There are currently 3 users and 287 guests online.
Ridgetop Protection
Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Wed, 2008/01/02 - 6:17pm.
Ed. Note and update: Reports from the meeting in comments by Rikki and Lisa Starbuck.
As the meeting to discuss the South Knox watertower blight approaches, I would like to encourage everyone to attend whether or not you live in South Knoxville or care about the view from downtown, because ridgetop protection is something we must all fight for, and the developers won't give in easily.
Below are just two examples of ridgetop desecration that is happening right now in the Ritta community. The first photo is a "barrow" operation that is located right next door to the brand new $2 million New Harvest Park on Washington Pike. This is the view from the road. Anyone who visits the new shopping center or the park can't help but see this ugliness. The ridge is being dug out by the landscaping company (Eastwood Landscaping) and most of the dirt was sold to fill in the wetlands beside the Walmart for their expanded parking lot. The Walmart project is finished but the digging continues.
If I owned the other side of this ridge, I'd also be concerned as to what happens when they dig so deep that the ridgeline collapses. This is mining activity in my opinion - no different than a strip mine, except they are mining dirt instead of coal. Knox County Codes Dept. says it has no authority to regulate this because it is an agricultural activity. I'm not sure that the photo conveys the enormity and the destructive nature of what is being done there.
The second photo is the neighboring ridgeline that is being developed by Saddlebrook Homes. Again, I'm not sure that the photo conveys the enormity of what is being done to the ridgeline and how many acres this encompasses, but the total destruction of trees and the steep, denuded bluffs that are left are terribly ugly.
Since the land that is easily developed in Knox County is almost gone, developers are turning their attention more and more to the ridges. That is why we must demand a strong ridge protection policy before any more barrow operations or water tanks or denuded ridges show up in Knox County.
Please come express your opinion tomorrow night at the meeting Joe Hultquist is hosting at South Doyle Middle School at 7:00 pm.
The ridge is being dug out by the landscaping company (Eastwood Landscaping) and most of the dirt was sold to fill in the wetlands beside the Walmart for their expanded parking lot.
It boggles the mind. To complete the circle, the should fill the ridge back in with toxic waste.
Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Wed, 2008/01/02 - 6:34pm.
Don't give them any ideas . . . if they can also get paid to dispose of toxic waste and use the hole they created from the dirt they've already sold to bury the waste, they might decide it's a good idea -- and Knox County Codes would seem to be powerless to do anything about it.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Wed, 2008/01/02 - 6:40pm.
This is a hideous operation. In addition to being un sightly, mud washes down onto the road when it rains, which has to be a violation of stormwater regs. I've not seen any evidence that the county (or city, since I think it's been annexed) has any interest in inspecting this horror.
Is it time for some state regulations on ridgetop development?
If a ridgetop in Blount County is leveled to build vacation homes, that runoff or even mudslide many effect other counties as well as the GSMNP.
I haven't seen an article recently, but in the past vacation home developers in Blount and Sevier have been known to bulldoze forested lots they don't own if it blocks the view from a home they are building on their own property. The punishment is only a small fine if caught, which is difficult to do because most landowners aren't local or don't check their property frequently. The fine is more than recouped with the increased property value of the vacation home with a view.
Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2008/01/02 - 11:18pm.
Fletch is right, but it's more widespread. It's becoming commonplace. There are several developments similar to the photos along Pelissippi Pkwy. One between Westland and K-pike, and the others near Pelissippi State college.
Then there's the mountain they just flattened in Sevier County across I-40 from the Smokies stadium. There was some really beautiful land in the campground behind the RV park that was there. All gone.
There are no limits anymore. At least not in much of the south. If they can, they will. The bastards.
Don't forget the one in Powell above the shopping center; it's been exposed about 10 years. They have only recently started to build anything on it.
And two really hideous ones in Anderson: one along Edgemoor across from Haw Ridge Park near Centennial Golf, and the one on the ridge between Union Valley and Oak Ridge itself.
The really special thing about East Tennessee is the Valley and Ridge geology sandwiched in between the Plateau and the Blue Ridge. It's rare! Alternating ridges and valleys are due to folds, faults, and differential weathering between the types of rocks. This type of development is destroying what makes this narrow valley special and unique. When the ridges are blanketed in fog in the mornings, ahhh. But without trees and soil on ridgetops to stop sudden flows of rain, the probability of flooding dramatically increases. Also, forested ridges, such as Sharp's Ridge, are important stopping points for migratory birds.
Someday we will need to have a few forested places left in the city, because there won't be many. These places should be the ridges. Here's an idea for preservation of ridges: trails. If we were to build trails on ridgetops, such as Sharp's Ridge, Beaver Ridge, imagine how wonderful it would be to hike around our city and county! And ridgetop preservation would sell itself.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2008/01/03 - 3:37am.
