December 10, 2020
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

5 Comments for
X DateX ZIP Code
Kevin
37918
11-E-20-SP
Kevin (37918), November 11, 2020 at 3:11 PM
See attached
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20201111151134.pdf
Kevin
37918
11-B-20-OB
Kevin (37918), November 12, 2020 at 12:35 PM
Knox County Planning Alliance supports the proposed bylaw amendments. We support procedures to streamline the hearing and adoption of the Consent Agenda. We are also very supportive of the updated item hearing procedure. In our view, an applicant is making a REQUEST or application for an item, and they should present their vision and justification for why the request is appropriate and beneficial first. When the applicant is given the opportunity to "defer to opposition", this places opposition at a significant disadvantage because they have not heard the applicants' justification and vision. Then often "opposition" provides irrelevant testimony because they are in the dark about the applicants plans. KCPA believes that the applicant should go first, and then that allows any neutral or opposition viewpoints to specifically address the vision and justification provided by the applicant. We think this will result in more relevant discussion for commissioners.
Kevin
37918
12-A-20-UR
Kevin (37918), December 8, 2020 at 5:51 PM
See attached
View Attachment
https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20201208175134.pdf
Kevin
37918
12-SC-20-C
Kevin (37918), December 8, 2020 at 6:03 PM
Lot 70 (corner lot) appears to be pretty small in area after the two front setbacks are shown. Will that lot be large enough to be buildable? A developer who presents a concept plan should ensure that all of the lots created would not then request variances from the BZA. Builders who do that are responsible for creating their own hardship, and it is settled case law that you are not entitled for variance relief if you created your own hardship. Lot 65 also looks a little irregular and tight.

Also, Lot 18, the "Amenity & Common Area" is unhelpful to your deliberations. Is it large enough to be a playground, basketball court, or other significant asset to the neighborhood? Will you impose a condition requiring the developer to create a playground or active recreational area on that lot? Right now, if it's approved as-is, there is no requirement for the developer to complete a playground or anything, and if the developer just leaves an empty lot for the HOA, that'd be just fine....
Daniel
37918
11-F-20-UR
Daniel (37918), December 9, 2020 at 8:54 AM
I am in favor of Angelic Boarding House.