There are currently 12 users and 254 guests online.
South Waterfront "meeting fatigue"
Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2007/02/22 - 10:41am.
The Knoxville News Sentinel has this article about this afternoon's upcoming City Council workshop in which Councilman Steve Hall embraces the public process, developers show up at the 11th hour (after private meetings with city officials and consultants), lawyers get involved, and Councilman Joe Hultquist remarks about varying nonconformity.
Thanks for posting this, Randy. The meeting fatigue is about at an end. After today's workshop, there will be the final Council vote on the form-based code next Tuesday.
And lawyers - or a lawyer - has been involved for some time. We first saw Arthur Seymour around Dec. sometime. But we only saw specific requests from his clients (e.g. 150 ft. bldg heights in the SW7 zone) late in January.
BTW, those building heights in the KNS story are misleading. Without going into all the details, the bottom line is that the City/consultants/Oversight Committee recommended a max height of 70 ft in the SW4 and 60 ft in the SW7. The owners asked for 100' and 150'. MPC approved 90' and 120'. Council at first reading went back to the 70' and 60'.
We'll see what happens on second reading.
I'll report back on the workshop later. I would also encourage all interested to contact Council about keeping the code as submitted by the City - and w/o the changes Mr. Seymour's clients are requesting.
Personally I appreciate you standing your ground on the lower heights and the wider buffer to the waterfront.
My family has been in the South Knox area over 200 years.
Structures like the one across from wastewater plant and the monolith going up at Glove Factory location are not what I had hoped for with waterfront. I look at them and I think, I will not be able to even see the river with a few of those in place. Basically they are like stamping out a big section that typical South Knoxvillians will not benefit from in any way.
A friend of mine said, 'If it doesnt have parks and open spaces the waterfront development doesnt mean anything to me.'
Submitted by LadyVols on Thu, 2007/02/22 - 1:58pm.
We see that THING on the river bank when we go to the Lady Vol games and it is so out of place. It is also BOUND to cause a rise in property tax. Granted it is already there but we all need to stop any other "thinks" from popping up along our river.
South Knoxville is special just like North Knoxville and mulitmillion dollar condo are just not needed to remind us of how it used to be!
I think you find the Glove Factory development is nothing like That Thing at the end of Scottish Pike. TT is exactly what the new form-based code is designed to prevent.
John Gumpert, who's doing the Glove Factory property, is a good guy with a good understanding of urban design. He's planning an additional project in south Knoxville, on the old tank farm just outside the pillars of Island Home Park. The plans look great and so far the neighborhood is happy about it.
If you love south Knoxville, call or email City Council and ask them to stick with what they passed on first reading when second reading comes around next Tuesday. Contact info at Link....
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Thu, 2007/02/22 - 3:21pm.
I saw the Nightline special on the Miami housing bubble bursting. They talked about how saying the condos were occupied was misleading because people were only buying them to flip them. I wonder if that's the case in South Knox and parts of downtown. The luxury student condos have priced out lower income students and interesting old hippies from Fort Sanders. Fort landlords have taken Knoxville Place's lead and now almost all charge by the room. The days are gone where 5 students could split a 500$ a month apt 5 ways. They now gouge you at 500$ a piece. The days are almost gone where one could find a nice basement apt in the 300$ range because of the pay by the room trend. I like South Knox because of the unique small businesses and places like Ijams. I hope the new condos don't price people out and lead to a bunch of big box stores. I'm all for turning old buildings into housing but we don't need to turn Knoxville into Miami. Stacey
Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Thu, 2007/02/22 - 4:49pm.
gentrify or we'll send porno distributors into your neighborhoods! Oh wait, that's already happened with the porno store on Broadway.
sure makes and argument for tougher zoning regulations. Really hard to explain to your eight year old when he reads "sex toys" on the marquee that it's not a toy store.
We originally thought about making "adult" bookstores, etc. a prohibited use in the south waterfront code. But that runs into first amendment issues, so we had to take it out.
Went to the Council workshop tonight, which went on for about an hour and a half. All the Council members were present except Chris Woodhull.
Don't think much new ground was plowed, although Ed Prins from Rinker spent a lot of time talking about issues (parking maximums, max lot size, etc.) that everyone had agreed to put to bed back before the code went to MPC. Not really sure what that was about.
There was also a lot of discussion about the alternative compliance review. This is something that was put in the code because, as Dave Hill said, "you can never write a perfect zoning code." Sooner or later, some really good project will come down the pike that doesn't meet the code and there has to be a means of addressing that.
Here's the way it works. If a developer meets the code, s/he essentially gets administrative approval. No trip to MPC necessary. If s/he wants to propose something that meets the intent of the Vision Plan but doesn't meet the code, s/he applies for Alternative Compliance Review. This requires approval by MPC and the attendant public scrutiny.