...not to mention all of the hilltop development going on along Pellisippi Pkwy, esp. between Northshore and 1-40. In one spot you've got treeless cookie cutter subdivisions with wonderful highway vistas~ and on the other you can see what it must have looked like before the trees got scrapped. I have a feeling those townhouses above Fort Sanders healthclub won't do too well @_@
It appears to be a satellite photo of Loudon Lake from the Forks of the River to the Lakemont area showing the ridges on either side and the major creeks flowing into it.
Submitted by nextarchitect on Fri, 2008/01/04 - 8:47pm.
unfortunately i cant track the exact source of the photo. i kept it because it illustrated to me that our ridges/water system were like 'living tissue'.
ben garlington
Submitted by michael kaplan on Thu, 2008/01/03 - 9:16am.
the s knox waterfront redevelopment plan drawn up by KCDC was revised twice to include the north ridge which could, theoretically, be acquired by developers. this plan should be revised to include ridge protection, and that's within the purview of city council and county commission. but it's true, there needs to be some legislative action, otherwise the future developers could sue the city/county for curbing their "rights".
Nine Counties One Vision produced this study which addressed ridgetop development to great extent. Does anyone have a copy or a link to this study on-line?
There is a good (or bad) example in west Knox County as well. It's at the northwest corner of the I-40 and Watt Road interchange. It appears the developer is intent on leveling the entire ridge to make room for commercial lots.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2008/01/04 - 7:37pm.
Let's start a Heinous Offense to the Community Award for this unconscionable practice. The developer, Steve Maddox, who has stripped the land at the I-40/Watt Rd interchange, is my nominee. Of course, we have heard that the Flying-J truck stop is about to do the same thing across the street. My second nominee is the West Knoxville Utility District. They have bought land (quietly) and spent the last year (quietly) having plans drawn up to build a sewage treatment plant in the middle of a residential neighborhood off of Hickory Creek and Diggs Rds. The long range plan is to pump ALL of Hardin Valley's sewage this way (and close the Karns plant)..and oh, NO, they do NOT plan to make sewage service available to those residents immediately impacted.
Submitted by redmondkr on Thu, 2008/01/03 - 11:28am.
It used to snow in Karns when I was a kid. We used to slide down a snow-covered pasture field just west of this scar at Cheneworth Gap. We used to ride on a 1949 Ford car hood that magically rotated so we could go head on into the blackberry briars at the bottom of the hill.
This end of the ridge was relocated to downtown Karns to support a new supermarket a few years ago. At least now the pasture has grown up into an oxygen farm. The scar still resembles an old strip mine.
Submitted by Stick Thrower on Thu, 2008/01/03 - 1:01pm.
Grace Baptist Church sure did a hatchet job on Beaver Ridge off Oak Ridge Highway. I hadn't been up to the old neighborhood in a couple of years, and was shocked when I saw it.
Before (probably around 2003 from Google Maps):
After (KGIS 2007):
If they hadn't chopped every tree down and gouged out the ridge all the way up to Dyestone Gap Road, it wouldn't have been nearly as ugly. The aerials don't do it justice.
Submitted by redmondkr on Thu, 2008/01/03 - 1:56pm.
These people also had a contractor that got just a bit too eager with the rape and pillage of Beaver Ridge. As a result there was a landslide that closed Dyestone Gap Road to through traffic for several months. I wonder who paid to repair that faux pas.
Submitted by michael kaplan on Thu, 2008/01/03 - 4:37pm.
Here's my contribution, the photo that accompanied my article "Trail of Tears" in the Knoxville Voice. It's Cherokee Trail Phase III. The cut is of an unimaginable scale.
We were planning to try to get over to this meeting, but it looks like we aren't going to be able to.
I'm hoping for several possible outcomes:
1. Movement for some kind of ordinance or regulation that requires some kind of approval for KUB installations of anything.
2. Movement for ridgetop protection regulations in the city and county.
3. Support for some kind of action to make KUB take the thing down and put in something less intrusive, even if it costs the city/county/KUB/ some money. (I'm guessing this is a really long shot.)
Anyway, good luck to all, hope someone is able to file a report...
I just posted a report here. There were a few people determined to stop the project, including Joe Hultquist, but most just wanted to know how this took everyone by surprise. When alternatives were discussed, it was revealed that the height of the tower was dictated by Cherokee Bluff condominiums. A ground-based water system could potentially serve the Woodlands and Quarry Trail developments, but not the condos, which have been there at least a decade I think.
So much time was consumed discussing the water tower that there was little time left to discuss ridgetop protection. Strong hints were dropped about county commission being the weak link in that chain. The meeting was an object lesson in how piecemeal development results in surprises and unanticipated costs to the public.
Attendees included Bill Elmore of KUB, Mark Donaldson and Mike Carberry of MPC, Hultquist, Frost and Pelot from City Council, Bill Lyons from Mayor Haslam's office, Paul Pinkston from County Commission and all three candidates for Commission seat 9A.
I hated to miss this meeting, and I'm disappointed that ridgetop protection didn't get more attention.
