[Kim Frazier]

Proposed items for consideration have been compiled into 2 categories to the best of my recollection and perception. These items that I have included in these 2 categories may or may not accurately reflect the opinions of all Commissioners or staff and should not be construed as such. Those categories are : Items with perceived general support AND Items for further discussion or guidance from staff and Commission.

Items with perceived general support:

Page 2. Small Area and Corridor Plans. Add language to include reference to the county transportation impact analysis guidelines to read: “Existing plans and guidelines that remain in effect include Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, East County Community Plan…..”.

Page 2. Facility Plans. Add language to include the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan to read: “…..Recreation, Greenway Plan, Greenway Corridor Study, and Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan.”

Page 48. Areas For Future Study. Add to last sentence of second paragraph to read: “The plans also provide a forum to consider other elements of the built environment, like parks and open spaces, and other public infrastructure, such as stormwater and utility needs, schools, historic resources, and conservation.” This supports the county’s commitment to broaden the consideration and scope of impact of a project on an area during the planning process.

Page 58. To Support This Policy. 6.3. Change the last sentence to read: “The rezoning or development process shall consider the suitability of existing or planned infrastructure.”

Page 59. Add section To Support This Policy. Suggest adding action item that addresses Planning Commission’s request of County Commission to review HP ordinance and update. This will be done through an ordinance update which will ensure a thorough and detailed look at HP and incorporate what we have learned over the past 14 years since the plan was adopted. Additional language to read: “7.6 Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan. Consider regulations in the unified development ordinance according to or by guidance of the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan.”

Page 59. Add section To Support This Policy: Suggest adding a new action item as inspired by the Middle TN Coalition of 9 Counties – “Greater Nashville Regional Council” – that this is just good data to consider. Additional language to read: “7.7 Create a group of GIS layers that depict Environmentally Sensitive Areas including prime agricultural soil, historic resources, floodways & floodplains, Hillside / Ridgetop Protection Area, rare and endangered species, protected areas, conservation areas, surface water, wetlands, and other pertinent features, and use this map layer when evaluating plan amendments, rezonings, and development plans.”

Page 61. 9.8 Establish annual coordination meeting. Change from annually to biannually – Establish a biannual coordination meeting to encourage communication with Knox County Schools. The impact of development on our school system was one of the top 3 priority issues of Advance Knox. We will further address impact on schools during the UDO and the application process. Change language in 9.8 to read: “Establish biannual coordination meeting.” And “Meet biannually with….”

Page 62. 10.1 Maintain regular coordination on facility planning. Suggest adding text to specify a regular coordination of EPW, Utilities, Planning, Schools for long term fiscal health biannually to read: “Regular briefings will occur a minimum of biannually”.

Page 64. 15.1 Maintain cost estimates for common transportation improvements in the county. Suggested language to read: “Cost estimates shall be used by…” Suggest revising language to read: “Cost estimates shall be considered by…”

Page 66. 18.1 Meet national benchmarks for neighborhoods, community, and county-wide park space. Suggest adding language to the second sentence to read: “Additionally, ensure that park space is distributed throughout the county including the expanded growth area”. This will help us monitor additional park investments as we grow in those communities.

Page 67. 19.1 Continue to partner with Legacy Parks to foster the creation of new parks and
natural areas. Add language as suggested by Carol Evans with Legacy Parks to read: “Legacy Parks is an East Tennessee non-profit that helps conserve natural resources and create recreational opportunities. Partnership and support of Legacy Parks has direct benefit to Knox County residents to expand park and trail networks as well as conserve land of environmental, cultural, economic and/or recreational benefit to the community.”

Page 68. 20.3 Grow Knox County as a place for a variety of sports tournaments. Suggest deleting language referencing any specific type of sports and stop at “sports”.

Page 70. How to Use the Plan. Change the language in the first sentence to read: “The Comprehensive Plan shall be used on a regular basis as public and private decisions are made concerning development, redevelopment, capital improvements, economic incentives, and other matters affecting Knox County.”

Page 71. Plan Management Cycle. Add bullet point under Annually to support the county’s effort to monitor fiscal impact, deviations, or progress of the plan’s implementation to read: “Annual Fiscal Impact Report”
Appendix H. Omit CN and OA from Rural Living and Rural Conservation Place Types.

