Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the May 12th, 2026 Johnson City Regional Planning Commission meeting. Uh there are two opportunities for members of the public to address the planning commission during this meeting. First, during the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting or during this public hearing, which is heard at the time a specific agenda item is brought forward for discussion. The public comment period is intended to allow members of the public to address any comments to the planning commission whether or not those comments are related to a topic that is on the agenda, but it must be relevant to the city. Public hearing comments are limited to certain classifications of topics and those agenda items for which there is a public hearing are indicated on the agenda. To be eligible to speak during the public comment period, you must have registered to speak at least 12 hours before this meeting. Public comment is limited to 12 people to make sure that the commission has time to conduct its business. To be respectful of everyone's time, we would ask that you speak only once on any given topic. Speaking time is limited to three minutes for members of the public with applicants given 10 minutes to present their case. for both public comment and public hearing. I will open the floor at the appropriate time. If you come forward to speak, please introduce yourself by giving your name and address and your comments should be directed only to the commission. I now call the meeting to order. Um the time is 601. Commissioner Williams, would you please lead us in an invocation and the pledge?

Please pray with me. Dear heavenly father, you give us so much to be thankful for. We're thankful for this beautiful spring day that you've given us. We're thankful for your love and your undeserving grace. We're thankful for this great city. We ask that you continue to pour your blessings down upon us. We're thankful for our planning department and this group of men and women on this commission. We thank you for the opportunity to serve you. And we ask for your wisdom and guidance as we make decisions on the business before us. We ask that these decisions are fair to all concerned and bring glory to you. And we ask all these things in Jesus name. Amen.

Please stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you sir. Okay. Um so moving on. Item number three on our agenda this evening is the approval of the agenda. Now I understand that we one of the applicants this evening has requested that item um 7.4 which is 2011 East Waga um be deferred until the June uh June meeting. Um so I would um I would entertain a motion um from the commission if the uh if the if the rest of the commission agrees with uh that deferral that um that the agenda be approved but for moving item 7.4 for to the uh to the June meeting.

So I move I move that we approve the agenda as submitted with the deferral of item 7.4 as requested. Thank you. We have a motion. Second and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed. Thank you. The agenda is approved. Um moving on to the approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Um, if everyone has had the opportunity to review those meetings, uh, those meeting minutes, are there any comments or changes to the to the minutes? Chairman, after reviewing the minutes, um, I make a motion to approve them. Thank you. I'll second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? Okay. Fantastic. minutes are approved. Which now brings us to the public comment period. We have six um six folks signed up this evening um for um for for for public comment. Um just to to keep it orderly if it's okay. I'll just I can call folks names out and they can come forward. Um the first is uh Caitlyn Similey. Caitlyn, you here? Hi everyone.

Good evening.

I'm Caitlyn Simmerly. I live at Six Monccason Court. Um, good evening. My name is Caitlyn Simmerly. I live at 6 Moxen Court directly adjacent to the proposed development and annexation of Hopper Road. I'm a Johnson City native, Navy veteran, homeowner, and local real estate professional here in Johnson City. I want to be clear. I am not opposed to responsible growth or development. I understand our city is growing. However, responsible development should complement surrounding neighborhoods, infrastructure, and topography rather than overpower them. As I began researching this proposal and speaking with our neighbors, one thing became very clear to me. This is not an empty piece of land without history or character. Families like the Clarks, Goens, and Reeves have lived in this area for generations. In fact, almost 80 years. In the surrounding neighborhoods were built around a lower density residential character that homeowners have worked hard to preserve. My biggest concerns are density, drainage, infrastructure, and compatibility with the surrounding area. According to the planning documents, many homes would sit approximately 30 feet above the adjoining properties. This would create major privacy impacts for the neighboring homeowners. Drainage is also a major concern. Additional pavement, grading, and elevated lots will increase runoff flowing downhill toward existing properties. Homeowners are concerned about standing water and long-term property impacts in lowerlying yards. Additionally, almost all surrounding neighborhoods are zoned R2B or lower density, while this proposal requests R2C zoning with much smaller lots and homes built much closer together. That level of density is inconsistent with the surrounding area and would dramatically alter the character of our neighborhood. Infrastructure and safety along Hopper Road and Indian Ridge Road are other serious concerns, specifically near Woodland Elementary. These roads are already heavily used as cut through routes from Jonesboro, especially during

school traffic during school traffic and afternoon rush hours. Residents in this area have raised concerns for years regarding speeding, dangerous turning conditions, roadway safety, and traffic volume in this corridor, including reports of serious accidents and fatalities. Previous planning discussions acknowledge that infrastructure improvements should occur before additional dense improvement continued to the area. Yet, many of these concerns remain unresolved. I also do not believe comparisons to Archer Point are entirely appropriate. Archer's Point affected far fewer adjoining homeowners, most with significant significantly larger tracks of land. This proposal is very different because more than 100 existing homes could be directly impacted by elevation, drainage, infrastructure, traffic, and privacy. We are asking that the city consider development that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and existing infrastructure. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the commission to consider at most R2B zoning with larger lot sizes that better align with the surrounding area and help preserve the character, livability, and safety of this neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Caitlyn. Uh, next on the list, next on the list is Jeremy Collins. Um, he had sent me his speech. His wife went into labor this morning. Oh gosh. He has more important things to do. So if I can I suppose I would go around. If not

I mean as he's registered for public comments if you wish to read that into the record we'll allow that. Okay. You know Caitlyn you can do that the public hearing item. Why don't you do that at the public hearing item perhaps which will be um so when we hear the agenda item after the staff presentation there'll be an opportunity at public hearing. So you could just read those in then rather than Okay. Yeah. This evening um in in in just a few minutes after the public comment period when we when we call for that item there will be another opportunity. That's okay. So I know we have the long notes beforehand it's it's confusing. Um Lonnie Clark

sorry we may have a hard time hearing you and for folks remotely I I apologize. It's we can accommodate that. Okay. Thank you very much. Well,

I almost feel like I'm standing before God. Well,

but I just want to tell you people that they have one nice subdivision out there and they're going to put another one in and y'all have did nothing for the roads. They had beautiful roads in the subdivisions and I have lived there and my my people has lived there. I mean I remember when it was a rock road and y'all haven't did anything for the road and you pass big vehicles and you have to almost pull on them side and all. And I I just can't see how y'all could go along with them putting a subdivision in until they fix that road. That's that's That's just me, the what I know about it, you know.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Clark. Thank you, sir. And next next on next on the list is um Anne Goins. An

I'm Anne Gorn and I live at 151 Hopper Road. In 1977, my parents moved to Hopper Road. The views then were spectacular. Through the years, the views have changed significantly. The increasing of housing, the hillsides disappearing, and the fields disappearing. One thing that has not changed in this area are the roads. In 1977, the winding country roads were fairly adequate for the limited amount of cars. In the 60 plus years since that house was built, the roads have become less than adequate. In fact, they have become dangerous. Increasing the housing and usage of these inadequate roads is not the answer. When moving to Hopper Road from across town, my car insurance went up based solely on the increased risks of that area. One neighbor has altered his driveway in hopes that it makes it a little safer to come and go. Currently, I'm considering that option. For some, this isn't feasible. When coming and going from our homes or even going to the mailbox, the fear is that a car will come over the blind hill. In fact, it's the very same blind hill that the developer wants to put one of the outlets. For Johnson City to remain progressive, it must address the infrastructure as our population continues to grow. In fact, uh it's a fact that people from across the nation are moving to this area. But sadly, we are quickly destroying many of the positive aspects that they are that's attracting these newcomers. Thank you.

Last last on the list for public comment this evening is um Thank you. Last on the list for public comment this evening is Robert King. You have reserve comment until you consider the budget item. Absolutely, sir. We'll get back to you shortly. Thank you. Okay, with that, that concludes our um public comment period um this evening. We move on to item six uh which is the uh the the consent agenda. Um there is one item on the consent agenda. Uh are there any questions or comments? Do we need to pull that from the consent agenda? Mr. Chairman, having reviewed the consent agenda, I'll recommend approval as presented. Thank you.

I'll second. Thank you. We have a motion and a uh and and a second. Um all those in favor, please say I. I.