And yes, getting Commission to pass such an ordinance would be difficult. It would be an easier sell to Council, tho, and that would be a good place to start.
Did Pinkston have anything to say?
"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes
Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Fri, 2008/01/04 - 1:52am.
I am grateful to Joe Hultquist for having the meeting to begin with, but it was basically a venting session without much being accomplished.
Bill Elmore from KUB and Mark Donaldson and Mike Carberry from MPC were there, in addition to several 9-A county commission candidates, Commissioner Paul Pinkston, and Barbara Pelot and Rob Frost on City Council. Oh, and the fire marshall.
Joe started off by describing the sequence of events leading to the water tower's being needed. I'm not 100% on all that transpired, but here goes:
Part of the property was in the county, part in the city, and there are at least three different parcels and/or developments being contemplated.
On the Dovetail development that actually resulted in the watertower going up, there was a contentious rezoning by the developers that resulted in the city property being rezoned with a density of 3 units per acre. The county rezoned the county property at 8 units per acre. The city annexed the county's property, but Art Seymour filed a lawsuit and got an injunction for the out-of-town developers that allowed the property to be developed under the much more lenient county density. The out-of-town owners of an adjoining property did the same thing but with a different lawyer.
I brought up the issue of why the lack of utilities wasn't flagged at the MPC level during the rezoning process. Mark Donaldson said that things like making sure there is infrastructure except at the very basic level doesn't come into play until after the rezoning process. To me that is crazy and the very root of this problem. I kind of disagree with Mark's statement, because I am almost positive that on staff recommendation reports that they prepare prior to rezonings there is a space on the form where the planner says what utilities are in place to serve the proposed zoning - i.e., that KUB serves it with sewer, Northeast Knox with water, etc., and that adequate facilities exist. I need to follow up on that one.
Anyway, Bill Elmore got up and spent most of the evening defending KUB's decision to put up the water tower saying that because the property was zoned for development that KUB was under an obligation to provide services. Further, he stated that there has never been adequate water pressure or volume to serve the existing condos on Cherokee Bluff with water or fire protection and that the fire dept. has known this for a long time. He said that KUB felt they needed to put a structure in place that would serve not only the existing condos, but also the multi-story structures with water sprinklers that were zoned and being planned on the other three parcels. So the water tower is really being built for development that has been zoned, but hasn't occurred yet.
Lots of folks wanted to talk about how to undo the water tower, including Joe, but he did acknowledge that it was probably a losing battle.
People also wanted to know why KUB didn't consider how ugly it would be and why the public wasn't informed. Bill Elmore said that they treated the water tower issue like they would any other subdivision, and in hindsight, they should have handled it differently and that they were putting systems in place to better communicate with the public about future water towers.
Bob Wolfenbarger asked where was the public's rights in all this? He tried without much success to get a timeline as to who knew that the watertower would be needed and when they knew it. Joe Hultquist came right out and said that city council didn't know about the water tower until he saw it rising above the city. Bob Wolfenbarger said that KUB is an unregulated enabler of development and that the water tower is just one example of how KUB's actions impact us without any public input. He said they operate with little or no oversight by planning agencies, and that they enable irresponsible development by placing sewer and water into greenfields at the behest of developers. He said that KUB wants to put a new sewer plant on the French Broad River, add tons of effluent (treated sewage) to the water, and do it all in the name of development so that thousands of homes could be built in South and East Knox County.
Enacting a ridgetop protection ordinance was touched on briefly at the very end. Someone mentioned that lots of other mountain communities and cities like Ashville, NC, etc., managed to provide water without building water towers and had ordinances in place that protected the ridges. MPC's Mike Carberry discussed some of the elements and merits of ridgetop ordinances. He said that in the 1990's they knew that most of Knox County's flat land was already developed and that the hills and ridges would be the next targets, so they have been looking at creating a ridgetop protection ordinance for a long time.
He brought up the Tree Conservation and Planting Plan that was recently adopted by city council and county commission. With all due respect to Mike, and I know he has a hard job and walks a difficult line politically, that document was pretty much worthless after it was re-written by the developers. It runs along the lines of "try not to cut down trees if you don't have to" and "plant more trees" and "trees are good" without any kind of enforcement - more like guidelines to follow, except that no one will. You can read it for yourself at Link...
If we end up with a ridgetop or slope protection plan like that, why bother?
Further, everyone acknowledged that while a ridgetop plan with teeth might possibly pass city council, it was unlikely to pass county commission.
I wanted to ask Commissioner Pinkston if he would support a ridgetop protection plan and if he thought it would pass county commission, but he got up in the middle of the meeting and left.
There was a attendence signup sheet passed around at the start of the meeting that hopefully most people filled out, because the signup sheet for people who were interested in being on some kind of task force to work further on the issue disappeared and never made it back to Joe.
I talked with Joe briefly at the end of the meeting about what is the next step and if we could have another meeting, etc. about the ridgetops? He said he is busy with lots of other projects and couldn't take the lead on this, but he would be willing to work on getting an ordinance going for consideration by city council.
