Public Comments

November 17, 2023
at 2:29 PM

Applicant

1-SB-22-C
Applicant Correspondence
Submitted during the meeting

Submitted by Ben Mullins
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220211101227.pdf

applicant

Submitted during the meeting

12-A-23-RZ

Applicant

12-A-23-RZ
Applicant Correspondence
November 17, 2023 at 2:29 PM

This property has ample wet lands and tree barrier buffers that would totally restrict any view to the Ramsey House. The A/HZ zoning can remain to the western portion of the parcel. My request to the Planning Commission is to remove the HZ overlay from the front portion along John Sevier HWY and approve the CA zone. Please observe the supporting documents and pictures.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231117142930.pdf

applicant

January 4, 2022
at 9:23 PM

Daniel
37932

1-SB-22-C
Daniel (37932), January 4, 2022 at 9:23 PM

From a concerned Massey Creek Neighbor:
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220104212351.pdf

January 4, 2022
at 9:42 PM

Paige
37932

1-SB-22-C
Paige (37932), January 4, 2022 at 9:42 PM

A note from a Massey Creek Neighbor:
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220104214231.pdf

January 5, 2022
at 11:40 AM

Mackenzie
37932

1-SB-22-C
Mackenzie (37932), January 5, 2022 at 11:40 AM

I live in the Massey Creek Subdivision off of Mission Hill Lane. I am contacting you in regards to the plan for the properties being built south of our subdivision. The houses that will have exits off of Mission Hill Lane are not a good idea. The site line for this road is very poor. Already, with no houses on this road, the site line is poor. Adding exits/entrances to this road will add to the traffic coming in and out of this road. Also, the traffic leaving Mission Hill lane to go out to Hardin Valley Rd will be increased. I think there needs to be a different entrance for these homes.

January 5, 2022
at 1:05 PM

Heather
37932

1-SB-22-C
Heather (37932), January 5, 2022 at 1:05 PM

Hardin Valley has seen outrageously fast growth and does not currently provide the adequate infrastructure to support the growth. We do not have adequate fire, rescue or police support. Outside of these grossly negligent areas, the Mission Hill road boulevard entrance to Massey Creek is a dangerous place to add five driveway access points. Not only does it detract from the original neighborhood landscape it also presents a danger due to the blind hill as you exit down to Hardin Valley Road. It’s an unsafe, unnecessary ask. I’m all for community growth and for builders etc…. To earn a living, however, this absurd growth needs to slow until proper infrastructure can be put in place. As commissioners, we tax payers count on you to do what’s in the best interest of the communities you serve. Passing this request is not in the best interest of the Massey Creek neighborhood nor the Hardin Valley community.

February 9, 2022
at 8:37 PM

Tobie
37932

1-SB-22-C
Tobie (37932), February 9, 2022 at 8:37 PM

As stated by others, I am opposed to the additional 5 lots that would have driveways on Mission Hill Lane. Please see attachment for specifics in regards to flooding, safety of pedestrians and drivers, the effect on school buses, trash delivery and aesthetics should these lots be approved.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220209203709.pdf

Tyler
37912

8-C-23-OA
Tyler (37912), July 24, 2023 at 2:44 PM

I'm all for densification, but I think letting landlords put ADUs in all their green spaces probably isn't the best route. If we keep the owner occupied property rule, I'd be in favor of the other changes, as it would all more low income homeowners to build ADUs.

July 24, 2023
at 2:44 PM

January 5, 2022
at 10:01 PM

Tobie
37932

1-SB-22-C
Tobie (37932), January 5, 2022 at 10:01 PM

Please see attached document.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220105220152.pdf

John
37931

8-B-23-OA
John (37931), July 25, 2023 at 5:38 PM

I am fully in support of these changes. Far too often variances are required to rebuild identically to the surrounding houses and neighborhood. The current zoning ordinance is designed for larger .25 acre lots and is not consistent with the fact that most older neighborhoods have 50' widths. There has been substantial investment and vetting of these changes through the "missing middle study", but unfortunately none of them have been implemented yet. Building more homes is the only solution to the housing crisis we face.

July 25, 2023
at 5:38 PM

Ron
37919

8-C-23-OA
Ron (37919), July 26, 2023 at 8:16 AM

We have owned and lived in our home for approximately 21 years. In our neighborhood our house is on a slope with a much larger front yard than backyard. Our children grew up and left town because they could no longer afford to live here.
Under the current rules for ADUs, we could not build one in our backyard. As I understand it this amendment would correct that and allow us to build one in our backyard.
I'm not sure why there's even a question about doing this we are in a serious housing crisis in this city and it seems like we need to use every possible means to address this housing shortage.
I also agree with the provision that is part of this amendment which allows only one ADU on a property. That protects the neighborhood and protects our home values.

July 26, 2023
at 8:16 AM

July 31, 2023
at 11:17 AM

Finbarr
37919

8-B-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:17 AM

this recommendation seems reasonable.

July 31, 2023
at 11:20 AM

Finbarr
37919

8-C-23-OA
Finbarr (37919), July 31, 2023 at 11:20 AM

this recommendation seems reasonable.

February 10, 2022
at 11:03 AM

Wanda
37932

1-SB-22-C
Wanda (37932), February 10, 2022 at 11:03 AM

I am writing in opposition to ANY connecting driveways on to Mission Hill Lane. All the previous statements that have been submitted including mine still apply. This is extremely important to us and seemingly you are ignoring our concerns especially when I read that the planner is trying to re-figure the plan to make it "appear" that you have solved the problems. No! Having one, two, three, four, or five makes no difference. The problems are still there. Massey Creek HOA makes sure we have a safe, pleasing place to live with restrictions in place to accomplish this. There have been a few times when a resident failed to follow those restrictions. Our concerned and active HOA solved these issues and will continue to do so if necessary in the future. Not all HOAs are as active as ours. Would Massey Creek HOA have any say so if someone parks a big trailer or RV or sets up a "tool shed" or whatever in their yards? My guess is the answer is "no" but the Massey Creek residents would have to suffer the issues causes by these situations whether they be compromising safety or aesthetics. Please hear us! Deny the request.

February 10, 2022
at 12:43 PM

Paige
37932

1-SB-22-C
Paige (37932), February 10, 2022 at 12:43 PM

As stated by many others, I am opposed to ANY connecting driveways to Mission Hill Lane. My main concern at this point is the safety of everyone traveling Mission Hill daily. The road is very busy already with vehicles and the many neighbors that walk with our dogs and children daily. Adding driveways on Mission Hill would make this very dangerous due to the number of vehicles being forced to make U-turns around the barriers. I urge you to stick to the original 17 homes and avoid ANY driveways on Mission Hill Lane. The original 17 home is more suitable for the density plans for this area. I am not opposed to growth and development, I just urge the voting member to think about how these driveways would impact all 95 residences in Massey Creek and vote NO to any driveways on Mission Hill. I appreciate your consideration.

