January 13, 2022
Planning Commission meeting
Planning Commission meeting
Public Comments
52 Comments
George
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
George (37918), December 27, 2021 at 8:38 PM
The development of multi-unit residence on this property will reduce the property value of the community. Additionally, the location is at a dangerous intersection where you are unable to see stopped traffic or slow traffic until you crest the hill. Depending upon the number of units that might be a part of this plan, adding multiplied activity will increase the potential danger to drivers. We are against this development. George (37918), December 27, 2021 at 8:38 PM
Janet
37918
37918
1-E-22-RZ
Janet (37918), December 28, 2021 at 6:21 PM
Please do not rezone this area! Traffic here is already terrible and unsafe. Accidents have increased substantially since building in this area as increased. This has caused an increase in my auto insurance as a result of accidents within this zip-code. Roads were not made for current development, much less adding more.
Schools are over crowed.
Do not change the zoning!
Janet (37918), December 28, 2021 at 6:21 PM
Jami
37918
37918
1-E-22-RZ
Jami (37918), December 28, 2021 at 8:17 PM
I, like many residents of Corryton and Gibbs area, are opposed to the rezoning of this parcel of land due to the already growing congestion in the area. To add 12 units per acre buildings in this area is unconscionable. Our school districts are already struggling with low to mid income families. There are multiple accidents near the intersection and that would only grow. I moved out to this area to have a small, rural community like feeling and this is one step toward the over commercialized and over populated residential zones in other parts of the county. Jami (37918), December 28, 2021 at 8:17 PM
Courtney
37918
37918
1-E-22-RZ
Courtney (37918), December 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM
No! No! NO!!!! I've lived here my entire life and the amount of people that are flooding our small, close-knit community is absolutely ridiculous!!! Stop trying to turn what's left of our little country town into the big city!!! This is causing more and more accidents on our little backroads already, stop trying to cram more people in here!!!Courtney (37918), December 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM
Carlene
37918
37918
1-H-22-RZ
Carlene (37918), December 29, 2021 at 9:39 AM
The Board of Fountain City Town Hall, Inc., supports File No. 1-H-22-RZ, Taylor D. Forrester, Applicant, rezoning from O (Office) to C-G-2 (General Commercial), for only the portion of the lot with GC Sector and One Year Plan designations. This request is consistent with both the adopted plans and agreements reached at the time the property was developed. This application maintains the Office zoning buffer facing residences on Sanders Dr. We believe the Office zoning the applicant requests to be rezoned to C-G-2, was the result of a Recode mapping error.Carlene (37918), December 29, 2021 at 9:39 AM
Renee
37918
37918
1-E-22-RZ
Renee (37918), December 31, 2021 at 9:38 AM
There is no plan of use and re-zoning without a plan of use is irresponsible and leaves the community at significant risk. Density is too high without a plan of use.Renee (37918), December 31, 2021 at 9:38 AM
Todd
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Todd (37918), January 3, 2022 at 1:53 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. If it must be rezoned, Planned Residential is a much better zone that I could support. Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.Todd (37918), January 3, 2022 at 1:53 PM
Todd
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Todd (37918), January 3, 2022 at 1:54 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. If it must be rezoned, Planned Residential is a much better zone that I could support. Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.Todd (37918), January 3, 2022 at 1:54 PM
Ben
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Ben (37918), January 3, 2022 at 1:58 PM
I oppose the RV rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike.Ben (37918), January 3, 2022 at 1:58 PM
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220103135827.pdf
Herschel
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:03 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. If it must be rezoned, Planned Residential is a much better zone that I could support. Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:03 PM
Herschel
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:04 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. If it must be rezoned, Planned Residential is a much better zone that I could support. Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:04 PM
Linda
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Linda (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:05 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. If it must be rezoned, Planned Residential is a much better zone that I could support. Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.Linda (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:05 PM
Linda
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Linda (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:09 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. If it must be rezoned, Planned Residential is a much better zone that I could support.
Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.Linda (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:09 PM
Herschel
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:31 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. If it must be rezoned, Planned Residential is a much better zone that I could support. Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:31 PM
Charles
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Charles (37918), January 5, 2022 at 12:29 PM
I am the attorney for numerous residents living near the subject property. We object to the proposed rezoning and amendment to the sector plan for the following reasons:Charles (37918), January 5, 2022 at 12:29 PM
1. The proposed rezoning would change an existing RA (low density) neighborhood into a potentially high density RB neighborhood.
