For those present at last night’s City Council Meeting who have followed the ups and downs of the Hill and Locust tower development, not much new ground was covered. The project, for those who might have missed it, includes five stores of parking on the bottom, primarily accessed via Hill Avenue, but exposed to the south along Front Street. 18 stories face Locust Street and 13 stories face Henley. Built on a serious slope, the structure will rise about eight stories over Henley. It will include about 290 homes and storage for about 400 cars.
The project went before the Design Review Board three times before ultimately gaining unanimous approval (the Board Chair recused himself). A group opposed to the structure appealed the Design Review Board Decision to the Knoxville and Knox County Planning Commission where the appeal was rejected fourteen to zero. That led to last night’s last chance appeal to the City Council (though further legal action was alluded to).
Josh Wright spoke first for the opposition to the project focusing on the idea that guidelines are minimums, and the project does not meet the minimums, or the aspirations implied within them. He suggested the building does not enhance the pedestrian experience and does not extend the scale of downtown. Further, it obscures (this point was contradicted by the developers) a portion of the Henley Bridge, a historic structure. Kathy Goldsby added that the scale comparisons their proposal referenced, such as the City County Building, are not seen as positive today and she called it “a one-hundred-year mistake that will lead to others.”
Attorney Daniel Sanders also spoke against the project and seemed to ruffle a few feathers among council members when he implied the Mayor’s office was “a project manager,” and displayed enlarged photographs of council members talking to developers on the site. He alleged favoritism and said it seemed a violation of due process, noting that a representative of the Mayor spoke out for the project in the Planning Commission meeting. He’s filed an extensive records request with the city to learn how connected council members and the mayor’s office were to the project. He said they should be provided with the records before a vote is taken.
Ben Hudgens, project architect spoke of the iterations the project went through in response to feedback, particularly from the Design Review Board. Noting the lack of opposition there and from the Planning Commission, he said the process has worked, making the project better and that they appreciate the feedback and are ready to get started. Patrick Kassen of Woodfield Development said (for the first time I recall) there will be an affordable component built into the project. Local attorney Taylor Forrester pointed out that the design guidelines themselves include language saying they should be “applied in a flexible manner.”
City Attorney Frost asked members if they had discussions regarding the project after they knew it would come before them on appeal. They each said no and that the conversations they had had a year or two ago were preliminary and the project wasn’t fully formed at the time. A couple of the council members expressed frustration at the implication of impropriety.
After brief discussion among the members of council, the request to overturn the decisions made by the Design Board and Planning Commission was denied unanimously, making way for the project to proceed.