Really, the city isn't as much of a problem as the county. Same old refrain. If we could get Tony Norman and/or others to step up in the county, and get some momentum to pass an ordinance before they zone more property on the ridges that will "require" service from KUB water towers, we might be able to save the ridges.
However, at this point, without a big outcry from lots more people than were there tonight (about 60-70), I'm not optimistic. There really wasn't a chance to discuss the bigger overall issue: Land Use Policy. Most of the people there tonight didn't have a clue about the root of this problem - they just wanted the water tower to go away.
I agree with all. We must stand together and fight KUB and bring this down. Anything else Plays into their hands, is irresponsible to our children, and condones the status quo.
Voice your opinion, call these numbers--- fone in this case is more effective than email, I think....
Mintha Roach (President, KUB) --- (865) 594-7597
Mike Ragsdale (County Mayor) --- (865) 215-2005
Bill Haslam (though he says its out of his jurisdiction, he is our leader)----- (865) 215-2040
J Thomas Jones, Chair of KUB's Board
Lastly--- ATTEND THE KUB BOARD MEETING ON JANUARY 9th at NOON at the HISTORIC MILLER BUILDING in DOWNTOWN KNOX and GIVE THEM AN EARFUL.
Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Fri, 2008/01/04 - 1:56am.
Furthermore, there was discussion about adding cell tower antennas to the tower and Bill Elmore said that will probably happen, and that there will be navigational lights added to the tower. It will probably be painted bright blue.
Submitted by michael kaplan on Fri, 2008/01/04 - 2:06pm.
"It will probably be painted bright blue."
they could wrap it, christo style, in the haslam reelection banner that appeared on the side of a downtown office building. after all, the (north trail) project was approved by city council and mpc. frankly, everyone who supported the development should resign. as someone (wiser than me) has said: it's the intersection of stupidity and greed.
and i agree with lisa starbuck: the tower is the least of it.
My first thought being that it wouldn't look that bad during the twelve nights of the year when there is a new moon. Then reality hit and it struck me that when the parking lot lights are installed and the buildings occupied the ambient light will more than likely worsen the situation.
The one good thing about being pessimistic is - at least it shows you understand the situation. -- Unknown
Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2008/01/04 - 10:17am.
Anyone interested in the Cherokee Trail destruction should drive by to see in person what Kaplan has pictured. A big rain could change the whole area.
If the existing Cherokee Bluff condos have had water troubles all along, why was something not done before? Why was this not considered when approving the new apartments/condos? Could they put up multiple water supplies to support the various projects that would all be smaller?
Plans for the 500,000-gallon tank were approved in September by the Metropolitan Planning Commission, but as an unoccupied utility facility, Knox County engineers did not require a building permit for the tower
... [City] Council members approved the planned Woodlands condos for up to three units per acre in May 2006.
County commissioners subsequently approved Dovetail for up to eight units per acre on the south side.
...
prospect of how water service would be provided to the high-elevation bluff area was never considered during either the city or county rezoning processes
Gee, the citizens of Knoxville and Knox County pay these people. Why not just stop someone on the street and ask them to sign the approval forms.
Submitted by Brad Cownover (not verified) on Wed, 2008/02/06 - 12:35pm.
My apologies for chiming in very late to a blog that has probably no doubt died. But, in the instance that some might read this, I offer a few thoughts.
First, I commend all of those citizens amongst you who care deeply about the visual environment around you and the places you live. We need more just like you to join our ranks in helping to advocate for the visual character of our communities and landscapes. Consider helping fund our cause by joining Scenic America, and our affiliate, Scenic Tennessee.
Second, on that last note, if you have not contacted Scenic TN, consider doing so, as they may be able to help you in these matters. If not, it's a worthwhile call to make anyway as establishing a relationship with Scenic TN can be helpful, hopefully, in looking at ways to protect the landscapes around you before future projects threaten them. See their website at: Link...
Third, in the discussion regarding scenic easements, cell tower ordinances, and such, Scenic America has developed a series of technical publications that can be purchased and/or download for free (depending on the publication) that I highly recommend you get copies of to give to your local officials. We have one specifically on scenic easements and one specific on cell towers (called Taming Wireless Towers).
Fourth, in the discussion about the visual mitigations for the water tower, I offer a few points. While conventional wisdom might suggest that painting a tower the color of the sky would help to make it less visually noticeable, it actually in most cases does just the opposite. To elaborate, the sky is never the same color, so choosing a single color of blue is not going to account for the enormous variation in the color of the sky during the year, throughout the day, and in various weather conditions. Further more, the theory of painting water towers blue assumes that the tower would be viewed against a backdrop of sky. But, the reality is that this tower and most towers are visible from multiple vantage points and thus there is the probability (likelyhood) that the tower would be viewed with trees/hills/other landscape as its backdrop, thus making the sky blue color even more of a visual contrast, and backfiring the idea of visual mitigation.
