March 7, 2024
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

390 Comments
Marie
37924
1-SC-24-F
Marie (37924), January 30, 2024 at 1:42 PM
Having lived in the area for many years and seeing how a developer can take Hillside Protection and put a subdivision into it, comes down to one thing, money over people and pure greed. No consideration for others who already live in the subdivision.  
Melissa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Melissa (37922), January 29, 2024 at 9:51 PM
As a resident of Gettysvue whose home is directly below the proposed development, I strongly oppose its approval. Prior to purchasing our home, we reviewed all recorded plats, deeds, and Restrictions; which all clearly state that the subject property is zoned residential and subject to a 1:3 ratio restriction. There was absolutely nothing in the public record that would have alerted us that this land could ever be used to develop a multi-story condo complex smack in the middle of a well-established neighborhood. The sheer scope and size of the proposed development is baffling. The height of these proposed buildings will tower over the homes below and will create major water run off issues for the homes at the base of the development. The impact to this quiet neighborhood from construction noise and traffic will be years-long and devastating. We are talking about creating underground parking structures on multi-story condo buildings…within mere feet of existing homes! Please try and imagine how you would feel if someone attempted to build a 40 unit condo development directly on top of your home. A home that you invested heavily in and are raising your children in. How would you feel? I believe that you would be sitting right where we are, praying that the representatives of this Board would do the right thing and reject this proposal.
2-B-24-DP
Rob (37922), January 29, 2024 at 10:06 PM
I oppose the planned high rise apartments proposed by Gettysvue Partners L P/Ron Watkins. Gettysvue Polo, Golf, & Country Club is a mature residential community with restrictive covenants drafted in 1994. Article II Section 2.1 Para (a) SubPara (i) states: "No structure shall be erected ... except for 1 single family residence [Unit] for the occupancy by one family ... not to exceed 2 1/2 stories in height". The proposed development by Gettysvue Partners L P/Ron Watkins has 10 units per acre with the structures consisting of a retaining wall of variable height, car garage, 3 stories, & a pitched roof. This is not in compliance with the Gettysvue Restrictive Covenants which have been in place & adhered to by the Gettysvue community for almost 30 years resulting in a mature community of 2 1/2 story (or less) buildings.This development should not be approved.
Albert
37922
2-B-24-DP
Albert (37922), January 29, 2024 at 10:44 PM
I oppose the proposed high rise apartment development by Gettysvue Partners L P/Ron Watkins. The planned development has a lack of form & fit in the mature Gettysvue community which has been constructed since ~1995. A typical Gettysvue 1-story home is ~27' in height; a typical 2-story Gettysvue home is ~39' in height. The proposed multi-dwelling apartments are up to ~80' in height & consist of a retaining wall of variable height, car garage,, 3 occupied stories, & a pitched roof. The architecture does not conform with the Gettysvue community. The retaining wall would be an unsightly eyesore of variable height (up to 20') due to the downward elevation of the lots at the proposed building site. The proposed structures would dwarf the single family homes & Club House in Gettysvue, destroy the aesthetics of Gettysvue, & become a disgraceful, conspicuous, urban blight. This is poorly conceived & ill-advised. Stop this proposal!!
Jim and Rebecca
37932
2-B-24-SP
Jim and Rebecca (37932), February 8, 2024 at 5:56 PM
We live on a narrow winding mountain road, which at our end is only lane. We cannot absorb the additional heavy traffic that rezoning will eventuate. We did not know the time or location of the meeting today; otherwise we would have attended. Although that lack of information is entirely our fault, in the town from which I came rezoning meetings were usually held in the evenings. Please be so kind as to register our opposition to the above-listed rezoning request.
Ramanujan
37922
2-B-24-DP
Ramanujan (37922), January 30, 2024 at 12:08 AM
As a long term resident of the Gettysvue Club community I strongly oppose this proposal because
1. The plan is for buildings which are much larger than the surrounding houses. This affects the beauty, tranquility and the values of these homes.
2. The additional condos will affect the drainage by overwhelming the infrastructure. My street was flooded a few years ago due to the storm drains maxed. This will aggravate the problems.
3. The increased traffic, pressure on neighborhood schools, it will affect the tranquility which brought us to the community 15y ago.
4. It will significantly affect our property values since it changes the character of our community.
For these reasons this proposal should be summarily denied.
2-E-24-RZ
Jon (37932), January 30, 2024 at 8:39 AM
The rezoning request for 2600 W Gallaher Ferry is completely out of line with what our little road and community can support. W Gallaher Ferry currently has 88 total homes. Adding 224 houses would increase the traffic by 2.5X what the current traffic load is. Our road is so narrow in places that my truck does not fit in the lane. Also, the rezoning application states there is WKUD sewer to the property, that is not the case. Sewer and an upgraded water line would have to be brought a mile down our road to support the rezoning request, or use of septic systems. Unfortunately, about a third of the property is too steep to get approval from Knox County Enviromental Health for septic and the remaining land would only get approval for 1 house per acre. Finally, with a third of the land being so steep it is absurd to think that someone could fit 2 houses per acre on such a steep hillside.
2-B-24-DP
Jan (37922), January 30, 2024 at 8:39 AM
Once again I am asking the planning commission to deny Mr Ron Watkins request to construct high-rise apartment-like dwellings in my well established neighborhood of single family homes. He is proposing development of monstrous buildings in a small area of a subdivision that is over twenty years old. These buildings will be twice as high as the single family homes as well as the clubhouse! Besides the actual buildings, retaining walls will also overpower the natural beauty of the surrounding area. Please deny this proposal in Gettysvue. Stop Mr Watkins and his disastrous project. The residents want to maintain our community the way it has been for over 20 years. A quiet, peaceful place to live without high-rise apartments overpowering our neighborhood,
2-B-24-DP
T (37922), February 12, 2024 at 12:51 PM
Following the Staff Recommendation, the developer asked for a postponement of the subject use on review. Subsequently, minor changes were made to the renderings submitted to the Commission. Nothing in the updated renderings make the development conform to the staff recommendations. If anything, changing the entrance to the garage on the west side of building one further detracts to the existing homes neighboring the development. Any attempt to construct multi-story apartments in the middle of the neighborhood will continue to be opposed by the majority of Gettysvue. As stated, many times by Gettysvue residents and the Commission's staff, such development should be harmonious to the existing homes and conform to the density requirements of CCR's of 1 to 3 single family homes per acre. Using the total acreage of the total of Gettysvue which includes an 18 hole golf course is not an appropriate density calculation. Please vote to deny the request in the March meeting.
Dale
37922
2-B-24-DP
Dale (37922), January 30, 2024 at 9:06 AM
See my previous message from Jan 8, 2024. I felt compelled to write another comment because there are rumors/fears that this latest zoning request might be approved, since he has scaled back his prior request from 90 condos to 40 condos. Yes, 40 is better, but it is still not acceptable to build multifamily units in a single family residential neighborhood. The condos just don't fit in the neighborhood, and will decrease property values for the surrounding homes. Gettysvue is one of the premiere subdivisions in Knoxville, so why would anyone want to do anything to reduce the values. The reason there is zoning in a community is so that there is consistency in the neighborhood planning and construction, and allowing this parcel to be rezoned after more than 25 years of the subdivision, just doesn't make any sense. Why have zoning in the first place, if a wealthy developer can come along and change the plans for no good reason. He could easily turn the acreage into single family homesites and they would be in big demand for building single family homes.
Brennan
37922
2-B-24-DP
Brennan (37922), February 12, 2024 at 6:58 PM
When I purchased a property in Gettysvue, it was not disclosed to me that this type of project would be a possibility. This project directly violates our community C&Rs. This is a project that will significantly increase traffic, which is already a concern living on Linksvue Dr considering that many drivers significantly exceed the speed limit. Additionally, there are certainly serious environmental and safety concerns considering the topography of Gettysvue. Please do not approve this project. This would be a truly monumental mistake that will negatively affect homeowners in Gettysvue and surrounding communities and cause even more traffic and environmental issues than are already present.
2-B-24-DP
C (37922), January 30, 2024 at 9:18 AM
I strongly oppose construction of the so-called “GettysVue Villas.” Though called “Villas,” these buildings will resemble large apartment units, like the Crescent apartment development on the corner of Ebenezer Road and Westland Drive. Nowhere in Knox County can you find large apartment units in the heart of a neighborhood of single-family homes. At a maximum height of sixty-four feet above grade, these units will dwarf surrounding homes. Each residential lot in Gettysvue is limited to one single-family residence. High-rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture of our community’s homes! Besides the jarring visual violation of current building covenants, this development would have a negative impact on home values, the quality of life of current residents, and the quiet enjoyment of our homes. There are so many other reasons to reject this proposal: Increased traffic on already-heavily traveled roads, increased stormwater flow, and a lengthy and obstructive construction period are among those. This mammoth condo development is simply an attempt by a few greedy individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of hundreds of Knox County residents. Please join the GettysVue residents to oppose this ill-advised project.
Clarissa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Clarissa (37922), February 12, 2024 at 7:24 PM
We would appreciate your support AGAINST the construction of high rise apartments in the middle of a single family home subdivision. This project does not benefit the Gettysvue residents: it benefits only the builder. The builder is welcome to build a luxury apartment complex someplace else in Knoxville, but not inside our community. Allowing this project to go through will lead to loss to the residents of our community: loss of quality of life and major loss of property value. Also, a simple moral principle: most, if not all, of our residents were never advised of any high rise project in Gettysvue prior to the purchase of lots and houses. In other words, this was not a project approved by residents. Thank you very much in advance for supporting WAHT IS RIGHT
2-B-24-DP
J (37922), January 30, 2024 at 9:19 AM
I strongly oppose construction of the so-called “GettysVue Villas.” Though called “Villas,” these buildings will resemble large apartment units, like the Crescent apartment development on the corner of Ebenezer Road and Westland Drive. Nowhere in Knox County can you find large apartment units in the heart of a neighborhood of single-family homes. At a maximum height of sixty-four feet above grade, these units will dwarf surrounding homes. Each residential lot in Gettysvue is limited to one single-family residence. High-rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture of our community’s homes! Besides the jarring visual violation of current building covenants, this development would have a negative impact on home values, the quality of life of current residents, and the quiet enjoyment of our homes. There are so many other reasons to reject this proposal: Increased traffic on already-heavily traveled roads, increased stormwater flow, and a lengthy and obstructive construction period are among those. This mammoth condo development is simply an attempt by a few greedy individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of hundreds of Knox County residents. Please join the GettysVue residents to oppose this ill-advised project.
2-B-24-DP
Kim (37922), February 13, 2024 at 9:04 AM
The proposed plans, even the modified ones, changes the look and feel of the neighborhood radically. A neighborhood that all of us have invested our money, time and lives into. This does nothing for the betterment of our community!
Margaret
Y, 37
2-B-24-DP
Margaret (Y, 37), January 30, 2024 at 9:59 AM
I strenuously object to any proposed structure(s) that is not in compliance w/ the existing surrounding community that makes up Gettysvue.
Peggy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Peggy (37922), February 13, 2024 at 9:07 AM
Please deny this project. The planned development of apt/condo building and SIZE does not fit in such an established neighborhood. We purchased a home and read the restrictions beforehand and am shocked this is being considered. Please deny this project!
Mary
37922
2-B-24-DP
Mary (37922), January 30, 2024 at 10:44 AM
See PDF
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240130104432.pdf
Dale
37922
2-B-24-DP
Dale (37922), February 13, 2024 at 10:45 AM
Not sure why the Developer postponed the hearing on his proposed changes, when he only made relatively minor changes to his plan. This revised plan doesn't change the fact that he is trying to build four story buildings for condos in a single family neighborhood, with covenants that restrict such construction. This is still a ridiculous request and plan. Please vote to deny approval of the rezoning.
Randy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Randy (37922), February 13, 2024 at 10:59 AM
I live on Gettysvue Drive just a couple of hundred yards from this proposed project and I strongly oppose the revised proposal and would like the planning commission to follow its recommendations and deny this project forever. My reasons are listed in the attachment to this message.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240213105925.pdf
George
37922
2-B-24-DP
George (37922), January 30, 2024 at 11:13 AM
I am writing to express my strong desire for the committee to reject this proposal. The revised plan is no better than the plan that was previously rejected by this committee. The proposed building is still over 90 feet tall and will tower over the existing houses in the neighborhood. In addition, the proposed use is completely inconsistent with current use and guidelines which if built will create a visual eyesore within the entire community. Again, I strongly admonish the committee to reject this proposal.
richard
37922
2-B-24-DP
richard (37922), February 13, 2024 at 11:23 AM
After review of the most recent plans submitted by a developer, I remain against this project. Gettysvue Country Club does not support a 4 story complex inside a primary single family home development. The project is against the HOA rules for any individual to build an apartment to condo complex inside the development. This land is owned by an individual who now is leaving the impression with myself that he desires to take advantage of ordinary folks in the development. The developer also owns the management company and refuses to allow any home owners a say in what occurs in the development for 20 plus years. The developer transferred the property to himself or others and is not part of the development company. WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS WAS NOT A POSSIBILITY DUE TO THAT THE LAND WAS NOT OWNED BY A DEVELOPER. We are not against development of the lands with single family homes per the existing guidelines of there HOA. The 4 story 45-50 foot building proposed just doesn't fit, will create water runoff issues and a hazard to golfers or home owners. The developer can build single family high end homes on the existing land and make a great profit vs destroying the neighborhood
Melissa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Melissa (37922), January 30, 2024 at 11:27 AM
I strongly oppose the construction of high-rise condo buildings in Gettysvue. Every resident abides by Gettysvue restrictive Covenants that each lot is limited to 1 single-family residence. After lots were sold and the construction of single-family houses, adhering to restrictive guidelines, Gettysvue has become a well-established, beautiful single-family community. This challenge and request violates the Covenants which every resident adheres to. The proposal of such radical use of this paltry amount of property within the community to build 2 high-rise, 40-unit buildings on a 4-acre lot is absurd. This high-rise condo building project will certainly profit the minority of businessmen at the expense of lowering current residents' housing value, increasing traffic congestion, deminishing pedestrians' safety, creating more water issues and diminishing the usage of amenities. If a proposal of a single-family home project with 1-3 units per acre which all the residents obey, then such opposition will never occur. We ask you to make the right decision for residents in Gettysvue.
Cheridy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Cheridy (37922), February 13, 2024 at 1:21 PM
The modified structure placement will not solve the eyesore of the building being proposed. I strongly oppose! Please vote NO!
sally
37922
2-B-24-DP
sally (37922), January 30, 2024 at 11:40 AM
I am opposed to the plan to build these apartments for many reasons but especially because these structures violate the covenants of the neighborhood and they do not fit in the neighborhood design, form, fit, and function. We ask that you thoughtfully listen to our comments and make a decision based on the many different reasons presented and not based on money to be made by the developers or tax revenue that would be gained through dense housing structures. Might I add protecting the children who ride or walk to the pool in the summer. We have no sidewalks and the additional traffic would be detrimental to the children as well as those who exercise in the neighborhood. Please protect us all!
2-B-24-DP
Rob (37922), January 30, 2024 at 11:44 AM
Can Vols basketball player Zakai Zeigler (5’9” 171 lbs) guard teammate Jonas Aidoo (6’11” 240 lbs)? Of course not. The size & height mismatch would be problematic. Should the proposed multi-level apartments co-exist with single story & two story homes in the Gettysvue community? Of course not. The size & height mismatch would be problematic. With a height of up to 80’, the multi-level apartments proposed by Gettysvue Partners LP/Ron Watkins would tower over the one & two story Gettysvue homes. In addition, the size of the proposed complexes (~63,500 Sq Ft) would dwarf any structure, including the Club House, in Gettysvue. The form & fit of the proposed development are not consistent with the aesthetics & character of the Gettysvue neighborhood, a mature community of ~30 years of age. This is an ill-conceived, poorly designed proposal which should be disapproved.
Leane
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Leane (37932), January 30, 2024 at 12:04 PM
I adamantly opposed the proposed development of possibly more than 100 homes on West Gallaher Ferry Road on so many levels...but I will point out only one issue right now: the development company and associated parties' LIABILITY in the event of a car accident. I own a passenger van that will fit in one lane on the very slim roadway West Gallaher Ferry is. But I have been run off the road TWICE by construction vehicles too wide for the lane or that cross over the line due to reckless driving. My damages were reimbursed but that's not the point. The road needs to be improved and widened for the current residents of the 80 properties on West Gallaher Ferry...any additional development will strain our road beyond comprehension.
shaei
37922
2-B-24-DP
shaei (37922), February 15, 2024 at 10:54 AM
Mr. Watkins made little changes to his revised plan. This revised plan still does not conform to the staff recommendations and it is not consistent with the development policies of the Koxville-Knox County general Plan. The scale, height, design, density and site layout are incompatible with the neighboring residences. Purposely, Mr. Watkins ignores the existing community character which is a well-established single-family community, following the restrictive Gettysvue Covenants adopted by Mr. Watkins in the original development. He is desperate to maximize profit from his paltry amount of lots to build multi-story, multi-family high-rise, high-density condos in the middle of our community. This development does not fit the form and character of the neighborhood and distracts from the integrity of architecture and appearance. With the current infrastructure, it is unsustainable with an extra 40 units of families. Moreover, this project will put the safety of drivers, walkers, strollers, dogs and cars at risk due to high traffic flows on roads that have steep slopes, blind curves and no sidewalks in Gettysvue. The developer is so irresponsible in proposing such a project that ignores the safety of everyone and pursues personal profit. We sincerely ask our elected officials again to deny such a short-term personal benefit project for the long-term safety and well-being of residents in Gettysvue.
2-B-24-DP
Ed (37922), February 16, 2024 at 9:46 AM
I want to repeat my opposition to the proposed multi unit development in the middle of Gettysvue. Gettysvue is a community of single-family homes on large lots. The proposal to put multifamily units in large buildings in the middle of the development does not benefit the community and detracts from the overall. Appearance and atmosphere of the community. I strongly urge the commission to deny the development permit.
2-B-24-DP
S (37922), January 8, 2024 at 10:19 PM
I emphatically oppose the construction of high-rise condo buildings in the middle of an established single-family community. The condo buildings are designed to rise nearly 70 feet above and tower over the adjoining well-developed single-family homes. It destroys the beauty of our community since it detracts from the integrity of architecture and appearance. It would certainly diminish our property values during and after the high-rise buildings are constructed. The streets of Gettysvue are already very unfriendly to pedestrians. As a daily walker, I need to walk with caution to avoid being hit. I need to share roads with cars simply because there are no sidewalks for pedestrians. More importantly, streets in Gettysvue have slopes and blind curves. I worry about the safety of myself and others of our neighbors, walking almost daily along the streets around our homes after additional 80 cars join the current already busy streets. I respectfully ask you to deny this high-rise condo building project.
Laurence
37922
2-B-24-DP
Laurence (37922), January 30, 2024 at 12:20 PM
I am against the high rise project that Ron Watkins is proposing.
Margaret
3792
2-B-24-DP
Margaret ( 3792), February 16, 2024 at 10:11 AM
My husband and I have lived in Gettysvue since ‘98. Each and every home built complimented those around it. I honestly felt it was a privilege to live in Gettysvue. If Ron Watkins is allowed to complete his construction projects, it will destroy what makes Gettysvue special. Home value will plummet and we will become just another high rise environment.
Jong
37922
2-B-24-DP
Jong (37922), January 8, 2024 at 10:22 PM
I strongly oppose the construction of high-rise condo buildings in Gettysvue. These high-rise condo buildings just don't fit this well-established single-family community. High-rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture and beauty of our community. It would diminish our property values during and after the high-rise condo buildings are constructed. This project violates the Gettysvue covenants, no one should be allowed to build high-rise condo buildings on one lot with a density as high as 10 units per acre. Moreover, the Covenants only permit 1 single-family home per lot. Therefore, this project violates both the zoning ordinance and Gettyevue Covenants. The street at Gettysvue already has pretty significant slopes and blind curves. Worse, there are no sidewalks for pedestrians. We have to walk with caution with driving through vehicles. The situations are certainly expected to get worse after the high-rise buildings are finished with an additional 80 cars added. Also, the already congested traffic on Westland will be further exacerbated. Lastly, our community cannot handle the significant increase in the number of residents. Our access to amenities will be limited and our community cohesiveness will diminish. I hope that the Commission will protect current Gettysvue residents and we rely on you to make decisions to protect us. Thank you!
Sharon
37922
2-B-24-DP
Sharon (37922), January 30, 2024 at 12:49 PM
This project would not have been brought forward if there was a legally organized HOA in this very LARGE neighborhood.as it would not meet appropriate architectural standards. etc. The current HOA which is completely controlled by the developer with obvious conflicts of interest,etc There is considerable case law regarding when a development should be turned over by the developer to the property owners. This is an extreme example violating this law and the current litigation will likely result in a finding that the current HOA is not legally constituted and does not represent or protect the homeowners who pay large dues, THIS PROJECT SHOULD EITHER BE REJECTED OR DEFERRED UNTIL THE RULING FROM THE COURT. THE PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE FOUND TO BE NOT LEGALLY SUBMITTED AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD ASSURE ALL PROJECTS COMPLY WITH THE LAW .THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE NO EFFORTS TO WORK WITH THE MULTIPLE CONCERNED HOMEOWNERS ON THIS PROJECT INSTEAD RELYING ON THE HOA WHICH HE COMPLETELY CONTROLS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CLEARLY HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY FROM ILLEGAL PROJECTS.
Jennifer
37932
2-F-24-RZ
Jennifer (37932), February 16, 2024 at 10:41 AM
We are very much against any development in the field behind our house on High Springs Rd. We purchased this house nearly 2 years ago, primarily BECAUSE of the field, because it’s an established neighborhood where we are tucked away from “busy”, but still close. We can see beautiful sunsets and stars from our home. The noise of construction, and then multiple families is too much to bear, frankly. Furthermore, should we ever decide to sell, the selling point of the field behind us is gone. Not every square inch of Knox county has to be developed. This will drastically change our way of life. Please deny any development here.
Brian
37922
2-B-24-DP
Brian (37922), February 16, 2024 at 10:53 AM
While the applicant has made very modest adjustments to reduce the overall height of the building, it is still standing at four stories tall on top of a hill. The density of the complex also remains much higher than any housing complex throughout the Gettysvue neighborhood. The concern remains that this complex will stick out like a sore thumb within a neighborhood that has been established for 20-25 years. While the applicant has had a presence in this neighborhood since its inception, the neighborhood has now grown and should dictate the fit and function of developments - especially those deep within the neighborhood and not on the periphery. The proposed development does not fit the form or function. I do promote the development of this property, but not with the proposed density or size. A townhome-type development similar to Gettysvue Villages or the townhomes currently being built on Linksvue near Ebenezer Rd would be much more favorable.
Robert
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Robert (37932), January 30, 2024 at 1:18 PM
I wish to respectfully voice my concerns regarding the proposed new zoning at this location and the extremely negative ramifications of the property development that might ensue. My wife and I have lived here for 24 years. We are now seeing incredibly rampant, unbridled development of Hardin Valley. The current infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.) can not and does not support the impact of these changes. The proposed zoning changes and subsequent housing developments on West Gallaher Ferry Road (WGF) are especially egregious. WGF is a circuitous, hilly, narrow old country road that is poorly striped, has numerous hidden driveways and no shoulders (in fact, it has steep drop-offs and treacherous ditches where shoulders should be). The proposed development (and current developments) would create horrific traffic loads and EXTREMELY hazardous driving conditions on a road already plagued with safety issues. Additionally, the environmental impacts would be considerable. We rely on a septic system and unless massive construction is planned, 2600 WGF would also. Numerous septic fields (IF they could be put in place) would be disaster to Melton Hill Lake and groundwater. I do not wish to live in a cesspool environment. Please be aware that rampant and unbridled development billed as "progress:" is often tomorrow's blight.
2-B-24-DP
Jim (37922), February 16, 2024 at 2:01 PM
Thank you in advance for your time on this matter. I know the commission and staff have done their due diligence and we as neighbors in Gettysvue certainly appreciate it. Those that are against this project just want to maintain what Mr. Watkins developed a nice quite community of single family residents. Please deny this proposal. Thank you.
Anthony
37922
2-B-24-DP
Anthony (37922), January 30, 2024 at 1:20 PM
The proposed project should not be approved using 3 to 1 originally approved for this project as an excuse. If an entire development is nearly fully developed using a 2 to 1 ratio or less, then building a high rise with very high density on a very small tract is completely out of character and destructive to the other homeowners. Since this was not originally submitted that this would occur when the original density was approved, the developer should be required to show this meets the neighborhood standards. Since there is no independent architectural committee or independent HOA, the homeowners have no protection from an offensive and damaging project. The HOA is likely not legally constituted and is controlled by the developer. Further, the streets, drainage,sewers etc which were developed 20-30 years ago did not contemplate a project of this density and are completely inadequate to handle the demands this project will put on the infrastructure. My home is directly down grade from this project and already experiences flooding. Mr Snowden, the county engineer, placed an additional sewer in front of my home 7 years ago to try to deal with this situation. This project will likely have devastating consequences for homeowners. I see nothing in this plan that comes close to addressing this.
Iris
37922
2-B-24-DP
Iris (37922), February 16, 2024 at 2:04 PM
Please deny any use for this property other than single family dwellings in order to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Any other use will overload the roads and cause problems.
Rebecca
37922
2-B-24-DP
Rebecca (37922), February 16, 2024 at 2:12 PM
I strongly oppose this project for the following reasons:
- A substantially similar project previously rejected twice
- The revised proposal is not substantially different from the original in terms of size of the building. The buildings are HUGE compared to the existing homes in the neighborhood. There are single/ double family homes that have been built out. Adding a high rise apartment building in the middle of an existing, mature neighborhood is not appropriate.
- The density of the newly proposed buildings is still significantly higher than the approved 1-3 units/ acre. Aggregating available acreage from surrounding areas (including the golf course!) is disingenuous.
- The drawings with this application are misleading. Please make sure to carefully inspect the civil engineering drawings. They show the true elevation of the finished building, parking garage, and retaining wall.
Becky
37922
2-B-24-DP
Becky (37922), January 30, 2024 at 1:45 PM
I strongly oppose the construction of high-rise condo buildings in Gettysvue. Trying to reduce the number of units in no way diminishes all the problems this proposed establishment would create for the residents. The overall obnoxious size and posture of these multi dwelling structures have never matched the fit and form of the neighborhood and what is stated in the Covenants. I am not aware of any neighborhood in this town that has had this done or would allow it. The only construction that should be considered for such a compact area of property are single family homes with 1-3 units per acre. I kindly ask you to DENY such a preposterous project.
Todd
37922
2-B-24-DP
Todd (37922), February 16, 2024 at 2:36 PM
Any proposal should be in the likeness of the current neighborhood whether its an individual home or condos similar to those already part of the Gettysvue community.
