Public Comments

August 8, 2021
at 2:38 PM

Paul
37932

7-SA-21-C
Paul (37932), August 8, 2021 at 2:38 PM

I am writing in support of the staff recommendations for the subdivision concept plan 7-SA-21-C. Responsible planning along this section of Hardin Valley Road is desperately needed as the proposed number of homes already approved will have significant impact on the traffic, school system and environment. I would also like to advocate declining requested variance #2 so the tree line along Mission Hill is given a better chance to survive construction and thrive after the disturbance to the environment.

Staff Recommendation: The applicant requesting various reductions in standards so the proposed road and lot arrangement work for this site. As explained below, the combination of these requests is problematic because of the need to expand Hardin Valley Road in the near future and the probable need for Knox County to purchase and tear down the house on lot 18 if it is built too close to the Hardin Valley Road frontage

August 9, 2021
at 2:02 PM

Jaime
37932

7-SA-21-C
Jaime (37932), August 9, 2021 at 2:02 PM

I am writing to you in reference of the development plan for 7-SA-21-C proposed by Scott Smith Properties. The owner of this company is also a member of your board. It is very concerning that his company would propose a development that would cause your staff to include the following comment "The applicant is requesting various reductions in standards to make the proposed road and lot arrangement work for this site. " I would think a member of your board would not be trying to make exceptions, but instead propose developments that would be best for the land being developed and its surroundings. No wonder we have the issues we have in Hardin Valley.

Every month your board hears countless testimonials both in person and by submitted comments that discuss the overdevelopment of the Hardin Valley area. We all know Hardin Valley road will need to be widened in the near future to accommodate the additional homes being built each day. Please do not allow lot 18 to be included in the plan. Why build a home when we know it will become an issue when this road is updated in the near future. I am in no way against growth, but lets be smart about what we are approving moving forward.

August 9, 2021
at 9:06 PM

Debra
37932

7-SA-21-C
Debra (37932), August 9, 2021 at 9:06 PM

I support the request to reduce the lot size from 18 to anything lesser. This area is being decimated and cannot sustain this. Enough already!

August 10, 2021
at 12:26 PM

Sarah
37932

7-SA-21-C
Sarah (37932), August 10, 2021 at 12:26 PM

STOP BUILDING MORE SUBDIVISIONS!!!! WE ARE ALREADY OVER CROWDED AT THE SCHOOLS AND ON THE ROADS. THAT IS RUINING WHAT MAKES HARDIN VALLEY SO GREAT, THE COUNTRYSIDE AND SOMEWHAT SMALLER CLASSES. NOW IT IS HECTIC AND I HAVE TO LEAVE MY HOUSE WHICH IS LITTERALLY 5 MINUTES FROM THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 650 IN THE MORNING JUST TO MAKE SURE MY KIDS GET TO SCHOOL ON TIME (KEY WORDS, ON TIME! NOT EARLY). WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!!! WIDEN THE ROADS BEFORE YOU PUT MORE SUBDIVISIONS IN!!!!

August 10, 2021
at 8:53 PM

Katherine
37932

7-SA-21-C
Katherine (37932), August 10, 2021 at 8:53 PM

In reference of the development plan for 7-SA-21-C proposed by Scott Smith Properties; the owner of this company is also a member of your board. It is very concerning that his member would propose a development that would as for various exceptions to be made to guidelines for the area. Hardin Valley has been over built. Our infrastructure cannot support another Subdivision. Our schools are over crowded, there are too many cars and buses in an area not designed for the volume. Our road needs to be widened before any build should occur. As a planning commission, focus should be on the addition of a public library, a playground, community center, and other areas to promote the community, not putting money in the hands of builders. We moved to Hardin Valley because of it's farm like feel. Now that's gone, we consider moving out regularly. We no longer promote the area as a good place to live--because it isn't.

August 11, 2021
at 3:48 AM

Brian
37932

7-SA-21-C
Brian (37932), August 11, 2021 at 3:48 AM

As resident of Hardin Valley, I would like to offer my support of the staff recommendations in regards to the need to plan for future improvements of Hardin Valley Rd. I respectfully ask for consideration to the reduction in the number of lots from 18 to 17 to minimize possible disturbance to future land owner(s) and eliminate potential acquisition costs to the county.