February 10, 2022
at 1:01 PM

Matthew
37932

1-SB-22-C
Matthew (37932), February 10, 2022 at 1:01 PM

I urge you to VOTE NO on this concept plan. The developer is already approved for 18 homes that are all within his proposed "neighborhood". This updated plan is asking for five homes on Mission Hill Ln which is actually Massey Creek with an active HOA. The five proposed homes have no access or community with either neighborhood and that is flat out wrong. It's a major safety issue to Massey Creek homeowners and will adversely affect property values by ruining the aesthetics of the Massey Creek boulevard entrance that was developed and is used exclusively by Massey Creek. Vote No and make this developer go back to his approved 18 home plan or redesign so that all proposed homes are within the neighborhood he plans on developing. This long section of Mission Hill Ln was not designed for driveway access at all.

February 10, 2022
at 1:13 PM

Daniel
37932

1-SB-22-C
Daniel (37932), February 10, 2022 at 1:13 PM

While the updated recommendation of minimizing driveway connections to Mission Hill may seem to be a reasonable solution please understand that connections to Mission Hill at all are the concerns of the neighborhood. A multitude of safety concerns have been raised by a multitude of neighbors. While we understand that development will happen the concern is for Mission Hill. The proposed development needs to be contained to that new neighborhood and not create issues to Mission Hill.

February 10, 2022
at 2:01 PM

Kory
37932

1-SB-22-C
Kory (37932), February 10, 2022 at 2:01 PM

I have already commented once, but want to comment one more time in agreement with all the others that have left a comment. Having the driveways come out onto Mission Hill Lane is a mistake. We actually recently sold our house and will be moving away from the neighborhood for work reasons, we lost quite a few very interested potential buyers of our home when they discovered the plans for the new developments. Not only is the proposed plan unsafe, it will most definitely affect the future value of the homes in the Massey Creek Development.

September 25, 2023
at 2:23 PM

Danny
37920

10-B-23-OA
Danny (37920), September 25, 2023 at 2:23 PM

1. The City needs to update its Comprehensive Plans before making anymore Zoning changes. Continuing to make drastic changes to the Zoning without updating the Comprehensive Plans is a recipe for disaster and sets a terrible precedence for future Zoning changes. Some Sector Plans haven't been updated since 2007 and all still reference the former Zoning classifications. There is no basis for this change, as it is not guided by any Comprehensive Plan, just as Recode was adopted without updated Comprehensive Plans.
2. The images used to show the transition between existing neighborhoods and more intense Mid-Rise or downtown structures is deceiving. It shows the Missing Middle Housing in the transition area between bigger buildings and Single-Family neighborhoods, and most are probably okay with that, but that is not what is being proposed. What the City is proposing is to mix those MMH uses into the Single-Family neighborhoods against the desire of those residents.
3. There's a reason those uses were not included in the zones during Recode...the residents in those neighborhoods were opposed to them.
4. The MMH uses being proposed for all RN-2 should be restricted to RN-2 properties along roads at least classified as a Minor Collector Road. I grew up at 2415 Lawson Avenue and to suggest that someone could buy that house, tear it down and build a 4-plex building and not change the character of the neighborhood is just wrong.

September 26, 2023
at 10:47 AM

R. Bentley
37921

10-B-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), September 26, 2023 at 10:47 AM

Please see attached comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230926104759.pdf

January 10, 2022
at 9:24 AM

Gerda
37932

1-SB-22-C
Gerda (37932), January 10, 2022 at 9:24 AM

I would like to implore the MPC to refrain from approving any more subdivisions in the Hardin Valley area especially around Mission Hill Rd until the traffic and school problems are addressed and fixed. It is starting to become a nightmare to live in this area. Traffic around school drop off and pick up times is absolutely atrosious. This does not include all the traffic that is going to be added as a result of the current subdivisions being built. Furthermore, Massey Creek Subdivision HOA paid for the access road and is paying for the upkeep and maintenance of said road and grounds. I am opposed to any other subdivisions being able to use Mission Hill Lane as an access to their subdivision. If approved, their access road should come off of Hardin Valley Rd and Mission Hill Ln. Please reconsider the approval of any more subdivisions in this area for the forseeable future.

January 10, 2022
at 9:52 AM

Ellen
37932

1-SB-22-C
Ellen (37932), January 10, 2022 at 9:52 AM

Attached
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220110095234.pdf

11-SB-22-C

Sherri
37931

11-SB-22-C
Sherri (37931), November 5, 2022 at 12:27 PM

I live on Jim Jones Ln without a red light with the amount of townhomes being built there will be close to impossible to crossover to go towards Knoxville between the hours of 6:30 - 8:30am & 3:15-6:30 pm! I sat approximately 10 minutes to cross & I was the only car! What is it going to be with a town home subdivision trying to leave for work or school?!? It will be backed up throughout the subdivision! Knox County/ TDOT is creating a nightmare worse than what’s already in Solway Community! Speed is a issue besides the amount of traffic that flows through daily!! There needs to be a better study than the one that has already been done because it was not accurate. WE NEED A RED LIGHT !

November 5, 2022
at 12:27 PM

January 10, 2022
at 10:38 AM

Jaime
37932

1-SB-22-C
Jaime (37932), January 10, 2022 at 10:38 AM

I am writing in opposition to the 5 additional homes proposed off of Mission Hill Lane. These driveways will cause a hazard on Mission Hill. There is nothing hindering these homeowners from parking cars along Mission Hill at any time. With the addition of only a small strip of land (2.85 acres per your records) being added to this plot the builder is adding 8 additional lots. It seems as though there is more of a need to jam pack as many homes as possible into this space rather than building to fit the area and conserve the beauty of HV. If you look at notes from the original approval your board spoke extensively about having 18 lots instead of 17 due to the placement of the homes to HV road. With having already approved the original 18 lots (which came with great opposition from the nearby residents) please do not continue to add to this issue by approving these additional homes with driveways off of Mission Hill. There is also another property you have already approved with townhomes that will be feeding into Mission Hill from the top of the hill. This additional approval would be harmful not only to the residents of Massey Creek, but to our property values as well. The Blvd entrance is one of the reasons EVERY homeowner in Massey Creek chose this location to live. I as well as many of the residents plead with you not to allow these additional driveways off Mission Hill.