2-B-24-DP
Tim (37922), January 30, 2024 at 2:06 PM
I urge you to vote NO to the proposed high-rise condominium development within the Gettysvue residential community. That a similar structure was approved over twenty years ago is irrelevant to the current situation. At that time, Gettysvue was sparsely populated. Today, the community is fully built out with single family homes. The presences of high-rise condominiums in the center of Gettysvue will now dwarf neighboring single-family homes by 60 feet or more and does not match the fit and form of the community as it exists today. The population density of the proposed high-rise condominiums exceeds the maximum population density zoned for the neighborhood when the acreage of the condominiums is used as the basis. It is inappropriate to use the acreage of the entire community, including the golf course acreage, as the basis for calculating property density to justify a high-rise condominium within a single-home development. See additional comments in the attached memo.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240130140625.pdf
Mark
37922
2-B-24-DP
Mark (37922), February 16, 2024 at 4:07 PM
The issues remain the same as previously provided. I live in Gettysvue Subdivision and bought my house in December 2020 moving from Farragut. At no time was there ever discussion about this neighborhood building condos especially at this density. Anything over town homes would be against the covenants were set up by this developer when the neighborhood was originally developed. The additional traffic for the entrance would be more than the neighborhood was designed for and would cause multiple issues as our neighborhood feeds into Westland by AL Lotts School. A traffic study would need to be conducted on the additional traffic on Westland caused by the increase of cars leaving Gettysvue at school entry and dismissal times. Traffic already backs up and blocks our entrance in the morning and afternoons currently. The additional traffic will need to accidents and possible deaths because so many people walk in the streets because there aren't sidewalks. Drainage is already an issue along with sink holes in Gettysvue. Additional buildings will cause additional issue in those areas. There is already one lawsuit in the courts right now regarding this proposed development. It would not be in the County's best interest to be named in additional lawsuits that would come about if you approve any change in the current approved build out of homes.
2-B-24-DP
SY (37922), January 30, 2024 at 2:23 PM
I respectfully ask our elected officials again to deny such a short-term personal benefit project for the long-term safety, viability and well-being of residents in Gettysvue. The high-rise, monstrous condo project proposed by Mr. Watkins directly violates the restrictive Gettysvue Covenants that one lot is limited to 1 single-family residence and not to exceed 21/2 stories high. The condo buildings are designed to rise nearly 70 feet above and tower over the adjoining well-developed single-family homes. The sheer scope and size of the proposed development is baffling. It destroys the beauty of our community since it distracts from the integrity of architecture and appearance. The condominium buildings do not fit the forum and character of the neighborhood. My home is located directly across from the proposed development, please see the attached image of the size comparison between the proposed high-rise, high-density, condominium project and typical single-family homes in Gettysvue. The density of the newly proposed buildings (10.3 units/acre) is significantly higher than the approved 1-3 units/ acre. It would certainly diminish the property values, subsequently lessening the tax collected from Gettysvue. There are so many other reasons to reject this proposal mentioned by other residents. We believe you will put the concerns of residents over the greed of one individual.
Lindsey
37922
2-B-24-DP
Lindsey (37922), February 16, 2024 at 6:47 PM
This project is terrible for Gettysvue and the community. Having these high end homes next to a 4 story apartment type building does not “fit” the neighborhood. We all purchased and invested in our homes with the outlined bilaws of the subdivision being, single family homes only. This entire project will be harmful to our property values, the drainage of the neighborhood, and it will overwhelm the traffic in the neighborhood. Please decline this project and let us all live in peace.
vicki
37922
2-B-24-DP
vicki (37922), January 30, 2024 at 2:41 PM
This proposed development would be a scar on the landscape. The whole development comprises of single dwelling homes and this ugly monstrosity would totally spoil the area. Two main points are the height, which totally dwarfs everything around it and secondly the ugliness of what's being proposed. I completely object to the planning application
Brody
37922
2-B-24-DP
Brody (37922), February 16, 2024 at 6:53 PM
I live across the street from this and if it’s approved, I won’t be able to ride my bike outside anymore. My brother and I play with our neighbor Max and this project will make it to where we can’t play. Please don’t approve this.
Corbin
37922
2-B-24-DP
Corbin (37922), February 16, 2024 at 6:55 PM
Please don’t approve this project. There will be too many cars for me and my brother to play outside safely.
Chelse
37922
2-B-24-DP
Chelse (37922), January 30, 2024 at 3:05 PM
As a Gettysvue homeowner I am strongly opposed to the high- rise condo development being proposed by Ron Watkins. This mature, fully developed golf community and neighborhood contains lovely high-end homes. There is absolutely no reason or need to build 90 foot high- rise multi-family dwelling buildings in the heart of this neighborhood. The height and sheer magnitude of these buildings will not fit or form with the existing aesthetics of the neighborhood. In fact, there are no neighborhoods in knoxville that contain high rise apartments in the middle of a subdivision. It will dramatically devalue the existing homes in Gettysvue. It will also exacerbate already existing drainage issues within the neighborhood.
Linda
37922
2-B-24-DP
Linda (37922), February 16, 2024 at 7:05 PM
My grandchild live directly across from the proposed condos that Ron Watkins wants to build. I am against this and do not want these condos built in any form or fashion. I fear for the safety of my grandchildren due to the increased amount of traffic as there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood. Please refuse his request to build these condos now and in the any future requests he may make.
James
37932
2-E-24-RZ
James (37932), January 30, 2024 at 3:09 PM
I do not support this proposal. Hardin Valley’s infrastructure cannot accommodate this amount of homes. Also, the location is not suitable for the development. Finally, residents are disgruntled about the current growth. It needs to stop.
Gavin
37922
2-B-24-DP
Gavin (37922), February 16, 2024 at 7:16 PM
I live directly across from the Ron Watkins proposed building project in Gettysvue and strongly opposed to it. This will increase traffic congestion and make it unsafe for residents and their kids and mine who use them because there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood. Please put yourself in our shoes and think if this was going to happen in your neighborhood to your family and friends by a builder that didn’t live in the neighborhood and all he cared about is the profit and not the wellbeing of the residents. Please vote NO and help your Knoxville neighbors keep Knoxville a great place to live. Thanks you for voting NO,
Nathaniel
37922
2-B-24-DP
Nathaniel (37922), January 30, 2024 at 3:14 PM
This project is a selfish money making scheme of Mr. Watkins with very harmful impact on our Gettysvue neighborhood. The project should be soundly REJECTED by MPC.
Chaochou
37922
2-B-24-DP
Chaochou (37922), February 17, 2024 at 4:25 AM
Please, No High rise Condo, it will look ugly in our nice community. Thanks!
Randy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Randy (37922), January 30, 2024 at 3:37 PM
I am opposed to the outrageous request by the developer. Please see attached.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240130153703.pdf
Jane
37922
2-B-24-DP
Jane (37922), February 17, 2024 at 8:18 AM
I respectfully request denying this proposal to build high rise condominiums in our neighborhood. Our roads, amenities, drainage system, school system and overall safety of our community would be negatively impacted by this type of development. Thank you for your consideration.
Andrew
37922
2-B-24-DP
Andrew (37922), January 30, 2024 at 4:07 PM
I am adamantly apposed to to this project. We as residents have had to follow guidelines and this proposed project does not follow the "Fit and Form" the every resident has had to follow. Mr. Watkins has not respected the wished of the community he has developed. I and most, if not all, residents had not idea that this type of project could be constructed in a completed developed. Total disrespect for residents in a community Mr. Watkins developed. Vote NO on this proposal.
2-B-24-DP
tb (37922), February 18, 2024 at 10:46 AM
See at
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240218104627.pdf
2-B-24-DP
Rob (37922), February 19, 2024 at 8:08 AM
I oppose the Gettysvue Partners/Ron Watkins request for a Multi-dwelling development in Gettysvue. In 1999, a 60-unit multi-dwelling development was approved. In 2003, a new 19 attached house development was approved replacing the 1999 approval. In 2020, a 60-unit multi-dwelling development was proposed but the application was withdrawn. On 2/2/2024, the MPC Staff recommended denial of a proposed of a 40-unit multi-dwelling development in the middle of the Gettysvue development because it is not consistent with the developmental policies of the Knoxville-Knox County General Plan. As noted in the General Plan, the MPC Staff discourages abrupt, incompatible changes is the density, scale, & building appearance from one development to another. Each proposed structure of 4 stories (including the parking garage) is > 63,500 sq ft. This dwarfs the Gettysvue Club House of ~25,000 sq ft. The proposed structures are ~62-64' elevation which overshadows the maximum height of ~35' for the neighborhood homes. The form & fit of the proposed development are not consistent with the aesthetics & character of the neighborhood, a mature community of almost 30 years of age. Please deny this request.
Christina
e 372
2-B-24-DP
Christina (e 372), January 30, 2024 at 4:27 PM
The high rise apartment/condo proposal will be an eyesore for the community. It will tower over individual home sites. This plan is against what the residents of Gettysvue want in the neighborhood. It is not something that Knoxville has approved in a community with bordering homes in the past and should not start now. Please vote NO!
2-B-24-DP
Sue (37922), February 19, 2024 at 10:52 AM
See Attached
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240219105228.pdf
Johnson
37922
2-B-24-DP
Johnson (37922), January 30, 2024 at 4:31 PM
As a resident of a bordering neighborhood, I wholeheartedly oppose this project. The buildings do not fit the neighborhood. Please vote NO!
2-B-24-DP
C (37922), February 19, 2024 at 12:34 PM
I am writing to strongly oppose construction of the so-called “GettysVue Villas.” Though called “Villas,” these buildings will resemble large apartment units, like the Crescent apartment development on the corner of Ebenezer Road and Westland Drive. Nowhere in Knox County can you find large apartment units in the heart of a neighborhood of single-family homes. At a maximum height of sixty-four feet above grade, these units will dwarf surrounding homes. Each residential lot in Gettysvue is limited to one single-family residence. High-rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture of our community’s homes! Besides the jarring visual violation of current building covenants, this development would have a negative impact on home values, the quality of life of current residents, and the quiet enjoyment of our homes. There are so many other reasons to reject this proposal: Increased traffic on already-heavily traveled roads, increased stormwater flow, and a lengthy and obstructive construction period are among those. This mammoth condo development is simply an attempt by a few greedy individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of hundreds of Knox County residents. Please join the GettysVue residents to oppose this ill-advised project.
2-B-24-DP
J (37922), February 19, 2024 at 12:35 PM
I am writing to strongly oppose construction of the so-called “GettysVue Villas.” Though called “Villas,” these buildings will resemble large apartment units, like the Crescent apartment development on the corner of Ebenezer Road and Westland Drive. Nowhere in Knox County can you find large apartment units in the heart of a neighborhood of single-family homes. At a maximum height of sixty-four feet above grade, these units will dwarf surrounding homes. Each residential lot in Gettysvue is limited to one single-family residence. High-rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture of our community’s homes! Besides the jarring visual violation of current building covenants, this development would have a negative impact on home values, the quality of life of current residents, and the quiet enjoyment of our homes. There are so many other reasons to reject this proposal: Increased traffic on already-heavily traveled roads, increased stormwater flow, and a lengthy and obstructive construction period are among those. This mammoth condo development is simply an attempt by a few greedy individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of hundreds of Knox County residents. Please join the GettysVue residents to oppose this ill-advised project.
Cheridy
37923
2-B-24-DP
Cheridy (37923), January 30, 2024 at 4:36 PM
Ask yourself if you would like a 100 ft wall of an apartment outside your front window while trying to enjoy a dinner with family. We do not! Please vote NO! This is a special neighborhood. Please help us keep it that way!
Daniel
37922
2-B-24-DP
Daniel (37922), February 19, 2024 at 12:49 PM
As a resident of Gettysvue, I am against the current proposed development plan. Once again, the proposed plan does not meet current zoning and or HOA covenants. The current zoning allows the owner of the property to develop several townhomes that would fit better in the neighborhood. The site nor neighborhood is conducive to the proposed plan.
Mike
37923
2-B-24-DP
Mike (37923), January 30, 2024 at 4:39 PM
Homeowners were never informed about this development when we bought property. This is sheer greed on the part of the developer. Please vote NO to this eyesore of a towering building in a FAMILY neighborhood.
2-B-24-DP
Ann (Dr 37), February 19, 2024 at 1:17 PM
The proposed high-rise condominium is incongruent with the residences of our Gettysvue community in size, design, and site layout. The PR Zone district approved for a maximum of 3du/ac; this project would be 10.25du/ac, and its 4 stories would tower above every other home in the neighborhood. We built in this neighborhood, trusting that the Gettysvue Covenants would be upheld. Please deny this incompatible project. Thank you for your attention.
Becky
37922
2-B-24-DP
Becky (37922), January 30, 2024 at 4:40 PM
I strongly object to the proposal of high rise condominiums in Gettysvue. I am a homeowner whose residence will be directly affected by the construction that would take place. I live directly below the site where these enormous structures would be built which means that the elevation of these condos would tower over my roof. Not only would this encroach on my privacy but i would also have to deal with noice issues of construction for a possible 3-5 years, noice from residents of the proposed 40 unit buildings and construction traffic blocking roads to and from my home. Minimizing the units will not reduce the drainage issues these high rise condos would cause my property along with my neighbors. I have already spent a significant amount trying to prevent water issues from the golf course and roads. These multi resident condos would only cheapen the neighborhood if they even sell and devalue our beautiful homes which we have all worked so hard to purchase. The safety of the children in this neighborhood would be jeopardized and the traffic would be outrageous. This is a neighhood that was not constructed to handle what is trying to be passed. Please REJECT this proposal as it is only the greedy developer who will benefit from all of this.
2-B-24-DP
L (37922), February 19, 2024 at 2:32 PM
Please deny the most recent request of the developer for this multi unit project. The new proposal is not compatible with the Gettysvue subdivision. These proposed buildings are not at all in scale with the current single family homes and would reduce home values significantly. The increase in residents would create too much traffic and make it dangerous for residents to walk in the neighborhood. This project is in the middle of the neighborhood, and the height of the buildings compared to the single family homes is exponential.
2-B-24-DP
Max (37922), January 30, 2024 at 4:46 PM
One of the buildings will be directly across from my bedroom window. I don’t understand how an apartment can be built across the street from my house. This is a neighborhood with families who have houses. This does not make sense to me. Please vote no!
lora
37922
2-B-24-DP
lora (37922), February 19, 2024 at 6:59 PM
I am writing in opposition to the proposal. The huge development will temporarily line the pockets of a minimal few to the detriment to an entire neighborhood. This is 10 units as opposed to the 2-3 in the restrictions. The community built it bought homes to be part of a safe outdoor community, not an establishment that belongs in the city. Please do not allow overdevelopment to undermine a beautiful community that keeps people wanting to move here. Please help keep this beautiful!
Tracy
Y 379
2-B-24-DP
Tracy (Y 379), January 30, 2024 at 5:38 PM
I am opposed to this apartment complex being considered for construction in Gettysvue. It is far too tall and out of scale with the single dwelling homes and town homes in Gettysvue. It is going to ruin property values. I am concerned about drainage ponds and run off too. Please do not let this project pass.
Michael
37922
2-B-24-DP
Michael (37922), February 19, 2024 at 7:04 PM
I again provide that the planned development is not consistent with the community, will be burdensome to the environment and will not add the value ascribed by developer to either home values or the golf course. A smaller, less conspicuous development would and I view that as more appropriate. I wish the developer would offer a more prcatical solution, one the community can embrance.
Michael
7922
2-B-24-DP
Michael (7922), January 30, 2024 at 6:01 PM
After reviewing the materials associated with the development of 60 "villas" in Gettysvue, I want to express my opposition. These two building are incongruent because they they are way too large and too tall, making them outsized for the overall community. I am not opposed to developing the land but feel this approach is inconsistent with what has become a very homogeneous community. I hope that you will respect the concerns of the many members of Gettysvue who agree.
Madhu
37922
2-B-24-DP
Madhu (37922), February 19, 2024 at 7:15 PM
First, thank you all for serving in the City Planning Commission. It is because of your vigilance and dedicated work that most of the neighborhoods of Knoxville have been safe and been able to maintain their character. Thank you, again. I am writing to express my opposition to the high-rise condominiums that are being proposed to be built in Gettysvue subdivision. I am requesting that you again vote “NO” to this construction in your upcoming March 7th meeting. Other than the safety issues related to the increased traffic in already saturated neighborhood, I present to you two points that should be included in your deliberations:
1. The proposed development is not compatible with neighboring homes in scale, design, and site layout. The sheer height of the two buildings surrounded by much lower height single family homes will be nothing but an eyesore and plummet the values of these homes.
2. The PR Zone district is approved for a maximum of 3 du/ac. The density of the proposed development is 10.25 for the subject property. The calculation for gross density to justify this construction is not appropriate for the subject property. The 125.8 acres of Gettysvue subdivision includes an 18-hole golf course where no homes are allowed nor even encroach on the golf course property.
I am hoping the MPC will put an end to this project once and for all.
Kevin
37922
2-B-24-DP
Kevin (37922), February 19, 2024 at 8:34 PM
With the minor changes to the design submitted recently, this proposal is still completely inappropriate for the Gettysvue neighborhood. The location of the site in the middle of Gettysvue which has only one main road and no sidewalks will create serious access, traffic, and safety issues. The proposed building design, size, density, and location are incompatible with the existing homes.
Beth Anne
37922
2-B-24-DP
Beth Anne (37922), January 30, 2024 at 7:08 PM
I respectfully ask the MPC to vote "NO" to the current building proposal for Gettysvue Subdivision. We are again fighting a proposal that is completely against the zoning limit of 1-3 units per acre. It is unconscionable to build high rise apartment buildings (because these are not villas by definition) in the middle of a well-established neighborhood that would dwarf every surrounding home. It is beyond ridiculous. We have worked decades to pay for our homes and the thought of staring up at 90-foot structures is simply beyond comprehension. We are not opposed to homes being built on this property, but huge high-rise buildings is completely inappropriate and against the current zoning codes. Thank you for protecting our homes.
Kenneth
37922
2-B-24-DP
Kenneth (37922), February 19, 2024 at 9:01 PM
As a Gettysvue resident I oppose of this project primarly because it will negatively impact property values of existing single residences but also add an unsightly mismatched building which disturbs real estate tranquility. Also, Development Policy 11.7 relates to height and setback restrictions. The sheer height of the two buildings will block sunlight and cast shadows on contiguous homes. No homes existed in this phase of Gettysvue when the developer suggested such development in 1999. The developer is recommending minor changes from his original submittal, however, very minor. Furthermore, the changes do nothing for him to adhere to the staff’s recommendations.
Barry
37922
2-B-24-DP
Barry (37922), January 30, 2024 at 7:09 PM
As a home owner in Gettysvue and residing in sight of the proposed high rise multi family apartments, I am strongly opposed to these buildings. All homes in this community are single dwelling and restricted to two stories above ground. These apartments will be 90 feet tall and dwarf all other structures. These are located in the middle of the community and will look like a monstrosity compared to all other structures. VERY UNSIGHTLY!!
Rhonda and John
7922
2-B-24-DP
Rhonda and John (7922), February 19, 2024 at 9:51 PM
We are opposed to the planned high-rise development for these reason. The proposed development policy 8.1 indicates that such development be compatible with neighboring homes in scale, design, and site layout. The proposed development fails to meet any of these criteria. The multifamily four-story buildings are out of character with the neighborhood The infrastructure (sewer system, narrow roads and parking lot for the clubhouse) is insufficient to handle additional households. There is already. sewer back up when it there is heavy rain.Development Policy 11.5 indicates such development discourages abrupt, incompatible changes in density, scale and building appearance from one development to another. Gettysvue is 95% built out with single family residences. The proposed development violates all the conditions of DP 11.5 The sheer height of the two buildings will block sunlight and cast shadows on contiguous homes. No homes existed in this phase of Gettysvue when the developer suggested such development in 1999.
Beth
37922
2-B-24-DP
Beth (37922), January 30, 2024 at 7:27 PM
The Tower of London in the United Kingdom, which was originally a prison is 90-feet tall. The monument, Our Lady of the Rockies, in Montana is 90-feet tall...the same as the height of the proposed building project for the middle of Gettysvue Subdivision. Can you imagine something of this size and scale being erected in the middle of a neighborhood that has been in existence for decades?? I humbly and respectfully ask that you vote "NO" to this absurd proposition. Thank you kindly, for your consideration.
Carolyn
37922
2-B-24-DP
Carolyn (37922), February 20, 2024 at 5:38 AM
We have lived in Gettysvue for the past 25 years. It’s a beautiful area and a wonderful place to live. We have enjoyed and appreciated all the amenities and benefits the community has offered. We don’t oppose the development of the area. We just ask that what is built be consistent with existing homes in the neighborhood. Residents have stated their reasons for opposition. We are especially concerned about the traffic and safety of residents. We respectfully request that the proposed villa development be denied. Thank you.
Samantha
37922
2-B-24-DP
Samantha (37922), February 20, 2024 at 7:42 AM
I strongly oppose this proposal- it will take a beautiful, well-established and well-regarded neighborhood and make it over-run, cheapen it, and change the fabric of the neighborhood. I have family in the neighborhood and visit all the time- the neighborhood is already busy and parking is already flooding the streets every time there is an event, a swim-meet, and the clubhouse facilities are routinely overloaded already. It is questionable whether these would even sell (especially with so many and who they would appeal to), but if they do, it will only cheapen and overload the neighborhood. Nothing in the developer’s plan changes fixes any of these things. It will be an eyesore and the complete opposite of what many people likely expected when spending a million dollars or more on their homes. Gettysvue has always been a dream neighborhood to me- the type of established, high-class neighborhood that you strive for- and putting in these condos will ruin that completely and the minor changes they proposed don’t fix any of this!
Barry
37922
2-B-24-DP
Barry (37922), January 30, 2024 at 8:03 PM
As a homeowner residing below the proposed multi family apartment complex in the center of Gettysvue community I am strongly opposed to these buildings. As proposed the lower aspect of these apartments will be 80-90 feet tall not counting the roof. This does not follow the topography of the ground requiring large retaining walls. The 36 residences beyond these huge buildings have to drive uphill to exit only further exaggerating the height. No established single residence community has massive multi family apartments allowed in the middle of the community twenty plus years after the rest of the houses have been constructed. Please deny this!!
2-B-24-DP
Kim (37922), February 20, 2024 at 8:33 AM
This proposed development does not meet the neighborhood scale and design. The neighborhood streets, exits and entrances will not easily accommodate the new owner traffic or construction traffic. Also, being built in the middle of the neighborhood is just an eyesore. Gettysvue owners have invested millions in their homes and we deserve to maintain the neighborhood we bought into.
2-B-24-DP
J (37922), February 20, 2024 at 1:48 PM
The revised plan submitted by Mr. Watkins, in terms of scale, height, design, density and site layout is still incompatible with the neighboring residences and not consistent with the development policies of the Knoxville-Knox County General Plan as the staff recommended.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240220134805.pdf
Katie
37922
2-B-24-DP
Katie (37922), January 30, 2024 at 9:53 PM
I respectfully ask that the planning commission deny this request. The proposed condos are in violation of zoning and the restrictive covenants of Gettysvue. I can think of no other neighborhood in the area that has large condominium buildings in the middle of a well established neighborhood. These simply do not make sense for this neighborhood. Thank you,
Gary
37922
2-B-24-DP
Gary (37922), January 30, 2024 at 11:35 PM
I respectfully request for the planning commission and staff to review the Design Guidelines in place for Gettysvue and determine if this proposal aligns with the acceptable form and fit of the neighborhood including the requirement in the Restrictions that all residences have an attached two-car garage. I do not believe these apartments would meet the requirements. All of the residents of Gettysvue are counting on the planning commission to prevent actions that will "materially adversely affect the then existing planned residential nature of the developed phases of the subdivision." We clearly do not currently have this protection as promised in the Restrictions.
Caryl
37922
2-B-24-DP
Caryl (37922), January 30, 2024 at 11:50 PM
Please see attached letter.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240130235053.pdf
2-B-24-DP
A R (37922), February 21, 2024 at 9:51 AM
I oppose the Proposed Multi-Dwelling structures in Gettysvue. Safety is a primary concern. Gettysvue has no sidewalks & children/residents walk through the development on the streets. The most intense vehicle traffic is located in/around the Club House. Children/residents have golf lessons/practice on the chipping green across the street from the proposed dwellings. Likewise, the tennis courts, adjacent to the proposed dwellings, are used for lessons/practice/tennis matches. The nearby swimming pool is a summer focal point for recreation/practice/swim meets. During swim meets, the available Gettysvue parking spaces are overwhelmed with vehicle parking overflowing to streets around the Club House. In this congested area, 40 multi-dwelling residences will jeopardize the safety of the neighborhood children/residents & exacerbate the vehicle traffic in the most congested & heavily utilized part of the development. Gettysvue is an almost 30 year old, mostly built-out development of predominately single family homes which have adhered to Restrictive Covenants drafted in 5/1995. The Restrictive Covenants are an important element of ensuring the safety of the neighborhood & mandate single family homes. Multi-dwelling residences in the middle of the neighborhood adjacent to recreational activities jeopardize the safety of Gettysvue. Please deny, once again, the Watkins/Gettysvue Partners proposal.
Jamshed
37922
2-B-24-DP
Jamshed (37922), January 9, 2024 at 1:01 PM
I am totally opposed to the revised plan for construction of multifamily units in the Gettysvue subdivision for following reasons:
1) The multifamily four-story buildings are out of character with the neighborhood
1) The infrastructure (sewer system, narrow roads and parking lot for the clubhouse) is insufficient to handle additional households. There is already. sewer back up when it there is heavy rain.
2) The Constuction of this magnitude will take 3-5 years and is very disruptive to the peace and tranquility of the current homeowners
3) The clubhouse and golf course cannot accommodate significant increase in the number of residents
4) The traffic on the Westland Drive would increase the chances of motor vehicle accidents
5) A L Lott elementary school would not be able to accommodate additional children
6) Risk of injury to the children who walk to the swimming pool in the summer due to increased traffic
6) Increased traffic on the Gettysvue Drive would pose risk of injury to children who walk to the swimming pool in the summer
2-B-24-DP
Joe (37922), January 31, 2024 at 10:42 AM
My wife and I have been residents of Gettysvue for almost 19 years now and are charter members of the Club. We were pleased that the MPC denied the request for building the 3 large multi-story buildings with 90 unit last year. I presume the denial was based on the fact that these buildings do not have the fit nor form of the established community. We are now dealing with a new but very similar proposal for 2 slightly smaller buildings. Given the similarities and the continued lack of form and fit we hope that a denial will be issued once again. The views from my home are not directly in the line of site of these proposed structures but I can’t help but empathize with my neighbors who would including those whose view would include staring at an 80 foot facade. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Mary
37922
2-B-24-DP
Mary (37922), February 21, 2024 at 12:18 PM
I would like to continue my support of the opposition of the above development. The proposed units are not compatible with the scale, design or layout of the existing 20–30-year-old neighborhood. Some individual zero-lot line houses or townhouses added to that area would be consistent with the design of the existing homes and would not impede sunlight, or views of the golf course or surrounding greenery. Thanks for your time and consideration in considering the homeowners concerns.
