Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the February 10th, 2026 meeting of the Johnson City Regional Planning Commission. If you're here to speak during the public hearing portion of the agenda, please wait until the chairman has opened the public hearing. Once opened, one person at a time may come to the podium to be recognized. Please speak clearly into the microphone and begin by giving us your name and address. Then each person will be allowed three minutes to speak. An applicant may use additional up to 10 minutes to present their request and we ask that you only speak to the commission. I'll now call the meeting to order if the time is 6 o'clock. Commissioner Dutton, would you please lead us with an invocation in the pledge of allegiance?

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, please, please bow your heads. Almighty God, thank you for the opportunity for us to be together this evening. We ask that you help us conduct the business of this meeting in a manner that reflects your kingdom. May your spirit inspire us to make decisions that are just, fair, and beneficial to our community. Lord, give us the inspiration to be shining examples of your goodness and truth. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen. Please rise for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Thank you everyone. We have before us the agenda for February 10th. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose um an amendment to the agenda. Um under the consent agenda, um I propose that we remove item 7.3 um and place that at the front of new business um so that staff can discuss a uh an easement for a turnaround with us. You said that was item number 7.3. 7.3. So you will pull that one for discussion. Yes, sir. And put that at the beginning of new business. Yes, sir. All right.

Any other changes for the agenda? No, sir. I'd like to move that we approve the agenda with that revision. All right. All those for a second. Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. All right. Any opposed? Thank you very much. All right. Now we'll move on to the minutes of the January 13th meeting. Does anyone have any changes, addition or or corrections to the minutes of January 13th? Mr. Chairman, I've reviewed the minutes and find them found them in accordance with my recollection of the meeting. I move that we approve. All right. Do I hear a second? Second.

All right. I have a motion to approve the minutes as submitted and a second. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Thank you very much. The next item up for on the [clears throat] agenda are the election of officers for the upcoming year. The first item is 5.1, the election of a new chairman. I'll open the floor for the election of chairman for the upcoming term. Do I have open nominations for chairman? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to nominate Commissioner Dutton as chair. Commissioner Dutton, will you serve as chairman for the upcoming term? I will. Are there any other nominations?

I'll close the floor for nominations for chair. All in favor of chairman Dut Commissioner Dutton serving as chair for the upcoming term, say I. I. I. Any opposed? Seeing none, we have a new chair, Chairman Dutton. Thank you very much. Congratulations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Exchairman. Uh Chris, may we just say I'd like to just take a quick second here. Chris has served on the planning commission, I believe, since 2019 and served as the chair of the planning commission uh since 2020, which is which is which is quite a stint. And uh so Chris Chris during that during that period um Chris's leadership has been absolutely crucial I think to the way in which this uh this commission this body has evolved. Um and we're we're very glad that you're not leaving the planning commission but uh we're we're going to miss you serving as a chair and and you leave very um you leave very big shoes to fill. Um, we would like to we do have a little we do have a little token for you in appreciation of everything that you've uh in everything that you that you've done. So,

thank you very much. Thank you very much. You can use this at home. I'm very [applause] honored. I've been very honored to lead this group. I think we've done some amazing work for the city of Johnson City and for the future. And I'm especially proud of the Horizon 2045 plan. And I think it's going to lead to additional work to to do to plan for for the forward. This is great honor. I'm very proud of the work we've done. I'm very proud of the work we're going to continue to do together. Thank you very much. I suggest we take just a quick uh change of seats. Okay. [clears throat]

That was a real quick indication. the fellow with long arms, I guess.

Sorry. Forgive us for that. That was supposed to be an adjournment. All right. Okay. So, returning to our agenda for the um for the evening, we have a few more officers um to uh to elect. The next item on our agenda is considering the election of a new vice chairman um to serve. Um at this point, I'd like to open the floor. Are there any nominations for um vice chairman of the planning commission?

I would like to nominate uh Commissioner Laura Kelly, who could not be with us this evening because she's out of town on business. And according to the bylaw, she has submitted a written uh request that she would accept that nomination and serve gladly. I'll submit this to the secretary. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Denalt. Are there any other nominations for position of vice chair? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the floor for nominations. Um, by acclamation perhaps, all those in favor of Commissioner Laura Kelly serving as vice chairman, please say I. I.

Any opposed? Okay. Let Laura know that she is the new vice chairman. The next item on our agenda is to consider the election of a of a new secretary. At this point, I'd like to open the floor for nominations. Um, are there any nomin nominations um for the position of secretary? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Robert Williams as the secretary. Okay. Commissioner Williams, will you continue to serve as secretary? And I am willing to serve. Thank you very much, sir.

I'll second that nomination. Are there any other nominations for before for I close the floor for position of secretary? Hearing none, I will close the floor and perhaps um all those will by acclamation. All those in favor of Commissioner Williams continuing to serve as Secretary, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Thank you. And the last but not least um election for this evening is the election of a new vice secretary. Um I would like to at this point open the floor for nominations for the position of vice secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Commissioner Timbra Aldridge as vice secretary. Commissioner Aldridge, are you willing to serve as vice chairman? Yes. Sorry, as as vice secretary. Almost on on the prompt on the spot promotion there. Sorry. Um, okay. Any other nominations for the position of vice secretary? Okay, seeing none, I will close the floor. All those by acclamation, please. All those in favor of Commissioner Aldridge serving as our new vice secretary, please signify by saying I.

I. Any opposed comm congratulations Commissioner Aldridge? Okay. The next item on our agenda is the um is the public comment period. Uh now this evening we have one person who registered for public comment before the um um before the deadline to to to do so. We do know we have we do have quite a few folks who would like to speak to particularly the Claude Simmons item on the agenda this evening. So what we're going to do we want to make sure everyone does have the opportunity to speak. Um, so we are going to uh after the after the staff report, after staff's presentation for the Claude Simmons item, there will be a public hearing. So anyone in the audience will have the opportunity to come forward and um and and u and share their and share their comments with us. Um Gretchen, I'm not sure if we have an email from Gretchen. Gretchen, are you in the audience? Yes. Would you like to speak now or would you prefer to wait until the public hearing

later on? Okay, we can we'll just do it later on then if that's Yeah, if that's okay with you. Uh do you later? Okay, thank you very much. I'll keep it keep it clustered in the presentation may answered some may answer some questions for you there. Okay. All right. So, moving on, we have the we have before us the um consent agenda now. So, this is the the consent agenda. We have moved item 7.3 under new business. So this is not the presentation of 7.3 quite yet. So go ahead and pull that up.

Is is there a uh is there a motion to approve the consent agenda with the two items? So 7.1 and 7.2 that remain on the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that we approve the consent agenda items 7.1 and 7.2 as presented by staff in our package. And I'll second that. Thank you very much. We have a uh um we have a motion and a second. Um all those in favor please say I. I. Any opposed?