Any oppo? I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Which brings us to um new business. And the first item on the agenda this evening is the voluntary annexation uh Fox annexation on Hopper Road. Miss Pardney. Good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners. I'm Riley Pudney, development coordinator with the planning division. And tonight, the request I'm presenting to you is the annexation of two parcels, 135 Hopper Road and the adjoining parcel zero zero Hopper Road for annexation. For the timeline, the request to proceed was approved at city commission on April 16th. The first recommendation um for planning commission is tonight and that would be on the plan of services and zoning assignment. And then if moving forward June 4th would be the preliminary resolution and first reading and just a note is that the the public hearings for these items at city commission happen at the third reading. So the the final resolution will be the third reading and public hearing for plan of services and zoning assignment and that would tentatively occur July 2nd. Staff put signs on the property on April 30th and letters were sent out to homeowners within a 200t radius on that same day. We updated the city website with just the plan of services and annexation info on April 21st and the remaining information and notification will be set at the time of the city commission uh first reading when they approve the preliminary resolution that calls for a public hearing. So, the request is on Hopper Road and

just to orient the commission, Archers Point is directly to the north, Woodland Elementary to the east, and Market Street to the south. It is a owner property owner request to annex roughly 13.82 acres that has frontage on both Hopper Road and Indian Ridge Road. Uh the parcel is contiguous to current city limits and is within the urban growth boundary and service area and the request for zoning is R2C which is lowdensity residential for a single family uh development. The commission has seen the request previously in 2025 when the property was brought forward to annexation with an RP zoning district. Uh the proposal was for 105 town homes and the city commission referred it back to the planning commission to kind of look over the density and so the applicant withdrew it and now we are back in 2026 with the R2C uh request for 37 single family homes. This is the concept plan provided um by the applicant. At this time it is not binding. It would become binding once the property is annexed and the zoning assignment is approved. But you can see it is 37 single family homes um with a minimum lot size that exceeds the requirement of R2C. RTC has a requirement of 6,000 square ft and the minimum is roughly 7200. There will on the concept plan have to be open space that's depicted um at the time of development approval and preliminary plat as well as deceleration lanes. The plan of services was conducted and all agencies have provided their

comments and feedback. The complete report is in the staff report provided. Some key factors are that the sewer is located on the property. Water is available on Hopper Road and Indian Ridge Road. The uh lot, the parcel will be uh serviced by Woodland Elementary, Liberty Bell Middle School, and Science Hill. There was no concerns from the school systems for capacity as it would add roughly an additional 12 students. And a trafficked impact analysis is to be completed prior to a preliminary plat approval. So there has not been a trafficked uh impact analysis completed as of yet. So currently the property is in the county but abuts an R2B and an R2 in Johnson City which is low density residential as well as being in the surrounding area of RP2 and RP3 development with the requested R2C zoning. kind of what I've already gone over. The minimum lot size is 6,000 square ft. Lot width of 60 ft and the setbacks of 25 ft on the front, 25 on the rear, and eight on the side. And you can see within the concept plan that they are either meeting these requirements or exceeding them. staff wanted to point out the existing density comparison to existing uh developments in place and it's a coordinated uh map. So one is Archer Point and you can see that there are roughly 3.33 units per acre. Um and the proposed Hopper Road oop sorry Hopper Road comes in under the average at 2.67 units per acre. So this graphic shows that with the proposal of 37 single family homes

that they are within and below the average unit per acre for density. The property is uh has a place type of neighborhood residential for the Horizon 2045 plan and the concept plan provided meets those kind of place type and characteristics for single family, larger lots um and residential uses. We have not had any citizen comments except for just how the process of annexation is and moving forward. Um, we received questions just on timeline and and signs and so forth. And because of that, staff would recommend approval of the plan of services and the zoning assignment of R2C due to it being compatible with the Horizon 2045 plan and surrounding neighborhoods.

Thank you, M. Bundy. There's uh one point of clarification regarding the concept plan. Um the concept plan is binding um and will should this matter be approved um recommended for approval by the planning commission subsequently approved by the city commission that concept plan is binding. The preliminary plat must be consistent with that uh with that concept plan and then the final plat must be consistent with the preliminary plan. that the concept land is binding. Correct. Correct. It would become binding once the zoning assignment is approved. Okay. Okay. Um questions of staff.

I've got one question. So since it's a concept plan, we don't have a plenary plan. Do we have a storm water plan that was submitted with this? No, one is not required at this time since there's not a approved development. So if this moves forward, the storm water and everything would come with their civil engineering sense and that that storm water plan would address the concerns about storm water runoff. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. Any other questions right now?

Miss Budy, I had a quick question for you. Um, did any of the city departments express concern about the two plats that are off of Indian Ridge Road in their line of sight? No. So, the comments we've received from traffic would be that there would be a shared driveway that would have to meet uh sight distance. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there any discussion on the road? I'm sorry. Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Road improvements. Anything scheduled for Hopper Road? any any road improvements that are being contemplated out there.

I would have to refer to our traffic department, Anthony Todd. Um, but specific improvements would come with that traffic impact analysis. Uh yes, as she said, the the traffic improvements um would be part of what they look at in the traffic analysis in the study. And um we probably would be looking at some widening down in the direction of Indian Ridge Road. That's what we'd anticipate all along. Thank you, Mr. Th.

Mr. Todd, I had a quick question also for you. Um, so you mentioned that there was an original PLA planned for this for 105 town homes and there may have been a traffic study that was started but maybe not completed. Is that accurate? We did an overall traffic study with our own staff but we did not do an in-depth traffic study. That would be uh up to the developer themselves to hire a consultant to do the detailed analysis.

Understand? Thank you so much. Okay, seeing no further questions for staff at this moment in time, I will open the public hearing. Now, we do have um a couple of folks from um from uh from the public comment period. Kaitlyn, I think you wanted to read Jeremy's um comments into record. And then Robert, you'll be right behind her. Thank you. Hello again. Hi.

Um this is on behalf of Jeremy Collins. He lives at 2949 Indian Ridge Road. He says, "Commissioners, my name is Jeremy Collins and I own 2949 Indian Ridge Road in Johnson City. I sincerely thank you for allowing me to speak to you today and I feel that I have valid concerns and considerations prior to accepting this resoning request. My wife is 40 weeks and 5 days pregnant, but I have chosen to spend my Tuesday night sitting in this room echoing the concerns of myself and our community." That didn't exactly work out. Um, I think that tells you how seriously he's taking this. My property has been in our family for almost 80 years. This land is my family's history and was also meant to be my family's future. I had every intention of building my forever home on the property. But if this resoning request is approved, that home will never be built. That is what is at stake with the decisions proposed tonight. This proposal places 10 homes directly along my fence line and does not reflect the character of this land or this community. It reflects how many houses we can cram into a plat map. My concerns go beyond my property line. I care for other members of this community who will be impacted, the 14 acres of wildlife habitat we will lose and character and property values we are fighting hard to preserve. Last year, the planning commission took the 105 town home proposal in front of our city commission and it was denied. I appreciate the recognition that this was not a plausible solution to housing in our area. So I must ask I must ask what has changed since then. The only change I see is Archer Point is now complete with more than 125 single family residences. And we the members of Indian Ridge and Hopper Road community are the ones feeling the strains of that traffic daily. There have been no road improvements, no solutions to address the dangers that lie on this connector road. And the only thing that has changed is the number on the application. Please allow me to paint a picture of the last 12 months of living on Indian Ridge. My mailbox has been struck by vehicles three times. Although they do

not add up to the value of the damaged mailboxes, I do not I do have a growing collection of side mirrors that I hope are valuable one day. I have witnessed a vehicle flying down the hill, losing control, jump my secondary driveway, and hit the bank. Thankfully, they were not injured and were able to drive off, but did not stop to address the property damage. I would be happy to share the video of the damage after the meeting for anyone interested. My wife and I watched our four-year-old nephew last week, and I will not allow him to walk to the mailbox with me because I cannot trust that someone is able to keep their vehicle on the road. These are not one-off instances. This is a pattern of dangerous conditions that cannot support this level of density. I am not here to stand in the way of progress. I understand we have a shortage of homes in Johnson City, but I ask please let let's consider the differences between responsible development and continuing to place density on infrastructure that was never designed to support it. Dr. Horton does not have a vested interest in our communities. When there is no more land to develop, they will move on to the next area while our community deals with the lasting effects. To the Fox family, I understand your wishes to receive the best possible outcome for you and your families. But we would love to put together a proposal where everyone went.

Thank you, ma'am. That was about it. Thank you. Thank you. Verific,

Mr. King. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, my name's Robert King. I share a home uh that lovely woman in the back there at 151 Hopper Road. And I'm here tonight because and I'm emotional about it because I have two or three times had my own close calls on that road. And I prefer to die in bed or at church so I can make a last request. But what I'm here tonight is to make another last request. I think that that density is even to is not generous as it should be as an R2A would be and I would suggest that would really be compatible with the people living there and the people coming in. Uh the other thing is that if I looked at anything and as an analysis and I three see three catch ponds or three basins, you're telling me it's got water and we have seen it and it our our house is probably the most affected. If you look at that horse show, a horse show horse shoe. The top area is our driveway. It backs up right to the to the development just a few feet from it. And the other one is just below our property and one of the Clark Clark brothers property. It's almost impossible to get in and out of there now with just one opening. With all those added to it, it's going to be impossible and very dangerous. I've made my living for the last 40 years assessing risk of various kinds and a lot of it had to do with traffic and road conditions and automobiles. I even hired a team of engineers to help me with that over the years and it's been very useful. This is a dangerous place. I am for annexation. People coming to town is my lifeblood. I want to see it done. I just want to see it right. I don't want my wife to be in danger when she tries to come home and park in the in the driveway. And the same thing is true for the children who have no place to play. I would like at this point to incor incorporate by re reference all of the previous comments

from the neighbors. We live there. Uh we are unfortunately some of the closest to what's going to happen behind us with the construction and all of that. I have no I've lived with construction at two places I owned. This is bigger than what I'm used to, but it's going to damage our noise abatement. I might mention a couple things. One of the largest car crushers in the community is there operating 24 hours a day at the end of Indian Ridge Road. The uh s the two railways that run through Johnson City between 12 a.m. and 6 uh a.m. uh run about six different trips there. I asked them why are they never the same? I tried to time them. Well, they're not passenger trains. They're freight trains. We get there when we got there and they pay us the same. So, they can come anytime, day of night. You have that noise and then you have the people who think somehow that is a racetrack even with two uh bumpers there for them to go over and there's nothing we can do about that. But we can redo those roads and that all that should be done and that should be done before this is voted on to be accepted as part of our city and I will welcome him in when that's done. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you sir. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for Thank you. There's a a lady getting up behind you, sir. You'll be right next to There'll be There'll be plenty of time, sir. We'll make sure you speak. Good evening. I'm Jeannie Fox Thomas and my address is 482 Lake Bruce Drive in Bluntville, Tennessee. And this is I'm Donna Hobbs. I live at 202 Grey Road in Jonesboro, Tennessee.

