS article:

Yet property owners like Hoyl Gill, co-owner of the waterfront Knox River Warehouses, said he worries that the current version of the zoning code would be too restrictive to entice prospective developers to buy their sites.

That is, if they're looking to sell at all.

"We don't plan to sell this property," said Ginger Baxter, whose family owns the nearly 10-acre Holston Gases. "We hope to have it 50 years from now. We are going to be the developers - if anything's done with the property."

Maybe they just want more money for their property. Not caring about the overall project.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Baxter properties

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 6:17pm.

It appears that Ginger Baxter's height concern may be a non issue. She was concerned about building height as measured from the base of the property. When she realized that the height could be measured from the road frontage on Council place that seemed to adress her concern. There is a lot of elevation change on the Baxter property. Their vision is a tall slender hotel near the Gay St bridge. It sounds like it would be built into the steep bank.

I have every reason to belive the Baxters plan to do the development themselves. They certainly have the resources.

A major concern of the property owners' was adressed in that the new roads would not be built until the properties are redeveloped.

Rachel's picture

A major concern of the

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 8:46pm.

A major concern of the property owners' was adressed in that the new roads would not be built until the properties are redeveloped.

But that's always been the case; it's not a change we made last night.

The property owners who talked with me before the meeting said they wanted the roads removed (and the other restrictions relaxed or eliminated) strictly because they thought they would get more $$ for their property.

I'm not even sure that's true. At least two developers (both of whom sit on the Oversight Committee) have site plans for their properties already done. They're following the codes. And I'm damn sure they plan to make plenty of money.

I think it's more that the 5 property owners don't understand the code and the development model it's based on, so they're afraid that it might keep them from making as much money off their properties, although they have no real evidence that's true.

As for the Baxters, Ginger Baxter wrote a letter to the Committee clearly stating that they did not plan to sell the property and that they had no plans to develop it at this time. This made it doubly difficult to understand why she was demanding major changes in the code.

I hope Mamaw is correct and she was comforted by a better understanding of where heights were measured from, but I'd be willing to bet that there will be some pretty intense lobbying of City Council to make the changes we rejected last night.

There's also another facet here - because of the plan, code, etc. these properties are now much more valuable than they were a year ago. Property owners should be careful not to change things so much that they kill the proverbial goose. And frankly, while I very much believe that everyone should be given the chance to make a decent profit from developing their property if they choose, I don't think it's in the interest of the citizens and taxpayers of this city to make the absolute maximization of their profit the only criterion for crafting the code.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Roads and alleys

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 6:22am.

I have heard a rumor that the road would be pushed through the Asphalt company to encourage them to leave.

How do you explain the city survey flags in an unopened alley with a 30% slope. (steeper than the road by the City/County building)

How do you explain Dave Hill encouraging Bess Newton to get petitions signed by all residents in her low density neighborhood only to be publicly shot down by Joe Hultquist because they weren't all property owners.

You assured me that my neighborhood would be protected by the zoning laws but stood silent as they pushed through regulations that would allow 11,000 s.f. multi-family buildings.

You can continue to believe in the benevolence of this whole waterfront process but I sure don't.

Dave Hill's picture

Roads & Alleys Response

Submitted by Dave Hill on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 8:56am.

I have heard a rumor that the road would be pushed through the Asphalt company to encourage them to leave. How do you explain the city survey flags in an unopened alley with a 30% slope. (steeper than the road by the City/County building)

A rumor is all it is. I can assure you that no efforts have been made to work on the road. Wouldn't it stand to reason that Marathon can address its own property interests? Do you think the city can just barge in and take over? How successful do you think it would be to propose condemnation to run a road through an existing industrial operation, and how expensive do you think it would be?

How do you explain Dave Hill encouraging Bess Newton to get petitions signed by all residents in her low density neighborhood only to be publicly shot down by Joe Hultquist because they weren't all property owners.

This was a public process concern. The question that needed to be answered was whether or not a majority of affected property owners knew about the proposed change and supported it. The requested change from R-3 to SW1 represents a significant decrease in development rights for those properties. Neither Joe nor I indicated that the petition should be ignored. Bess did a good job on the petition, the request has merit, and we need to follow up with the intent of ensuring that affected propert owners know about it.

You assured me that my neighborhood would be protected by the zoning laws but stood silent as they pushed through regulations that would allow 11,000 s.f. multi-family buildings.