Okay. The consent agenda is approved. Sans 7.3. Um so the first item on the new business will be item 7.3. Whitney perhaps presentation. So what we would like to um just make sure that this is included in the motion is um there needs to be in this the hope plat the hope plat is really for that road extension and um what we need that in it is a place for a temporary turnaround. Now, when we went through the um approval process, I think that has always been the idea that somewhere in this parking lot would be part of that temporary turnaround, not to necessarily add additional pavement. So, what this does is there's been a the developer has submitted for um for review and the engineering has looked at it. You'll see the note on this side that they've added a temporary turnaround for an easement just so that the public does have a place to turn around as a road terminus and where that is on this is right here just to kind of give you an idea of that. So, we just wanted that to be a part of the motion um for this one particular plat.

Thank you, Winnie. Does anyone have any questions for um for Miss Holders? Thank you, Wendy. Okay, seeing none, is there any further discussion among ourselves?

Would anyone like to make a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion to approve the final plat which would include the easement for the turnaround. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second it. Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Are there any opposed?

No. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. The next item on our agenda is item 8.1, the text amendment to the Washington County zoning revol resolution sections 511 and 512 vested rights.

So Washington County has submitted a proposal that's in your packet. Um this would in this would include vested right language. It's very similar to what we have and what is required or what is um required through the state. Um they are this is to show you the process that they go through when they do um submit a text amendment. It goes to Jonesboro to the re to our regional planning commission to the Washington County planning commission before going to city commission. Uh the things of note is that this will allow for um it kind of specifies what gets vested when um and how long that is. As well as making sure that um they're including language about um if there's a potential litigation that's included in there and um that it's a very it's a new thing for the state, but we need to also kind of define what a submitt like what that submitt means. So, they've clarified all of that. County staff is here if you have any particular questions about the text amendment, but it is consistent with the state annotated code

and I have if you want to see the text amendment, I can there's some slides for that, too. Thank you, Miss Hodges. Uh, are there any questions for staff? Yeah, Miss Hodgeges. So, is this new state law that was added to TCA that required this and this is just making that consistent with those some of it is, but it's in the LA in the last few years and so oftent times um as as planning staff we will kind of just come through with one particular like slate so to speak. Okay. Thank you for that.

Any further questions? As I reviewed city uh vesting rights, I think this con makes the county consistent with what the city already has in place. If I reviewed it correctly, can you concur with that? Yes, I concur with that. And the county is here if you have any questions for them, too. I think it's very straightforward. Miss Hodgees, I did have a question. Um, can you site any other towns in the state of Tennessee that allow the as any sort of commission to have in indefinite vesting rights at their discretion? So, this text allows this this committee to extend vesting rights seemingly indefinitely.

These are consistent with what is allowed per the state annotated code. So, this no no one can exceed past what the state allows. Mhm. So I would say that I it might be a question for Megan as far as other jurisdictions. Speak to other jurisdictions, but I can say when the the code seems to leave an indefinite time period, there isn't a reasonable aspect that is applied just through court's interpretation. So there's a reasonleness that would always have to be applied whether or not there's a definite time period outlined in the code. Okay. Okay. And that would that would not affect tolling then if there was a clock that was well tolling would would tolling stops the right

calculation of time. It would be dependent on the circumstances of that particular case as to what the actual time frame would end up being. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for um staff, Johnson City staff or Washington County staff? Hearing none is the perhaps here. I'll make a motion that we recommend approval to it's a public hearing. It's a text amendment. So, it's a public hearing.

I apologize. Rookie rookie mistake. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this uh item in the audience this evening? Okay. Uh seeing none, I will close the uh public hearing. Thank you for that, Whitney. Um sorry, Commissioner Dagenheart. I would make a re motion that we recommend approval to the county commission of this uh text amendment as sub submitted by the county. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Um we'll um do this. Was there any further discussion among ourselves? Okay. We'll do this one by roll call if you wouldn't mind. Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bumgardner, no. Commissioner me, yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Commissioner Dagenheart, yes. Commissioner Gats, yes. Chairman Dutton, yes.

Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, welcome back, Miss Holders. Moving on to item agenda item 8.2, the reszoning of 2590 People's Street um from R3 medium density residential to MS1 Medical Services.

Good evening, chairman, commissioners. Whitney Hodgees, I probably should have said that a long time ago. Planning manager for Johnson City. Um, this one's going to look a little familiar because just recently the third reading for the property adjacent to it with the same designation and about the same size um, was before you. I think this came before you in November, October or November. Um, but this is a new request for the adjacent property. Um, and so we are kind of at the start of it. Uh we did hold a neighborhood meeting last week and no one was in in attendance, but the signs have been out and um are posted. This is a because it is a resoning, it will require three readings from the um city commission. Just to orient you to the property, these are some Google images of looking north or looking west and looking east. This is looking um straight at the property. Um, where it is located is right along I26 and People Street. This is the reasonzoning we just completed and this was part of that preliminary plat that I think y'all looked at at the same time. Um, and we're going from R3, which is a residential property to a commercial, which is MS1. Now, the this kind of lays out where the the zoning is and what's around it. I'll kind of skip to the concept plan that is required with this. And what they would like to do is a 4200 square foot building. They have listed a restaurant or anything that the MS1 allows. I think that really with the restaurant, they're looking just to make sure that they can get the right amount of parking um that they might need. So, some things to um to keep in mind is that with the preliminary plat, you did approve a joint use access right here in the middle. Um, one thing that uh we would like to note as far in if it is approved is that this storm water pond might need to move just a little bit to make sure

that we accommodate for this sewer and they can do that through um their construction site plan. Now, this is in an area for the Horizon 2045 plan that is noted as compact residential. And one of the things about this is that it does allow for some commercial uses, just some small scale staff would would support this because of where it's located. You're right adjacent to 26. Residential might not be the a medium density residential right next to an interstate may not be the the most appropriate use for that. So something more commercial would kind of fit into a node there and kind of extend that commercial corridor, which is something that we pulled out through the policies of the Horizon 2045 plan as well. Okay. No, did I did I skip ahead? There we go. I did skip ahead. There's the policies. [laughter] Um we like I this is moving faster than I am. Um staff recommends approval of the request um because it is cons we feel as though it is consistent with the land use plan and kind of continuing on that note and I am here for any questions you may have as well as the applicant and it is a public hearing.

