Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the September 9th, 2025 Johnson City Regional Planning Commission meeting. If you are here to speak during the public hearing hearing portion of the agenda, please wait until the chairman has opened the public hearing. Once opened, one person at a time may come to the podium to be recognized. Please speak clearly into the microphone and begin by giving your name and address. Then each person will be allowed three minutes to speak. We ask you to address the uh commission only and the uh public hearing is only for items that are on the agenda before us evening. this evening. We now uh call the meeting to order and the time is 6 pm. Uh so first item of business. Um Mr. Commissioner Williams, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge, please?

Yes, please pray with me. Father, we thank you for this day and we thank you for your love and your undeserving grace. We thank you for the opportunity to serve and we ask for your guidance and wisdom as we make decisions for our city and our region. We ask that you continue to pour your blessings down upon this city and we ask all these things in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Williams. Okay, first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Has everyone had the opportunity to review the agenda? Are there any changes? Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda. Thank you. We have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Um, approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Has everyone had the opportunity to review the minutes? Are there any changes to those minutes? Mr. Chairman, I've had the opportunity to review the minutes. I see no changes that need to be made. So, I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

Thank you. We have a motion. Would anyone like to second? Thank you, Commissioner Aldridge. Okay. Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Thank you very much. The minutes are approved. Okay. Okay, we now um this is now the public comment portion of the uh of the meeting. Do we have anyone registered for public comment this evening? I neglected to ask that of you first. Thank you, Heather. No one here to speak to anything on the agenda. So, we will move on um to the consent agenda. Um has everyone had a chop the opportunity was one item on the consent agenda tonight, which is the Clinchfield Street dedication and bond release. Does do we need to pull that? Is there any discussion on that? Not. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Um all those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Um moving on to new business. Um, the first item for our for discussion this evening is a proposed text amendment to the Washington County zoning resolution regarding electronic message boards and Mr. McNamer is already up at the podium.

Thank you, sir. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Bryce McNamer, planner one with the planning division. This item for your consideration this evening is a text amendment to the Washington County zoning resolution. Uh this is concerning the sign regulations. The process for Washington County text amendments requires a recommendation from all three planning commissions as well as this planning commission um to forward a recommendation to the Washington County Commission on the item. Jonesboro and Washington County Planning Commissions have previously reviewed this and have unanimous unanimously recommended approval. The final action will be done at the Washington County Commission meeting on September 22nd. This proposal is staff initiated by the Washington County staff and is changes to section 510.11 to allow electronic message board signage for all government buildings, schools, and churches. The full text is included in the packet this evening. However, all of the proposed changes are on this slide here shown in the red and green colors. Uh, the Washington County Planning Director, Andy Charles, is here for any further questions.

Thank you, Mr. McNamer. Does anyone have any questions of staff? No, I'd like to make a motion to go ahead and approve the text amendment to the Washington County zoning resolution. One second. I believe this is a public hearing. At this point, there's just any if there are no questions. If there are no questions of staff, then we can close that portion and uh open the uh open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this matter on the agenda this evening? Angie, would you like to

No. Okay. Seeing no um uh no speakers this evening, we'll close the uh public hearing. Thank you very much. Any questions of staff or discussion among ourselves?

This seems like a pretty straightforward request um that would aid in the goals of Washington County's, you know, advertising within within the county parameters. So, um I will go ahead and make a motion to approve the text amendment to the Washington County zoning as proposed. I'll second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Um Heather, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bomb Bumgardner, yes. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Mayor Hunter, yes. Commissioner Kelly, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Vice Chairman Dutton, yes. Motion has passed.

Thank you very much, Mr. McLamer. Thank you. Uh so the next item on our agenda is the abandonment of public right ofway at the intersection of South R Street and East Highland. Miss Pudney.

Good evening commission. Just this is a request for a rightaway abandonment at the intersection of South R Street and East Highland Avenue. As depicted in the red area on the map, it is due to the realignment of East Highland that was conducted and concluded in 2023. So now the portion of the rideway totaling above right above 9,100 square ft is being requested to be abandoned. It is city initiated for abandonment. There are utility and sewer easements being obtained and there were no concerns through any departments um for the reban uh for the abandonment. Staff recommends approval for the rideway abandonment.

Thank you very much Miss Putnney. Are there any questions of staff? There is no public hearing um component to this item and I believe that is discussion among ourselves. Is there any discussion on this item? There seeing none, is there a motion? Okay, I'll make a motion to abandon the public right away at the intersection of South Rome Street and East Highland Road. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Thank you very much. Heather, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bombgardner, yes. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Mayor Hunter, yes. Commissioner Kelly, yes. Commissioner Williams,

yes. Vice Chairman Dutton, yes. Motion has passed. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the Archers Point replat and variance request. Again, Miss Putney.

