Subdivision

Concept Plan

4-SA-22-C

Approved with conditions
by the Planning Commission

APPROVE variance 1 and alternative design standards 1-2 on the recommendations of the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works and because the site conditions restrict compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the proposed variances


See case notes below

Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Applicant Request

+
Subdivision
Catatoga, Phase 3
Lots
35 (Split)
Proposed Density
1.97 du/ac
Residential?
Yes - SF

Variances

VARIANCE:
1. Reduce the minimum tangent for broken back curves from 150 ft to 94.8 ft on Road 'E' between STA 1+40.98 and 2+35.78

ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:
1. Reduce the minimum horizontal curve radius from 250 ft to 150 ft on Road 'D' between STA 2+77.83 and 3+53.04
2. Reduce the minimum horizontal curve radius from 250 ft to 150 ft on Road 'D' between STA 5+16.81 and 5+92.02

ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STANDARDS APPROVED BY KNOX COUNTY ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS:
1. Increase the maximum intersection grade from 1 percent to 2.97 percent at the intersection of Road ?D? at Road ?B?
2. Increase the maximum intersection grade from 1 percent to 3 percent at the intersection of Road ?E? at Road ?D?


Property Information

+
Location
0 Long Farm Way

Northern terminus of Long Farm Way, north of Yarnell Road

Commission District 6


Size
17.79 acres

Sector
Northwest County

Currently on the Property
Vacant land

Growth Plan
Rural Area

Case Notes

+
Staff Recommendation
APPROVE variance 1 and alternative design standards 1-2 on the recommendations of the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works and because the site conditions restrict compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the proposed variances
1. Connection to sanitary sewer and meeting any other relevant utility provider requirements.
2. Provision of street names consistent with the Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System within Knox County (County Ord. 91-1-102).
3. Meeting the conditions of the Concept Plan for Catatoga, Phase 1 & 2 (4-SA-21-C).
4. Providing a 200-FT sight distance easement on the final plat for Lot 139, as shown on the Concept Plan.
5. Providing a note on the final plat that all structures are to be located outside of the 50-ft buffer (building setback) for sinkholes/closed contours unless a geotechnical study prepared by a registered engineer states that building within the 50-ft sinkhole/closed contour buffer (building setback) is acceptable and the study is approved by the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works. The geotechnical study must be reviewed and approved by Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works prior to approval of a plat for any proposed lots that do not have adequate building area outside of the 50-ft buffer (building setback) area. Building construction is not permitted within the sinkhole/closed contour area or any required drainage easement for the sinkhole/closed contour area.
6. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knox County Zoning Ordinance.
7. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works.
8. Submitting to Planning staff prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission or Planning staff, the certification of design plan approval form as required by the Knoxville-Knox County Subdivision Regulations.
9. Prior to certification of the final plat for the subdivision, establishing a property owners association that will be responsible for the maintenance of the common areas, recreational amenities, and drainage system.
Disposition Summary
APPROVE variance 1 and alternative design standards 1-2 on the recommendations of the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works and because the site conditions restrict compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the proposed variances

What's next?

+
After the Planning CommissionAppeals of Concept Plans and Final Plats are filed with Chancery CourtThe Process
Applicant

Catatoga, Phase 3

Urban Engineering, Inc.


Case History