Sharon
37922
2-B-24-DP
Sharon (37922), January 31, 2024 at 12:00 PM
Dear Planning Commission, thank you for the work you do, ensuring that our communities enhance the current and future quality of life for residents. Clearly, this requires a balance between measured and desirable growth and the sometimes overly ambitious plans and interests of developers. As to the application submitted for new "Gettysvue Villas" in the middle of the existing neighborhood, like most of the current Gettysvue residents, I object to the proposal development. In my view, the density and structural design provide NO enhancement to the current environment and will only negatively impact traffic and noise, and diminish the beauty and value of Gettysvue. Please DENY the application.
James
37922
2-B-24-DP
James (37922), February 21, 2024 at 7:37 PM
The following is a major point to deny the new highrise. Development Policy 11.5 indicates such development discourages abrupt, incompatible changes in density, scale and building appearance from one development to another. Gettysvue is 95% built out with single family residences. The proposed development violates all the conditions of DP 11.5.
2-B-24-DP
M (37922), February 23, 2024 at 9:13 AM
I write in opposition to the project:General Plan Development PolicyA) The proposed development policy 8.1 indicates that such development be compatible with neighboring homes in scale, design, and site layout. The proposed development fails to meet any of these criteria.
B) The proposed development policy 8.3 indicates that such development be in line with existing neighborhood compatibility. Clearly the proposed development is not.
C) Development Policy 11.5 indicates such development discourages abrupt, incompatible changes in density, scale and building appearance from one development to another. Gettysvue is 95% built out with single family residences. The proposed development violates all the conditions of DP 11.5.
D) Development Policy 11.7 relates to height and setback restrictions. The sheer height of the two buildings will block sunlight and cast shadows on contiguous homes. No homes existed in this phase of Gettysvue when the developer suggested such development in 1999. The developer is recommending minor changes from his original submittal, however, very minor. Furthermore, the changes do nothing to adhere to the staff’s recommendations. In Section D, the staff comment, “usually located near the fringe of the development” supports our opposition. The proposed development is the middle of Gettysvue where sidewalks do not exist. And one street (Gettysvue Drive) serves as the point of ingress/egress.
Leane
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Leane (37932), January 31, 2024 at 1:30 PM
School buses make their way down the narrow West Gallaher Ferry Road every day, multiple times a day. The road is too narrow for a school bus and sedan, much less a dump truck or other type of construction vehicle. If this proposed development passes the environmental regulations with respect to proper sewage drainage on the hillside, how does the county expect to remain free from LIABILITY if a construction vehicle runs a school bus off this very narrow road with no shoulder??
John
37922
2-B-24-DP
John (37922), February 23, 2024 at 3:24 PM
My wife and I have owned a house in Gettysvue Subdivision for 22 years. We are strongly opposed to the subject proposal. Four story high rise condominiums do not belong in a subdivision of single family houses, they do not adhere to the architecture and beauty of our community. It is for this reason that we all signed onto covenants that restrict us to single-family residences. Density- exceeds maximum density zoning for community originally 1 to 3 units per acre. The proposal will dramatically increase traffic and storm water flow to areas already experiencing flooding. Please again recommend denial for this proposal. Thank you.
Cheryl
37922
2-B-24-DP
Cheryl (37922), January 9, 2024 at 1:49 PM
I strongly oppose this rezoning request for new development in Gettysvue. Please read my full rationale for this objection in the submitted attachment.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240109134955.pdf
John
37922
2-B-24-DP
John (37922), January 31, 2024 at 2:36 PM
My wife and I have lived in Gettysvue for 22 years. We are strongly opposed to this rezoning request and the proposed project. We encourage you to deny the request, based on the following rationale. 1) The proposed project will diminish our property values as well as our use and enjoyment of our homes. 2) The violation of the Gettysvue restrictive covenants-each lot is limited to 1 single-family residence. 3) Fit and form-high rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture and beauty of our community. It is for this reason that we all signed onto covenants that restrict us to single family residences. 4) Increased traffic during the construction period and after will create safety issues. It is currently difficult to exit/enter Gettysvue. 5) Density-exceeds maximum density zoning for community 1 to 3 units per one acre. 6) Increased stormwater flow to areas already experiencing flooding. Thank you for your consideration.
David W
37922
2-B-24-DP
David W (37922), February 24, 2024 at 4:55 PM
Proposal continues to not meet fit and form of original neighborhood. Proposal has only minor modifications since last rendering which was rejected. Please discourage this applicant as they hope to wear down the opposition in hopes you will eventually grant his request.
William
37922
2-B-24-DP
William (37922), January 31, 2024 at 2:41 PM
Please see attached, I strongly oppose this application as noted in my attachment.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240131144100.pdf
Teresa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Teresa (37922), February 24, 2024 at 10:35 PM
I have lived here in Gettysvue since 2015 and the building of the luxury apartments on Ebenezer and on Emory Church Rd the traffic has increased greatly. My grandkids attend A.L. Lotts and the traffic and congestion on Westland drive during drop off and pick up has become very dangerous for everyone. I often wonder why this has been overlooked. The infrastructure in this area needs to be addressed for the safety of all living here or traveling these roads. It has become near impossible to turn left out of the subdivision because of traffic. Adding a multi-unit complex in Gettysvue or anywhere else in this area is only going to make matters worse and more dangerous. As a concerned resident and realtor, I beg for this request to build a multi- unit complex in Gettysvue Subdivision be denied.
Sarah
37922
2-B-24-DP
Sarah (37922), January 31, 2024 at 2:46 PM
I strongly oppose this application. I write this as a homeowner with a shared property line to the subject property. Gettysvue is a community of single-family homes, 1 dwelling unit per lot, except for townhomes and attached structures in specific and planned areas. These units, along with the single-family homes were constructed in a way to naturally blend into the unique architecture of the neighborhood. Each home in Gettysvue is held to a standard outlined in the covenants established for the community and fall within the size and restrictions of the current zoning. Each home is unique and individual, but none stand out, rather they blend as a neighborhood. The planned development is exactly the opposite. They will certainly be the tallest structures in the development, the largest structures in the development, and will be nearly identical in architectural characteristics. They do not fit. Please see attached
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240131144617.pdf
Beth
37922
2-B-24-DP
Beth (37922), February 25, 2024 at 7:39 PM
I respectfully and humbly ask the MPC to yet again vote "NO" to this planning proposal in Gettysvue Subdivision. This proposal violates many elements of the current zoning for this neighborhood. As you already are aware, this proposal is for large-scale, high-rise, multi-dwelling units that are of absurd size and scale. The continued efforts of this builder and his associates are wasting the MPC's time as it is in complete violation of code. Please vote "NO" to this proposal and please recognize that the changes proposed do not change the violations and, in fact, cause more offensive esthetics to the neighborhood rendering. Please help us stop this absurdity. The PR Zone district is approved for a maximum of 3 du/ac. The density of the proposed development is 10.25 for the subject property. The calculation for gross density is not appropriate for the subject property. The 125.8 acres includes an 18 hole golf course where no homes are allowed nor even encroach on the golf course property.
Beth
7922
2-B-24-DP
Beth (7922), February 25, 2024 at 7:55 PM
I respectfully ask that you vote "NO" to this proposed development based on the multiple violations to the current zoning code. This is a well-established neighborhood and has been for decades and the proposal to build 90-foot high multi-dwellings is simply ludicrous. The residents of Gettysvue would not oppose a rational proposal for single family residences that are congruent with the current neighborhood structure and zoning criteria, but this proposal is egregious, offensive, and disrespectful to all the residents who have worked and paid for Gettysvue to be a beautiful and successful neighborhood and golf community. This proposal would, effectively and undoubtedly, destroy it all. Development Policy 11.5 indicates such development discourages abrupt, incompatible changes in density, scale and building appearance from one development to another. Gettysvue is 95% built out with single family residences. The proposed development violates all the conditions of DP 11.5.
Sally
37922
2-B-24-DP
Sally (37922), January 9, 2024 at 2:27 PM
I strongly oppose the construction of high-rise condo buildings in Gettysvue. Every resident abides by Gettysvue restrictive Covenants that each lot is limited to 1 single-family residence. After lots were sold and the construction of single-family houses, adhering to restrictive guidelines, Gettysvue has become a well-established, beautiful single-family community. Then Mr. Watkins challenges and wants to violate the Covenants which every resident adheres to. He proposes such radical use of his paltry amount of property within the community to build 2 high-rise, 40-unit buildings on a 4-acre lot. This high-rise condo building project will certainly profit the minority of businessmen at the expense of lowering current residents' housing value, increasing traffic congestion, alleviating pedestrians' safety, creating more water issues and diminishing the usage of amenities. If Mt. Watkins can propose a single-family home project with 1-3 units per acre which all the residents obey, then such opposition will never occur. We ask you to make the right decision for residents in Gettysvue. Thank you
Beth
37922
2-B-24-DP
Beth (37922), February 25, 2024 at 7:59 PM
Development Policy 11.7 relates to height and setback restrictions. The sheer height of the two buildings will block sunlight and cast shadows on contiguous homes. No homes existed in this phase of Gettysvue when the developer suggested such development in 1999. The developer is recommending minor changes from his original submittal, however, very minor. Furthermore, the changes do nothing for him to adhere to the staff’s recommendations. In Section D, the staff comment, “usually located near the fringe of the development” supports our opposition. The proposed development is the middle of Gettysvue where sidewalks do not exist. And one street (Gettysvue Drive) serves as the point of ingress/egress. Finally, the developer has changed the orientation of Building One from his November submittal to rotate it 180 degrees. The view you will see is the west side of the monstrous building with the entrance and exit to the parking garage facing Gettysvue Drive. We respectfully ask that the MPC vote "NO" to this proposal.
Barry
37922
2-B-24-DP
Barry (37922), February 25, 2024 at 8:09 PM
As a resident of Gettysvue Community, I ask for your denial of the proposed high rise multi family residential structures. Our development consists of established single family dwellings. The PR zoning is approved for 3 units / acre. These multi family apartments would have a gross density of 10.25/acre and should not be appropriate for the rest of our homesteads. Please do not allow this monstrosity to diminish our home values! Our homes represent a large part of our net worth and this huge building complex in the middle of our community will have a strong negative impact. These would be the largest structures and overshadow our homes and even our beautiful Golf Clubhouse. These apartments are not compatible with the neighborhood.
Beth
37922
2-B-24-DP
Beth (37922), February 26, 2024 at 7:33 AM
I respectfully ask that you take just a moment to look up a picture of the Orford Castle in Orford, Suffolk in England. This 90-foot tall structure was built in a small village. One look at a picture of this old structure on the green rolling landscape will give you a nice visual of what this proposal will do its surroundings. Imagine being a year from paying off your home, the home you want to retire and enjoy grandchildren in, and seeing a behemoth like this being erected outside your window, blocking all views and even the morning sun. Please vote "NO" to this proposition. It not only violates zoning codes, but it is unconscionable to do this in the middle of an established neighborhood. This was never the plan, and for logical reasons.
JANICE
37932
2-E-24-RZ
JANICE (37932), January 31, 2024 at 5:53 PM
See Attached letter
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240131175341.pdf
Barry
37922
2-B-24-DP
Barry (37922), February 26, 2024 at 8:26 AM
I bought my home in Gettysvue in 2010. This was new construction in an affluent neighborhood. There existed restrictions and development policies which I assumed would protect my investment. The proposed “villas” are massive structures, multiple to times larger than any residences and the central feature of the community ( the clubhouse). “Villas” according to definition are one or two story elaborate houses with exquisite amenities ( private pool, fences, landscaped gardens). These massive multi family buildings overshadow all other construction in the neighborhood, creating an eyesore. There is only one road to access the complex and multiple families have to drive past this massive structure to ingress/egress their homes. These structures will totally block beautiful Mountain View’s from the clubhouse and replace the view with brick and shingles. Villas, 1-2 story individual, architectural masterpieces would be beautiful but the developers want 90-100 feet high buildings with massive retaining walls producing a mammoth eyesore for our beautiful neighborhood. PLEASE do not allow this!!
Janice
37932
2-B-24-SP
Janice (37932), January 31, 2024 at 5:55 PM
SEE ATTACHED
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240131175517.pdf
Alofa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Alofa (37922), February 26, 2024 at 10:13 AM
We respectfully ask that the MPC vote "NO" to this proposal. My husband and I strongly oppose this development, which would be located directly across the street from our home.
Janice and Eddie
37932
2-B-24-SP
Janice and Eddie (37932), January 31, 2024 at 6:23 PM
corrected names/pdf
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240131182304.pdf
Kathy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Kathy (37922), February 26, 2024 at 10:44 AM
Please do not approve this huge apartment style building to be built in the middle of our neighborhood. It would literally be across the street or next to single family homes who have strictly abided by the restrictions of this neighborhood. This type of structure would not be in any way appropriate in any neighborhood in Knox County.
Herb
37932
2-B-24-SP
Herb (37932), January 31, 2024 at 6:49 PM
1. CHILD SAFETY - Currently school buses pick up children at the road in front of each property. The road frontage in front of this proposed development is on a curve that slopes downward which makes it a blind curve. During this time of year, children going to elementary school are picked up before sunrise which makes it more difficult to see a stationary vehicle.
2. ROAD DAMAGE - I have lived on this undulating road for more 35 years and have seen damage done to it by construction vehicles on numerous occasions but the volume of heavy traffic required by this project far exceeds anything that has been experienced in the past. Who will pay for the damage? The taxpayers?
3. ACCESS BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES - Has the Karns Fire Department been asked to comment on possible road blockage during the site development?
Roger
37922
2-B-24-DP
Roger (37922), February 26, 2024 at 11:25 AM
I wish to object to the developers request to increase the PR density from 3 units per acre to 10.25 for a total of 40 units on the property he owns. 3+ acres. This looks like an attempt to wear out opposition by repeated meetings with no real changes. Based on the staff recommendations. The project is still very unlike the surrounding home in design and height. The feverish located in the center of the subdivision, with no chance of gradual transition. There is no way being offered to disguise the necessary dumpsters at the front of the property as it connects to Gettysvue Dr. the main road. The added foot traffic, pet traffic and personal automobile and especially service vehicles will all use Gettysvue Dr since there are no sidewalks. This is poor plan as the staff has pointed out, and I think they got it right. Please deny the developers request and leave the density at 3/aces with buildings that will blend with those already in the subdivision.
Zach
37919
2-E-24-RZ
Zach (37919), January 31, 2024 at 8:29 PM
I have concerns about this proposed rezone. For what is proposed, there appears to be a serious lack of adequate infrastructure to support this proposed rezoning. As a frequent traveler on this road, it is obvious that the road is dangerous enough the way it is with the existing traffic that supports the current residences. A large increase in traffic on this tiny, windy road presents a lot of potential issues. Other issues such as sewer and water seem to be major obstacles. How would this be handled? Who pays the bill to bring these necessary services? Given the terrain of the proposed property, this seems like a huge, expensive project. What kind of impact will this have on the current landowners and neighbors in this area? Please deny this request for rezoning. It is hard to imagine how this property could support such a large undertaking. The infrastructure is not equipped to handle a large subdivision like the one proposed on this property.
Lucy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Lucy (37922), January 31, 2024 at 8:33 PM
I respectfully request that you deny this proposal again. The reasons for this are unchanged: does not conform to the fit and form of the neighborhood, is in direct conflict with the covenants, will further stress infrastructure of the community and will cause traffic issues. Please help us preserve this established west Knoxville neighborhood. Thank you.
Donna
37922
2-B-24-DP
Donna (37922), January 31, 2024 at 8:41 PM
I respectively request that you deny the zoning request to build these multi-family condo buildings in the Gettysvue neighborhood. We purchased our home in this neighborhood over 7 years ago and received the HOA rules and regulations for the neighborhood. Some find HOA's confining and difficult - I however find them to be important in maintaining neighborhood standards. These condos are in direct violation of those rules and regulations. This development would put undue strain on the neighborhood roads, utilities and infrastructure. We are already under water restrictions - what would the addition of 40 more residences do to that? The neighborhood does not have sidewalks so to walk through the neighborhood we walk on the streets - the additional traffic would make that very hazardous. The traffic on Westland is already very heavy and the addition of these homes would require that the road be widened. I am vehemently opposed to this development. Please vote to deny this zoning request.
Jack
37922
2-B-24-DP
Jack (37922), February 1, 2024 at 12:17 AM
I strongly request that the MPC Commission deny this application for the following reasons;
1. The size of the buildings do not fit the form and characteristics of existing single family houses that have been in the community for over 20 years.
2. Except for a very few remaining lots, the Gettysvue neighborhood is completed with single family houses in compliance with existing HOA guidelines of density.
Residents built or purchased their homes knowing the character of the neighborhood did not have high rise- high density 4 story, 80+ feet in height. The lots in question are among the last to be developed and should be finished consistent with the surrounding neighborhood density and character. I strongly urge you to deny approval of this construction.
AILEEN
37932
2-E-24-RZ
AILEEN (37932), February 1, 2024 at 3:36 AM
I think it is a big mistake to put approximately 252 homes on W. Gallaher Ferry Rd. It is a very narrow, windy, hilly 1 lane in each direction road bordered by a steep embankment. I have to partially pull off the road if anything larger than a car passes me. Usually, I drive over the dividing line (if no car coming) because it is a scary, steep embankment that would be easy to go over. I attribute the lack of accidents to its being fairly unpopulated. Drunk driving, speeding, reckless drivers would be a nightmare. Adding to the problem is that there are lots and lots of wildlife here. Deer like to jump in front of oncoming traffic. The road is already unsuitable for the amount of traffic on it. All the water run off would easily flow into Melton Hill Lake, affecting lake ecology. As it's being zoned for 2 homes per acre, it would be an almost impossible task to tie into the public sewer lines on the Covered Bridge development. 2 homes per acre makes it ineligible for septic. Before approving, please come out here and take a look at our road, West Gallaher Ferry and see how perilous it is. Then imagine connecting a city sewer line to Covered Bridge (a long ways away). It doesn't seem possible to me. Just come check it out. Not all land is suitable for a large development.
Rebecca
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Rebecca (37932), February 1, 2024 at 9:06 AM
The roads on Gallaher Ferry do not have the infrastructure to support this development. It will definitely lead to accidents and damage to the existing tiny curvy road, not to mention the nightmare traffic situation it would cause. I am devastated by the thought of this large development in such a rural area that was meant for preservation. We moved here from Memphis and purchased the land on Gallaher Ferry as an escape from this scenario. We are currently growing our acreage into farmland, which we believe that rural community was meant for, not to be saddled by greedy developers who don't care about the environmental damage they are causing. In the two years since we purchased this land, we've seen Hardin Valley turning into exactly what we were attempting to escape. The city and developers are ruining what was beautiful, rural, countryside that should be protected all in the name of what they are masking as "progress"
George
37932
2-E-24-RZ
George (37932), February 1, 2024 at 9:15 AM
We are vehemently opposed to zoning changes at 2600 West Gallaher Ferry. For many reason our narrow road cannot support an additional 200+ homes. The damage from construction water runoff could be catastrophic to Melton Hill Lake. 
Tonya
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Tonya (37932), February 1, 2024 at 9:53 AM
Please see attached statement.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240201095305.pdf
Tonya
37932
2-B-24-SP
Tonya (37932), February 1, 2024 at 9:54 AM
Please see attached statement
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240201095441.pdf
Jenna
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Jenna (37932), February 1, 2024 at 11:33 AM
I am very concerned about the possibility of a neighborhood coming to our small road. There is too enough space to put more houses on the road than total houses already on the entire road. Hardin Valley is already being over developed, and not being done right. We have no parks, no side walks, just development after development. The lake is also a river turned lake, that is small and narrow and not build for neighborhoods to be built and add 200 more boats to it.
Jenna
37932
2-B-24-SP
Jenna (37932), February 1, 2024 at 11:37 AM
I am writing very concerned about the possibility of a neighborhood on our small road. We have a very narrow road with 80 something houses and now this rezoning wants to add 224 more, more than is even on the entirety of the road already. Not to mention the small river that was turned into a lake, there is not room for 224 boats/watercrafts. This is a huge concern for safety, driving and on the lake.
Roger
37922
2-B-24-DP
Roger (37922), February 1, 2024 at 11:45 AM
My property has one of the finest views over the golf course in Gettysvue if you were sitting on me back porch. Should this abomination of a development plan go into effect, the view from my front porch and driveway that which is used by our 6 grandchildren on every visit, will be of the several dumpsters and a towering 4 story building looking over my roof. Had I known this plan in 2002 I would have gone elsewhere. But, the Realtors when asked what would the future development look like assured us that it would be lie Magnolia Villas, very tasteful and blah, blah, blah. Misleading information to make a sale or dutiful repetition of the developer’s instructions if someone asked the question? No one knows. I do know that it seems there are plenty of 4 story buildings (apartments) on every ridge going out Pillissippi Pkwy, and yet there are no high end homes surrounding the. They are built on scrub land. I urge you to deny this developers request for 4 stories and limit development to current restriction of 2 stories and a basement. Thank you!
John
379
2-E-24-RZ
John ( 379), February 1, 2024 at 11:57 AM
I have been made aware of a request to rezone this property at 3576 for development of 112 acres at 2 houses per acre. I think this zoning change would be very detrimental to the area and to our road without significant infrastructure changes. Our road is a very narrow winding 2 lane with no outlet other than on Hickory Creek and another large development at that intersection. There is no sewer or gas utility access that I am aware of on our road. We need public parks and green space not more housing. Thanks for your consideration of my concerns
James
37932
2-E-24-RZ
James (37932), February 1, 2024 at 12:49 PM
I would like to voice my objection to case 2-E-24-RZ. The land in question is under Hillside Protection and acts as a watershed. Disruption of this area would have drastic damaging effects to the landscape and Melton Hill lake.
Denise
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Denise (37932), February 1, 2024 at 2:54 PM
I'm a home owner on W. Gallaher Ferry Rd. We do not want this property developed into a neighborhood!! We have lived here for 18+ years, and moved to this area to get away from what Hardin Valley is now becoming. Most all the homes on W. Gallaher are on 5 acres or more and we would certainly like to keep it that way. Not to mention all the wildlife that just continues to be pushed out. Our small twisty road can't handle all that extra traffic either.
Dean
37922
2-B-24-DP
Dean (37922), January 10, 2024 at 9:57 AM
It is unfortunate that Mr. Watkins continues his effort to build multi-story, high-occupancy structures in the midst of fine single-family homes. A similar proposal was rejected by the Commission over a month ago. This is merely a thinly-veiled repeat of that proposal. Please reject this as well.
Steven
37922
2-B-24-DP
Steven (37922), February 1, 2024 at 6:48 PM
I’m a homeowner that built a house in Gettysvue. Throughout the 18 mo. construction process, we had to ensure every decision about our new home conformed to the HOA convenants. I strongly oppose this rezoning request and urge the MPC to deny this proposed development for the same reasons it rightly denied the request in November. In addition to all the comments provided by the overwhelming majority of community members who oppose this multi-unit project, I urge the MPC to consider the recently published comprehensive study to develop a growth plan for Knox County. This report, Advance Knox, outlines the county’s research-based, data-driven approach for land use over the next several years. Notably, the proposed development in Gettysvue is completely out of alignment with the stated goals for development across Knox County (see Future Land Use Map and Preferred Scenario). It seems the Knox County formal position on the best disposition of this land would be strong evidence the planning commission should consider when making its decision. Please deny this request and make it clear that a single-family development in this property is the only acceptable outcome.
David
37932
2-E-24-RZ
David (37932), February 1, 2024 at 10:07 PM
I strongly oppose this development plan. The proposed plan in no way fits the footprint of the community. The potential problems it will create with this massive increase in dwellings, traffic, etc. is not warranted or very well thought out.
Megan
37922
2-B-24-DP
Megan (37922), February 2, 2024 at 9:19 AM
I have lived in Gettysvue for 14 years and 2 1/2 years in my current house. It is a beautiful neighborhood with sunsets and Mountain View’s. Lots of people out walking and tennis and golfers enjoying themselves. If these condos our places directly in our beautiful neighborhood this will not only destroy the beauty but wreak havoc on the traffic and the drainage system throughout. This is already a very trafficked neighborhood, we cannot withstand much more. Please consider Not building anymore condos in this neighborhood.
2-B-24-DP
D (37922), January 10, 2024 at 11:02 AM
I am a concerned citizen who opposes the proposed high-rise condo development in the Gettysvue community, Clubhouse Villas, for the following reasons:
• Violation of the Gettysvue restrictive covenants – each lot is limited to 1 single-family residence not to exceed 2 ½ stories high.
• Fit and Form – high rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture and beauty of our community. It is for this reason that we all signed onto covenants that restrict us to single-family residences no more than 2 ½ stories high.
• Increased traffic - as many as 180 additional vehicles on our streets (two allowed per condo unit). It is currently difficult to exit/enter GV, and increased congestion can be expected on Ebeneezer Road and Westland Avenue thus affecting adjacent neighborhoods as well.
• Increased stormwater flow to areas already experiencing flooding.
• Density exceeds
• Decrease in property values
• Development will add strain on utilities public services, i.e.,
– Utilities strained, such as water, sewer, electric, gas, etc.
– Project will exasperate existing water drainage issues.
2-B-24-DP
J (37922), January 10, 2024 at 11:36 AM
I am a concerned citizen who opposes the proposed high-rise condo development in the Gettysvue community, Clubhouse Villas, for the following reasons: • Violation of the Gettysvue restrictive covenants – each lot is limited to 1 single-family residence not to exceed 2 ½ stories high. • Fit and Form – high rise condo buildings do not adhere to the architecture and beauty of our community. It is for this reason that we all signed onto covenants that restrict us to single-family residences no more than 2 ½ stories high. • Increased traffic - as many as 180 additional vehicles on our streets (two allowed per condo unit). It is currently difficult to exit/enter GV, and increased congestion can be expected on Ebeneezer Road and Westland Avenue thus affecting adjacent neighborhoods as well. • Increased stormwater flow to areas already experiencing flooding. • Density exceeds • Decrease in property values • Development will add strain on utilities public services, i.e., – Utilities strained, such as water, sewer, electric, gas, etc. – Project will exasperate existing water drainage issues.
Leslie
37932
2-B-24-SP
Leslie (37932), February 2, 2024 at 10:26 AM
I am adamantly opposed to the rezoning of this property for several reasons. West Gallaher Ferry Road is a narrowing, winding, hilly dead-end road of about 3 miles. The property in question is about half down the road on a curve and a steep part of the road. The property itself is also very steep. There are at present 88 houses on WGF, each on large lots. Adding over 200 houses to this area as is proposed would make driving here more treacherous than it is. Schools in Hardin Valley are overcrowded and traffic is horrendous. I speak as a 40-year-long resident myself, and for my family who were living here in the late 1700s. Please do not approve this rezoning.
Jeff
37923
2-A-24-CP
Jeff (37923), February 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM
The Knox Advance questionnaire ignored the lack of adequate infrastructure to serve existing residents. Development should either cease until infrastructure is corrected or any new Development should pay for and have installed increased traffic and utility loads before a building is allowed to come out of the ground. If you are not taking care of existing residents adding additional population will just make iinadequate infrastructure that much worse.