Yes. Thank you, commissioners. This presentation will give you a rundown of kind of the timeline of the original requests and approvals and then bring us kind of about why we are here today. So the request in front of the commission is to replplat lot 73R uh on the proposed plan which adds lot 74 replaces that open space to a usable residential lot. In order to do so there would be a variance request to the culde-sac to decrease the diameter from 96 feet which is required to what is existing at 78 ft. The applicant has come forward to the planning commission in December of 2024 with the same request which was denied. The creation of lot 74 would trigger that temp that turnaround culde-sac to be brought up to compliance. In the subdivision regulations, a variance is due to unnecessary hardship or topographical issues that are pertinent to that lot. And if that is deemed adequate, the city engineer can work with the developer to provide uh means to remediate the the issue and come up with a plausible solution. So that is what we are looking at today is if there is a hardship that was not done by the applicant or if there were any topographical or other conditions peculiar to the site. Walking back through the original subdivision plat, the stamped construction plans were approved January 27th, 2023. That shows the temporary turnaround with the correct radius of 48 ft. This would make that diameter of the entire temporary turnaround to 96 feet in diameter. The final plat that was approved by the

planning commission in August of 2024 also indicated the correct temporary turnaround radius and diameter. But due during the asbuilt phase and the bond releasing inspections, city staff was made aware that the culde-sac was not built to the final plat standards and what was allowed and approved. And so the developer submitted a final plat amendment in December of 2024. The final plat amendment is what is depicted in the red rectangle and requested a variance to section 4-2.4.1 4.1 which is the culde-sac requirements to have a diameter of that 78 ft rather than 96 feet. At the time of this request, the culde-sac was already in built and in place. The planning commission denied the variance with reasoning that the horship was self-inflicted as it was built incorrectly and in error. So without that variance request, lot 74 depicted in the red star either had to be removed or the culac had to be brought up to standard. That was the two options. The final plat that was approved December 10th, 2024 eliminated lot 74. So lot 73 was the the main lot and it kept the culde-sac as is with the 78t diameter. That was due to the temporary turnaround section of our subdivision ordinance states that a temporary turnaround shall not be required on a sub street that serves less than two lots. So with the approval, lot 74 was deemed to be served by the north road and only lot 72 and 73 were being served by that culde-sac. So it did not have to meet that requirement of a 48t radius. With the addition of lot 74, it would be brought up to that standard. In June of 2025, the developer replatted

73 to create open space and provide some additional rightaway and easements. This was done administratively since no new residential lots were being proposed. Which brings us back to today in the request where lot 74 is being requested again with the same variance request as well. And that request for lot 74 requires that culde-sac turnaround to be brought up to that standard due to it serving more than two lots. This is an aerial that was provided in the for the December request that shows that a house could be served There we go. Could be served at the culde-sac. It also shows a good representation of the width and limitation of the culde-sac if cars are parked on the side of it. Uh again, the culac was constructed in error and public works and engineering at the time of the original request provided memos that are in your staff reports um that they are here to speak on as well. the those departments can answer any questions regarding their stance on those previous memos. Just to kind of zoom in at what we're looking at and what's being proposed, the culde-sac that's there would not be changing if the variance was to be approved. It would remain at uh 78 ft in diameter where figure 17 of our culde-sac of the subdivision regulations requires that 96 ft diameter which allows for adequate turn radiuses for emergency vehicles um city vehicles, city utility vehicles and so forth. Due to the variance being self-inflicted and the planning commission's previous denial of the variance and no further effort has been made to be brought up to compliance staff recommends denial of the variance requests and s subsequent final plat.

Thank you Mudney. Are there any questions of staff at this time? I might have one. So on the 78 um in diameter, can a a fire truck make that turn? I will refer to the fire department here to answer any fire related questions.

Good afternoon. David Bell. I'm fire chief for the city. Um no ma'am, that really will not our ladder trucks cannot make that turn. Um, as evident today, uh, the interim fire marshall went out today and took some pictures. There was a dumpster there. There's debris that's piled up, different signs and so forth. It's basically made it impossible. He was in a pickup truck and it was challenging to get into the culde-sac. So, a fire truck would not be able to make that turn. Is the dumpster remaining there or I think it's there just for construction. Okay. So, even if it wasn't there, you still couldn't make the turn. It's very We would have to do multiple point turn to be able to get the truck turned around there. Okay. Thank you for any other questions.

Yeah, I have a question on We've got numerous uh culde-sacs that are like T-shaped. Yes, sir. Um you can't make a turn with those. The way those are, they are required to be 60 ft from the midline of the road. 60 ft in each direction. That allows us to make the turn because our longest apparatus is 49 1/2 ft. So, uh, but by appendix D in the code, that's what it says. It has to be at least 60 feet. They could do that T intersection, but it's going to take a majority of that lot on each side, each lot. Your memos indicated that this variance was acceptable to you if approved.

Yes, the fire marsh, previous fire marshall actually did do that with signage and painting the curve. Are you are you changing that opinion? We we are willing to do that, but there is still an issue with I'll go along with what he had stated. I'm fine with that. U it's still concerning for us to be able to make that turn and the fact that no no efforts have been made. They have put signs up. They did do that, but I'm concerned with the cars parked there. But it since he did put that in place, I will back that what he had placed in his memo. What kind of signs did they put up? Uh, second signage. No parking signs. Was it just Oh, no. Sorry. I have the inter fire marshal with me right now.