Thank you m does anyone have any questions for masses at this time? Okay. Okay. Thank you. With that, I think we will open the public hearing um section of this um of this of this item. Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this item this evening? Sir, welcome. Please come forward. Do I come in there? Yes, you do, sir. Yeah. And if if you if you would would you please state your name and address for the

Ryan Patterson 605 Sharon Drive. I use People's Street daily for 35 years. More and more traffic hit that. I don't know how many people will be in the restaurant or the medical facilities. I don't know how many people will be in the hotel, but trying to get on that road with limited access. You have a hill going up and down that had uh uh sight limitations. I expressed that when uh Blue Ridge Dental went in and it said there was no sight restrictions. Two weeks ago, I saw a sign that said limited sight distance. Those signs have since been removed. So, we're putting a lot of traffic in a small compact place. People's and um Browns Mill, there needs to be a red light there. The speed limit on the road is 30 miles an hour. You can ask the policemen that patrol it how many do 30 miles an hour. You can be doing 35 up the road and they're drafting you like they're in a NASCAR race. So, I'm just concerned we're piling a lot of traffic in a small place with limited eress and ingress. Um, we need to consider that. I don't know if it has been or not. And the public hearing on this, I never got a notice of it, so I have no idea when it was held or whatever. But I'm just concerned about the amount of traffic, the speed. No restrictions. The red light, you know, we talked about a red light and a traffic circle, Browns Mill and Peoples. Too much money. So, with all this additional traffic, something needs to

be done. Okay. Thank you, sir. I see someone else ready to speak. Hey, Brian Sanj. Address, please. Could you please speak into the microphone? Sorry. Address also. Yes, please. Yeah. 2266 Sus Pond. Okay. You're a little faint if you wouldn't mind perhaps speaking up a little.

Okay. Currently, it's zoned R3 and it's about acre and a half. I think R3 allows for seven units per um which would make it I think around 11 or 12 units that you could probably put on there. Probably looking at maybe 24. You know, if you did that, you're looking at another 24 versus a 4,000 foot 4200. Probably not going to get a lot more traffic than if you if you added one versus the other. And and it does make a lot of sense that there's a lot of commercial in that area. And I do understand the uh the a little bit of the opposition, but I don't know that it's going to make that much of an impact um in a negative way. Maybe more of a positive way, just depending on uh if you actually get some uh tax dollars out of it. If it does turn into a commercial, it might not be suited as well for residential.

Okay. So, thank you. Thank you, sir. Does anyone else Does anyone here have any questions for the applicant? While we're No. Uh, is there anyone else in the audience here to speak to this item this evening? Okay. Uh, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing um component of this uh of this agenda item. Um, so I believe the um the matter is among ourselves. Is there any uh any discussion among ourselves? Yeah, I just wondered um if there has been a traffic study done on People's Street uh recently. [snorts]

I don't know of People's Street recently, but I failed to mention and it was written in my in the slide that a traffic study um if warranted will be done at commercial site plan for this one. So, we will be studying that. Um I know Lawrence is Lawrence is Wallace are here. They may be able to answer about when the last time a traffic study was done on Peoples. Mr. Perry, I saw you poised to jump up there. Would you perhaps come forward and

Lawrence Perry, Engineering Public Works. Uh the study part of it, I'm not sure about when the last time the traffic study was done, but to address the gentleman's question about the site distance, they put the sight distance on the plat. So uh the the lower there was another uh entrance coming in for the hotel that was the one that probably had the issue and they put the site distance and it it met the ashtto regulations for the site distance. So so b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b based on your review the there there is no concern with the site distance the site distance meet ash meets ashto criteria. Yeah yeah the plaque goes and this is the concept plan but on the uh construction plans review yeah we'll make sure everything matches and that works out and we've got a a right turn lane only and we've got the left turn lane to pull in there. Well,

okay. What what classification is People Street? Thank you. Uh I believe that's a collector collector street. Yeah, maybe a major collector. Okay. But I I could double check that and get back to you on that. I don't think it's up to an arterial, but arterial is more like North Rone or State of Franklin, but it is a significant street. It's not a neighborhood street. It's a collector. It's a collector. Yes. Thank you. Sure. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Any other questions of staff or there's a further discussion among ourselves?

I'd like to make a nomination um that we go ahead and approve the resoning of 2590 People Street to R3 um or that's R3 to MS1. Thank you, sir. Second that we have a motion to approve the recommended to approve the reszoning of um 2590 People's Street from R3 to MS1 and we have a second. Thank you. Laura, is there any further discussion? I would just add that I think it's a reasonable request. I think it's consistent with the area, consistent with the adjacent property. I'll be voting in the affirmative

and I'll be voting in the affirmative. I think it's an improvement in our community. I agree. Okay. With that, Heather, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bombgardner, yes. Commissioner me, yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Commissioner Dugenhard, yes. Commissioner Gats, yes. Chairman Dutton, yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. That um item is um is is approved. Um moving on to the next item on our agenda which is 8.3. This is the preliminary plat um approval for Heidi's House of Hope phase one and Heath Martin. Welcome promote and you're presenting this evening.

Yes. Good evening everyone. Good evening, chairman, vice chairman, vice chairman this evening. Uh, commissioners, my name is Keith Martin. I'm a planner one with the planning division. And this evening, we will be submitting for your approval a preliminary plat for a development named Heidi's House of Hope in Johnson City. And the applicator here with us is in support of approval as well. On this Tomlin, you'll see that we are here this evening for a preliminary plat approval. Beyond this point, if it's approved, it will move to construction plans for staff approval and then on to final plat approval. For this review, the planning division is requesting approval of first phase of a mixed housing development involving 37 dwelling units for a site off of Wataga Road. The site is located northeast of downtown Johnson City and is situated between the CW Milhorn and the Wataka Commons community. To the right is an overview aerial image of the site in general. The entire site is outlined in red and toward the left lower image is going to be the highlighted area in the southernmost part of the parcel where this first phase will take place. So the preliminary plat uh the entire site is 45.21 acres. So just over 45 acres. It's zoned RP3 which is planned residential district. There is city water and sewer available. There is a sewer line easement at trendex the site. My mouse is in the right spot. You can't see it on this way. It just kind of transexs just above the the where the road did ends. It kind of goes from from east to west. That's the easement site. And that's the first phase will be below south of that that line there. And as the first phase is under 50

dwelling units, a minor change of the plat has been made to remove the secondary access road on the right or eastern lower side of the site just below that culde-sac there. Uh but this road will be included in subsequent subsequent phases when they reach or exceed the 50 dwelling units. This plant also includes one sidewalk variance for a portion of one of the proposed roads into the site which we'll discuss in a following slide. So this is what the applicant put together to highlight some of the different housing features we see on this phase one. You'll see that we have 15 single family homes, 10 tiny homes, two duplexes, and two forplexes or quadlexes. And the uh orange uh rectangle you see going running running north to south there on the left side of road A is where the sidewalk variance was requested. Uh it is a 50-footer rideway in that section there, but there is some some close proximity to adjoining property owners homes that the applicant was aware of and cognizant of and wanted to present that for a variance request. So within the subdivision regulations, uh the city does require road standards and under those standards are local streets. that the road into this neighborhood would qualify as a local street. However, these regulations allow for variances whereby the commission may approve a devian. One example cited under the variance provision is a larger sidewalk on one side of the street. Uh city engineer would review the these applicants request to determine if proposed change would accomplish the intent of these regulations and if supported the planning commission would determine if the variance would alter the intent of these regulations. So in this variance request here specifically we're we're looking at the 50 foot width of the route ofway. Um and as here you can see on the lower left hand corner outlined in a red circle is one of the residents which is very close

