Public Comments

December 31, 2021
at 9:55 AM

Raymond
37920

1-B-22-SU
Raymond (37920), December 31, 2021 at 9:55 AM

1. How many units are they proposing to add to this property? 2. Are they removing the existing units on the property or adding to? 3. Is this going to be more "Income based property"? 4. Has a traffic study been performed to see how the added congestion will impact the already difficult intersection of Red Bud and Sevierville Pike? 5. If this is rental property, will it be maintained as poorly as the current rentals on that property?

January 2, 2022
at 2:33 PM

Joanna
37932

1-D-22-UR
Joanna (37932), January 2, 2022 at 2:33 PM

Again, what are you thinking? This area has become ugly. An area of ugly houses stacked on top of each other for miles and miles. Where are our parks? Green spaces? Where is our library and post office? Where is our quality of life? We were promised parks years ago during all those "town hall meetings". What a joke. I won't mention traffic or schools. Everyone knows that Hardin Valley = overcrowded schools and traffic. It's what we're known for. Stop paving everything and think about what you are doing by approving these terrible subdivisions. The yards aren't even big enough for a single tree. Not. One. Single. Tree. I feel sorry for people who think that they have no choice but to live in Hardin Valley "because of the schools". They are being sold a lie. I think Hardin Valley should come with a warning: Choose Hardin Valley! What we have: Traffic! Severely overcrowded schools! Traffic! No parks! No library! No green space whatsoever! No trees! Traffic! You will spend most of your time in your car driving someplace else for everything! Houses inches from each other! So many portable classrooms they could be a subdivision on their own! What we don't have: pretty much everything you need for a good quality of life. This will be your legacy.

January 3, 2022
at 1:53 PM

Todd
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.

January 3, 2022
at 1:58 PM

Ben
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Ben (37918), January 3, 2022 at 1:58 PM

I oppose the RV rezoning proposed for 4605 Tazewell Pike.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220103135827.pdf

January 3, 2022
at 4:03 PM

Herschel
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:03 PM

January 3, 2022
at 4:04 PM

Herschel
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Herschel (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:04 PM

January 3, 2022
at 4:09 PM

Linda
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Linda (37918), January 3, 2022 at 4:09 PM

January 4, 2022
at 9:25 PM

Daniel
37932

1-G-22-UR
Daniel (37932), January 4, 2022 at 9:25 PM

From a concerned Massey Creek Neighbor:
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220104212504.pdf

January 4, 2022
at 9:44 PM

Paige
37932

1-G-22-UR
Paige (37932), January 4, 2022 at 9:44 PM

A note from a Massey Creek Neighbor:
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220104214421.pdf

January 5, 2022
at 11:46 AM

Mackenzie
37932

1-G-22-UR
Mackenzie (37932), January 5, 2022 at 11:46 AM

Hardin Valley, especially the growing and expanding western area, does not have the infrastructure to support the residents currently living here. This area is so congested and adding more housing developments, without fixing the current roads will only add to the problem. The area off of Massey Creek is becoming more congested, especially with the development across the street, by Marietta Church Road. The safety of the current residents will continue to worsen if the infrastructure is not rectified! Better roads need to be built, sidewalks need to be added (all along Hardin Valley Road), and better road signs need to allow for the growing traffic. The development off Mission Hill Lane needs to be halted, as do all Hardin Valley plans, until this area is safer to drive on.

January 5, 2022
at 12:29 PM

Charles
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:

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.

January 5, 2022
at 3:45 PM

Clifford
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.

January 6, 2022
at 12:22 PM

Jamie
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.

January 6, 2022
at 1:18 PM

Judy
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!

January 6, 2022
at 2:03 PM

Rudy
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.

January 6, 2022
at 6:32 PM

Carissa
37931

1-E-22-SP
Carissa (37931), January 6, 2022 at 6:32 PM

I have attached a single PDF with my concerned comment.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220106183214.pdf

1-N-22-RZ

Chris
37931

1-N-22-RZ
Chris (37931), January 7, 2022 at 12:45 PM

Please read attached PDF with my comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220107124545.pdf

January 7, 2022
at 12:45 PM

1-SA-22-C

Dennis
37932

1-SA-22-C
Dennis (37932), January 9, 2022 at 6:25 PM

As a resident near Couch Mill Road, I am deeply concerned about a 400 unit subdivision being proposed on 132 acres off of Couch Mill Road near Hardin Valley Road. The land is currently zoned as agricultural. Constructing 400 houses on approximately 100 acres of the current farmland would be very detrimental to our rural community. There are too many subdivisions being erected in Hardin Valley as it is. Couch Mill Road and Steele Road are simply way too narrow to accommodate this exponential increase in traffic if this subdivision were to be constructed. The roads are too narrow even with the flow of traffic we already have. This also will greatly increase the strain on our local schools Hardin Valley Elementary, Middle and Academy which are already overflowing with the existing population they serve. The subdivision would result in exceeding the Knox County intersection standard which is currently 3000. As a resident of the community this proposed subdivision would negatively impact, I urge you to vote NO on the proposal. This subdivision would destroy our lovely rural community and endanger lives with increased traffic on our already small roads. Please OPPOSE this.

January 9, 2022
at 6:25 PM

1-F-22-UR

Michael
37721

1-F-22-UR
Michael (37721), January 9, 2022 at 8:28 PM

Please see attached pdf document.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220109202821.pdf

January 9, 2022
at 8:28 PM

January 10, 2022
at 2:53 AM

Paul
37932

1-G-22-UR
Paul (37932), January 10, 2022 at 2:53 AM

The update to this proposal will cause run off issues, devalue current property owners in Massey Creek and is not in the best interest of the public. The Mission Hill entrance to Massey Creek should be unaltered as it is consistent with nearly all subdivisions in Hardin Valley in having a landscaped entrance for the neighborhood. EVERY neighborhood off HV road has this defining characteristic. The entrance acts as a park and green space for Massey Creek residents to walk and ride bikes. The extra 5 houses will take that leisure away and have no connection to any neighborhood. It’s the equivalent of dumping houses on green space. The 2 retention ponds already approved should remain to help with the water retention. Your group plans to put nearly 100 homes on adjoining land that currently helps with retaining water in the area. The greed of a voting member purchasing this land and amending the project to add an additional 6-10 homes and devalue Massey Creek subdivision is the latest example why HV residents have zero faith our voices are ever heard. Your project already has 18 homes approved and defacing Missiin Hill is unnecessary.

January 10, 2022
at 9:27 AM

Gerda
37932

1-G-22-UR
Gerda (37932), January 10, 2022 at 9:27 AM

Please see my comments for case 1-SB-C-22.

January 10, 2022
at 11:48 AM

David
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.

