June 10, 2021
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

4 Comments for

5-G-21-UR
Steven (37932), June 1, 2021 at 9:31 AM

I am a member of Grace Lutheran Church located just up the street from this planned facility and I must agree that a storage facility in this area is not in keeping with the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. Unlike other commercial business outdoor storage facilities are not aesthetically pleasing and more of an eyesore. Fencing for security is usually chain link and ugly, and garbage and the like builds up against it with proprietors not servicing and cleaning the area enough. Again, our church is up the street from this eyesore which adds no apartments, homes, or condominiums that Grace can support for spiritual needs. Again this is a thriving neighborly community of which an outdoor facility like the one proposed detracts from those that live or have a vested interest in the area. Please vote "No" on this proposal.

June 1, 2021
at 9:31 AM

5-G-21-UR

Al
37932

5-G-21-UR
Al (37932), June 3, 2021 at 7:48 PM

There are several storage unit facilities within a short distance from the proposed development. The area is well served with this sort of facility. In addition, a storage facility, by its nature, tends to be "industrial" in both appearance and in attracting homeless persons as well as criminal elements. This facility will detract from the quality appearance of this residential area.

June 3, 2021
at 7:48 PM

6-E-21-RZ

Kim
37932

6-E-21-RZ
Kim (37932), June 4, 2021 at 10:39 AM

On behalf of Hardin Valley Planning Advocates, I would like to offer support of the staff recommendations of Rural Residential / HP and Planned Residential up to 1.6 du / acres for this parcel. We ask that this body consider upholding these recommendations based on the following:

1. The Rural Residential land use classification allows consideration of additional residential density at this
location up to 2 dwelling units per acre and the majority of the surrounding residential densities are within that range as well.
2. The slope analysis for the property also recommends a reduced density up to 1.6 du/ac. Storm water issues continue to be a concern in this area.
3. 1.6 du/acre aligns with existing development.
4. Consideration to the additional impact of overcapacity student enrollment numbers. One single student contributes to the overcapacity number. The number of students cushioned by the construction of the new Northwest Elementary School is less than the current over capacity enrollment.
5. Consideration of proposed TVA routes should be noted.

June 4, 2021
at 10:39 AM

6-B-21-SP

Chris
37932

6-B-21-SP
Chris (37932), June 7, 2021 at 8:45 AM

Please do not approve any additional building of neighborhoods. The roads and schools are overloaded already. If you are going to continue to approve these neighborhoods then force the developers to builder wider roads and add buildings to the schools. Other places in the US does this so it is not uncommon. The developers can pool their resources and accomplish this. It is crazy to me that neighborhood after neighborhood is approved without forcing the developers to improve the roads and schools.

June 7, 2021
at 8:45 AM