If I understood Mr. Prins correctly, he was arguing that we should relax the standards in the code and do away with alternative compliance review. He asked why, if the community supported the flexibility of ACR, we had such problems with changing the code.
The answer to that, of course, is that it's one thing to consider a specific project on a particular piece of property in the context of everything around it - it's quite another to grant everyone cart blanche to build 90' or 120' buildings all over the zoning district.
He also suggested that maybe we should just keep the current zoning since it required going through MPC like ACR. This is where I really kind of lost it - while the code was certainly written to streamline the process for developers as much as posssible, and to give them as much certainty as possible, that's hardly the only purpose of the code. Like, uh, we wanted it to codify the Vision Plan wrt urban character, pedestrian friendly environment, river accesss, open space, etc. etc. etc.
Several folks from the community spoke, and they all did a much better job than I did (I sort of let myself get too emotional, something I try to guard against).
I see no evidence of any dramatic shifts on Council. I predict the code will pass 9-0, or possibly 8-1. I think there MIGHT be an attempt to amend it, but I don't think that will pass.
And Tuesday night we can see how good a prognosticator I am.
(edited to correct Mr. Prins name - my apologies to him for getting the spelling wrong)
Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Thu, 2007/02/22 - 10:42pm.
jbr and Ladyvol, there are copies of recent South waterfront zoning plans plans at the South Knoxville branch library (ask at the counter) and the Smoky Mountain Chevron (Greek Deli) if you care to take a look.
Sadly it is a very urban plan that only pays lip service to preserving the existing character.
I hope Gemini can explain how the zoning will prevent another building such as RiverTowne. Well except that the top one or 2 stories would have to be set back 10' and there won't be that sea of unused parking. The Northeast side of Scottish Pike is zoned SW-2 which means new buildings there could be 4 stories and 50' tall. Furthermore, in SW-2 buildings are REQUIRED to fill up 70% of the road frontage and set back no MORE than 10' from the property line. Imagine that across the street from your 1 story home.
The SW-1 is supposed to be the neighborhood zone. It allows 10,000 s.f. buildings on 100 x 150' double lots. I don't see how that blends in to a neighborhood of 1,000 s.f. homes.
The only thing that will save the neighborhood is those of us who aren't willing to get gone. Or maybe a credit crunch or Fannie Mae going belly-up.
I'm confused. At the last Oversight Committee meeting you were saying that buildings could go higher (i.e., you didn't seem to have much of a problem with the bldg heights requested by Arthur Seymour's clients). Now the bldgs can be too tall?
I'm getting whiplash.
As for the rest of your post,there's just no use responding to it. You believe the worst is gonna happen. I don't.
Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Thu, 2007/02/22 - 11:09pm.
As I've explained before, I don't have a problem with buildings going higher in the industrial areas away from the neighborhoods. I would personally rather see them higher and narrower with more views through the river. I do have a problem with the SW-2 allowing such height. Do you keep forgetting or do you just like to pick on me?
I was hoping you could explain to jbr and Ladyvol in what ways the zoning would prevent another Rivertowne.
I really should quit talking about this, but ok. I got it, I think. You oppose the 50' max building height in the SW-2.
But there's a pretty large section of SW-4 on your side of Chapman Highway that abuts an SW-1 area. In fact, the SW-4 is between the SW-1 and the river.
So how come it's not ok to have SW2 building heights (50' max) across from an SW1 but it is ok to have SW4 building heights (70' max) across from an SW1?
And I'm am pretty sure I heard you say you were ok with the increases Mr. Seymour's clients were asking for in the SW-4. That would be 100'.
Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 7:30am.
The difference is that there is a major road (Blount Avenue) that separates the SW-1 and SW-4. And while there are a few residences south of Bount avenue along that stretch, most of the property has commercial use.
By contrast Scottish Pike has more of a neighborhood feel with similar sized homes on both sides of the street.
The plan our neighborhood produced in the 90s called for high density housing north of Blount Ave in the industrial area. To the south would be offices as a buffer zone. It called for medium density housing at the old Casket company site (Specialty Metals), but low density housing abutting Scottish Pike.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
The difference is that there is a major road (Blount Avenue) that separates the SW-1 and SW-4.
Ok, you're saying Blount Avenue is a wide enough separator, other roads are not. Not sure I'd buy that if I lived on Blount but I understand your position.
And while there are a few residences south of Bount avenue along that stretch, most of the property has commercial use
That's now. Since this area is zoned SW1 all those commercial uses are non-conforming. You helped fight to keep all commercial out of the SW1, remember. So any new development in that area will have to be residential, and with a max height of 2.5 stories.