January 10, 2022
at 1:49 PM

Pamela
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.

January 10, 2022
at 4:18 PM

Leslie
37932

1-G-22-UR
Leslie (37932), January 10, 2022 at 4:18 PM

I oppose the addition of additional subdivisions off of Mission Hill lane. This will create overcrowding and traffic. I have concerns about lot number 22,23,24,25, and 26 as to how they will be accessed. this is a divided drive with limited access. This means that many of these lots will do a u turn in the middle of the drive to access their property. This is already a dangerous choke point due the volume of traffic coming off Hardin valley. Additionally where will there guest park. The size of the lots does not allow for long driveways nor oversized driveways, so that means they will park in the street. Again, making this area more dangerous. We purchased in Massey Creek in February of 2021 and detracting from the entrance with additional access for a poorly planned subdivision will hurt the property values in the Massey Creek neighborhood. Additionally the loss of green space provided will also detract from the home values. I feel if this is approved the commission is more concerned about the additional tax revenue generated, than actually planning and forecasting for green space and traffic flow.

January 12, 2022
at 10:45 AM

Nancye
37920

1-B-22-SU
Nancye (37920), January 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM

How will this effect the natural area and wildlife? Seems it might erode the Red Bud hillside where I’m already reluctant to drive on the north side close to the pedestrian bridge. Already too much traffic on Sevierville Pike which would be the main access road as it is the only southeast access to the county other than Chapman Highway. Experienced developers?

January 12, 2022
at 11:32 AM

Carrie
37920

1-B-22-SU
Carrie (37920), January 12, 2022 at 11:32 AM

Please see attached PDF requesting that this matter be postponed for further consideration and the basis for the request.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112113231.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 1:06 PM

Matthew
37932

1-G-22-UR
Matthew (37932), January 12, 2022 at 1:06 PM

The Massey Creek HOA opposes this type of development. Please deny this request, especially lots 22-26 and the detention pond placement. See attached statement including photos of Mission Hill Ln. If this was not Scott Smith’s request, these variances and additions would not be approved. Do the right thing and vote against this money grabbing development.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112130607.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 2:50 PM

Eric
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.

January 12, 2022
at 8:40 PM

Susan
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.

January 13, 2022
at 12:43 PM

Jama
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.

January 14, 2022
at 2:45 PM

Brandi
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Brandi (37918), January 14, 2022 at 2:45 PM

I strongly oppose the rezoning to allow for multiple homes to be built on 4605 Tazewell Pike. The intersection of this property at Shannondale Road is already a high-risk intersection with a blind hill receiving high speed traffic. More congestion will result in more accidents. The elementary school barely handles the traffic as is, backing up to Tazewell Pike. Increasing traffic load would put the safety of the children attending Shannondale Elementary at risk as well as families living in the area.

January 23, 2022
at 2:34 PM

Jill
37922

2-E-22-UR
Jill (37922), January 23, 2022 at 2:34 PM

The lot size proposed in this request is much smaller than those in surrounding neighborhoods (Montgomery Cove, Bayou Bend, Lake Cove etc.) and therefore is inconsistent with established subdivisions. Lowering the number of homes to 45 instead of 55 would at least insure a lot size of 1/4 acre. There is also the matter of water flow to consider as it affects surrounding properties. Since Northshore is quite narrow at this property, requiring a turn lane like the one into Montgomery Cove will help ease increased traffic. Has a traffic study been done? Also, requiring a tree/bush buffer between adjacent properties such as Lake Cove may help in water management and land erosion.

January 23, 2022
at 6:41 PM

Charlotte
37932

1-D-22-UR
Charlotte (37932), January 23, 2022 at 6:41 PM

Letter attached....PDF format "Letter to KCPC 2022
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220123184135.pdf

January 24, 2022
at 8:48 PM

Michelle
37920

1-B-22-SU
Michelle (37920), January 24, 2022 at 8:48 PM

Very concerned about the likelihood of erosion unless there are a good number of mature trees left on this hillside property. I also understand the need for additional housing but the roads in the area are narrow and not intended for large numbers of cars traveling on them. I would hope there will be at least be some widening to the access road.

January 25, 2022
at 3:31 PM

Michael
37923

2-A-22-RZ
Michael (37923), January 25, 2022 at 3:31 PM

I have no problem with the rezoning. However, getting in and out of Lennox Ct has become more and more challenging at certain times of day with the newish red lights where Gleason hits Ebenezer and Galladher View. Additional residences have been added without turn lanes off Gleason being worked into the plan, and Gleason between Ebenezer and Gallagher View can get quite backed up with people stopping to make left turns into subdivisions. Visibility of turning onto Gleason from Highfield Rd has also been impaired by newish structures the homeowner on the corner has built that block the view of traffic coming East on Gleason. If more than a couple of new units are planned, it might be wise for the planning commission to insist on adding a turn lane from Gleason Rd to prevent traffic from backing up (which I'm sure would also reduce cars being rear-ended on Gleason).

January 25, 2022
at 3:33 PM

Matt
37922

2-E-22-UR
Matt (37922), January 25, 2022 at 3:33 PM

I would like voice my objection to the requested Use on Review for 57 additional residential lots. As a homeowner in the general area, my concern is the certain strain that will accompany additional residential "roofs" being placed on a very tight area of Northshore Drive. Further, the Choto sub-market has experienced a high level of residential growth without corresponding commercial services for the current and long time residents. While we recognize the area is sought after, the reality is Northshore needs to be expanded to (at minimum) at least 3 lanes all the way to Concord Road, regardless if the 12320 Northshore property is of commercial or residential use. Adding 57 additional attached homes will continue to cause major issues down S. Northshore for the foreseeable future.

2-B-22-RZ

Kimberly
37923

2-B-22-RZ
Kimberly (37923), January 27, 2022 at 7:41 PM

Please do not allow 5 dwellings per acre on this piece of land. This area is already overcrowded. Please try to drive through this area during school hours (morning and afternoon). It's awful. I live in Gulf Park and take my son to CAK and my daughter to HVA every day. Turning left and right off of Bob Gray every day is tough enough. 5 houses per acre is too much.

January 27, 2022
at 7:41 PM

January 29, 2022
at 12:19 PM

Phillip
37923

2-A-22-RZ
Phillip (37923), January 29, 2022 at 12:19 PM

I agree with previous comment concerning congested traffic issues and need for roadwork to handle the traffics flows. Several years ago MPC determined this land to be a Hillside Protection zone due to the severe slope of the land, defined in the master sector plan. It was determined also, that having all those roads/driveways on that land, pushes more water into a drainage area, already with a history of flooding. Not against development, but 2 units per acre on that slope is what the HP zoning calls for and what limits all the issues described above and how the MPC has treated this property and given latitude to in the past. It’s current zoning is most appropriate and LDR would go against the HP zoning due to slope, which can never be disputed or ignored! That’s the rules of the land and why it’s zoned that way currently and should maintain precedence here!

