February 12, 2026
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

16 Comments for

1-E-26-DP
Kate (37931), January 1, 2026 at 7:01 PM

I oppose this request due to the negative impact it would have on traffic in the area. Additionally I do not support changing rural zoning to residential

January 1, 2026
at 7:01 PM

1-SD-26-C

Ariel
37931

1-SD-26-C
Ariel (37931), January 6, 2026 at 12:33 PM

I strongly oppose this proposal. My house is right across the street from this property, and I would request that a traffic study be conducted, as very few people actually travel around the curves/hill at
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20260106123302.pdf

January 6, 2026
at 12:33 PM

1-E-26-DP

Gwen
37931

1-E-26-DP
Gwen (37931), January 6, 2026 at 10:07 PM

If this subdivision is built without Bakertown Rd being improved in the vicinity of wherever the entrance/exit is placed, it will make an already dangerous road even moreso. Vehicles speed on this road in both directions and coming from the Bert Newman direction it is quite blind as the area in question is approached. There needs to he some sort of traffic control e.g. stop signs or a traffic light. I fear for the safety of the family, thats my family, myself and all visitors at [redacted] Bakertown Road, driving in and driving out of the property. I fear for our safety when walking to the mailbox which is located across the road, which is already an extremely dangerous undertaking. There is no shoulder, rather a ditch. This subdivision will only increase the number of vehicles on the road and thus increase the danger of an accident. Please listen to my plea for a safer road, not a more dangerous one.

January 6, 2026
at 10:07 PM

2-F-26-RZ

Ryan
37931

2-F-26-RZ
Ryan (37931), January 15, 2026 at 4:03 PM

This is a horrible proposal. The public utilities here are NOT adequate to suggest another 21 houses on that small narrow lot could possibly be considered responsible planning. I'm aware the commission will likely rubber stamp whatever their greedy developer friends ask for, but this narrow 2-lane road with almost 9,000 cars per day should not be forced to support additional traffic from another 21 new houses. This additional unsupported traffic would be a burden to current residents, which I'm aware you don't care about. This builder should not be given license to increase pollution and drainage issues by bridging and damaging the existing stream, and continuing the poor site conditions displayed so far on this project. The recently remodeled house on this lot was turned into a trash dump and eyesore for more than 3 years. Please use reason and common sense and deny this greedy request. Please don't allow them to pretend slapping up 21 houses in a backyard should be called progress. This rezoning request was already attempted and denied in the past, why do they get to keep bellying up to the trough like greedy pigs and trying the same bad ideas over and over again until they get what they want?

January 15, 2026
at 4:03 PM

2-H-26-DP

Debbie
37931

2-H-26-DP
Debbie (37931), January 24, 2026 at 11:30 AM

Putting a 300-unit apartment complex in this area will greatly increase the vehicular traffic in the area. This is mostly single family homes in this area and putting up such a large development will change the neighborhood atmosphere. Schaad Road in this area has already had a great many vehicle accidents and this seems like it will just add to the likelihood of more accidents with people entering and leaving the complex. I am a board membe of a local HOA board and most residents are not in favor of this. Is there anything we can do to cut down the number of units?

January 24, 2026
at 11:30 AM

2-H-26-DP

JONATHAN
37931

2-H-26-DP
JONATHAN (37931), January 28, 2026 at 2:16 PM

This proposal is terrible! We already have multiple accidents at Bakertown which is still a single lane road. We can not get out of our road of Lobetti, to cross the road, making a left hand turn! There are already multiple resident neighborhoods going up everywhere adding to an already lacking infrastructure! We still are left with a single lane after you cross Middlebrook Pike to the south which backs up all the way down Lovell to Pellissippi, after 4:30 PM. Our bus driver can't even pull out without parking the bus full of kids in the middle divider for a open spot to get in, taking our kids to school. Classroom sizes are maxed out in the surrounding schools. When is this ever going to be enough? Let the infrastructure catch up! PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!! THANKS

January 28, 2026
at 2:16 PM

2-H-26-DP

Debbie
37931

2-H-26-DP
Debbie (37931), January 28, 2026 at 4:08 PM

I am upset with the idea of putting a 300-unit apartment complex. In the middle of an area with single family homes and mostly small country roads. Although this complex will have access to Schaad Road, much of this traffic will filter to smaller roads in the area and congest already-congested streets that were not built for the traffic they currently handle. An apatment complex of this size will also diminish the neighborhood feel of the surrounding developments. It will become more like the city than the county. I am oppose to such a large apartment complex being built in this area which has been the home of some lovely bovines. Thank you.

January 28, 2026
at 4:08 PM

2-H-26-DP

Brett
37931

2-H-26-DP
Brett (37931), January 28, 2026 at 9:03 PM

I noticed the signage and was surprised to see that it was a 300 unit apartment complex. How many more apartment buildings do we need? The vacancies can't even be filled with the ones we have that are existing. They just completed the huge one on Walker Springs Rd and have already cut move in prices to try and fill it. They are also building duplexes further up Schaad across from Amherst elementary already. There are also new apartments at Lovell and Cornerstone named The Chelsea and The Retreat At Knoxville, another set of new ones at Hardin valley rd and Schaeffer named legends at Hardin Valley, Icon Lovell Rd is being built as we speak, then there the huge Greystone Pointe community apartments. Schaad Rd is a nightmare as it is with people racing up and down it and Bakertown is a sorry excuse for a road to cut across from Ball to Schaad and then to Ball Camp and is going to get even worse when Lobetti rd is closed to Ball Camp. There are multiple accidents monthly already at the Bakertown and Schaad rd intersection and it desperately needs a traffic signal. I can barely come out of the Lobetti Landing sub division as it is. This Town is full of vacant apartment complexes as it is and we do not need any more for a long time. I am a Licensed real estate agent that is very active in the community so this information doesn't come without first hand knowledge of the current market and where people are moving to.