to that rightway access line. Um so this the gradient to prepare the road will go beyond 50 feet to build a road up under current local street regulations. Um so good thing is road engineering does allow for modification. So you can modify still keep the same quality of roads and type of roads and walk paths that you need by modifying a few of the standards. Um but obviously there's immediate impact that could be affected to the joining property owners and that's what the applicant brought to our attention is why the nature of this request. So you'll see on the drawing here the applicant depicted an 8oot sidewalk on the right side or east side of road A entering the property which would run approximately 600 feet into the development. And beyond that, you would have your standard sidewalks on both sides of the street. And the city engineer did review and in support of this uh request and has provided a memorandum. And I believe that was in in contained inside your packages. And u we'd like to have that entered into the record. staff recommends approval of preliminary plat and the sidewalk variance as it meets Johnson City subdivision ordinance and myself as well as the applicant are here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Question. Yes, ma'am. Um I'm not sure if it's best addressed to you or uh the applicant, but the portion could we go back to the sketch with the different colors? that one. Um, has fire assessed their accessibility to the section of the tiny homes? Do they have any concern or um, is there enough room if there were an issue in that small section? Miss Hodge, I'll answer that.

Thank you. Yes, each phase each phase of the development is assessed by all of our staff and if there are issues those are typically noted. So far that fire has not indicated that that is an issue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There any further questions of staff or the applicant?

I have one question. If you you're changing it to 8 feet wide sidewalk on the right hand side of the driveway, the the road coming into the neighborhood, where does it step back down to a five foot at the at the turn at the intersection for the one here? So, it goes up to the point where you see we we turn the left to get to the tiny homes. There is a obviously there there's that's where the sidewalk crosswalk would be on that side. So, to access the tiny homes, they would just go across the street at the end of that road A to go going into the neighborhood. And then obviously there'll be a crosswalk across road B which is the road that kind of goes east to west there that goes to the the bulb of the culde-sac itself. That's where the five feet would pick up. Okay. That's what I suspected.

Yes. It's it's kind of hard to see if I can zoom in there. Any further questions for the staff for the applicant? Commissioner Aldridge?

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. bottom briefly. Okay. So, I believe the matter is among ourselves. Is there any any discussion? Any Mr. Chairman, I'll make a um motion to approve the preliminary PL approval for Heidi's House of Hope. Thank you, Commissioner Aldridge. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'm excited to see this project move to this stage and I will gladly make a second with along with the uh sidewalk variance.

So we have a motion to um approve the preliminary plat with the sidewalk variance and a second. Is there any further discussion among ourselves? Seeing none, Heather, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bombgardner, yes. Commissioner me. Yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Commissioner Dagenheart, yes. Commissioner Gets, yes. Chairman Dutton, yes.

Okay. Moving on to item 8.4. This is the final plat for a five lot subdivision at 512 Claude Simmons Road. Welcome back, Miss Hodgers.

Good evening. So tonight before you is a subdivision that is located at the muna boundary edge on Claude Simmons Road. Um what they would like to do is considered a use by right. So they're not proposing a resoning and they are they are subdividing um the property to meet the standards of R2 which is low density residential. What they would like to do and is to to subdivide these first four lots and I call the remaining lot lot five just to make it easier. Um but these are all lots along Claude Simmons Road. They'll have a front setback of 25 ft, side setbacks of 10 feet, and a rear setback of 30. You'll notice that there is a s there we go. There's a significant um flood plane here. So they will they any building will have to be outside of that flood plane. Water and sewer is available to to the site and they are going to put a fire hydrant because that is one of the concerns in this area um kind of between two and three. Access to the lot to these first four lots is also something that um city staff has looked at. There will be a shared driveway for lot two and three, a new driveway for lot one, and lot four will use the existing driveway. This remaining lot, which is I call lot five, um can be accessed off of three separate points. Only two are shown on this plat, but one is from Moss Creek, which is a county road, and two are in Strawberry Fields, which are both city streets. Um, and so at this point in time, that is all that's being requested as far as what the development looks like. The applicant is here and can speak to any future development that

they may consider, but I just want to say that this is from a staff perspective is, you know, we have reviewed it. It does meet those standards. Just to kind of give just if you haven't been out to the beautiful Claude Simmons area, it's beautiful. Um, it's here's some pictures. Um, and because it meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance, staff would recommend approval. Okay. Um, Miss Hodgers, perhaps you you might clarify. I know we we we talked about this this agenda item is for the four lots fronting Claude Simmons with the fifth lot being the existing house um set behind those lots. um if there's a now we don't know if there's a further subdivision um of that large lot to the rear at some point in the future um and if such access to that lot is to be proposed through either of the Strawberry Fields streets. There currently exists what's called a control strip at the end of those roads. That is not on the agenda. That is part of this item. No. And in order for anything to happen in that remaining 40 43.43 as it pertains to access to that lot from roads in Strawberry Fields, we would have to take affirmative action to abandon or to vacate those control strips. Is that correct?

Yes. You would have to grant permission to for this lot if say that this lot even if they wanted to put one house like if they wanted to do an additional house say they wanted to carve out five acres you wouldn't see necessarily see the five acre lot because that a fiveacre lot doesn't require subdivision it doesn't meet the subdivision definition but if there was a but if they needed to use let's say sugar mill you would still have to grant them access of the control strip that is the county road is different and um we don't have a control access from the county road but the county would also be respon like the applica or the landowner if they were to access off that has to get permission from the county and so that's also an additional I guess I would call it safeguard as far as approvals.

Okay, thank you very much. Perhaps and I'm going to leave this up here. Sorry. Perhaps before we move to the um to the to the public hearing extended public comment. Is there anything the applicant would like to add? Nope. Okay. Seeing none, um we will move to the public hearing component of the agenda. Um perhaps Miss Vondren um if you would you' be more than welcome to speak first if you like. and thank you for your patience with us as we shuffle things around on the agenda.

