Subdivision

Concept Plan

9-SC-01-C

Recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission

APPROVE the Concept Plan subject to 4 conditions


See case notes below

Details

Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Details of Action

+
1. Connection to sanitary sewer and meeting any other relevant requirement of the Knox County Health Dept.
2. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knox County Dept. of Engineering and Public Works.
3. Meeting all applicable requirements of the approved use on review development plan.
4. Right-of-way dedication of 30' from the centerline of Andersonville Pk.

Applicant Request

+
Subdivision
Cedar Crossing Future Units
Lots
5 (Split)
Proposed Density
3.48 du/ac

Variances

None


Property Information

+
Location
Northeast side of Andersonville Pike, southeast side of Twin Maple Dr.

Commission District 7


Size
10.35 acres

Sector
North County

Currently on the Property
Vacant

Growth Plan
Planned Growth Area

Case Notes

+
Staff Recommendation
APPROVE the Concept Plan subject to 4 conditions
1. Connection to sanitary sewer and meeting any other relevant requirement of the Knox County Health Dept.
2. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knox County Dept. of Engineering and Public Works.
3. Meeting all applicable requirements of the approved use on review development plan.
4. Right-of-way dedication of 30' from the centerline of Andersonville Pk.
Disposition Summary
APPROVE the Concept Plan subject to 4 conditions
Details of Action
1. Connection to sanitary sewer and meeting any other relevant requirement of the Knox County Health Dept.
2. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knox County Dept. of Engineering and Public Works.
3. Meeting all applicable requirements of the approved use on review development plan.
4. Right-of-way dedication of 30' from the centerline of Andersonville Pk.

What's next?

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

Cedar Crossing Future Units

Pinkston Construction, Inc.


Case History