March 13, 2025
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

9 Comments for

8-E-23-OA
Kevin (37918), September 11, 2023 at 1:30 PM

The Board of Directors for the Knox County Planning Alliance supports the staff recommendation to deny this proposed amendment to the zoning code. The proposal to reduce buffer yard depth (changes to 12.8.C) applies to all buffer yards across all zoning districts. As staff points out, reducing the width that much would make it difficult to install the required planting, and would have unintended consequences across all districts in the city.

September 11, 2023
at 1:30 PM

8-E-23-OA

Carlene
37918

8-E-23-OA
Carlene (37918), September 21, 2023 at 12:24 PM

Please deny this request. The professional staff recommendation provides convincing reasons why the presently existing, thoughtful standards and processes, are both appropriate and necessary. They are based on experience and the community is well-served by them.

September 21, 2023
at 12:24 PM

8-E-23-OA

Kevin
37918

8-E-23-OA
Kevin (37918), November 11, 2024 at 7:41 AM

Regarding the buffer yard for non-residential use that abuts a residential district, this applies when let's say:

Condos are built in a C-1 district that abuts an R-1 district. Or an apartment complex is built next to a house. Note that if it's a multi-family dwelling, there's still a requirement to put in a Class A buffer for the multifamily parking lot if it's abutting RN-1/2/3 or EN residential districts (this is still part of 12-2.)

For example: when a 3 or 4 story apartment complex is built next to my single family residence, I'd really like there to be a buffer yard so the upper floor apartments don't look down into my yard. So maybe the suggestion is to make it:

Nonresidential use in a nonresidential district 3 or more stories in height abuts a residential district - Class B buffer required

November 11, 2024
at 7:41 AM

2-SA-25-C

Andy
37918

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