I'm Gretchen Vondran and I've live at 306 Moss Creek Drive and I've been a resident of Washington County for many years and I've watched the population grow and housing struggled to keep up with it. Um, from my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, there's been two driveway cuts that have been improved by Washington County onto Moss Creek Drive from lot five. Those are only, the way we were told, are only right now for a driveway. So, two homes apparently. Um, Strawberry Fields has the excess. And like you're sitting here tonight and you're saying, "Well, we don't know what they're going to do with lot five. They may put in one home. They may put in 20. We don't know. It would have to be reszoned. But those access points are what they would use at that point. My questions include, and obviously we don't have it yet, what's the plan for the lot sizes in lot five so far by the developers? And also, I would like to know why one entrance off of those four front homes or one entrance was not put straight up from Claw Simmons Road into that area unless it was the problem with the flood plane and the creek. Why are you going off to the sides? I feel like you're sitting here and you're saying, "Well, we may reszone lot five." And like I said, there could be 5 acre lot homes on it. Great. Or we could be doing the track houses that we've all seen and has been zoned here in Johnson City and Washington County. I'm glad the developers who have taken on this project have a history of subdivisions along Claude Simmons Road and I hopefully hope that they will follow the

same type of designs that they have because they've proven what they can put up there. But like I said, by leaving this lot five open, who knows what could happen if it's sold or anything. And that really needs to be considered by you all instead of sitting here tonight and say, "Well, we'll address it later if it is." That's something that should be said and decided upon. Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. Yes. Please come forward, ma'am. Yeah. [clears throat]

Lahi Ryan's 10 Strawflower Place, Johnson City. So before you this evening is approval of the four lots on the farmland beside Strawberry Field and lot five which is basically 43 acres with to my knowledge no specifics on how that land will be developed as you've already heard. If I understand correctly the future path for the 43 acres would mean access only through two existing subdivisions, Moss Creek and Strawberry Field. I have grave concerns about the construction and later normal traffic that we'll put on the roads in our subdivision that were not designed for this kind of usage. For Strawberry Field, the sugar mill access is the same road where families and particularly children access our neighborhood clubhouse and amenities. Currently, the majority of the traffic that we have to watch out for is on the main road into the subdivision. With this and the other access point in our subdivision that will become points of entry and eress for this future development, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, school buses, etc. So, the amount and type of traffic could be significant. It's not clear to me why there isn't an additional access road required off Claude Simmons for this new development. While additional traffic on Claude Simmons with the onelane underpass isn't desirable either, once again, we're seeing problems created rather than long-term considerations for all residents concerned. My request is that you delay a decision on this request pending better understanding of the 43 acres so as not to impede the potential requirement for access from Claude Simmons. It seems irresponsible to approve lots one through four which by design eliminate the potential for Claude Simmons access especially without consideration of the plans for the 43 acres. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you ma'am. [clears throat]

Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Please sir. It's Peter Tomlin, 16 Clark's Court, Johnson City. Um, you know, I speak against this uh approval of the plat because it's shortsighted. You know, I support development. I understand we all need a place to live, but it's it short, as as many people have said already, like it it hamstrings the ability to to to install a collector route, you know, a main access route to the neighborhood. We can put some numbers into this. At 43 acres, it's zoned low density residential, so about 1/3 acre lots. So 43 divided by 1/3 you get about 130 houses that could put be built in the remaining track five. If you use a standard planning factor of 10 trips per household, it's probably even higher because these are going to be larger households. But if you know I've chemical and biomolelecular engineer, not a traffic or civil engineer, but 10 trips per household times 130 households, that equates to over a thousand cars additional on Strawberry Field Drive or the other access routes. And that's just right now there's about 80 houses in Strawberry Field. So about 800 cars per day. So it's, you know, a two and a half time increase in the traffic. And so there's a few questions is, you know, why why are they only subdividing the first four lots, you know, now it seems like you're hamstringing your ability to make smarter development later, you know, and why are the first four lots developing in a flood plane? Seems like a terrible place to build a house. You all remember what happened in to you know and so I think it's it's shortsided to do it now and I you know let me check my notes I have one more I think um and also you know I I looked around too and and maybe y'all can answer this but why is this the only development potentially that doesn't require a main entrance from a collector road? I looked around on sat Google satellite drove

around. I can't find another example of a recent development that doesn't have a main access route. You know, we we need main access routes for emergency response, proper flow of traffic, you know, and everything else. And so why why is this development getting special treatment? Seems like we need to see what's in phase two, what's in the rest of track, what's in lot five, the rest of the track before you can approve this because it's this is a decision you'll live to regret, I think. or certainly the neighborhood and the community around it will regret it if if there's not better access to the site. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Please come forward, sir.

Good evening. Uh Howard Hunts, 214 Strawberry Field Drive, Johnson City, Tennessee. Um I'm a relatively recent resident there. I've been there for eight years, so I I I may look like I've been there for a long time, but it's I'm I'm a newbie. Um, over the past six weeks, I've been I was under the impression through what I heard, which may or may not be accurate, that uh we're looking at a third acre lots in the 40 acres that were purchased that we're talking about tonight. I guess we're only talking about part of it, but um there were a bunch of third acre lots, a bunch of places higher density. uh at the at our neighborhood uh meeting in early February, I was led to believe that there would be 13 multi-acre take take 40 acres divided by three and there'd be 13 uh you know million-doll plus nice places put in there. Uh tonight I learned that we're going to move forward with the four acres on Claude Simmons cutting off the ability to reach the back 40 if I can call it that. Um what I know is that the developers uh they intend to develop the back 40. They didn't buy it to let it sit there and you know that and I know that. So, let you know take that off the table. Um, you know, Sawyer's Pond, Sterling Springs, Alexander Grove, Moss Creek, and Strawberry Field subs

all have their own entrances off Claude Simmons. Uh, why would this newest development not be required to do the same? I'm I'm really asking our planning folks who are saying we support this and we should move forward with this and yet we're pretending to blindly say we have no idea what's going back there and if we do uh you know we'll we'll figure it out then. Um Strawberry Field is a great neighborhood in this community. It's a great neighborhood in this community and it would be the only community, you know, to be fair to Moss Springs. Moss Springs has a road that goes back through and it wouldn't, you know, it would impact them, too. But we're talking about um something that's going to adversely impact Strawberry Field. And I would agree with other speakers that uh I wish you would defer action on this until somebody comes and tells us exactly what the plan is because we live there and we're going to be impacted. Uh thank you so much for your consideration, your time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Please. Uh my name is Steve Lions. I'm a surveyor. I'm the one that surveyed and prepared this plat. Um I've I've done it for the owners and one of the owners is present here with us. Uh the reason that we've done these are or where they can uh sell the property up on the road as it exists. Now, now I have been working with the CD on the development for the back part of this property which we will not access off of Claude Simmons because it it does in involve a uh flood zone. It's uh quite hard to to uh build a build a bridge. it be it'd be a bridge over over the the flood zone and the creek. And uh what the developers are are interested in doing is developing this property in the back and about seven tracks. And you know, they're not looking at doing small tracks, not 40 lots. It's going to be uh basically seven or eight houses in the back of this property. And uh actually one of the owners is here and he he wants to build his own personal house on this property and he would be glad to come up here and speak to it. I know that we're not here to talk about the back part of this property. We're looking at doing the four lots in the front, but I think the people here would be interested in knowing what they really intend to do back there. And I think that the owner would like to say a few words, too.