So, instead of painting towers blue, those specializing in visual resource protection (landscape architects and others), have long recommended that vertical elements should be painted a color that is associated with the landscape they are connected to. This in most cases is an 'average' color of the colors comprising trees, grasses, soil, and other land colors throughout the year (yes it's very important to consider winter time, so don't paint towers bright green). Thus, warm, earth tone greys are very effective. While the tower may contrast with some sky conditions, if the tone of the color is picked well, even a contrasting color like a warm earthy grey will not be very dominate against the sky, and will tie more to the earth in which it is built.
For some additional visual mitigations and help, visit our website.
The ridge is being dug out by the landscaping company (Eastwood Landscaping) and most of the dirt was sold to fill in the wetlands beside the Walmart for their expanded parking lot.
It boggles the mind. To complete the circle, the should fill the ridge back in with toxic waste.
Don't give them any ideas . . . if they can also get paid to dispose of toxic waste and use the hole they created from the dirt they've already sold to bury the waste, they might decide it's a good idea -- and Knox County Codes would seem to be powerless to do anything about it.
This is a hideous operation. In addition to being un sightly, mud washes down onto the road when it rains, which has to be a violation of stormwater regs. I've not seen any evidence that the county (or city, since I think it's been annexed) has any interest in inspecting this horror.
Actually, I think it's a "borrow" pit (Link...).
What they're doing is strip mining topsoil.
Is it time for some state regulations on ridgetop development?
If a ridgetop in Blount County is leveled to build vacation homes, that runoff or even mudslide many effect other counties as well as the GSMNP.
I haven't seen an article recently, but in the past vacation home developers in Blount and Sevier have been known to bulldoze forested lots they don't own if it blocks the view from a home they are building on their own property. The punishment is only a small fine if caught, which is difficult to do because most landowners aren't local or don't check their property frequently. The fine is more than recouped with the increased property value of the vacation home with a view.
Fletch is right, but it's more widespread. It's becoming commonplace. There are several developments similar to the photos along Pelissippi Pkwy. One between Westland and K-pike, and the others near Pelissippi State college.
Then there's the mountain they just flattened in Sevier County across I-40 from the Smokies stadium. There was some really beautiful land in the campground behind the RV park that was there. All gone.
There are no limits anymore. At least not in much of the south. If they can, they will. The bastards.
Don't forget the one in Powell above the shopping center; it's been exposed about 10 years. They have only recently started to build anything on it.
And two really hideous ones in Anderson: one along Edgemoor across from Haw Ridge Park near Centennial Golf, and the one on the ridge between Union Valley and Oak Ridge itself.
The really special thing about East Tennessee is the Valley and Ridge geology sandwiched in between the Plateau and the Blue Ridge. It's rare! Alternating ridges and valleys are due to folds, faults, and differential weathering between the types of rocks. This type of development is destroying what makes this narrow valley special and unique. When the ridges are blanketed in fog in the mornings, ahhh. But without trees and soil on ridgetops to stop sudden flows of rain, the probability of flooding dramatically increases. Also, forested ridges, such as Sharp's Ridge, are important stopping points for migratory birds.
Someday we will need to have a few forested places left in the city, because there won't be many. These places should be the ridges. Here's an idea for preservation of ridges: trails. If we were to build trails on ridgetops, such as Sharp's Ridge, Beaver Ridge, imagine how wonderful it would be to hike around our city and county! And ridgetop preservation would sell itself.
...not to mention all of the hilltop development going on along Pellisippi Pkwy, esp. between Northshore and 1-40. In one spot you've got treeless cookie cutter subdivisions with wonderful highway vistas~ and on the other you can see what it must have looked like before the trees got scrapped. I have a feeling those townhouses above Fort Sanders healthclub won't do too well @_@
You think this is bad? Come to Sevier County and see how the officials treat a gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park!
Shameful!
Trees on ridgetops are important for capturing condensation from low clouds. When these trees are cut, nearby springs dry up.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
this is illustrated beautifully in this photo.
Can you explain the photo? Is it from a satellite?
It appears to be a satellite photo of Loudon Lake from the Forks of the River to the Lakemont area showing the ridges on either side and the major creeks flowing into it.
Interesting
If that's what it is, it's not groundwater. It's surface water.
"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes
unfortunately i cant track the exact source of the photo. i kept it because it illustrated to me that our ridges/water system were like 'living tissue'.
ben garlington
our ridges/water system were like 'living tissue'.
Yeah, from just the right point of view it looks like an MRI of of a human heart. Which seems appropriate.
the s knox waterfront redevelopment plan drawn up by KCDC was revised twice to include the north ridge which could, theoretically, be acquired by developers. this plan should be revised to include ridge protection, and that's within the purview of city council and county commission. but it's true, there needs to be some legislative action, otherwise the future developers could sue the city/county for curbing their "rights".
