Subdivision

Concept Plan

9-SB-21-C

Recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission

Approve variance 1-3 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 variance


See case notes below

Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Applicant Request

+
Subdivision
Hoppe Subdivision
Lots
80 (Split)
Proposed Density
2.2 du/ac
Residential?
Yes - SF

Variances

VARIANCES:

1. REDUCE THE MINIMUM TANGENT BETWEEN BROKEN BACK CURVES FROM 150' TO 96.76' ON ROAD 1 FROM STA 6+00 TO STA 7+00.
2. REDUCE THE MINIMUM ANGLE OF INTERSECTION FROM 75 DEGREES TO 71 DEGREES AT THE ROAD 2 INTERSECTION WITH ROAD 1.
3. REDUCE THE MINIMUM ANGLE OF INTERSECTION FROM 75 DEGREES TO 74 DEGREES AT THE ROAD 3 INTERSECTION WITH ROAD 1.

ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:

1. REDUCE THE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL RADIUS FROM 250' TO 100' ON ROAD 1 (TWO LOCATIONS).
2. REDUCE THE MINIMUM PAVEMENT WIDTH ON ROAD 4 FROM 26' TO 20'.


Property Information

+
Location
12119 Hardin Valley Rd.

North side of Hardin Valley Road, north of the intersection with Marietta Church Road

Commission District 6


Size
36.77 acres

Sector
Northwest County

Currently on the Property
Agricultural and vacant land

Growth Plan
Rural Area

Case Notes

+
Staff Recommendation
Approve variance 1-3 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 variance
1. Connection to sanitary sewer and meeting any other relevant requirements of the utility provider.
2. Provision of street names that are consistent with the Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System within Knox County (County Ord. 91-1-102).
3. Implementation of the recommended street and intersection improvements outlined in the Hoppe Property Subdivision Transportation Impact Study prepared by Ajax Engineering, as last revised on August 23, 2021, and approved by the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works and Planning Commission staff. The design details and timing of the installation of the improvements shall be worked out with the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works during the design plan stage for the subdivision.
4. Obtaining approval from Knox County Commission to rezone the property to PR (Planned Residential) with a density that allows the development as proposed, or the number of lots must be reduced to be consistent with the approved density.
5. Providing a greenway easement on the final plat on south side of Connor Creek per the requirements of the Knox County Parks and Recreation department.
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. Placing a note on the final plat that all lots will have access only to the internal street system.
9. 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.
10. 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 and drainage system.
Disposition Summary
Approve variance 1-3 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 variance

What's next?

+
After the Planning Commission
Because of its location in the County, appeals will be heard by Knox County Chancery Court.
Appeals of Concept Plans and Final Plats are filed with Chancery CourtThe Process
Applicant

Hoppe Subdivision

Homestead Land Holdings, LLC


Case History