2. The owner of the subject property, Lieb Properties, LLC, is currently in bankruptcy, and being threatened with foreclosure on the subject property. It is uncertain who will be the future owner of the property at the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. I am attaching a copy of the first page of the owner’s bankruptcy filing for review.
3. The subject property is only a few yards from Shannondale Elementary School, and a high density development would greatly increase traffic and threaten the safety of students.
4. The subject property has numerous sink holes. A former owner tried to build a pond on the property, but, due to pervasive sink holes, the pond would never hold water.
5. The current zoning and sector plan are appropriate both for the subject property and the neighborhood.
Clifford
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Clifford (37918), January 5, 2022 at 3:43 PM
I wholeheartedly disagree and oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike.Clifford (37918), January 5, 2022 at 3:43 PM
This area of Tazewell Pike is already a traffic nightmare, not to mention this very intersection is plagued with saftey concerns as it is very critical to the transport of children to/from Shannondale Elementary School. Authorizing the increase of more structures, dwellings, or any other facilities to an existing parcel of land in this area would be a total disregard for safety; especially, to those living in that area and commuting daily in that area. If this has to be rezoned, I would highly recommend it be Planned Residential. That I would be willing to echo support. Additionally, there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential.
Clifford
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Clifford (37918), January 5, 2022 at 3:45 PM
I wholeheartedly disagree and oppose the RB rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike. This area of Tazewell Pike is already a traffic nightmare, not to mention this very intersection is plagued with safety concerns as it is very critical to the transport of children to/from Shannondale Elementary School. Authorizing the increase of more structures, dwellings, or any other facilities to an existing parcel of land in this area would be a total disregard for safety; especially, to those living in that area and commuting daily in that area. If this has to be rezoned, I would highly recommend it be Planned Residential. That I would be willing to echo support.Clifford (37918), January 5, 2022 at 3:45 PM
Jamie
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Jamie (37918), January 6, 2022 at 12:22 PM
We respectfully request a denial of this rezoning and sector plan amendment. MPC and County Commission have said repeatedly they want to get rid of RB zoning because it is the "worst zone in the county", yet this 12-acre property is RA (single family) and RB is being requested and considered now. Our neighborhood opposes the RB zoning. We would like for the zoning to remain RA- single family residential -as it has been a stately single-family home in our neighborhood for decades. If it must be rezoned, a much better option, in our opinion, is PR- Planned Residential. Also, regarding 1-D-22-SP, on the same property, we would like to note that there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment, so we oppose the sector plan amendment request from low density residential to medium density residential.Jamie (37918), January 6, 2022 at 12:22 PM
Judy
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Judy (37918), January 6, 2022 at 1:18 PM
I oppose the RB rezoning for for 4605 Tazewell Pike. Residential Planned is much better if it must be rezoned. Additionally there have been no changes that warrant a sector plan amendment. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and the change to medium density residential. I strongly oppose both 1-K-22-RZ and 1-D-22-RZ. It's hard enough to get out of my driveway as it is!Judy (37918), January 6, 2022 at 1:18 PM
Rudy
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Rudy (37918), January 6, 2022 at 2:03 PM
I oppose the requested RB rezoning at 4605 Tazewell Pike. Traffic on Tazewell Pike in general and especially at the intersection of Tazewell Pk and Shannondale Road is horrendous already.Rudy (37918), January 6, 2022 at 2:03 PM
Rudy
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Rudy (37918), January 6, 2022 at 2:07 PM
I oppose the proposed sector plan amendment at 4605 Tazewell Pk. There have been no substantial changes that would warrant a sector plan amendment.Rudy (37918), January 6, 2022 at 2:07 PM
Carlene
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Carlene (37918), January 8, 2022 at 6:26 PM
1-13-22 agenda item number 20, File numbers 1-D-22-SP and 1-K-22-RZ, 4605 Tazewell Pike, Perry Smith Development: The Board of Fountain City Town Hall, Inc., agrees with the PC staff recommendation, which is to deny the requests to amend the Sector Plan from LDR to MDR and to rezone the property from RA to RB. We agree with the PC staff's reasons for recommending denial of these requests, as stated in the PC reports. Clearly these requests fail to meet the legal requirements that must be met in order to amend the sector plan or rezone this property from its current zoning.Carlene (37918), January 8, 2022 at 6:26 PM
Kevin
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Kevin (37918), January 9, 2022 at 2:35 PM