January 31, 2022
at 8:16 AM

Susan
37923

2-A-22-RZ
Susan (37923), January 31, 2022 at 8:16 AM

I live on property that adjoins this property. When this property was proposed for resining previously we were concerned about the steep slope of the property and the possibility of flooding. There is a creek bed between the property that drains into Ten Mile creek an area that often floods.drainage ponds often overflow especially on such a steep slope and added pavement due to heavy development would make this worse. I ask that any development be limited to the current overlay plan to prevent additional flooding in this area and the potential for flooding on my property

February 1, 2022
at 10:40 AM

Joel
37922

2-E-22-UR
Joel (37922), February 1, 2022 at 10:40 AM

Aside from the planned development of 57 condos being inconsistent with the other housing in the vicinity, the unfettered growth is already straining Northshore / Choto roads capacity. Understood that property owners should be able to pursue their economic interest, but land use plan should be restrained to 3 homes per acre, certainly no more than 4. Planning commission needs to consider how Northshore will be expanded to handle additional traffic.

11-A-21-SP

Kimberly
37923

11-A-21-SP
Kimberly (37923), February 2, 2022 at 12:36 PM

Please do not approve this many dwellings per acre on this property. Andes Road and Chert Pit are well traveled roads with little to no shoulder. I grew up in this area and there has been no improvement done to either Andes or Chert Pit. The only new things is the traffic light at Middlebrook Pike and Chert Pit. Some growth is good, but please plan better. More traffic, more people turning left and right on double yellow lined roads isn't good for drivers. I'm tired of all the trees and animals being dispersed because of new contraction.

February 2, 2022
at 12:36 PM

11-C-21-RZ

Kimberly
37923

11-C-21-RZ
Kimberly (37923), February 2, 2022 at 12:38 PM

12 du/acre. You've got to be kidding me. Please do not approve this many dwellings per acre on this property. Andes Road and Chert Pit are well traveled roads with little to no shoulder. I grew up in this area and there has been no improvement done to either Andes or Chert Pit. The only new things is the traffic light at Middlebrook Pike and Chert Pit. Some growth is good, but please plan better. More traffic, more people turning left and right on double yellow lined roads isn't good for drivers. I'm tired of all the trees and animals being dispersed because of new contraction.

February 2, 2022
at 12:38 PM

February 2, 2022
at 12:40 PM

Kimberly
37923

1-E-22-SP
Kimberly (37923), February 2, 2022 at 12:40 PM

Please do not approve this many dwellings per acre on this property. With the new road construction happening from Shaad to Middlebrook Pike, there is so much destruction with this development. Andes Road and Chert Pit are well traveled roads with little to no shoulder. I grew up in this area and there has been no improvement done to either Andes or Chert Pit. The only new things is the traffic light at Middlebrook Pike and Chert Pit. Some growth is good, but please plan better. More traffic, more people turning left and right on double yellow lined roads isn't good for drivers. I'm tired of all the trees and animals being dispersed because of new construction. Is anything being done to replace the trees? We all benefit from trees, but we don't all benefit from new construction.

1-SA-22-C

Kimberly
37923

1-SA-22-C
Kimberly (37923), February 2, 2022 at 12:47 PM

Please do not approve this new construction. Before you even think about it, I challenge each member to sit through Hardin Valley School traffic for an entire week - morning and afternoon. Pretend to drop off a student, and then sit and WAIT for 15 minutes or more to even exit the parking lot to turn left to get back onto Hardin Valley Road. Have an appointment or a job? You're probably going to be late. Who planned a daycare facility with an entrance 10 yards away from the HVA entrance/exit? That was poor planning. Parents trying to enter and exit that facility each morning and afternoon as well as the only entrance/exit to HVA. MPC didn't plan well for that one. Traffic is a bear every morning and afternoon when I drop off my child. When construction was happening? Even worse. And we aren't taking the bus either, because it drops off almost an hour after school dismisses. Hardin Valley used to be amazing, full of farms and horses, and a few house. So much land. Some growth is good, but this is getting out of control. HVA is overcrowded with 550 in their FRESHMAN class. Please rethink all of this growth and planning. Schools are already overcrowded and underfunded. This won't help.

February 2, 2022
at 12:47 PM

February 2, 2022
at 12:47 PM

Kimberly
37923

1-D-22-UR
Kimberly (37923), February 2, 2022 at 12:47 PM

2-D-22-UR

Chris & Paula
37721

2-D-22-UR
Chris & Paula (37721), February 2, 2022 at 1:13 PM

We live in the 1st phase of Campbells Point and have seen an increase in issues as our subdivision has experienced growth in our phase 3. Our subdivision is not a starter subdivision with homes ranging from $300,000 up to $700,000 with lots from 3/4 acre to 3 acres with an average lot of 1 acre. However, with additional building in our subdivision, we have experienced several issues such as an increase in residential traffic, construction traffic, neighborhood safety, noise, and crime. The primary road into the subdivision, Tazewell Pike has also become more dangerous. We have had numerous wrecks on this stretch of road and at our subdivision entrance. Tazewell pike is the main road to Knoxville that is heavily traveled daily by residents from other towns such as Luttrell, Powder Springs, Washburn etc. We are opposed to the development. As you know, this area of Tazewell Pike has homes with acreage and Campbells Point is the only subdivision. The density of proposed subdivision does not conform with the surrounding homes, and the increase of traffic on Tazewell Pike will only contribute to the further decline in road safety and in student safety at the school campus. With a new large development, I would expect the neighborhood to experience an additional increase in traffic, crime, safety, noise etc. Please reject the proposed subdivision as all residents that we have spoken with are also opposed.

February 2, 2022
at 1:13 PM

2-D-22-UR

Doug
37721

2-D-22-UR
Doug (37721), February 2, 2022 at 9:43 PM

Our concerns for this development are as follows. Tazewell Pike is already a busy road but I can’t image what it would be like if this development went up in this area. The traffic right now on Tazewell Pike is very dangerous, they fly up and down this road passing people in odd spots and the number of wrecks on this road are awe full. This would increase the amount of traffic that goes through the school zone that is already very busy and with kids walking on that sidewalk on a busy road is scary. Not to mention the full schools now that would also increase. This is a huge safety concern for our area and we as well as ours neighbors strongly REJECT the proposal for this property. Thank you.