Laura
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Laura (37932), February 2, 2024 at 11:57 AM
Please see the attached PDF.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240202115709.pdf
Robert
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Robert (37932), February 2, 2024 at 4:40 PM
I am requesting a zoning change to this area and for new residential developments not to connect to Covered Bridge Neighborhood for water and sewage runoff and disposal. The rapid advancement of building in this area without proper infrastructure is destroying wetlands, parks, and the excessive run has to be having harm in the Milton Hill Lake and surrounding areas. We need a pause to hear what the plans are in place to address these many issues facing long-standing residents of the area and the environment.
Mary
37922
2-A-24-CP
Mary (37922), February 2, 2024 at 6:24 PM
Please do not approve any further development especially for multi use purposes with numerous homes Or apartments in the Northshore, Harvey, Choto area. Until the infrastructure is improved and built up to safely support the increased traffic, school population density, utilities, and avoid damage to natural spaces and resources. There are too many people and cars in this area. Northshore and the surrounding roads are unsafe for cars, trucks, buses, emergency and responders. Students should also have better school conditions and permanent facilities. Thank you
Jeanne
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Jeanne (37932), February 2, 2024 at 7:49 PM
I am totaly against adding more homes to West Gallagher Ferry. The road is windy and very narrow. This would also add more cars to Hardin Valley Rd where this road already needs widening to accommodate the cars already here in Hardin Valley.
John
37932
2-E-24-RZ
John (37932), February 2, 2024 at 7:58 PM
I am very against more homes being built on 2600 West Gallagher Ferry. That road is very narrow and windy and we don't need an additional 500 cars on the already crowded Hardin Valley Road.
Debbie
37922
2-B-24-DP
Debbie (37922), February 2, 2024 at 9:41 PM
I am opposed to the plans to build Condo buildings that do not follow the guidelines of of our Gettysvue neighborhood
Diana
37922
2-B-24-DP
Diana (37922), February 2, 2024 at 10:10 PM
As homeowners in the Getty subdivision, we strongly oppose the proposed new development. The modern structures clash with our neighborhood's existing architectural style, threatening its charm. Increased density will worsen traffic and parking issues, with no plans for necessary infrastructure upgrades. Concerns also arise regarding strain on community resources such as schools and utilities. Moreover, the development may encroach on green spaces, harming local ecosystems and exacerbating environmental issues. We urge authorities to reconsider, prioritizing the preservation and enhancement of our community's character and livability.
2-B-24-DP
D (37922), February 2, 2024 at 10:12 PM
As Getty subdivision homeowners, we vehemently reject the proposed development. Its modern structures starkly contrast our neighborhood's architectural style, threatening its essence. The added density will undoubtedly exacerbate traffic and parking chaos, with no sign of essential infrastructure upgrades. Our community's resources, from schools to utilities, face dire strain. Furthermore, the development's encroachment on green spaces threatens local ecosystems, intensifying environmental woes. We demand authorities to rethink their stance, prioritizing the preservation and enhancement of our community's character and livability, or face our relentless opposition.
Gregory
37922
2-B-24-DP
Gregory (37922), February 2, 2024 at 10:16 PM
As a member of the country club neighboring the Getty subdivision, I'm deeply troubled by the proposed development. The stark contrast in architectural styles threatens the charm that attracts members to our club. Increased density will undoubtedly compound traffic and parking woes, impacting club accessibility. Moreover, strain on community resources like schools and utilities could indirectly affect the club's operations. The encroachment on green spaces raises concerns for local ecosystems, which contribute to our club's ambiance. Authorities must reconsider, prioritizing the preservation of the neighborhood's character for the benefit of both residents and neighboring establishments like our country club.
2-B-24-DP
HOA (37922), February 2, 2024 at 10:32 PM
As the HOA of Polo Club, we are reaching out to address the growing concerns regarding traffic congestion and the impact of ongoing construction in Gettysvue. We understand that these issues not only affect individual homeowners but also have broader implications for the quality of life in our neighborhood. We recognize the challenges posed by the current traffic situation, particularly in accessing appointments and essential services. Additionally, the increasing construction activity may be altering the character and integrity of Gettysvue. In response to these concerns, we are actively exploring strategies to address traffic management and mitigate the effects of construction in Gettysvue. We encourage all residents to share their experiences and suggestions for potential solutions. Your input is invaluable as we work to preserve the essence of Gettysvue and uphold a high quality of life for all residents. Together, we can collaborate on positive changes and secure the future of our community.
The Anthem
37922
2-B-24-DP
The Anthem (37922), February 2, 2024 at 10:43 PM
As the Anthem HOA, we are reaching out to address the growing concerns regarding traffic congestion, construction impact, and the overcrowded state of our school and infrastructure in our community. We understand that these issues not only affect individual homeowners but also have significant implications for the well-being and livability of Gettysvue. We recognize the challenges posed by the current traffic situation, particularly in accessing appointments and essential services. Furthermore, the increasing construction activity may exacerbate these challenges and alter the character and integrity of Gettysvue. Additionally, the overcrowded state of our school and infrastructure is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. In response to these concerns, we are actively exploring strategies to address traffic management, mitigate the effects of construction, and advocate for improvements to our school and infrastructure in Gettysvue. We urge all residents to share their experiences and suggestions for potential solutions. Your input is invaluable as we work to preserve the essence of Gettysvue and uphold a high quality of life for all residents, including addressing overcrowded infrastructure. Together, we can collaborate on positive changes and secure the future of our community.
Suzanne
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Suzanne (37932), February 3, 2024 at 7:05 AM
I am writing to you to voice my strong opposition to the potential rezoning and development of this property on West Gallaher Ferry Rd. This road is a safety hazard. It is cut into the side of a hill with severe drops offs, has multiple blind curves and no white lines to aid drivers at night. In case you have never been on this road, between Hickory Creek and this property there are 13 curves, four of which are blind curves. Exiting this property on WGF will likely be a left turn onto an uphill with a blind curve, limiting reaction time, not to mention school bus issues. Secondly, this road has had numerous documented incidents where residents/contractors /lawn service/school buses such as excessive speeding and driving in the middle of the road outside of their lane particularly trucks with trailers. We have lost 3 mail boxes due to drivers nicking it as they failed to navigate the sharp curve (#5) at our address (2420). One of our mailbox’s was solid brick, it was totally shattered and totaled the car that hit it. This road is not built to handle the additional traffic and congestion of this development project. In reviewing the 20-year Knox County Growth plan I saw no funding for road or infrastructure upgrades on West Gallaher Ferry Rd. In light of this obsolete road with its abundant safety hazards and no county budget for upgrades, you cannot in good faith, approve this rezoning and development request, it would be dangerous and unconscionable.
Mike
37922
2-A-24-CP
Mike (37922), February 3, 2024 at 7:52 AM
This agenda is unsafe and unhealthy for Knoxville. Please have the courage it takes to Vote it down.
Susan
37922
2-A-24-CP
Susan (37922), February 3, 2024 at 8:27 AM
The traffic west on Northshore to Choto and beyond has increased dramatically in the last three years to the point that travel has become increasingly dangerous. As soon as you pass Concord circle, lighting is poor roads are narrow and emergency vehicles cannot get to victims of an accident. Boyd-Station and Virtue are also narrow two lane roads with no shoulder and increasing danger and striping that is faded with no reflectors. The Kroger at Brooklawn has been told to prepare for ten thousand more customers a week when the over 900 apartments open in the late spring. This area is rural and until the road infrastructure can be addressed no zoning change should be approved. I challenge this board to drive at night in this area- better yet try it in the rain when you can barely see the road markings
Daniel (Kevin)
37922
2-A-24-CP
Daniel (Kevin) (37922), February 3, 2024 at 1:47 PM
I am getting the feeling that there are some evil forces behind this whole Advance Knox zoning push by the powers that be. Why is it such a bad thing to keep our county as it was when we moved here from God knows where? Why do so many elected officials who were elected by current residing citizens of Knox County feel this great need to change Knox County into something it is not today nor ever has been? What in the world is going on with doing developments so that everybody who has any desire to move to Knox County can do so? Is it not a good thing to have people wanting to move into your area, but can only do so when something becomes available from the current inventory of already existing residences? After all, we are the 3rd largest county by population in the entire state already. Why do we want to overload our roadways, our schools, our electrical demand or our water resources or a hundred other things that come with too much rapid population growth on our infrastructure. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that this will not end well for citizens of Knox County. All I can think of is there must be a great need to increase taxes inside of Knox County and developing massive amounts of currently empty land is the way to do so while a supposed housing need exists. In conclusion, this is all very misguided and will be seen as pure folly down the road. Please preserve Knox County and prevent all the traffic and overcrowding which Advance Knox will bring us.
Daniel
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Daniel (37932), February 3, 2024 at 2:04 PM
Rezoning of this property for residential would create major traffic issues. First, East Gallaher Ferry Road is currently not much more than a pig trail. Fortunately, it is not heavily traveled, but this rezoning would change that. Since the construction of the traffic circle Further, this would add to the already overcrowding issues in Hardin Valley. Hardin Valley Road needs to be widened to either include a turning lane or into a four lane road before major developments are approved.
Clarissa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Clarissa (37922), February 3, 2024 at 2:49 PM
We morally should focus on benefiting the residents of a community. Building high rise apartments in Gettysvue does not benefit residents. To the contrary, it hurts: it diminishes quality of life, diminishes financial return to a huge investment and it is clearly unfair. Please keep in mind if most, if not all residents were never notified by anyone that there was a project of any construction other than single family homes in the middle of Gettysvue, much less apartment high rises. It came to our attention that perhaps even the prior approval of building ?20? units was not approved by the residents. Please reject any project that is not approved by the residents. High rises must not be built in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes. Unfortunately I will not be able to be present at the meeting: please consider this comment as my presence against building of "villas".
jawed
37922
2-B-24-DP
jawed (37922), February 3, 2024 at 2:51 PM
The idea of having condos in the country style living in a golf view area is totally inconsistent with the current environment. This is a community where individual houses are enjoyed by the residents and putting condos will ruin the peaceful atmosphere that we all enjoy. We pay taxes for the environment we enjoy and I would not support building condos here.
Sarah
37931
2-B-24-DP
Sarah (37931), January 11, 2024 at 12:59 PM
Hello, I am the daughter of a resident who lives in Gettysvue, and I wanted to show my support in standing against the condos attempting to be built. Not only is this completely unreasonable considering the amount of traffic it will bring to the neighborhood, it is outright dangerous. There are currently no sidewalks in Gettysvue, which is a problem in itself that will be heavily exacerbated by additional housing. There’s already too many cars parked in the street on the side of the road, and when this is coupled with cars not following the speed limit you have cars swerving out of their lanes almost hitting pedestrians. I fear if condos are built someone will get hurt. If these condos connected to a main road it would be one thing, but these condos are going INSIDE a neighborhood, adding additional traffic. Please don’t build these condos, the only reason I can think these are being built is pure greed and financial gain, obviously the people of this neighborhood don’t want them here.
Zakir
37922
2-B-24-DP
Zakir (37922), February 3, 2024 at 3:07 PM
This project is back stabbing to the home owners , devaluation their property value please do not approve .
Michael
37934
2-A-24-CP
Michael (37934), February 3, 2024 at 6:30 PM
Recommend this item be disapproved. I participated in the Advanced Knox online survey process and found it to be based on false assumptions driven by a desire to increase the density of development in the Knox County area. In the initial survey there was not option to select single family housing except on small lots as part of a higher-density mixed use development. This plan is good for developers and perhaps those that benefit from their donations; it is not beneficial to the residents and homeowners in Knox County. This rapid expansion puts us on the track to become another Nashville. This expansion will help a few developers make a ton of money; however, it will complete the destruction of the small town, community feel that my family and I have enjoyed for the last 11 years. Vote No and stop the new urbanism spread in Knox County.
Angela
37922
2-A-24-CP
Angela (37922), February 3, 2024 at 8:41 PM
Advance Knox is not comprehensive, in that it does not outline what densities, type of structures, etc. will be allowed in each land use category. How can a land use category be determined as appropriate for an area, when the categories themselves have not been fully defined? The categories and the definitions should go hand in hand. Doesn't it make sense to know what you are voting on before you vote? Postpone this until the entire project is complete and satisfactory to the citizens of Knox County.
Lynn
37922
2-A-24-CP
Lynn (37922), February 3, 2024 at 8:58 PM
I would like to request a consultation with he USFWS for endangered species, specifically bats (e.g., northern long eared bat). The area has destroyed much of the habitat of this endangered species with no plan or protection. This is requested under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) requires federal agencies (often referred to as action agencies) to ensure that actions they undertake, authorize, or fund are not likely to jeopardize threatened or endangered species (i.e., listed species) or adversely modify designated critical habitat of listed species. To satisfy this mandate, Section 7 generally requires action agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services) when their proposed actions may affect listed species or critical habitat. The Advanced Growth plan has taken no consideration of endangered or threatened species habitat. Please note that there are endangered bats in the area and the "individual" needs to be protected (under endangerment individuals must be protected) vs the population.
Lindsey
37922
2-B-24-DP
Lindsey (37922), January 11, 2024 at 5:30 PM
I strongly oppose this development. Gettysvue cannot handle any more traffic or congestion. It will make it a nightmare for the current home owners that invested in this neighborhood. We all invested in our homes with the understanding it is for single family developments. It will negatively impact property values and our way of life. Please deny this zoning request to save the integrity of our neighborhood.
2-B-24-DP
Ken (37922), January 11, 2024 at 8:06 PM
Please do not allow this project to proceed! This project does not meet the neighborhood requirements and affects all of the current homeowners property values.
James
37922
2-B-24-DP
James (37922), January 12, 2024 at 8:43 AM
I want to recommend that this proposal be denied as the planned project will still not fit in the character and overall design of this neighborhood. As a golf only member, I am not eager to try and shoehorn shots away from the planned condominiums. I also believe that even with only 40 planned units, the increase in traffic and congestion (not to mention the impact on other services) will be a detriment to this neighborhood, and ultimately the Club.
jeramy
37934
2-A-24-CP
jeramy (37934), February 4, 2024 at 2:03 PM
do the advance knox zoning plans provide the following: anticipated ratio of police officers/ firefigjters/medical personnel to citizen over each of the next 10 years. anticipated per citizen tax revenue vs tax ependiture over each of the next 10 years. traffic calming needs, noise and light pollution needs, and estimated commute times over each of the next 10 years. if this form of congested development cannot predict the above noted, then advance knox has not been appropriately planned and should be voted down.
Virginia
37922
2-B-24-DP
Virginia (37922), February 4, 2024 at 6:31 PM
We strongly oppose the proposed condo development within the Gettysvue neighborhood along the 18th fairway by Ron Watkins. Several concerns are - 1. Construction traffic along streets with no sidewalks 2. Increased traffic on already congested roads 3. Drainage issues within the subdivision 4. Does not even begin to meet the aesthetics of our neighborhood which were clearly designed for single family homes.
Madhu
37922
2-B-24-DP
Madhu (37922), January 12, 2024 at 2:50 PM
I am writing about the high-rise condominiums that are proposed to be built in Gettysvue subdivision. The Knox County Planning Commission on its November 9th, 2023, meeting denied such a request for building a 90-condominium unit. Thank you for that! We believed that the case was settled. But now they have come up with a similar request for building a 40-condominium unit in the middle of the neighborhood. I, together with many Gettysvue residents, vehemently oppose this construction for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that my house is very close to the proposed condominiums. Even without this construction, the traffic is already quite high. The roads are already unsafe for walking. In the last five years, my mailbox has been mauled three times by cars trying to avoid other cars. Forty more units (or 80 more cars) on the same street will make the situation even worse. In addition, there is a risk of increased stormwater flow to areas already experiencing flooding. I requesting that when you meet on February 8, please deny the application for this construction.
Jane
37923
2-B-24-DP
Jane (37923), February 4, 2024 at 7:41 PM
I am opposed to the building of two high rise condominium buildings in our residential community. It is against the restrictions of the subdivision. This proposed plan is producing the same issues and problems that the first plan did. I respectfully request that the Commission deny the rezoning and not allow our community to have to endure all the numerous already mentioned problems it would manifest. Thank you.
Ilene
37922
2-B-24-DP
Ilene (37922), January 12, 2024 at 3:51 PM
I strongly oppose the revised zoning request to build two high rise buildings of 20 condos per building in the middle of Gettysvue Country Club. This violates the Covenants and Restrictions of the neighborhood which require one single family residence per lot. Gettysvue is a well-established neighborhood and this plan does not fit the neighborhood design, form, fit, and function. Because of the slope of the land in this area, severe water run-off issues will be created for neighboring properties.
2-B-24-DP
D (37922), February 5, 2024 at 7:36 AM
I strongly oppose the construction of high-rise condo buildings in Gettysvue. Every resident abides by Gettysvue restrictive Covenants that each lot is limited to 1 single-family residence. After lots were sold and the construction of single-family houses, adhering to restrictive guidelines, Gettysvue has become a well-established, beautiful single-family community. Then Mr. Watkins challenges and wants to violate the Covenants which every resident adheres to. He proposes such radical use of his paltry amount of property within the community to build 2 high-rise, 40-unit buildings on a 4-acre lot. This high-rise condo building project will certainly profit the minority of businessmen at the expense of lowering current residents' housing value, increasing traffic congestion, alleviating pedestrians' safety, creating more water issues and diminishing the usage of amenities. Also the cave system underground needs an environmental look . It is a cause for public concern. We ask you to please make the right decision for residents in Gettysvue and the surrounding communities this will effect. Thank You!
Frederick
37922
2-B-24-DP
Frederick (37922), January 12, 2024 at 10:50 PM
I’m against this proposal in every way. Rezoning our neighborhood would undoubtedly reduce our property values, increase traffic on very narrow streets, safety concerns are tantamount. The developers want to take our right to the enjoyment of the safety, peace and quiet that myself, and my neighbors have invested in their homes for years and years. If Knox County changes the zoning, they would be allowing the developers to monetize that investment and put it in their own pockets. Our investment our safety our peace and quiet enjoyment would be diminished to line their pockets. So on first principles this whole proposal is to legalize larceny. I’ve lived here twenty years while the various developments have taken place compliant with the established zoning and watched the big trucks, trailers backhoes and HEAVY DUTY excavation equipment the whole gamut turning around in our cul de sac.
TERRY
37849
2-E-24-RZ
TERRY (37849), February 5, 2024 at 9:19 AM
I am opposed to the rezoning of this acreage at 2600 West Gallagher Ferry Road. The topography of said property does not lend itself to the requested 2 homes per acre. The infastructure ajoining and around this property is not sufficent to handle the additional demands that would be created. I am asking the board to deny this request for rezoning this property. Thank you!
Mike
37934
2-A-24-CP
Mike (37934), February 5, 2024 at 9:45 AM
Advance Knox was not conducted as promised. It started out fine but over time it was clear that resident input was not being heard. Advance Knox serves only one purpose, to increase housing density in rural areas of Knox County. Rural Metro cannot keep up with current growth. The ambulance service cannot keep up with the current growth. The Emergency Rooms are critically overburdened with no solution in sight. The Sheriff’s Department has suspended investigating automobile accidents due to a lack of officers. Knox County infrastructure cannot accommodate Advance Knox. This has gone past a quality of life issue. It is now a matter of life or death. I ask you to do the right thing and vote down Advance Knox. Please see enclosed file.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240205094544.pdf
Iris
37922
2-B-24-DP
Iris (37922), January 8, 2024 at 4:06 AM
This is a neighborhood that can't handle the additional traffic generated from 40 more units at that location. The buildings are also way too tall and would be an eyesore that looks out of place for this area. There are already drainage problems around that location and this project would make that even more untenable. Please squash this application.
Danny
7922
2-B-24-DP
Danny (7922), January 14, 2024 at 4:19 PM
I respectfully request that the Knox County Planning Commission vote to deny the proposed plan for the construction of two high-rise buildings with 40 condo units in our subdivision and vote “no” to rezoning. As a homeowner for 26 years in the Gettysvue subdivision, I am strongly opposed to the proposed plan based on the following:
1. The proposed plan violates Gettysvue’s restrictive covenants.
2. The proposed plan will result in overcrowding the community adversely impacting homeowners access to the already overcrowded facilities such as the pools, clubhouse and parking.
3. It will overload the capacity of the stormwater runoff structures causing more flooding during and after construction.
4. The motor vehicle traffic will increase on Gettysvue’s roads as well as an already congested Westland drive, and the school zones due to additional vehicles on those roads - This is a major safety concern that can’t be ignored.
5. It will cause the overloading of our utility services, specifically sewer lines.
6. The proposed plan would decrease our property values.
7. The construction of this project will only benefit a few at the expense of many homeowners who paid tens of thousands of dollars of dues over the years to live in a subdivision with the expectation that the restrictions of the subdivision would be enforced.
I urge our Public Officials and Community Leaders to deny the request for the rezoning and not allow this project to occur. Thanks.
Jack
37922
2-B-24-DP
Jack (37922), January 8, 2024 at 4:28 AM
I stand strongly opposing the condominium project. The overwhelming majority of residents in Gettysvue and surrounding neighborhoods also oppose the project. The majority of people affected by this construction should have a say in its outcome and they disapprove of its construction. Please deny the request to build this project.
Pamela
37849
2-E-24-RZ
Pamela (37849), February 5, 2024 at 10:48 AM
Dear Sirs: I am against any further development in this Area around Hardin Valley and in Particular W. Gallagher Ferry Rd. The infrastructure in this area is unable to handle the current load of traffic let alone more than 200+ households haveing a minimum of 2 cars per home. Please be considerate of these tax payers already in the area dealing with an overload of traffic. Please consider the impact on our already strained road system.
Connie
37922
2-A-24-CP
Connie (37922), February 5, 2024 at 12:22 PM
I've never been so disappointed in any public process in Knox County. In all the Advance Knox meetings there was no concern for how emergency services would be impacted by increasing density. The out of state consultants came off as experts which I disliked very much. They said we should welcome increased density as this plan would make things more convenient. I will not trade convenience for safety. When I need a fire truck, ambulance, or Sherriff's deputy I need them now. Our roads in Choto cannot handle the traffic we have now. Why on earth would we want to increase the density? Not six weeks ago a woman died from a traffic accident on Harvey Road. We had a large tree fall across Northshore Drive and it blocked both lanes for hours. What if I needed an ambulance then? Rural Metro in Choto has two men, that is not sufficient for such a large area. We have been promised road improvement for years that have not happened. Please vote this down. It is not a good plan for Knox County.
Eric
37922
2-B-24-DP
Eric (37922), January 15, 2024 at 3:14 PM
I am strongly opposed to build the condos or apartmenrs in our neighborhood due to safety and traffic. Our community here is designed for.single home,.not a condo or apartment around here. This.project has to stop immediately and not moving forward. Furthermore, this project will devalue the houses in this community.
2-B-24-DP
Ann (37922), January 16, 2024 at 3:27 PM
I am a resident of the Gettysvue community off of Westland. I remain concerned over the proposed development due to it not fitting with the rest of our neighborhood, increased traffic through the area and increased use of facilities. We currently have numerous runners, walkers and baby’s in strollers in the neighborhood. Increased traffic would be hazardous to these activities. Please consider denying this project.
Lindsey
37922
2-B-24-DP
Lindsey (37922), January 16, 2024 at 8:25 PM
I strongly oppose this development. It does not fit the neighborhood and will cause so many problems for the ones who have invested to live here. The traffic it will add will make it dangerous and congested. As is, there isn’t enough parking at the club and the proposed area is used for over flow. Currently, it is very dangerous to walk in our neighborhood without sidewalks and adding more traffic will make that worse. The C&Rs indicate single family dwellings and we all invested with that being the case, to change this now would be wrong to every single resident in GV. The only people that will benefit from this is Ron W and Synergy, everyone else will suffer.
Rebecca
37922
2-B-24-DP
Rebecca (37922), January 8, 2024 at 6:45 AM
I oppose the proposed building of two high density residential buildings in the middle of an established neighborhood.
- The amount of construction traffic will be a detriment and danger to the children of the neighborhood for years to come, as well as anyone wanting to walk
- The increased traffic along the streets after completion of the condos/apartments will make the streets unsafe for walking (there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood)
- The proposed structures are very large and imposing and do not look like they fit in the neighborhood
- The proposed buildings would disrupt rainwater flow at the bottom of a hill that historically floods
- There is a network of caves beneath the proposed site
- The school population at AL Lotts is strained already.
2-B-24-DP
Sha (37922), January 17, 2024 at 8:09 PM
I vehemently oppose this high-rise condominium project proposed by Mr. Watkins in our well-established, single-family community. Each resident adheres to the restrictive Gettysvue Covenants that Mr. Watkins himself adopted in the original development. Thus, roads in Gettysvue are constructed for single-family, not for multi-tenant, high-density condominium use. Furthermore, streets in Gettysvue have slopes and blind curves and no sidewalks for pedestrians.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240117200934.pdf
Charles
37934
2-A-24-CP
Charles (37934), February 5, 2024 at 1:28 PM
In the Advance Knox initial survey there was not option to select single family housing except on small lots as part of a higher-density mixed use development. It was clear this was a dialog to consensus focused to get approval for higher density. Advance Knox was not as it was advertised. It reminded me of Nine Counties One Vision. Did anyone in county government read the hundreds of comments on Advance Knox? The comments were overwhelmingly against Advance Knox as designed and many people confronted the process as both flawed and disingenuous. Compass Knox has written about the public reaction to Advance Knox and it is negative. One of the Advance Knox professionals said in a meeting, "You don't know how hard we have worked on this". I can tell you what they did not do and that was listen. This was preconceived from the beginning to get Knox County residents to say they wanted more density. That did not happen. This is a bad plan and should have been voted down on first reading.
Colleen
37922
2-B-24-DP
Colleen (37922), January 19, 2024 at 10:17 AM
I oppose the Gettysvue Villas project because of many of the reasons others have posted including risk to neighborhood safety due to increased traffic, exasperation of existing drainage problems at my house downstream of the development site, increased demand on already stressed utilities, and form and fit of high rise apartment buildings in our neighborhood. Regarding form and fit, please see the attached rendition (paid for by the residents) which depicts a comparison of existing houses near the development site with the advertised dimensions of the buildings published by the developer. My request is that this rendition be presented at the MPC meeting on February 8th so that the impact of these buildings in our neighborhood can be shared with the decision makers. Lastly, a majority of home owners and HOA Board members oppose this project as presented. A letter from a majority of HOA Board members has been sent to the developer (attached) expressing their opposition and asking to be a part of the process to design a development project that meets form and fit. Isn't this a normal function of the HOA Board?
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240119101713.pdf
Andrew
37922
2-B-24-DP
Andrew (37922), January 19, 2024 at 2:03 PM
I am apposed to this proposed development (2-B-24-DP). I have been a resident in the Gettysvue Development for over 26 years. I love our Gettysvue development and was very glad I was able to raise my family in this setting. I am currently on and have been a Gettysvue board member (on and off) for over half of my time as a resident. When Mr. Watkins ask if I would serve on the board I was and am happy to do so and take much pride in what the board has done to represent our community. As a resident and a board member I have difficulty supporting this current proposal. This new proposal still does not meet the zoning requirement and is not harmonious with our community in it's current scope. I don't think anyone would welcome a structure of this height and size in their subdivision. as a board member and representing our community I feel this would not enhance our community and would truly diminish the boarding property values. At one point in time, Mr. Watkins discussed putting patio homes in that area. I think he would meet little to no opposition to such a proposal. A patio home development which falls under the current zoning would be harmonious to the current residents. I ask you to consider the current residents in opposing this proposal (2-B-24-DP).