I oppose the sector plan amendment to MDR and the requested rezoning to RB for this agenda item. The sector plan was intentionally adopted. The immediately adjacent land uses are Ag or Single Family Residential. The rezoning to RB allows multi-family up to 12 du/ac as a use-on-right without a use-on-review. There are no landscaping requirements, etc. if you built apartments there. RB is an old zone and we shouldn't be using it anymore, unless it's given a good freshening-up.Kevin (37918), January 9, 2022 at 2:35 PM
Elizabeth
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Elizabeth (37918), January 9, 2022 at 8:35 PM
Please reconsider the zoning change for this property. We ask it remain low density. The traffic patterns along Tazewell in general and more specifically at the intersection of Tazewell and Shannondale do not support additional traffic that will be added by medium density zoning. Also, the property is riddled with sinkholes. The home behind my house (Villa) was demolished a few years ago after it fell into a known sinkhole. Have a traffic study and geotechnical study been completed on this property? If so, where can we see the findings. What will the increase in students to Shannondale Elementary School and how with this change in students impact the school’s funding? Please consider other properties. Elizabeth (37918), January 9, 2022 at 8:35 PM
Allison
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Allison (37918), January 9, 2022 at 10:41 PM
My husband and I are highly opposed to the rezoning of the parcel of land at 4605 Tazewell Pike to RB Zoning. Another multi-unit dwelling development will do nothing but chip away at what remains of the charm, history, and integrity of Tazewell Pike and Fountain City. Our area does not need another highly dense set of dwellings. Over my lifetime, I've watched this happen to many of the larger land parcels on Tazewell Pike. RB zoning does not fit with the community style that we currently have. In addition to this, a multi-unit dwelling establishment will only increase the traffic in this area which is a serious daily safety issue. This would directly jeopardize the safety of transporting Shannondale Elementary students. While I'd prefer it to remain a single-family dwelling, I'd be willing to support Planned Residential zoning with a maximum of 6 houses. Please help us maintain the charm and integrity of Fountain City, and keep the traffic situation from worsening. Allison (37918), January 9, 2022 at 10:41 PM
Elizabeth
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Elizabeth (37918), January 10, 2022 at 9:04 AM
In addition to my previous comment, I’d like to note that the home at 5110 Villa Road was demolished by the city of Knoxville after a sinkhole opened up under the home. I’d also like to note the home on the property in question has foundation and subsidence issues due to sinkholes located on the property. The sinkholes/voids are not able to be mitigated, so I’m unsure how the property can support additional housing. Elizabeth (37918), January 10, 2022 at 9:04 AM
David
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
David (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:48 AM
We, the residents of Joshua's Landing Condominiums, oppose the rezoning of the subject property and agree with the staff recommendation to DENY the proposed zoning change. Our neighborhood is directly across Tazewell Pike from the subject property and we believe that any significant development will add to the traffic count so as to effect traffic flow in a negative way without significant changes to the road width, which would include turn lanes, along with other traffic management additions such as traffic signals and/or traffic circles. Additionally, the subject property is adjacent to Shannondale Elementary School, which fronts Shannondale Road. The school has its own traffic issues surrounding student pick-up that will be exacerbated by any significant development of the subject property. David (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:48 AM
David
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
David (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:53 AM
We, the residents of Joshua's Landing Condominiums, oppose the rezoning of the subject property and agree with the staff recommendation to DENY the proposed zoning change. Our neighborhood is directly across Tazewell Pike from the subject property and we believe that any significant development will add to the traffic count so as to effect traffic flow in a negative way without significant changes to the road width, which would include turn lanes, along with other traffic management additions such as traffic signals and/or traffic circles. Additionally, the subject property is adjacent to Shannondale Elementary School, which fronts Shannondale Road. The school has its own traffic issues surrounding student pick-up that will be exacerbated by any significant development of the subject property. David (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:53 AM
Sonja
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Sonja (37918), January 10, 2022 at 12:18 PM