And um the the Fox development proposal is our parents' property. Uh they were residents in Johnson City for over 67 years. Uh, and we grew up in that house in that community. And so, um, they left us that property, um, and they wanted to us to do something good with that property. And so, we feel like the proposal that we have is going to make a very positive impact in the community. uh primarily because it's very near ETSU, the VA, the Quillin College of Medicine, and this would provide much needed housing for professionals um in health care, professionals in education and so forth. And so we feel like that would be a a very positive contribution and it would also contribute to the economic development uh in Johnson City. Um, and so I think it aligns with the the plan for ongoing growth in Johnson City. So, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

That's uh Would you would you if you like to speak? Good evening, chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Jason Whitten and I live directly behind the Fox property near Indian Ridge and Hopper Road. Thank you for having the opportunity. Let me speak tonight. I want to be very clear at the outset. We are not opposed to the development of this property. We have always understood that it would be developed. What we are asking for is a reasonable density that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and supported by existing infrastructure. The zoning change being requested would allow 37 homes in a steep, very hilly site, including construction that wraps around two existing homes. This level of density is not compatible with the adjacent R1 and R2 neighborhoods, R2B neighborhoods, and exceeds what this land can reasonably support. At most, we are asking that the zoning be limited to R2B or better, which would still allow development while better respecting existing homes topography and neighborhood character. Our most immediate concern is traffic and road safety. Indian Ridge Road and Hopper Road are narrow two-lane roads with poor sight distance, no shoulders, no room for error. Any accident, no matter how minor, shuts these roads down completely. These limitations already exist today before adding dozens of new households and the daily traffic that comes with them. We have raised these concerns in the previous meetings. In fact, at the earlier city commission meeting on April 3rd, 2025, higher density development was discouraged precisely because of traffic constraints. Yet, this revised request still proposes more intensity without meaningful roadway upgrades in place. That concern is heightened by the fact that promised road improvements have not yet been completed, including the long discussed roundabout and realignment on Indian Ridge. Despite living within the

city and paying city taxes for several years, our neighborhood still lacks sidewalks, curbs, and pedestrian safe infrastructure. These are not city standard roads and they are unsafe for walking and biking, especially for families and children. I'm also concerned about storm water and drainage. This property drains downhill toward existing homes where detention basins may meet engineering requirements on paper. In practice, they often become sources of mosquitoes, standing water, and wildlife, affecting the quality of life for neighborhood residents. Compliance with zoning criteria alone does not always mean a proposal is appropriate. Planning decisions are long lasting. Once density is approved, it cannot be undone. We respectfully ask the commission to deny the R2C zoning request and require a lower density approach no greater than R2B ideally tied to real completed infrastructure improvements. This is not about stopping growth. It's about being responsible planning neighborhood compatibility and public safety. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item? Danny Carst, 125 West Center Street, Kingsport, Tennessee, 3766. We've been working with the sister, we call them the sisters. um for about 3 years now trying to find something for this before we we were the ones that completed Indian Ridge that were what's it called? What's that development called? The one across the street.

Yeah, Archers. Um but ahead of that, you know, the city came to us wanted extra property for those roundabouts and we got one request just gave it to them because we know that probably it'll be good if even if we were already gone, it would be great if they had the property. They came back, I guess maybe a year and a half ago and asked for another area. So, we donated that property so the city could have that. I know that S-curve that needs to be fixed or at least they needed the property. We didn't need to be move. We actually lost maybe two lots out of that, but I felt like it was needed cuz, you know, my son got hit when he was 5 years old. So, I'm a little bit more conscientious about roads than maybe I should be. But I just wanted y'all to know that we donated the property it hopefully in good faith that something good good could happen to that that that badass curve. Just wanted y'all to know that.

Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Cost. I think so. Thank you, sir.

Are there any other um anyone else like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Please. My name is Alam Lusk and I live at 1303 Ballard Ballard Road and my concern is I am not for more homes to be built. We have all those h over a hundred homes that were built and I've lived there for almost 20 years now and I am a a veteran widow. I am the mother of three veteran sons and two that um have disabilities because of uh what my husband had gone through. And it I am concerned because I have been I've been very happy living where I am. But when it things started to happen and home started to be built, all of a sudden I'm being robbed. The police were very good in coming to my home, but that doesn't take away my fear. I have also had things that happen around my home that I'm very suspicious of and very, to tell you the truth, I'm frightened. I live alone and I don't feel that this is safe. This is not safe for my community. I've worked in the school system for 13 years. I'm retired many years ago and um I know the school systems are going to be overloaded and I I've been in the system so I know and but I am fearful for myself for having so many homes to be built and I don't think it's safe.

Ma'am, can I get your name? I'm sorry I missed your name. I'm sorry. I missed your name. Al Musk. Thank you. Okay. I did see someone else's hand. Would someone else like to come forward?

Yes, sir. My name is Ray Leech. I live at 154 Hopper Road and I would assume this probably one of the most dangerous areas for me to get in and out of the driveway. The roads are terrible. The traffic's terrible. I've seen it uh over the years. I ended up there 16 years ago to take care of my parents. And from that time till now, the traffic seems like it's just quadrupled. And something needs to be done about those roads. And it's so I have to be very cautious even to go get my mail because I can see what's coming up the hill, but I can't see what's going to pop over that. You got the hill and my driveway and they come across with no warning. I mean, there's so much other noise like helicopters from the hospital, uh, people mowing the yards, things like that. You know, I can't hear what's going on and I have to dodge traffic many times. And as far as adding on to the our neighborhood, I think it's pretty well crowded now. That's about all I have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Leech. Thank you. Would would anyone else like to speak to the item on the agenda? Kaitton.

Hi. I just I have a couple of questions. I was wondering if if we could have her pull up the horseshoe the development. This this is an opportunity for comment and Okay. You've been here twice. So we I think you're we're probably going to get into some more stuff in in in I just thought that you said the it's bound after today if it passes. So no, that's not the the concept plan is binding. So if if the the concept plan what you see with this horseshoe now subject to it's got it's going to be like this. It couldn't be more units for example. Sorry.

The concept plan is binding. Oh, I was speaking to if she has questions, she needs to direct them and then um or not questions, but if she has comments, this is the time for comment. Yes. And you can if she wants to make those as questions and if you guys wish to take those up, that would be the proper protocol for this meeting. My apologies. How should I proceed?

If you'll just ask the questions that you that you would like the board to maybe ask staff later, that might be the better way to go with that. I would just like to know um as Miss Putney had mentioned that there are green spaces and some some detention areas that have not been finalized. Um if if that is so, I I think on behalf of my neighbors and I, we we would not like to see this move forward before it became a binding concept. um because it it does not show any open green areas or detention. Um there there's three detention areas, but one of which was backing up to to Mr. King's driveway.

When we get to So when we're going to we're going to ask questions of um we're going to have the opportunity to ask questions of staff again to make sure that it's in the correct protocol. We will answer that. We'll ask that question for you. Thank you all. Sorry, I didn't mean to break protocol. It's okay. Thank you. That's my fault. That's my job. Cake, not yours. So, is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item this evening?

Mr. Stamper, before you speak, are you speaking as the applicant? Yes. Okay. So, your time is 10 minutes.

Okay. Commissioners, thank you. Brandon Stamper, uh, 132 Walkers Ben Road, Johnson City, Tennessee 37617. Just in hearing all the comments and concerns, just wanted to point out that most of these items will be addressed through the construction plan process that has not happened yet. So, a traffic study is being required. Um, that will obviously indicate uh potential road improvements or things that need to happen to address some of those issues. We're hearing a lot of issues about storm water, storm water runoff. Obviously, that has not been addressed in the storm water plan yet, which will come uh to meet Tekk requirements to meet the city of Johnson City requirements. Um so, all of these items um that seem to be creating issues, fears, and uncertainties have not been addressed yet, but will properly be addressed with city staff with regulations um to meet those requirements. So, I just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. Along with the density, I believe it's 2.67 units per acre, which is well below what the um potential allowable would be even in that. And as it was pointed out is well below the average for that area. So, to me, with all those factors put together that this development is appropriate for the area and is appropriate for the surrounding stuff that fits there. So, thank you guys. Y'all have any questions while I'm up here?