Items for further discussion or guidance from staff and Commission:

Page 37. Rural Living. Land Use Mix. Primary Uses. Suggest adding language to clarify types of structures that are appropriate and are not. Original suggestions was to add “detached”. Director Brooks was asked to provide guidance. “Residential, Single family detached”.

Page 37. Rural Living. Housing Mix. There has been a lot of discussion regarding what zoning districts and density is appropriate in the Rural Living Place Type in both the Planned Growth Areas and the Rural Areas. The Rural Area is the clearer one – the GPP Section 4.3 allows density in the Rural Area of the Growth Map up to 2 du /acre regardless of zoning district. For those Rural Living Place Types in the Planned Growth Areas – as proposed, Planned Residential is partially related up to 5 du/acre. In many of my discussions, 1 du / 2 acres seemed to be the ideal vision for the Rural Living Place Type which doesn’t support the GPP. Others have suggested aligning the Rural Living Place Type with the density established in the Rural Areas in the Growth Policy Plan. Additionally, many felt that PR should be omitted altogether.

Page. 38. Rural Conservation. Housing Mix. Suggest adding language to the bullet point to read: “Single family residential subdivisions shall be clustered in a pattern that preserves 50 percent or more open space or environmentally sensitive areas on a given site.”

Page. 38. Rural Conservation. Housing Mix: Discussion of appropriate zonings and density in Rural Conservation Place Types in the Planned Growth Area where densities are currently up to 3 du per acre and in Rural Areas a density of up to 1 du per acre. With a density of 3 du/acre on 100 acres requiring the conservation of 50% – the development would be built out at a density of 6 du/acre clustered – does this disrupt or protect the rural character?

Page. 40. Rural Agriculture. Add language to last sentence of place type description to read: “These sites are found in the rural areas where prime and locally important soils may exist and the road network is sparse.” Commission requested that a reference to the soil map may be appropriate to include for clarity.

Page 59. Encourage development practices that conserve and connect natural features and habitat. Question for staff – Is this an appropriate section to include as a new action item a suggested policy by Sierra Club? Staff responded yes. Add language to read: “7.8 Create design standards that encourage connection of natural areas to provide an ecological framework and promote migration for wildlife. Development plan review and approvals should look for opportunities to connect open space and natural habitats across developments and consider threatened and endangered wildlife species and wildlife corridors.”

Page 59. – Director Snowden and Brooks – would considering design elements for the Rural Place Types offer any benefit for the protection and enhancement of existing rural heritage character? Director Snowden suggested road design elements may be appropriate. Is it appropriate to include a statement on page 59 under “Encourage development practices that conserve and connect natural features and habitat”.

Page 61. 9.5 Avoid approving isolated developments. Amend language to read: “Avoid approving isolated developments where infrastructure and or public services are inadequate or not yet planned.” This would refer to emergency services, law enforcement, parks and rec, and other government public services. Yes, these are things that we can not control, but this shows an intent to work together to ensure residents have access to these services. Ward asked for definition of “isolated”. Dailey suggested removing public services but include schools. Beeler asked for clarification of “inadequate”. Defining infrastructure may help to clarify.

Page 71. Plan Management Cycle. Add bullet point under Ten Years that will support the county’s effort to include all categories of the environmentally sensitive areas like soil, historic resources, protected and conservation areas in the next updated list of Suitability Factors used in the land use model to read: “Update the Suitability Factors so that all categories of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas are considered.” These categories can change over time and 10 years is a reasonable timeframe to revisit. USGS Soil survey. Ward asked for definition of soils. Cathy Olsen discussed the interpretation of the characteristics of soils can change. Relative definition can change over time. Last map was updated in 2023. Sediment is also an issue.