I'm sorry I missed the question. I was trying to find do they have in place? He actually went out there today. My name is Steve Alexander. I'll be serving as an interim fire marshal for the city. So, um, this came to my plate today. I went out there to put eyes on it. Sometimes, you know, you see a picture, you see aerial photographs. The reality is when you drive it in a vehicle, you kind of get a better picture. Um, so when I went out there, they do have some signage that says no parking um fire zone and um or fire lane.

So like you might see in a regular shopping center, it'll say no parking fire lane in the front of a shopping center or whatnot. Um they have those signs around there, but they piled construction debris and all that. So it's very representative of what you might see if uh once that is built out, you may see a lot of cars parked in that area. We see it all the time, people parking in fire lanes. Red paint on a curb doesn't seem to

interrupt that, right? Um so, and again, this is this is one opportunity to meet the standard. Um and make it safer for our responders to get around an emergency situation. Uh city trucks, brush trucks, trash trucks, not just emergency vehicles, but certainly we're concerned with the ladder trucks. They're very big and they're not easy to turn around. Do you normally see ladder truck use in residential uh subdivisions like this? You're dealing with at most a couple stories.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. On every residential fire or fire alarm, we will send at least three engines and one ladder truck. Okay. And the ladder truck has to be there in case we do have fire in the attic area to be able to reach it safely. So, we'll use that ladder truck to do that. How does this correspond with the engineering uh memo that said that they also approved this if you guys if it was okay with you? I saw a memo that said if it was okay with you,

it' be it'd be if we approved it, it would be fine. And then the engineer memo said the same thing. So, we have two okays, but not necessarily uh uh they you can read between the lines and that they would prefer it to be regulation sized. Yes, sir. We're trying to work with the developers to be I'm sorry. We're trying to work with the developers to try to help them through this process. Uh we want to be the best servants we can be for them also because they are bringing residential structures to our city. Uh it is concerning but we will bend if we need to. It can cause some problems. So

are you viewing this as kind of one of those things that uh let's go ahead and do it and ask forgiveness rather than approval on the front end. So, due to all of the plans being approved that met standards and the culde-sac being built in error, um it it is an after the-act variance request rather than a request due to topographical issues. How much is that factoring into this decision?

A staff's denial. It does not meet the requirements of a variance due to it being a self-inflicted hardship. If it were to be presented at the frontand most likely we it would not have been granted since it does not meet the requirements for the variance. Any other questions of uh any other questions of soft at this time? How often do errors like this happen and how do you prevent them? This this was a contractor error, right? Correct. the contractor built it incorrectly.

And are these inspected by staff or Yes. So it was during the final plat uh asbuilt inspections and bond release inspections. It was noticed and recorded by staff our public works department that the culac was not built to what was approved on the construction plans and final plat. So that's when we were made aware and began remediating the process. Okay. Any other questions of soft?

Thank you, Miss Buty. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Um, seeing the developer here this evening, there is no public hearing um component to this uh this item, but seeing the develop developer here this evening, is there anything the developer would like to speak to? So, we'll give you three minutes.

Brandon Stamper, 132 Walkers Ben Road. Just to add a little bit of context to where we're at, the original preliminary plat for this subdivision development was for 125 lots. With this granted variance, it would only bring the total to 120 lots. When this came before you guys in December, I was out of town and not able to provide the full context of the reason for the variance before we just made the changes to correct it. According to the approved construction plans, it is a temporary culde-sac that is approved, which means no curb, no binder, I'm sorry, binder only, no top coat. Uh, this was, as is noted, an error. It was an error in trying to massage some of the grading around to keep the culde-sac rideway out of those front-facing lots that you saw there. And in doing so, there was an error in using the old rig from two or three years ago of the 74T culde-sac or 78, whichever it is versus the current one. The reason to come in before you guys and ask for that was to hopefully take a common sense approach that right now you have less lots than were approved on the preliminary plat. So there'll be five lots less even if this is approved and right now you have a completed culde-sac with Miami curb all the way around it and top coat. If we go in and go back to the construction plans that temporary culde-sac will be left without Miami curb and without top coat. So before we just arbitrarily tore that out to regain this lot to be platted, it felt worthy of a conversation with the planning commission that hey um even though there might be some technicalities here from a common sense standpoint, it seems like this would make sense. Uh back when this back when this issue originally came up, it's already been stated you had an engineering approval that was going to be okay with it and you had fire approval which was going to be okay with it. There's a letter from the previous fire marshal stating they were out

there. All he requested was the signs which we immediately put up thinking that there was no issue at that point in time. Again, this was going on right at the time that Mr. um Ryder was relieved and not there. So, we kind of got caught in some limbo of working through that with him and then uh his leaving the city. So, that is kind of the reason for this dragging on the way uh part of the reason for this dragging on the way that it has. Um, so again, it just seems like if you look around within a half mile radius, there are 14 culde-sacs that are less diameter than what this culde-sac is. And on top of that, if you look at the top of the preliminary plat of this development, there are two substrates that do not require a subdivision. there is a 20 foot difference in this street triggering uh the use of that lot not being able to be served off the main road triggering the third lot for the culde-sac. So when all that coupled together, it just felt worthy of bringing it back before you guys and talking about it again before we took out a completed culde-sac with curb and top coat to replace it with a culde-sac without curb and without top coat.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While it's up here, would you mind putting that back up.

