$_POSTArray
(
)
$_GETArray
(
    [case] => 7-M-24-RZ
)
$_SERVERArray
(
    [REDIRECT_HTTPS] => on
    [REDIRECT_UNIQUE_ID] => Z23YygYkgzei55qqb8gIZgAAABU
    [REDIRECT_PHP_DOCUMENT_ROOT] => /mnt/stor12-wc2-dfw1/599257/www.knoxplanning.org/web/content
    [REDIRECT_STATUS] => 200
    [HTTPS] => on
    [UNIQUE_ID] => Z23YygYkgzei55qqb8gIZgAAABU
    [PHP_DOCUMENT_ROOT] => /mnt/stor12-wc2-dfw1/599257/www.knoxplanning.org/web/content
    [HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)
    [HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR] => 18.188.211.246
    [HTTP_ACCEPT] => */*
    [HTTP_HOST] => knoxplanning.org
    [HTTP_X_MOSSO_DT] => PHP72-28 SSL VS
    [HTTP_CLUSTER_HTTPS] => on
    [HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING] => gzip, br, zstd, deflate
    [PATH] => /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin
    [SERVER_SIGNATURE] => 
Apache/2.4 Server at knoxplanning.org Port 80
[SERVER_SOFTWARE] => Apache/2.4 [SERVER_NAME] => knoxplanning.org [SERVER_ADDR] => 10.40.241.171 [SERVER_PORT] => 80 [REMOTE_ADDR] => 18.188.211.246 [DOCUMENT_ROOT] => /mnt/stor12-wc2-dfw1/599257/www.knoxplanning.org/web/content [REQUEST_SCHEME] => http [CONTEXT_PREFIX] => [CONTEXT_DOCUMENT_ROOT] => /mnt/stor12-wc2-dfw1/599257/www.knoxplanning.org/web/content [SERVER_ADMIN] => root@localhost [SCRIPT_FILENAME] => /mnt/stor12-wc2-dfw1/599257/www.knoxplanning.org/web/content/cases/index.php [REMOTE_PORT] => 55272 [REDIRECT_URL] => /cases/7-M-24-RZ [REDIRECT_QUERY_STRING] => case=7-M-24-RZ [GATEWAY_INTERFACE] => CGI/1.1 [SERVER_PROTOCOL] => HTTP/1.1 [REQUEST_METHOD] => GET [QUERY_STRING] => case=7-M-24-RZ [REQUEST_URI] => /cases/7-M-24-RZ [SCRIPT_NAME] => /cases/index.php [PHP_SELF] => /cases/index.php [REQUEST_TIME_FLOAT] => 1735252170.872 [REQUEST_TIME] => 1735252170 [argv] => Array ( [0] => case=7-M-24-RZ ) [argc] => 1 )
7-M-24-RZ | Planning Commission

Rezoning

7-M-24-RZ

Recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission

Approve the CA (General Business) zone because it is consistent with the Knox County Comprehensive Plan and surrounding development.


Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Applicant Request

+

Property Information

+
Location
8529 ASHEVILLE HWY

North of Asheville Hwy, east of Cedar Ridge Rd

Commission District 8


Size
9,605 square feet

Place Type Designation
CMU (Corridor Mixed-use)

Currently on the Property
Agriculture/Forestry/Vacant Land

Growth Plan
Planned Growth Area

Case Notes

+
Disposition Summary
Approve the CA (General Business) zone because it is consistent with the Knox County Comprehensive Plan and surrounding development.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the CA (General Commercial) zone because it is consistent with the Knox County Comprehensive Plan and surrounding development.
PURSUANT TO THE KNOX COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 6.30.01, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET FOR ALL REZONINGS (must meet all of these):

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL BE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS IN THE AREA AND DISTRICTS AFFECTED, OR IN THE COUNTY GENERALLY:
1. There have been a number of commercial rezonings to CA, CB (Business and Manufacturing), CH (Highway Commercial) in the area along Asheville Hwy since 1986. While this property is not adjacent to the CA zone, Asheville Hwy is largely zoned CA in this area.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE:
1. The CA zone is for general retail business and services but not for manufacturing or for processing materials other than farm products. The CA zone is consistent with the existing office and commercial uses in the area.
2. Rezonings should be based on the entire range of uses allowed within a zone to ensure that any development brought forth at a future time would be compatible with the surrounding land uses.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY OTHER PART OF THE COUNTY, NOR SHALL ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECTS RESULT FROM SUCH AMENDMENT.
1. Asheville Hwy is a median-divided highway. The East County Community Plan classifies Asheville Hwy and Andrew Johnson Hwy as rural crossroads and development corridors appropriate for growth in East Knox County. Any new access along this road would require entrance permits from Tennessee Department of Transportation.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH AND NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF KNOX COUNTY, INCLUDING ANY OF ITS ELEMENTS, MAJOR ROAD PLAN, LAND USE PLAN, COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN, AND OTHERS:
1. CA is partially related to the Knox County Comprehensive Plan's CMU (Corridor Mixed-use) place type. The primary land use is commercial, and retail uses are recommended to be along major corridors.
2. The Knox County Comprehensive Plan's Implementation Policy 5 calls for creating neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and amenities in close proximity. This area on Asheville Hwy serves as a commercial corridor for the Carter Community, which provides services and amenities to nearby residents.
3. The property is within the Planned Growth Area. The purposes of the Planned Growth Area designation are to encourage a reasonably compact pattern of development, promote the expansion of the Knox County economy, offer a wide range of housing choices, and coordinate the actions of the public and private sectors, particularly with regard to the provision of adequate roads, utilities, schools, drainage and other public facilities and services. The proposed development meets the relevant standards of the Growth Policy Plan.
4. The CA zone is listed as partially related in the CMU place type per Appendix H (Place Type and Zoning Correspondence Matrix) of the Knox County Comprehensive Plan. Partially related zoning districts may be appropriate but must meet one of three criteria listed in Appendix H. The proposed CA zoning is compatible with the current commercial and office zoning of adjacent sites.

What's next?

+
This Rezoning case in the COUNTY was recommended for approval. The appeal deadline - August 10, 2024 has passed.
Applicant

Priyanka Patel


Case History