September 28, 2023
at 12:50 PM

Whitney
37920

10-B-23-OA
Whitney (37920), September 28, 2023 at 12:50 PM

Unfortunately, the AIA Awards are tonight so I (and many of the architects in town) won't be able to make it to the missing middle workshop so I wanted to go ahead and share some thoughts. Please see attached.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230928125053.pdf

January 10, 2022
at 11:42 AM

Michele
37932

1-SB-22-C
Michele (37932), January 10, 2022 at 11:42 AM

I oppose the addition of additional subdivisions off of Mission Hill lane. This will create overcrowding and traffic. We do not want to lose the serenity and beauty of open land in Hardin Valley

September 29, 2023
at 10:35 AM

Aaron
37917

10-B-23-OA
Aaron (37917), September 29, 2023 at 10:35 AM

Please see attached comments and thank you for considering them.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230929103504.pdf

January 10, 2022
at 11:42 AM

Michele
37932

1-SB-22-C
Michele (37932), January 10, 2022 at 11:42 AM

I oppose the addition of additional subdivisions off of Mission Hill lane. This will create overcrowding and traffic. We do not want to lose the serenity and beauty of open land in Hardin Valley

October 1, 2023
at 10:32 PM

John
37931

10-B-23-OA
John (37931), October 1, 2023 at 10:32 PM

I am disappointed in the city proposal. Frist, it only applies to roughly 5-10% of the city zones, so any benefit is negligible to nothing. Its really a wasted opportunity to make meaningful changes. Second, the city proposal doesn't include changes for RN-5 or reduce setback issues in other traditional neighborhoods, which all typically have 50' lots. Many of the recommendations from the missing middle report are left out completely. So much more needs to be done to revise the zoning code to increase the supply of housing. Mr Marlows proposals are much better and the board should approve those instead.

October 2, 2023
at 8:15 AM

David
37917

8-C-23-OA
David (37917), October 2, 2023 at 8:15 AM

Hello, I was in favor of the ADU's when the Recode was going through its transformation, attended several of the meetings and thought then and still think that building ADU's in neighborhoods needs some guidelines. The owner of the property should have to live on-site, this will help with controlling the tenants who would live on the property. With an influx of outside investors, they will use ADU's as a tool to double the units per property, regardless of the effects it would have on their neighbors or the neighborhood as a whole. As to enforcing the owner-occupied rule, the city needs to come up with an enforcement provision....change in the deed?

October 2, 2023
at 9:51 PM

Christopher
37932

8-B-23-OA
Christopher (37932), October 2, 2023 at 9:51 PM

I fully support the idea of reducing setbacks on properties. There is no reason why a property needs to maintain a lawn if it does not have to. Besides, a lot of the grass used is not native with the environment and it requires a decent amount of watering, fertilizer, and pesticides that would be best kept to a minimum. My complaint is not against people who want a wide expansive yard, because I can see why some people like the aesthetic. However, forcing everyone to have a big lawn does tend to restrict development. For instance, much of downtown would be impossible to be built today because all the downtown apartments have no setbacks. R. Bentley Marlow's application is a reasonable one, and I hope that you all pass it through.

January 10, 2022
at 1:37 PM

Mark
37932

1-SB-22-C
Mark (37932), January 10, 2022 at 1:37 PM

The longer section of Mission Hill is a Blvd entrance into Massey Creek and is not designed for individual lot access. Doing so would be a hazard with cars having to turn around within the Blvd to enter any attached lots. In addition the lanes on either side of the grass divider are not wide enough for what would surely turn into street parking by any added lots. The developer should build an entrance to the new subdivision with a bridge over the creek, just as Hunter did in developing Massey Creek. The design should be what is best of existing and future homeowners, and not the developer. We need consistent and quality developments.

October 3, 2023
at 12:52 PM

Chris
37919

8-C-23-OA
Chris (37919), October 3, 2023 at 12:52 PM

See attached
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231003125253.pdf

October 3, 2023
at 12:54 PM

Caroline
37919

10-B-23-OA
Caroline (37919), October 3, 2023 at 12:54 PM

Please see attached comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231003125429.pdf

January 10, 2022
at 2:42 PM

Mark
37932

1-SB-22-C
Mark (37932), January 10, 2022 at 2:42 PM

THIS >>>>>>>> (as noted by Paul) "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."

January 10, 2022
at 3:21 PM

Mark
37932

1-SB-22-C
Mark (37932), January 10, 2022 at 3:21 PM

Reference photo of Boulevard entrance into Massey Creek

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220110152144.pdf

January 10, 2022
at 4:05 PM

Pamela
37932

1-SB-22-C
Pamela (37932), January 10, 2022 at 4:05 PM

See attached file for comment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220110160530.pdf

October 3, 2023
at 2:32 PM

Celia
37917

10-B-23-OA
Celia (37917), October 3, 2023 at 2:32 PM

I commend the City of Knoxville Planning Department for acting on the housing shortage in this city. Many cities wait until the issue is so out of hand that they can never catch up to provide adequate and affordable housing for their residents. However, I think Knoxville is missing an opportunity to provide better solutions by so narrowly focusing this proposal on already dense neighborhoods close to the city center. The Planning Department is going after low hanging fruit, so to speak, by allowing existing homes to be subdivided under this proposal. My neighborhood of 4th & Gill spent over 30 years undoing these types of subdivisions of large homes so families could move in and build a stronger sense of community. Why hasn't any attention been paid to empty buildings and lots along or close to major corridors, such as Broadway and Central? Broadway has ample space for new construction and repurposing of empty buildings all the way from the Broadway bridge to Fountain City. Another example is the old Standard Knitting Mill off Hall of Fame, which has stood vacant for years. The owner does nothing while the building's deterioration gets worse. Why aren't incentives to develop housing in buildings such as the Mill part of a proposal for missing middle housing? There is so much more than can be done by the City than just targeting dense neighborhoods that don't have covenants to protect them. The City can do better!