This is an "agree to disagree" issue. You have had ample opportunity to raise your concerns and they have been discussed on several occasions. Several changes to the SW1 zone have been made in direct response to your concerns.

You can continue to believe in the benevolence of this whole waterfront process but I sure don't.

I'm not sure that "benevolence" is a proper characterization. The SW project is a community-based process intended to develop consensus for future improvements. There are a lot of different interests involved, and several complex issues as well. We knew going in that all issues would not be resolved to the satisfaction of all the participants. At the same time, we have tried very hard to avoid tipping the scales in favor of one interest that would adversely impact another's, and I think we've succeeded in fulfilling that objective.

Rachel's picture

Since Mamaw's post appears

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:18am.

Since Mamaw's post appears to be addressed to me: Last week you told me that we just had different ideas about elements of this effort. I think that's right.

I'm very disappointed that this week I'm back to being the enemy (along with Dave, Joe, and God know who else).

Speaking of rumors, I've heard some particularly strange ones this week - one involving me directly. I would very much like to know where THAT one got started?

Up Goose Creek's picture

Rumors

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 1:49pm.

"I've heard some particularly strange ones this week - one involving me directly."

Now you've got me curious. I've speculated that you might be getting a job with the waterfront commission. Is that the strange rumor or is it something more interesting?

Rachel's picture

I've speculated that you

Submitted by Rachel on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 4:51pm.

I've speculated that you might be getting a job with the waterfront commission. Is that the strange rumor or is it something more interesting?

First of all, there is no such thing as the "waterfront commission." Right now, there's Dave Hill and his secretary. The plan hopes that someday we'll evolve to some kind of quasi-independent body, but that's probably years off, if ever.

Secondly, keep your speculation to yourself. Or ask me directly. Don't bandy speculation about - it came back to me as "the word on the street is", along with the implication that was why I was opposed to loosening restrictions in the code.

Yeah, that's it - I've sold out for my nice new shiny job.

I don't know what "street" this is being bandied about on - sounds like it was yours - but it's not mine.

Number9's picture

Please get a dictionary

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 1:06pm.

thus ensuring that #9 will call us fascist

I would prefer if you choose to engage in this little word play that you use correct terminology.

New Urbanism is not fascist, it is totalitarian.

edens is the one that uses the fascist word. You are following his mistake.

Back to our regular programming...

edens's picture

Personally I prefer the term

Submitted by edens on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 1:32pm.

Personally I prefer the term "transit-oriented dictatorship"

Mussolini, after all, did make the trains run on time.

Rachel's picture

How quickly we forget...

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 3:44pm.

On 1/22/07 at 11:02 a.m. #9 wrote: New Urbanism is about using politics to restrict choice. The use of Evil Sprawl as the boogie-man is very transparent. New Urbanism is vertical high density Sprawl versus suburban low density horizontal Sprawl. As long as there is choice it doesn't matter. When choice is restricted it does become fascism lite.

Number9's picture

When you're right you're right

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 3:53pm.

When choice is restricted it does become fascism lite.

Good catch. It should read:

When choice is restricted it does become fascism totalitarianism lite.

Thanks,

Nine

Up Goose Creek's picture

Totalitarianism

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 2:02pm.

I suppose we'll find out when soemone proposes building a low density development and see if they are coerced into building soemhting higher density. I am hoping Bubba will find a couple of lots and build a McMansion so we can demonstrate that the South Waterfront embraces diversity.

Rachel's picture

South Waterfront Code Available

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 2:11pm.

From an email from Dave Hill to the Oversight Committee: Please be advised that Draft #6 of the SW Code was completed and sent out in the MPC Commissioners' packets, and reflects changes as agreed during Wednesday night's (1/31) Oversight Committee meeting. Draft #6 has been posted on the city's website at www.cityofknoxville.org\southwaterfront.

Also available on the city website are copies of 12 design vignettes produced by the SW consultants as possible scenarios for development that are compliant with the proposed code. Please note that these are not proposals - they are meant to look at one possible way for the sites to be designed, and other scenarios are equally possible. This was part of the contract for consultant work.

The last document provided on the website is the traffic impact study that was handed out at the Wednesday night Oversight Committee meeting.

I'm sure anyone who needs a paper copy can obtain one by calling Dave Hill or Joe Hultquist.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Upcoming events:

View all

User login

TN Progressive


TN Politics

Local Media Blogs

Local Paper

Local TV News

State News

Wire Reports

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Police Scanner Feeds