Rachel
37849
2-A-24-CP
Rachel (37849), February 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM
***See attached PDF for the rest of my comment*** The current plan includes large areas of "planned growth," swallowing up over 9,000 acres of farmland. Tennessee's State seal still includes Agriculture... did we forget that?? Vote no. Vote for infrastructure BEFORE any growth at all. Take care of the current residents first!! I'm also quite concerned that this meeting wasn't posted on the February agenda until late on February 2nd, and is scheduled for the middle of the workday on a Thursday, with only 6 days notice for those working during the week to request time off so that they can attend. It's almost like someone doesn't want residents to have a chance to speak out against this... interesting.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240205145911.pdf
Melissa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Melissa (37922), January 8, 2024 at 7:11 AM
This proposal is not in line with the existing neighborhood. Changing the low density housing to medium density/office will negatively effect, traffic (already an issue) on major cross streets, overload club parking already an issue, create dangerous streets for the children and adults in the neighborhood and create negative effects in the drainage onto the golf course and streets. This should not be allowed to happen in a neighborhood like this. It doesn't fit and will create disastrous issues. That's why it has been turned down 3 times!
Kevin
37922
2-B-24-DP
Kevin (37922), January 19, 2024 at 3:46 PM
I am strongly opposed to the proposed high-rise condo buildings tin Gettysvue I am a real estate attorney and did my due diligence prior to purchasing my home. Based upon the recorded plat, existing zoning, and Restrictive Covenants, I had no reason to believe that high-rise condo buildings could ever be constructed on one lot. The applicant is proposing a density of over 10 units per acre, which is over 3 times the maximum density. Moreover, the Restrictive Covenants for Gettysvue only permit 1 single-family home per lot. I would have never purchased my nearby home if I had any reason to believe it could be dwarfed by condos that would exceed 90 feet in height. These condos would dramatically harm our property value based upon the following:
-Construction of condo buildings would create a nuisance due to increased noise and construction traffic.
-The project would create safety concerns for my children as it will bring substantially more traffic down our street which already has a steep decline and blind curve.
-The buildings would exacerbate drainage problems which the County already had to pay to remediate.
-The buildings would be severely out of scale with the surrounding homes.
There is no other subdivision in Knox County where high-rise condos are built in the middle of single-family homes that have existed for decades. While I am not opposed to reasonable development of this lot, this proposed development is neither reasonable nor legal.
Samantha
37922
2-B-24-DP
Samantha (37922), January 8, 2024 at 7:13 AM
I strongly oppose this proposal (again)- it will take a beautiful, well-established and well-regarded neighborhood and make it over-run, cheapen it, and change the fabric of the neighborhood. I have parents in the neighborhood and visit every week- the neighborhood is already busy and parking is already flooding the streets every time there is an event, a swim-meet, and the clubhouse facilities are routinely overloaded already. It is questionable whether these would even sell (especially with so many and who they would appeal to), but if they do, it will only cheapen and overload the neighborhood. It will be an eyesore and the complete opposite of what many people likely expected when spending a million dollars or more on their homes (some of while did decades ago). Gettysvue has always been a dream neighborhood to me- the type of established, high-class neighborhood that you strive for- and putting in these condos will ruin that completely.
Carolyn
37922
2-B-24-DP
Carolyn (37922), January 19, 2024 at 3:56 PM

My husband and I are opposed to building high raise condos in the middle of our neighborhood adjacent to The Club at Gettysvue. This structure violates the covenants of the neighborhood and does not fit in the neighborhood design, form, fit, and function. There has been concern by neighbors in close proximity to this structure that if built will likely cause issues with flooding and run-off due to the slope of the land. Many home owners are also concerned that Gettysvue being a well established neighborhood with multi million dollar homes surrounding the proposed development that property values will be negatively affected. Please reject this project.
Adam
37934
2-A-24-CP
Adam (37934), February 5, 2024 at 4:36 PM
Advance Knox claims lots of planning and testing has occurred to dial in the ideal solution, but when I look around I do not see effective growth management. What I do see is a complete sellout to developers and a narrow focus on high density housing. I see decisions made despite concerns expressed beforehand and the constituents left with the garbage when the elected or appointed people move on. What is missing is any semblance of ACCURATE planning. This should be simple for any organization to do because all that needs to happen is compare the reality after construction with the plan. There have been thousands of construction projects in Knox County the last few years, so the plans could be calibrated with the reality now so future planning becomes more accurate over time. This must be done first so plans are indeed more appropriate and aligned with stated visions and goals. Please vote No on Advance Knox. We are not ready for it, we may never be.
2-B-24-DP
May (37922), January 19, 2024 at 9:47 PM
There is an overwhelming majority who feel very strongly about keeping the integrity of the single family neighborhood in place. Most of us have families and moved to the county and club to have green space, outdoor areas, and safety to drive on the roads as well as to and from schools. These units are much too large to be in the center of a calm neighborhood with already congested streets. As homeowners, we abide by the restrictions placed for the safety and integrity of the neighborhood and a few should not profit to the community’s expense. Please do not allow a huge complex in the middle of a neighborhood. Integrity must be maintained with growth.
Sean
37934
2-A-24-CP
Sean (37934), February 5, 2024 at 5:04 PM
I urge all members of the Planning Commission to vote against this. The housing density in the western part of the county is too high. There is too much traffic already. The high density problems already existing have caused huge quality of life issues.
David W
37922
2-B-24-DP
David W (37922), January 20, 2024 at 8:53 AM
I am against the proposed development. We purchased our home recently and carefully read the neighborhood restrictions, and multi family development was not included as an option. We request this proposal be rejected as it goes against these restrictions.
2-B-24-DP
Wes (37922), February 5, 2024 at 6:05 PM
Attached PDF
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240205180555.pdf
Michelle
37922
2-B-24-DP
Michelle (37922), January 20, 2024 at 10:18 AM
I am frustrated this submission just keeps coming back. For all of the reasons this established neighborhood cannot support 90 apartments, it cannot support 40 either. Please help us close this case once and for all. It’s exhausting to keep having the same conversation, the same battle.
2-B-24-DP
Ann (37922), January 20, 2024 at 1:50 PM
Gettysvue is a neighborhood where people walk and children ride bikes and walk to school or to the swimming pool on our streets because we do no have sidewalks. The construction traffic and subsequent traffic from 40 units will endanger our residents. When we built our home we were assured by the Gettysvue neighborhood Covenant which dictates just one single-family residence per lot, and we agreed to abide by it. The proposed project violates that Covenant, and it size and height are certainly not harmonious with our neighborhood’s single-family homes. Please, please deny this high-rise condo project.
Shawn
37922
2-A-24-CP
Shawn (37922), February 5, 2024 at 7:11 PM
Please read attached.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240205191153.pdf
2-B-24-DP
Kim (37922), January 8, 2024 at 8:12 AM
Please do not allow this project to move forward! This project does not meet the neighborhood requirements and affects all of the current homeowners property values. We have purchased in this neighborhood because of the community life there and for this to happen in the middle of the neighborhood is wrong. Thank you!
Moira
37922
2-B-24-DP
Moira (37922), January 20, 2024 at 2:16 PM
As a resident of Gettysvue, I am against the construction of 40 high-rise condos for the following reasons:
1. Traffic. Gettysvue Drive is already dangerous to pedestrians and vehicular traffic in both directions. We have cars, trucks and other commercial vehicles who drive carelessly around these corners and since there are no sidewalks, near misses with pedestrians and schoolchildren are the norm. It is hard to imagine the dangers of 80 additional vehicles on these roads each day.
2. Parking overflow. At large events at the Gettysvue Clubhouse, cars are forced to park on the streets in front of our homes – against the HOA covenants. If the condos are only allowed 1.5 parking spaces, the visitors to these 40 condos – visitors and commercial vehicles - could be forced to park on the street causing more danger to traffic in the neighborhood.
3. Water issues. Every time there is heavy rainfall, flooding occurs along the edge of the greens and overflows into our yards. Construction of 40 condos uphill from our house will have an additional impact on the flood plain.
4. Villas in original plans. Previously constructed villas in the community are 2-story individual villas and blend within the community. We oppose the proposed villas which are planned as high-rise condos. The villas on this lot should be 2 ½ story in line with those already constructed. We oppose the use of remaining density from other areas of the community to build high-rise buildings.
2-A-24-CP
Kim (37934), February 5, 2024 at 7:32 PM
I am strongly opposed to approving the Advance Knox plan. There are several areas of serious issues that are not being adequately addressed. My primary concern is that our hospitals and emergency responders would not be able to safely meet the demands brought about by proposed growth. I worked at a large trauma hospital that had 12 hour ER waits on good days and frequently went on “diversion” (closing the ER to ambulances due to excessive capacity and inability to meet emergent needs.) I don’t believe the majority of residents believe we have the infrastructure, but physical and w service providers, to adequately manage the plans proposed by Advance Knox. Please do not approve this plan.
Joseph
37922
2-B-24-DP
Joseph (37922), January 21, 2024 at 12:51 PM
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 40 unit high-rise development in Gettysvue. This project not only violates the restrictive covenants that limit lots to single family residences but also raises several significant concerns. Firstly, the development would lead to increased traffic in a neighborhood with no sidewalks, posing a risk to pedestrians and the overall safety of our community. Secondly, it could exacerbate the stormwater flow issues in the area, potentially leading to flooding and property damage. Lastly, the high-rise development could adversely affect property values, potentially causing a negative impact on homeowners like myself who have been part of this family-oriented neighborhood since 2006. Additionally, it is worth noting that several homes in the area have already suffered damage due to the cave systems present, and this development could further exacerbate these issues. I respectfully request the you consider the negative consequences this proposal may have on our community and take them into account when making your decision. Our neighborhood's unique character and the well-being of it's residents should be a top priority in any decision regarding this development.
Keith
37922
2-B-24-DP
Keith (37922), January 21, 2024 at 1:39 PM
Our family moved to Gettysvue roughly one year ago. We were unaware of the potential for high rise condominiums to be a part of our neighborhood. I feel that this development would alter the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood as it puts high density housing right in the middle of everything. This will drastically increase traffic flow, road noise etc. In addition this project does not seem to be in congruence with the current covenants and by laws we have all agreed to abide by. I ask that this project please be voted down as it is against the will of the community.
Raj
37922
2-B-24-DP
Raj (37922), January 21, 2024 at 2:28 PM
As a homeowner in the Gettysvue community, My wife and I strongly oppose the construction of multi-stories condominium complex to be located at 913 Gettysvue Drive. Gettysvue is a mature subdivision that was not built to current expectations. For example, the subdivision has no sidewalks. People walking or jogging put themselves at risk as they must share the roads that lack walkways, with existing busy traffic. The proposed huge condominium complex will only make our lives more dangerous by adding a huge number of people and vehicles. As mentioned here in other posts, it will also add huge burden on our community in many other ways by stretching our resources, including the resources of neighboring schools. Constructing a large condominium complex in place of individual houses will destroy the character of our subdivision and our community. If we all wanted to live by a high-rise, we would have purchased a home someplace else. We are all counting on your support to stop the building of this condominium complex. Thank you!
John
37922
2-B-24-DP
John (37922), January 21, 2024 at 4:13 PM
Please do not approve this project! This area cannot support any more traffic, nor I suspect, any more pressure on the A.L Lotts and other nearby schools. The traffic has gotten so bad now that westbound traffic is backed up every day for almost a mile from Pellissippi to past the entrance to Gettysvue. In addition, 40-60 more cars going in and out of the neighborhood just increases the chance of an accident or of a child getting hit by a car. Please see my complete comments attached.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240121161327.pdf
Dale
37922
2-B-24-DP
Dale (37922), January 8, 2024 at 8:39 AM
MY wife and I are totally opposed to the revised zoning request to build two high rise buildings of 20 condos per building in the middle of Gettysvue Country Club because: 1) it violates the covenants of the neighborhood which requires one single family residence per lot; 2) totally does not fit in the neighborhood design, form, fit, and function; 3) will likely cause issues with flooding and run-off due to slope of the land; 4) Gettysvue is a well established neighborhood with multi million dollar homes surrounding the proposed development and property values will be negatively affected.
Michael
37922
2-B-24-DP
Michael (37922), January 21, 2024 at 4:24 PM
My wife and I purchased our home at 801 Gettysvue Drive less than two years ago because it was a neighborhood of large single family homes. I submitted comments last fall to MPC when this project was proposed with 90 multi-story, multi-family homes. My prior comments included issues regarding lack of sidewalks, narrow streets with numerous blind hills and curves, and an abundance of walkers, joggers, and families with children. Further, on most days it becomes a community of one lane streets due to numerous service and maintenance vehicles parked on the streets. Even in its scaled down proposal for 40 multi-story units, this project is inappropriate for Gettysvue for all of the same reasons. Please deny this proposal.
Cheridy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Cheridy (37922), January 21, 2024 at 4:40 PM
Our family is completely opposed to the proposed building. It is in violation of the building codes of the neighborhood. There are several reasons which have been previously stated including traffic concerns, flooding, congestion, and the list goes on. Please vote against this rezoning proposal.
2-B-24-DP
Max (37922), January 21, 2024 at 4:47 PM
I am opposed to this rezoning and building design. My house is directly across the street, and the buildings are not homes. This is a family neighborhood, not a condo development. This is my home. I did not expect to have a building that looks like apartments across the street when I moved in. Please do not let this happen!!
Sherri
37849
2-A-24-CP
Sherri (37849), February 5, 2024 at 9:01 PM
For years, this planning commission and our county commission has approved developments without proper infastructure. Health care, roads, schools, are not taken into consideration in any development brought forth. This Advanced Knox is more of the same. THere is little attention paid to infastructure. I understand there is a shortage of housing. I understand housing and rental prices have climbed. But that does not make it ok to making living in this county a nightmare for residents with traffic jams, overcrowded schools, and inability to obtain quality and timely healthcare. Vote no.
Michael
37922
2-B-24-DP
Michael (37922), January 21, 2024 at 4:52 PM
The proposed rezoning and construction is in direct violation of the neighborhood building codes. Mr. Watkins knows this is not the right thing to do. Greed is his motivation. Please consider and investigate the concerns of homeowner in this neighborhood as well as surrounding neighborhoods. I can assure you, no one is in favor of this. It is not the right thing to do. Please vote against this rezoning and building!
Peggy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Peggy (37922), January 22, 2024 at 10:44 AM
I am opposed to the building of condos/apartments in our very well established Gettysvue neighborhood. When we moved here a year ago, we were drawn to the peaceful neighborhood and similar styles of homes. My family was shocked to hear about this proposal and are opposed due to the increased traffic dumping on our main thoroughfare road, the size of the proposed buildings that would not be attractive with the existing homes, and the covenant restrictions that are not being upheld by this proposal. I sincerely request that this project be halted .
John
37934
2-A-24-CP
John (37934), February 5, 2024 at 9:28 PM
As a long term resident of Knox County. I have concerns with Advance Knox over school overcrowding and public safety. Many of the county roads are two lane country roads with no shoulder which cannot adequately support the increased traffic safely without significant improvements. Air ambulances such as the University of Tennessee Life Star cannot always respond to emergency situations due to weather conditions. There are no shoulders or turn lanes on many parts of Northshore and Emory roads for emergency vehicles to pass traffic. School overcrowding has been a perpetual issue with the growth of Knox County. When the Fox Lake apartment complex and the Sunchase apartment complex (currently called the GoldElm at Metropolitan) were built, my first grade class at Cedar Bluff Primary School was moved to a temporary trailer due to the number of children who lived in these new apartment communities zoned for Cedar Bluff Schools. Unfortunately, it has become the norm in Knox County for “portables” throughout the school district to accommodate growth to become permanent fixtures. Currently there are four new apartment complexes being built in the Farragut school district (City West, Farragut Pointe, Farragut Junction, and Anchor 934). This has created an unknown number of children to be added to Farragut Schools especially due to the uncertain economic circumstances at this time. I ask for the conservative vote regarding this matter.
Howard
37922
2-B-24-DP
Howard (37922), February 5, 2024 at 9:32 PM
Please DENY this request - The ongoing efforts to fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood through unwanted construction is counter to the interests of residents. There are many factors outlined in great detail throughout the comments that are based on fact and logic. The renewed efforts of a slightly modified plan should not be seen as a positive but another opportunity for concerned homeowners to voice their concerns. Thank you for denying before and we hope the outcome is the same once again.
Joseph
37922
2-A-24-CP
Joseph (37922), February 5, 2024 at 10:00 PM
This Advance Knox plan is not good plan for Knox development.
Margaret
y,379
2-B-24-DP
Margaret (y,379), January 22, 2024 at 5:28 PM
Understand that meeting scheduled 1/23 at Ebenezer Methodist Church has been canceled due to a flood in the church. Any rescheduling in the works before MPC meeting scheduled for 2:8.
Sami
37922
2-A-24-CP
Sami (37922), February 5, 2024 at 10:00 PM
Jefferson Park community and its residents are adversely affected by the ongoing and ever- expanding land and real estate developments in the Northshore and Choto drive districts.
William
37922
2-B-24-DP
William (37922), January 22, 2024 at 6:43 PM
See attached letter. Thank you.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240122184342.pdf
Nicole
37922
2-A-24-CP
Nicole (37922), February 5, 2024 at 11:00 PM
Vote to cancel Advance Knox. This agenda - and those driving it - are not only flawed, they are dangerous and the safety of people who already reside here is being disregarded- every single day. Advance Knox is a reckless agenda and the elected and appointed officials driving it will be held to account. Vote it down.
Christine
37922
2-A-24-CP
Christine (37922), February 5, 2024 at 11:37 PM
I am opposed to the rapid seemingly endless growth in our area because Northshore cannot safely handle more traffic. It is unsafe as it is. Pulling out of our neighborhood is getting more and more difficult. The area is getting overcrowded and it is unlikely that emergency services can handle the growing area sufficiently and efficiently. Please don’t “advance Knox” in this direction.
shaei
37922
2-B-24-DP
shaei (37922), January 22, 2024 at 8:05 PM
I strongly oppose the construction of high-rise condominiums in our well-established community. In Gettysvue, roads were constructed for low-density, single-family residential use, following the restrictive Gettysvue Covenants adopted by Mr. Watkins in the original development. -Please see attachment-
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240122200511.pdf
Ilias
t
2-A-24-CP
Ilias (t), February 6, 2024 at 12:39 AM
Our safety should be paramount before any new advancement. We oppose Advance Knox in its current form.
Patti and Tom
37934
2-B-24-DP
Patti and Tom (37934), January 22, 2024 at 8:06 PM
Continuation of my comments: the traffic on Westland Drive cannot handle additional cars during peak hours. With the Elementary school located with 1/2 mile there is already traffic blocked for a mile in both direction at the beginning and end of the school day. This is dangerous for the children and parents alike picking up their children. The builder already placed some townhomes at the entrance on ebnezer which possible could have handled this requested development without interruption and devaluation of the current multi million dollar homes. Blocking the view from the clubhouse, moving the 18th green etc as a 20 plus year member of Gettysvue, We stand with the Gettysvue residents…Do not build this complex.
Charles
37922
2-A-24-CP
Charles (37922), February 6, 2024 at 5:40 AM
I am opposed to the current Advance Knox Plan. I reviewed the information and do not believe enough attention is being given to the lack of transportation infrastructure in the area. It is not only the additional population in West Knoxville, but the ever increasing flow of commuters traveling through the area in both directions during rush hours as well as the recreation traffic that occurs on weekends. The traffic implications are much greater than what is being anticipated. If we are not careful, we will destroy the very things that make this area a desirable place to live.
Isabelle
37922
2-A-24-CP
Isabelle (37922), February 6, 2024 at 7:27 AM
I am opposing to this is a plan. It is dangerous to public safety and health and will cause more problems than it is worth. Here are a few concerns: Can Rural Metro keep up with Advance Knox? Can the Ambulance service keep up with Advance Knox? Would a new Knox County Fire Department be a large property tax increase? Would new Knox County schools be a large property tax increase? Would new roads and fixing old roads be a large property tax increase? How can Hospitals keep up with Advance Knox? ER waits are very dangerous now. I hope this will not move forward.
Steve
37922
2-A-24-CP
Steve (37922), February 6, 2024 at 7:27 AM
I am opposing to this is a plan. It is dangerous to public safety and health and will cause more problems than it is worth. Here are a few concerns:  Can Rural Metro keep up with Advance Knox? Can the Ambulance service keep up with Advance Knox? Would a new Knox County Fire Department be a large property tax increase? Would new Knox County schools be a large property tax increase? Would new roads and fixing old roads be a large property tax increase? How can Hospitals keep up with Advance Knox? ER waits are very dangerous now. I hope this will not move forward.
Charles
37922
2-B-24-DP
Charles (37922), January 23, 2024 at 2:56 PM
I am opposed to this project due to: 1) the impact of additional traffic in the neighborhood and the entrances on Ebenezer and Westland - both of which are already difficult to access without a signal; 2) the negative impact on property values within the development; 3) the lack of fit of high rise condominiums in a single family residence neighborhood; and the mess that a large construction brings to the development.
Jeffrey
37931
2-B-24-DP
Jeffrey (37931), February 6, 2024 at 8:18 AM
I have read the staff report that recommends denial for this case. I believe this denial recommendation to be arbitrary as there is sufficient density left on the overall development to allow this proposed development. This parcel was also noted to be developed as villas on the original approved plans. This plan is also not substantially different than the condos that are being built along Linksview Drive. In my opinion, there is not a legal reason to deny the development of this property and therefore should be approved.
Thilina
37922
2-B-24-DP
Thilina (37922), January 24, 2024 at 12:39 AM
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed high density condo development next door to my house. As the owner of a house right next to this development, I am concerned that this project will risk damage to my house, severely impact the value and livability of our house, negatively impact the character of our neighborhood and violate the covenants of our Homeowners Association. We encourage the developer to consider building single family housing instead.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240124003944.pdf
John
37922
2-A-24-CP
John (37922), February 6, 2024 at 8:32 AM
I am not anti-development. BUT SAFETY CONCERNS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED... which have been ignored. With the recent snowfall, it took days for Knox County to clear the roads on and around the Northshore/Harvey area. Roads remain narrow and are dangerous. Adding additional development/traffic is a detrimental, avoidable catastrophe waiting to happen. Can Rural Metro keep up with Advance Knox? Can the Ambulance service keep up with Advance Knox? Would a new Knox County Fire Department be a large property tax increase? Would new Knox County schools be a large property tax increase? Would new roads and fixing old roads be a large property tax increase? How can Hospitals keep up with Advance Knox? ER waits are very dangerous now. You cannot just rubber stamp development approval, the above concerns need to be addressed!
Adam
37922
2-A-24-CP
Adam (37922), February 6, 2024 at 9:41 AM
I fully support investments that generate growth in our community. These investments must also be responsible, and the commission completely ignores (demonstrated by the lack of action or response) the genuine safety concerns of existing residents. I challenge each of you to park your car during the work-week from 7-8am and from 5-6pm at the entrance of Jefferson Park, Montgomery Cove or any of the nearby neighborhoods and observe the hazardous conditions. I have lived in Knoxville my entire life and lived near Choto for 12 years. I have experienced exponential traffic growth, numerous accidents and near misses with no meaningful road improvements. The narrow roads, lack of a middle lane, and constant flow of traffic forces drivers to dangerously pull out in front of vehicles. You must address the number of lanes/width of Northshore near Choto before approving further development. Traffic studies that were concluded during summer months or look at daily averages are flawed. Northshore is extremely dangerous during peak driving hours and during the school year. I want Knoxville to continue to grow and flourish, but the rate of development combined with the lack of meaningful infrastructure investment in this area is totally irresponsible.
2-B-24-DP
Tim (37922), January 8, 2024 at 10:56 AM
I am opposed to this proposed project. The project does not fulfill promises of "fit and form" for a well established neighborhood, and does not serve to grow and preserve the beauty of the Gettysvue neighborhood. This project will serve only to devalue existing homes in the neighborhood, it will stress vital infrastructure such as utilities and drainage systems, and it will add to already unsafe and overpopulated road conditions both within the Gettysvue neighborhood and on surrounding Westland and Ebenezer roadways.
Staci
37934
2-A-24-CP
Staci (37934), February 6, 2024 at 9:57 AM
Please, please, please for the love of God do NOT vote for this plan! Knox County cannot handle anymore developments of any sort especially West Knox County in the areas of McFee Road, Northshore/Choto, Harvey Road, basically all of Farragut surrounding the school areas, Northshore and the list goes on!!! We are overloaded thanks to an over zealous developer (who will remain nameless) wanting to line his pockets not better our community!! The infrastructure cannot handle ANY additional developing/population, traffic cannot, the schools cannot and this list is endless because we are too heavily populated as it stands right now!!!! Please do NOT vote for this plan!!! It's horrible and we are already too densely populated and then some!!! If you don't live here (at least deep west) then you don't understand we're at our max capacity, we can't handle any more and most importantly DON'T WANT ANYMORE!!! Leave some green space and farmland for a change and if you don't live out here, then keep your opinions of what you THINK we need out of here as well! Actually talk to an affected resident in deep west Knox County and you'll know without a shadow of a doubt that we are EXTREMELY against any further growth out here!!! We're already busting at the seams on ALL fronts!
Terri
37934
2-A-24-CP
Terri (37934), February 6, 2024 at 10:02 AM
I oppose the Advance Knox agenda because we don’t have the infrastructure to support increased density in rural Knox county. The traffic is already gridlock in west Knoxville. Residents move to rural areas because they enjoy a rural environment. If they wanted to live in a densely populated area they would move downtown. Respect the right of current residents to keep their property rural. Stop trying to force urban development on rural areas.
Mark
37922
2-B-24-DP
Mark (37922), January 24, 2024 at 2:54 PM
I am against these submission for the construction of 40 condo units in the Gettysvue Subdivision. If this is passed and allowed to be built that will add at least additional 80 cars to an entrance that already handles over 200 cars daily. This will lead to accidents and possible fatalities as many people walk on the streets since there is no sidewalks in the neighborhood. You will also add significant drainage to an already problematic area. Ther is also concern with the reduction of green space if these condo buildings and parking is allowed. And the main point is this is not zoned for muti-tenants homes. We purchased our home in Gettysvue in 220 and no matter what the developer says there was not approved plan to build this type of condo development. The developer may had talked about it to a few of his friends but there was not submitted plan so it would be against everyone in the neighborhood's understanding. If you approve this change, then you are setting up Knoxville for many lawsuits from homeowners which will waste the taxpayers' money to fight. This neighborhood has some deep pockets and will not go down lightly.