January 10, 2022
at 4:35 PM

Leslie
37932

1-SB-22-C
Leslie (37932), January 10, 2022 at 4:35 PM

I am writing in opposition to the 5 additional homes proposed off of Mission Hill Lane. These driveways will cause a hazard on Mission Hill. There is nothing hindering these homeowners from parking cars along I am writing in opposition to the 5 additional homes proposed off of Mission Hill Lane. These driveways will cause a hazard on Mission Hill. There is nothing hindering these homeowners from parking cars along Mission Hill at any time. Additionally on trash days the cans will take up 3-6 feet of an already choked down roadway. This is a question of safety versus 5 additional tax bases for an already over planned and growing too fast community. As it stands now, the driveways will be in front of the landscaped medians. The only way for the residents to access their driveways safely would be for them to do a u-turn at the end of all medians and circle back around to make a right into their driveway. This not only seems like an unfeasible way to flow traffic it also proposes additional concern of safety as those exiting down Mission Hill now must worry about oncoming traffic doing u-turns to access these driveways. We ask for you to act now on our behalf of the current residents and their concerns for the safety of our community and the future values of our properies.

October 3, 2023
at 11:12 PM

Sandra
37914

8-B-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 3, 2023 at 11:12 PM

Deny this proposed amendment. Setbacks create compatibility in a neighborhood and this proposal to alter setbacks has not been fully evaluated. Setbacks are important.

October 3, 2023
at 11:22 PM

Sandra
37914

8-C-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 3, 2023 at 11:22 PM

It is essential to keep the owner occupancy requirement to maintain a normal residence and avoid the noise and constant turn over of short term rentals that could occur in both units. The argument sometimes raised that enforcement of the owner occupancy requirement is impossible is untrue. Just ask to see the driviers license. That address should match the site address. As this requirement is complaint driven, there is nothing required of Inspections and Enforcement until there is a complaint. The complaint is then handled through a simple inspection of the propety owner's driver's license.

October 4, 2023
at 9:55 AM

Chris
37919

8-C-23-OA
Chris (37919), October 4, 2023 at 9:55 AM

I support this proposal. ADUs are a way to actually expand affordable housing throughout the city. While the "missing middle" proposal is a small step, it's insufficient because it doesn't necessarily mean the proposed housing will be affordable. ADUs will be. I have a couple of rental properties in South Knoxville that have the space for ADUs in the back yards, and I would build them within the year if allowed (especially if they were allowed to be a little bigger given the modest (i.e., affordable) house sizes on the lot already). As a landlord, rising rents are good for the bottom line, but they are short term gains if the city can't figure out its affordability problem. I actually don't feel very good when 20+ people apply for one of my houses when it comes up. ADU's (for non-owner occupied housing) is a serious solution to expand housing options sprinkled throughout neighborhoods (rather than concentrated in specific areas). And, the only way I could afford living in one of the most expensive markets in the USA (San Francisco) with my young family, was because of an ADU, so I have a personal experience on the receiving end. Allow, then streamline ADU development for non-owner-occupied parcels to move toward solving our affordability challenges.

October 4, 2023
at 10:23 AM

Bob
37917

10-B-23-OA
Bob (37917), October 4, 2023 at 10:23 AM

I am concerned that 40 years of hard work to revitalize our old neighborhoods is being put at risk. I have no problem with applying the Missing Middle concept to new construction on vacant lots. I am very concerned about conversions of existing buildings into multiple units as was done throughout the first part of the last century. This proposal needs more analysis of potential outcomes especially in regard to conversions before it is pushed through the legislative agenda. Thanks you for your consideration.

January 10, 2022
at 8:47 PM

Vonna
37932

1-SB-22-C
Vonna (37932), January 10, 2022 at 8:47 PM

I strongly urge the replanning of lots 22-26 that show an entrance from Mission Hill Lane. I highly encourage that the Knox County Planning Committee seek advise and review of the current proposal by the Knox Regional Transportation Planning Organization, The East Tennessee Development District, The Knoxville Fire Chief and The Knox County Sheriff as this current proposal puts residents of Massey Creek in extreme danger. Five separate entrances in the location shown on the proposal will potentially and most likely block the exit capabilities for not only Massey Creek residents but also emergency vehicles. The addition of these five additional entrances will also put pedestrians at risk while walking, biking and driving due to limited space for lots 22-26 to enter and exit from Mission Hill Lane.

October 4, 2023
at 11:24 AM

Christina
37921

8-C-23-OA
Christina (37921), October 4, 2023 at 11:24 AM

One reason 18’ is a prohibitive height for ADUs is that in many cases (due to average city lot sizes), the only way to meet parking requirements for the lot and build an ADU is to build a garage apartment. The standard ceiling height for garages and livable spaces is 8’. With a garage below and living above (16’), that leaves only 2’ for both floor and roof structure combined. This particular requirement renders garage apartments essentially infeasible to build, and because it’s the only option for many lots, it significantly cuts down opportunities to build ADUs in Knoxville.

October 4, 2023
at 12:52 PM

Bob
37917

10-B-23-OA
Bob (37917), October 4, 2023 at 12:52 PM

See attached comments...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004125207.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 1:19 PM

Gordon
37917

10-B-23-OA
Gordon (37917), October 4, 2023 at 1:19 PM

I have attached a pdf file below.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004131925.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 1:52 PM

Jacob
37917

10-B-23-OA
Jacob (37917), October 4, 2023 at 1:52 PM

I live in the target area, and I am strongly in favor of changing the zoning to allow for more middle housing. Not all duplexes are created equal. There are ugly duplexes, and there are aesthetically-pleasing duplexes. Those not in favor of the proposed zoning changes may not be aware that it mandates aesthetically-pleasing duplexes/etc. that keep with the character of the neighborhood (i.e., no ugly rectangle/vinyl siding "spec" houses" will be allowed like they used to be). I am in favor of these zoning changes because: 1) the housing shortage increases economic inequality, 2) supply and demand: increasing supply will lower (or at least help stabilize) housing prices, and 3) the only other way to increase supply is urban spawl and habitat destruction. Expanding middle housing options will thus help with social inequality and help prevent our beautiful wildlands from being demolished for more (some may say even uglier) single-family suburbs. Please pass these zoning changes!

12-SE-23-C

Marie
53724

12-SE-23-C
Marie (53724), November 23, 2023 at 10:19 AM

I live near this new proposed subdivision. Millertown Pike needs to be widen. The traffic lines up from Rushland Park subdivision east of Mill Road in the morning. I have lived in area for 20 years. Please do a proper traffic study. Thank you.

November 23, 2023
at 10:19 AM

12-E-23-DP

Marie
37924

12-E-23-DP
Marie (37924), November 23, 2023 at 10:25 AM

We neighbors having to hear motorcycles going very fast, speeding cars all day long, our children having to deal with traffic congestion on Millertown Pike. Focus on creating a traffic calming study before you build another subdivision. Many years ago it was a gravel road. I have lived in neighborhood for 20 years. Thank you all.