February 2, 2022
at 9:43 PM

February 4, 2022
at 9:55 AM

Bryan
37922

2-E-22-UR
Bryan (37922), February 4, 2022 at 9:55 AM

This is irresponsible and does not consider community impact. The infrastructure in place does not support this development, nor does the development maintain the current aesthetic and density of the surrounding neighborhoods. As mentioned, a traffic study should be presented. Increased density is solely to benefit a single developer at the expense of the surrounding community. This is precisely what our elected officials are meant to protect their citizens from.

2-SA-22-C

Jennifer
37918

2-SA-22-C
Jennifer (37918), February 4, 2022 at 11:08 AM

Please rename this subdivision. I emailed Scott last year and was told the name would be changed to Fountain Point. I’m disappointed the new name is not reflected anywhere in the new site design. Sterchi Village HOA Board of Directors has voted to not be associated with this new development in any way. Please change the name.

February 4, 2022
at 11:08 AM

February 4, 2022
at 11:56 AM

Jack
37923

2-A-22-RZ
Jack (37923), February 4, 2022 at 11:56 AM

My home is adjacent to this property. I am concerned about the excessive number of homes per acre allowed by the proposed rezoning. The creek below this property floods during any large rain event and this has caused several feet of erosion in the last decade. During construction there will be erosion control but I also know that these controls are easily breached during large rain events, especially with the steep hillside and large area under construction. This would result in additional water and sediment entering the creek. I support the current density required by the hillside protection zone but I am opposed to the additional density allowed by the requested LDR zone. Any increased density would exacerbate the negative impacts to the environment during construction and after the development is complete. This is why there is limited density required in these Hillside Protection zones.

February 4, 2022
at 12:42 PM

John
37922

2-SC-22-C
John (37922), February 4, 2022 at 12:42 PM

see attached pdf
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220204124252.pdf

February 4, 2022
at 12:51 PM

John
37922

2-E-22-UR
John (37922), February 4, 2022 at 12:51 PM

The original neighborhoods in this area had 3 units per acre at most. Now, with every new development, the number of units per acre is steadily increasing. This is causing severe traffic congestion in the mornings and evenings and if there is an accident it shuts the area down for hours. This is a very dangerous situation for the people involved in the accident, the 1st responders and anyone else that may experience a medical emergency in the area at that time. The other point of ingress and egress to this area is via a tunnel under a railway line that should have been expanded and revamped 20 years ago. The current residents are essentially bottlenecked into this area. Never mind the large subdivisions that are going in on the other side of that tunnel. This area is also going to be affected by the building of new subdivisions just on the other side of the county line which will travel through this area to work and shopping. The local school system is overcrowded as it is. The wastewater treatment plant (Concord Rd area) and substation on Choto road are overburdened as evident by the smell when you drive past at certain times. I object to this plan.

February 4, 2022
at 12:52 PM

Trina
37922

2-SC-22-C
Trina (37922), February 4, 2022 at 12:52 PM

Hi and thank you for reading this. I wanted to comment on the Loy farms proposed subdivision. We haven't live here too long and I have no issue with adding in new homes. My concerns come from the lack of planning for growth.

1. The plans do not show a turn lane. In my opinion, ALL new developments on Northshore should be required to have turn lanes. There are too many accidents already and Northshore is a major conduit. Turning traffic is a hazard. Every development going in currently or recently without a turn lane results in a slowdown of traffic and frustration by others on the road. I understand they're trying to cram as many homes in as they can, but maybe they should cut out a couple and allow space for a turn lane, for safety. This lane could also serve as the boarding location for the bus, so children can board safely, not in the street.

2. We need more parks. While this also doesn't apply directly to this plan, it seems there is no plan for additional parks. Concord park is great, but it's overcrowded and not close to the many, many developments on this end of Northshore. So I ask, Planning Commission, what is your plan for this?

3. If the developer is allowed to reduce the many setbacks they've requested to reduce, it appears impossible for Northshore to ever both expand and have the greenbelt, thereby cutting off the ability for future expansion of the roadway. This seems like a very poor plan for the future.

February 4, 2022
at 12:52 PM

John
37922

2-SC-22-C
John (37922), February 4, 2022 at 12:52 PM

February 4, 2022
at 12:52 PM

Trina
37922

2-SC-22-C
Trina (37922), February 4, 2022 at 12:52 PM

1. The plans do not show a turn lane. In my opinion, ALL new developments on Northshore should be required to have turn lanes. There are too many accidents already and Northshore is a major conduit. Turning traffic is a hazard. Every development going in currently or recently without a turn lane results in a slowdown of traffic and frustration by others on the road. I understand they're trying to cram as many homes in as they can, but maybe they should cut out a couple and allow space for a turn lane, for safety. This lane could also serve as the boarding location for the bus, so children can board safely, not in the street.

2. We need more parks. While this also doesn't apply directly to this plan, it seems there is no plan for additional parks. Concord park is great, but it's overcrowded and not close to the many, many developments on this end of Northshore. So I ask, Planning Commission, what is your plan for this?

3. If the developer is allowed to reduce the many setbacks they've requested to reduce, it appears impossible for Northshore to ever both expand and have the greenbelt, thereby cutting off the ability for future expansion of the roadway. This seems like a very poor plan for the future.

February 5, 2022
at 9:16 AM

Jake
37922

2-SC-22-C
Jake (37922), February 5, 2022 at 9:16 AM

We are all for growth and new homes in our area but to have 57 condos in under 12 acres is not consistent with the area. The ask to reduce all the setbacks, road width and easements is a clear sign that this is overcrowding and flat-out greed, with no regard for the surrounding area. Lot size min's should be set and no reduction of infrastructure (narrow streets proposed), and no setbacks decrease should be granted. The study shows 604 more trips from the new development as well, but there is no entry and exit lanes for it off Northshore. We are all aware of the challenges on Northshore as it is and to not put in these is only going to put an already poor traffic flow into more chaos. Part of the approve must include access to and from the Northshore that does not impede traffic flow, such as turn in lanes and merge lanes. With the setbacks and easement changes being proposed also leaves no room for the work that is needed at this time to expansion of Northshore and the greenbelt, sidewalks.

February 5, 2022
at 9:17 AM

Jake
37922

2-SC-22-C
Jake (37922), February 5, 2022 at 9:17 AM

The owner/developer would be able to maintain the profit they are looking for by increasing the lot and home sizes while decreasing the overcrowded layout that have not that does not work without waivers on all the setbacks and easements. We ask that all that can attend to voice their concerns on 2/10 are able to and to reach out to the mayor. Knox County infrastructure and zoning for the future is one of his issues he ran on and is running on again. What happed with Harpers Cove (Regiment Way, Knoxville) and no design to allow for cars entering and exiting needs to stop being approved on Northshore. At Harpers cove the gate when closed does not have enough space to allow more then two vehicles before they back up onto Northshore. Enough is enough the full picture needs to be looked at not just a small part.