You don't you don't you don't want me touch it. Is that Is that possible?

That one. That one. That one. Yeah. Now, could you just repeat what you just said with that aerial in mind? Uh, with with this heroin in mind, what I was saying is that particular culde-sac as it is currently built, there are 14 culde-sacs within a half mile radius that are that we have drawn that are less than that current culde-sac. If you were to be able Do you have the preliminary plat that they could see? I think he was referring to the stub roads. How old are those culde-sacs? I mean, are you talking about something that's fairly recent? Uh, we just took an aerial of all the Yeah, but some of them could have been grandfathered in. Uh,

they could be very old.

Yeah, the top the top street is what we're referring to. Both of those are fine without a culde-sac. the bottom portion there. It's our understanding if the if this lot had only touched this intersection that this would be a non a non-issue. So we literally talking 15 to 20 ft and it mean no difference than the top two approved jumpouts that not require culdeacs and are just temporary stubouts. Any other questions of the developer? I guess my one of my questions would be why not just give up lot 74 and make it right. I mean, it was basically an error on your contractor's part, right?

It it was it was an error. It was an error. It was an error in the engineering. The engineering right underneath our nose. Yes. when we when we provided the engine when we provided the engineering the contractor the contractor built it to exactly what they are provided in trying to remove but but it was your engineering I mean that's correct yeah absolutely and we and we have on that from day one as we tried to as we tried to work through this to answer that question specifically when this was done with the preliminary plat it was 125 watts we're sitting at 119 so that's a pretty significant reduction um throughout a development to to take. But that's I mean I and I appreciate that but that's that's not helping this situation.

No under understand but it is also a buildable lot and last time I checked I believe we are still in a housing crisis with as many houses needing to be built as we possibly can. So it's a lot for an opportunity to have an additional house. That subdivision is pretty much sold out. So therefore obviously they are uh hitting a price point. the builder's hitting a price point and providing housing for people and you know it just seems again an opportunity for that. Any other questions of sorry no any other questions of the developer? No for Miss Pettney. Thank you guys very much.

Is there other culde-sacs that are in the city that don't have the curb and and all that? So, I'll refer to the public works department and they can discuss the the culde-sacs and old subregs and and the new regulations as well. Okay. Eyen me.

So, I'm Wallace McCullik, the city engineer. So, and I'm not as familiar with the older regs, but we we did upgrade them u because the cul to to satisfy the fire department in terms of allowing um a a bigger radius for them to make those turns and also like they mentioned trash trucks and things like that. The older ones were a lot smaller and and they're probably pretty close to what those older ones were. Um it does make a difference. I understand what they're saying that this is just one extra lot, but it's kind of your all's call on this thing. But you're saying that the ordinance changed, right?

Yeah, the ordinance has been changed for two, three years, three, four years. So, the previous ones that he was referring to, they were built according to code, the the older ordinance. That's correct. Ones and then the code changed and That's correct. I just want to make sure I understood that. Yes, Mr. McCulla. this uh subdivision uh they mentioned a Miami curb. Is that an issue for your trucks or are they allowed to go over that lower curb to make a turn if it was that tight? Yeah. No, Miami curbs are used throughout most subdivisions because it allows them to not worry about where the driveways are located, right? But your trucks are unaffected by that curve or does it? No, it's okay. Not at all.

Perfect. Thank you. Thank you very much, Wallace. Okay. Um, Megan, would you I mean, it's been a little while since Riley's presentation. Would you perhaps just remind us there's the subdivision regulations, I believe, are specific on the variance process. And there has to be there's there's a test um that uh we have to establish first and the first that that test is whether or not the the hardship exists. And a variance can only occur if a hardship exists. But perhaps would you elaborate a little bit?

Correct. When we're looking at a subdivision's variance, it's different than what we see in our zoning. And so the subdivision regulations for the city of Johnson City lay it out. When strict adherence to the subdivision regulations would cause either an undue hardship or because of a topographical or other condition that's present within the lot, it would um cause a situation that would restrict public interest, health or uh safety. That would have to become that would be a determination by the city engineer on that one portion. the general theory of zoning regulations, those are mostly local ordinances. They're they're locally governed. But the consistency across the state is that you um these types of undue hardships or these conditions cannot be self-imposed and they cannot uh be for financial gain. Those are the the main points of order that the planning commission would need to consider in determining whether or not to grant this request. When we're talking about other similarly situated neighborhoods, when a subdivision is is built, it is built to the specifications that are in place at the time. So, while there may be other situations that would mirror the situation we are here, we can't look to those unless they were built at the same time under the same regulations and we have the reasoning for it. The final thing that I have is any variance that is granted under the subdivision regulations, it cannot nullify the general intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations. And if it is approved, the planning commission has to state their reasonings in the minutes. If I said there's one last thing, but then it just reminded me of another. If the developer or any individual uh petitioning before the planning commission is not happy with the planning commission's decision, there is an appeal process to take it to the chancery court through a certari.