Any questions of the applicant? Actually, yes, I I have one. Um, can you explain the rationale of the R2 A versus B versus C? Did you look at all those?

We we did. Uh I think um originally we were looking to actually bring it in as an RP3 to just allow staff to have more control uh more input into the planning process of that. I think the potential density um that could come with that because the concept plan could not be binding until the annexation was approved um is kind of what navigated us to the the R2C. If you look at the average uh lot area, I believe it's 7,800 square feet. I might be off a couple hundred. Uh but it is well over what the minimum requirement is for the R2C. It was basically just a layout um issue and trying to kind of create the best use of through there that the R2C kind of provided the best layout maneuverability with some of the lots with some of the challenges that do come with this piece of property. So again, I think if you look at the um actual units allowed, we actually fall more towards the R2B. It's just that didn't fit well with some of the additional requirements, the way that the lots needed to lay and some of the u constraints of the land.

Thank you. Any other questions have Thanks for being willing to answer a couple questions. Oh, absolutely. Um, I was just looking and it looks like the building pads are 43 by 60, which is decent square footage. That is the minimum building path. Some of those are larger as well. Okay. So, neighbors should expect what kind of square footage? Uh, we are not the final builder, but I'm assuming based on conversations that we've had with there, anywhere from probably 1,800 to 2,600 square feet would be my guess, depending on if it's a single level or twotory. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?

What do you contemplate in in terms of buffering? Uh buffering, green space and buffering. Any thoughts on that? Uh that will that will come with staff recommendations I believe through the construction plans with the surrounding areas. Okay. But there will be buffering.

Okay. I don't think there are any further questions. Thank you, Mr. No problem, guys. Thank you. Okay. Um, one last time, anyone else wishing to speak in the audience? Seeing none, the public hearing component of this item is closed and we will move it back to the the commission and staff. Um, Miss Hughes, perhaps you'd clarify um the concept plan, what the the the the nature the binding nature of this concept plan and what can change and and what can't and perhaps you could also comment while you're answering that. Um, you perhaps you could also comment on open space requirements too.

Yes. Um, so Whitney Hodgees, planning manager, uh, subbing in as the recorder for the evening. the um binding concept plan when it's so in the staff report it says that um that this does require a con that the because of the an the nature of the annexation the resoning I should say annexation there is a concept plan is required the annexation action doesn't necessarily have a concept plan attached to it the zoning action does and so that's the difference in between so tonight because it's a little we we track these at the same time and um as such for you guys they come to you at the same time. So in the when it goes through the commission process there will be a zoning process that will show the zoning process and

we we I think we understand that. I think what's confusing folks is when we're when we're passing when we're passing it there but for all intents and purposes these items are moving forward together. So, so what will um so with the B with the concept plan, what they're required to do is show the general areas and their general intent of what they intend to do. Any concept plan does that regardless of an annexation or a non- annexation. And so they need to show the general intent of meeting the open space requirement, which is 15% of open space, of which 7 and a half% of that needs to be in active open space. Um they need to show a general depiction of their storm water areas. Although that these are not engineered that we just need to know that they would fit on the site. Um so that we do know that when it comes to preliminary plan there will be some modifications but that it would meet that intent. Should there be through engineering um some major uh deviations like that they get into it and they find that they need to move something around and that becomes what we would call a major revision. that would come back through the process of it's a three- reading kind of pro or a three meeting process where it's a neighborhood meeting, a reading um and public hearing at planning commission and at city commission. So if there's any major the reason that um one of the reasons that we use concept plans is so that people can see what is coming um instead of anything can kind of happen.

Thank you. And just a further point of clarification for folks too because we do talk about the process. So if the annexation um and is approved tonight along with the zoning um assignment um then the applicant would move forward with um with with engineering um and move forward to prepare the preparation of a preliminary plat. Now the preliminary plat would include engineering items such as a traffic report which um Mr. Todd referenced earlier and a drainage study would be required um at that stage as well. Correct. And those those those items would have to satisfy staff before coming forward to the planning commission for approval.

Correct. Sorry. Correct. All right. Okay. I think I should shut up for a minute here. But would um anyone else on the commission do we have questions for the um questions for staff? Uh just a quick question on the road. Is that a road in the city or is or is that county? Is that a corridor uh of Washington County? I know the answer.

So Hopper Road, there's portions that are in the city and portions that are not in the city. Um so it kind of goes back and forth of what's in what's out. Uh I can do my best to show you on this map. Um it's obviously not zoomed in great but anything that is kind of adjoining the not grayed out is already in the city. So you have county city county this would come into this we would request or want this section to come into the city. Um so it's it's portioned within the county and within the city. other questions. So,

how do you improve a road? Who who improves it? What was I'm sorry, what was your question? Who improves the road, the city or the county? So, with the traffic impact analysis, anything that comes out as a requirement or recommendation to be completed, that would be at the cost of the developer to make those improvements. Thank you. Who would need to navigate both county and city approvals? Correct. Correct.

Thank you. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. The one because I've seen this be, you know, this is two or three or four times we've been looking at this. Uh oftentimes these roads are a chicken and egg thing. We've seen it over and over again. You bring in the development and then over a period of time with uh as the city can fold it in, they start to do this impre in improvement. A lot of people want the improvement before the development is done. And it's very difficult to balance those things. But we've seen some pretty good responses by the city where development has taken place and they've come out and they started working on the improvement of the road as the traffic gets worse and worse. Uh, in addition, sometimes some of the development itself actually improves with the with increased I know this kind of is the opposite of what people think, but when you have an open road through there with no development, people have a tendency to go faster. You have greater traffic and it has a tendency to slow the traffic down and actually making it more safe. Uh so and and obviously on something like this we're probably talking about XL diesel lanes. What I'm hearing is a lot of concern regarding this road infrastructure by which is a valid point but I'm saying it's a process sometimes that requires time and cooperation in order to work together to get it resolved.

Thank you. Are there other questions? Other questions of staff? One other question. What would the timeline be for having the traffic study done by the developer? So I can't speak to the time of that that study would take but it would be required prior to preliminary plaque coming to planning commission because that plat would have to show the recommendations. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of salt? Seeing none, I think the uh discussion is among ourselves. Who would like to lead us off?

Uh commissioners, I'll just say a few words. Um one, I want the public to know that we fully hear um concerns and we are also your neighbors and so these are really hard decisions to make. Um a couple of notes. I mean, I I heard multiple people express concerns about drainage, traffic, density, um more roads, traffic, etc. So, I do just want to echo my fellow commissioners statements in that we have a pretty good process, I think, set up such that our city staff are able to work through those concerns in our planning process and construction drawings. and we have some of the best of the best in our traffic and engineering department making sure that our developments are safe especially for neighboring properties. I do also want to acknowledge that we don't want to put an undue burden on our developers. So I I appreciate that developers they've received the feedback from the previous um proposal brought to us last year which we thought was too high of density and now this proposal is below the density that the current zoning um permits and so having less units per acre on average I personally do believe that makes this development appropriate for the area. Does it make it without problems? No. But I do think that we have a process of which to handle those concerns. Um, so those are my thoughts and I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Vice Chairman. Any other comments? If not, maybe is there a motion perhaps? I I mean I'll make the a similar comment in that yes these are hard decisions but I I feel like the concerns that we've heard will be addressed with traffic with storm water. I do uh appreciate the fact that the developer has come back. I was not for the 104 unit project or thereabouts. Um, but I feel like when you look at the surrounding area of R2C and it being consistent at 2.6 units per acre, which is below the 2.75 density per acre, um, I do like the fact that the project itself has two points of entry, which I think adds to some additional fire safety for that uh, subdivision that's being proposed. But because that we look at land use, I feel like this is an appropriate land use for this project.

Thank you, Commissioner. I I mean, I I share I share those sentiments as well. And maybe as a point of clarify, we talk about traffic, we're talking about widening um but site distance and line of sight are also things that are looked at um when the traffic study is uh is is completed. um obviously to make sure that uh that roadways are not being added that intersections are not being added that uh that that that are un that are unsafe and that will happen. I know it's disconcerting. This seems like if it gets approved it seems like a final approval. It's not there's there are additional steps that brings the applicant back here and has the applicant submit more information to the city as as you as you have as you have heard. Are there any further comments? If none are there is there a motion perhaps?