And he'd be welcome to come on up, please. Same thing again. Name and name and address for the record, please. Uh,

it's Brian Sanjid, 2266. Saw your respon. Steve forgot to mention he also lives out there and he wants to make sure things look good out there as well. He's he lives just right around the corner. Um, and I understand the concerns that that have been laid out here. And um, before we had it under contract, this property, there were multiple homes planned that they would have liked to have done on this. And we've looked at different concepts, um, concepts that would request impact, what would be the most impact. And um I mean it's our desire that uh to to be not not just because we want to be there, but we want to make sure everyone's happy as well. We feel like with this plan, it would make the most sense for the neighborhoods and keep everyone uh happy with what we're doing and try to make a positive impact in the area. Um the other owner is also looking at building on the property as well. So, u I would say maximum 12 homes, maybe maybe a lot less than that if people combine a couple lots and but if you're looking at 12 in that neighborhood at maybe 11, maybe seven maybe. So, um I'm just trying to speak for it and let you know what the the positives and not the speculation is to uh happen here. I would say that you know other concepts um if if we if we have to do more of what is actually being proposed or the ideas that are coming up here to do if we we would have to look at doing smaller lots. You know the more infrastructure you put in the more dollars you put in

then you're gonna have to find it somewhere to get payback or you can't make the numbers work. So, I think that this would be in the best interest of everyone even if you know if they didn't know that tonight or not. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Someone else like to speak to this matter, please sir come forward.

Uh yes, my name is Fernando Zapeda. I am the currently the uh president for the homeowners association for Strawberry Field uh subdivision and uh there's been a lot of discussion uh regarding this uh development. First of all, thanks to the commission for allowing us to come in here and express our concerns. Uh I do want to repeat a lot of the sentiments that some of our current neighbors have said just regarding that. Um, you know, it's sort of to me a bit unprecedented that none of the other neighborhoods in this complete area uh are lack an actual entrance to the neighborhood uh have their own road going in and out of the neighborhood. Um, I understand that we're here to [clears throat] talk about phase one and not phase two. However, I think it's a little bit shortsighted to approve phase one without knowing exactly what's going to happen with phase 2. I've heard here that there's going to be seven or eight lots uh in the back. Maybe more, maybe not. We don't know. I mean, you know, in prior uh plans uh when other developers were looking at this property, uh I saw the actual plat 120 homes that were being proposed to go in those uh 40 acres. So without really knowing what's going to happen, it's really hard to approve what and if we can put a picture back up real quick of what it looks like. I mean essentially by approving phase one, you're blocking off the entire access to Claude Simmons Road. Um if you look at the map um you know if you could just one of the alternatives that you would consider maybe is just one through three and leaving number four to allow it to have a its own road if for whatever reason they decide to develop more than the eight or 10 lots.

Otherwise, what's going to happen is every single brick, every single piece of equipment that you have to bring in and out of that subdivision to build it is going to go through a current subdivision that was not designed to maintain that type of traffic flow. in Strawberry Fields Drive, which is our main road in and out of that subdivision. Whenever you have people parking on both sides of the streets, what happens all the time, especially during the summertime when people are mowing and they have their trucks and trailers with their mowing equipment, you can barely fit an emergency vehicle in between those two uh cars. and you start adding concrete trucks coming in and out, dump trucks coming in and out, and all the contractors going in and out, whether it's seven, eight, 10, or anywhere from a hundred uh homes or more, we don't know. I think that it would probably be wise for the commission to delay approval of this project until we at least have a more concrete evidence plan for plan for part B of the subdivision. So, that would be my request. Thank you sir.

Okay. Thanks. Anyone else to anyone else to speak? You please please come up. The applicant would like to come up. Please do. Yeah. So the applicant is has different um there's a the applicant has 10 minutes. And I was just going to say

that uh say we did you know there's two control strips there. So when the development was first built, obviously there was plans to hey, if we ever want to go into this, that's that was the whole intention of those two um control those two roads going into the extra property. So again, um if we were to put a road in off Claude Simmons, likely that would come in and it would connect to one of those roads. So the more you push to try to make a different concept than we're saying than we're planning to happen again, it's going to it will require a lot more density. So if that's the the path that they would take, it would change the whole concept. And and to to be clear and you're you're you're talking about with a with a pretty high degree of certainty and again nothing's before us and we can only look at what's before us. But your intention is eight to nine single family homes.

Not even that many. A total of 11 including these four lots. And we've got engineering started on that's including these four lots. Total of 11. And we've got engineering going on on trying to get that get that going as quick as possible. Thank you, sir. Before you leave, does anyone else have any questions? Yeah, I do. Um, when you said if you you did your road or your access on Claude Simmons, you said it would tie to the other. I I didn't understand that. There's there's uh other roads going in from Strawberry Fields that you could tie into. So, you it would make sense to just loop in and and come out or maybe do another loop into another one. I mean, that's when you start getting into the 120 homes that the

Well, and and a lot of subdivisions have that where they tie in, but the main access But the main access is off the main road. And I think that's I think that's what a lot of these residents are talking about. You could do that or you could just do a small continuation off of one of, you know, off of and make some really large lots to make a very low impact. But if you've got an entrance off the main road connecting into those and people are going to come in and do all kinds of, you know, driving in you, you know, you're going to have a lot bigger impact than you than you want by doing that.

The other thing is, you know, the surveyor mentioned seven to eight houses. You know, you mentioned maximum of 12. 7 to eight plus the four. So that's 11 to 12 total. And we we're looking at only 11. So, just trying to we're trying to be conservative by saying one extra than what we even have planned. Not trying to go under what we have planned. We're trying to tell you less or more than what we have planned. I mean, okay. I'd rather I'd rather do on the conservative side than I'm curious why you are holding back on on other anything.

That's a good question, too. I mean, the only reason is is because we'd like to get started. We're working on our engineering for the back and we we'd like to just get started and offset some of our costs if we can get some of these lots listed and get them sold. How quickly do you think you'll have a plan for the the 43 acres? Uh we we'll have it we'll have pretty quick. Well, six months, two years? No, more like um few weeks probably. Couple weeks we'll have we should be finished. So rather quickly you'll have an a clear idea of exactly what you'd be planning to commit to for the for the for the large section in the back.

Well, yeah, we don't want to waste time and like I said, I want to live there and I'd like to start building my house as soon as I can. So, okay. I live I live in the neighborhood beside that connects to Strawberry Fields. That's very encouraging that you're on that fast of a time track.

Yeah. Just just don't want to delay and get things done. So, um that's the goal. One more quick question for you. I I know that the that area at the front of the or the back of the four proposed lots um is flood plane. Quite a wide quite a wide flood plane. And I know you're limited. You can't build a road across. You can only impact a tenth of an acre under a nationwide permit anyway. So you'd be limited um there anyway. But in terms of the homes, I I know I I um Miss Hodgers stated it, but perhaps you can confirm it as well. I mean, we know you cannot build a home within a 100-year flood plane, right? Correct. So, none of the homes on those lots will be in a 100-year flood plane.