Page 72. Additional Implementation Actions. Possible considerations in part or whole:
REPLACE the Criteria for a plan update (blue column) with the following:
The following review and approval criteria shall be used in reviewing and taking action on all comprehensive plan future land use map amendments, including changing conditions due to existing zoning. The facts supporting a favorable evaluation of each criteria must be documented:
1) Whether one of the following situations exists:
a) An obvious or significant error or omission in the plan,
b) Changes of conditions (such as adjacent Place Types of the Future Land Use Map, uncontrolled natural forces/disasters, etc.). The change of a zoning or land use in the vicinity or general area of a proposed property should not be considered a change of condition. Adjacent land uses could be. This would protect the integrity of the plan and place types.
c) Introduction of significant new utilities or state/federal/local road projects that were not anticipated in the Plan and make development more feasible
d) The proposed changes support the policies, goals, objectives, and criteria of the Plan. (page 50). The word “policies” refers to the 23 policies on page 50. This is so that staff and decision-making bodies can refer to and include these policies in their justification for support or denial.
e) New data regarding trends or projections, housing conditions, population, or traffic growth that warrant reconsideration of the original plan
2) Whether the land use amendment request is compatible with the surrounding future land uses as identified in the future land use map.
3) Whether the land use amendment request can be served by existing transportation facilities and other infrastructure and services such as schools, water and sewer.
4) Whether the land use amendment request negatively impacts environmentally sensitive areas identified by Planning.
5) Whether the plan amendment request respects clear and sharp distinctions made in the Plan between Suburban and Rural Place Types and therefore will protect rural character.
6) Whether the land use amendment request does not conflict with or work against the Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff suggested deleting 6) and including the original text as stated above in 1. (d) to address adherence to the 23 policies on (page 50). This is so that staff and decision-making bodies can refer to and include these policies in their justification for support or denial.
7) Question for Director Snowden – should we include criteria for roads or where will criteria for roads be included?
Another Consideration:
Consider keeping current Criteria for a plan update as presented, but change back to original language suggested by the consultant and staff to read: “If an obvious or significant error or omission in the Plan or if two or more criteria apply, it may be appropriate to update the Plan:”
AND consider frequency of plan amendments to quarterly for years 1 and 2 and then revisit.

Appendix H. Place Type and Zoning Correspondence Matrix. Page 105 and 106 of the file attached to the agenda item. Suggested changes to the language to read:
Place Type Categories and Zoning
The matrix below describes the relationship between the existing zoning districts and the future land use lace types in the Comprehensive Plan. Four possible relationships between place types and zoning districts exist:
Directly related. The zoning district is appropriate to implement the place type.
Partially related. The zoning district may be appropriate, but with qualifications (such as a development plan with conditions).
Appropriate zoning district for any place type.
Not related / appropriate. The zoning district is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map Place Type
The zoning district and future land use designation for a property shall be compatible with one another. Properties shall only be rezoned to a Zoning District that is directly related or partially related to the future land use designation for that property as shown in Appendix H. Zoning districts depicted as “not related / appropriate” are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
As part of the anticipated zoning code update, amended or new zoning districts may be proposed to align with the place types.
Review criteria for all zoning map amendment requests.
1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the intent of the place type for the subject site, and reference the following attributes of the Place Type:
a. Land Use Mix
b. Housing Mix (if applicable)
c. Building Form Attributes
d. Transportation Attributes
e. Open Space
2. The appropriateness of the proposed zoning map amendment for a subject location shall be
determined based upon compliance with the place type description in addition to:
a. Availability of public facilities and services to the subject site.
b. Impacts on the public welfare of the proposed zoning district.
c. Impacts on environmentally sensitive areas, natural resources, and environmental features.
d. Compatibility of the proposed zoning district with surrounding zoning districts and uses adjacent to the subject site.
e. Other requirements as determined by the Zoning Code.
3. A request may be denied or approved with conditions if the proposed rezoning amendment is deemed inappropriate based upon place type description, other policies in the Comprehensive Plan, or other analysis of the request.
a. For example, conditions could restrict development until the surrounding transportation or utility infrastructure is sufficient to support development of the site under the new zoning.
b. Or conditions could require open spaces, provision of amenities (public or private), landscaping, buffers, or designation of areas not to be disturbed or developed.
Additional Review Criteria for Partially Related Districts
If the requested zoning district is “partially related” then at least one of the following criteria must be met. These are in addition to the criteria above. Applicants are required to have a pre-application meeting with staff to ensure one of the following criteria is met:
1. The proposed zoning district is consistent with the secondary uses of the subject site’s place type. If the intent of the request is to create a supportive use described in the place type, then the applicant must explain how the request supports that outcome.
2. The proposed zoning district is compatible with the current zoning of adjacent sites.
3. The proposed zoning district is directly related to a place type that is adjacent to the subject site on the Future Land Use Map

[Kyle Ward]

I’d like the following pulled:

Page 71. Plan Management Cycle. Add bullet point under Annually to support the county’s effort to monitor fiscal impact, deviations, or progress of the plan’s implementation to read: “Annual Fiscal Impact Report”
Appendix H. Omit CN and OA from Rural Living and Rural Conservation Place Types.

