Kerbela Development Proposal Returns But Core Conflict Remains

A lot has happened since I last reported in April on the proposed redevelopment of the Kerbela Shriners Temple site. Whether enough has happened is another question—one that will be answered this afternoon when the developer returns to Planning Commission with a revised proposal after being sent back to the drawing board last month.

As a refresher, Birmingham-based CR Endeavors (CRE) is proposing a 200+ unit apartment community aimed primarily at active adults 55 and older on the 5.72-acre property overlooking the south landing of the Gay Street Bridge. The site falls within the South Waterfront district (SW-6 and SW-5), which is governed by a form-based code developed almost 20 years ago through an intensive community input and planning process.

Because portions of the proposal do not comply with that code, CRE is seeking a Level 3: Alternative Compliance Review. Planning Commission’s task is not to determine whether the project perfectly follows the South Waterfront rules—it doesn’t—but whether the proposed deviations nevertheless satisfy the intent of the code and the broader South Waterfront Vision Plan.

The project was originally slated to go before Planning Commission in April. After community concerns surfaced, the developer agreed to postpone its request for 30 days, during which time public meetings were held and the South Waterfront Advisory & Advocacy Group (SWAAG) met with both the developer and city staff to discuss concerns centered on the project’s scale, design, connectivity, public access and its alignment with the goals of the South Waterfront Vision Plan.

At its May 14 meeting, Planning Commission spent roughly two hours discussing the Kerbela proposal (see video below) before remanding it for further revisions.

The Administrative Review Committee (ARC), the body charged with reviewing the proposal, received revised plans from CRE on May 26. You can view the full case file here, and the latest revised project files in isolation here.

The proposal will again be heard by the Planning Commission TODAY, Thursday, June 11, at 1:30 p.m. in the Main Assembly Room of the City County Building.

Unfortunately, to my eye the proposal’s latest iteration feels like an attempt to run back the same play with a few modifications around the edges. After months of meetings, presentations and revisions, unresolved tensions between the proposal and the site remain.

Nobody has a deeper understanding of the South Waterfront code and vision than the group tasked with safeguarding them, SWAAG. The heart of their critique, shared below, is that this proposal fails not just the letter of the code but its purpose. The South Waterfront Vision Plan was designed to create an interconnected urban neighborhood, not isolated superblocks. Yet the revised proposal still lacks meaningful public access through the site, remains largely inward-facing and does little to strengthen the pedestrian experience or mixed-use character envisioned for this highly visible gateway property.

Perhaps this is the best CRE can do while keeping the project viable at its desired scale. If so, it may point to a more fundamental reality: the proposal and the site simply aren’t a match.

At some point, no amount of tweaking can make a square peg fit a round hole. If the project only works by seeking repeated exceptions to the framework intended to guide development in this area, it may be worth asking whether a different proposal would be a better fit. During the May meeting, Shriners representatives indicated that they have entertained multiple offers for the property.

Below, you’ll find SWAAG’s comments on the revised plan as publicly submitted to Planning Commission (view all public comments and submit your own here).

Inside of Knoxville supports SWAAG’s assessment and urges Planning Commission to uphold the spirit and intent of the South Waterfront code by denying approval of CRE’s application in its current form. 

UPDATE: At the beginning of the June 11 Planning Commission session, attorney Ben Mullins requested a postponement on behalf of CRE: “We would like to postpone that for 30 days to give us a chance to take some of the comments we received and keep working with the City and the community.”

---

From SWAAG to Planning Commission:

The South Waterfront Advisory & Advocacy Group has reviewed the recent resubmission of the project proposed for the Kerbela site. This is perhaps the most important site in the South Waterfront and certainly the most prominent. We had hoped to support a revised proposal, but for the reasons stated below we must ask you to deny this application.

Planning Commission postponed the project in your May meeting to allow for further revisions based on communication with community stakeholders. The new submission (dated 5/26/26) was offered for ARC review without any follow up communication with the SWAAG or, to our knowledge, any other community organizations.

The ARC report suggests that CRE has addressed our concerns. As we wrote in comments to them, this is not the case. Although the revised plan has a few minor positive changes, the major issues identified by SWAAG and discussed at the May Planning Commission meeting were either not addressed or dismissed.

You are charged with ensuring this application meets the intent of the South Waterfront code and Vision Plan – the creation of a mixed-use, human-scaled, gridded, urban form (rather than suburban super-blocks) that supports an engaging pedestrian experience and integrates into the connective tissue of the community. The City should have made that intent clear to CRE in their pre-submittal conversations about this site. In addition, the ARC report to you details where the proposal doesn’t meet the strict letter of the code. It lists the revisions to the plan. What it omits is an assessment of how this proposal fails to meet the INTENT of the code.