I'll make the motion to um I recommend to approve the plan of services as presented and Miss Hodgees. We are doing two separate votes. Is that right? One for the zoning assignment and one for the plan of services. Okay. Would you like me to do zoning first or does the order not matter? Um Miss Bells, I don't think the order matters for this one. Okay. In this instance, it does not. Do I not mean to say annexation in this? No, you're you're you're the planning the planning commission's um purview is the plan of services. Okay. And this is a zoning assignment. So, if you stick to those

Yeah. So, you recommend a zoning assignment and whether the plan of services meets our needs. Okay. Well, then if order doesn't matter, then I'll stick with that first motion. So I make a motion to approve the plan of services as presented. Second. We have a we have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Um seeing none, Miss Holds, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bumgardner, yes. Commissioner Dagenheart, yes. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Commissioner me, yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Vice Chairman Kelly, yes. Chairman Denton, yes.

Motion passes. Thank you. Would you like to make the second motion? I'll also make a motion to approve the zoning assignment as requested. I'll second that motion. We have a motion and a second. Miss Hold, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge? Yes. Commissioner Bumgardner? No. Commissioner Dagenheart, yes. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Commissioner me, yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Vice Chairman Kelly, yes. Chairman Denton, yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, that completes that. That completes agenda item 7.1. Um, so moving on to agenda item 7.2, two, which is the re reason resoning of 30009 South Greenwood Drive. Heath

Good evening, chairman, vice chairman, commissioners. My name is Ethan Martin. I'm planner with the Johnson City Cities Planning Division. For this presentation here, we'll be discussing a uh reszoning for a a parcel that is within Washington County, but within Johnson City's planning boundary. So, president with us tonight is also representative from Washington County's planning office uh for any questions we have throughout the process. So, we're at the planning commission here this evening uh for a recommendation and public hearing and it'll be taken on to Washington County's planning commission beyond this point. The quest before you this evening from Washington County is a one parcel at seven under 7 and a half acres located in Washington County. It is uh currently R1 which is low density residential district. This is Washington Countyy's districts and they want to request a reszoning to an A1 which is general agricultural district and the reason for this is to allow an accessory dwelling unit for personal use on the property without subdivision. So this is where family members would be for personal use on the property. So current zoning here surround the area and I'll just preface the asterric on some of the zonings that is for Washington County zonings. Uh but within there are likes for residential much as our own. So our current zoning is R1, adjacent is R1, R4 and RP3. The requested zoning is A1. The current land use is single residents and this lot is surrounded by residential use on all sides. This slide here just depicts the difference between Washington County zoning and Johnson City zoning. um color codes are very similar for yellow for residential and green for agriculture. So if you marry the two overlays together, you'll see it's um adjoining residential on all sides, but there is agriculture in the background primarily on the southern southern rim.

So zoning and future land use plan is uh from R1 A1 will allow for accessory dwelling units in Washington County as well as single family, two family dwellings. The intent of the A1 zoning district in Washington County is to provide locations for urbanization that are compatible with agriculture uses as well as low density residential development within Johnson City's Horizon 2045 plan. The future land use map has this place type as rural residential use. And you can see on the on the scales on the chart there below, it is as far to the left for residential type uh open space as far to uh the right for very rural um and um basically for larger lots with homes on homes on larger lots I should say. The recommendation before the commission this evening is to um propose resonance is consistent with horizon 2045 growth management plan as a place type for the property is rural residential and zoning is consistent with the character of that place type and the proposed zoning district supports the development of housing choices that reflect compatibility of scale and creation of place as defined in the future land use plan. Any questions for staff or Washington County staff?

Members of the uh members of the commission, what is the accessory dwelling unit? It sounds like a she said shed. Well, the zoning application from Washington or what? It's a mother-in-law suite. What is it? A detached mother-in-law suite. Oh, okay. Cool. Mean you can't do that in the existing zone? Not in that district. Not in that in the R1 district. That's kind of surprising. Any other questions of city staff or Washington County staff for that matter?

Okay, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing section of this agenda item. Is there anyone here to speak to this matter? Good evening, ma'am. Good evening. I'm Jane Butcher. Live at 30009 South Greenwood Drive. Thank you. I am requesting to have the mother-in-law suite. I love my mother-in-law, but I don't want her in my house. No, just being honest.

This is on TV. Hopefully she's not watching. But um I'm requesting it since I have so much land and I'm going to put her to the back side. So it's not going to change anything on the front. It won't change any aspects of the rule situation that we have already. Any questions? Um, as you're the applicant, um, was that was that were that those all your comments, ma'am? Were those all your comments? Yes.

Sorry. Does anyone as you're the applicant, does anyone on the commission have any questions for the applicant? No more details about mother-in-law? No. Okay. Do you plan to abide by the setbacks off the property lines as you would any other structure? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. Will there will there be a diff a Will there be additional driveways or are you just going to tie into the same? It's going to tie into the existing driveway and um the only thing that's probably going to be separate is the electric. We'll probably stay with the um septic and water that we have.

All right. Thank you very much, ma'am. Thank you. Yeah. Is is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item? Okay, seeing no one else, we will close the public hearing section of this meeting. Uh ladies and gentlemen, the commissioner, I think this is um back to back to us. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Chairman, I feel like this is a pretty straightforward and reasonable request and it's consistent with the future land use plan. So, I'll recommend approval of the resoning as requested. Thank you. I'll second it. Thank you. Do we have a motion and a second? Um, Miss, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge,

yes. Commissioner Bum Bumgardner, yes. Commissioner Dagenheart, yes. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Commissioner me, yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Vice Chairman Kelly, yes. Chairman Denton, yes. Mission motion passes. Thank you. Okay, moving on to 7.3. Welcome back, Keith. The proposed text amendments, Washington County zoning resolution sections 601, 602, and 64.

I apologize, not Keith. I should have been reading presenting for the pl uh planning manager presenting um this item. the Washington County um staff approached us about um a text amendment that they would like to do for uh just to clean up some clean up some language around accessory structures. You can find that in your staff report. Um what it does is it also adds um and makes it clear that accessory structures are allowed in the A2 as kind of how their system follows. staff is in the audience if you have specific questions about their um text amendment. But um this is something that would this isn't something that would fit into the future land use map as far as the policies that we have for providing addition for providing ways for people to use their land.

Thank you, Miss Soldiers.

Okay, any questions? Any questions? Washington County? Nope. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, this is a an item that does come with a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this item this evening? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public hearing for this um for this item. Um, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, this matter is um for us. Is are there any any questions? Is there any discussion? I reviewing reviewing the text amendment myself, I found it pretty straightforward, but I actually did have a question for staff if they're available audience. Mr. McNab, Mr. McNamer, um my question relates to uh 604.1.4.4 um that appears to I'm sorry, 604.1.4.3 4.3 um that appears to strike from the code the use of purely residential for ADUs. Is that the intent? And is that also consistent with A1 and A2 zoning currently?

So you're referencing the customary accessory buildings used for residential uses only. Correct. Uh that is actually within the definition of an accessory building. So it would go for any accessory building in any district. Um, why it's specifically called out in the R1, I'm not exactly sure, but we wanted to clear up that confusion to make sure in other zoning districts where accessory buildings are permitted, they're also under that same restriction. Okay. So, someone in a residential district R2 or R1, excuse me, they could have a structure run a commercial enterprise out of it.

They could not. So within the definition, it restricts commercial and industrial storage for an accessory structure. Uh within residential districts, you cannot have a shed and run a business out of it. You would need a commercial property for that. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay, back to us again. Any further discussion? Is there a motion? Wait a minute. I punched my button that time. Well, well done, Commissioner. Thank Thank you. I struggle with that. Uh, Mr. Chairman, see, this is a straightforward uh request or um I move that it be approved as presented.

Thank you. Is there a second? I second that. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Miss, would you call the role? Commissioner Aldridge? Yes. Commissioner Bumgardner? Yes. Commissioner Dagenheart? Yes. Commissioner Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Meade? Yes. Commissioner West Morland. Yes. Commissioner Williams. Yes. Vice Chairman Kelly. Yes. Chairman Dutton. Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. Okay. Um that concludes 7.3. 7.4 has been deferred. Um so moving on to agenda 7.5. another um with this time of zoning code text amend text amendment um um amending articles six and um 11 regarding parking standards for B3 um and WWD. Yes, Mundy. Thank you.

Good evening. Tonight, uh this one is a proposed tax amendment for parking requirements in the B3 uh which is supporting central business district and the West Walnut District. The timeline for us tonight is recommendation of uh planning commission and if moved forward it would have a public hearing at June 18th city commission with a final decision on July 2nd. The request was brought forward by Christ Community Church and they requested that staff look at the parking requirements so that they would it would allow for them and similar non-residential properties in the B3 and West Walnut to continue to operate without having to meet existing parking requirements. And this was brought forth um because the church is wanting to do an addition on their property and currently there is no on-site parking. And so on-site parking is a requirement currently in the West Walnut district. You can have off-site parking as a special exception, but no more no more than 50% of your off-site parking can be um no more than 50% of your parking can be offsite. So they would have to come into conformity due to this addition and them much like a lot of other properties on B3 and West Walnut do not have the space to provide parking. So with that staff looked at changes to the B3 and West Walnut district for both residential uses and non-residential uses and that is the changes that we are proposing tonight. So this map just shows kind of the property areas. The peach colored red is your B3s and your West Walnut districts in the orange. And the intent of these districts is to support the downtown areas while providing residential,

commercial, and other institutional uses that would support downtown commercial, the university and other uses as well. So similarly as I was saying the property in question is depicted here but you can see on the map this is just a block of the West Walnut and B3 area. Um with the setbacks that these districts have there really aren't any. So these lots have been built to the maximum showing that there would be no room for additional parking if new uses or additions or renovations were made where buildings had to be brought into conformity per six section 6.34.6 this is in the West Walnut district specifically where the offsite parking uh can be approved as a special exception through the BZA. it shall not exceed 50% and due to it being a special exception this request cannot be granted a variance um because it has to meet conditions or it does not meet those those conditions. So the proposed text that staff has provided

I'm sorry. Could you repeat what you just said?