And I believe that's all I have. Thank you. Reading from some regulations this policy that is available to uh to a developer what you just said. Yes. The majority of this is found within section 16 of the of the Johnson City subdivision regulations. The portions talking about the self-imposed or financial gain. That is the interpretation of generally accepted practices. That's an interpretation, but it's not part of that.

No, but I've never seen anything in there that would preclude someone making a variance because they wanted to avoid or or wanted to have some financial gain. Quite frankly, the financial gain aspect of it is probably what drives a lot of the variances. And I would find that that interpretation uh seems to me to be a uh probably not something that should be applicable to the to your policy for denial

in when we're talking about a variance within a zoning code. I would agree. But when we have this here in the subdivision regulations when we're talking about interpretation, it is how courts have have viewed various appeals or questions that have come to them through the riddari process and it has been decently founded. I can't say wellfounded because I haven't done extensive research on it that those two areas for undue hardship that's self-inflicted or one for financial gain the courts are generally saying no that is not going to be a practice that we're going to allow and that is something that even you can find within MTAS as well. So it is not written in in our code but it is how it's interpreted if it is taken up and so we do just in reading law we do in take those interpretations as well. I believe state code as well refers to that criterion as certainly as it pertains to zoning. It does anyway. I mean

I'm sorry. So I believe state code actually certainly but applies that same rationale that you have because I think I mean as it pertains to zoning particularly but that um so that that that that hardship and uh then hardship that the hardship test before you get to a variance theory is is pretty well alliterated. Correct. Any other questions of uh of staff? Okay. So, uh please if you you want to add something, come ahead. Come back. I was just going to say that keep in mind we're doing about 800 homes currently in your city.

I'm sorry I can't hear.

We I said we're doing almost 800 homes in your all city right now. We've never as we've never asked for a variance. So the hardship there is a hardship here. We made a mistake but it wasn't for our game because we could have left that as a temporary spent $25,000 less dollars if it if we would had some dark intent. So I think if you look at something else you got to think about too is that and I'm gonna go ahead and say tell tell it Ben. So when they called me a year ago or two years ago and said that bad S curve out there, would the city ask us to donate property? I believe in that big time because it's a horrible curve. They called back recently needed two more acres. When when it comes to a pure thing of safety, I don't think I'm being even a good person to do what's right. That's just you should do it. So when I look at this being uh serving what two homes and I look at we're off 20 feet and we're it's it's almost like we're so heavily bound we're no earthly good when we look at it that way because I I believe in road safety. I've got grandchildren. So, anytime somebody gives me an opportunity, I am. But this is just it seems to be so slight and it would and the hardship is we made a mistake right underneath our own nose. Wasn't trying to. But we're the last set of regulations from three years ago. This would have been okay. It would have worked. We're wrong. We're dead wrong. But it doesn't serve 55 lots. It's only serving two. It's so minimal. I understand the rules. I I mean I we we we we knowingly unknowingly did this. I'm just implored upon you all to think about, you know, I'm not saying I I would never

do it again. I'm and I'm not trying to say, well, we did something uh intentionally, but it was just we sometimes we get in a little bit of hurry, but when I look at how bad of a foul it is, sometimes it's about how bad the foul is or if it's intentional. You wouldn't do this intentional and build it and not get anything out of it. It'd be crazy. So, the other thing is when I think about that S-curve out there, it's horrible. I I've always been willing to work with the city and go back. See, we that two acres was in in the we was able to get Dr. Horton to agree with us to give more before they run out of the clock to be able to do it because when it comes to that, I've been on record before of doing some things around roads because I believe in it. Sometimes you don't have to tell me to do it cuz I I I sort of and we've never asked for one variance and we're doing 800 doors with y'all in your all city. We've already about 350 in.

Mr. Cost, I was remiss a little earlier. Would you mind stating your name and address, please, for the record? I I have a hard time addressing a little bit. Uh it's one Oh, Danny Cars. It's 125 West Center Street, Kingsport, 3766. Thank you. Thank you. And I hope you all just consider it.

Well, commissioners, I believe the discussion is among ourselves. This is probably a Can you hear me? This is probably a uh one I've been wrestling with. I wrestled with in December and I'm wrestling with it now. Um what what I have found on some sometimes when we're doing subdivisions or doing some of these uh plats that if the planning department doesn't want something done or variance, they can pull out a lot of regulations to cause that to be denied or to recommend a denial on it. uh even if it's sometimes very very small and I'm just concerned that that's the case here. Um I'm also concerned about uh we had talked about last time on the fire and emergency vehicles about if there was a need to address this. You've got a street to pull into that wouldn't even require you pulling into the cul up to the culde-sac to reach those homes. I don't believe um that that you would be straight in front of those homes and just run a run a uh and that probably wouldn't be the case with a ladder truck, but I'm just frustrated with trying to uh inch this along with regulations that are so tight uh that uh we can't give some room here under these under under these circumstances to afford a little bit of a flexibility here. U and and one other question I I just wonder if this thing's already built out, isn't it? I mean, you got light post, you got you got the infrastructure in, you got

the whole thing done, is it not? So, if you're talking about the variance not being granted, you're ripping out what's already in there, including all the um u electrical infrastructure, lighting, everything else, and having to come in and redo it. Is that correct? So the developer has options if the variance is not granted. If the variance is not granted, the culde-sac can remain with lot 73 in the open space. They don't have to tear it up. They can bring it up to compliance if they want that additional lot 74. Okay. Thank you.