Page 37. Rural Living. Land Use Mix. Primary Uses. Suggest adding language to clarify types of structures that are appropriate and are not. Original suggestions was to add “detached”. Director Brooks was asked to provide guidance. “Residential, Single family detached”.

Page 37. Rural Living. Housing Mix. There has been a lot of discussion regarding what zoning districts and density is appropriate in the Rural Living Place Type in both the Planned Growth Areas and the Rural Areas. The Rural Area is the clearer one – the GPP Section 4.3 allows density in the Rural Area of the Growth Map up to 2 du /acre regardless of zoning district. For those Rural Living Place Types in the Planned Growth Areas – as proposed, Planned Residential is partially related up to 5 du/acre. In many of my discussions, 1 du / 2 acres seemed to be the ideal vision for the Rural Living Place Type which doesn’t support the GPP. Others have suggested aligning the Rural Living Place Type with the density established in the Rural Areas in the Growth Policy Plan. Additionally, many felt that PR should be omitted altogether.

Page. 40. Rural Agriculture. Add language to last sentence of place type description to read: “These sites are found in the rural areas where prime and locally important soils may exist and the road network is sparse.” Commission requested that a reference to the soil map may be appropriate to include for clarity.

Page 61. 9.5 Avoid approving isolated developments. Amend language to read: “Avoid approving isolated developments where infrastructure and or public services are inadequate or not yet planned.” This would refer to emergency services, law enforcement, parks and rec, and other government public services. Yes, these are things that we can not control, but this shows an intent to work together to ensure residents have access to these services. Ward asked for definition of “isolated”. Dailey suggested removing public services but include schools. Beeler asked for clarification of “inadequate”. Defining infrastructure may help to clarify.

Page 71. Plan Management Cycle. Add bullet point under Ten Years that will support the county’s effort to include all categories of the environmentally sensitive areas like soil, historic resources, protected and conservation areas in the next updated list of Suitability Factors used in the land use model to read: “Update the Suitability Factors so that all categories of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas are considered.” These categories can change over time and 10 years is a reasonable timeframe to revisit. USGS Soil survey. Ward asked for definition of soils. Cathy Olsen discussed the interpretation of the characteristics of soils can change. Relative definition can change over time. Last map was updated in 2023. Sediment is also an issue.

Page 72 and appendix H should be kept as presented by staff with out change

[Richie Beeler]

Commissioners,

I would like to propose a Map Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by removing the Rural Commercial designation from areas north of I-40 and east of Midway Road, and changing these areas previously designated Rural Commercial to a Rural Living place type. This will not affect any properties currently zoned commercial, and will apply only to AG zoned properties. It will also have no effect on property west of Midway Road or currently in the Midway Business park.

A revised map showing this proposed Amendment will be provided to the Commission office.

[Kim Frazier]

Link to the USGS soil map as requested:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/0767h/plate-1.pdf

[Kim Frazier]

The Greater Nashville Regional Council, March 2024 Conference “Implications of Regional Growth Trends” define environmentally sensitive areas as:

Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
• Prime Agricultural Soils
• National Register of Historic Places
• National Flood Hazard Floodways &
Floodplains
• Steep Slopes (>15%)
• Rare & Endangered Species
• Protected Areas & Conservation Areas
• Surface Waters
• Wetlands

[Richie Beeler]

I would like to offer the following Amendments to the place type map in the proposed Comprehensive Plan:

1) In Northeast Knox County, the parcels currently proposed as Rural Conservation place type located southwest of Three Ridges Golf Course property, southeast of Ridgeview Road, north of Old Washington Pike, west of Norfolk Southern railroad tracks, east of Luttrell Road, and south of Old Tazewell Pike, be changed to Rural Living place type. This Amendment applies ONLY to those parcels in the above described area that are currently proposed as Rural Conservation.
2) In Northeast Knox County, the parcels currently proposed as Rural Conservation place type located northeast of Three Ridges Golf Course property, southeast of Ridgeview Road, northwest of Rocky Lane, and southwest of Whisper Ridge Lane, be changed to Rural Living place type. This Amendment applies ONLY to those parcels in the above described area that are currently proposed as Rural Conservation.
3) In Northeast Knox County, the parcels currently proposed as Suburban Residential place type located northeast of Bud McMillan and Ellistown Roads, southeast of Washington Pike, northwest of Millertown Pike, and southwest of McGinnis and Roberts Roads, be changed to Rural Conservation place type. This Amendment applies ONLY to those parcels in the above described area that are currently proposed as Suburban Residential, and ONLY to those parcels in the above described area which currently have a zoning designation of Agricultural.
4) A map reflecting the above proposed Amendments will be provided to the Commission office for information purposes.

[John Schoonmaker]

I would like the following to be included in the Comprehensive Plan:

Changes to the Appendix H Grid for Related Zonings –
Rural Living – change all Planned Residential Zones to “Not Related / Appropriate”.
Rural Conservation – for Planned Residential, change it to text stating “Partially related – up to 1 du/1 acres in Rural Area, up to 3 du/1 acre in PGA“
Corridor Mixed Use – recommend a minimum density for Planned Residential zones of minimum of 5 du/ac.
Suburban Residential – in the Planned Growth Area, allow up to 5 units instead of the drafted 12 units.

Page 59. Policy 7. Encourage development practices that conserve and connect natural features and habitat. Add action item to support this policy to read:
Create design standards for the Rural Place Types that protect and enhance existing rural heritage character.

Page 72.
Reject the recommendation of Planning Commission for the change to Criteria to Plan Amendment, (they changed it from “two” to “one”):
Change this back to “two” instead of “one” of the proposed criteria

[Kim Frazier]

ITEMS RESCINDED from consideration

Page 37. Rural Living. Land Use Mix. Primary Uses. Suggest adding language to clarify types of structures that are appropriate and are not. Original suggestions was to add “detached”. Director Brooks was asked to provide guidance. Frazier rescinds. “Residential, Single family detached”.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ON NON CONSENT REVISED BY AUTHOR
Page 71. Updating and Tracking. Add language under TEN YEARS to read: “Schedule a major update to the Comprehensive Plan and review changes in suitability factors”.

Page 72. Additional Implementation Actions. Criteria For Plan Amendment. (blue column)
Amend number of criteria that apply from 1 to 2 in support of the recommendation from the consultants and leadership team to read: “If an obvious or significant error or omission in the Plan or if two or more criteria apply, it may be appropriate to update the Plan:”
Add language in the last bullet point to read: “The proposed changes support the policies outlined on page 52 and 53, goals, objectives, and criteria of the Plan.”

[Terry Hill]

I would like to offer the following amendment to the place type map in the proposed Comprehensive Plan:

Parcel ID: 077-148 located at 8397 Beaver Ridge Rd.
Suburban Residential to Rural Crossroads Commerical

This property is located on a three way intersection and relatively isolated due to topography. Only 1.2 of three acres is considerable buildable. Location is Rural Crossroad and suitable for commercial development.
Thank you

[Kim Frazier]

I mentioned that I would provide a sample policy regarding recreational space. This is from Germantown:

https://library.municode.com/tn/germantown/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH17SU_ARTIIIMIDEST_S17-60PA

[Kim Frazier]

Please rescind:

Page 59. Add section To Support This Policy: Suggest adding a new action item as inspired by the Middle TN Coalition of 9 Counties – “Greater Nashville Regional Council” – that this is just good data to consider. Additional language to read: “Further maintain a group of GIS layers that depict Environmentally Sensitive Areas including prime agricultural soil, historic resources, floodways & floodplains, Hillside / Ridgetop Protection Area, rare and endangered species, protected areas, conservation areas, surface water, wetlands, and other pertinent features, and use this map layer when evaluating plan amendments, rezonings, and development plans.”

Director Brooks states that Knox County currently does this, so this may be unnecessary. Planning Staff will review and provide guidance.

[Author]

Posts