Nine Counties One Vision produced this study which addressed ridgetop development to great extent. Does anyone have a copy or a link to this study on-line?
There is a good (or bad) example in west Knox County as well. It's at the northwest corner of the I-40 and Watt Road interchange. It appears the developer is intent on leveling the entire ridge to make room for commercial lots.
Let's start a Heinous Offense to the Community Award for this unconscionable practice. The developer, Steve Maddox, who has stripped the land at the I-40/Watt Rd interchange, is my nominee. Of course, we have heard that the Flying-J truck stop is about to do the same thing across the street. My second nominee is the West Knoxville Utility District. They have bought land (quietly) and spent the last year (quietly) having plans drawn up to build a sewage treatment plant in the middle of a residential neighborhood off of Hickory Creek and Diggs Rds. The long range plan is to pump ALL of Hardin Valley's sewage this way (and close the Karns plant)..and oh, NO, they do NOT plan to make sewage service available to those residents immediately impacted.
Wouldn't it be interesting if everyone posted a photo of their local denuded ridgetop? A picture is worth a thousand words.
It used to snow in Karns when I was a kid. We used to slide down a snow-covered pasture field just west of this scar at Cheneworth Gap. We used to ride on a 1949 Ford car hood that magically rotated so we could go head on into the blackberry briars at the bottom of the hill.
This end of the ridge was relocated to downtown Karns to support a new supermarket a few years ago. At least now the pasture has grown up into an oxygen farm. The scar still resembles an old strip mine.
Visit us at
Wearybottom Associates
Grace Baptist Church sure did a hatchet job on Beaver Ridge off Oak Ridge Highway. I hadn't been up to the old neighborhood in a couple of years, and was shocked when I saw it.
Before (probably around 2003 from Google Maps):
After (KGIS 2007):
If they hadn't chopped every tree down and gouged out the ridge all the way up to Dyestone Gap Road, it wouldn't have been nearly as ugly. The aerials don't do it justice.
These people also had a contractor that got just a bit too eager with the rape and pillage of Beaver Ridge. As a result there was a landslide that closed Dyestone Gap Road to through traffic for several months. I wonder who paid to repair that faux pas.
Visit us at
Wearybottom Associates
Here's my contribution, the photo that accompanied my article "Trail of Tears" in the Knoxville Voice. It's Cherokee Trail Phase III. The cut is of an unimaginable scale.
Photo ©2007 Michael Kaplan. All rights reserved.
We were planning to try to get over to this meeting, but it looks like we aren't going to be able to.
I'm hoping for several possible outcomes:
1. Movement for some kind of ordinance or regulation that requires some kind of approval for KUB installations of anything.
2. Movement for ridgetop protection regulations in the city and county.
3. Support for some kind of action to make KUB take the thing down and put in something less intrusive, even if it costs the city/county/KUB/ some money. (I'm guessing this is a really long shot.)
Anyway, good luck to all, hope someone is able to file a report...
I've been stuck home sick all day and Jim has another commitment. So yes, somebody please file a report.
"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes
Michael Kaplan's photo redefines "obscene." What kind of sick, depraved mind would dream this shit up? And who would allow it?
I just posted a report here. There were a few people determined to stop the project, including Joe Hultquist, but most just wanted to know how this took everyone by surprise. When alternatives were discussed, it was revealed that the height of the tower was dictated by Cherokee Bluff condominiums. A ground-based water system could potentially serve the Woodlands and Quarry Trail developments, but not the condos, which have been there at least a decade I think.
So much time was consumed discussing the water tower that there was little time left to discuss ridgetop protection. Strong hints were dropped about county commission being the weak link in that chain. The meeting was an object lesson in how piecemeal development results in surprises and unanticipated costs to the public.
Attendees included Bill Elmore of KUB, Mark Donaldson and Mike Carberry of MPC, Hultquist, Frost and Pelot from City Council, Bill Lyons from Mayor Haslam's office, Paul Pinkston from County Commission and all three candidates for Commission seat 9A.
I hated to miss this meeting, and I'm disappointed that ridgetop protection didn't get more attention.
And yes, getting Commission to pass such an ordinance would be difficult. It would be an easier sell to Council, tho, and that would be a good place to start.
Did Pinkston have anything to say?
"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes
Pinkston said nothing. Someone tried to ask him a question toward the end, but he was already gone.
Oh, the water tower will get navigational lights on it soon so Lifestar doesn't hit it.
I am grateful to Joe Hultquist for having the meeting to begin with, but it was basically a venting session without much being accomplished.
Bill Elmore from KUB and Mark Donaldson and Mike Carberry from MPC were there, in addition to several 9-A county commission candidates, Commissioner Paul Pinkston, and Barbara Pelot and Rob Frost on City Council. Oh, and the fire marshall.
Joe started off by describing the sequence of events leading to the water tower's being needed. I'm not 100% on all that transpired, but here goes:
Part of the property was in the county, part in the city, and there are at least three different parcels and/or developments being contemplated.
