|
User loginNavigationSyndicate |
County to include design and lighting standards in Zoning RegulationsSubmitted by local_yokel on Wed, 11/14/2007 - 11:09.
The county commission will vote on a measure to adopt design and lighting standards within the Zoning Regulations at their meeting tomorrow night at 7 p.m. You can find the proposed changes on the agenda here, starting on page 77: Link... I'll also paste them below. What do you think of them? I'd especially like to hear the opinions of those of you who keep up with the Dark Skies Initiative and those of you who drive Hwy 411S. Are these regulations sufficient? Are they too much? Are they just right? That a new Section 7.14 addressing commercial and industrial design requirements be added to read as follows: Section 7.14. Design Requirements for Commercial and Industrial A. Any commercial or industrial use permit requiring a site plan provided B. Site plans and site plan elements shall be prepared by qualified C. To mitigate the impact of building appearance along scenic highways 1. The front, side and rear elevation of any building shall be 2. The front (facing highway or road) and side wall planes of Elements that are not acceptable as a means to comply with the 3. Exterior walls visible from public roads may not be comprised 4. All accessory garbage and disposal facilities (dumpsters, etc.) D. Outdoor Lighting Standards. 1. A lighting plan may be required (as determined by the Building 2. A light “point by point” footcandle diagram must be shown on the 3. Lighting must not exceed 0.5 footcandle at or beyond the property 4. Any luminaire with lamp(s) rated at a total of more than 1800 5. Laser source lights or any similar high intensity light for outdoor 6. The operation of searchlights for advertising purposes is prohibited. I. Any commercial or industrial use permit requiring a site plan provided ( categories: )
|
 Upcoming events
SearchLocal websites:• Blount Dems• Blount Dems • Blount Kids Stuff • League of Women Voters • MC Democrats • MC Democrats • Mike Walker • Raven Society • Raven Society • TN Clean Water Network • Wendy Pitts Reeves • Wendy Pitts Reeves Other websites:• DCCC• DCCC • DNC • DNC • DSCC • DSCC • Knox Dems • Knox Dems • KnoxViews • KnoxViews • RoaneViews • TennViews • TN Dems • TN Dems Media websites:• Blount County Voice• Blount Today • Blount Today • Blount Voice • Knox News Sentinel • Knoxville News Sentinel • Knoxville Voice • Knoxville Voice • Maryville Daily Times • MDT Government websites:• Blount County• Blount County • City of Alcoa • City of Alcoa • City of Maryville • City of Maryville • State of Tennessee • State of Tennessee • TN Code • TN Code Annotated • TN General Assembly • TN Legislature • U.S. House • U.S. Senate • U.S. Thomas LoC • US House • US Senate • US Thomas LOC • UT CTAS • UT CTAS • UT MTAS • UT MTAS Candidate websites:• Biden• Dodd • Edwards • Gravel • Hillary Clinton • Judge Mike Meares • Kucinich • Obama • Richardson |
Copyright (C) 2007, All Rights Reserved
We know that churches are exempt from most rules. What other types of businesses / structures may fall in the void so that they are neither commercial or industrial and thus are not required to follow any new rules?
And are these the same lighting guidelines they were working on for the sperts komplex?
I noticed that the rear of building are not included, the rear should be screened or regulated by design standards. Someone will have a view of the rear of the building from their home. I still believe some vegetation screening should be between the road and building, do we really need to see the building or just a well designed sign? Vegetation screening between each business would also break up the commercial look.
The lighting regulation has a loophole, or did I misunderstand it. Is it legal to install an unlimited number of fixtures rated less than 1800 lumes?
4. Any luminaire with lamp(s) rated at a total of more than 1800
lumens, and any flood or spot luminaire with lamp(s) rated at a total
of more than 900 lumens shall not emit any direct light above a
horizontal plane through the lowest direct light emitting part of the
luminaire (full cut-off);
I'm having some trouble understanding the regulation, which usually means there is something to hide. Why are they using lumens and footcandle in the same reg?
Any commercial property proposal that borders residential has to have somesort of screening. As for the lighting, that is the same as maryville's but there is another regulation that is more stringent in in the rural areas in the county.
Is it the same as Maryville or is it not? 'cause I sure don't want the county lit up like the city.
And bravo Joe! Leaving the back of buildings unregulated means we care more about those driving by these commercial properties than the folks who have to live next to them and wake up each and every morning to the glare of sunlight on metal.