This is one I've struggled with also, Steve. Um, and I empathize with the developer. I don't think that it was their intent to do this by any means. I don't like the precedent that it would state that if we did grant the variance, it it clearly does not hurdle either one of the, you know, the financial gain and it that it's self-inflicted. Um, but I I don't want our city to be have the reputation of being so stringent that we're hard to work with. um which is the rub for me trying to to balance those two. That's I think that's my struggle.

I think I share I share that sentiment. I think where ultimately where I fall um where I fall on this one personally is that the uh um we I I think the in this case our subdivision regulations are pretty clear. The process is pretty clear. um it doesn't meet the test for um it doesn't meet the test for a hardship and therefore the variance doesn't come into it. Um I would note that we have heard um concerns expressed from the fire department this evening having been out there actually in person about the the functionality of the um of of the turnaround. And I would note that I mean it was designed originally um it was I mean albeit on the preliminary plat it was the smaller the smaller dimension as built but on the final plat it was it was the the full dimension. The the final plat did comply with the subdivision regulations. it could be built um it could be built to city to to city standards. So ultimately that's where I struggle that that's where I think I come down on it. I don't like the um I I can't I can't overcome myself. I can't overcome the precedent we would be setting by going against the u you know finding something granting a variance where there can be no hardship.

I agree with Commissioner Dutton. think there are many sides to weigh here to errors to human. This is an unfortunate mistake. But at the end of the day, I feel like we would be potentially putting public safety um on a lower rung over, you know, people's desire to to, you know, not to update any further work on this subdivision. So, um yeah, that's that's basically it. Um, thank you to our city uh fire and also our public works for for their time. Is there any other any other discussion?

Is it the way it's currently built? Is it is it currently a Miami curb or is it It's Miami

like you all. I'm struggling with this as well. Um, I think the thing that that makes me lean more toward approving it is the fact that the fire marshall and the engineers, city engineers have indicated that they would go along with it, that they would that it would be okay. Um, I mean, I'm on the fence. Honestly, I'm on the fence. Um because I like to see things done the right way and according to what the code and the the um ordinances are. Um but I think this is an honest mistake. Um, and you know, as long as the fire marshall and the city engineers feel like it would be safe, um, you know, the thing that does concern me is people aren't going to park. They're going to park on the road. That that culde-sac is going to be full of cars. There's no doubt in my mind. Um, and so I guess are we allowed to ask another question to the fire marshall?

Sure.

Um, sorry guys, but if you guys could the the thing that I want to know is what Commissioner Goodson brought up because I I'm not sure that that's correct and that the fire truck can reach those two lots without going into the culde-sac. So with those lots, our furthest reach is 100 feet from the ladder truck. That is from the truck in the road. Most likely that is going to be further than what we can reach with a ladder truck. Uh in that situation, we would be hardressed not to back all the way in there just to get through reach. U the distance being over 150 ft for the whole road. It is longer than the other two dead ends that they've discussed. Uh that's a problem. we go over 150 foot mark and appendix D, it clearly states that it has to have that turnaround and that's where we're at with that one. We would not be able to reach it from that point. Uh and that could in turn put our personnel at risk. I I don't want to do that, but like I said, I want to be aware of the developers needs and we want to help them, but at what cost?

So another question is then if if you have to have the 100 ft. Yes, ma'am. Um, could you not go ahead and pull straight in to that culde-sac? And I know I know we're not talking about turning around, but if there's a fire, could you do that safely to be able to put out any fire and that sort of thing on those two lots? It's it's hard to say on that. Depending on the situation, like you said, with cars parked there, we might have a challenge of being able to reach it. Mhm.

Uh it would be situation dependent. It's hard to really come up with a solid answer on that. Uh we would do our best to figure out a way to make it work. We always have and we're going to continue to do that. But uh being able to actually drive in there to get to the point where we could put the ladder up is our goal. Uh the issue we'll run into most likely our engine company will be there first. The ladder company would be coming in secondary. So we would have to work around that as well. Having two apparatus in that small area would be a challenge. And with the ladder trucks, we have to have at least 18 feet wide to be able to set them up for our outriggers to be able to reach. So that puts another bit of a challenge into it. If we have an engine there, we wouldn't have enough room to set the ladder truck up there. We'd have to move our apparatus out of the way to pull the ladder truck in.