So because off parking off-site parking is a special exception that's granted by the board of zoning appeals, it cannot be granted a variance. So it has to meet those requirements. So the existing language and this is provided in the staff report as well of 11.2.15. Uh, and this is similar because staff made changes to the this parking area last year. Um, but we allowed for existing buildings in the B3 um to not have to provide additional parking in those specific circumstances as depicted here. And so the proposed that we're changing is to have for in West Walnut non-residential uses. So this would be commercial institutional that are permitted in these areas, the B3, the West Walnut. um to not have to meet those required parking spaces. This is for any new or existing buildings and for downtown your B2. So B2 is not being touched in this um amendment and they don't have parking requirements anyways, but the B3 and West Walnut District do have uh residential parking requirements that is similar to citywide. It they have the same requirements as an R2 or RP3. So with that, staff wanted to kind of look at promoting residential growth in the downtown areas as well. And so we're pro uh proposing Thank you. um a reduced parking amount for single and two family to one space per unit and for multif family your apartments to a half space per unit. And this is just it broken down further. And that's to allow for new businesses and existing businesses to come into the area and not have to uh provide or find additional space to park. And also encouraging that residential growth downtown with those reduced parking areas.

So staff would recommend approval of this amendment due to it bringing in businesses and kind of making the West Walnut District and B3 more appropriate for existing development and future residential development. And there is a public hearing tonight as well. Thank you. Are there any questions? Stal I have a question. How are you defining multif family for this area? Are you defining multif family as any anything two or more?

So it's the multif family that's defined in the zoning code. So it would be anything that is outside of a duplex. So triplex, quadplex, uh your apartments and so forth. Multif family is defined in the zone. you have an estimate of the uh inventory of multif family in this in the in the in the area you're got in mind for this code. I do not have a current inventory now. Do you have a guesstimate of inventory of existing or proposed existing multif family? I would have to get back to you on that. I would not have that number. Okay. Thank you. I'm uncomfortable with one half of a space for m each multif family

and we looked at uh surrounding areas such as Knoxville, Greenville um kind of sister cities to Johnson City and they were within a 1/2 to 3/4 to one space per multif family. And what's the current requirement right now? It is our zoning code permits up to it could be one space, it could be.8 eight spaces depending on the square footage and bedrooms of that multif family somewhere between 08 to one corre yes okay okay to two as well some multif family have two spaces

Miss Pudney I had a question is more of a matter of procedure um if I wanted to vote to delay this piece of agenda because I felt that the residential uses for parking for B3 and WWD required a workshop. Could we vote on that in the future as separate two separate agenda items or would it have to be verbatim as as we're seeing it right now on our agenda? So, you're talking about uh pulling out the residential and non-residential, correct? I believe and when you can jump in here,

we would one this this come this came to you um kind of in the non-traditional way. We don't often get text amendments from an applicant. Mostly they are either something that comes from staff planning commission um somewhere like that. So we needed to bring this forward on a certain timeline. Um we would recommend that it stay together because we wouldn't want to have one piece of it to go forward and one piece of it to stay behind. So just for consistency, we would just say because they are related, we would prefer that they stay together.

Yeah, I I I feel I agree. I I feel that would be the appropriate thing to do is if if we if we think we need more time to to grapple with with this item, then the appropriate motion would be to simply defer the item um to a future agenda item subject to having completed a working um work session on it beforehand. Thank you, Commissioner Dutton and Miss Hodgers. Any further questions of staff?

I did have one more question. Miss Budney, um the applicant mentioned that they're they have parking challenges. They're in a design overlay district. Have they if they were to reach out to one of their neighbors on Asht Street and any other business that might be there, is that something that you would I mean not you the city would mandate that parking minimum if they were to say I'm parking on my neighbor's lot on Sunday or Wednesday or whenever they might have programming. Is that something that is within the city's perview? So that would we do have a joint parking agreement section of the zoning code and the off- premise side of the zoning code, but you they'd still have to be able to come into conformity with providing at least 50% of their parking on site. I see. Thank you.

Okay. Um seeing no further questions immediately for staff, I think perhaps we'll move to the public hearing section of this agenda item. Um is there anyone who would like to speak to it? There is. Yep.

Good. Good evening neighbors. Uh my name is Andrew Julie and I'm here for Christ Community Church, the non-residential part of the code. So we have been having great conversations with the staff, not really me, but the architect firm. I'm just kind of here as a member of the congregation. Tree Street resident who loves the West West Walnut Street district. I think we're kind of just pushing the envelope honestly on what's going to end up happening if you want that West Walnut to develop the way that we think the city wants to develop. We just have been working on this project for about two to three years now and we're hoping for a groundbreaking in September. Uh we it's going to be about a $7 million project. We've uh got pledges on 4.3 million. So this is our kind of last step. Uh and this yes or no kind of decides the whole project. So, if you guys give us a no, then we're done. Uh, because there's nothing we can do. Obviously, you've seen the lot. You've seen the lot. Uh, we've got about 400 members. Um, and it's an exciting time and we love being downtown and we plan on being there for a while. I don't need a parking spot because I walk to church, but not everybody can do that. So, h really all of the readings is from the staff in terms of their expertise and how we going to get this done and we've had great conversations with them. So, I'm happy to answer any questions from the church perspective. Regarding the parking, we do have agreements with the plasma center and summers hardware, but if we count the current city lot, that's about 238 spots. The new sanctuary per the code requires to have 108 spots for for four seats per spot. So, it's going to be about 432 seats in the new sanctuary. So, but yeah, happy answering questions.

Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this matter? Okay. Seeing none, the public hearing section of this agenda item is closed. Members of the commission, the discussion is back to us.

Like to I'll make some comments. Um, first I want to commend staff for working so diligently um on what you proposed. I know you did a lot of research with some of the sister cities that we have, not only in the Tri Cities, but outside of it. Um, parking will continue to be a challenge in downtown and in the West Walnut Street District. And this is something that we've talked about addressing uh at some point in time. And lo and behold, we have uh a request before us. I I've reviewed it and I'll be voting in support of it. I do understand the concern about um a halfacre space per dwelling unit, but it it is lowering that threshold and not increasing it. And if we feel like that's going to be a deterrent, we can always come back and amend this text amendment to um in the future. So, I'll be voting in the affirmative tonight. Feel comfortable enough with it. I think we need to do a little analysis in terms of understanding the impact on the residential uh side of our community to understand if we're going to be pushing people out of living accommodations who depend on their transportation to be able to get to and from work. if they're dependent on that transportation and they're going to lose their parking capacity. Uh I don't know how I don't know what we're doing to these people that depend on having to have a have access to transportation to get to and from work if they're not going to have access to a parking space.

You So you're concerned that the lowering of the um availability of parking would impact their availability downtown? Yeah, I I'd like to understand how much multif family we're talking about. uh we don't really I'm not sure we've got a clear handle on what impact we're having to some portion of our living community in in downtown Johnson City right now. So I think we probably need to take some workshop time on this

an item. Thank you for those comments and I think I I probably you know from there there are some noting that there are some multif family developments downtown relatively small multif family developments but there are still some multif family developments downtown with a decent number of units where there is no on-site you know where there is no parking um so I mean I think the the half parking space I think staff's research is reflective of certainly what my experience has been in other in other districts and it is in somewhat of a commercial decision for the developer, too, because if they're going to if they don't have parking, that can be an impediment to to sales to um to to leasing to leasing certain units. So, I uh I probably I'm closer to M Commissioner Williams on this and I think I would I would I would support um I would I would support both. Um I'm happy with the with it as with as as written. Now having said that, Winnie, I'm going to ask the question. You know, I know we we discussed um recently. What I'm what I'm hearing across the um across DIS up here is that everyone's comfortable with the non-residential section. So, if we fractured that out and got that and and recommended approval on that text amendment here, we could at least give the church some certainty. um as as far as their project is concerned. How do we just asking the question again? How do we feel about that from a procedural perspective?

I'm going to defer to Miss Bell. Procedurally, we could the commission could approve just a portion of it and ask that the rest be reserved. Okay. Um it is doable. Okay. So the motion would sound something in in that case the motion would sound something like that we would um in this case recommend approval um of the um of the text uh for the non-residential subject to and defer the residential um text amendment until after a uh we've had the opportunity to workshop it. Correct. I think the only thing that I would ask is somewhere in the motion that those still go together to city commission. I wouldn't want to take half of this to city commission and the other half a month later.

