No effective changes to slopes < 40%, only recommends changes for slopws > 40%

To be precise, no changes for LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (which is something like 70% of the defined hillside/ridgetop protection area; and about 60% of THAT is already developed). There are changes for commercial and medium density residential - no development above 25%; between 15 and 25% requires plan review.

Nobody mentioned that the purpose of the plan is not only to protect views, but to reduce erosion, flooding, harm to water quality - as well as to protect public safety in some cases. This is why it's a HILLSIDE and Ridgetop plan, not just a ridgetop plan.

I was gobsmacked by one of my fellow Commissioners appearing before County Commission; I had always assumed this was a no-no. Am checking with our lawyer; if it's ok, I will be speaking myself on Monday at the COmmission meeting.

Back to the tee vee now.

.. "you need to give this back to the professionals who know what they're doing."

Wow. THAT really pissed a couple of highly qualified people on the Task Force off.

I assume Stowers would likely not be keen for anything that resulted in less excavating in general.

Bart Carey voted FOR this thing TWICE - on the task force and at MPC.

And although parcel size itself doesn't enter into the calculations, the area of steep slope has to be a certain size before it is considered part of the slope protection area. Don't have those #s in front of me, but if Commission would actually take the time to ask questions about the presentation instead of listening to every single developer (some twice) pontificate, they might actually ask that question and learn something.

ANd yes, let's take it out of the hands of the "extremists" and put it into the hands of the "professionals" (i.e. developers). GREAT idea.

CTV quit covering this at 6 to go to Beer Board (sigh). What's happening?

P.S. Other than Lonnie (rolls eyes) has there been once single person speak against this who isn't part of the development industry?

P.P.S. And look for me to speak on Monday. If TWO of my fellows can speak today, then I certainly can take the podium myself.

The development community knows more than MPC. Their opinion should not count?

If you do not live under a bridge, a developer likely built the roof above you.

by Victor Jarnigan: he cited the neighborhood (mine) at Craig and Northshore who opposed the condo/cluster approach on the old Berkhart farm property. I did not sign the neighborhood petition because the project made sense to me. And for $250K condos, it did not sound like "the projects" my neighbors feared. So now there are a few "mansions" (unsold?) and a retaining pond, but I digress.

What he was asking for was exactly what the Task Force would have recommended: higher density on the flattest land. I know from working with an affordable housing non-profit that neighborhoods always object to higher density - even it it is well within the sector plan and MPC approves it. So I can understand developer apprehension. The "plan" suggests reallocation of density to offset not building on the ridges, MPC approves it, the neighbors appeal to County Commission, who overrule MPC and deny the density adjustment...

Also, the nerd in me was intrigued by the measurement of slope, which in Knox County is rise/run. In Sevier County it sounds like an average elevation equation, like treating the contour in cross section like a string and pulling it up to a point? I didn't understand it exactly, but Todd (?), from KGIS, made the point that we often misunderstand the meaning of concepts like "slope" and how they are calculated and applied.

If the plan does not have the force of Law until Zoning and or a Overlay District is created. Why does the language of the Commission ordinance request that if approved, the plan would amend all Sector Plans and the General Plan and also requestes that the City Council do the same in the City?

To me, if this "Plan" is made part of the Sector Plans and the General Plan, doesn't that mean that any MPC/Zoning request would automatically have to adhear to it? Without specific Zoning or an Overlay district.

That means that the un-elected get to tell us what our property is worth. I did not vote for anyone on the MPC.

The hills have taken care of themselves so far. Economics will rule the day.

I hope and believe that the County Commission will see this for what it is. It is a land grab. The county commission will (I hope) vote with commom sense.

What I learned from developers at the meeting last night is that the hillside/ridgetop plan is exactly like the federal health-care bill -- two different speakers made this assertion, though they were disappointingly vague on the analogy -- and that Tony Norman is an "extremist." That crazy 3rd District, always electing radicals. Also, according to Gary Norvell, having 6 out of 23 people on the task force sympathetic to development interests was apparently an underrepresentation. That's 26 percent of the whole task force. He didn't say what percentage should have been developers, but I think I can guess.

That the task force was an agenda driven body out to put together a plan that "they" wanted and did not want to hear from people who actually had Experience Building.

He also noted the emotional aspects in the Plan. Endangered species. None. Photos from other counties. Photos of grading taking place that is not legal.

This whole "Plan" is an emotional appeal and does not explore what will happen to the tax base, land values, unintended outcomes. Just a very poor product for $300K of tax money!