Bimalee
37922
2-B-24-DP
Bimalee (37922), January 25, 2024 at 10:30 AM
I strongly oppose the proposed high-density condo development next to my house, My concerns include the excessive size and height of the buildings, which are incompatible with the neighborhood's geography, risking damage to my property, impacting its value, and compromising privacy. I am also worried about potential construction-related issues such as land settling, drainage problems, noise, dirt, vibration, and traffic, posing risks to my family. Additionally, the development contradicts zoning information and violates Homeowners Association (HOA) covenants, of which I am a member committed to upholding for the neighborhood's safety and well-being.Our decision to settle in this mature neighborhood was based on the expectation of a tranquil environment free from disruptions associated with such large-scale construction. We believed the remaining lots in the neighborhood were designated for single-family housing. The proposed condo development threatens to undermine the essence of our neighborhood. Many neighbors share these concerns, seeking to preserve our community's unique character. I request your support in opposing this development to prioritize the safety and well-being of our community. Thank you for your attention, and I trust you will make the right decision for the betterment of our neighborhood.
James
37922
2-A-24-CP
James (37922), February 6, 2024 at 10:34 AM
I oppose the Advance Knox" in its current form, until safety/traffic/over development are addressed. Jefferson Park is adversely affected by the nonstop development of our area.
Gary
37922
2-B-24-DP
Gary (37922), January 25, 2024 at 2:24 PM
I am again writing in opposition to the proposed rezoning request. Please see attachment.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240125142441.pdf
Courtnay
37738
2-B-24-DP
Courtnay (37738), February 6, 2024 at 11:17 AM
I am writing in opposition of the proposed condominium project in Gettysvue. My parents have been homeowners in the neighborhood since 1997; my husband & I being the subsequent responsible party for their property, as they are aging, hence the interest in said project. I will not write an epistle here, but would like to make a few concerning points:
1. The aesthetic of this building does not fit the surrounding architecture of homes. Gettysvue is a neighborhood heralded with stunning homes and beautiful views. A building detracts from both, which brings me to point #2.
2. Property values will likely suffer. As in many housing markets, property values ebb and flow, thus adapt. With a permanent building comes the likelihood of a permanent decrease. I think of it in similarly to a home that gets the short end of imminent domain for a road expansion or cell tower installation. Those folks aren’t recovering.
3. I’ll lump my next concerns into 1 point, as they are likely to be perceived as emotional or unfounded: traffic management and stability of the ground. I’m sure you’re aware that a home adjacent to this proposed property actually did have a foundation issue due to the caves and caverns that sit below. How will a building or “complex” of this type affect the stability of the ground for existing properties?
2-B-24-SP
Bob (37932), January 25, 2024 at 9:33 PM
This 112-acre tract is heavily wooded and very steep from W. Gallaher Ferry Road down to Melton Hill Reservoir. There is no sewer service within a mile of the tract and water service is minimal since most of the tracts on W. Gallaher Ferry Road are served by groundwater/wells. The road is very narrow with no shoulders and just last summer a garbage truck was totally destroyed when it rolled off the road trying to pass an oncoming vehicle. Increased traffic on this narrow winding dead-end road will just magnify the hazards to all the users. Developers these days cut every tree to maximize profits and even with two units per acre this particular site will become a runoff nightmare right into Melton Hill Reservoir. Approval of this request would allow 220+ new homes in an area designated as "Rural" with "Hillside Protection" and "Stream Protection". As an engineer, I have developed land throughout the southeast and in my experience this particular tract of land cannot reasonably support this level of intense development. The poor road access, minimal utilities, steep topography, and environmental damage to the community are the key reasons to deny this request.
2-E-24-RZ
Bob (37932), January 25, 2024 at 9:35 PM
This 112-acre tract is heavily wooded and very steep from W. Gallaher Ferry Road down to Melton Hill Reservoir. There is no sewer service within a mile of the tract and water service is minimal since most of the tracts on W. Gallaher Ferry Road are served by groundwater/wells. The road is very narrow with no shoulders and just last summer a garbage truck was totally destroyed when it rolled off the road trying to pass an oncoming vehicle. Increased traffic on this narrow winding dead-end road will just magnify the hazards to all the users. Developers these days cut every tree to maximize profits and even with two units per acre this particular site will become a runoff nightmare right into Melton Hill Reservoir. Approval of this request would allow 220+ new homes in an area designated as "Rural" with "Hillside Protection" and "Stream Protection". As an engineer, I have developed land throughout the southeast and in my experience this particular tract of land cannot reasonably support this level of intense development. The poor road access, minimal utilities, steep topography, and environmental damage to the community are the key reasons to deny this request.
David
37922
2-A-24-CP
David (37922), February 6, 2024 at 12:42 PM
Here we go again. The same issues that a significant number of homeowners in the area have voiced concern over still remain. Our infrastructure is nowhere near capable of supporting this continuing push for growth. Roads remain narrow with no shoulder, traffic volume is already at an all time high. This has made exiting neighborhoods, especially turning left, incredibly dangerous during peak traffic times. Please have the courage to vote no.
Mike
37922
2-A-24-CP
Mike (37922), February 6, 2024 at 12:48 PM
Hello - I oppose the advance knox agenda for our part of town. The infrastructure is too far behind to handle more development west of Pellissippi in it's current state. We're talking about single lane roads that are already plagued with traffic, downed power lines, accidents and overwhelming congestion during parks and baseball season. It's dangerous and can't be considered until we have more schools, police/fire/ambulance support, and better roads. We're landlocked to leave farragut thru the single lane tunnel at Boyd station/Mcfee/Virtue, or thru the roundabout at campbell station, so any further development before that is changed is dangerous to anyone living here. Please reconsider -- voters are watching and waiting to see how you all handle this responsibility, and whether or not we're taken seriously considering many of the folks who are in charge of this decision don't reside anywhere near us. Please consider this plea as an ask for help by voting this down. Thank you.
Debbie
7922
2-B-24-DP
Debbie (7922), January 26, 2024 at 2:29 PM
Please do not approve the High rise, high density condominium project proposed to be built in Gettysvue. The HOA board that ensures compliance with the neighborhood covenants is opposed to this project, in addition to the overwhelming majority of neighbors living in the Gettysvue community. This high-rise high density project does not fit the form and character of a single-family Community. The project also does not comply with the HOA covenants and zoning. Everyone I have spoken with in our neighborhood is adamantly opposed. In addition, there is already three separate high-rise, high density apartment complexes within a one minute drive of this neighborhood. Please do not approve this project. The intention of the original zoning, and the will of the majority of neighbors should not be overturned.
Larry
37923
2-A-24-CP
Larry (37923), February 6, 2024 at 2:18 PM
Despite having property developed and creating more tax revenue, I wonder if there will be a tax apex— where road, water, schools, and public safety/ enforcement will bring more cost, and county income will begin to spiral downward .
Jack
22
2-B-24-DP
Jack (22), January 27, 2024 at 12:55 PM
Please see attached image of size comparison between proposed high-rise, high density, condominium project, and typical single-family homes in Gettysvue. The condominium buildings clearly do not fit the forum and character of the neighborhood. Eight out of 10 current Gettysvue HOA board members oppose the condominium project as well as the majority of residents living in single-family homes in the neighborhood. The project does not comply with the Gettysvue neighborhood HOA covenants. The project does not comply with the county zoning.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240127125552.pdf
vijaykumar
37922
2-A-24-CP
vijaykumar (37922), February 6, 2024 at 2:42 PM
Need to resolve heavy traffic situations on the North Shore. very unsafe driving conditions. So I am against any development until traffic issue is resolved
richard
37922
2-B-24-DP
richard (37922), January 8, 2024 at 11:45 AM
The proposed development in my view violates the HOA guidelines that currently exist. When I purchased my home in 2018 and reviewed the HOA agreement plus discussed with IMS staff at the time, no where in the documents provide any discussion of a possible 4 story building. I am not against the Individual who owns the land to build single family homes per the HOA guidelines. Understanding the developer owned the lots and then sold or legally transferred them to himself personally. This legal transfer makes him a lot owner subject to the rules and only allows him to build a single family home. Realizing the lot is 4+ acres it seems reasonable to build multiple single family homes on the land using an average lot size. Gettysvue is advertised as a luxury country club community and a 4 story condo building doesn’t fir both the image and the HOA guidelines in my personal opinion. Additionally, I would encourage the County to perform a water drainage study to assure the increased hardscape area doesn’t cause flooding or other water issues.
Kathy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Kathy (37922), January 27, 2024 at 3:59 PM
Please do not approve this request to build two four story apartment style buildings in the middle of Gettysvue. These type of buildings belong in a more commercial area but certainly not in a residential neighborhood. This development would not be appropriate for any neighborhood in Knoxville and we are depending on the wisdom of the MPC to not allow this to begin.
Brennan
37922
2-B-24-DP
Brennan (37922), January 27, 2024 at 10:40 PM
This proposed project absolutely does not fit within community guidelines. When I moved into Gettysvue, it was certainly not with an understanding that condominiums were even a remote possibility. This proposed project causes many concerns, including increased traffic, environmental impact, and does not fit within the community guidelines of lot usage. Please help us maintain the beauty of our community and deny this proposal.
2-B-24-DP
Ed (37922), January 27, 2024 at 10:50 PM
I want to register my opposition to the revised building permit request for Gettysvue. The request is still proposing the Building of four-story condominium units that do not fit in to a neighborhood of single-family homes. This appears to be a matter of greed to maximize the number of units on a limited space. Therefore request that the planning commission again turned down the request for the proposed building permits.
Cathleen
37922
2-B-24-DP
Cathleen (37922), January 27, 2024 at 10:55 PM
I oppose the new proposal for an apartment complex in a residential area. The proposal of a 40-unit condo:/apartment does not fit into our community. We do not have the entrance and exits for 80 more cars. The four story buildings will change the landscape of our community.
Beth
37922
2-B-24-DP
Beth (37922), January 28, 2024 at 5:47 AM
I respectfully ask that the Knoxville MPC please deny this building application. I have full trust that the KMPC will again recognize that a high-rise, multi-dwelling development in the middle of a well-established neighborhood is unacceptable. I have lived in Gettysvue Subdivision for 14 years and our home is near this proposed development. The thought of high-rise apartments, which is what this would look like, towering above homes that have been established for 20-30 years is unconscionable. The residents of Gettysvue recognize that Mr. Watkins owns this property, and we do not oppose development that is congruent and respectful of the neighborhood. High-rise, multi-dwelling structures are simply not suitable for this space. I humbly ask for your support to save our neighborhood from this proposal.
2-B-24-DP
l (37922), January 28, 2024 at 7:04 AM
The homeowners care about the community. Please vote no to maintain the integrity of a single home neighborhood. This huge building would be an eye sore solely to profit a few, degrade the appearance and integrity of an area that is supposed to be a community with outdoor space. There is too much traffic, water issues, limited parking, crowded pools, etc. These structures belong in the city, not a county outdoor single family home residence. Please vote no and help maintain integrity during knoxville's growth.
Steve
37922
2-B-24-DP
Steve (37922), January 28, 2024 at 7:37 AM
As a resident of Gettysvue, I strongly oppose this project. This project is trying to squeeze an apartment-style complex into a neighborhood of single-family homes. These apartment-style buildings will most certainly lower the value of the surrounding neighborhood properties. The builder doesn’t care about the final appeal of the neighborhood, if they did they would build single-family homes on the site that match the fit and function of the other neighborhood homes. This is an issue of an overzealous developer seeing this project coming to an end and now they are trying to screw over the neighbors who already own their properties. This is a well-established neighborhood and these buildings have no place here.
Brooke
37922
2-B-24-DP
Brooke (37922), January 28, 2024 at 7:48 AM
Please do not consider Ron’s proposal of allowing this many condos to be put in a low residence housing community. There are too many people that will be affected. Between traffic, where the water runoff will go with the grading. It is still too many condos he is wanting to put in our community! Thank you
2-B-24-DP
Jan (37922), January 28, 2024 at 8:02 AM
As a 22 year resident of Gettysvue I am strongly opposed to Mr Watkins and his plans to build apartment-like dwelling in our community. Gettysvue is not zoned for multi-family usage. We are a quiet, beautiful neighborhood of single-family homes and the residents want to keep it that way. With “apartment-like” dwellings towering over the single-family homes, it takes away from the original fit and form of our neighborhood that was established many years ago. The community already has drainage issues as well as overcrowded streets that are very narrow. We do not need more cars in the community. We want residents and children to be safe. Please do not approve the request for this project. It will have a negative effect on our community. This project will have a negative impact on property values and neighborhood aesthetics as well as everyday living.
Lawrence
37934
2-A-24-CP
Lawrence (37934), February 6, 2024 at 4:26 PM
NO to Advance Knox! Keep Knoxville a place for families. Keep our county structured around single family home ownership, which supports a STABLE community. High density housing will destroy our community and transform it into something we don't want. The developers will make lots of money, and the taxpayers will bear the burden of dealing with their mess for years to come. Infrastructure MUST PRECEDE development. Developers MUST PAY for the additional infrastructure and services related to their activities. Citizens first, not developers first.
Kathleen
3792
2-B-24-DP
Kathleen ( 3792), January 28, 2024 at 8:59 AM
I again say that this project is not in keeping with our Gettsview neighborhood.It will lower property values to surrounding homes as well as increase the level of noise and traffic and overall enjoyment of otherwise peaceful environment. I ask you to please consider this wonderful area and not vote for such a large and disruptive plan.
Lauren
37922
2-A-24-CP
Lauren (37922), February 6, 2024 at 4:40 PM
Advance Knox MUST be voted down. The county cannot grow the population by 70,000 people in ten years without placing an undue burden on taxpayers. Our area already suffers from unsafe, overcrowded roads that directly impact our lives. The number of times that Northshore and Choto are closed/backed up due to automobile accidents (some fatal) have become alarming, and I wonder if I had to rush my husband (a Disabled Veteran) to the hospital, would we even make it in time?? Further, our local hospitals already have dangerously long wait times, and they cannot keep up with the dramatic population growth advocated by Advance Knox. Moreover, the need for additional schools, additional fire and ambulance service, additional road work and additional police services that the increased population advocated by Advance Knox would mandate would raise everyones' taxes to a level that would be difficult for some but untenable for many. You need only look at Nashville to see "what not to do". We strongly considered moving to Franklin several years ago to be closer to family, but their failure to consider the ramifications of an unsustainable growth plan have resulted in a drastic reduction in overall quality of life in that town. Please stop this madness before we reach a tipping point from which our economy, our safety and our collective quality of life cannot recover.
Travis
37922
2-B-24-DP
Travis (37922), January 28, 2024 at 9:34 AM
The proposed use is too dense for the existing neighborhood and road infrastructure currently in place. Gettysvue Country Club proximity to the proposed development is also a concern regarding increased traffic, parking, and pedestrian traffic in the area. GCC hosts several events throughout the year which increase pedestrian traffic in and around the club. A development of this density will increase traffic by several multiples and will result in accidents.
Lisa
37934
2-A-24-CP
Lisa (37934), February 6, 2024 at 4:42 PM
As a community, we have reached a critical tipping point. The Knoxville metro region simply cannot sustain the current rate of development without adaquate infrastructure. For example, with the current increase in population and demands for emergency services Rural Metro/AMR is already stretched thin. Consequently, AMR is unable to consistently manage emergency response calls in a timely manner. I have personally experienced this on two different occasions and it was very frightening. The alarming debt and unsustainable business model(s) of Rural Metro/AMR is another cause for concern. The overcrowded schools and dangerous roads are a few of the many reasons to vote against this proposal. Please preserve this beautiful community and carefully guide its future.
Martin
37922
2-B-24-DP
Martin (37922), January 28, 2024 at 9:59 AM
This is a DANGEROUS undertaking by Ron Watkins! When this neighborhood was planned a decision was made (most likely a financial one) to not build sidewalks. When residents walk in the neighborhood they must walk on the roads. Everyday I see my neighbors out walking and enjoying the area. My wife walks along Gettysvue nearly every day. Additionally, and extremely concerning, I see kids walking home from the nearby school. The additional traffic generated by adding 40 condos and 80 vehicles will put us all at risk. Not to mention the construction traffic that will go on for years. Gettysvue is primarily single-family homes. These four-story condo buildings would be out of character with the neighborhood and would diminish the beauty of our community. The lots should be considered for additional single-family homes, not condos. The condo development violates the covenants of our neighborhood which require one single family residence per lot. This will likely cause additional problems with flooding and run-off due to slope of the land. I vehemently ask you to deny this zoning request! Please put the concerns of the residents over the greed of one individual.
2-B-24-DP
Mac (37922), January 8, 2024 at 1:28 PM
I am opposed to the planned high-rise development. Previous plans included 60 units for the 3.9 acres in 1999. A new plan was approved by the commission in 2003 for 19 single family homes which replaced the 1999 submittal according to the staff recommendation review in 2023. The plan for single family homes would have gone unopposed by the residents of Gettysvue primarily because this plan would have been harmonious to the adjacent homes and would closely adhere to the density of up to 3 du/ac versus the new proposal of 10.3 du/ac. The issue is primarily the height of the proposed 2 high-rise buildings. The renderings show the height 3 stories above ground with an additional 12 feet of exposed garage on the north side. This computes to more than twice the height of the existing contiguous homes. I respectfully request your denial of the proposed land use for the high-rises as submitted.
GVHOA
37922
2-B-24-DP
GVHOA (37922), January 28, 2024 at 10:05 AM
See attached.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240128100509.pdf
George
37922
2-A-24-CP
George (37922), February 6, 2024 at 5:16 PM
Advance Knox claims it will reduce traffic because the mini-cities provide everything, they will not provide employment in the mini-city so traffic will greatly increase Rural Metro cannot keep up with Advance Knox Ambulance service cannot keep up with Advance Knox A Knox County Fire Department is a huge property tax increase and a increase in homeowners and renters insurance A Knox County Ambulance service is a huge property tax increase and a increase in homeowners and renters insurance The new schools are huge property tax increase The new roads and fixing old roads are a huge property tax increase The county cannot grow 70,000 people in ten years without breaking the taxpayer These same roads are overbuilt now, more overbuilding will cost lives (Choto proves this) Hospitals cannot keep up with Advance Knox, ER waits are very dangerous now Building mini-cities in the rural country side will bring low income housing and force KAT bus service county wide for a giant property tax increase Nashville did this and a ten minute trip is now an hour, how does that help businesses, quality of life, and public safety?
Rhonda
37922
2-B-24-DP
Rhonda (37922), January 28, 2024 at 10:20 AM
On behalf of my husband and I, we oppose the proposed zoning request to build 2 high rise buildings of 20 condos per building in the Gettysvue neighborhood. We feel that Gettysvue will not be able to handle any more traffic. The buildings would be out of scale with the surrounding homes. Drainage and sewers will be affected, causing overload of the stormwater runoff structures. There are many residents who walk/jog daily and the increased traffic would make this dangerous area for all, especially for children, as there are no sidewalks and the streets have blind curves. We are concerned that this project will severely impact the value and livability of our home. We encourage the developer to build single family homes to keep the integrity of our neighborhood.
Michael
37922
2-B-24-DP
Michael (37922), January 28, 2024 at 10:32 AM
SUPPORT of the Gettysvue Villas Development
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240128103233.pdf
Julie
37803
2-B-24-DP
Julie (37803), January 28, 2024 at 11:06 AM
We are members of the country club. As we have driven through the Gettysvue neighborhood many times, we have noticed a lot of cars parking on the streets which creates a lot of congestion. Adding 40 more units to this established neighborhood in the form of condos or apartments will only create more congestion. Additionally, this makes it very unsafe for pedestrians. The condos / apartments are not fitting for the established neighborhood and will be an eyesore to all homeowners as well as members of the country club. Lastly, as all owners of homes in the neighborhood are required to be members of the country club, this will create a strain on the resources (buildings and facilities) of the club.
Brian
37922
2-B-24-DP
Brian (37922), January 28, 2024 at 11:21 AM
While this proposal is less impactful on traffic than the previous proposal, the design is still too tall and obtrusive to the neighborhood. It does not fit with the form or feel of the neighboring dwellings that have been developed over the past 25 years. I would love to see this area developed with single family homes or townhouses but it would be much better for it to blend with the surrounding area aesthetically.
Adam
37922
2-B-24-DP
Adam (37922), January 28, 2024 at 11:50 AM
This, much like the last plan, is poorly thought out and does not match the aesthetic of one of ‘s premier neighborhoods and clubs. This request and others like it should immediately be denied.
Ralph
37922
2-B-24-DP
Ralph (37922), January 28, 2024 at 12:07 PM
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed construction of high density housing in our community. Our zoning in this community does not allow for high density housing. As a homeowner near this location I do want to have to endure the additional traffic and noise this property would create.
Robert
37922
2-A-24-CP
Robert (37922), February 6, 2024 at 6:25 PM
I am voicing my objection to this agenda. As with anyone who lives in the Choto area can agree how bad the traffic has become. Along with the increase is also more dangerous situations. To increase the density and overbuild is irresponsible. It cannot handle it. I doubt anyone voting for this lives in the area.
James
37922
2-B-24-DP
James (37922), January 28, 2024 at 12:28 PM
PLEASE END THE MADNESS. After the planning commission so rightly denied the original application for three condo units, Mr. Watkins has resurfaced to apply for two condo units in our single-family home neighborhood. This proposal remains totally unacceptable, and is completely out of place in GettysVue. There are many reasons why this project must be stopped: Condo buildings out of character and incompatible with the neighborhood, storm water runoff problems, a dangerous increase in traffic on already congested roads near a school zone, decrease in existing home values, etc. THIS PROPOSAL MUST BE SOUNDLY REJECTED! Thank you for your support in defeating this egregious attempt for a few people to enrich themselves at the expense of hundreds of neighbors.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240128122843.pdf
2-B-24-DP
C. (37922), January 28, 2024 at 12:30 PM
PLEASE REJECT THIS APPLICATION! After the planning commission so rightly denied the original application for three condo units, Mr. Watkins has resurfaced to apply for two condo units in our single-family home neighborhood. This proposal remains totally unacceptable, and is completely out of place in GettysVue. There are many reasons why this project must be stopped: Condo buildings out of character and incompatible with the neighborhood, storm water runoff problems, a dangerous increase in traffic on already congested roads near a school zone, decrease in existing home values, etc. THIS PROPOSAL MUST BE SOUNDLY REJECTED! Thank you for your support in defeating this egregious attempt for a few people to enrich themselves at the expense of hundreds of neighbors.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240128123044.pdf
Christina
37922
2-B-24-DP
Christina (37922), January 28, 2024 at 12:40 PM
Here we go again! Why must this man have a multi family property in a neighborhood of single family dwellings…. GREED! This property will cause major hardships within the neighborhood! There is no more room for anymore traffic! We are built to the maximum here! There will be no more green space left in the neighborhood! Why can’t he do what everyone else has done? Build a single family home and sell it for a million dollars?!? Why…. Because he’s greedy! It will not bring anymore money into golf course because no one will buy them! It is visually unappealing area for condos what is there to look at but single family homes…. no views equals no condos sold! Then we are stuck with the eyesore in our beautiful neighborhood! It disgusts me that this property owner doesn’t seem to care about the havoc he is causing this neighborhood and causing to each and every homeowner have to fight him! It is costing us so much time and money to fight him and his buddies at the golf course! The golf course should understand the more they get involved the more they are alienating their neighbors! If they persist then I recommend we start canceling golf memberships immediately! Please deny this request to build this monstrosity in our beautiful neighborhood!
Todd
37922
2-B-24-DP
Todd (37922), January 28, 2024 at 1:02 PM
The proposed construction is not consistent with the area surrounding it or to similar condo/duplex developments that are part of Gettysvue. I request the commission deny this proposal and offer construction guidance that would be consistent with the existing neighborhood.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240128130250.pdf
Jennifer
idges
2-A-24-CP
Jennifer (idges), February 6, 2024 at 9:23 PM
My family does not want the Advance Knox plan to pass. We do not want to add more housing and development in Knoxville. We can’t support what we already have and adding more infrastructure requires more taxes. Our traffic has gotten terrible. Everyone loves this city because it is rural with a touch of city opportunities. We don’t want to live in a big city. We don’t want to add housing and businesses to allow us to add to our population. Knoxville is already less appealing than it was 10 years ago. If it continues to grow and develop, my family and all of my soon to be adult children will be moving out of the county to a more rural and pleasant county.
Andrew
37922
2-A-24-CP
Andrew (37922), February 6, 2024 at 9:34 PM
Advance Knox is terrible for the citizens of Knoxville and Knox County. I strongly oppose!
Teresa
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Teresa (37932), February 6, 2024 at 10:14 PM
I do not support this proposed action as it will harm the Covered Bridge property. Please stop over developing Hardin Valley
Elizabeth
37922
2-A-24-CP
Elizabeth (37922), February 6, 2024 at 10:20 PM
Advance Knox is bad for the Northshore/Choto area until major infrastructure improvements are made to the roads into and out off this area, school overcrowding is addressed, adequate updates are made to fire and ambulance service etc. We have lived in this area since 2005 and have witnessed the growth with no real improvements made to the infrastructure, and it is far too dangerous to the citizens of this area to let unregulated growth continue in this area. Growth is inevitable, but it needs to be done with the proper planning. Please have the fortitude to do what is right for those of us who live in this area and vote no on this proposal as it is.
James
37922
2-B-24-DP
James (37922), January 28, 2024 at 4:03 PM
I object to the high rise development. Violates covenant and restrictions of HOA. Will worsen traffic on Westland and by the elementary school. Does not fit the community. Increase risk to residents due to traffic in the subdivision (inside walks, narrow roads. Please deny
Kelly
37922
2-A-24-CP
Kelly (37922), February 6, 2024 at 11:26 PM
I vehemently oppose Advance Knox. We do NOT have the infrastructure to support this. We lack proper roads as is to accommodate the amount of cars already on the road in the area. They are dangerous and one accident blocks the area for hours at a time, in some cases. The schools/buses are already crowded. The fire department and emergency services are understaffed as it is. Please vote NO to the Advanced Knox project.
Kurt
37922
2-B-24-DP
Kurt (37922), January 28, 2024 at 5:00 PM
We are residents of Gettysvue living down the hill from this proposed project. For the reasons covered by many others in these comments, we strongly oppose this 40 unit high rise project which does not fit on this site or in this neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.
Nick
37922
2-A-24-CP
Nick (37922), February 6, 2024 at 11:30 PM
I strongly oppose Advance Knox project.. The existing infrastructure is inadequate to support more homes. We lack proper roads as is to accommodate the amount of existing cars on the road in our area. The buses are already crowded and schools are at capacity .The emergency services are understaffed as it is and puts everyone in jeopardy that need them but can't utilize them at this time. Please vote NO to the Advanced Knox project.
Emily
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Emily (37932), January 28, 2024 at 5:01 PM
This development would not meet the Rural Living Zoning in the Advance Knox Proposal. The current roads are narrow with no shoulder, this area has no sewer service, and this area has Hilltop and Stream Protections. This area is not suited for this type of development. Please do not allow this area to be developed and destroy what little rural, protected area there is left.