February 6, 2022
at 2:57 PM

Jenny
37922

2-E-22-UR
Jenny (37922), February 6, 2022 at 2:57 PM

We moved out to the Choto area over 30 years ago. We chose this area because of it’s natural beauty and because of the restrictions on how many houses could be built on the land. Those restrictions soon deteriorated with the addition of Montgomery Cove and have spiraled downward with the addition of each new subdivision. I understand the need for housing as a city grows but to do it with no regard for the current residents, nature, wildlife, natural resources, and especially the infrastructure is a losing situation. No community can thrive if it is built before the infrastructure is there. Traffic is already a nightmare in this area and will only get worse with more development. Schools are already bursting at the seams and will deteriorate with more development. Natural resources are dwindling and will be overburdened with more development. The natural beauty of the area is compromised as trees get mown down for subdivisions and wildlife habitats are threatened. I am appalled that people in leadership roles cannot see beyond the tips of their noses and realize what is best for our communities. Please make thoughtful decisions for this use on review and, at the very least, restrict the number of houses per acre to help preserve the beautiful Choto area as it was originally intended.

February 6, 2022
at 4:49 PM

Karen
37922

2-E-22-UR
Karen (37922), February 6, 2022 at 4:49 PM

Please do not allow this to development to happen!! Northshore is already so traffic heavy! That area is congested and this will make it worse. Development here in Farragut has gotten totally out of control. The McFee Road area will be a nightmare once those Saddlebrook subdivisions are in. Has always been such a wonderful place to walk…now too many speeding cars! The same will apply to that area of Northshore. No to this development!!

February 6, 2022
at 8:11 PM

Pat
37922

2-SC-22-C
Pat (37922), February 6, 2022 at 8:11 PM

This attachment represents the position of the Montgomery Cove Homeowners Association Board of Directors. Please let me know of any questions.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220206201148.pdf

February 6, 2022
at 8:13 PM

Paul
37922

2-E-22-UR
Paul (37922), February 6, 2022 at 8:13 PM

We are very concerned about the water flow coming off the Loy Farm. We own the property next door and want to make sure that no additional water flows off the Loy Farm onto our property than is currently coming off the property. Our second concern is the current 30' - 40' barrier of trees, bushes, and brush that separates the 2 properties. We have lived next door for 10+ years and have enjoyed complete privacy through this barrier. We are concerned that this barrier will be destroyed through the development of the property. We want to be assured that the barrier will remain (which we believe will be destroyed in the land development phase of construction) or a suitable replacement will be provided.

February 7, 2022
at 9:33 AM

Allison
37931

1-E-22-SP
Allison (37931), February 7, 2022 at 9:33 AM

I agree with the recommendation from the planning staff to DENY the re zoning request to a MDR. I know this case is being appealed. I would like to say that nothing has changed since the recommendation from the staff. So I see no reason why this should be approved during an appeal. Just to remind the panel of concerns; Andes road is already very busy, with blind corners, no shoulder and a lot of speeding. Also it is the main thoroughfare for the school buses who have to let kids out without sidewalks or even a shoulder to walk in. Troutman lane is essentially a one lane road with no shoulder and blind hills. It is already unsafe for the people who live here particularly the children. In no way could it support that high number of new residents that would come with 7 units per acre. MDR housing does not match the surrounding neighborhoods and would be detrimental to those of us already living here. In property values, traffic, safety, school population, as well as ecological damages. The existing LDR plan will provide more housing in the rapidly growing area without compromising the daily lives of the current residents. The Schaad road expansion is not enough to justify MDR housing dropped in the middle of single family, already established lower density neighborhoods.

February 7, 2022
at 10:28 AM

Jennifer
37922

2-SC-22-C
Jennifer (37922), February 7, 2022 at 10:28 AM

The idea of adding 7 homes and 50 duplexes in a congested area with no turn lanes and no traffic lights(with none in the works) is going to be a train wreck. The area already has traffic problems from Concord Rd. all the way down Northshore and this will make it exponentially worse.

February 7, 2022
at 12:14 PM

Eric
37772

2-SC-22-C
Eric (37772), February 7, 2022 at 12:14 PM

The density (50-100 additional families in under 12 acres) is inconsistent with current land use and will further burden the limited infrastructure, particularly with the proposed setback. The inevitable approval of this project as currently proposed is simply an indicator of the consistent "planning" undertaken by this committee, which is majority comprised of active and past developers/realtors/mortgage lenders. This committee is run by the industry it is intended to regulate. There is no valid defense for the density of this development with the proposed setbacks other than the benefit of the developer (who has won multiple awards from the HBAGK - the association to which many members of this planning commission belong or have presided over). The bio’s of several committee members state "responsible development" and the like. Development and profit seeking are both good and necessary to meet the needs of all stakeholders, when done responsibly. This development as proposed is not responsible. To those on the committee who are not friends and/or business associates of the developer, please represent the citizens you are appointed to represent by reducing the density of this proposed development. Keep Knox county a desirable place to live.

February 7, 2022
at 12:32 PM

Gail
37922

2-E-22-UR
Gail (37922), February 7, 2022 at 12:32 PM

We built our forever home in Jefferson Park almost 13 years ago. The beauty and tranquility of the area brought us here. Now the overdevelopment has ruined this part and many other parts of Knoxville! Schools are overcrowded and the traffic on Northshore is a nightmare and unsafe. Please stop this overdevelopment of our beautiful area!!!

February 7, 2022
at 3:46 PM

Kathy
37922

2-E-22-UR
Kathy (37922), February 7, 2022 at 3:46 PM

We moved to the Choto area from Bearden less than 3 years ago. We understood at the time we built that Ball Homes was building a large subdivision in the area. We did not know there would be almost 300 houses built in the McFee Rd/Boyd Station Rd area. This is close by the railroad trestle that is impossible for 2 cars to pass through, considering the size of trucks now. Another 57 residences will only make this situation worse. The constant traffic and noise that is already bad will also increase. I believe this development will bring down property values in upper-income neighborhoods of Montgomery Cove, Choto Mills, Mallard Bay, etc. I know this property will be sold for homes...it's inevitable. But I think the homes should be more in line with the established neighborhoods. The infrastructure out here is already to the breaking point. The speeders and bully drivers on Northshore are very scary now.

