March 13, 2025
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

16 Comments for

2-SA-25-C
Andy (37918), January 19, 2025 at 4:25 PM

As a resident of phase 2, I have no problem with this proposal if the housing covenants are equivalent to Phase 2. Any structures built need to have side entry garages. I've been a victim of bad drivers who back out of their driveways into oncoming traffic. You also need to consider maintaining a public access corridor so hikers and walkers don't lose access to beverly park.

January 19, 2025
at 4:25 PM

2-SA-25-C

Joshua
37918

2-SA-25-C
Joshua (37918), January 27, 2025 at 10:14 AM

Itâs a bad idea that is dangerous. I live in the 3rd house after the hill in the new phase and personally witness how fast folks drive up and down that hill between the phases. Itâs a âdouble blindâ hill and curve because not only is it so steep that you cannot see whatâs ahead, but it also curves so you canât see when cars are coming around. People have to accelerate to get up and drastically slow down when exiting so not a good area for driveways. If those houses are built there will be vehicles slowing down and stopping to pull into their driveways which is going to cause accidents. God forbid if someone wants to back into their driveway or try and back a boat, trailer or camper in and has to spend a little time on the road maneuvering. There is a reason that area has never been built on and itâs for safety. My job professionally is risk prevention which entails identifying and resolving so I see it from that standpoint as well and not just a neighbor. We have complained to the HOA numerous times about the speed in which folks come off that hill and dozens of others have complained in our neighborhood Facebook page also. Please reject this silly proposal and help us prevent accidents. Come look for yourself and imagine trying to back a trailer into one of those proposed properties.

January 27, 2025
at 10:14 AM

2-SA-25-C

Sally
37918

2-SA-25-C
Sally (37918), January 28, 2025 at 2:45 PM

I have lived in the Mont Richer neighborhood for 22 years. The building has been going on before 2002 when we built our house and has continued all of these years. Mont Richer is full!! The subdivision has one entrance. All of the traffic must enter from and exit onto Tazewell Pike. Cars pulling into and out of driveways on the proposed area of Mont Richer Ave will create a hazard for that stretch of road. We have a lot of children, walkers, joggers, etc. who will be affected by the increased traffic in that short section of road. The developer and realtors have always said that there would never be building between phase one and phase two of Mont Richer. That wooded area in question is where wildlife lives and is aesthetically appreciated by the neighborhood. Please consider the quality of life of the residents of Mont Richer subdivision when you make your decision concerning this proposal. Thank you.

January 28, 2025
at 2:45 PM

2-SA-25-C

Jerry
37918

2-SA-25-C
Jerry (37918), February 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM

If this sign was intended to be "community engagement," it is a farce. Nobody in this neighborhood wants this. It is rather infuriating that this is even up for consideration. Many of us in this neighborhood made our decision about living here hinged on the nature of this exact strip of land. Specifically, we were promised that it would not ever be developed, and could not be developed, because of the nature of ownership. And now, we can see the suspiciously low sale price. Obviously this is not an above-board transaction, and the opposition in this community to this bad-faith building project is pretty much unanimous. But the feelings of our community is just the beginning for the problem. I am certain there are many, many problems that haven't even been considered by the builders, such as environmental impact or traffic impact studies. This nonsense should stop immediately. Furthermore: I am going to mention that there is a problem on this specific online form. Not all people are going to be able to submit their opposition. I had to use a "sandbox" browser in order to force submission. I suspect that this is deliberate tampering, because dishonest dealings have characterized this entire circus thus far.

February 7, 2025
at 8:30 PM

2-SA-25-C

Greg
37918

2-SA-25-C
Greg (37918), February 12, 2025 at 7:34 PM

The area being considered for rezoning is a beautiful grove of mature trees currently zoned as protected ridgeline and park. It is a habitat for wildlife and provides a safe walking conduit from Mont Richer and adjoining neighborhoods to Beverly Park, especially for families with small children and pets. It is also located on a crest in the road between Mont Richer Phase 1 and Phase 2, such that a blind hill and curve will block the view of drivers from persons backing out of driveways of the proposed new residences. Based on the need to preserve parkland, provide safe passage for pedestrians, and the safety concerns presented by the topography, it is requested this rezoning application be denied.

February 12, 2025
at 7:34 PM

3-A-25-OYP

Carlene
37918

3-A-25-OYP
Carlene (37918), February 18, 2025 at 10:21 AM

Please see attached comments originally submitted on 1-30-25. There is a need to have design standards for conversions from single-family to two-family.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20250218102123.pdf

February 18, 2025
at 10:21 AM

3-G-25-RZ

Amber
37918

3-G-25-RZ
Amber (37918), March 2, 2025 at 10:35 AM

As owners of the parcels located directly behind 413 E. Inskip, we fully support Mr. Herreraâs rezone of the property for office use. This corner has been a challenge to maintain as a residential space given the nature of mixed-use office, industrial, and high density residential all around the E. Inskip corridor. We feel Mr. Herreraâs plan will provide a much-needed revitalization to the corner and we welcome him to the neighborhood.

Sincerely

Amber VanBuren and Patrick Smith, owners 4801 & 4803 Rowan Rd.