How wide is that road? It should be 26 ft. 26. And you have to have 18. 18 of that is for the ladder truck just to be able to get the full extension of the outriggers to be able to set it up safely. Yes. Yeah. We're talking We're talking about the road.

You're requiring signs and the curb painted red. Yes, sir. They said the signs were up, but I I don't see any curbs painted red in this picture. Not currently, though. They're not paying this right now. Correct. If you were in our seats, how would you vote? I wanted to ask that question.

Me personally, I would be against the variance just to be straight up and honest. Uh from my my concern, if it was my house there, I would be concerned with that. And there is room on the side to add to the culdeac. I believe I'm I'm not an engineer. I don't want to try to make that decision, but it was a mistake. Yes. But there is room to do that and still get a I think a valuable lot out of it. And would you vote the same way?

Again, I'm new to this role and and I appreciate the concern and I appreciate the tough questions. I really do and this is very informative for me. But um just on what I saw today and then coming from 22 years in suppression and having operated ladder trucks, firet trucks as a driver, a firefighter, a lieutenant, and most recently a command officer, we have so many variables that we deal with already to set a precedent by not meeting the original standard gives us another variable to deal with should we have that emergency. So I would personally vote not to do the variance. Just one one other quick question. You had indicated if this is not approved, they would not have to change the culde-sac.

That's my understanding. That's what was said. How does that benefit your situation? There's less structures to protect there if you don't have lot 74. The access is still there. There's nothing to protect beyond that. Okay. So, it's eliminating that need to stretch that. Correct. To get down there. That's the only only difference. Correct. Uh yes, sir. I think it's uh two two lots. Yeah, there's two lots right there. If you go past two lots, that's where we'll throw in the requirement. Okay. For the anything over 150 ft like I've seen on that. Uh it has to have that and that's from beginning to end of that road. Thank you, Chief. F Marshall.

Back to any further questions. I was just going to ask the developer how much um how much are we talking about to have to add the 20 ft add to step up to the Would you care to step up to the podium please? We won't hold you to it. I just want an idea of ballpark. How much money are we talking about to have to add the 20 ft when you bring it to code?

The issue if you go back to the very or if you go back to where they had the plat, it's it's creating issues with the lots themselves to give the public rideway through through those lots for the end user mind. That was what really triggered trying to um I guess trying to massage that in the first place. Um there are, as it was mentioned, it's the utilities that are already in that caused the biggest problem. Basically, all of that would have to be rerouted. We actually spent more money on the culde-sac curving it and top coating it than we would have just to do the uh temporary culde-sac with binder only. So that it it wasn't a financial issue there. We're you're probably looking at 55,000 would be my ballpark by the time you rerouted all the material or rerouted all the utilities that are already in.

And how much are the lots going for? Um I believe 72. That's what they're under contract for. Okay. Thank you. Okay. back to us. Any further discussion? Just while we're talking about that, there's also a drainage easement that we would have to deal with. Excuse me, please. If you're going to speak, please step up to the podium there. There's there's also there's also a drainage easement behind that that is also causing effects of all that water that's coming down. But that's a little confusing. if the again the final design accounted for a wider culde-sac.

The wider culde-sac again was into those other lots. But again, but if the I mean I would assume so the infrastructure was not in installed per plan either. It was just the it's not just the culde-sac that was not installed per plan. It was the infrastructure as well. No, the the I don't I don't recall an issue with anything with engineering or anything on the utilities themselves. Well, my understanding is that the final plat the design of the final plat was the um was was was in accordance with the subdivision regulations at the at the full at the full width. So, I'm a little confused if we're saying that building it

per I believe there I believe there was an issue there was an issue with the engineer on doing it. They had not completed their asbills yet and that should not have been turned in. Okay. I don't think that helps. I'm still puzzled though. Thank you guys.

I I'd like to put the engineers, the city engineers on the hot seat for a minute. I'm just curious from you all. Um I know that you had indicated previously that if the fire marshall was in agreement with this, you guys would be okay with it. Is that still your stance? especially hearing the marshall say he would not be for this.

So, we changed the regulations to to suit what they have in terms of widths and and and turnar around turn radiuses and things like that. And so, yeah, when they when they when we got the letter from them approving it, it's only one extra lot. It wasn't if they felt like they could reach it with their fire engines, then then we were kind of okay with it. I' I'd rather it not be this way, but this is kind of the way it is right now. So, I understand. Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but

thanks for try that again. Any further conversation or would anyone like to try for a motion? I mean, it it it's just a really tough decision because I feel for the the developer. Um, like I said, I really honestly feel like it was an honest mistake. Um, but I think we have to listen to our staff and we have to listen to the fire marshal, the engineers, and if if it's not going to be the safest method to take care of those two lots, um, I guess, you know, I would probably have to say that that I that I I would have to approve the denial.

I don't want y'all to have to vote on it. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, Danny. Danny, this is not Well, I just want you not to have to vote on it. It's too hard on everybody. I'll just lose. I don't want you to Danny, this is not I would withdraw it again. I'm with See, I'm withdrawing it so you don't have to take the vote because it's too hard on everybody. I don't need it that bad. Oh, we'll just figure out way. Sir, we can take it. Megan, is that is that is that is that an option? Sorry to put you on the I'm procedurally out of my depth here. I apologize. Okay, I get that.