February 7, 2022
at 4:50 PM

Applicant

1-E-22-SP
Applicant Correspondence
February 7, 2022 at 4:50 PM

see attached
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220207165020.pdf

applicant

2-B-22-RZ

Daniel
37923

2-B-22-RZ
Daniel (37923), February 7, 2022 at 7:59 PM

This property sits on or near an active sink hole that has already flood twice during the previous winter rains. Additional development on this property could cause property damage to those nearby. This will also add to the congestion of the roads as it is already difficult enough to pull out onto Dutchtown from Bob Kirby during rush hour and school traffic.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220207195936.pdf

February 7, 2022
at 7:59 PM

February 7, 2022
at 9:15 PM

Jenna
37922

2-E-22-UR
Jenna (37922), February 7, 2022 at 9:15 PM

Enough is enough. This area has become increasingly more dangerous. It is nearly impossible to take a left turn out of our Northshore neighborhood between the hours of 7- 9 am and then 3-6:30 pm. The commission keeps approving more and more homes to come into this area, without providing any infrastructure to support the onslaught on people and cars. The decisions made in recent years have truly diminished the quality of life for those living in this area. What was once a beautiful and serene setting has been destroyed by decisions of the last few years. The storage units that were somehow approved on this beautiful stretch of land is truly bad enough. Please don’t double down on a poor decision by now allowing condominiums into this area. The schools are already overrun. There is no more room! Stop with the madness.

February 8, 2022
at 7:47 AM

Dawn
37922

2-E-22-UR
Dawn (37922), February 8, 2022 at 7:47 AM

I oppose this development. I feel this area lacks the roadways and infrastructure to meet the traffic needs of this new development. Our schools have been overcrowded for many years and can not sustain and influx of students.

February 8, 2022
at 9:19 AM

Charles
37922

2-E-22-UR
Charles (37922), February 8, 2022 at 9:19 AM

As a resident of Knoxville for over 20 years and multiple area homeowner- Lenoir City (37772), Farragut (37934), and now Concord (37922) - the growth the area is experiencing has been both exciting and disheartening. Exciting because area growth, when managed responsibly, is a good thing- new residents, businesses, opportunities, and the like are fantastic. However, much of the development in recent years have been disheartening as areas, particularly highly sought after and desirable areas, are pillaged by developers only thinking of their bottom line profits with little to no regard for the community or those who live in them. Over the last 3-5 years, the Western most area of Knox County in particular, has seen this occur time and again with developers that want to take advantage of the booming housing market but do not want to support the area/community responsibly and/or considering infrastructure strains and the challenges those strains create for our residents. This development is just another example. By not aligning to the general lot size to home ratio of the area, housing type or aesthetics, and zero consideration for the significant traffic challenges this will only add to an already overly congested area, I firmly oppose this development in its entirety. I ask the committee to do better and do what's right for our community. Oppose this development.

2-D-22-UR

Penny
37721

2-D-22-UR
Penny (37721), February 8, 2022 at 9:28 AM

Due to so many subdivisions already in this area, I feel we cannot handle anymore traffic. I also feel there will be a safety issue with the turning lane on Tazewell Pike. Traffic is non-stop in that area. Even with no sidewalk, I feel the kids will try to walk home since it will be so close to the school. We also need to preserve the Farmland that we still have in this area. We will soon not have anymore Farms in this area to feed the livestock or to even put new livestock on. We need to start using the land we still have left more wisely. This little community is not equipped to handle anymore. Even our schools are getting too crowded. I have lived here all my life and the Farmers cannot even be able to afford to purchase the Farmland. The price is set so high. Each year I see another barn being torn down and farms disappearing. There are still Farmers out there wanting to purchase land. We need to make a change before we no longer have any Farmland even left.

February 8, 2022
at 9:28 AM

February 8, 2022
at 10:09 AM

Gary
37922

2-E-22-UR
Gary (37922), February 8, 2022 at 10:09 AM

TRAFFIC ISSUE: I've live in the Choto area since 1993, almost 30 years. Northshore has changed from a rural road to a major thoroughfare. The population west of Concord Road has expanded tremendously, but Northshore has not changed to accommodate the growth. Yet, the Planning Commission has allowed, even encouraged growth to continue at an accelerated pace. The addition of 57 housing units on Loy Farm will add to the present clog of traffic.

ON-SITE ACCESS: Loy Farm driveways are small, and will likely require on-road parking for visitors, but streets are too narrow to accommodate on-road parking. The potential exists for blocking emergency vehicle access.

STORMWATER RUNOFF: The upper section of Loy Farm is shown to drain to a depression onsite. That water has to go somewhere off-site. That somewhere is to the tiny creek along the storage facility, across Choto Meadows common property and into Holder Branch. Even now, during heavy rains, Holder Branch floods onto Choto Meadows property. The addition of more impervious surfaces will exacerbate the flooding in the feeder creek, in Holder Branch, and downstream

CONCLUSION: In short, there are too many homes planned for the Loy Farm Property. The streets are too narrow. Provisions for storm water runoff is inadequate.

Deny the Use on Review until local concerns are addressed.

February 8, 2022
at 10:18 AM

Michael
37923

2-A-22-RZ
Michael (37923), February 8, 2022 at 10:18 AM

I am writing today to express significant concern with the proposed rezoning of this property to a Low Density Residential Zone of 5 units per acre. Several years ago this same request or a very similar request at the same location came forward to the MPC and the ruling established less than 4 units per acre and zoned Primary Residential. I do not want to stand in the way of development, but also do not want another "crammed" tight development with added traffic to an already very congested and traveled road, and increased concrete (roads, driveways) which would create more water run off and add to the flooding issues this area has had for years. Zoning this area with 5 units per acre will create many of these problems. The majority of the land ( about 3/4 of it ) is established to be in the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Area ( HRPA) This classification means that there is an allowance of 2 units per acre on county land, due to its slope of 15-25 percent. In summary, I am opposed to this rezoning request as it is bad for the environment, bad for traffic congestion, and perhaps most importantly goes against previously defined rulings on the density of development on that property given the extreme slope of the property.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220208101858.pdf

February 8, 2022
at 11:30 AM

Gary
37922

2-E-22-UR
Gary (37922), February 8, 2022 at 11:30 AM

I am commenting on this to defend my own and my neighbors interests. This development is not appropriate for this community. High density housing needs to be located closer to major thoroughfares (highways), not Northshore Drive, which is already overburdened. Further, high density homes need to be located much closer to centers of employment as there is no such thing as mass transit in this area. This project will cause a loss of value in all of the neighborhoods surrounding the site. In addition, the high density housing on the site, the very narrow streets, and the complete lack of any parking for visitors or families with several vehicles will create a safety hazard for the occupants and create a burden for nearby parking lots and streets that already have no room to spare. The proposed storm water runoff mitigation is a pitiful proposal. The pond will quickly overflow and burden downstream properties, mine included. Choto Road already comes very close to flooding at Holder Branch with a heavy rain. Compared to the extensive runoff mitigation that was created for the adjacent storage facility, this proposal is an insult that invites lawsuits, should any downstream properties get flooded. I urge you to do the right thing and oppose this project. A fresh start, with substantially lower housing density, is the only reasonable approach.