Staff Recommendation: The applicant requesting various reductions in standards so the proposed road and lot arrangement work for this site. As explained below, the combination of these requests is problematic because of the need to expand Hardin Valley Road in the near future and the probable need for Knox County to purchase and tear down the house on lot 18 if it is built too close to the Hardin Valley Road frontage.

August 11, 2021
at 10:49 AM

Debra
37932

7-SA-21-C
Debra (37932), August 11, 2021 at 10:49 AM

Hardin Valley Road need to be restructured by widening. The growth of our community is too fast to keep up with. If you build a lot within the boarded of the road I fear the house will delay any expansion plans that need to happen. Hardin Valley schools and transportation/roads need to be a focus prior to any further residential and/apt approvals. Our schools can't handle much more. The elementary school has the entire 2nd grade classes in pods this year. How are new sub divisions even getting approved?!?! Focus on the community not the almighty dollar. Our kids deserve better!

August 11, 2021
at 12:38 PM

Mike
37932

7-SA-21-C
Mike (37932), August 11, 2021 at 12:38 PM

Comments are included in attached pdf file. Bottom line is that I'm concerned that safety and planning are being sacrificed in by allowing lots that will almost certainly interfere with needed infrastructure upgrades and allowing access to Hardin Valley with
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20210811123800.pdf

August 11, 2021
at 1:06 PM

Matthew
37932

7-SA-21-C
Matthew (37932), August 11, 2021 at 1:06 PM

Please see attached letter. I am asking for denial of this plan and its various exceptions to current rules.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20210811130630.pdf

August 11, 2021
at 1:58 PM

Tamara
37932

7-SA-21-C
Tamara (37932), August 11, 2021 at 1:58 PM

My full comments are included in the attached pdf file. My concerns relate to subdivision approval prior to consideration of safety and infrastructure plans to support the increase in population and vehicle traffic. Safety is a key consideration, especially with respect to the very small distance between the proposed entrance and its proximity to the existing Mission Valley Rd intersections with Hardin Valley Road.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20210811135830.pdf

August 11, 2021
at 3:41 PM

Michele
37932

7-SA-21-C
Michele (37932), August 11, 2021 at 3:41 PM

I oppose the additional subdivision building due to the already crowded Hardin Valley Rd. I moved to this area to have safety and wide open spaces and greenery. I don not wish this to become as crowded as Farragut

August 24, 2021
at 4:25 PM

Susie
37932

9-I-21-RZ
Susie (37932), August 24, 2021 at 4:25 PM

I’ve lived in Hardin Valley for 39 years and the devastation that you are allowing to take place by allowing all the development to take place is a disaster. When will this stop? He schools are overcrowded and the wildlife has nowhere to go. The runoff of the stripping of the land is devastating and taking a toll on our roads. Everybody keeps sayings we need new roads but new roads aren’t going to help if you keep developing and bringing in more traffic. When are you going to stop allowing this?

August 30, 2021
at 11:10 AM

Laura
37932

7-SA-21-C
Laura (37932), August 30, 2021 at 11:10 AM

This development should be restricted to 17 houses to ensure that there is enough space for road widening in the future. The congestion is already significant and with so many approved future developments, road improvements will be required to ensure reasonable access to greater Knoxville.

9-C-21-UR

Mackenzie
37932

9-C-21-UR
Mackenzie (37932), August 31, 2021 at 10:14 PM

I currently live on Mission Hill Lane, part of the Massey Creek Subdivision. I am writing to you because of my concerns of the building plan off of Mission Hill Lane and Hardin Valley Road. The proposed entrance on Mission Hill Lane is at the top of a high slope grade. The sight line is very low and it is very difficult to see traffic coming in and out. Adding another entrance to this road will add further disturbance and safety concerns. Also, with the hopes that some day soon Hardin Valley Road will be widened, the 18th Lot is too close to Hardin Valley Road to accommodate that widening. Also, the slope is a very dangerously high grade. The proposal for the triplexes would not be good for the land, drainage of rain/flood risk. Only 2.6 acres of the Hill Protection area should be used. However, it appears that 100% of the high slope area is going to be a part of the plan. This proposal needs to be addressed with these concerns.