So, yes, an applicant can withdraw their their motion up until the the vote of the commissioners. Um, my understanding we had not actually had a motion before. We had not. So, it is at an appropriate time if that's what the applicant wants to do. So, just Denny, you do you wish to withdraw? Well, before you do, I'd like to make a motion to approve it.

I I think we just had a we just had a This is getting confusing here. I think we just had a request to We just had a request to withdraw it. There was a motion that was there was um we seem to be heading towards a motion um to deny it. I think we'll accept the uh Danny clearly articulated a desire to withdraw it. We will accept that um pending contradiction from council, we'll accept that request to withdraw at this point. In seemingly simultaneous motions, the timing really is the key. And so if that was done before there was information about what the motion would be, that would be what we'd entertain. Okay. All right. Let's consider that motion. Let's consider this item withdrawn. Thank you very much.

Okay. Okay, next item on apologize. Next item on the agenda, the Thompson Field Subdivision preliminary plat. Again, Miss Sputning.

Yes, Commission. This will look similar to a request that you saw earlier this year. It is a preliminary plat for Thompson Field subdivision. The property lies within the county but in the city planning region. So, it is does have to meet our subdivision requirements. The lot or the subdivision is depicted in red off of Boone Creek Road and Thompson Road. It is an approval for a preliminary plat, excuse me, for an 18 lot subdivision in Washington County. The county in the county, it is zoned A1 with their requirements of a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. City sewer is available. City water uh is uh needs would need to be extended 160 ft. widening to Thompson Road would be required. Um, and this would be in conjunction with the county and the developer. And due to it being in the county, there would be no interior sidewalks required um for the subdivision regulations. some aerials and views of the road. Thompson Road due to the the skinniness of the road would need to be widened again in conjunction with Washington County and the developer. The property has is vacant with gentle sloping uh areas and the interior road will be built to local street standards just without interior sidewalks. And the reason this is coming back, there was a change of layout with lots and storm water and the layout of the interior road. So that is why it's being brought back to as a preliminary plating commission. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat due to it meeting the requirements of the subdivision regulations.

Thank you very much, Miss Bunding. Um, other questions of staff culac the right size?

Yes. Not punchy questions of staff. Okay, just to clarify. There any other questions of staff? Okay. Uh, no public hearing on this item discussion among ourselves. I think this is the right type of development for the Boone Creek area. I think it's in line with existing homes in that area. I'm a bit concerned that it won't be in city limits. Um, I wish that it was. I'd be a little bit more apt to support it if it were, but like I said, this is an appropriate type of development for the Boone Creek area. I actually have a question for Miss Hodgeges. If I'm if it's too late for that, that's okay. You go ahead, please.

Miss Hodgees, uh, just really quick. Um, it just mentioned in the report about the Miami curb, which is ironic because it's related to our other items on the agenda. Um, is that something that you see as part of like a multimodal goals around a a horizon 2045 plan where if a neighborhood has Miami sidewalk versus a ver more vertical traditional uh curb rather, then that's something that is not as amendable to multimodal public transportation. One of the things that we did about four years ago was to look at contextsensitive streets and um our subdivision ordinance reflects contextsensitive streets. So, in the context of it being in the county, a roll curb, which is what I call the Miami curb because you can roll over it, um, is appropriate. So, we we rely on the context of where you're putting these types of facilities.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Any further questions of staff? I'll make a motion to go ahead and approve the preliminary plat for the Thompson field subdivision. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Heather, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bombgardner, yes. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Mayor Hunter, yes. Commissioner Kelly, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Vice Chairman Dutton, yes. Motion has passed. Thank you, Miss Putney. Thank you, Miss Hodges. The U planning manager report.

It's Whitney Hodgees, planning manager. I didn't say that earlier but um the one thing that I have to report um is that October according to the um APA is national or is national community planning month and so this year in particular we would like to have a proclamation and invite y'all um for that proclamation on October second. So if you'll put that in your calendars um the work that you did on the Horizon 2045 plan is really remarkable and we want to make sure that um everybody kind of knows that too. So, might be the mayor's first time hearing that. Thank you very much. Don't make it one of those that's like, you know, and that's all I really have to report.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um, as far as the planning chair uh report is concerned this evening, I think the only item really to share with the group is the um bylaws, there's a a draft of an amendment to the bylaws um that is currently being reviewed by uh the the city attorney. Um the those changes are not particularly um are not particularly epiphal. Really bringing into um really just reflecting in the bylaws what is our current practice as it pertains to as it pertains to committees and um standing we're deleting the standing committees that um that that that the bylaws currently establishes and requires to meet um in favor of an ex executive committee um meeting to help guide the the planning commission strategically. But um once we have those uh once the city attorney has reviewed and um and blessed those and those will be circulated among among us for and then bought before the commission for a formal approval. With that, is there any other business we need before us this evening? I don't think so. I believe we're complete. So with that, I will adjourn the meeting at a little bit 7:03.