November 23, 2023
at 10:25 AM

October 4, 2023
at 2:36 PM

Sandra
37914

10-B-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 4, 2023 at 2:36 PM

With only a few provisos KCPA fully supports adoption of the text amendments proposed in Application 10-B-23-A. Please read the attached PDF.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004143646.pdf

November 29, 2023
at 5:48 PM

Darlene
37932

12-F-23-RZ
Darlene (37932), November 29, 2023 at 5:48 PM

I live in Parkway Heights, just passed this proposed area. We already risk our lives trying to get out of our subdivision. Our entrance is on Pellissippi and even to get out just to get on Dutchtown, we have to make illegal driving maneuvers. Knox County has told us they will not build an off ramp from Pellissppi so we can exit Pellissippi safely when we come into our subdivision. What will happen with more cars entering Pellissippi from such a short distance from us? Does Knox county have any plans to help this? I voice my opposition to this unless Knox County, TDOT, or the State of Tennessee does something to help us. Provide us with another way in and out of our subdivision? There are so many accidents at our entrance already, that sometimes we are locked in and out, even emergency vehicles cannot enter at times due to this. We need another exit from Parkway Heights! Please save lives instead of building more homes which will cause more accidents if you do not have a solution!

October 4, 2023
at 3:00 PM

Dustin
37917

10-B-23-OA
Dustin (37917), October 4, 2023 at 3:00 PM

See attached for my comments regarding this amendment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004150035.pdf

November 30, 2023
at 7:24 AM

Briana
37932

12-F-23-RZ
Briana (37932), November 30, 2023 at 7:24 AM

I am writing on behalf of the re-zone that is coming to Pellissippi. I currently live in Parkway heights, and although I have no objection to anything being brought to Knoxville, (especially more housing) I do have some serious concerns as to traffic and overall safety of everyone going in and out. We have had numerous serious accidents at the entrance to Parkway Heights and it's easy to see that adding more people to that traffic flow increases the likelihood of more serious accidents. Ideally, we would like to see a safer way of entering and exiting both neighborhoods, as it's not hard to see that the current request being filed will more than likely be approved. I'm sure you can ask the city or county for records of wrecks that have happened at the intersection of Odin and Pellissippi. Hopefully we can all get what we want/need out of this re-zoning request.

12-B-23-SU

Sunny
37920

12-B-23-SU
Sunny (37920), December 3, 2023 at 8:38 PM

I am writing in reference to Calvary's request yet again to extend a driveway that exits their property on to Topside Rd.
This is the second time they have requested this and yet nothing has changed as to the layout and design of Topside Rd at that exit point. As a 20 year resident that would be diagonally across the street from the proposed additional driveway exit I understand why they would want it. However, based on the lay of the land, current road traffic, and visibility for both them and our Topside neighbors I beg you to do a traffic study related to this. I cannot understand how their request could possibly be granted based on site view.

December 3, 2023
at 8:38 PM

August 2, 2023
at 8:15 PM

Christina
37921

8-B-23-OA
Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:15 PM

If I have a C-N lot next to RN and want to build a single family house (permissible in C-N), I’m subject to a residential abutment setback of 20’. A single family in RN only needs 5’ / 15’ combined. That is a pretty absurd discrepancy, especially problematic for an average city lot 50’ wide.
This application raises an important question: what is the purpose of residential abutment setbacks? Not just for C-N but for other zones too (I-MU, C-G, etc). If the setback is intended for larger developments, why are these rules broadly applied for all uses? And for medium density developments, if you can build townhouses in RN-7 with 15’ combined setback, why 20’ residential abutment setback for townhouses in C-N, I-MU, or anywhere?
Needless to say, I support this amendment and would actually support an expansion of the amendment to include consideration of other zones as well. Maybe address the use matrix while you’re at it (e.g. why is SF permissible in commercial districts?).

12-B-23-SU

Tim
37920

12-B-23-SU
Tim (37920), December 4, 2023 at 8:47 AM

As a 17 year resident of Topside Road between Alcoa Highway (129) and Maryville Pike, that has voiced concern in the past about traffic flow, non-residential use by speeders or vehicles too wide and overweight for road conditions, I am "against" the proposed site improvement by the Calvary Chapel to gain access perpendicular to Topside Road for its church going users, no matter if for service or social activities. Calvary Chapel and in particular Brad Bassitt (or affiliates) does NOT inform nor respond to Topside Rd inhabitants in the past about its concerns for expansion and a further need to review future expansion. Attached is additional information. I look to remain informed or to be included with those that need to be present if meetings are held.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231204084744.pdf

December 4, 2023
at 8:47 AM

August 2, 2023
at 8:20 PM

Christina
37921

8-C-23-OA
Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:20 PM

I support this application. See supportive reasoning attached.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230802202011.pdf

December 4, 2023
at 4:26 PM

Sharon
37932

12-F-23-RZ
Sharon (37932), December 4, 2023 at 4:26 PM

I am a resident of Parkway Heights and am deeply concerned about this proposal. We have such a dangerous traffic situation now entering and exiting our subdivision. A new subdivision so close will only add to the current problem. I ask that you consider this seriously since we do not currently have a proper turning lane to enter our subdivision or a merge lane that allows us to safely enter Pellissippi Highway. There have been so many accidents. I thank you for your consideration on this matter.

October 4, 2023
at 6:34 PM

Cheryl
37901

10-B-23-OA
Cheryl (37901), October 4, 2023 at 6:34 PM

The City conducted two open house events related to the Missing Middle Housing proposal developed in collaboration with Knoxville-Knox County Planning staff. More than 170 residents participated in the events. The comments from the events are on the attached document.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004183445.pdf

December 6, 2023
at 12:04 PM

Caroline
37919

10-B-23-OA
Caroline (37919), December 6, 2023 at 12:04 PM

Please see attached comments on behalf of Bike Walk Knoxville.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206120446.pdf

January 11, 2022
at 1:31 PM

Wanda
37932

1-SB-22-C
Wanda (37932), January 11, 2022 at 1:31 PM

I'm a concerned resident in Massey Creek writing in opposition to the 5 additional homes and entry ways connecting to Mission Hill. You are aware of the heavy traffic and overcrowded school problems that plaque Hardin Valley. Yet, it seems on one is listening. Please hear us. Paul, Mark, Jamie, and MacKenzie addressed safety and aesthetic concerns like water retention/run-off, U-turn entry nightmares, trash cans littering the main entrance, parked cars on the street that is Massey Creek residents only was in and out. I hadn't thought of these things-have you? These are valid concerns. I want to tell you why I made Massey Creek my home and Mission Hill my address. Look at the picture that Mark submitted. What a beautiful entrance! Just the right amount of adornment - so serene, so green, so open, so quiet. I'll be honest. I was afraid to tackle that hill when walking my dog at first. However, in time it became my route of choice. It just says peaceful. Even with Hardin Valley Road just at the bottom of the hill it seems like it's so far away from the maddening crowd. When I read Paul's comment that this approval will be "equivalent to dumping houses on green space" it struck a chord. How sad to take away that beauty. I feel like many of my neighbors that your decisions seem to benefit the developer and not the existing homeowners. Don't let this happen again. Please hear us this time.

