Thank you for your feedback and continued interest in your communities!
25 Comments
Showing 1-25 of 174 results
Chuck, 37938
February 27, 2024
A lot of people have been talking about how the Halls Crossroads area should be improved on Facebook. I decided to compile the most commmented/requested ideas together.
1. The new neighborhood developments need to be stopped until the infrastructure is ready
2. Many of the red lights in Halls should be synced for better traffic flow
3. Black Oak Plaza (currently owned by Uhaul) needs to be replaced with a town center and event area
4. Powerlines should be underground and better signage for the existing plazas
5. There should be more recreation options in parks like a community pool or dog park
6. More activities/attractions for kids and teens which are close to home
7. Make Halls more walkable connecting the schools to the parks, greenways, and other local businesses
8. Stricter building codes to facelift run down buildings and keep a cleaner uniform look in the area
9. More businesses that cater to what the people want (large hardware store, restaurants with patios, etc.)
10. Preventing more oversaturation of common businesses (Mexican restaurants, storage facilities, etc.)
Halls Crossroads should look more like Northshore when it comes to more commercial and town square development, instead it is becoming like Hardin Valley with large residential neighborhoods which the infrastructure can not handle. Also, Powell and Gibbs are starting to suffer the same issues and should follow in Northshore's footsteps as well.
Andrew
January 31, 2024
To whom it may concern,
I am the representative for the owner of the property located at 101 Suffolk Drive in Knoxville, TN, and I hold power of attorney on behalf of the landowner. The proposal presented to us at Grace Lutheran Church on January 29, 2024, suggested the rezoning of our property and the neighboring East and West properties to Corridor Commercial (CC). A change that as of January 30th, 2024 no longer appears on the proposal map; we would like it changed back to Corridor Commercial and allow for the Commission to decide.
The owner of 101 Suffolk Drive and myself, fully support the Corridor Commercial proposal and express a desire to see these properties utilized for commercial purposes.
We are of the opinion that labeling these properties, situated directly on Kingston Pike, for commercial use is the optimal choice. Considering the established commercial environment in the vicinity, this aligns seamlessly with the prevailing growth trajectory of the area.
The apprehensions voiced by neighbors in the Seven Oak subdivision are a knee-jerk reaction, relying on an unfounded strawman argument related to the placement of a gas station at the front entrance. They cannot see the sunrise through the clouds of pessimism and fear of change.
We firmly believe that selecting the right business for this location can not only debunk such concerns but also significantly enhance the overall appeal, functionality of the area, increase overall property value and enhance tax revenue.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Deborah , 37922
January 17, 2024
As zoning in Knoxville and Knox County continue to evolve and change. I would like to ensure my best property interests are maintained.
It is my understanding that there is a District Commissioner that is currently planning a meeting to restrict, down zone or attempt to rezone certain areas. Additionally, it appears the commissioner may be leaning in a certain direction without full support of their constituents. Pre-determined assumptions in favor of residential zoning.
**The commissioner did call me on (1/16/2024)and assured me she is representing all her constituents.
Please let it be known, that I, Deborah A Ferguson support Advance Knox Zoning and the Growth Planning for our area. I am excited to see Advance Knox move into adoption phase.
I Do Not support down zoning (of any type) for 100 Essex Drive property.
No person or community group should be able to change my zoning without my full support.
Deborah, 37914
January 10, 2024
Part 5: It's THEIR plan, not ours - the County, including all of Knoxville. Do the mayors care about us? Do we have advocates other than those for big business? No. Developers' dreams - not ours, we the citizens who have loved Knoxville since we were born.
Please spend time, energy, & money on longtime current residents!! For heaven's sake, DO NOT SPEND ONE MORE CENT OR MINUTE ON ATTRACTING MORE PEOPLE!!
WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BUILD A NEST FOR EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO MOVE HERE!
A home is supposed to be a refuge.
Thank you for listening
Deborah, 37914
January 10, 2024
Part 4: Rural & family farmland are our most precious & clean resources. We need more family farms instead of unhealthy huge nasty inhumane corporate factory farms from whom we have to ship & buy unhealthy chemical-ridden foods grown on depleted chemically treated & enhanced soil! Gobbling up great rich land to bulldoze, pave, & provide expensive housing to entice thousands of people to move here is simply wrong, & backstabbing to us all. We need the peace & contentment that only rural areas can provide! It's already disappearing, & we suffee, because of the extreme greedy development everywhere.