I am responding to express my concern about the pending rezoning of the property on the corner of Shannondale and Tazewell Pike. I have lived in this area most of my life and seeing these properties turned into massive complexes is heartbreaking! This area just cannot handle any more multi family developments or high density home development The traffic is very concerning especially at this intersection. This intersection with high traffic and a blind hill is already extremely dangerous and added traffic would only exacerbate this issue! Shannondale is already overcrowded. Anything other than a few homes on large lots here would destroy the character of this historic neighborhood. We already have too many apartments/condos on Tazewell Pike as it is! Please do not rezone this property! Sonja (37918), January 10, 2022 at 12:18 PM
Julia
37918
37918
1-E-22-RZ
Julia (37918), January 10, 2022 at 12:49 PM
Is this development for a condominium complex or for an apartment complex? It seems that more information should be provided to the community. Either way, a development such as this is not keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Most of the homes in this area are on larger lots, and even the existing subdivisions have larger lots than this would allow. Where would the entry and exit points be? Anything along this portion of Emory Road would be difficult to turn into or out of. Would turn lanes be provided? Traffic in this area is terrible, especially during the school pick up/drop off hours. Would something be done to alleviate some of the traffic congestion created by additional housing developments in this area? Residents of the Gibbs community seem to desire larger lots and more open space. They understand that development is inevitable, but it would be nice to keep it within the character of the community.Julia (37918), January 10, 2022 at 12:49 PM
Pamela
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Pamela (37918), January 10, 2022 at 1:49 PM
I would like to register my strong opposition to the rezoning request for property at 4605 Tazewell Pike at the corner of Shannondale Road. The traffic situation in front of this property is extremely dangerous due to high volume flow, especially during rush hour, traffic backups due to students being picked up and dropped off at Shannondale Elementary, school buses attempting to get in and out onto Tazewell Pike. The neighborhood I live in is directly across the street from 4605 Shannondale. Homeowners from the development where I live are already challenged when attempting to safely turn onto Tazewell Pike. The increased traffic that will result from multi-family dwellings being built directly across from our development's entrance is a major safety concern.Pamela (37918), January 10, 2022 at 1:49 PM
Elizabeth
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Elizabeth (37918), January 10, 2022 at 3:14 PM
Has the historic integrity and potential impact to the viewshed been evaluated under this rezoning effort? There is a historic district adjacent to this property, so I’m curious if it has been taken into consideration. Please consider the request for this property to remain low density. Elizabeth (37918), January 10, 2022 at 3:14 PM
Rebecca
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Rebecca (37918), January 10, 2022 at 5:08 PM
We strongly oppose the rezoning of the property on Tazewell Pike at Shannondale Rd. We have lived in this area for 15 years and have seen a huge increase in traffic in Tazewell Pike causing major back ups and dangerous intersections in this area. In addition, Shannondale Elementary is already very close to max capacity, even after getting a large addition 6-7 years ago. This rezoning proposal would only take away from the beauty and charm of Tazewell Pike, add to an already crowded school and exacerbate the traffic issues on that stretch of the road. Rebecca (37918), January 10, 2022 at 5:08 PM
Kevin
37918
37918
1-E-22-UR
Kevin (37918), January 10, 2022 at 5:40 PM
This is on the border with the Town of Farragut, which has an aggressive program to complete sidewalks through the entire town. Shouldn't this development be required to have sidewalks on the road frontage, so that it can connect to Farragut sidewalks once they complete them? Also, this is REALLY close to the Fox Run Greenway, and residents of this complex could certainly use connectivity east on Everett Rd to that greenway. What opportunities are available, and what will you require the developer to install in the way of sidewalks?Kevin (37918), January 10, 2022 at 5:40 PM
Kevin
37918
37918
1-G-22-RZ
Kevin (37918), January 10, 2022 at 5:48 PM
I understand and agree with the staff's recommendation for Planned Commercial, based on the uses that are allowed/not allowed in the CN district (otherwise an ideal choice) and the lack of landscaping, lighting, parking and design standards in the CA district. What is the yardstick you will use to evaluate a development plan in the Planned Commercial zone for this parcel? What are the landscaping, lighting, parking, design standards you will require? I heard one of the commissioners state last month that as long as the applicant complies with the baseline requirements of a zone, then Planning Commission shouldn't require them to go any higher. Well, for Planned Commercial there are no baselines for landscaping, lighting, etc. - it just says they must submit a plan. What will you require this plan to meet?Kevin (37918), January 10, 2022 at 5:48 PM
Jane
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Jane (37918), January 10, 2022 at 7:38 PM