Okay. So, sure. Just procedurally because go through the three meetings. Okay. Thank you for answering that exciting question.

I'd like to clarify that we I would ask staff if they could quantify the the inventory of multif family in in the in the in the area of Johnson City that is impacted. if they could do some research to quantify that impact and come back to us and by next month where we could amend our amendment our our motion and perhaps complete the action next month to approve the whole thing and that would be another option there to bringing it back for but then amending it again subsequently. Okay. Does staff have a preference for that? As we're getting creative with our motioning here,

my only preference is that they all go together to to city commission. I don't want to have to end up because it's it's unfair to the church to have to remember which which reading we're on. So that's the So if if you want to do it in whole or part so that they understand that um their section is move that that the part that impacts them the most um that you recommend approval for it or it maybe just knowing that right now is enough for them um as this moves forward. Okay. Would someone like just take a crack at a motion?

I'll try. I'll make a motion to approve the text amendment for non-residential as presented and to recommend that the residential tax amendment be further studied at the June workshop. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. Looking around, I don't see any further comments. Um, Miss, would you call the role? Commissioner Aldridge. Yes. Commissioner Bumgardner, yes. Commissioner Dagenheart, yes. Miss Commissioner Goodson, yes. Commissioner me,

yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Vice Chairman Kelly, yes. Chairman Denton, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Uh, just as a clarification, that workshop will be when? June.

The June prior to the June meeting. Yeah. Thank you. You're doing a yman's job as scribe tonight and answering questions. Okay. Uh which brings us to agenda item 7.6. Um a uh requesting allowance to use unlisted secondary tertiary um materials for proposed construction of 400 Ash Street Christ Community Church. This is going to be same property, same location, just another feature of their construction project they're looking to receive an allowance for. So this will be a request to use a listed tertiary material as a secondary material that is not listed. Uh so it's already listed as a tertiary as a secondary. So we kind of move it into a secondary uh for your consideration for usage. The reason is to mask a required exterior stairwell and a mechanical yard as part of a proposed construction project. So on the architect's rendering here, you'll see on the right hand side uh there's a structure with some some horizontal slats going up. That will be an exterior stairwell that will be added to the theuh existing structure here as part of their expansion and it'll be made of the aluminum wood grain material you see above it depicted from the manufacturer's website there and also as well kind of extend past it to enclose in some mechanical heating and cooling equipment on the outside. So current B3 we previously discussed it is in a design overlay. It is adjacent to be B4 and is actually across the street to the right of it. You can see it's in historical district there right there. So just for context.

So in article 630.3 C uh secondary materials can have a maximum use of 20%. If it's not listed is materials not listed is requested they can submit a request to staff for consideration by the planning commission which is why we're here this evening. So tertiary materials currently have a maximum 5% usage. Uh but it is architectural metal is the material that they're wishing to use. So our request this evening again is to move that tertiary to a secondary use. Proposed material from the architect is a aluminum metal panel with a wood grain finish designed for screening and enclosures is approved tertiary material and would maintain the intent of the design overlay if allowed as a secondary material. The proposed material has a life expectancy of 50 years and has been used uh architecturally for the last 15 years. It is an architectural grade aluminum with a high performance powder coating finish and the wood pattern is heat transferred into the powder coat. Here's some of the pictures you saw earlier up top of the the planking themselves. And what they haven't made a hard decision on, but this is the family group of colors you'll see and outlined in red. Uh that's the ones that they're they're they're looking to consider for this project. And then again on the left is a rendering that we showed you earlier. And this is a picture that staff took of the actual site today. As you can see the context of the red brick itself and the awning. So this uh stairwell would be just behind that awning and go vertical from that point. And this is another rendering from the architect, not in color, but it does give you a good side view in rear view of what it would be enclosing in masking. So you see the stairwell, the tallers or the horizontal, and then the uh mechanicals um to the right of it there.

And I would like to read something else the architect sent just for basis. I'm not an architect. Uh but he did add this verbage to all to consider is the the wood finish complements the building's overall design which figures features brick, wood and glass reflecting its historical nature. A large component of the existing building's finishes especially on the interior is wood. So just want to pass that information on for consideration. So the decisions tonight is to approve the alternate secondary material as requested tonight or action certainly pending additional information. So I believe someone from the church may be able to speak to this as well. The architect is out of South Carolina, but um obviously I'm here for your questions.

Thank you very much. Uh questions of either staff or the architect. So I' I've got a question for staff or the architect. Uh this is a fire escape or is it? Yes, this this is a required uh stairwell that would be required once they add on to the building itself. Okay. So this is just aesthetics. This doesn't affect this conceal the the exterior stairwell. Yes. It would still be a crash bar. You show the door on that. So there's a crash bar for egress purposes. I mean it has to be building code. That' be code question but yeah I would imagine be in egress egress. Thanks. Unless anyone else has more information on the street. Yes. You want to come on up.

It is not lost on me that the color selections are all varieties of walnut. So, well well played there.

Well, I I believe again I'm not the experts on any of these matters, but we're not required to enclose that, but that is part of the West Walnut pass uh walking corridor that you guys spent a lot of money on. We So we would like to enclose it and that's way more cost effective. It's not going to warp. It's going to last 50 years. It's easy to clean. Uh it's going to you guys can tell from the picture that's the it's going to look really good with the investment that put you guys have put in. So it's not it's one of the things we want to add that we're not having to add and we probably wouldn't add the wood just because it's of the cost. So did I understand you to say this is a fire escape or it's for regular use? It's a fire escape.

Okay. I do compliment you on masking a fire escape. Yeah. Well, we don't we uh have been watching the construction for 5 years and super grateful to be where we're at. So, we want to make sure we're complimenting that and not uh being an eyesore. I think you're making a good choice. Thank you. Yeah. We appreciate that. Thank you. Sheen,

I'll just make a comment that is at the bottom of u page well page three of this agenda item that this material is an approved tertiary material. It's just that we're increasing it to a secondary. I think it's a great project and I look forward to seeing its completion. I'm familiar with the start of product as well. I think it's a great product. It's durable. It's going to look good for um for a long time. To provide a little context and history, we had some discussions about these overlays in the past and we did we did not choose to move some of these things up to t to secondary just because we didn't want to open uh too much discussion and debate about what materials we would move up or move down. We chose to put these off and take these up at these time types of situations. So, u I appreciate the opportunity to do this and I will make a motion that we approve this uh use of a second uh secondary material tertiary material. Move it up to an secondary material to be used up to 20%.

I'll second it. Thank you. We have a motion second. Um any further discussion? Seeing none, soldiers, would you call the role? I want to clarify something in the motion. Do you mean just for this particular We are only talking about this particular case, not all cases. Yes, I mean for this particular application. Clarify that. Sorry. Uh, Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bumgardner, yes. Commissioner Dagenheart, yes. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Commissioner me, yes. Commissioner West Morland, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Vice Chairman Kelly, yes. Chairman Denton. Yes. Thank you.

Mission motion passes. Thank you very much. Okay. And for our last item on the agenda, um 7.7, the resoning of 1170 West Mountain View Road. Um let the record show that I have a conflict of interest and we'll recuse myself from discussion and voting on this particular item. Vice Chairman Kelly is going to take us through this agenda item.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Hey, good evening. For last uh the agenda item this evening is a resoning of a property in the Johnson City boundary at 1170 West Mountain View Road. We're here this evening that planning commission the public hearing and if it passes this evening moving on to first, second, third readings. Uh we the signs have been placed on the property. Letters have been sent. A neighbor meeting was held and the request is for one parcel of just over nine and a half acres from R3 to R4 both in medium density and this is to accommodate a proposed development of 120 multif family town home community. Current zoning is R3. The adjacent zoning uh does vary. There are a few Washington County districts u adjoining this parcel itself uh toward the the south and towards the west. Those are A1 and B3. Surrounding that within the city is is residential as well as 1B4. The site is vacant. It is cleared. It is residential to the north and to the east and of course to the south as stated earlier for it current land use. The concept plan submitted does meet the standards of the R4 zoning district. It creates 120 multif family town home residences. It will be one primary entrance off of West Mountain View Road and because of the size, the concept plan is laying on its side. So it would north would be on the left side there. So the West Mountain View Road is what you see on the right side right here is West Mountain View Road right here. So the entrance would actually marry up adjacent across the street from an existing entrance in the area. There would be a del lane and some other features will bring up the traffic study, but there are a dedicated stop lane here as well as a dedicated right turn lane as well.