Washington Pike & Millertown Pike used to be among my favorite roads to go for a nice country drive. No more. Now, a long line of vehicles stay stuck to my bumper, due to all the cookie cutter subdivisions & much development already done out there. It's too late to change that, but please choose balance! Please choose to respect & support the importance & health of natural land, & how human beings cannot happily survive without a space to breathe clean air, see fireflies & the night sky, & enjoy seeing our wonderful Tennessee landscape & trees right outside their windows! I repeat: WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BUILD A NEST FOR EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO MOVE HERE! Leave our natural land & farms alone. We shouldn't have to beg. If you won't do that, quality of life is nonexistent.
Deborah, 37914
January 10, 2024
Part 3: The first example of our City/County hell is how the new Suttree Landing Park on the south side of the river was ruined, after years of promising residents they would do wonderful things to beautify & give access to the riverfront! No. Along the entire length of the Park, just feet away, a dozen big ugly apt bldgs were erected on the public parking for the Park. It is no longer a nice river park access connected to a greenway & accessible to The Public. Who would want to go have lunch & walk there now? No one.
Example 2: There is a landfill on County land across the street from my City home that recently got permission to expand. This landfill & everything connected with it is orrible to live with. "Meridian Waste - Riverside Construction & Demolition Landfill". TDEC had to approve the expansion, but their documents show that they have no idea this once beautiful old marble quarry land is in the midst of an actual neighborhood of HUMAN BEINGS! This is one example of the type of thing that happens uncaringly to take advantage of lower income neighborhoods.
Deborah, 37914
January 10, 2024
Part 2: Our property taxes & dwelling costs have already increased exponentially because of this! "Whatever the market will bear?" Most people moving here are quite well off, & can bear quite a bit in the marketplace. But many long time residents can no longer afford to buy even a small starter home! People are being evicted from apartments because they cannot afford the huge price increases. Will our leaders address, regulate, & correct these problems, including the resulting sad homeless problem? No. This is all quite disheartening.
Deborah, 37914
January 10, 2024
Part 1
As usual, those in charge seem to be in LOVE with developer money & marketing to lure more population. Existing human beings, neighborhood promises that were made years ago, & natural land are ignored.
The last 3+ years there has already been enough bulldozing, paving, giving large tracts of land to developers, putting cookie cutter subdivisions all around the perimeter (& inside the city) where there was natural lovely rural-feeling land, plopping huge apartment buildings everywhere in untenable & perplexing locations.
We need spaces to breathe, natural land left alone, small farmers to help keep us well! They are so important to having healthy food & a healthy life! I refuse to participate in supporting factory farming shipped from all over the country. NOT healthy or humane!
We've had 30%+ increase in population in the last 3 to 4 years due to people deciding to move here. The City & County wildly cater to these sudden new quite well-moneyed residents! I'm sick of seeing bulldozed land & new pavement, buildings, subdivisions. WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BUILD A NEST FOR EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO MOVE HERE!!
Gerald
January 10, 2024
Ladies and gentlemen:Attached are the full comments of the Harvey Broome Group of the Sierra Club on the proposed Growth Plan that will be considered tonight. Only a portion of it will be delivered orally by me tonight.
Please consider all of our comments before making any decision
French Broad Preservation Association
January 10, 2024
Please see the attached position statement from the French Broad Preservation Association on the proposed Knox Growth Plan.
AttachmentElizabeth, 37849
On behalf of Shanton Properties
January 9, 2024
Please provide specific details about planned use for 7421 Clinton Hwy which is privately owned. Per the plan it appears to be designated Town Center Multi use and the owners have not been consulted.
Margie, 37920
January 5, 2024
Re: Kevin's comment below (12/30/23).
This constitutes a 5-alarm fire. We doom our collective future if we continue this reckless destruction of farmland. NINE point EIGHT acres of farmland lost PER HOUR - day in and day out - for the last FIVE years?!? And 6.3 acres PER HOUR - for the 20 years prior to that????????????????