I don't know. I mean, there people are going to buy the lots and I I can't confirm what they're going to do. I can confirm I wouldn't do it. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Sorry. Are there any further questions for the applicant before we

actually Lori Troen 301 Barry Patch Lane as one of the houses on one of the roads that they're talking about cutting through. He's saying all the other developments have cutthroughs. When you buy that property, you know it's eventually going to cut through. But just like anyone else already said, all the other developments have main accesses, then they cut through. We're not opposed to a development. We're not opposed to them joining the roads. We're opposed to them making our main road the only big access. And on a good day, you can't get up and down it, trying to turn in, trying to turn out. We haven't even started the tunnel construction. It's a nightmare. Now, you're going to add more cars. I live on that corner. I have two driveways. It's basically a four-way intersection. You bring more people coming in from another development. I've almost gotten hit going out of my driveway because people don't stop at the stop sign. They go on the wrong side of the road. It's 25 miles an hour. They're going to go from those 43 acres, go 25 miles an hour all the way down Strawberry Field. It doesn't make any sense. And like everyone else said, if they have this plan to put in just a couple homes, show it. put it on paper, then come back and say, "We'll put the four where we don't make a center access or we don't make room for access." I'm sorry. I don't believe them. You know, they can get this approved and then they could say, "Oh, well." So, that's my take on it. I'm sorry. But as someone that lives there, lived there almost 20 years, this is awful just the way it's being done. It's not like any other development in that area. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. looking around and I think seeing no further no further interest in public comment I will close the public hearing. There's one back in the back.

Pardon me. There is one one more for us as a paid ad 216 Strawberry Field Drive. Um, I know that a lot of this impact that he's talking about, he keeps talking about is going to impact him. But he has he's built three homes in Strawberry Field. I mean, in um Sawyers Pond. So, he's going to build another house in this neighborhood and move on. He's a builder. He's a developer. Is it really going to impact him as he's going on? This is impacting our families. We're just asking you to delay it until we find out what plan B is. We're just asking you to just really contemplate it because once they get those homes in there, there's no turning back. We're just asking please to consider it, delay it.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing. Um the um I guess the it is the the matter is now before us. Are there any um any is a discussion among ourselves?

I am really struggling with this this one because um I feel I mean I I think if I lived in Strawberry Fields I think I would probably feel exactly the way the residents feel um because of the unknown. Um, I do understand though that our job as planning commissioners are to approve what's on the table right now and what's on the table is those four lots plus the fifth one um off of Claude Simmons. I just struggle with that because of the unknown and and for these people um I have [clears throat] a lot of people a lot of of friends that live on um in Strawberry Fields and I I'm in that road a lot and it is busy and there is a a clubhouse right there on the corner that um stays extremely busy in the summertime and um so so I I mean as far as what's on the table. I don't have a problem with that being approved. However, I struggle with making that decision today considering that he [clears throat] thinks in two weeks he's going to know exactly what's going to happen in phase two and three. And I personally think it would be wise to wait two more weeks. I don't think he's going to get any building done in two weeks. Um that then it could come back to us and we can make a a decision based on that.

[clears throat]

I concur with that reasoning. I was hoping that he would tell me that he there was some significant delay of analysis that was going to force him to do some detailed topography analysis of the of the property and the 43 acres. it was going to require intensive study that would take an extended length of time before he could make some decisions about he but he indicated that was going to be a rel relatively quick decision and it was going to take weeks and that would then uncover a complete plan for the whole development that I think would take away the ambiguity and that should solve a lot of the anxiety of the whole community and would make for much more harmonious relationships with the neighbors and take away a lot questions where right now we're having to go on good faith and good faith hopefully works out. But I think we've seen examples where sometimes it doesn't. So I think um at this point I do want to make a I do want to make a couple of comments and then I want to ask staff I think a couple of questions here because I think the clarification will um will help us. The first the first thing I'd like to remind I think you know Commissioner Aldridge as [clears throat] you stated really we we have to consider what's in front of us. When what's in front of us complies with our own regulations it is very difficult for us. We have to have a reason to reject that um the proposal that that is in front of us. Personally looking at this I don't think we do. We have a proposal that is compliant with the subdivision regulations. I don't know that we have a reason to um to reject it with respect to with respect to having to rely on good faith. Well, we we don't really have to rely on good faith because the um there there are control strips um at the end of both of those roads in Strawberry Fields and we have to approve

the we have to approve the connection into that remaining 43 um 43 acres. So we do have a mechanism to uh to to to to I mean we have no believe no reason to believe that the developer is is being disingenuous at all but we we do have a mechanism to um certainly if we're going to have a cocked eye and a look of surprise on our face if if he comes back in a couple of months and it it does not show show significantly more than than he has than he has discussed this evening with respect to now so Now to a couple of questions. I'm not sure um Lawrence if this is a question for you or for for Whitney, but perhaps you could touch a little bit on the um on on the ability to impact a flood plane. We know that there is a flood plane that goes all the way across the um as we're looking at this on the west side of the on the west side of the lots there.

Um and perhaps so there's there's a limited ability to impact that flood plane. Yeah. And while Lawrence is coming up here, I would like to clarify what that control strip means. So, um, so if they were to say like say that 43 acres and they were to develop it in R2 and in order to do that, they would need to add roads. The control strip is there that to say like, oh, if you needed a main access road, then you needed to put in that main access road. We don't have to give you permission to cross this control strip, even if it was a development by right. you have that p like if they came back you have that power to say you don't have to cross that control strip.

So essentially at that point if that happens he's dead in the water for the rest of the property. Yeah. He'd have to he would have to consider and reconfigure and either take out a lot in order to make that main road look at Moss Creek maybe um this and and if you went Moss Creek you'd have to get county permission

and I am not sure that that like I could not speak for the county but from what I've may have heard that might be rather difficult to have an additional access to a city site going through a county road. So that's where the protections are in place and why staff made the had this is a essentially a minor subdivision. The reason that it is before you is because it's it's the four lots. If it's over two lots, it needs to come to the planning commission if it's over two lots. So it's that's how we look at this. Um and we have those protections of the control strip that even if they were so that it's not that they would take their construction traffic through there. That's why they're there. So, okay, now I will.

Thank you, Lawrence.

Hey, this Lawrence, uh, engineering public works. That's a special flood hazard area zone A where they don't know where the floodway is and they don't know what the base flood elevations are. Typically, if it was more than 500 acres of watershed and a big developer was planning on building a lot of houses there, uh, we would ask them to do a study if it's over 500 acres of waterhed flow into that creek. If it's less than 500 acres, they don't need to do a study. Uh we do have some regulations in our zoning code article 8 that uh talk about the zoning uh zone A and you can do I think it's three foot above the highest adjacent grade or you know if you've determined the base flood elevation you could if the study's done you could just do a foot above whatever the base flood elevation is. The floodway is typically I think we assume it to be either three times the stream width or 30 foot either side center either side of the center line of the creek. So they would need to stay out of that area as far as fill or any kind of building, but they could build in the flood plane as long as it's elevated.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the appreciate the clarification. All right. So does anyone have any other questions for the engineer before? Okay. Thank you. Um Okay, I think that's all I had. Is there any further any further discussion among ourselves? I'm curious about something. Did I hear 130 lots or 130 homes?