I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband to express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property located at 4605 Tazewell Pike, and we respectfully request a denial of this request. As residents of the Shannondale area for over 30 years, we are very concerned that a multi-unit development will negatively impact this area in multiple ways. The traffic issues that already exist at this intersection will only be exacerbated if multiple housing units are placed on this property; the elementary school adjacent to this intersection cannot support a huge influx of additional students (nor the traffic that will be created); and the sinkhole issues that plague this property make placing multiple dwellings here very dangerous. This property is also adjacent to a historic district, and to place a multi-unit development will do nothing but destroy the beauty of this area of Tazewell Pike. Please consider keeping the current RA zoning or if rezoning is inevitable, please consider the change to PR instead. We also oppose the sector plan amendment, as there is nothing to warrant a change from low density to medium density.Jane (37918), January 10, 2022 at 7:38 PM
Martie
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Martie (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:01 PM
On behalf of the Beverly Oaks Homeowners Association, we would like to register our opposition to the request to rezone 4605 Tazewell Pike from RA to RB. We are in agreement with the Planning Staff's recommendations to deny Sector Plan amendment to MDR because it is inconsistent with surrounding developments as well as the presence of sink holes on the property. In addition, there are traffic and safety issues due to cars lined up along the Shannondale Rd side of the property during school pick up time. Pulling out onto Tazewell Pike at this location is further complicated due to a blind hill. Please deny this request.Martie (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:01 PM
Gary
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Gary (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:08 PM
Please deny request to rezone property at 4605 Tazewell Pike corner of Shannondale Rd.I have heard many times in the past that there are caves that run underground along that area. That should definitely be checked out before approving any type of multiple family units. Gary (37918), January 10, 2022 at 11:08 PM
Susan
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Susan (37918), January 11, 2022 at 12:49 PM
I live directly across the street from this horse/farm/large land property. I am very much opposed to creating apartments there. I wouldn't mind a few houses, but putting many apartments at that particular corner would be extremely detrimental to our already less-than-perfect traffic flow as well as safety. Cars for Shannondale Elementary school line up clear onto Tazewell Pike every day. They line up, also, around the corner from me on Greendale making it hard to drive anywhere from 2:15-3:20 approximately. Cars pick up speed toward the end of Shannondale, also, often driving more than 45 mph when they reach my house. I have had one dog hit and killed. The neighbor selling the property has also had a dog hit and killed (on Tazewell Pike). There is no light at my corner and left-hand turns are dangerous. Adding a profuse amount of traffic to this particular area would create horrible traffic patterns and would end up being harmful to those of us living in the neighborhood and driving along Tazewell Pike. I am definitely opposed to having apartments built here. Susan H.Susan (37918), January 11, 2022 at 12:49 PM
Anetha
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Anetha (37918), January 11, 2022 at 5:10 PM
I would like to register my strong opposition to the rezoning request for property at 4605 Tazewell Pike at the corner of Shannondale Road. Anyone taking the opportunity to travel Tazewell Pike can easily experience the current high volume of traffic. With the requested development bringing additional automobiles, how will it be possible to enter and exit Tazewell Pike safely? If approved how many months and years will we be living with construction equipment entering and exiting Tazewell? I think records showing the number of accidents that have occurred and continue frequently on Tazewell Pike should be a clear indicator we need to work on the road to make travel safer not adding more opportunities for unsafe travel.Anetha (37918), January 11, 2022 at 5:10 PM
Bruce
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Bruce (37918), January 11, 2022 at 8:43 PM
I oppose the rezoning of the property at Shannondale and Tazewell Pike because of sinkholes on the property make development unsafe and the added traffic burden on Tazewell Pike will add significantly to an already unsafe condition. Bruce (37918), January 11, 2022 at 8:43 PM
Janet
37918
37918
1-E-22-RZ
Janet (37918), January 12, 2022 at 6:06 AM
MPC is recommending to approve this re-zoning of the property connecting to clear springs for up to 9 units per acre. If you are opposed to this, you need to send in your remarks ASAP. Please do not approve for yet more housing to be built in this community. Janet (37918), January 12, 2022 at 6:06 AM
*Beaver Creek is a protected waterway and runs directly through this property, everyone entering must cross this creek.