Fourth most threatened state t have ag land converted to other uses????
Hello??????? Anyone listening??????? No more conversion of large tracts of farmlands. THIS TO STOP - NOW!
Bob
January 3, 2024
There are three fundamental questions pertaining to the 2045 population projections found in the Draft Comprehensive Plan (DCP):
Queston 1: is the projected increase of 106,868 for all of Knox County reasonable?Mobility 2045 Plan: -Page 8 of the DCP states the Regional Transportation Organization 2045 Mobility Plan study was used for population projections
- Mobility 2045, Appendix C, page C-3 estimates a county-wide population of 465,289 in 2018 and projects a 2045 population of 570,352 for a gain of 105,063. 2018 was 5 years ago; a more recent baseline should be used. Chart on page C-4 is not detailed enough for precise projections.
- 2022 Quick Facts Census estimates a county-wide population of 494,574 in 2022.- Using 2022 as baseline suggests projected county-wide growth from 2022 to 2045 of 75,778, not 106,868.
Answer 1: The Mobility 2045 Plan is using the old base year of 2018, results in unreasonably high projections.
Question 2: is the 75 % share of projected population growth attributed to unincorporated Knox County reasonable?
Draft Comprehensive Plan:
- There is no methodology for the % used in assessing the unincorporated share of future population.
- Page 24 of Appendix B cites an increase of 77,000 assuming the unincorporated share of growth is 73%.
- Page 25 Appendix B cites an increase of 78,860 assuming the unincorporated share of growth is 75%. This would be 79,000 when rounded up.
- In verbal remarks to the Coordinating Committee during October and November meetings, the project team mentioned projections of 70,000 as well as 79,000 for the unincorporated county. The 70,000 does not appear in the DCP.
- Page 6 Appendix A cites unincorporated share of growth as 84% 2000 to 2010 dropping to 69% 2010 to 2020.- Census data and estimate for unincorporated county indicates a 58.6% share of growth when comparing 2020 to 2022.
Answer 2: % of recent population growth in unincorporated county varies from 84% to 58.6%. The Census trendline shows the county share decreasing the last 12 years. Why does DCP use 75%?
Queston 3: How well does the DCP match data from CBER?Tennessee Boyd Center for Business and Economic Research:
- CBER projects a 2024 to 2045 county-wide increase of 84,104.
- Applying the DCP % assumptions of 75% or 73% yield projections of 63,078 or 61,396 for the unincorporated county. Applying the Census 2020 to 2022 trend of 58.6% yields a population projection of 49,285.
Answer 3: CBER county-wide population is less than DCP and the Mobility 2045 Plan. Also, justification for the DCP 73% or 75% unincorporated share of county-wide population increase is not evident.
Attachment
Kevin, 37918
December 30, 2023
In the just-released 2024 Economic Report to the Governor, UT highlighted Agricultural Land Loss in Tennessee:
Agricultural Land Loss in Tennessee
In 2020, The American Farmland Trust ranked Tennessee as the fourth most threatened state to have agricultural land to be converted to other uses. There is approximately 26.3 million acres of total space in Tennessee. From 1997-2017, there was 1.1 million acres (4.2 percent of total land in Tennessee) of farmland converted into other uses, mainly residential. The amount of farmland lost was equivalent to 55,601 acres/year, 152 acres/day, and 6.3 acres/hour. From 2017-2022, there was 432,941 acres (1.64 percent of total land in Tennessee) of farmland converted to other uses. From 2017-2022, the rate of farmland loss increased to 86,588 acres/year, 237 acres/day, and 9.8 acres/hour. In the coming years, the conversion rate could maintain or increase again due to Blue Oval City development in Haywood County and surrounding counties. Additionally, a growing trend in Tennessee is expansion of the solar industry. Thus, the solar industry could increase the rate of farmland conversion in the next few years.
Source: https://haslam.utk.edu/publication/economic-report-to-the-governor-2024/
Sandra, 37914
December 24, 2023
I sent these questions Friday via email but am following up submitting them through the web page. Since the GPP is coming ahead of the Comp Plan, these questions pertain to the documents that support the proposed amendments to the GPP. I'm trying to understand the supporting document.