I wish the Plan could have prevented the mountaintop removal by Park West Hospital. Complete demolition of even a small ridge is ugly and an embarrassment to Knoxville. Drivers on I-40 see nothing but ugliness from the I-40/I-75 split all the way past the Dollywood exit. No wonder it's hard to get people off the interstate and interested in the nice areas of Knoxville.

Ok, I don't have the time to respond to everything on here, especially the personal attacks, so I'll just summarize a few things:

1) Plan - yes, this is a plan. Yes, it will become part of the sector and general plans. No, MPC is not hiding this. In fact, either Mike Carberry or Mark Donaldson said that at the meeting yesterday.

Some folks don't understand the difference between "plan" and "regulation." Plans are policy documents, regulations have the force of law. This is a policy document.

2) Parkwest. Sigh. THIS PLAN WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED PARKWEST FROM EXPANDING ON THE SITE IN QUESTION. Furthermore, I don't believe MPC staff told Parkwest's engineer any such thing. If the slope on that site was between 15-25%, the plan would simply require that Parkwest go through a plan review, something MPC voted to ask them to do anyway. If the slope was greater than 25%, this site would undoubtedly fall with the "special districts" close to tranportation corridors where commercial development would be allowed on steeper slopes.

There would have been closer scrutiny of exactly how Parkwest would develop the property. But the statement that keeps going around that this property could not be developed under the plan is 100% FALSE.

3)Community support - one thing County Commission has not heard is that at the 11 public meetings, attendees were handed questionnaires. There was also opportunity to comment on MPC's website. Approximately 85% of the 200 people who commented were in favor of the plan. In fact, over 90% of them favored limiting COMMERCIAL development on steep slopes. (You can read about this in more detail on page 24 of the plan.)

Someone asserts this isn't really an inclusive process. Inclusive doesn't mean everyone participates; it means everyone has the opportunity to participate. The task force and its subcommittees had dozens of meetings (all sunshined). They held 11 public meetings. This has been discussed at 3 MPC meetings, a joint MPC/Council workshop, and the Commission workshop yesterday. It's been covered fairly exensively - and mostly negatively - in the KNS. The plan has been posted on the MPC website since at least September. At some point, people have to take responsibility for being informed and participating if they have something to say. You give them the opportunity, but they have to walk through the door.

As for the 200 people not being a lot, Bob Becker pointed out at the MPC/Council workshop that it was more people than Council heard from when they were considering the last City tax increase. By local public participation standards, 200 is a LOT.

Also, community organizations are starting to weigh in. For example, both the League of Women Voters and the South Knoxville Neighborhood Coalition have publicly come out in support of the plan.

4) My participation on the internet - I do this, in spite of the crap that gets slung at me by some folks, because I think I have useful information to share with the public. It would be MUCH easier not to do so, and I understand why so few public officials put themselves through this wringer. So sue me for putting myself out there.

5) I hope that everyone who has a position/opinion on this plan has actually, you know, read it. You can do so at (link...)

P.S. I don't think I received an answer to my question about "land grab." If this is a land grab, exactly who is going to own the property after it's grabbed?

This is great discussion, folks.

If you support this plan and you live in Knox County, please contact your Commissioners, both your district Commissioner and the at-large Commissioners. You know that they are hearing from the development community.

They need to hear from the rest of us.

Now.

Get into as much or as little detail as you like. Heck, just tell them you support the plan and its protection of our water quality and our quality of life, and ask them to support it too.

Here are your Commissioners: (link...)

Here are the Commission Districts: (link...)

Here are their e-mail addresses:

1st District, Sam McKenzie: sam.mckenzie@knoxcounty.org

2nd District, Amy Broyles: amy.broyles@knoxcounty.org

3rd District, Tony Norman: tony.norman@knoxcounty.org

4th District, Jeff Ownby, jeff.ownby@knoxcounty.org

5th District, Richard Briggs, richard.briggs@knoxcounty.org

6th District, Brad Anders, brad.anders@knoxcounty.org

7th District, R. Larry Smith, larry.smith@knoxcounty.org

8th District, Dave Wright, dave.wright@knoxcounty.org

9th District, Mike Brown, michael.brown@knoxcounty.org

At Large Seat 10, Mike Hammond, mike.hammond@knoxcounty.org

At Large Seat 11, Ed Shouse, ed.shouse@knoxcounty.org

Are there other counties in the US that have slope and ridge top regulations that have been around a long time and thought to be models of successful plans?

I have glanced through these slides of Asheville, is that a long established successful set of regulations? ..

Asheville regulations

who were the developers on the committee?I count 4,rocky smith,john luttrel,tim zitzmzn,and victor jernigan,are there others?

Fwiw, Tim Burchett wants the plan scrapped.

Breaking News at the Sentinel

(link...)

As noted above, Burchett opposes plan

(link...)