*Traffic has become terrible in this area already, the roads were not made for all of the current traffic. Numerous accidents this year. The increase in auto accidents has caused increase in auto insurance.
*We’ve been provided no plan of use for this development, leaving the community at significant risk to developments that don’t bring value back to the community.
*Any potential kids would be within the prz zone and have to walk or be driven to school as there would be no bus provided to them, adding to our existing traffic issues and endangering our kids.
Marcia
37918
37918
1-E-22-RZ
Marcia (37918), January 12, 2022 at 12:39 PM
I live just off of Emory Rd we already have way to many subdivisions, shopping centers, town houses , condominiums and etc.. as it is. Traffic is horrible, schools overcrowded, wildlife coming on to peoples property because their homes are being destroyed this endangers people, property & domestic animals. We don't need anything else built in this area.Marcia (37918), January 12, 2022 at 12:39 PM
Carol
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Carol (37918), January 12, 2022 at 12:59 PM
I highly oppose any plan to change the current zoning of this property from RA to RB for multiple unit housing of any kind. Not only would this create additional heavy traffic issues on an already extremely busy and dangerous street, Tazewell Pike, it would potentially lower the current property values in the area. Additionally, the traffic issues would be multiplied 10 fold during construction in this area. The sink hole issue is another situation that needs to be looked at for the safety of everyone in the entire area. Multiple law suits would be filed for many reasons in addition to sink holes, traffic and safety, noise, etc.. Additionally there would be additional strain on law enforcement and other pubic services in the area that is already stretched thin. The burden on the existing residents would cause a multitude of issues. Traffic is already an issue on Shannondale Road due to the elementary school located in the neighborhood as well as all the surrounding streets in the area that bare the traffic burden. Additional problems are definitely not wanted. This entire plan would only add chaos to an already strained neighborhood. Carol (37918), January 12, 2022 at 12:59 PM
Eric
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Eric (37918), January 12, 2022 at 2:50 PM
As the Vice President of the Beverly Acres Homeowners Association we have concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. The developers have not engaged us in any way to show future plans, infrastructure, etc. Specifically the developments impact on ingress and egress from Shannondale Road to Tazewell Pike. This area is already dangerous and adding a high density traffic count would make it even more problematic.Eric (37918), January 12, 2022 at 2:50 PM
Susan
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Susan (37918), January 12, 2022 at 8:40 PM
I am opposed to rezoning 4605 Tazewell PIke. I own the 12 acres adjacent to and East of 4605 Tazewell Pike. We built our home 31 years ago on the only spot in the entire 12 acres that was stable enough for building. A geologic survey was done a few years prior (of which I have a copy) by a geologist at the University of Tennessee for a developer that was interested I am in opposition to the rezoning of 4605 Tazewell Pike. I own the 12 acres adjacent and East of this property on Tazewell Pike. Before we bought the property a geologic survey was done by a professor at the University of Tennessee for a developer that was interested in building multi family homes. ( I have a copy) The survey categorically stated that due to the karst nature of the land, they would not recommend building on the property at all. The empty "pond" in the front of 4605 near the road is actually a sink hole that lines up with three rather large and deep sinkholes on my property. You just can't see mine them through the trees. Secondly, the traffic on Tazewell PIke in this area is horrendous. When I try to leave my driveway for work in the morning, it is often backed up East of my driveway and I just have to wait for some good Samaritan to let me out. There have been numerous wrecks at the intersection of Tazewell Pike and Shannondale Road because of a blind hill and cars trying to take and pick up children at Shannondale.Susan (37918), January 12, 2022 at 8:40 PM
Ryan
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Ryan (37918), January 12, 2022 at 9:18 PM