January 28, 2026
at 9:03 PM

2-H-26-DP

Doug
37931

2-H-26-DP
Doug (37931), January 30, 2026 at 8:35 AM

Good morning. The current plan to add a 300 unit apartment complex at Schaad Rd and Bakertown Rd is not a wise plan. Bakertown Rd is used as a cut-through between Ball Rd and Ball Camp Rd. Adding to the existing traffic is the already incident prone intersection of Baketown and Schaad. There have been numerous accidents at the intersection. With the additions of a traffic signal and the to-be-built Weigels, the addition of vehicles using the intersection complicates safety. There are new communities being built on Ball Rd and Ball Camp Pike and Bakertown Rd. All of these will continue to add to traffic issues at the Schaad/Bakertown intersection. Long term will see the completion of widening Schaad from Oak Ridge Hwy to Pleasant Ridge Rd which will also add to the current and future vehicle load. As a neighbor, we are against the apartment project.

January 30, 2026
at 8:35 AM

2-H-26-DP

Robert
37931

2-H-26-DP
Robert (37931), February 2, 2026 at 5:45 PM

As a resident of Lobetti Landing, I would add that the setup of the entrance / exit to the proposed apartment complex on Schaad Road only, will add to an existing dangerous situation.
The exit from Lobetti Landing onto Schaad Road from Truitt Path Lane is configured so that only right turns onto Schaad are allowed. This requires westbound traffic to make a U turn at the Lobetti Road / Schaad Road intersection. (The line of sight at this intersection eastward is less than 1000 feet.) If residents of the new apartments are forced to enter and exit off Schaad Road and make a U turn to go west on Lobetti, then there will be at least two intersections within a half mile section of Schaad Road where drivers will be forced to make a U turn to drive westward on Schaad. There have already been multiple accidents at the Schaad / Bakertown intersection. Adding additional U turning traffic to that intersection will only exacerbate an existing dangerous situation in the less than one mile section of Schaad from the railroad bridge to the Lobetti Road intersection.
Thank you for you consideration.
Glen C.

February 2, 2026
at 5:45 PM

2-F-26-RZ

Aaron
37931

2-F-26-RZ
Aaron (37931), February 3, 2026 at 10:52 AM

The request to build a densely populated subdivision in this location does not fit in with existing structure/planning in addition the narrow roads cannot handle the influx of traffic this would bring. The commission should look to limit the property sizes to align with the existing area of ~1 per 1/2 acre. This will do irreparable damage to the area's aesthetics while creating traffic that the infrastructure cannot safely handle, this type of development should not be allowed in this location.

February 3, 2026
at 10:52 AM

2-G-26-RZ

Heather
37931

2-G-26-RZ
Heather (37931), February 4, 2026 at 10:06 PM

This property is between other residential / agricultural properties where homes are. A business smack dab in the middle of a residential area is not good for the business nor traffic and the infrastructure of the neighborhood.

February 4, 2026
at 10:06 PM

2-G-26-RZ

Chris
37931

2-G-26-RZ
Chris (37931), February 5, 2026 at 8:05 AM

I am against this commercial and residential should not be mixed

February 5, 2026
at 8:05 AM

2-F-26-RZ

Carolyn
37931

2-F-26-RZ
Carolyn (37931), February 9, 2026 at 10:41 AM

The staff are correctly recommending denial of the rezoning request because there hasnt been any significant change in the area to justify it.
In addition, there should definitely be no zoning change that would allow even more of an increase in the high amount of traffic on Byington-Beaver Ridge Rd (since it runs between Karns Elementary, Karns Middle, and Karns High School) and because this road is so narrow that it is impossible for many vehicles to even turn right on it from a side road or driveway without crossing the center lane. The road would need to be widened by TDOT before more vehicles could turn onto it at this point on the road. There have been so many accidents on that specific piece of the road, that many of us who live within a mile or two assume that when we lose power, it is because of another accident there. So, there definitely should not be an even higher density approved for this property for multiple reasons.
Also, if this application for a rezoning is approved anyway, please be sure to at least keep the condition that was placed on the last rezoning change, regarding a screen from the adjacent industrial property being constructed.

February 9, 2026
at 10:41 AM

2-G-26-RZ

Rachel
37931

2-G-26-RZ
Rachel (37931), February 9, 2026 at 10:47 AM

I oppose this rezoning request because the property is located in a residential area that cannot reasonably support increased traffic and parking demands associated with commercial use. While the current occupant may operate responsibly, rezoning creates a permanent change and opens the door to future commercial uses that may negatively impact the neighborhood. Additionally, Beaver Ridge Road provides direct access to the elementary school, raising concerns about increased traffic and safety.

February 9, 2026
at 10:47 AM

2-G-26-RZ

Mark
37931

2-G-26-RZ
Mark (37931), February 9, 2026 at 11:09 AM

The Parks are mighty fine people, but my concern is what happens to this property in the future. A car lot, a Weigel's, Auto repair shop, or anything else could go on the property in the future. This is totally a residential neighborhood. My total concern is about the future of this property. Commercial is not the answer for this property.
Thanks for listening to me.

February 9, 2026
at 11:09 AM