August 31, 2021
at 10:14 PM

September 2, 2021
at 9:48 AM

Laura
37932

9-SB-21-C
Laura (37932), September 2, 2021 at 9:48 AM

This proposal is problematic on many fronts. This would be dense housing that is not commensurate with the single family homes in the area and continue to put additional congestion on Hardin Valley Road. A development like this should be closer to where the infrastructure could support the density.

September 2, 2021
at 9:59 AM

Mark
37932

9-SB-21-C
Mark (37932), September 2, 2021 at 9:59 AM

Two aspects of this proposal should be denied. The homes in the surrounding area are all single family homes. The townhouse proposal is inconsistent with the surrounding area and should be DENIED. In addition, the entrance to this development should be from Hardin Valley Rd, perhaps into a roundabout at Marietta Church Rd intersection. The Mission Hill Drive is developed consistent with Massey Creek subdivision, and should remain a dedicated Massey Creek entrance. Moreover, Mission Hill Drive intersection at Hardin Valley is already congested during the day, and the addition of more traffic onto Mission Hill Drive will create a safety concern. Thus, this tie in to Mission Hill Drives should be DENIED.

September 2, 2021
at 11:01 AM

Brad
37932

9-SB-21-C
Brad (37932), September 2, 2021 at 11:01 AM

September 2, 2021
at 11:03 AM

Bars
37932

7-SA-21-C
Bars (37932), September 2, 2021 at 11:03 AM

September 6, 2021
at 8:11 PM

Molly
37932

9-SB-21-C
Molly (37932), September 6, 2021 at 8:11 PM

The citizens of Waverly, TN recently learned the consequences of building near a creek, but apparently, the developer of this future subdivision did not. We respectfully request that the committee take a look at the KGIS Fema Flood Map before approving this project. Our developer, HMH Development, cared enough about us to put our development high enough on the hill to prevent loss of life and property from a creek flood, but it looks like this future development won't be afforded the same opportunity. So in the event of a flood, and we have to rescue our neighbors in boats, who exactly do those washed-out homeowners pursue in court, the developer, or this approval committee?
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20210906201116.pdf

September 7, 2021
at 2:55 PM

Tanya
37932

7-SA-21-C
Tanya (37932), September 7, 2021 at 2:55 PM

I live in Massey Creek Subdivision, and I have concerns for the building plan with a proposed entrance off Mission Hill Lane. The entrance would be at the top of steep grade and a curve, which obstructs the sight line of oncoming traffic, so this is a significant safety concern. Also, the proposal of an 18th Lot placed at Hardin Valley Road should be removed as it will cause the any future plans to widen Hardin Valley even more problematic due to the location of this one lot. Based on the development of this area in just the few years we have lived in the area, it is obvious this road will need to be widened to accommodate the ongoing increase in traffic.

9-B-21-UR

Austin
37932

9-B-21-UR
Austin (37932), September 8, 2021 at 11:10 AM

I live below and across the creek from the property involved in this case. I see that an overlay of the hillside/slope protection is included in the case plan, but there is no grading plan and no information from the builder on how much of the forest will be cleared.

I believe a decision on this case should be postponed until a grading plan is submitted that includes how much of the forest will be bulldozed. Whether a retention pond will be required and if so where that will be located.

If a retention pond is required and therefore an HOA is required the builder should be encouraged to mimic the approach taken by the Black Forest subdivision located roughly 150-feet to the west and designate the entire hillside as HOA common property to contain the retention pond and protect the hillside from irresponsible/unknowledgeable homeowners who might decide to cut all the trees on their property. Homeowners seldom know that their land is still subject to hillside protection or that erosion prevent is still their responsibility if they decide to dramatically change their property.

In summary, what is the grading plan?

September 8, 2021
at 11:10 AM

September 8, 2021
at 11:32 AM

Kim
37932

9-I-21-RZ
Kim (37932), September 8, 2021 at 11:32 AM

These parcels were zoned CA -- or as it was called Commercial "A" -- on the original zoning map adopted for Knox County in the 1950s. The Growth Policy Plan and it's policies regarding the Rural Area were not adopted by the City of Knoxville, Town of Farragut and Knox County until 2000 -- so there are many places around the County that have CA zoning in the Rural Area that pre-dates the Growth Policy Plan. It gets sticky with the update and adoption of the NW Sector Plan in 2016 where this property was intentionally designated as AG. The zoning was never updated. We are finding that there are numerous parcels across the county where the underlying zoning does not align with the Sector Plans and should....this parcel being one of them. Planning Staff is currently making an effort to identify those parcels and address, which is a tremendous undertaking. With regards to the request for CR for a portion of this parcel, the more recent NW Sector Plan embodies the vision of the county and community for this area which does not include CR.