October 4, 2023
at 7:24 PM

Hancen
37919

10-B-23-OA
Hancen (37919), October 4, 2023 at 7:24 PM

See attached statement from East Tennessee REALTORS®.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231004192400.pdf

December 6, 2023
at 12:15 PM

Matthew
37932

1-SB-22-C
Matthew (37932), December 6, 2023 at 12:15 PM

PLEASE see the attached letter regarding this illegal development. There is ZERO path forward due to this developers complete disregard of State Law and local Rules & Regulations. Quit wasting taxpayer money defending a developer over Knox County Taxpayer's safety and concerns. This development was determined illegal by Knox County Chancery Court and this staff/commission has no authority to approve as-is. We request you to DENY this plan to avoid a fifth or more lawsuit - The first lawsuit clarifies the illegalities of this plan and the wrongdoings of the previous commission. The next three lawsuits involve the current staff and commission as you have aided this developer and Amy Brooks to, yet again, illegally approve this development against our advisement.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206121510.pdf

January 11, 2022
at 1:45 PM

Thomas
37932

1-SB-22-C
Thomas (37932), January 11, 2022 at 1:45 PM

See attached pdf
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220111134546.pdf

October 4, 2023
at 8:17 PM

Sandra
37914

10-B-23-OA
Sandra (37914), October 4, 2023 at 8:17 PM

To clarify the submittal previously sent, where does it state that the review process for "Missing Middle" supersedes the normal review process for the base zone? There is language regarding dimensional standards (4.6.B - Middle Housing Uses) but I don't see any regarding review process.

12-SF-23-C

Matthew
37932

12-SF-23-C
Matthew (37932), December 6, 2023 at 12:17 PM

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206121707.pdf

December 6, 2023
at 12:17 PM

October 4, 2023
at 9:18 PM

Jack
37917

10-B-23-OA
Jack (37917), October 4, 2023 at 9:18 PM

I live in a targeted neighborhood. I have concerns about what the definition of "Affordable" is. If this ordinance is about the "Missing Middle" are there going to be anything more than promises to make " affordable " housing? Or will this just streamline the process for developers to build any kind of housing they want? (within guidelines of course). Or charging whatever they want? Since rent control is not an option, what guarantee is there that the "Missing Middle" will have "affordable" housing? If things go upscale fast, that will just help to drive out the majority of the people who can afford to live here now.

12-G-23-DP

Matthew
37932

12-G-23-DP
Matthew (37932), December 6, 2023 at 12:18 PM

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206121818.pdf

December 6, 2023
at 12:18 PM

October 5, 2023
at 8:06 AM

Christina
37921

10-B-23-OA
Christina (37921), October 5, 2023 at 8:06 AM

Please see attached comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231005080640.pdf

12-B-23-SU

Robb
37920

12-B-23-SU
Robb (37920), December 7, 2023 at 8:47 AM

See attached pdf
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231207084702.pdf

December 7, 2023
at 8:47 AM

December 7, 2023
at 1:14 PM

Bill
37932

12-F-23-RZ
Bill (37932), December 7, 2023 at 1:14 PM

If the rezoning is approved to residential, the consistent traffic flow 24/7 would increase considerably as opposed to its current zoning as BP which would be considerably less. School buses already have a very difficult time accessing the existing housing area off of Pellissippi & safety of our children is paramount. I ask this the commission to take a hard look at this property & the negative impact of rezoning as the current infrastructure does not safely support the increase of traffic.

January 11, 2022
at 9:26 PM

Tanya
37932

1-SB-22-C
Tanya (37932), January 11, 2022 at 9:26 PM

I am extremely concerned about the proposed changes to allow five homes to access their driveway via Mission Hill. Approval of this plan could cause hazardous traffic situations and safety concerns for Massey Creek Residents. Mission Hill is divided by a landscaped median that will be located opposite the driveway entrances. With driveways accessing Mission Hill, these homeowners or their guests could park on the street or put their trash cans in the road, which could cause issues not only with Massey Creek residents exiting or entering the neighborhood but also could impact emergency vehicles, service vehicles, and school buses accessing our neighborhood. Due to the driveway locations, the homeowners would have to make a u-turn on Mission Hill to access their driveway, which is also a traffic hazard with cars coming down the hill exiting Massey Creek. This is also a serious concern for pedestrian safety since many residents walk and bike this road and there are no sidewalks on Mission Hill. Our neighborhood is strongly opposed to this plan, and we ask that the Knox County Planning Commission members reject this proposal of construction of the five homes on Mission Hill Lane with driveway access via Mission Hill Lane. Thank you for your consideration.

January 12, 2022
at 7:16 AM

Brian
37932

1-SB-22-C
Brian (37932), January 12, 2022 at 7:16 AM

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112071636.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 9:37 AM

Jennifer
37932

1-SB-22-C
Jennifer (37932), January 12, 2022 at 9:37 AM

I am writing in opposition to the five specific lots proposed to have access from Mission Hill Lane. This part is already hazardous as it is difficult to see as you are coming down the street. There are a lot of kids in our neighborhood who are out and about throughout the neighborhood as well as other pedestrians, and we need to ensure that our area is as safe as possible. There is already overcrowding in Hardin Valley that is making the entire area congested and more dangerous. With driveways accessing Mission Hill, these homeowners or their guests could park on the street or put their trash cans in the road, which could cause issues not only with Massey Creek residents exiting or entering the neighborhood but also could impact emergency vehicles, service vehicles, and school buses accessing our neighborhood. Due to the driveway locations, the homeowners would have to make a u-turn on Mission Hill to access their driveway, which is also a traffic hazard with cars coming down the hill exiting Massey Creek. Please do not approve this on top of an already congested area.