On the Dovetail development that actually resulted in the watertower going up, there was a contentious rezoning by the developers that resulted in the city property being rezoned with a density of 3 units per acre. The county rezoned the county property at 8 units per acre. The city annexed the county's property, but Art Seymour filed a lawsuit and got an injunction for the out-of-town developers that allowed the property to be developed under the much more lenient county density. The out-of-town owners of an adjoining property did the same thing but with a different lawyer.
I brought up the issue of why the lack of utilities wasn't flagged at the MPC level during the rezoning process. Mark Donaldson said that things like making sure there is infrastructure except at the very basic level doesn't come into play until after the rezoning process. To me that is crazy and the very root of this problem. I kind of disagree with Mark's statement, because I am almost positive that on staff recommendation reports that they prepare prior to rezonings there is a space on the form where the planner says what utilities are in place to serve the proposed zoning - i.e., that KUB serves it with sewer, Northeast Knox with water, etc., and that adequate facilities exist. I need to follow up on that one.
Anyway, Bill Elmore got up and spent most of the evening defending KUB's decision to put up the water tower saying that because the property was zoned for development that KUB was under an obligation to provide services. Further, he stated that there has never been adequate water pressure or volume to serve the existing condos on Cherokee Bluff with water or fire protection and that the fire dept. has known this for a long time. He said that KUB felt they needed to put a structure in place that would serve not only the existing condos, but also the multi-story structures with water sprinklers that were zoned and being planned on the other three parcels. So the water tower is really being built for development that has been zoned, but hasn't occurred yet.
Lots of folks wanted to talk about how to undo the water tower, including Joe, but he did acknowledge that it was probably a losing battle.
People also wanted to know why KUB didn't consider how ugly it would be and why the public wasn't informed. Bill Elmore said that they treated the water tower issue like they would any other subdivision, and in hindsight, they should have handled it differently and that they were putting systems in place to better communicate with the public about future water towers.
Bob Wolfenbarger asked where was the public's rights in all this? He tried without much success to get a timeline as to who knew that the watertower would be needed and when they knew it. Joe Hultquist came right out and said that city council didn't know about the water tower until he saw it rising above the city. Bob Wolfenbarger said that KUB is an unregulated enabler of development and that the water tower is just one example of how KUB's actions impact us without any public input. He said they operate with little or no oversight by planning agencies, and that they enable irresponsible development by placing sewer and water into greenfields at the behest of developers. He said that KUB wants to put a new sewer plant on the French Broad River, add tons of effluent (treated sewage) to the water, and do it all in the name of development so that thousands of homes could be built in South and East Knox County.
Enacting a ridgetop protection ordinance was touched on briefly at the very end. Someone mentioned that lots of other mountain communities and cities like Ashville, NC, etc., managed to provide water without building water towers and had ordinances in place that protected the ridges. MPC's Mike Carberry discussed some of the elements and merits of ridgetop ordinances. He said that in the 1990's they knew that most of Knox County's flat land was already developed and that the hills and ridges would be the next targets, so they have been looking at creating a ridgetop protection ordinance for a long time.
He brought up the Tree Conservation and Planting Plan that was recently adopted by city council and county commission. With all due respect to Mike, and I know he has a hard job and walks a difficult line politically, that document was pretty much worthless after it was re-written by the developers. It runs along the lines of "try not to cut down trees if you don't have to" and "plant more trees" and "trees are good" without any kind of enforcement - more like guidelines to follow, except that no one will. You can read it for yourself at Link...
If we end up with a ridgetop or slope protection plan like that, why bother?
Further, everyone acknowledged that while a ridgetop plan with teeth might possibly pass city council, it was unlikely to pass county commission.
I wanted to ask Commissioner Pinkston if he would support a ridgetop protection plan and if he thought it would pass county commission, but he got up in the middle of the meeting and left.
There was a attendence signup sheet passed around at the start of the meeting that hopefully most people filled out, because the signup sheet for people who were interested in being on some kind of task force to work further on the issue disappeared and never made it back to Joe.
I talked with Joe briefly at the end of the meeting about what is the next step and if we could have another meeting, etc. about the ridgetops? He said he is busy with lots of other projects and couldn't take the lead on this, but he would be willing to work on getting an ordinance going for consideration by city council.
Really, the city isn't as much of a problem as the county. Same old refrain. If we could get Tony Norman and/or others to step up in the county, and get some momentum to pass an ordinance before they zone more property on the ridges that will "require" service from KUB water towers, we might be able to save the ridges.
However, at this point, without a big outcry from lots more people than were there tonight (about 60-70), I'm not optimistic. There really wasn't a chance to discuss the bigger overall issue: Land Use Policy. Most of the people there tonight didn't have a clue about the root of this problem - they just wanted the water tower to go away.
I agree with all. We must stand together and fight KUB and bring this down. Anything else Plays into their hands, is irresponsible to our children, and condones the status quo.