You of all should know. It was the same restirictions as the city's so that it can get pushed forward sooner than later. Since it was wanted to be brought forward after all the policies plan was finalized. Thought we needed it done now and pushed forward to get it done. And the lighting will be alot stricter then the cities just for the same reason as the last posting. So the lighting is comming in next month's agenda. John Lamb wanted to get a better grasp on the regulations and specifics on the lighting. So the planning commission went ahead and passed it on with 2 public input and the full commission had a public input for it aswell. So now the last day of the night of the meeting people want to argue about and change it? Does not make sense to do that at the last hour.By all means bring up your comments and questions during the public inputs so that those changes can be done.
again mello any commercial property that is proposed, has to have screening from any residential. That has been in the regulations for years. Unsure if joe knew that is why i said it before. but I guess you overlooked that and want to talk about maryville's lighting
me thinks it is time to get the camera out and show a few of those so called 'screens'
then you can call mr roger fields and show him and let him do his job.
So the subdivision are protected and the farmers are forced to except more than their fair share of the back side of an outhouse. Screening is more than visual it provides wind breaks which traps litter left by customers. It's one reason I suggested trees or vegetation on all sides of each business, and in larger parking lots. Visit the new WalMart, mother nature keep that big lot clean by moving the plastic bags to the neighbors property.
As for the backside of buildings, I don't think they should look like the store front, but some visual standards should be required. Someone will be looking at it. If you don't require it now, it will be too difficult to ask for it years later, when the backside looks worse than a junkyard.
Except for industrial parks, communities should be looking at "form based zoning" for just about everything. I think this would go a long way toward heading off many disputes.
RNeal, what is "form based zoning"?
The way I understand it, form based zoning regulates the structure and its appearance, not its use. It promotes more mixed-use development.
For example, you could have a zone that says structures may only be one story, require certain exterior apperance and features, no more than x sq. feet, allow for x amount of parking per structure, have these setbacks and utility easements, etc. Then you could have single family dwellings, a neighborhood drug store, a dress shop, or whatever, all mixed together as long as they conform and maintain the character of the area.
Another zone might allow up to three stories or up to a certain maximum height, more parking, etc., along with the other stuff. There you could put an office building, a business "campus", apartments, condos, whatever.
If I understand all that correctly. I first learned about it in relation to the South Knoxville Waterfront development plan. They have adopted form based zoning for that project. Here's a link to what they came up with.
Link...
From the intro:
"Form-based codes de-emphasize land use in favor of building form and typology. They encourage a greater mix of uses and housing types and place stronger emphasis on the design of the public realm. In addition, greater public participation in the coding process will enable all parties involved to have a better understanding of the outcome of future development. Form based codes are also more graphic-intense and easier for people to understand than traditional zoning.
The intent of these codes is to provide a blue-print for future development that allows for greater certainty in determining the outcome for growth. The Knoxville South Waterfront Vision Plan represents a possible vision for future growth. These codes are written to tailor future development in such a way as to assist in creating an environment that achieves this vision."
So what does "form-based zoning" do to avoid nuisance enterprises within their mixed-use development? For example, some of what's going up on 411S is manufacturing, with all the requisite noise and pollution. Not a great mix with the existing residential and in some places, places a blight on the historic value of the area. This, in turn, minimizes the potential future tourist value.
I guess I'm asking whether there are ANY limitations on use?
I'm not sure how that works. Mainly it's about mixed use. I guess there could be some light industrial, and maybe there are other noise and environmental regulations that can be used.
But I think mainly if you set design standards such that it wouldn't be cost effective for a light manufacturing outfit that only needs a basic steel building/warehouse, they will go somewhere else where it's allowed.
Planning commission has tried to bring about a few changes in the zoning from the Hunter's Study aswell as from from the form based zoning that you referred to. But there was an outpouring from residents that did not understand and still ask for brownfielding and other commonsense changes. They think that all changes are bad for the community and do not see the long haul to 20-30 yrs down
Well, all citizens just can't be as enlightened as you, JAC.
why knock something that you don't know much about then? was just stating what hunter's and what other communities in other parts of the country have used to help spread sprawl and other issues that we have here today. Is that not what the residents have been saying for years? I know I have. And now we are trying to get that into the works. Just a shame that all is negative and can't see the positives to come out of it for the future.
What was it I was knocking?
"5. Laser source lights or any similar high intensity light
for outdoor advertising or entertainment is prohibited"
Does that mean, if one extinguishes another's ?Security? light, that is invading one's property, and shining through one's house; by using a Laser; they are in violation of the Regulation? That method of Laser use is Utilitarian, and does not fall under Advertising or Entertainment, IM not so HO.
On a 2nd, more National note. The US's major contribution to CO2 levels
IS the waste of Electricity. If the Customers were forced to buy Solar Powered ?Security? lights, wouldn't that help curb a lot of our transgressions, and help folks realize the real expense in burning Lumens all night long?
viva Evo Morales
Post new comment