January 12, 2022
at 9:57 AM

Fred
37932

1-SB-22-C
Fred (37932), January 12, 2022 at 9:57 AM

Approving this request as-is based on the recommendations included would endanger existing residents, increase traffic congestion and degrade property values in the area. Please deny the request for access of lots 22-26 to Mission Hill Lane, deny the request for reducing the distance between Road A and Mission Hill Lane, and complete a traffic study analyzing the impacts to the Marietta Church Road and Hardin Valley Road intersection. More information is included in the attached.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112095757.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 10:00 AM

Fred
37932

1-SB-22-C
Fred (37932), January 12, 2022 at 10:00 AM

Approving this request as-is based on the recommendations included would endanger existing residents, increase traffic congestion and degrade property values in the area. Please deny the request for access of Lots 22-26 to Mission Hill Lane, deny the request for reducing the distance between Road A and Mission Hill Lane. More information is included in the attached.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112100010.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 10:31 AM

Caroline
37932

1-SB-22-C
Caroline (37932), January 12, 2022 at 10:31 AM

I am firmly against the proposal to allow 5 driveways off of Mission Hill. This is meant to be an boulevard entrance to Massey Creek only, and not a dangerous cluster of inappropriate incoming and exciting traffic. Not only is this a safety hazard, it would be a horrid aesthetic display and emotionally upsetting to pass every day. Please use good judgment and consider the intent of the road when built.

January 12, 2022
at 10:37 AM

Charlie
37932

1-SB-22-C
Charlie (37932), January 12, 2022 at 10:37 AM

Please see the attachment. Having 4 kids who roam the neighborhood, this is a terrible idea and shouldn't be allowed.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112103735.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 10:52 AM

Tina
37932

1-SB-22-C
Tina (37932), January 12, 2022 at 10:52 AM

Please see the attached.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112105225.pdf

August 3, 2023
at 3:30 PM

Ron
37919

8-B-23-OA
Ron (37919), August 3, 2023 at 3:30 PM

We're dealing with 75 years of urban sprawl planning that no longer serves the needs of this city. In the midst of a terrible housing crisis that seems like he just keeps getting worse and worse and more and more expensive it's time to rethink how we use our small lots in the CN zoned property. With this revision as I understand it it would allow townhomes and condos and other medium density housing options to be built. This seems like a reasonable revision in the current zoning laws to address our crisis state of housing in Knoxville.

January 12, 2022
at 11:34 AM

Sherry
37932

1-SB-22-C
Sherry (37932), January 12, 2022 at 11:34 AM

I am writing to express opposition to the addition of five driveways/homes on Mission Hill Lane in this proposal. As a Massey Creek home owner and resident on Mission Hill Lane, I witness the traffic in and out of the neighborhood and any thought to adding these additional access point is incredibly dangerous for everyone based on their location, will detract and devalue current resident's property and is simply illogical. Mission Hill Lane is not designed for such as additional and will create significant traffic hazards if granted as residents will have to make u-turns in the middle of the boulevard on a blind hill. The proposal of the detention pond along side the bridge would be unsightly and health issue (mosquito attraction) for current residents of Massey Creek as our neighborhood was designed for walking on Mission Hill Lane. Our neighborhood has a well maintained, landscaped entrance ( as do the majority of neighborhoods in Hardin Valley); so this would again detract/devalue current properties. Please do not allow this proposal to move forward as there are no logical reasons to do so; on those to attempt to pack as many houses as possible on a small remnant of land.

January 12, 2022
at 12:20 PM

Mike
37932

1-SB-22-C
Mike (37932), January 12, 2022 at 12:20 PM

I am opposed to adding 5 new drive ways to connect with Mission Hill. The traffic on Hardin Valley is already bad and going to become heavier with the new developments. With the new developments being approved based on variances to the spacing guidelines in place, more traffic coming out of that is one is going to amplify the effect and more importantly the risks associated with pulling into a heavier trafficked road with limited visibility and spacing between adjacent access roads.

January 12, 2022
at 1:19 PM

Michael
37932

1-SB-22-C
Michael (37932), January 12, 2022 at 1:19 PM

please see attached pdf
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112131918.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 2:07 PM

Kory
37932

1-SB-22-C
Kory (37932), January 12, 2022 at 2:07 PM

As so many of my Massey Creek neighbors have already commented, the proposed plan is a horrible idea. Having the 5 driveways directly on Mission Hill Lane will be unsafe for everyone involved. My family is very against the proposed plan and strongly hopes that the planning board does not approve it.

January 12, 2022
at 4:38 PM

Benjamin
37902

1-SB-22-C
Benjamin (37902), January 12, 2022 at 4:38 PM

APPLICANT CORRESPONDENCE
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220112163822.pdf

January 12, 2022
at 5:08 PM

Wanda
37932

1-SB-22-C
Wanda (37932), January 12, 2022 at 5:08 PM

Look, I know this is after the deadline but I have just learned some disturbing information. I have just learned that the person requesting these variances is an actual member of the KPC???? What? How can that be?!? I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but this is a blatantly obvious a conflict of interest. Even through Mr. Smith probably can't vote on this proposal you can't tell me he doesn't have influence over those that will vote!! This stinks and stinks bad. I'm flabbergasted at the audacity Mr. Smith is demonstrating - changing his request to benefit him and putting his KPC "buddies'" ethics in question. Wow! I don't know how to fully process this and to understand how this scenario could exist. It's like pitting the existing homeowners against a Goliath. We, as homeowners who value our safety and our property values, are not making an irrational request when we ask that you deny this recently changed request of Mr. Smith. Please hear us.

August 7, 2023
at 12:08 PM

George
37932

8-B-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:08 PM

Agenda items (8A23OA,8B23OA,8C23OA,8D23OA,8E23OA)all relate to defining ADU's and relaxing set backs, buffers and the like. These requests can be construed to introduce ADU's to Knoxville. However, may also be construed as method to simply increase building density way tighter than current standards. They also can allow a rental property be added to nearly any lot/location.
I am against each of these agenda items.
And I think the County, the Planning Commission and residents need A LOT more conversations about introducing and controlling ADU's (like the ADU must be occupied by an immediate family member) prior to introduction of this concept.
Following this research, the concept should be trialed in one district to learn impact and control, and NOT just open the floodgates in all districts!

August 7, 2023
at 12:10 PM

George
37932

8-C-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:10 PM

January 13, 2022
at 12:32 PM

Laura
37932

1-SB-22-C
Laura (37932), January 13, 2022 at 12:32 PM

This proposal should not be approved based on the concerns in the attachment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220113123232.pdf

August 8, 2023
at 9:14 PM

Aaron
37917

8-B-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 9:14 PM

I support this amendment on grounds that historical "neighborhood commercial" buildings and nodes often often had minimal setback. Staff makes a point that resonates with me that if engineering has to set setbacks based on sightline distance in the permitting process, that will create delays. For something standard like this and other typical sightline considerations (like when there are existing nonconforming structures on adjacent lot), I think it would be ideal to add a sightline diagram to the zoning ordinance.