Voice your opinion, call these numbers--- fone in this case is more effective than email, I think....
Mintha Roach (President, KUB) --- (865) 594-7597
Mike Ragsdale (County Mayor) --- (865) 215-2005
Bill Haslam (though he says its out of his jurisdiction, he is our leader)----- (865) 215-2040
J Thomas Jones, Chair of KUB's Board
Lastly--- ATTEND THE KUB BOARD MEETING ON JANUARY 9th at NOON at the HISTORIC MILLER BUILDING in DOWNTOWN KNOX and GIVE THEM AN EARFUL.
Furthermore, there was discussion about adding cell tower antennas to the tower and Bill Elmore said that will probably happen, and that there will be navigational lights added to the tower. It will probably be painted bright blue.
Before this water tower was sited, did any cellular related companies apply for tower space in this area and were turned down?
"It will probably be painted bright blue."
they could wrap it, christo style, in the haslam reelection banner that appeared on the side of a downtown office building. after all, the (north trail) project was approved by city council and mpc. frankly, everyone who supported the development should resign. as someone (wiser than me) has said: it's the intersection of stupidity and greed.
and i agree with lisa starbuck: the tower is the least of it.
My first thought being that it wouldn't look that bad during the twelve nights of the year when there is a new moon. Then reality hit and it struck me that when the parking lot lights are installed and the buildings occupied the ambient light will more than likely worsen the situation.
The one good thing about being pessimistic is - at least it shows you understand the situation. -- Unknown
Anyone interested in the Cherokee Trail destruction should drive by to see in person what Kaplan has pictured. A big rain could change the whole area.
If the existing Cherokee Bluff condos have had water troubles all along, why was something not done before? Why was this not considered when approving the new apartments/condos? Could they put up multiple water supplies to support the various projects that would all be smaller?
Plans for the 500,000-gallon tank were approved in September by the Metropolitan Planning Commission, but as an unoccupied utility facility, Knox County engineers did not require a building permit for the tower
...
[City] Council members approved the planned Woodlands condos for up to three units per acre in May 2006.
County commissioners subsequently approved Dovetail for up to eight units per acre on the south side.
...
prospect of how water service would be provided to the high-elevation bluff area was never considered during either the city or county rezoning processes
Gee, the citizens of Knoxville and Knox County pay these people. Why not just stop someone on the street and ask them to sign the approval forms.
any lawyers in the crowd that wanna make a name for themselves? call me
Does Tennessee have laws regarding conservation easements?
Link...
Link...
My apologies for chiming in very late to a blog that has probably no doubt died. But, in the instance that some might read this, I offer a few thoughts.
First, I commend all of those citizens amongst you who care deeply about the visual environment around you and the places you live. We need more just like you to join our ranks in helping to advocate for the visual character of our communities and landscapes. Consider helping fund our cause by joining Scenic America, and our affiliate, Scenic Tennessee.
Second, on that last note, if you have not contacted Scenic TN, consider doing so, as they may be able to help you in these matters. If not, it's a worthwhile call to make anyway as establishing a relationship with Scenic TN can be helpful, hopefully, in looking at ways to protect the landscapes around you before future projects threaten them. See their website at: Link...
Third, in the discussion regarding scenic easements, cell tower ordinances, and such, Scenic America has developed a series of technical publications that can be purchased and/or download for free (depending on the publication) that I highly recommend you get copies of to give to your local officials. We have one specifically on scenic easements and one specific on cell towers (called Taming Wireless Towers).
Fourth, in the discussion about the visual mitigations for the water tower, I offer a few points. While conventional wisdom might suggest that painting a tower the color of the sky would help to make it less visually noticeable, it actually in most cases does just the opposite. To elaborate, the sky is never the same color, so choosing a single color of blue is not going to account for the enormous variation in the color of the sky during the year, throughout the day, and in various weather conditions. Further more, the theory of painting water towers blue assumes that the tower would be viewed against a backdrop of sky. But, the reality is that this tower and most towers are visible from multiple vantage points and thus there is the probability (likelyhood) that the tower would be viewed with trees/hills/other landscape as its backdrop, thus making the sky blue color even more of a visual contrast, and backfiring the idea of visual mitigation.
So, instead of painting towers blue, those specializing in visual resource protection (landscape architects and others), have long recommended that vertical elements should be painted a color that is associated with the landscape they are connected to. This in most cases is an 'average' color of the colors comprising trees, grasses, soil, and other land colors throughout the year (yes it's very important to consider winter time, so don't paint towers bright green). Thus, warm, earth tone greys are very effective. While the tower may contrast with some sky conditions, if the tone of the color is picked well, even a contrasting color like a warm earthy grey will not be very dominate against the sky, and will tie more to the earth in which it is built.
For some additional visual mitigations and help, visit our website.
Thanks and good luck.
Brad Cownover, ASLA
Director,Scenic Conservation
Scenic America
Link...
Post new comment