There's a gated emergency entrance off of Fink Drive, which I'll talk to a little bit more later. Um but it does attach to or access a county road fin drive right here on the north part of the property. Far as the comp planet plan itself its current density is seven units per acre and as 03 would have 66 units possible to be built on it. Uh proposed is 12.6 units per acre. that would be 120 units as requested and um within R4 zone to R4 its maximum could be 14 units per acre or 133. So this is under the maximum it could have for R4 as presented. Water and sewer services are available. Schools do have adequate capacity at all three schools. And just to add this here, u there is a current bus stop here across the street. So with the del lane in the entrance here, uh there is a uh existing bus stop here and Johnson City Transit is also in discussions uh with um how to increase um some bus stops in the area here to bring this subdivision up to this area here to kind of increase it to one bus stop collectively for this area. So that is something that is in talks for the future. Traffic study was conducted and it did say that there were only minor impacts at the intersections. As spoken earlier, it did recommend a stop sign in a right turn lane at the proposed intersection off of uh West Mountain View Road. There will be a deceleration lane and it did site the current delays that are already ongoing u at the intersection there at West Mountain View Road and Knob Creek Road that would be expected to be improved once the T DOT widening project is completed. The fire apparatus access road is will be at 20 foot wide and that's on the north side of the property here inside

this red circle here. Um this emergency access gate will be gated with a box only accessible by emergency personnel. It does meet all fire code requirements and Washington County was informed of the propo proposed access road and the owner developer responsible for any road improvements the county would deem necessary attached into think drive does meet the future land use map for horizon 2045 as neighborhood mixed use and it is leaning towards multif family neighborhood medium was held held um but no one was in attendance on that evening as we didn't have anyone show up for the meeting that night. Staff recommends approval of proposed resoning based on following rationale is consistent with the future land use map and the R4 district is similar to the surrounding area and provides an adequate transitional zone from the RP4 and R5 zoning to the east. Smith Kelly.

Thank you. Appreciate the presentation. Commissioners, any questions for this time? I have a question. Does Road have an outlet going into op outside going out? It's a dead end. It's a dead end. I thought it was. So, thank you. And any improvements to think would be from the entrance to the to winter to uh Mountain View. Correct.

Well, there's some improvements. There's already kind of an existing detail in there already across where it is right now, but there'll have to be some improvements basically coming off the widening project of that way. So if there's any if building phase does move forward at the same time the widing project obviously that'll be something that'll be responsible for that. But the the traffic report didn't indicate any improvements to that other than the del lane and the dedicated stop lane and right turn lane on a west mountain view. But on think there would be improvements on think from the connection down to Mountain View.

No, not this time. I mean that's between the county and the developer and that's where they're they are they'll stay in close contact with the county on that. But right now the county is aware of it. We've included them in this process to get feedback and um the architect is is is communicating with them on think on think drive it's just it's just an emergency gated right so it's not going to be accessed all the time just in case there's an emergency correct you mentioned a bus stop there across the street that's correct that's existing yes and they were looking at expanding that where do school buses stop?

I don't know exactly where they stop here. I imagine they would stop on maybe on the right side of the street or north depending on what school they're going to. I'm not sure exactly where they would they stop on the right side or the left side. So, I guess my question would be can school buses get into this neighborhood or are they going to have to stop on Mountain View? If we understand from transit, the kids would walk to the bus stop across the street over here. Okay. There would have be an additional stop on their side of the street. To further answer that, those are private roads. So they would they the school buses would stay on public roads. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Would anybody like to come up and speak?

Hello, Josh Whitlock, 108 Drive. Uh we have a very small group there. Uh, I love my neighbors and uh wanted to say that the main concerns that we have about this are the are the traffic and the construction. Uh, currently West Market View is being expanded to three lanes and thank you for that. I'm looking forward to the sidewalks very much. Uh I'm also looking forward to Knob Creek being expanded to four lanes starting in 2027. Uh that's going to be fantastic as well, but the concerns there are that it's going to have a lot of congestion uh while we're building these uh town homes. Uh I I am very happy to hear that it will be a gated uh access on road. Uh but the one thing that I would really appreciate is on the plan you can see that there is a line of privacy trees for uh for a neighbor at the top. It would be great if we could have a line of privacy trees along Fink Drive as well. Not just for us but for also the new apartments there. Uh and I think that that oh yeah the the other concern that we have is that our private well uh our dead end street is going to be used as a staging for this kind of construction because that's what is already occurring at with this road construction that's been going on. We've had city trucks that are parking along there during the day and uh there's currently some construction to for the sewer lines across the street. And uh the past two weeks, you know, I've had

difficulty being able to get to my house because both sides of the road have been closed off. I've had to navigate through there. So I have been able to get there but that is the concern is that as this construction is going on that I will have extreme difficulty getting home and leaving my home. So those are my concerns. Thank you very much. Thank you sir.

Looks like we've got somebody else coming up. Thank you. My name is Arthur Bellinger. I live at 3410 Brookar Circle. Um my concern is the transition we have currently. If you look at West Mountain View along that corridor, it's pretty much all R1 and R2 and then it jumps to business. And now you're asking us to transition from an R1, R2 to an R4 immediately and then to the business. And typically R3 is used as a transition zone, which it is currently zone for. And I'd ask that you keep it as a transition zone so that going from R1, R2, we're not jumping immediately to R4 along that side of Mount View. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any other comments? Chad Serell, 1200 Addison Court, Piny Flats. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Um, I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Um, so the West Mountain View project is being developed by Foundation South, uh, partnership of five local business people, all with broad real estate development experience here in the community. Uh, our mission uh, for Foundation South is to develop high-quality family oriented town homes in Northeast Tennessee. We're developing projects to own and operate ourselves. We don't plan on selling them. U, we and our families, we live here. Our businesses are here. Uh we take pride in the projects uh that we do and collectively we have invested deeply in the community for years. For this particular project, it's proposed as as you heard from Mr. Martin 120 units. It'll consist of two and threebedroom highquality family oriented town homes for rent. Uh the three-bedroom units of which there'll be 46 in total will all have garages. And the project will be lightly amenitized for residents uh including a green space, a play structure, and also a dog park. Our focus is on delivering a high quality living experience for tenants. And so our units are going to have 9 foot ceilings on the lower level. We'll have large windows, quartz countertops, uh and also focus on curb appeal. The project, as you heard, sits on 9.5 acres directly opposite these two higher density developments, Universal's Mountain View project and the Knob Creek Apartments. uh 326 and 372 units respectively. Uh our proposed project uh is going to be buffered from the R2 single family to the north there on Fink Drive. U we do have plans for that. Uh when we do not propose as you heard to use uh Finink for anything but emergency access to

minimize the impact uh to the neighbors there existing uh there on Fink. The property to the south is commercial and the property to the west is agriculture. All adjacent properties will be appropriately buffered. Um and also as has already been discussed, the Horizon 2045 future land use map place type for the property is neighborhood mixeduse, which contemplates multif family projects of similar or higher density than what we're proposing. Um the proposed project here is less dense than the other existing multif family uses along mountain view and its two-story configuration that we've conceived will not be out of context with or imposed upon the single family resident development. I think uh estimated start of construction would be spring of 2027 with uh delivery of first units uh and occupancy in spring of 2028. That's the prepared remarks I have. happy to try to field any questions that the commission has.

Any questions? Applicant, I had a question. One of the applicants listed on this agenda item is a Baptist church. Um, would the future residents, if this were to be approved, be exempt or pay lower than market rate property taxes since you are working with a nonprofit sort of status? Not to my knowledge that we would have any type of lower property tax exemption. That hasn't been discussed or contemplated. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I just want to confir You mentioned that all units were duplexes town houses. Two stories. Yes, sir. Two story. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions? Okay, then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. I might have jumped the gun there. Are there any other people who would like to come up and speak? Okay, now we're really closing the public hearing. Um, okay. Commissioners, any comments, questions amongst ourselves?

I'll I'll start. I I um I hear the concern about uh the reszoning from R3 to R4 uh particularly when you have some uh single family residential neighborhoods uh just north of this property. However, when you look at the totality of that area, um almost that entire area is going to be in that R4 multifamily uh project that I think this project will be consistent with. Um I feel like the city has a plan to address the traffic issues. Um this is consistent with the future land use plan. Uh, so I'll be voting in support of this project.

I likewise feel like it fits a real strong need in our community for this type of housing. Uh, I think it's going to be a good quality product. I think it's going to add a need fill a need that our community needs to provide a price point housing that is in desperate uh, desperately driven by the influx of people in our community. and I'll be voting in favor of it. Would anybody care to make a motion? Sure, I'll make a motion to approve it.

I'm not as fancy as you are, Robert, on the motions. Could you clarify your motion, please? Commissioner Goodson, would you clarify your motion? I'd like to make a motion to approve the zoning as designated in the staff recommendation. Thank you, sir. How's that? Great. I'll second the motion. Miss Hodgees, will you call the role? Commissioner Aldridge? Yes. Commissioner Bumgardner? No. Commissioner Dagenheart? Yes. Commissioner Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Meade? Yes. Commissioner West Morland? Yes. Commissioner Williams.

Yes. Vice Chairman Kelly. Yes. Motion passes. And it's back to you, Chairman. Thank you. Excellent job, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Um, any reports, committee business to discuss this evening? There is none. Okay. Hearing none. Next item on the agenda