Madison
37922
2-A-24-CP
Madison (37922), February 6, 2024 at 11:42 PM
I am opposed to the Advanced Knox for several reasons. SAFETY first.... which have been ignored. With the recent snowfall, it took days for Knox County to clear the roads on and around the Northshore/Harvey area. Roads remain narrow and are dangerous. Adding additional development/traffic is a detrimental, avoidable catastrophe waiting to happen. Can Rural Metro keep up with Advance Knox? Can the Ambulance service keep up with Advance Knox? Would a new Knox County Fire Department be a large property tax increase? Would new Knox County schools be a large property tax increase? Would new roads and fixing old roads be a large property tax increase? How can Hospitals keep up with Advance Knox? ER waits are very dangerous now. You cannot just rubber stamp development approval, the above concerns need to be addressed! Please consider what this will do to the community and their safety!
Jerome
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Jerome (37932), January 28, 2024 at 5:02 PM
I agree with others that this rezoning request is a blatant disregard for the upcoming Advance Knox planning. This development would not meet the Rural Living Zoning in the Advance Knox Proposal that this property is obviously meant for. Hardin Valley can't handle the growth we have experienced over the last several years, how can you intelligently approve more and continue to rezone areas that only benefit big money developers and ignore the wishes of the community residents? We need to prioritize conservation of green areas rather than continue to destroy them for cheaply built, overpriced homes.
Robert
37922
2-A-24-CP
Robert (37922), February 6, 2024 at 11:47 PM
No more building -- at least until the county provides adequate infrastructure. The traffic west on Northshore to Choto and beyond has increased dramatically in the last four years to the point that travel has become increasingly dangerous. As soon as you pass Concord circle, lighting is poor roads are narrow and emergency vehicles cannot get to victims of an accident. Boyd-Station and Virtue are also narrow two lane roads with no shoulder and increasing danger and striping that is faded with no reflectors. The Kroger at Brooklawn has been told to prepare for ten thousand more customers a week when the over 900 apartments open in the late spring. This area is rural and until the road infrastructure can be addressed no zoning change should be approved. I challenge this board to drive at night in this area- better yet try it in the rain when you can barely see the road markings. I also would ask that you think of it as if you lived in the area or it was your family members safety at risk! Vote No for Advance Knox!
Edward
37922
2-B-24-DP
Edward (37922), January 28, 2024 at 7:16 PM
Opposition. These comments by another resident are very succinct and valid--
- The amount of construction traffic will be a detriment and danger to the children of the neighborhood for years to come, as well as anyone wanting to walk
- The increased traffic along the streets after completion of the condos/apartments will make the streets unsafe for walking (there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood)
- The proposed structures are very large and imposing and do not look like they fit in the neighborhood
- The proposed buildings would disrupt rainwater flow at the bottom of a hill that historically floods
- There is a network of caves beneath the proposed site
- The school population at AL Lotts is strained already.
Celina
37922
2-A-24-CP
Celina (37922), February 6, 2024 at 11:50 PM
Please vote NO for Advance Knox. My family as well as everyone else in the area lives do matter and the current infrastructure is lacking for existing residents let alone any more that move in. The schools, roads, emergency services are all inadequate for us. Please vote against more homes /advance Knox.
John
37932
2-E-24-RZ
John (37932), January 28, 2024 at 7:37 PM
This property is slated as rural and should remain as such. This area cannot handle anymore development the infrastructure is not there. There is no sewage access to the property. Most of it is unusable without extreme restructuring of the land. These decisions are being made unjustly and without investigation we need no more developments in this area until you as a committee implement proper infrastructure and support for the development you wish to build. Or approve to build. We don’t need more traffic circles and subdivision entrances. We need proper infrastructure BEFORE you approach building
2-A-24-CP
Joe (37922), February 6, 2024 at 11:51 PM
Please do not approve the Advance Knox plan for any development, expansion or construction based upon the demographic information provided by census.gov that the density of the Farragut area is 1471.1 per square mile as compared to Knox County being 942.2, a 50% higher density. Currently the infrastructure and roads will not support any more development. The roads on the west side of the county are so narrow that the edge of the lane is the edge of the roadway, and while the surface is good, the edges have begun to deterorate. The roads of Northshore and Choto/Harvey have poor to no markings, reflectors, and any lighting. With the addition of the Biddle Farm adding Brooklawn Apartments there is a serious issue of safety, both near the high school and to the adjoining roads where emergency vehicles can not get too in a timely manner to render aid to accidents and downed trees.
Brad
37922
2-B-24-DP
Brad (37922), January 28, 2024 at 8:14 PM
This project has been ill-conceived and re-constituted with no value to the county from the beginning. The serious downsides of this project far outweigh any kind of justification for its approval. It is a development overreach in density, design and construction accommodations that are laughable at best, and a gross disregard for the community at worst. I appreciate very much the work of the MPC. And I don’t envy the work of this Commission in deciding on projects of this kind. However this one contains no redemptive value to this community, and nothing but downside risk to the county’s future. Please do the right thing and deny this project once and for all.
Ashley
37922
2-A-24-CP
Ashley (37922), February 6, 2024 at 11:53 PM
I oppose Advance Knox and ask that all elected officials listen to the community and vote NO against more homes in the area. Our infrastructure is lacking as is and this would only further degrade it. Roads, schools and our emergency services are beyond capacity and need additional support for the existing residents.
Debra
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Debra (37932), January 28, 2024 at 8:17 PM
I concur with everything Bob has mentioned. As an unwilling recipient of runoff from a “reasonable” development (by whose standards?), the long lasting impact of this can never be undone. This area is NOT Farragut, but it’s exactly what developers and planning commissions are turning it into. This area cannot handle any further development and population growth! Enough!
Haley
37922
2-A-24-CP
Haley (37922), February 7, 2024 at 12:00 AM
I strongly oppose Advance Knox and ask that it does NOT pass. We have recently seen where the area is not properly supported with infrastructure. Examples including the 2 lanes of Northshore and any accidents that occur can shut it down for hours. The snow we recently got had us blocked in our neighborhood for 9 days due to Harvey not being treated. Thank God we didn't need any emergency medical attention during that time. The schools and buses are over capacity now and the additional homes would be detrimental to the services available. I kindly ask that you vote NO against Advance Knox.
Jean
37922
2-B-24-DP
Jean (37922), January 28, 2024 at 8:57 PM
Again, I write hoping to stop this development. This neighborhood cannot take on this number of new residents and maintain a safe traffic pattern. The streets are already crowded and difficult to navigate when cars are parked on the street, not to mention times when golf tournaments and major events happen at the club house. This will also affect nearby neighborhoods. I hope you will really give this serious consideration so that we can avoid these Traffic congestion and safety issues.
Sherry
37922
2-A-24-CP
Sherry (37922), February 7, 2024 at 12:06 AM
My family and I strongly oppose this is plan. It is dangerous to public safety and health and will cause more problems than already exist with lack of infrastructure. Here are a few concerns: Can Rural Metro keep up with Advance Knox? Can the Ambulance service keep up with Advance Knox? Would a new Knox County Fire Department be a large property tax increase? Would new Knox County schools be a large property tax increase? Would new roads and fixing old roads be a large property tax increase? How can Hospitals keep up with Advance Knox? ER waits are very dangerous now. I hope this will not move forward and that each elected official vote NO against Advance Knox!
Catrina
37922
2-B-24-DP
Catrina (37922), January 28, 2024 at 11:06 PM
I am strongly opposed to the development of any condos in our neighborhood. We ready have issue with traffics flow on Ebenezer and Westland entrances, they are almost impossible to get out of. There is not enough parking at the club already. This increase in traffic would be almost fatal to anyone walking, riding bikes or jogging in the neighborhood as we don’t have sidewalks already. The value of our homes will decrease and the beauty of our established neighborhood and those around us will be compromised as well. In the summer the pools will be over crowed, the golf course will be impacted tremendously. We moved into this neighborhood because of its ease and amenities offered without having the over crowding. If we had wanted to live in a neighborhood with multiple condos we would have bought elsewhere. We really looked forward to raising our family here. Not in an overcrowded high rise half neighborhood half houses. Please consider the families with young child, older children and older couples who live here for the peacefulness.
Noah
37922
2-A-24-CP
Noah (37922), February 7, 2024 at 12:11 AM
I vehemently oppose The Advance Knox plan. When thinking about the lack of existing infrastructure to support current residents, I have several concerns:
1.) Can Rural Metro keep up with Advance Knox?
2.) Can the Ambulance service keep up with Advance Knox?
3.) Would a new Knox County Fire Department be a large property tax increase?
4.) Would new Knox County schools be a large property tax increase?
5.) Would new roads and fixing old roads be a large property tax increase?
6.) How can Hospitals keep up with Advance Knox? ER waits are very dangerous now and I have personally waited several hours to even be seen.
I hope this will not move forward and that our elected official vote NO against Advance Knox!
Timothy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Timothy (37922), January 28, 2024 at 11:48 PM
As a resident of the Gettysvue community, I am adamantly opposed to the rezoning and development of the proposed high-rise condominiums and urge the Knox County Planning Commission vote to deny this project. I am aware of the need in Knox County for additional housing due to unprecedented growth and I am not averse to housing and community development. However, the proposed condominium complex in the center of the Gettysvue community will create more problems than it solves as highlighted below. While the condominiums proposed appear to meet population density standards when averaged with the surrounding community of single-family homes, the population density of the condominium property area itself exceeds the guidelines as established by the county for placement within the center of the neighborhood. Simply put, they would be out of place practically, functionally and aesthetically. See attached for additional comments.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240128234810.pdf
Karla
37922
2-A-24-CP
Karla (37922), February 7, 2024 at 12:17 AM
Our voices need to be heard. The infrastructure is inadequate for the current population and adding more homes to the area only further jeopardizes the safety of everyone. The roads are narrow and dangerous. The schools are over crowded and buses are 3 to a seat already. The emergency services are unable to attend to the current rate of needs. Our appointed, elected officials need to vote NO against the Advanced Knox Plan
Mary
37922
2-B-24-DP
Mary (37922), January 28, 2024 at 11:51 PM
As a resident of the Gettysvue community, I am adamantly opposed to the rezoning and development of the proposed high-rise condominiums and urge the Knox County Planning Commission vote to deny this project. However, the proposed condominium complex in the center of the Gettysvue community will create more problems than it solves. See attachment for additional comments.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240128235132.pdf
Colin
37922
2-A-24-CP
Colin (37922), February 7, 2024 at 12:24 AM
This plan MUST be stopped for the sake of everyone's safety. The infrastructure is lacking and should be addressed before ANY further developments take place. Roads are too narrow and with most only being single or 2 lanes, there's serious delays if an accident occurs (and sadly that happens often on Northshore.). The schools are beyond capacity and the school buses are over crowded. The emergency services are significantly impacted by this and I would ask that you think of your community members safety when you vote on this plan. Vote NO on this plan and spend more time and effort on improving the existing infrastructure!
Kellen
37931
2-E-24-RZ
Kellen (37931), January 29, 2024 at 7:18 AM
Please stop destroying our town with these massive neighborhoods. Our infrastructure is already at its max. The schools are full, the roads are too small, and traffic on Hardin Valley is often at a stand still. Before we start cramming more people in, please expand infrastructure.
Nele
37922
2-A-24-CP
Nele (37922), February 7, 2024 at 12:32 AM
Vote NO for this plan and consider improving the inadequate infrastructure that currently exists for the residents that would be affected by this plan. Additional homes in the area would only further jeopardizes the safety of our community. The roads are narrow and dangerous... Especially Northshore . The schools (and buses) are over crowded. The emergency services are unable to support the needs of today so you can only imagine how much more degraded that much needed services would be with more homes added. Our appointed, elected officials need to vote NO against the Advanced Knox Plan and seriously consider the safety of the members of the community!
2-B-24-DP
Mac (37922), January 29, 2024 at 8:39 AM
See Attached
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240129083940.pdf
Betty
37934
2-A-24-CP
Betty (37934), February 7, 2024 at 2:09 AM
Please vote down Advance Knox! We already have too much traffic, not enough hospital, ambulance or school capacity, so much noise and road rage from said traffic and too many angry and aggressive drivers. We already have watering restrictions…clearly, our infrastructure can’t currently handle what AK recommends. It would be impossible to bring in so many new people and provide the necessary infrastructure without raising property taxes drastically (again). So much of the current development is ruining current neighborhoods, causing incredible erosion as well as being aesthetically undesirable. Overdevelopment is already negatively affecting our way of life for the benefit of a few developers and politicians. They will be long gone to their new island homes while we are still here, wondering what hit us! Please don’t make it any worse. Vote down Advance Knox!!
2-B-24-DP
T (37922), January 29, 2024 at 8:41 AM
See Attached
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240129084128.pdf
Rebecca
37932
2-A-24-CP
Rebecca (37932), February 7, 2024 at 5:48 AM
Do not move this destructive agenda forward. Traffic is already horrific and services (hospitals, etc) are overrun with more than they can handle. We moved to Knox County so we wouldn't have to live in a densely populated area with poor services. Without the appropriate infrastructure, this expansion will ruin the quality of life for current residents who have built their lives here. There is no need to put the cart before the horse and encourage an influx of people that county services can't handle--you will ruin quality of life for the current taxpayers/residents. The only ones benefitting from this plan are the ones being paid off by developers and whoever else seeks to destroy everything around them--you'll be able to afford to move when the consequences are felt. For once listen to your constituents--I've yet to speak to a single resident in favor of any part of this. Vote against this plan for all the important reasons others have so eloquently described.
Concerned Homeowner
37922
2-B-24-DP
Concerned Homeowner (37922), January 29, 2024 at 9:36 AM
I oppose the proposed high-rise condo buildings in Gettysvue. The applicant is proposing a density of more than 10 units per acre, more than 3 times the maximum density allowed by the CCR's. The condo's will no doubt harm the current residence's property values for the following reasons: Safety concerns for pedestrians and walkers (Gettysvue Drive is sole ingress/egress - no sidewalks; Increase in drainage issues which already exist; The proposed 2 buildings are severely out of scale to the surrounding homes; No other subdivisions in Knoxville have high rise buildings within the boundaries of the property; Construction would create increased noise and construction traffic; A clear majority of the Gettysvue residents including the HOA oppose the proposed development. I am not opposed to developing the 3.9 acres with a development plan that complements and is harmonious to the existing homes in Gettysvue. Please vote to deny this project on Feb. 8
Jimmy
37922
2-B-24-DP
Jimmy (37922), January 29, 2024 at 11:37 AM
I believe the construction of the two buildings would be a detriment to the lives of the current residents of Gettysvue. As Previously mentioned, the additional traffic-strain on the infrastructure would create a huge problem and expense. I believe the many homes around the area for the two buildings would lose value. I am 18-year resident of Gettysvue, I urge you to vote NO on this project. Thank you.
Robert
37922
2-B-24-DP
Robert (37922), January 29, 2024 at 11:56 AM
I would like to voice my opposition to this project. I own property in the Gettysvue community just houses down from where this high rise is proposed to be built. As stated in the Gettysvue restrictive covenants each lot is to be utilized as a single family residence not exceeding over 2 1/2 stories high. The proposed villas will stand well over 48 feet which is twice the size of a 2 story house. The maximum density zoning for the community originally 1 to 3 units per acre would also be exceeded if this project is approved. In the past I have attended meetings regarding new multi-unit structures in our area and have always been told by the builder that the new building/s won’t impact traffic, utilities, drain off, etc but each time that is not the case. This will not only effect traffic within the immediate Gettysvue community it will effect major roadways and surrounding neighborhoods. Each unit will have two vehicles allowed which will potentially add 80 vehicles that are residents and that doesn’t include their visitors. The added residents will put a strain on both golf and social memberships leading to a strain on facilities and spots available for member events. Lastly letting this project move forward will cause a decrease in property value as soon as the construction begins. As a retire my property value has a direct impact on my future. Thank you for reading this submission and vote no to deny this project.
John
37922
2-A-24-CP
John (37922), February 7, 2024 at 9:05 AM
I have reviewed your planning documents, and no further developments should be considered until plans are developed to support infrastructure. It seems that the county’s planning commission and mayors office is not listening to its own constituents which elected them. Let’s see you develop a plan to support our existing issues,(roads, emergency services, schools, hospitals) before agreeing with developers to continue building more. Most importantly people do not want more crowded housing, congestion, delays in emergency responses. I do not support the approval of this proposal.
Marygaye
37922
2-B-24-DP
Marygaye (37922), January 29, 2024 at 12:16 PM
As a resident of Gettysvue, I strongly oppose the proposed two large condominium building project. The project does not fit the design and function of the Gettysvue Community. The buildings in question are too large in relationship to the surrounding single-family homes. The buildings due to their size would decrease the value of the surrounding homes. The project would also add additional traffic to neighborhood roads causing safety concerns for children and residents who walk on the community roads. The projected buildings would also exacerbate drainage issues that already cause problems to the surrounding area. For the above reasons, I respectfully ask the commission turn down the zoning and building request.
Cayla
37922
2-A-24-CP
Cayla (37922), February 7, 2024 at 9:48 AM
This is an irresponsible proposal. We already have too many people in the area to accommodate any further growth. Our roads, schools, and infrastructure in general cannot take on any further growth until the current issues of space and safety are addressed. I oppose this proposal.
Blake
37922
2-B-24-DP
Blake (37922), January 29, 2024 at 12:48 PM
My family is completely opposed to the revised zoning request to build two high rise buildings of 20 condos per building in the middle of Gettysvue Country Club because: 1) it violates the covenants of the neighborhood which requires one single family residence per lot; 2) totally does not fit in the neighborhood design, form, fit, and function; 3) will likely cause issues with flooding and run-off due to slope of the land; 4) Gettysvue is a well established neighborhood with multi million dollar homes surrounding the proposed development and property values will be negatively affected The school traffic is already terrible and A.L Lotts is absolutely over crowded due to the apartments that were built and this will only make things worse.
Phillip
37922
2-A-24-CP
Phillip (37922), February 7, 2024 at 9:59 AM
Let’s talk infrastructure. Some areas of west knox county do not have the infrastructure to support the already rapidly growing community. This plan does address infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure development is based on future revenue. This will add years of additional stress to local infrastructure before solutions are provided. The only person or group that benefits from this plan is the developers. They make money immediately. The infrastructure always lags behind. This plan is a non starter.
Alofa
37922
2-B-24-DP
Alofa (37922), January 29, 2024 at 1:05 PM
We live in the Gettysvue neighborhood and I am a concerned citizen who vehemently opposes the proposed multi-family development in the Gettysvue community, Clubhouse Villas. My home is located directly across from the proposed development. I have young children that still play outside with their friends and I am deeply concerned about years of construction, increased traffic volume and the overall impact to our neighborhood. I kindly ask that you stand with us in opposition to the proposed development. Reasons for opposition include, Violation of the Gettysvue restrictive covenants, violation of fit and form, Increased traffic and congestion, increased storm water flow to areas already experiencing flooding, density, decrease in property values is expected both during the construction period and after.
Constance
37922
2-A-24-CP
Constance (37922), February 7, 2024 at 10:56 AM
Good day, fellow Tennesseeans, in the two years I have been here, I have counted over 200 homes built JUST on the road on which I take walks. Slab after slab after slab stuffed into an area that should be one homesite. We are bursting at the seams in terms of traffic and not a day goes by where I don’t hear sirens rushing to the latest wreck. To get onto Westland, I sometimes have to wait 10 minutes or more just for space. How can adding so many more dwellings without the updates in infrastructure be a smart idea? Please please reconsider. We bought an already built dwelling so not to add to the building chaos here. At some point, Knoxville will turn from highly desirable to too much traffic, poor infrastructure and lack of cohesiveness. I’ve seen it happen where we used to live and are so sad to see it happening here now. You can stop this and or amend this.
2-E-24-RZ
Rob (37932), January 29, 2024 at 2:23 PM
steep from W. Gallaher Ferry Road down to Melton Hill Reservoir. There is no sewer service within a mile of the tract and water service is minimal since most of the tracts on W. Gallaher Ferry Road are served by groundwater/wells. The road is very narrow with no shoulders and just last summer a garbage truck was totally destroyed when it rolled off the road trying to pass an oncoming vehicle. Increased traffic on this narrow winding dead-end road will just magnify the hazards to all the users. Developers these days cut every tree to maximize profits and even with two units per acre this particular site will become a runoff nightmare right into Melton Hill Reservoir. Approval of this request would allow 220+ new homes in an area designated as "Rural" with "Hillside Protection" and "Stream Protection". As an engineer, I have developed land throughout the southeast and in my experience this particular tract of land cannot reasonably support this level of intense development. The poor road access, minimal utilities, steep topography, and environmental damage to the community are the key reasons to deny this request.
2-B-24-DP
J (37922), January 29, 2024 at 3:30 PM
We sincerely ask you again not to approve this project which is to construct high-rise condominiums with a density of up to 10.3 du/ac in the middle of our low-density community.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240129153041.pdf
David
37931
2-E-24-RZ
David (37931), January 29, 2024 at 4:31 PM
I support this rezoning. Additional people bring additional services, parks, greenways, and vehicle infrastructure. Hardin Valley needs people if residents want those things.
Donnie
37934
2-A-24-CP
Donnie (37934), February 7, 2024 at 12:59 PM
There is already too many people in the area to accommodate this proposal. Roads, schools, and infrastructure in general cannot take on any further growth until the current issues of space and safety are addressed. I fully oppose this proposal.
John
37922
2-B-24-DP
John (37922), January 29, 2024 at 4:53 PM
As a resident of the Gettysvue community and member of The Club at Gettysvue, I am opposed to the development of the proposed high rise condominium development. I urge the Planning Commission to vote to deny this project. From violation of restrictive covenants in its design and increased traffic in an already bustling neighborhood to exasperation of water drainage issues and undue strain on utilities, this project will create problems that can and should be avoided. I greatly appreciate and respect your attention to this matter.
Gavin
37922
2-B-24-DP
Gavin (37922), January 29, 2024 at 5:00 PM
I strongly oppose this building plan as it will directly affect my and my neighbors property values and way of life. I have 3 young children who will be put at risk every time they are outside as well with all the work trucks and heavy equipment that will be used in this type of project. The influx of people and traffic will also be a huge problem for safety in the neighborhood as there are no sidewalks in Gettysvue. This will probably lead to a mass exodus by many of the current residents which again will impact property values. Please take into consideration if this was your neighborhood and directly across the street from your house how it would negatively affect you and please vote no. There are many other places these could be built and not negatively affect Knoxville home owners. 
Michelle
37922
2-B-24-DP
Michelle (37922), January 29, 2024 at 5:06 PM
I am once again writing to voice my opposition to the building of any multi-level high density housing unit in Gettysvue. Despite their weak attempt to “tweak” their original plan, it appears to be only to deceive everyone into thinking it would resolve all the issues brought up by the majority of homeowners in the past - but it will have NO effect on the fact that it is against the covenant which stated single family dwelling homes only when we built in this community. Also it will NOT alleviate the far- reaching effects of increase traffic flow especially at the Westland entrance which will affect congestion at Lotts Elementary School , the increase use of utilities, clubhouse and facilities , obstruction of views from existing homes and the clubhouse , altering golf course and tennis court areas, and hurting current homeowners by decreasing our property values, mine being one of the first 3 original homes built . In fact it does NOT benefit anyone except Mr Watkins and his partners, and allows an entire neighborhood of over 200 homeowners( the majority of whom oppose this project ) to be controlled by 2 people who do not even live in the community. So I am asking you to deny approval of this entire project . 
Albert
37922
2-B-24-DP
Albert (37922), January 29, 2024 at 5:37 PM
"Second Verse Same as the First" is a tired refrain adopted by developer Ron Watkins. The zoning approval re-request by Ron Watkins for multi-family development in the Gettysvue community should be denied (the 11/9/2023 initial request was denied by the MPC). The core issues for the proposed development are unchanged.The multi-family dwellings are not in compliance with the Gettysvue restrictive covenants established in 5/1995. This development jeopardizes the safety of children engaged in nearby golf, tennis, or swimming, adds to the traffic congestion in/around Gettysvue, exacerbates current water drainage issues & flooding, further burdens the capacity of the Knox County school system, strains the capabilities of the Knox County public services/utilities, & disrupts the aesthetics of Gettysvue with a Watkins-themed Urban Blight. This is an ill-advised, poorly conceived proposal which should be soundly rejected.
2-B-24-DP
Roy (37922), January 29, 2024 at 7:23 PM
I and my wife oppose the building project. The design and density are not in keeping with the neighborhood development and would have a negative impact on the existing residents. The revised plan does not address the density issues or the traffic concerns of my neighbors. Please reject the proposal.
Rebecca
37922
2-B-24-DP
Rebecca (37922), January 29, 2024 at 7:38 PM
- A substantially similar project previously rejected.
- The revised proposal is not substantially different from the original in terms of size of the building. The buildings are HUGE compared to the existing homes in the neighborhood. There are single/ double family homes that have been built out. Adding a high rise apartment building in the middle of an existing, mature neighborhood is not appropriate.
- The density of the newly proposed buildings is still significantly higher than the approved 1-3 units/ acre. Aggregating available acreage from surrounding areas (including the golf course!) is disingenuous.
- The drawings with this application are misleading. Please make sure to carefully inspect the civil engineering drawings. They show the true elevation of the finished building, parking garage, and retaining wall.
2-B-24-DP
Rob (37919), January 8, 2024 at 7:36 PM
This is a horrible idea that completely ignores the needs and desires of property owners that have lived in the neighborhood for decades and paid an untold amount of property taxes to Knox Co. Simply listening to the constituents whose lives would be negatively impacted and not the minority of businessmen who would profit would make this an easy decision.
kimberly
37922
2-B-24-DP
kimberly (37922), January 29, 2024 at 7:46 PM
I am concerned and against the proposal for 40 condos being built and Gettysvue at the tennis court location. The current zoning is for 1 to 3 units per acre in that bar exceeds the current zoning. I am very concerned about the amount of traffic that will increase on Gettysvue Drive. Also, parking would be a huge deal with many people Likely parking along the street which is prohibited for an extended length of time. The height of the buildings is also concerned is that would be a visual distraction for those at the clubhouse. gettysvue is a completed neighborhood with established houses. No other neighborhood would like to entertain the idea of putting high-rise condos in the middle of an established neighborhood. Also, moving the tennis courts to the top of one of the golf range decreases the size and availability of the tennis courts itself as well as restricts some of the ease of use of the golf course. Please vote against this many condo units being built.
Kristen
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Kristen (37932), January 29, 2024 at 8:56 PM
West Gallaher Ferry is a very small windey road where in some place my husband's truck is too big for the lane. This road was not meant to withstand this much traffic. The property in question should remain as part of the hillside and stream protection act. This property is very steep. There have been other developments that have poured red clay into the lake. The lake is one of the few things left we have to enjoy in Hardin Valley. The last thing Hardin Valley needs is another development of cheaply built houses. We need parks and land to enjoy. There is not sewer on the road either which is another major reason not to approve this.