I understand your position, and I agree that the SW2 heights should be lower than the SW4 heights, which they are in the code. But wanting building heights lowered from 50' next to one SW1 and yet being willing to let them go as high as 100' next to another just doesn't work for me.
Thanks for posting this, Randy. The meeting fatigue is about at an end. After today's workshop, there will be the final Council vote on the form-based code next Tuesday.
And lawyers - or a lawyer - has been involved for some time. We first saw Arthur Seymour around Dec. sometime. But we only saw specific requests from his clients (e.g. 150 ft. bldg heights in the SW7 zone) late in January.
BTW, those building heights in the KNS story are misleading. Without going into all the details, the bottom line is that the City/consultants/Oversight Committee recommended a max height of 70 ft in the SW4 and 60 ft in the SW7. The owners asked for 100' and 150'. MPC approved 90' and 120'. Council at first reading went back to the 70' and 60'.
We'll see what happens on second reading.
I'll report back on the workshop later. I would also encourage all interested to contact Council about keeping the code as submitted by the City - and w/o the changes Mr. Seymour's clients are requesting.
Personally I appreciate you standing your ground on the lower heights and the wider buffer to the waterfront.
My family has been in the South Knox area over 200 years.
Structures like the one across from wastewater plant and the monolith going up at Glove Factory location are not what I had hoped for with waterfront. I look at them and I think, I will not be able to even see the river with a few of those in place. Basically they are like stamping out a big section that typical South Knoxvillians will not benefit from in any way.
A friend of mine said, 'If it doesnt have parks and open spaces the waterfront development doesnt mean anything to me.'
We see that THING on the river bank when we go to the Lady Vol games and it is so out of place. It is also BOUND to cause a rise in property tax. Granted it is already there but we all need to stop any other "thinks" from popping up along our river.
South Knoxville is special just like North Knoxville and mulitmillion dollar condo are just not needed to remind us of how it used to be!
I think you find the Glove Factory development is nothing like That Thing at the end of Scottish Pike. TT is exactly what the new form-based code is designed to prevent.
John Gumpert, who's doing the Glove Factory property, is a good guy with a good understanding of urban design. He's planning an additional project in south Knoxville, on the old tank farm just outside the pillars of Island Home Park. The plans look great and so far the neighborhood is happy about it.
If you love south Knoxville, call or email City Council and ask them to stick with what they passed on first reading when second reading comes around next Tuesday. Contact info at Link....
I saw the Nightline special on the Miami housing bubble bursting. They talked about how saying the condos were occupied was misleading because people were only buying them to flip them. I wonder if that's the case in South Knox and parts of downtown. The luxury student condos have priced out lower income students and interesting old hippies from Fort Sanders. Fort landlords have taken Knoxville Place's lead and now almost all charge by the room. The days are gone where 5 students could split a 500$ a month apt 5 ways. They now gouge you at 500$ a piece. The days are almost gone where one could find a nice basement apt in the 300$ range because of the pay by the room trend. I like South Knox because of the unique small businesses and places like Ijams. I hope the new condos don't price people out and lead to a bunch of big box stores. I'm all for turning old buildings into housing but we don't need to turn Knoxville into Miami. Stacey
I thought this letter to MP a couple years ago had some good perspectives.
Scroll down to
Keep South Knoxville Serene
Speaking of gentrification and dungeon-like basements:
Link...
gentrify or we'll send porno distributors into your neighborhoods! Oh wait, that's already happened with the porno store on Broadway.
sure makes and argument for tougher zoning regulations. Really hard to explain to your eight year old when he reads "sex toys" on the marquee that it's not a toy store.
We originally thought about making "adult" bookstores, etc. a prohibited use in the south waterfront code. But that runs into first amendment issues, so we had to take it out.
Went to the Council workshop tonight, which went on for about an hour and a half. All the Council members were present except Chris Woodhull.
Don't think much new ground was plowed, although Ed Prins from Rinker spent a lot of time talking about issues (parking maximums, max lot size, etc.) that everyone had agreed to put to bed back before the code went to MPC. Not really sure what that was about.
There was also a lot of discussion about the alternative compliance review. This is something that was put in the code because, as Dave Hill said, "you can never write a perfect zoning code." Sooner or later, some really good project will come down the pike that doesn't meet the code and there has to be a means of addressing that.
Here's the way it works. If a developer meets the code, s/he essentially gets administrative approval. No trip to MPC necessary. If s/he wants to propose something that meets the intent of the Vision Plan but doesn't meet the code, s/he applies for Alternative Compliance Review. This requires approval by MPC and the attendant public scrutiny.
If I understood Mr. Prins correctly, he was arguing that we should relax the standards in the code and do away with alternative compliance review. He asked why, if the community supported the flexibility of ACR, we had such problems with changing the code.