If you were to take the entirety of this parcel and um do the math for what the minimum lot size is for R2, you possibly could get somewhere between 130 to 120 homes. You would have to build new roads at that point. This the the reason that this is like what I want to call a minor subdivision, even though that's not really a term in our subdivision ordinance, is because you're not a you're not asking for any new roads. They're not building any new roads. They're using the the public roads that are there in order to further subdivide. And you have to have Oh, sorry. I'm didn't mean to interrupt. You have to have 50 feet in order to do that.

I agree with Commissioner Aldridge. got I'm mixed here because the way it's presented is within the guidelines, but I've got extreme reservations with this, especially I I think waiting until we get some further planning. Seven houses is a lot different than 130 and cutting through right there is I lived in a neighborhood that had that and I I don't know. I just I don't know about Thank you for Whitney.

So, one last question. Um Whitney, the um would you mean the streets in Strawberry Fields, they are public streets, correct? So, they belong to Johnson City. They are not owned and maintained by the homeowners association. They are maintained by the city of Johnson City. Yeah. Thank you,

Whitney. I I kind of hate to ask this question, but I'm going to. Um, is it possible to recommend that we defer action until he has phase two and three? I'm gonna look at Megan because and you the action you can rec you can take a decision to defer to a date certain but typically would we would ask you to say the information that you that is missing from this request.

That's correct. You have the option to approve, deny, or to to defer upon the receipt of additional information. So if you just identify what that information is that you're looking for in the event that it it at that date certain you don't have that information. I I've got a question for staff. So when you look at every subdivision that's on Claude Simmons

or even Carol Creek Road like Duncan's Retreat, yes, it is stubbed in to the neighboring subdivision, but they all have ingress egress on the county or city road. Does does the regulation allow no ingress egress on a public road? I mean, I understand those are public roads coming into the subdivision, but step out from a neighboring subdivision.

So, in the subdivision regulation, if they were to develop something in, let's say, a 100 lots, let's say that that was on the table, you have to have certain we we have roads that have that that carry a certain amount of traffic. like you you've got to build your main road because it's going to carry it's going to carry your most traffic and so it's got to be a certain width and and that and and that is in the subdivision regulations. So to say that beyond this that they could put in another subdivision, I think that that would give all of staff, not just planning staff, but also engineering staff pause because you don't have the right you're not carrying that that load in. Um, and it's because of the control strip is what gives the extra protection for the planning commission as far as how that is to develop because the applicant understands that if they move forward with this type of development, it is limiting how they can develop those 43 acres. Winnie, what is the what is there a total number of houses that they can build and and proceed with the plan to go through Strawberry Fields or what's that maximum or that?

I don't know the MAC like it without a main connector rate. I don't really know that maximum. Um, but I can tell but what all I could tell you would be because it is R2, they would be allowed to develop anything that R2 is allowed to develop. So, if they did want to build roads and make those smaller lots, they could do that. They could come back to you and say, "You know what? We're going to build that. We're going to build across the stream. We're going to get rid of this minor subdivision." I mean, but that would be before the

But that's a different But that's a different request. What is before us is the is the four lots with the larger fifth lot that they they have said they will develop later into seven to eight lots. I'm going to suggest a path forward. I'm going to suggest and move that we uh approve the final plat as it does meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. And we'll hang our hat on the requirement that we have control of the any future subdivision of the 43 acres because of the control strip that we have decision rights around based on what happens with that control strip in the future and any any future potential subdivision that happens with the 43 acres because in fact he has met the requirements of the subdivision regulations and we have no basis for denying based on him violating those subdivision regulations with his request in my opinion.

So, I don't think we have really legs to stand on to to deny the subdivision requests. I agree with you um wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, I don't I don't really like where we are. I don't like the fact that we have that ambiguity hanging out there, but we do have that control mechanism around that that control strip for the connecting roads. So, I would say that we have that control ultimately that if we don't like what comes out out of that subdivision in the future of those 43 acres, we have a pretty strong hand to play. Can Can I add to that? We also have the option of deferring, correct? So there two two points. I've I've spent three decades as an engineer and anytime I hear anyone say that we're in a hurry, it's a flag. Now playing devil's advocate, I love building, love developing. I like to see things grow. Love that area out there. It's a beautiful area. Um, so I I want to, you know, encourage you all to develop and and come up with the best means because I I know when I've looked at developments, I'll change my mind 20 times before I finally land on this is what I want to do. an issue I'm seeing here and the concern with the public is we're trying to make a decision yes on those lots that we're seeing but there's a we need a crystal ball to see what's coming on the other part of the development and we don't know what that is. So my opinion would be to defer until we have more information. [clears throat] Is there any further discussion among the commission?

Made a motion. You didn't get a second. Okay. Would you like to repeat the MO? So, your motion, Chris, was my motion is that we approve the final plat as requested because it meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?

Small school. We have a motion. We have no second. The motion fails without a second. Fails. You can do it now. So I would like to make a motion to defer the action until we have um full development plans. More information. Okay. Date certain. Needs to be a date certain. You need to make when you're deferral, you need to defer it to a date certain to a date. Yeah. So either to if either to next month or or April. It would just has to be a date certain until the next public meeting. So March until until the March meeting. Yeah. So the motion is to defer um Tuesday, March.

Defer this hearing to the second Tuesday in in March. Is there a second? Second that. Okay. March 10th. Okay. Thank you. Is there any further discussion?

Okay. I'll just make the comment. This this is one I've struggled with too. we all have because we hear we hear the public. We if I lived in Strawberry Fields or or uh one of the neighboring communities, I I would want to know what would happen. Um, but I also believe the developers I I I I truly believe and and and I had a completely different idea before the meeting, but hearing um what they're trying to accomplish and the additional cost of uh building a bridge to access that lot would mean they would have to have a much the density would be much greater. So, I I truly believe that that the back parcel will be seven seven lots and and we'll hold them to that, but um yeah, this is one I've I've really struggled with because of what is before us, but because of the uncertainty, it's it's been really difficult. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Looking around and seeing no further discussion, we will call the role, please, Heather. Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bombgardner, yes. Commissioner me, yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Commissioner Dagenheart, no. Commissioner Gats, yes. Chairman Dutton, no. Motion carries.

Motion carries. And with that, that was the last item on the agenda. Before we before we do um before we adjourn though, we were remiss at the beginning of the meeting in introducing and recognizing our two newest commission members. On my right, we have Commissioner David Meade. Would you like to wave and yeah, nod? There we are. And on my left, Commissioner Bo West Mland. So, gentlemen, welcome to the commission. Thank you for serving. Uh with that we will uh we will adjourn for this evening. Thank you very much.