Under Constraints:
What flood plain year?
What % steep slopes?
Under Placetypes:
What is density per acre for: suburban low, suburban medium, suburban high, Town Center, and Mixed Commercial.
What is the housing type difference between suburban medium and suburban high, and why is there no suburban high on the FLU map?
What does PMT mean?
Attached units are a secondary use in suburban. Is this suburban low or medium?
There is a placeype called suburban mixed but it doesn't appear on the FLU map, unless suburban medium = mixed. Please clarify.
Please provide a zoomable map with an environmental features layer overlaid with a unconstrained developable land layer.
What is the Urban Footprint Base Canvass and if it is mapped may I see it?
And finally (for now) some population questions regarding unincorporated Knox County:The Comprehensive Plan references the 2045 Mobility Plan for population projections. Page c-3 of this Mobiity Plan compares 2018 population (465,289) to projected 2045 population (570,688) resulting in an increase of 105,063.
The Quick Facts Census estimated 2022 population is 494,574 which when compared to 570,688 results in an increase of 76,114.The county's share of projected growth is mentioned twice in the Comprehensive Plan: 73% and 75%. Taking the higher % this results in a projected 2045 county population increase of 57,086. If then divided by average household size of 2.4 the demand for residential units is roughly 23,786. Not the estimated 31,000.
I would be curious to know the number of residential units approved by not yet built.
And if we could have any data that is more accurate that would help. What do you think of this analysis?
What is the assumption behind so little attached housing shown on the FLU map? And so much suburban? How does this meet the public's priority for conservation and affordable housing? How does this meet the desire for nodal development? Nodal development doesn't have to be a Town Center. It can be clusters of higher density located near arterial and connector roads.
Sewer is given an extremely high weighting. Is this existing or does it include proposed? By including proposed (if it is included) aren't we letting utility companies dictate the extent of growth. That is, just because it can be serviced doesn't mean it should be.
Attachment
Mike, 37922
December 20, 2023
As a developer and a conservationist, I realize the need for more housing AND the need to preserve open space and especially agricultural land. They need not overlap. It is critical to preserve what little agricultural land is remaining in Knox County - it is important for availability of local produce; it is important for preservation of wildlife and it is an important part of our local culture. I urge anyone so inclined to contact Foothills Land Conservancy (www.FoothillsLand.org) to investigate placing a conservation easement on your rural land to protect it from development forever.
January 29, 2024
In response to Sandra's comment from December 24, 2023
See Original CommentSee attachment for staff response
AttachmentJanuary 29, 2024
In response to Bob's comment from January 3, 2024
See Original CommentSee attachment for staff response
AttachmentJanuary 9, 2024
In response to Sandra's comment from November 22, 2023
See Original Commentsee attached
AttachmentJanuary 8, 2024
Over the past few months, staff have received numerous questions and comments related to the Advance Knox process, the draft Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan, and the proposed amendments to the Growth Policy Plan. The attached document is a compilation of many of those questions and comments as well as responses from staff.
AttachmentJanuary 8, 2024
In response to Kevin's comment from December 18, 2023
See Original CommentThe Park Plan includes priority ranking by County Commission District for exiting parks (pg. 124) as well as includes a section on new facilities needs (pg. 131). The Parks Plan will open up opportunities for grants to support new facilities and programs as well as serve as a resource for future park funding allocations.
For additional details, please refer to policies 18 and 19 and their associated action items in the Comprehensive Plan. These can be found starting on page 64. These items demonstrate how the Comprehensive Plan will continue coordinating growth with infrastructure and amenities.
-
The Growth Policy Plan and the draft Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan is supported by the Systemwide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a separate document that includes recommendations for upgrading existing parks, programming, and staffing. The Comprehensive Plan (pg. 46) builds off this plan to consider priority investment areas for new park facilities based on existing park deserts and residential development. As resources are identified, the park deserts map referenced will serve as the first step towards identifying priority areas to be considered for the development of future parks and recreation facilities.
As new park locations are identified and built, consideration will be given to the programs and amenities offered at each based on identified needs and gaps in the surrounding park programs and amenities.