August 8, 2023
at 9:44 PM

Aaron
37917

8-C-23-OA
Aaron (37917), August 8, 2023 at 9:44 PM

An owner-occupancy requirement to construct or operate an ADU would be extremely expensive (and thus impossible) to actually enforce and really doesn't prevent developer-ownership of dwelling units in general; it only constrains housing supply. There is no need for a minimum lot size, maximum floor area, or floor area ratio requirement for ADUs as building coverage, impervious surface, and principle structure already effectively regulate ADU size and existence. ADUs should be exempt from parking requirements, as the person building the ADU is capable of determining the local market demand for parking and the transit richness of their particular context. Ability to use transit or non-automobile modes of transportation is much more granular in Knoxville than any particular zone. If we must have a codified requirement, ADUs should be exempt from parking when the street contains street parking or the ADU is within a 1/4 mile of a transit route. The height of ADUs should be increased to allow for garage apartments as a typology. A maximum of 25' or the height of the primary structure, whichever is less would accommodate garage apartments.

January 13, 2022
at 2:48 PM

Marcia
37932

1-SB-22-C
Marcia (37932), January 13, 2022 at 2:48 PM

I too, would like to vehemently express my opposition to the additional driveways, homes and retention pond along Mission Hill Dr. I honestly cannot even understand why this would even be considered. In addition to the obvious safety concerns mentioned by so many others, the detrimental effect this will have on our lovely boulevard entrance is not what we want as a community. My family bought a home in this neighborhood in part because of the obvious attention the developer paid to setting homes away from Hardin Valley Rd and giving us a long, peaceful entrance to our neighborhood. Please don’t ruin our community by allowing these additional homes and driveways. We all realize you will likely be pressured by your fellow committee member, but that should never trump the requests of the homeowners who will be directly affected by this development.

August 8, 2023
at 10:05 PM

Dustin
37917

8-B-23-OA
Dustin (37917), August 8, 2023 at 10:05 PM

See attached for my full comments supporting Ordinance Amendment 8-B-23-OA.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230808220538.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 9:19 AM

Dustin
37917

8-C-23-OA
Dustin (37917), August 9, 2023 at 9:19 AM

See attached for my full comments in support of all aspects of this Amendment.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809091938.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 12:17 PM

Drew
37917

8-B-23-OA
Drew (37917), August 9, 2023 at 12:17 PM

Please see attached PDF.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809121714.pdf

August 9, 2023
at 12:18 PM

Drew
37917

8-C-23-OA
Drew (37917), August 9, 2023 at 12:18 PM

Please see attached PDF.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230809121833.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:17 PM

R. Bentley
37921

8-B-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:17 PM

Please see attached...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121735.pdf

August 10, 2023
at 12:18 PM

R. Bentley
37921

8-C-23-OA
R. Bentley (37921), August 10, 2023 at 12:18 PM

Please see attached...
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20230810121810.pdf

February 7, 2022
at 10:21 PM

Jaime
37932

1-SB-22-C
Jaime (37932), February 7, 2022 at 10:21 PM

Any proposal that adds any driveways on Mission Hill should not be approved. There is no way to prevent the homes from having vehicles parked on the street. The number of vehicles using this entry on a daily basis would be dangerous to have any number of driveways on this portion of Mission Hill. Often cars back up 3 and 4 deep if not more during high traffic times. With an additional 400+ homes already approved within 1 mile of our area and no turning lane, it can take many minutes to pull out onto Hardin Valley Road on most days. Approving any driveways on Mission Hill is simply not safe. The original proposal of the 18th lot and its proximity to Hardin Valley Road has already squeezed an additional home into this development . The additional 5 lots being added to this proposal is an example of trying to jam more homes into a project for the sake of making a larger profit rather than using the current model, area, and density plans to build a better community............a better Hardin Valley. Due to size, please see additional comments in pdf.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220207222103.pdf

February 8, 2022
at 5:24 PM

Vonna
37932

1-SB-22-C
Vonna (37932), February 8, 2022 at 5:24 PM

I reiterate again to the committee that no separate entrances should be allowed to access Mission Hill Lane based on my prior comments submitted to this committee. My earlier comment : I strongly urge the replanning of lots 22-26 that show an entrance from Mission Hill Lane. I highly encourage that the Knox County Planning Committee seek advise and review of the current proposal by the Knox Regional Transportation Planning Organization, The East Tennessee Development District, The Knoxville Fire Chief and The Knox County Sheriff as this current proposal puts residents of Massey Creek in extreme danger. Five separate entrances in the location shown on the proposal will potentially and most likely block the exit capabilities for not only Massey Creek residents but also emergency vehicles. The addition of these five additional entrances will also put pedestrians at risk while walking, biking and driving due to limited space for lots 22-26 to enter and exit from Mission Hill Lane.

February 8, 2022
at 9:29 PM

Brandon
37932

1-SB-22-C
Brandon (37932), February 8, 2022 at 9:29 PM

I am writing this in opposition to the request for 5 drive ways connecting to Mission Hill LN. This road is meant to be an entrance to Massey Creek subdivision which our HOA currently maintains. The proposed will cause a hazard to those exiting the neighborhood especially at the narrow portions of the road. No one can guarantee that cars will not be parked on the road making it difficult if not impossible to pass to exit on Hardin Valley Rd. This is not only a safety concern, but also will be aesthetically displeasing. I urge you to deny this request as currently proposed.

February 8, 2022
at 10:28 PM

Mark
37932

1-SB-22-C
Mark (37932), February 8, 2022 at 10:28 PM

Re: Benjamin's comments 1/12/22
Yes, it is possible to make connections to the divided boulevard .... based on physics and geometry. But the wisdom of doing so is what I question. Jamie's comments make the excellent point about the high traffic volume on Mission Hill Ln, which will already increase after the approved street tie in for planned condos (Saddlebrook development). Driveway tie-in will be a significant safety issue from cars backing out, trash cans, and cars parked on the side of the road (a divided boulevard).

A final comment about example subdivisions where such drives have been connected to divided roads: I suspect that these were well planned, consistent construction, and perhaps smaller subdivisions (less traffic), and not some bolt-on inconsistent addition to an already well planned subdivision boulevard.