Jenny
37932
2-E-24-RZ
Jenny (37932), January 29, 2024 at 9:48 PM
Hardin Valley has been a beautiful, rural community with rolling green hills, horse and cattle farms, wild deer, foxes, coyotes, raccoons, owls, and hawks in abundance. The exponential growth of the last 5 years have resulted in the decline of—if not the near loss of— all of these. I understand progress will happen, and that is understandable and good. What is not good is when progress impedes protection. Most people living in Hardin Valley no longer feel protected or prioritized as citizens. We feel that our voices are not heard due to the greed of commissioners and developers who continue to eradicate the natural beauty and resources of our lovely community. Overcrowded schools, dangerously narrow roadways, excessive traffic, still no greenways, community parks or library, and inadequate power grid, sewage, and common infrastructure all contribute to the downfall of Hardin Valley. Please consider delaying future development until our community can support the growth.
Randy
37777
3-D-24-RZ
Randy (37777), February 23, 2024 at 12:13 PM
We own adjoining properties to this proposed development. I support improvements in the community but I have concerns regarding proposed 5 dwellings per acre. Wooddale is a narrow dead end road exiting onto a busy 2 lane state road. I feel the proposed density is excessive. Our property fronts this development and includes a natural spring. I’m also concerned with the environmental impact on the spring and the creek across the road.
John
37931
8-B-23-OA
John (37931), July 25, 2023 at 5:38 PM
I am fully in support of these changes. Far too often variances are required to rebuild identically to the surrounding houses and neighborhood. The current zoning ordinance is designed for larger .25 acre lots and is not consistent with the fact that most older neighborhoods have 50' widths. There has been substantial investment and vetting of these changes through the "missing middle study", but unfortunately none of them have been implemented yet. Building more homes is the only solution to the housing crisis we face.
Finbarr
37919
8-B-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:17 AM
this recommendation seems reasonable.
Christopher
37932
8-B-23-OA
Christopher (37932), October 2, 2023 at 9:51 PM
I fully support the idea of reducing setbacks on properties. There is no reason why a property needs to maintain a lawn if it does not have to. Besides, a lot of the grass used is not native with the environment and it requires a decent amount of watering, fertilizer, and pesticides that would be best kept to a minimum. My complaint is not against people who want a wide expansive yard, because I can see why some people like the aesthetic. However, forcing everyone to have a big lawn does tend to restrict development. For instance, much of downtown would be impossible to be built today because all the downtown apartments have no setbacks. R. Bentley Marlow's application is a reasonable one, and I hope that you all pass it through.
Sandra
37914
8-B-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 3, 2023 at 11:12 PM
Deny this proposed amendment. Setbacks create compatibility in a neighborhood and this proposal to alter setbacks has not been fully evaluated. Setbacks are important.
Christina
37921
8-B-23-OA
Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:15 PM
If I have a C-N lot next to RN and want to build a single family house (permissible in C-N), I’m subject to a residential abutment setback of 20’. A single family in RN only needs 5’ / 15’ combined. That is a pretty absurd discrepancy, especially problematic for an average city lot 50’ wide.
This application raises an important question: what is the purpose of residential abutment setbacks? Not just for C-N but for other zones too (I-MU, C-G, etc). If the setback is intended for larger developments, why are these rules broadly applied for all uses? And for medium density developments, if you can build townhouses in RN-7 with 15’ combined setback, why 20’ residential abutment setback for townhouses in C-N, I-MU, or anywhere?
Needless to say, I support this amendment and would actually support an expansion of the amendment to include consideration of other zones as well. Maybe address the use matrix while you’re at it (e.g. why is SF permissible in commercial districts?).
8-B-23-OA
Ron (37919), August 3, 2023 at 3:30 PM
We're dealing with 75 years of urban sprawl planning that no longer serves the needs of this city. In the midst of a terrible housing crisis that seems like he just keeps getting worse and worse and more and more expensive it's time to rethink how we use our small lots in the CN zoned property. With this revision as I understand it it would allow townhomes and condos and other medium density housing options to be built. This seems like a reasonable revision in the current zoning laws to address our crisis state of housing in Knoxville.
George
37932
8-B-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:08 PM
Agenda items (8A23OA,8B23OA,8C23OA,8D23OA,8E23OA)all relate to defining ADU's and relaxing set backs, buffers and the like. These requests can be construed to introduce ADU's to Knoxville. However, may also be construed as method to simply increase building density way tighter than current standards. They also can allow a rental property be added to nearly any lot/location.
I am against each of these agenda items.
And I think the County, the Planning Commission and residents need A LOT more conversations about introducing and controlling ADU's (like the ADU must be occupied by an immediate family member) prior to introduction of this concept.
Following this research, the concept should be trialed in one district to learn impact and control, and NOT just open the floodgates in all districts!
Aaron
37917
8-B-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 9:14 PM
I support this amendment on grounds that historical "neighborhood commercial" buildings and nodes often often had minimal setback. Staff makes a point that resonates with me that if engineering has to set setbacks based on sightline distance in the permitting process, that will create delays. For something standard like this and other typical sightline considerations (like when there are existing nonconforming structures on adjacent lot), I think it would be ideal to add a sightline diagram to the zoning ordinance.
Dustin
37917
8-B-23-OA
Dustin (37917), August 8, 2023 at 10:05 PM
See attached for my full comments supporting Ordinance Amendment 8-B-23-OA.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230808220538.pdf
Drew
37917
8-B-23-OA
Drew (37917), August 9, 2023 at 12:17 PM
Please see attached PDF.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809121714.pdf
R. Bentley
37921
8-B-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:17 PM
Please see attached...
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121735.pdf
MARK
37920
12-B-23-SU
MARK (37920), February 8, 2024 at 11:26 AM
I am a former Knoxville/Knox County MPC Commissioner and a 47 year resident of Topside Road. I have observed much traffic development, particularly on East Topside. What was once a beautifuuly winding country road has become a thoroughfare where the majority are non-residents jetting through to get from Alcoa Highway to other locations east (or vice-versa). While this situation is currently marginally tolerable, the addition of the proposed Masterson Road would render it "beyond the bale" when considering it a fully functional county road. In my opinion, upon its completion, if allowed, it would become very disfunctional and a waste of money without illuminating a problem. Unfortunately, it would fall in the category of benefitting only one entity (Calvert Church) to the considerable detriment of the citizens of the Topside community. I strongly oppose this proposal.
Applicant
12-B-23-SU
Applicant Correspondence
February 12, 2024 at 11:37 AM
Calvary Chapel would like to thank our neighbors for joining us at the church to discuss our driveway. You were all very kind and it was a delight to meet you! For the neighbors and the planning commissioners/staff who couldn’t attend, we want to mention again why the driveway is so essential. First, for safety and emergency purposes such as police, fire and rescue.  In the event that our only entrance is ever blocked, as has happened in the past, we have no other access for emergency personnel. Secondly, last year we broke ground on a parking expansion that was approved with the stipulation that we would construct a building expansion.  We have now almost completed this new parking area and due to terrain and unexpected rock removal we have invested close to a million dollars to complete.  We are deeply committed to this project and are moving forward with plans to construct the required building expansion. While planning our building expansion, it has been discovered that the fire department will require an additional driveway access. This obviously furthers the need for this driveway at this time. Thanks again for considering our situation and know that our heart is to build relationships with our neighbors and the beautiful city of Knoxville. We strive to be a blessing to you all. Feel free to reach out to me at the church 865-609-1385. If I’m not available, leave a message and I will call you back.
applicant
Jaime
37932
12-SF-23-C
Jaime (37932), January 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM
The proposed development continues to include request for variances that they have created in their proposal. You cannot create your own hardship. This builder was on the planning commission at the time the original proposal was considered. Instead of pushing the rules he should have been an example to the building expectations Knox county currently has. Through litigation, our homeowners association has proven this to be illegal yet the only change has been a one lot reduction that does not address the variance issues. They also continue to build 5 homes on an illegal road location. We ask that you deny this concept plan.
Caroline
37932
12-SF-23-C
Caroline (37932), January 30, 2024 at 12:58 PM
I'm a homeowner in Massey Creek for 7 years, and been and oppose the subdivision and plan. This development was determined by Knox County Chancery Court as illegally approved by the previous commission and ordered to be heard through Planning once again if they want to proceed. This developer has not addressed the illegal issues. For example, the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park is illegal and was granted illegally. Please reject this plan and influence the developer to adhere to the laws.
Vonna
37932
12-SF-23-C
Vonna (37932), January 30, 2024 at 3:04 PM
I am a homeowner in the Massey Creek subdivision for over 5 years and I once again am writing to oppose the entire subdivision and plan. The plan developed is illegal due to the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park. This plan was granted illegal and therefore should be deemed illegal moving forward. Shame on the developer for being money hungry and putting innocent lives at risk.
12-SF-23-C
Tom (37932), January 30, 2024 at 4:07 PM
If what is proceeding has been deemed illegal with a wink and a nod to a builder who clearly appears to have some sort of inside track with friends, where and when does the line get drawn on illegalities? Why do we have any laws? Or do we not follow laws only when someone of importance or connection is inconvenienced? In this case the judge clearly has deemed what is going on as illegal. Yet the ruling is ignored. There is no democratic process here being upheld by our elected officials. Why should any of us follow any laws in Knox County?
Mackenzie
37932
12-SF-23-C
Mackenzie (37932), January 30, 2024 at 4:32 PM
I oppose this plan, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park. This was granted illegally and is an illegal variance. The planning for Hardin Valley needs to be smart and follow the rules and regulations set forth by the planning commission. I urge you to push for this property and plan to be halted and stopped. Let's preserve the safety and well being of the people of this county. Thank you for your consideration.
Chris
37932
12-SF-23-C
Chris (37932), January 30, 2024 at 6:17 PM
It’s mind blowing that this issue is constantly resurfacing when the build is in clear violation and they keep pursuing their agenda with Knox County. Can we please stop the madness and wasting tax payers money.
12-B-23-SU
Ron (37920), February 20, 2024 at 10:18 AM
See attached letter submitted via mail
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20240220101806.pdf
Tanya
37932
12-SF-23-C
Tanya (37932), January 30, 2024 at 8:49 PM
I’m a homeowner in Massey Creek subdivision, and I ask that you deny this plan. Through litigation with our HOA, this development plan was deemed illegal by Knox County Chancery Court, as a result, this plan should be denied. The developer should be required to adhere to the law.
Brandon
37932
12-G-23-DP
Brandon (37932), January 31, 2024 at 2:01 PM
I'm a homeowner in Massey Creek for 3 years and have been and still oppose the subdivision and plan. This development was determined by Knox County Chancery Court as illegally approved by the previous commission and ordered to be heard through Planning once again if they want to proceed. This developer has not addressed the illegal issues. The Massey Creek HOA has sued and won against this developer for the illegal variances granted. For example, the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park is illegal and was granted illegally. Please reject this plan and influence the developer to adhere to the laws.
William
37920
12-B-23-SU
William (37920), January 31, 2024 at 3:39 PM
I've been a resident of The Anchorage subdivision, which is accessed off of Topside Road, for over 10 years. Over the years, I've seen the traffic on Topside road increase substantially. As you know, Topside road is an extremely narrow, twisting road that currently services residential traffic from subdivisions from Alcoa Highway to Maryville Pike. There are dozens of homes in these subdivisions that have young children playing near Topside. Adding this much additional traffic is certainly not safe for the children living nearby. In addition, I've lost count of the number off accidents that have occurred on Topside and the number of mailboxes that have been hit over the years. I drive a large pickup truck and make it a habit to fold my mirrors in when traveling on Topside to prevent my mirror from hitting trucks coming from the opposite direction. A couple of years ago my mirror was hit by an oncoming truck, which shattered my window, sending glass into my face and into the cab of the truck. In my case the other driver left the scene without stopping. If you have the time to drive down topside road I think you will agree that the road was never designed to handle commercial traffic of any kind. It simply makes no sense to divert commercial traffic from John Sevier highway, which was designed and built to handle commercial traffic, onto a small residential road that was not.
Jeffrey
37920
12-B-23-SU
Jeffrey (37920), January 31, 2024 at 4:00 PM
I am not sure that I picked the right item but in my mailbox today was a xerox cutout about Calvary Chapel Church unloading all of the Church to Topside Road. First how is there something in my mailbox not delivered by the post office, I did not think that was legal? Second we are being given all of 1 day notice of the proposal at the planning commission with no facts or studies done on the additional traffic or impact to the community. If anyone has driven down Topside Road from the Church, Topside Road is extremely narrow. Two vehicles have a hard oing in opposite directions trucks often hit the signs and scrape the paint on there vehicles and many pick up trucks drive on or over the yellow lines, if your tire gets off the road even slightly your flying off the road. I have seen a Range Rover crash in the turn and a car crashed through a fence doing just what I said in the last 6 weeks. In September a car crashed into the guad rail and was stuck like a turtle, it took me and another pick up truck to pull it off just to get it back to pavement. Adding traffic to this street lacks all common sense. This is truly a bad idea, please consider not allowing adding traffic to Topside road. If the Church can expand without adding traffic to Topside Road, God Bless but there needs to be a proven study first for sure and Topside Road to Alcoa Highway really should be looked at for how narrow it is as it sits now,
Tiffany
37920
12-B-23-SU
Tiffany (37920), January 31, 2024 at 4:22 PM
I strongly oppose allowing this road to be built off Topside. While I respect the church’s right to ensure safe exits for their members, the solution should be sought after from TDOT, not in trying to use a tiny, residential road for what would amount to commercial traffic. In the almost 6 years I’ve lived here, I’ve seen how Topside already can’t handle the construction through-traffic that has occurred with the Alcoa Highway construction. I’ve had to stop my vehicle on multiple occasions to allow a truck or oversized vehicle to safely pass to avoid a head-on collision. There is no way our tiny, curvy road can handle this increase in traffic that that will worsen as the church’s population is projected to grow.
Heather
37920
12-B-23-SU
Heather (37920), February 1, 2024 at 7:30 AM
Topside is a very small, curvy residential access point with challenging access from Alcoa Highway. The church diverting even more traffic to an already difficult access point and residential road is not a good idea. John Siever Highway is equipped to support church traffic and is deemed the commercial route. Traffic pattern should remain on designated highway and not be directed through an already challenged residential neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.
Kari
37920
12-B-23-SU
Kari (37920), February 1, 2024 at 3:43 PM
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal by Calvary Chapel Church to add an exit onto Topside Road. Topside Rd is a very narrow, two lane curvy road. The church proposed to add an exit a few years back and the proposal was rejected because the curve of the road and trees prevented a clear line of sight to safely turn onto Topside Rd. The road is not intended for heavy traffic, as it only serves the local homes between Alcoa Highway and Maryville Pike. The increased traffic would be detrimental to the residences and cause an increase in the risk of traffic accidents on the road. As a home owner that would be directly affected by this increased safety risk, I strongly urge you to oppose this proposal. I have spoke with several neighbors in the Topside Hills neighborhood and most oppose the proposal, know of only one resident that supports it. Please consider the safety and quality of life concerns of all of the residents that live here over the voices of church members who have little concern for an area that is not their home.
Larry
37920
12-B-23-SU
Larry (37920), February 1, 2024 at 3:59 PM
I am strongly opposed to the addition of an exit from Calvary Chapel Church. I am a long time home owner on Riverwood Drive, directly off of Topside Rd. Topside Rd is a very narrow road that was not designed to withstand heavy traffic. This proposal was submitted previously and was rejected on the basis of safety. I would strongly oppose that it be re-considered, as the road has not been altered on any way. The area of Topside Rd between Alcoa Highway and Maryville Pike is residential area. The additional traffic is not in the best interests of the families living here.
Larry
37920
12-B-23-SU
Larry (37920), February 1, 2024 at 7:14 PM
My wife and I really homeowners on Riverwood Dr, off of Topside Road. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal of Calvary Chapel Church to add an exit onto Topside Rd. As anyone who has driven down this section of Topside is aware, this is a narrow, curvy two lane road intended for light residential traffic. It would be a detriment to the families living directly on Topside and the adjoining neighborhoods to have added traffic on this road. I strongly urge you to oppose this proposal.
Andy
37920
12-B-23-SU
Andy (37920), February 1, 2024 at 7:55 PM
This is a TERRIBLE idea. It has been a TERRIBLE idea since at least 2017 when first proposed. It was a TERRIBLE idea in 2023 when they recycled this proposal again. The MPC should put an end to the recycled TERRIBLE arguments advanced by the Church and air on the side of public safety by shutting this down once and for all. Nothing has changed. The net negatives are the same. There are no positives that benefit anyone other than the Church. It will result in Increased traffic on a very small, very narrow county road never built to accommodate an exponentially growing church. Topside already shoulders the burden of overflow and detour traffic from Old Knoxville highway and Alcoa highway. Environmental impacts….all negative. Impact to elderly residents who need have lived in the affected areas for decades since before the church existed….all negative. Public safety….all negative. Options for the Church: how about turning right instead of left? UPS does it all the time and it seems to work fine. They are wildly successful. How about hiring off duty KCPD officers to direct traffic following services? Other churches do it all the time. Take Notice: MPC members vote NO on this. Any member of the MPC who votes in favor of this…. WE WILL REMEMBER YOU! Sincerely, an ACTUAL tax payer.
12-B-23-SU
Kip (37920), February 2, 2024 at 8:43 AM
As a resident of Topside Hills just off Topside Road I am writing to oppose the ill-conceived new road that Calvary Church is proposing between John Sevier Highway and Topside Road. It seems we have already visited this issue before and the vast majority of residents have made their voices clear. We do not want this. It may be true that some members of the church have been coming around and using Topside Road but I believe that number pales in comparison to the number that would use Topside once that road is open. We have no stoplights on Topside and no speed bumps. It is already a dangerous little windy road with hazards on both sides such as deep drop offs and telephone poles inches from the pavement. Yet people use it as a cut through already and rarely ever adhere to the speed limit. I've lost count of the number of mailboxes I have seen destroyed over the years. With the current culture of texting and driving, people are more distracted than ever, so the idea to add a cut through there from John Sevier Highway will turn into a nightmare for the residents of Topside Road as the church grows larger and larger and as people learn of this new little time saver. Further I would like to say that I am thankful to the resident that placed this notice in my mailbox because I may not have even known about this were it not for that. And I don't appreciate how this issue seems to try and get snuck past us every few years. Please vote "no" on this.
Madeline
37920
12-B-23-SU
Madeline (37920), February 2, 2024 at 9:46 AM
I am writing to oppose the addition of a new road for Calvary Church on Topside Rd between Aloca Highway and Maryville Pike. I am a resident of the area and drive this section of Topside Rd daily. I have personally witnessed incidents of cars in the ditch, as the road is very narrow and curvy. The addition of more traffic on this road will only increase the number of safety issues. The proximity of the proposed road to the exit of the Topside Hills neighborhood will make turning out of the neighborhood a hazard because of the curve of the road. I would urge you to vote no on this proposal.
Collin
37920
12-B-23-SU
Collin (37920), February 2, 2024 at 4:42 PM
I am a resident of Topside Hills, and writing in regard to the proposed entrance for Calvary Chapel Church along Topside Road. While I understand that the Church is seeking to construct this secondary access point in the name of safety, I disagree that the utilization of a deficient minor collector street is the best way to do so. If the commission were to entertain this access point, I respectfully request that the commission consider this new commercial access as a new commercial development, and require the applicant to bring this road to current ordinance standards. If the goal is for Church patrons to safely traverse to Alcoa Highway, they should bring Topside Road up to current development standards from the proposed point of connection to Alcoa Highway with an adequate 28’ pavement width and sidewalk system. These modifications would be in accordance with Knox County MPC Ordinances, Chapter 54 – Article 54, Sections 54-66(d) and 54-81. I would also request that the traffic study and required mitigation measures be made available for public review before a determination is made.
Sunny
37920
12-B-23-SU
Sunny (37920), December 3, 2023 at 8:38 PM
I am writing in reference to Calvary's request yet again to extend a driveway that exits their property on to Topside Rd.
This is the second time they have requested this and yet nothing has changed as to the layout and design of Topside Rd at that exit point. As a 20 year resident that would be diagonally across the street from the proposed additional driveway exit I understand why they would want it. However, based on the lay of the land, current road traffic, and visibility for both them and our Topside neighbors I beg you to do a traffic study related to this. I cannot understand how their request could possibly be granted based on site view.

12-B-23-SU
Tim (37920), December 4, 2023 at 8:47 AM
As a 17 year resident of Topside Road between Alcoa Highway (129) and Maryville Pike, that has voiced concern in the past about traffic flow, non-residential use by speeders or vehicles too wide and overweight for road conditions, I am "against" the proposed site improvement by the Calvary Chapel to gain access perpendicular to Topside Road for its church going users, no matter if for service or social activities. Calvary Chapel and in particular Brad Bassitt (or affiliates) does NOT inform nor respond to Topside Rd inhabitants in the past about its concerns for expansion and a further need to review future expansion. Attached is additional information. I look to remain informed or to be included with those that need to be present if meetings are held.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231204084744.pdf
Matthew
37932
12-SF-23-C
Matthew (37932), December 6, 2023 at 12:17 PM
PLEASE see the attached letter regarding this illegal development. There is ZERO path forward due to this developers complete disregard of State Law and local Rules & Regulations. Quit wasting taxpayer money defending a developer over Knox County Taxpayer's safety and concerns. This development was determined illegal by Knox County Chancery Court and this staff/commission has no authority to approve as-is. We request you to DENY this plan to avoid a fifth or more lawsuit - The first lawsuit clarifies the illegalities of this plan and the wrongdoings of the previous commission. The next three lawsuits involve the current staff and commission as you have aided this developer and Amy Brooks to, yet again, illegally approve this development against our advisement.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206121707.pdf
Matthew
37932
12-G-23-DP
Matthew (37932), December 6, 2023 at 12:18 PM
PLEASE see the attached letter regarding this illegal development. There is ZERO path forward due to this developers complete disregard of State Law and local Rules & Regulations. Quit wasting taxpayer money defending a developer over Knox County Taxpayer's safety and concerns. This development was determined illegal by Knox County Chancery Court and this staff/commission has no authority to approve as-is. We request you to DENY this plan to avoid a fifth or more lawsuit - The first lawsuit clarifies the illegalities of this plan and the wrongdoings of the previous commission. The next three lawsuits involve the current staff and commission as you have aided this developer and Amy Brooks to, yet again, illegally approve this development against our advisement.
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206121818.pdf
Robb
37920
12-B-23-SU
Robb (37920), December 7, 2023 at 8:47 AM
See attached pdf
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231207084702.pdf
Mike
37932
12-SF-23-C
Mike (37932), December 12, 2023 at 6:59 PM
I place my trust in you to use the existing laws as the governing framework for making any decisions related to this and all development in Hardin Valley. The developers are fully aware of these laws and if they are allowed to circumvent them by exceptions just because of their relationships, with a wink and a nod that they can go ahead and build with the knowledge that their position will be supported by the planning commission; it sets a terrible precedent.

View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231212185946.pdf
Michael
37932
12-SF-23-C
Michael (37932), December 12, 2023 at 9:52 PM
Please see the attached .pdf letter/document. A summary is below. I sadly have to write again about the same topic and agenda item - this time in a new form - as I have previously - The Lantern Park subdivision. This project, owned and developed by Scott Smith, continues to be illegally pushed upon you as Commissioners. The idea is that if they keep on asking, keep on attempting to circumvent - and in fact blatantly not follow - local rules and ordinances as well as the law of the State of Tennessee, they could wear down anyone who stands in their way. Their mantra is essentially "might makes right. Please know that we will continue to vigorously oppose what we know to be right, what the judge has already ruled to be illegal, as well as what you - if you are being honest - know to be wrong. We respectfully ask that you DENY this plan before you, in accordance with, among other things, staff recommendation. It is not your job to bail out developers who seek "end arounds" established law and common sense
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231212215250.pdf
Brad
37920
12-B-23-SU
Brad (37920), December 13, 2023 at 2:12 PM
I would like to inform the Planning Commissioners and any surrounding neighbors that we will be hosting a community meeting in January. The purpose of this community meeting is to provide an opportunity for neighbors to get answers to questions or to voice concerns that they may have. We will host the meeting at our church campus (3330 W. Governor John Sevier Highway) in the cafe. We are mailing out postcard invitations to surrounding neighbors with the date and time. Feel free to also reach out to me at the church with any questions or concerns. Call 865-609-1385 and ask for Brad, if I'm not available I will call you back.
Michele
37932
12-SF-23-C
Michele (37932), December 13, 2023 at 11:07 PM
It is ridiculous that the developers are greedy and after 4 lawsuits still trying to get away with doing what they want. We just want to maintain our road/entrance the way it is. There is no need to disturb that.
Kelly
37920
12-B-23-SU
Kelly (37920), December 16, 2023 at 1:08 AM
As a homeowner in the Riverwood neighborhood right across from the proposed new entry/exit and a member of Calvary Chapel Knoxville I have a unique situation. The current left turn lane out is extremely dangerous. Due to the construction with TDOT, they basically took away the left turn out to get into the median. You can barely fit a small car in that space. I have seen MANY near accidents of people trying to get out and cross 2 lanes of traffic. No one should have to die trying to exit the church so they can head back to Alcoa hwy. The purposed new entrance is right across from my neighborhood. Traffic has already been diverted down our road from the church. It's the safest way for those trying to get to Alcoa hwy. None of the neighbors have had a problem with the excessive amount of TDOT dump truck and construction crew vehicles. But the second the church needs a SAFE exit, everyone wants to be up in arms. Let the church have their safe exit so people can be safe exiting the church. This will not affect the residents of topside whatsoever. My house is close to our entrance and have no problem with letting people get home safe. The church pays taxes and has a right to use THEIR property.
Heather
37932
12-SF-23-C
Heather (37932), January 28, 2024 at 3:19 PM
We vehemently oppose this entire subdivision and plan, as the entirety of it is illegal, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park, as this variance is illegal and was granted illegally. It’s incredibly disappointing that the planning commission continues to approve development after development without consideration for the impact on the community surrounding this and all the developments. Greater infrastructure needs to be implemented. This development is a blatant disregard for proper planning processes and highlights how corrupt this entire commission and planning process truly is.
Heather
37932
12-G-23-DP
Heather (37932), January 28, 2024 at 3:20 PM
We vehemently oppose this entire subdivision and plan, as the entirety of it is illegal, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park, as this variance is illegal and was granted illegally. It’s incredibly disappointing that the planning commission continues to approve development after development without consideration for the impact on the community surrounding this and all the developments. Greater infrastructure needs to be implemented. This development is a blatant disregard for proper planning processes and highlights how corrupt this entire commission and planning process truly is.
12-SF-23-C
Kim (37932), January 28, 2024 at 3:30 PM
This development was determined illegal by Knox County Chancery Court and this staff/commission has no authority to approve as-is. We request you to DENY this plan to avoid a fifth or more lawsuit - The first lawsuit clarifies the illegalities of this plan and the wrongdoings of the previous commission.
Fred
37932
12-G-23-DP
Fred (37932), January 28, 2024 at 4:22 PM
I oppose this entire subdivision and plan, as the entirety of it is illegal, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park, as this variance is illegal and was granted illegally. Please reject this plan. Please work to preserve and promote smart growth in the county.