March 2, 2025
at 10:35 AM

3-A-25-OYP

Carlene
37918

3-A-25-OYP
Carlene (37918), March 10, 2025 at 12:29 PM

Please include in you OYP recommendation to City Council a request that Council consider amending the Knoxville Zoning Ordinance to add design standards for the conversion of single-family dwellings into duplexes. There are no such standards in the zoning ordinance.
The present zoning ordinance, Article 9.3.J, Principal Use Standards, includes standards for the "new construction" of duplexes. The Jan. 17, and Feb. 25, 2025, PC staff reports cite 9.3.J in their rationale for deleting the location criteria for duplexes, stating "These design criteria help to ensure duplexes fit into surrounding neighborhoods." I agree. Design standards do help to ensure that duplexes fit into the neighborhood context. That is why design standards are also important for a conversion of a single-family dwelling into a duplex. Keep in mind the fact a specific conversion may, or may not, be defined as a "new construction."
Carlene Malone

March 10, 2025
at 12:29 PM

2-SA-25-C

Trish
37918

2-SA-25-C
Trish (37918), March 11, 2025 at 10:24 PM

The land proposed for development in Mont Richer should maintain as public recreation land. There is no safe entry onto Mont Richer Blvd from this proposed land development as it is situated on a blind hill. The danger this poses not only to drivers in the neighborhood but also to the many adults and young people walking, running, and biking this neighborhood road is not worth the risk.

March 11, 2025
at 10:24 PM

2-SA-25-C

Julie
37918

2-SA-25-C
Julie (37918), March 11, 2025 at 11:33 PM

Hi,
I currently live in the subdivision, Mont Richer, and have for the last year. I grew up across the street in Brookevale Estates as a child over 30 years ago and frequently would walk and trek through the wooded area that was formerly Beverly Park (as of now). I still hike and trek through Beverly Park place on all of the land as it is shelter for a lot of ecosystems and local animals such as deer, possum, squirrel, etc. It is unconscionable that this land has been given freely to this developer who cannot even build or abide by the rules governed in Mont Richer. I do not agree with more homes being built on an already dangerous stretch of street. It has never been a safe road and will be made worse with more traffic, blind spots, and now there will be animals and humans alike crossing into possibly their deaths. This entire transaction needs to be undone and heads need to roll for this. Someone has something to hide and they should be fired for this hidden agenda. Leave the property as it was and return it to being zoned recreational. Its obviously not about money.

March 11, 2025
at 11:33 PM

2-SA-25-C

Richard
37918

2-SA-25-C
Richard (37918), March 12, 2025 at 10:37 AM

As a resident on the street which would contain these houses, I must object to this project. The street is the most heavily used in the neighborhood by both vehicles and pedestrians. Due to the nature of the layout of the street, the proposed homes are on a steep grade, resulting in blind turns and total lack of sight of oncoming traffic. The street is also prone to large amounts of ice in the winter, resulting in cars sliding out of control. This presents an extreme hazard to have driveways on this stretch of road. The chance of pedestrian and vehicular accidents and injuries will be greatly increased.
The process by which this parcel of land was removed from a recreational buffer to housing is circumspect. This appears to be an under the table process to benefit the developer and a gifting of land by the county with only a $5000 payment to cover the drop in the designation. The developer has in the past few weeks already cleared the underbrush and small trees from the land. This appears to be with the expectation that the development is already a done deal and prior to the hearing. This process of land transfer and assumed passage of this project is very disturbing.

March 12, 2025
at 10:37 AM

2-SA-25-C

Tim
37918

2-SA-25-C
Tim (37918), March 12, 2025 at 12:05 PM

Please see the attached letter voicing my concern over the development of Mont Richer Ave.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20250312120532.pdf

March 12, 2025
at 12:05 PM

2-SA-25-C

Stephen
37918

2-SA-25-C
Stephen (37918), March 12, 2025 at 1:15 PM

As residents of Phase 2, we STRONGLY OPPOSE this development, for many reasons. The most serious is SAFETY, as the approval of this will make a very bad blind curved hill and the stretch of road beyond it even worse. There have been many near misses on and leading up to this hill, as visibility both ways is very bad in the day, and even worse early morning and at night. Speed to get up the very steep blind hill translates into much longer site-lines needed for safe transport.
There are many questions swirling around this land deal in which designated and protected county parkland was "traded" for an unused and worthless right-of-way, all of which needs looked into now that this has become public.
The many walkers and joggers which use Mont Richer for recreation and health, and the many children which play on the streets and in the woods and common areas of Mont Richer, and all of us, are at risk if this ill-conceived development is approved to go forward.
We would urge the MPC to see this dangerous situation for themselves, and realize that this entire development should be DENIED.

March 12, 2025
at 1:15 PM

2-SA-25-C

PJ
37918

2-SA-25-C
PJ (37918), March 12, 2025 at 1:22 PM

Terrible place for a development. Very unsafe for neighborhood. Please deny this request. People will be injured and killed due to blind and curved hill.

March 12, 2025
at 1:22 PM

2-SA-25-C

Sandie
37918

2-SA-25-C
Sandie (37918), March 12, 2025 at 1:48 PM

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20250312134826.pdf

March 12, 2025
at 1:48 PM

3-A-25-OYP

Cody
37918

3-A-25-OYP
Cody (37918), March 12, 2025 at 2:26 PM

Remove barriers preventing more housing. We need more affordable single family housing in this city.

March 12, 2025
at 2:26 PM