Until very recently, the local community has kept much of it’s character for generations. Being kin to the Chumleys, I have had family on property here for going on one hundred years. Much of the local community was originally given as a grant to the Anderson family as payment for service in the Revolutionary War, and until deaths in recent years, the Andersons had continued to reside in this community. Reckless development in recent decades, all against the desire of locals, has deeply marred the nature of the community and predictably lead to drastically increased traffic. It has long been unsafe to travel on foot along the road. It often feels unsafe to even mow near the road. School buses already have a horrible time turning next to the property in question in order to get to Shannondale elementary. Red lights would only add to the traffic jam, and we don’t want historic properties to be carved up further for wider roads. We don’t want the community further marred by new development contrary to its historic character and nature, which is quite frankly unwise given the local underground caves and sinkholes anyway. The most satisfactory course would be to oppose all further development in the area. Knox county has already paid a very heavy price for plowing under it’s own history, which ironically, it’s trying to revitalize in certain areas. Let natural historic character continue to live here.Ryan (37918), January 12, 2022 at 9:18 PM
Monica
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Monica (37918), January 12, 2022 at 10:27 PM
I am opposed to the rezoning to allow for multiple homes to be built on this property. Tazewell Pike cannot handle the additional cars that would accompany such development. The intersection of this property at Shannondale Road is a dangerous intersection at a blind hill. If allowed, the congestion of vehicles would most certainly result in more accidents. Shannondale Elementary is in very close proximity to this property as well. Increasing traffic load would not be in the best interest for safety of those children. Too much development has already been allowed on this section of Tazewell Pike resulting in marked traffic flow problems and accidents, especially in the early morning and late afternoon school / work commutes. I strongly urge denial for rezoning. Monica (37918), January 12, 2022 at 10:27 PM
Grace
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Grace (37918), January 12, 2022 at 10:47 PM
My family and I strongly oppose the RB rezoning of the property at 4605 Tazewell Pike. When I first saw this listing come on the market this issue was my biggest fear. The roads and the schools cannot handle a development of this magnitude and it is harmful to the community. There are already so many traffic issues on Tazewell and the intersection at Shannondale and Tazewell is already dangerous as is. The sinkholes on this property also pose challenges to any sort of development. It would sadden me greatly to see this kind of development in the neighborhood where I was born and raised and am currently raising my children. Please oppose. Grace (37918), January 12, 2022 at 10:47 PM
Hannah
37918
37918
1-D-22-SP
Hannah (37918), January 12, 2022 at 11:44 PM
I oppose rezoning this property for multiple reasons including those listed below:Hannah (37918), January 12, 2022 at 11:44 PM
1. rezoning to anything other than it's current zone is outside the character of our area. The charm of Fountain City will be slowly chipped away at should we continue to rezone and add more housing. We do not want additional development in this area.
2. the cumulative impact of traffic caused by additional development would be detrimental to the traffic back ups we already experience along Tazewell Pike which lead to it's side roads, like the one I live on, becoming cut through roads.
3. to account for the cumulative impact of traffic, historic property, such as Pratt's Market and Smithwood, would need to be taken. Again, these landmarks make up the charm of Fountain City and we want to preserve them, not take away from them.
4. for those living in the Fountain City section of Tazewell Pike and the close surrounding areas, Tazewell Pike and Washington Pike are the only routes to I-640. Additional traffic to the interstate from yet another development is not welcome.
Please consider what the community truly wants for this property. Many of us chose to live in Fountain City because of the quiet, charming, kind community. And while we welcome anyone that wants to visit or purchase a home already established, we do not welcome additional housing development.
Jama
37918
37918
1-K-22-RZ
Jama (37918), January 13, 2022 at 12:43 PM
I strongly oppose rezoning this property. 1.Additional development in this area is having a negative effect on traffic and also the roads do not hav the structure to deal with the influx of traffic. 2. This is a small community and our residents have chosen to keep it this way. Consideration for this community has not been taken into account ,nor the negative effects on our surrounding business and schools. There has been too much development already. Again strongly oppose.Jama (37918), January 13, 2022 at 12:43 PM