February 8, 2022
at 12:27 PM

Holly
37922

2-E-22-UR
Holly (37922), February 8, 2022 at 12:27 PM

Until a traffic study is done and infrastructure improved, no further development can possibly be approved off Northshore. I understand the regulations allow developers to piece-meal their developments to avoid traffic studies, but that does not make it right. In addition, we already have a water pressure issue. Almost every home in our neighborhood has to put in a booster pump in order to get the pressure needed for every day activities, not to mention sprinkler systems. More and more of our friends are moving out of the more expensive neighborhoods in this area because of the increase in density. Putting in more development will only cause more to leave and housing prices to drop. I understand in the short-term the developers are taking advantage of the influx of people, but the planning commission must consider the long-term. The planning commission's job is to plan for responsible development.

February 8, 2022
at 4:33 PM

Kimberly
37932

1-G-22-UR
Kimberly (37932), February 8, 2022 at 4:33 PM

Please reconsider the arrangement of homes in this proposal to have NO driveways entering Mission Hill Ln. The road can be fairly busy and I don't believe anyone, new homeowners included, would be happy with the proposed arrangement. Part of Mission Hill is a boulevard and would require homeowners to make U turns to access their driveways. If children reside in these homes, I don't feel that their safety is being represented. The driveway should empty into the new, less crowded neighborhood - I don't understand how anyone would not see that. These homes sit right along the road - it just seems hazardous for everyone.

Also - will that retention pond be susceptible to flooding? A lot of water comes down from the Massey Creek neighborhood, I know, I live at the bottom. The only way in or out is Mission Hill. I would hate to see the entire neighborhood cut off from the main road due to a flash flood situation. This project can be good for everyone concerned, please review carefully.

February 8, 2022
at 5:20 PM

John
37922

2-SC-22-C
John (37922), February 8, 2022 at 5:20 PM

I am writing this in opposition of the newly planned development. This development will cause major traffic concerns on an already overly crowded Northshore Drive. There is a hill near where this subdivision will go and cars come over the hill at high speeds. There have already been numerous accidents at the entrance of Montgomery Cove due to this. This increased traffic patter in this area will be extremely dangerous. To my knowledge no traffic studies have been done prior to mapping out this subdivision and that certainly needs to be looked at before moving forward. Thank You.

February 8, 2022
at 6:37 PM

Joanie
37922

2-SC-22-C
Joanie (37922), February 8, 2022 at 6:37 PM

I must add my concerns as well to the growing list of people who are alarmed by the proposed Loy Farms development which appears to be poorly planned and irresponsible. Many of us have lived in this area for years but have been experiencing the negative effects of rapid high-density growth - especially over the last several years - when our land and infrastructures are not able to adequately and safely accommodate such expansion. Schools are overcrowded and traffic already poses safety issues, especially during certain times of the day and during rainy conditions. Please listen to and respect the concerns of the residents who know and live in this area and recognize the detrimental impact this high-density development could pose. Thank you.

February 9, 2022
at 1:22 AM

Jeffrey
37932

1-G-22-UR
Jeffrey (37932), February 9, 2022 at 1:22 AM

We are completely against ANY connections to Mission Hill and the development needs all of its homes within its own community.

February 9, 2022
at 5:47 AM

Selina
37922

2-SC-22-C
Selina (37922), February 9, 2022 at 5:47 AM

I am writing in opposition to the proposed development of 12320 Northshore. The building happening within Farragut, west knox, and neighboring counties has gotten completely out of hand. The rate at which development is happening does NOT match the current infrastructure we have. The quaintness of Farragut is being destroyed by big developers, apartment complexes and strip malls everywhere you turn. What’s more frustrating, is driving along Kingston Pike and seeing tons of vacant buildings, yet we continue to build additional town centers. Fill the spaces we already have! Quit destroying the beauty of East TN by tearing down trees and digging up land to cram in more housing. I implore these elected officials to listen and read the comments, the disappointment, the frustration etc. of their constituents. People are in favor of growth, but it HAS to be PLANNED growth, and OVER TIME. Not all at once. The schools are incredibly overcrowded already. What is to be done? Build more schools? That would inevitably mean redistricting. Now explain that to people that paid to be in the Farragut School system. We have 2 giant subdivisions going up already on McFee. Enough is enough

February 9, 2022
at 7:02 AM

Nicole
37922

2-SC-22-C
Nicole (37922), February 9, 2022 at 7:02 AM

We are opposed to the Loy Farms development primarily because the surrounding infrastructure does not support it. As it stands currently, Northshore Dr is a major bottleneck during high traffic times and especially when accidents occur or construction shuts a lane down. Adding over 600 trips per day will only make this worse and defeats the purpose of why most of us chose to move to the edge of Knox County - to get away from traffic and enjoy the beautiful lakeside and country side without sitting in traffic. Please consider how this will negatively impact the living experience of current residents and taxpayers.

February 9, 2022
at 7:02 AM

Nicole
37922

2-SC-22-C
Nicole (37922), February 9, 2022 at 7:02 AM

February 9, 2022
at 9:17 AM

Laurel
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Laurel (37918), February 9, 2022 at 9:17 AM

I strongly oppose the rezoning to allow for multiple homes to be built on 4605 Tazewell Pike for many reasons, but first being the safety of our community and children. Traffic is very heavy on Tazewell Pike already and many wrecks happen on Tazewell pike and this proposal would not only increase the traffic, it will increase the likelihood of wrecks with injury. As stated in many comments, traffic around the school zones is already nearing or at max capacity, and backs up to Tazewell Pike and adding traffic to that would not be beneficial to our community or safety of our children. In addition, our community is very charming and adding multiple homes/developments can decrease the value and charm to our area. Please oppose this, and let the charm of our community live on.

February 9, 2022
at 10:08 AM

Nathan
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Nathan (37918), February 9, 2022 at 10:08 AM

This is not welcome in our neighborhood. The topography of the land is not suited for this kind of proposed development, and there is already a traffic issue on Tazewell Pike. This would cause so many problems to our community. Not to mention, it is right next to an elementary school and an apartment complex does not need to be near the school. It creates a safety issue.

February 9, 2022
at 10:37 AM

Brenda
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Brenda (37918), February 9, 2022 at 10:37 AM

This is a dangerous intersection. Lots of traffic and very limited visibility on entering Tazesell Pk. If making a left turn. Tazewell Pk. Is two lanes with heavy traffic.. Population very dense in this area. Please oppose.