The revised design still contains seven large deviations from the code, as listed by the ARC. If this had been a regular Level II review, there is no way BZA and/or Council would have approved those variances. In order to benefit from a Level III review that does not require those variances, a proposal must clearly and convincingly show that it meets the intent of the code. This proposal fails to meet that standard. We focus our comments on elements that most impact non-compliance – integration into the community, urban form, pedestrian friendliness, and mixed use.

Integration into the community. The current proposal isolates itself from the community rather than integrates itself into the community. The code’s prohibition of gated communities is to prevent this kind of development. “Private developments such as ‘gated communities’ are prohibited in the Knoxville South Waterfront. They inhibit access to public spaces and create physical and social enclaves” (City of Knoxville Zoning Code 7.1.4.A.2). The proposed development may not technically be a gated community, but it functions as one. One side (Dawson) presents nothing but blank walls to the street, the front (Mimosa) is set far back from the street behind a surface parking lot and presents approximately 40% blank wall. CRE HAS included a public path along the bluff at the north side of the development – separated from the development by a fence. There’s no way for the community to interact with this development.

Urban form. The code clearly intends for the South Waterfront to be developed with a gridded, urban form. That is the reason it prohibits lot sizes above 3 acres and block sizes above 1400’. This lot is 6 acres with a perimeter approaching 3000’. It’s a superblock. Meeting the intent of the code in such a case requires pedestrian access through (not around) the development. This is why One Riverwalk has a public plaza between its two buildings. It’s a concept that has long been understood in urban settings. For example, in the early ’70s TVA created two towers with a plaza open to the public between them, not one giant building on their superblock.

The ARC report states CRE has evaluated a north south path through the development. The “evaluation” consists of the assertion by CRE that a north-south public access through the site is “not a practical or architectural solution.” They then offer up the east-west path along the top of the bluff as public access through the site – without noting that path will be separated from the development by a fence.

CRE’s contention that site constraints prevent the creation of north south public access appears to use the slope calculation from Mimosa to Sevier. But SWAAG has never asked for construction of a new access from Sevier to the top of the bluff – the “ghost” stairs provide that access. We have been clear about asking for pedestrian access through the site from Mimosa to the proposed public path. In fact, a north south path from Mimosa to that path would face less of a challenge based on slope than the proposed east west path coming up from Dawson.

CRE’s contention that a north south path is not practical is belied both by history and by the plan itself. Previous structures with less technology have navigated this site. Most of the “ghost stairs” originally led to houses. Additionally, the westernmost staircase was public access and led to Sherrod Road, which originally extended from Mimosa north toward the top of the bluff. Council closed this public access in 1993 for the expansion of the Kerbela parking lot.

Also, CRE’s renderings for the site make it clear that they propose resident access where a public north south path would be located. Yellow on the diagram below is where a north south pedestrian connection would go. CRE proposes to use this area for a private plaza. If access is practical for residents, it’s practical for the public.

We have previously suggested several alternatives for creating north south access through the development. Competent urban designers could probably come up with others. The north south access is something that CRE elects not to do, not something that they are unable to do. But providing that access is critical to satisfying the intent of the code.

Pedestrian friendliness. The comments about urban form also apply to pedestrian friendliness. An additional concern is blank walls at ground level. Nothing is less friendly to a pedestrian than a blank wall, except perhaps a surface parking lot. We reiterate our concern that the Dawson Street side of this development is nothing but blank wall. Again, we have previously offered suggestions for addressing this problem.

Mixed Use. The recommendation to design the ground floor to accommodate future retail as was done at One Riverwalk is not incorporated into this resubmission. We must plan for the future and create building stock that accommodates the highest and best use of our urban sites even if the current market cannot support a retail use at this time. Taller ceiling and exterior ADA access to multiple locations on the ground floor should be provided at a minimum.

We support South Waterfront development, including of this site. But we insist it be done well; i.e. in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. What happens on this very prominent site may well set a precedent for future development in the waterfront.

Therefore, because of the lack of further communication with the community and the refusal to adapt the building design in any way to make it compatible with the urban context required by the SW form-based code, we reluctantly ask you to deny approval of this application.

This proposal does not have the best interest of this community at heart and CRE’s “product” appears to be incompatible with the intent of our adopted plan and code. The right developer with the right project will be able to develop this site in a way that integrates into and enhances the community for its customers and the public.

We are appending our comments from May for reference.

• John Cadotte, Southside Waterfront Neighborhood Association Vice-President, business owner
• Rachel Craig, Island Home Park resident, former Planning Commissioner, member of the South Waterfront Oversight Committee 2005-2007
• Debbie Mallard, CityView resident, Southside Waterfront Neighborhood Association President, current representative to the South Knoxville Neighborhood and Business Coalition (SKNBC)
• Tommy Smith, Island Home Park resident and former First District City Council Member
• Susanne Tarovella, Old Sevier resident, architect and business owner, Chair of the Design Review Board
• Janice Tocher, South Woodlawn resident, former Planning Commissioner, business owner, Co-Chair SKNBC