9-B-21-SP

Kim
37932

9-B-21-SP
Kim (37932), September 8, 2021 at 11:33 AM

These parcels were zoned CA -- or as it was called Commercial "A" -- on the original zoning map adopted for Knox County in the 1950s .The Growth Policy Plan and it's policies regarding the Rural Area were not adopted by the City of Knoxville, Town of Farragut and Knox County until 2000 -- so there are many places around the County that have CA zoning in the Rural Area that pre-dates the Growth Policy Plan. It gets sticky with the update and adoption of the NW Sector Plan in 2016 where this property was intentionally designated as AG. The zoning was never updated. We are finding that there are numerous parcels across the county where the underlying zoning does not align with the Sector Plans and should....this parcel being one of them. Planning Staff is currently making an effort to identify those parcels and address, which is a tremendous undertaking. With regards to the request for CR for a portion of this parcel, the more recent NW Sector Plan embodies the vision of the county and community for this area which does not include CR.

September 8, 2021
at 11:33 AM

September 8, 2021
at 12:53 PM

Matthew
37932

9-I-21-RZ
Matthew (37932), September 8, 2021 at 12:53 PM

This comment is in regards to 9-I-21-RZ & 9-B-21-SP. I ask you to heavily consider denial of commercial property at this location. The surrounding area is single family neighborhoods, too many developments have already been approved within walking distance, & this specific area is heavily congested and will only get worse as the current and proposed developments are completed. Commercial use at this location is very inconsistent with surrounding property. No plans, that I am aware of, are in the works for commercial use and I highly suggest the commercial application is revisited if and when better plans are available. I agree that some areas benefit from mixed use, but this is not one of them at this time.

September 8, 2021
at 2:11 PM

Brian
37932

9-SB-21-C
Brian (37932), September 8, 2021 at 2:11 PM

See attached comments and photo

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20210908141137.pdf

9-C-21-UR

Matthew
37932

9-C-21-UR
Matthew (37932), September 8, 2021 at 2:18 PM

Please see the attached pdf on my request to DENY this development. As President of Massey Creek HOA, I am letting you know we are completely against this developer using Mission Hill Ln for an entrance/exit to a 33 unit attached home concept. We professionally maintain the boulevard entrance this concept is requesting to use. Also, the 33 attached home concept is a non-connected separate development from the 47 single family detached homes they are requesting along Hardin Valley Rd. The planning commission should require the applicant to submit two separate development concepts since that is what this is. I see no issue with the 47 detached homes along Hardin Valley Rd as long as Connor Creek, Knox County Greenway, & the hillside is protected and maintained. I am completely against the 33 attached home development. Massey Creek HOA would be happy to discuss purchase options for the 14 or so acres they have proposed to build the 33 attached homes on.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20210908141836.pdf

September 8, 2021
at 2:18 PM

September 8, 2021
at 3:35 PM

Jaime
37932

9-I-21-RZ
Jaime (37932), September 8, 2021 at 3:35 PM

There in no way should be a commercial development in this location. Within 1/8 of a mile of this location is the Ball Homes 300+ development. In addition to this, across the street are two separate developments you are in the process of approving with 100+ additional homes. We are already looking at a traffic problem at this intersection. Adding any commercial type of property will further add to this growing problem. There are no shoulders or turning lane on this portion of Hardin Valley Road. The area consist of all residential homes. The community stands by the sector plan which does NOT include commercial land use on this parcel of any kind. We have no idea how the 400+ homes above are going to affect this area. Please do not continue to add to the many issues we are already dealing with in Hardin Valley.

September 8, 2021
at 5:21 PM

Audra
37932

9-I-21-RZ
Audra (37932), September 8, 2021 at 5:21 PM

We do not have the the structure to sustain this type of growth. We need to maintain some green spaces. We can't keep building. Our school and roads can not handle it.