February 9, 2022
at 10:42 AM

Marj
37931

1-E-22-SP
Marj (37931), February 9, 2022 at 10:42 AM

Please see Attached PDF
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220209104235.pdf

February 9, 2022
at 11:45 AM

Michael
37921

1-K-22-RZ
Michael (37921), February 9, 2022 at 11:45 AM

I believe that the rezoning of this property into a medium-density residential area is an exceedingly poor idea. First and foremost is the issue of traffic flow. The junction of Tazewell Pike and Shannondale is already quite dangerous due to a combination of no traffic lights, no turn lanes, and poor sightlines. This junction gets terribly backed up every morning and afternoon because of elementary school traffic. Increasing traffic load through that zone only puts more people at risk, from the 5211 Shannondale Road property across the street from this lot all the way to the children just down the road. Aside from the real, physical danger of a higher rate of traffic accidents at this junction, there is a danger to property values in this neighborhood. This lot has historic and aesthetic value to the neighborhood as it is, and should preferably either be restored or a new home be built in its place. An apartment complex in its stead would negatively effect housing values in the surrounding area. It would also not fit the aesthetics/looks of the surrounding homes. Building a large apartment complex in this lot would add a great deal of light and sound pollution to the neighborhood. As a concerned citizen, I know that there are much better locations for apartment complexes in Fountain City than this lot.

February 9, 2022
at 11:53 AM

Erin
37922

2-E-22-UR
Erin (37922), February 9, 2022 at 11:53 AM

Our family is very concerned about the high density development planned for 12320 S Northshore. 5 units per acre is excessive for this area that is already overcrowded with no room to expand roads. Never mind the fact that there are already several other massive development projects in the area that will already be adding to the overcrowding problem in the near term. Our roads and schools cannot support these plans.

February 9, 2022
at 12:32 PM

Maghen
37922

2-E-22-UR
Maghen (37922), February 9, 2022 at 12:32 PM

I vehemently object to any new developments on Northshore, or in the farragut area altogether. The infrastructure, for one, is not built to withstand the type of growth this community is having; this area does not need any additional construction- plenty of homes/housing developments are being built in this area (Mcfee Road, Boyd Station, Campbell station/Kingston pike apartment complex) and our community DOES NOT WANT THIS. It takes away from our quaint small town, adds unwanted traffic to a poor infrastructure, and additional residents to already overcrowded schools. Please listen to the community and stop tearing up our beautiful green fields to put in more and more and more homes/businesses. West knoxville has enough.

February 9, 2022
at 12:33 PM

Maghen
37922

2-SC-22-C
Maghen (37922), February 9, 2022 at 12:33 PM

February 9, 2022
at 12:54 PM

Mackenzie
37932

1-G-22-UR
Mackenzie (37932), February 9, 2022 at 12:54 PM

Hi, I am reiterating my previous comments about being against the connecting driveways to Mission Hill Lane. This road is already very busy and can have cars backed up 4-5 long during the busy times of day. This is only going to become more congested as Hardin Valley Road becomes busier with more homes. Adding 5 homes with vehicles entering and exiting this area is not safe. I walk this road each day and it is already challenging to stay out of the way of all of the vehicles using Mission Hill. I urge you to stick with the original 17 lot proposal (18th was too close to the proximity of Hardin Valley Road). This fits more in line with the current model, area, and density plans for Hardin Valley. Let's keep it moving, but in a way that adheres to beauty and making Hardin Valley a wonderful and safe community. Also, there is already a natural tree line which would be a natural sound barrier for the new development. I think keeping the backs of houses to Mission Hill would help both neighborhoods. It would help with privacy and with cars for both neighborhoods. I urge you to keep this beauty in Hardin Valley.

February 9, 2022
at 1:05 PM

Sarah
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Sarah (37918), February 9, 2022 at 1:05 PM

Building apartments on this property is not in the best interest of public safety. Traffic on Tazewell Pike has always been a problem, and Shannondale Elementary traffic only adds to it. Adding these apartments would just increase that even more. More traffic means more accidents and I strongly urge to you reconsider, especially with the amount of young children being dropped off and picked up in that area.

February 9, 2022
at 1:20 PM

Skylar
37721

1-K-22-RZ
Skylar (37721), February 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM

Do not build apartments on that land. Traffic is absolutely awful on tazewell pike anyways. There is ENOUGH housing in this area. We don’t need anymore outsiders. This is the dumbest thing that could be done. Think about the people who live here. Think about what we ACTUALLY want. We don’t want more freaking housing.

February 9, 2022
at 5:45 PM

Stephanie
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Stephanie (37918), February 9, 2022 at 5:45 PM

Please do not let this 13 acre property be turned into apartments. This area is not made for this.

February 9, 2022
at 5:49 PM

Kathryn
37923

2-A-22-RZ
Kathryn (37923), February 9, 2022 at 5:49 PM

I have no additional points to make, however I did want to publicly support the previous comments regarding concerns about traffic congestion and added flooding risks to the adjacent properties.

February 9, 2022
at 8:06 PM

Hope
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Hope (37918), February 9, 2022 at 8:06 PM

I strongly oppose the rezoning at Tazewell Pk and Shannondale Rd. The traffic is already very congested and adding more residents at this busy intersection is a safety concern. The proximity to a busy elementary school is also a concern.

February 9, 2022
at 8:24 PM

Paula
37918

1-D-22-UR
Paula (37918), February 9, 2022 at 8:24 PM

I have lived in Ftn City all of my life and have owned a home on Tazewell Pike as well as living off Tazewell Pike currently. Traffic is horrendous already. We do not need more large development on Tazewell Pike as well as the local schools including Shannondale cannot handle a huge influx of students. Flooding has always been a problem with all the sink holes. Please do not allow this rezoning.

February 9, 2022
at 8:40 PM

Nancy
37922

2-SC-22-C
Nancy (37922), February 9, 2022 at 8:40 PM

I would like to comment on the proposed 50 plus town homes proposed on Northshore. I feel that this density of housing is not appropriate in this area given the fact that Northshore is already a very busy two lane road. The schools in Farragut are already overcrowded. I feel the this will significantly negatively impact the area and I would like to register my opposition to this plan.

February 9, 2022
at 9:06 PM

Lindsey
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Lindsey (37918), February 9, 2022 at 9:06 PM

Saying no to apartments on tazewell pike near Shannondale

February 9, 2022
at 9:10 PM

Josh
37918

1-K-22-RZ
Josh (37918), February 9, 2022 at 9:10 PM

Please do not pass vote for an apartment complex at this location.

February 9, 2022
at 10:56 PM

Nono
37922

2-SC-22-C
Nono (37922), February 9, 2022 at 10:56 PM

Please do not add more homes. More traffic, more accidents. Please widen Northshore. Turn that farm into a small grocery store that would help this community.

2-D-22-RZ

Patrick
37931

2-D-22-RZ
Patrick (37931), February 10, 2022 at 9:21 AM

Please see attached
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220210092153.pdf

February 10, 2022
at 9:21 AM