The answer to that, of course, is that it's one thing to consider a specific project on a particular piece of property in the context of everything around it - it's quite another to grant everyone cart blanche to build 90' or 120' buildings all over the zoning district.
He also suggested that maybe we should just keep the current zoning since it required going through MPC like ACR. This is where I really kind of lost it - while the code was certainly written to streamline the process for developers as much as posssible, and to give them as much certainty as possible, that's hardly the only purpose of the code. Like, uh, we wanted it to codify the Vision Plan wrt urban character, pedestrian friendly environment, river accesss, open space, etc. etc. etc.
Several folks from the community spoke, and they all did a much better job than I did (I sort of let myself get too emotional, something I try to guard against).
I see no evidence of any dramatic shifts on Council. I predict the code will pass 9-0, or possibly 8-1. I think there MIGHT be an attempt to amend it, but I don't think that will pass.
And Tuesday night we can see how good a prognosticator I am.
(edited to correct Mr. Prins name - my apologies to him for getting the spelling wrong)
jbr and Ladyvol, there are copies of recent South waterfront zoning plans plans at the South Knoxville branch library (ask at the counter) and the Smoky Mountain Chevron (Greek Deli) if you care to take a look.
Sadly it is a very urban plan that only pays lip service to preserving the existing character.
I hope Gemini can explain how the zoning will prevent another building such as RiverTowne. Well except that the top one or 2 stories would have to be set back 10' and there won't be that sea of unused parking. The Northeast side of Scottish Pike is zoned SW-2 which means new buildings there could be 4 stories and 50' tall. Furthermore, in SW-2 buildings are REQUIRED to fill up 70% of the road frontage and set back no MORE than 10' from the property line. Imagine that across the street from your 1 story home.
The SW-1 is supposed to be the neighborhood zone. It allows 10,000 s.f. buildings on 100 x 150' double lots. I don't see how that blends in to a neighborhood of 1,000 s.f. homes.
The only thing that will save the neighborhood is those of us who aren't willing to get gone. Or maybe a credit crunch or Fannie Mae going belly-up.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
Mamaw,
I'm confused. At the last Oversight Committee meeting you were saying that buildings could go higher (i.e., you didn't seem to have much of a problem with the bldg heights requested by Arthur Seymour's clients). Now the bldgs can be too tall?
I'm getting whiplash.
As for the rest of your post,there's just no use responding to it. You believe the worst is gonna happen. I don't.
I guess time will have to tell.
As I've explained before, I don't have a problem with buildings going higher in the industrial areas away from the neighborhoods. I would personally rather see them higher and narrower with more views through the river. I do have a problem with the SW-2 allowing such height. Do you keep forgetting or do you just like to pick on me?
I was hoping you could explain to jbr and Ladyvol in what ways the zoning would prevent another Rivertowne.
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
I really should quit talking about this, but ok. I got it, I think. You oppose the 50' max building height in the SW-2.
But there's a pretty large section of SW-4 on your side of Chapman Highway that abuts an SW-1 area. In fact, the SW-4 is between the SW-1 and the river.
So how come it's not ok to have SW2 building heights (50' max) across from an SW1 but it is ok to have SW4 building heights (70' max) across from an SW1?
And I'm am pretty sure I heard you say you were ok with the increases Mr. Seymour's clients were asking for in the SW-4. That would be 100'.
???
do you just like to pick on me?
Yeah, I live to annoy you.
The difference is that there is a major road (Blount Avenue) that separates the SW-1 and SW-4. And while there are a few residences south of Bount avenue along that stretch, most of the property has commercial use.
By contrast Scottish Pike has more of a neighborhood feel with similar sized homes on both sides of the street.
The plan our neighborhood produced in the 90s called for high density housing north of Blount Ave in the industrial area. To the south would be offices as a buffer zone. It called for medium density housing at the old Casket company site (Specialty Metals), but low density housing abutting Scottish Pike.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
The difference is that there is a major road (Blount Avenue) that separates the SW-1 and SW-4.
Ok, you're saying Blount Avenue is a wide enough separator, other roads are not. Not sure I'd buy that if I lived on Blount but I understand your position.
And while there are a few residences south of Bount avenue along that stretch, most of the property has commercial use
That's now. Since this area is zoned SW1 all those commercial uses are non-conforming. You helped fight to keep all commercial out of the SW1, remember. So any new development in that area will have to be residential, and with a max height of 2.5 stories.
I understand your position, and I agree that the SW2 heights should be lower than the SW4 heights, which they are in the code. But wanting building heights lowered from 50' next to one SW1 and yet being willing to let them go as high as 100' next to another just doesn't work for me.
Post new comment