Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the December 9th meeting of the Johnson City Regional Planning Commission. If you would like to speak during the public comment period at the beginning of this meeting or during the public hearing for a specific agenda topic, please wait to come forward until I have opened the floor. At that time, you are welcome, one at a time, to come to the podium to make your comments. Please introduce yourself by giving us your name and address. You will then be given three minutes to speak. You are welcome to speak only about items that are on our agenda during this meeting, and your comments should be directed only to the commission. I now call the order to meeting uh call the order call the meeting to order at 6 p.m. Commissioner Williams, would you mind leading us in the pledge and allegiance? be happy to

pray with me. Dear heavenly father, you give us so much to be thankful for. We're thankful for this board of commissioners, this group of men and women. We ask for your wisdom and guidance as we make decisions for our city and our region tonight. We're thankful for the planning department and the support that they give us. But most importantly, in this season of giving, we're thankful for the greatest gift, the gift of your son, Jesus. We ask that you continue to bless our city, bless our staff, bless our city leaders, and we ask all these things in Jesus name. Amen. Stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance 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, Commissioner Williams. Okay. Um, first item on our agenda this evening is the approval of the agenda. Has everyone had the opportunity to review the agenda? Does anyone have any changes or um comments? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. I'll second. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed?

Okay. The second item of business is approval of the minutes from our November 11th meeting. Has everyone had the opportunity to review the minutes? Are there any changes? I'll make a motion to also approve the minutes for tonight uh tonight. Thank you. I'll second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? I will need to sus abstain since I was not here. But thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Public comments. Um this evening we're not showing that we have any folks here for um public comment. Um for there are a couple of items on the agenda this evening where there will be a uh where there will be a public hearing. Those are items number one and two under new business. Does anyone have any uh would anyone like to make any public comment? Okay. Hearing none, we will close that section of the meeting and move on to the consent agenda. Um there is one item on the consent agenda this evening and that is bond acceptance for Arches Point minor subdivision replat. Does anyone wish to see that pulled from the consent agenda? If not, is there a motion perhaps 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. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Thank you. Um, moving on to the new business section. Um, first item, Miss Hodgeges, the, uh, Princeton Road resoning.

Good evening, Vice Mayor, commissioners. Uh, my name is Whitney Hodes. I'm the planning manager here for the city. And what we're going to discuss tonight is let's see if this makes its way technical difficulties maybe. There we go. Um is a resoning located at Princeton Road and Nave Drive. Just to kind of orient you to a timeline, we are at the very beginning of this process where you guys will be making a recommendation. We have had a neighborhood meeting and the property has been notified. The zone the current zoning on the property it's split into three. It is I2 which or sorry I1 which is um kind of light industrial R5 which is a high density residential as well as R2. We have also seen this before as a proposal. This the last proposal was for R4 which was a higher intensity. This is for R3, which is that medium density residential. To kind of orient everyone, um the site is in red. Evergreen Nursery is to the north. Um the auto auction and Crazy Tomato um is to the south. The reasonzoning is for um like I said, R3, which is seven units an acre. So the maximum amount of units they could have would be 18 units. um they are proposing 16. This is a on the screen is not in your packet, but I'll show you both. Um it's third it's one that they sent in to kind of address some staff comments, but what you see on the site are four structures with 16 units. Um the density is about six units an acre. The entry is from Nave Drive. Uh there will be a new sidewalk um that will connect into Princeton Road. Because this is a lower intensity of a zoning district, there is no buffer that is required. What they

are showing is a planed buffer in that 8 feet along um the where the R2 is and then they're also continuing not to disturb the stream and that's where they're putting their storm water. Utilities are available to the site as well as we have um kind of assessed whether it needed any type of traffic mitigation and the number of units do not meet that um threshold. So, the concept plan that was in your packet um and what the packet was based off of um had some things that were missing. Most notably, a data table, open space, um kind of showing where the setbacks were and then clarifying that buffer. And this is the the what they proposed to the neighborhoods at the neighborhood meeting as well. Um but they have made some changes to add some of the things that staff um had had asked for. You'll notice that there is a site data table. there is um they've provided some of that clarity like I said and they labeled the setbacks on the plan. The one thing that is missing is they need to on this concept plan because I want to I want to start with the consulate plan because it kind of works its way into the resoning. Um but they are missing kind of showing how much open space they're providing as well as how much of that will be in the active open space. the applicant is has been notified and then as they go through the process they can make those changes. But that's that would still be a remaining condition um if you were to um approve this tonight to kind of go back through some of that site plan of how they laid it out. So they're still really trying to take the part that's the highland um and maximize that with where you would put buildings in order to preserve the stream um and and preserve the low the low areas. So the picture on the left kind of shows that low area and how there's some existing vegetation there. And the picture on the right is the high spot. Um so you just kind of have an an idea of what that looks like. And then kind

of a side by side there's some topographic lines along with the site plan. So you kind of see how that works with the site. Now that leads me into the the Horizon 2045 plan. Now, as we talked through many of our discussions, we knew that there were going to be some places where when we go fine-tune in, we might have some conflicts of what we think should happen. And this is the first one we're seeing. So, this is an edge condition where what the um horizon 2045 plan um called for was employment flex. Now given that the driveway for this piece of property will likely come through nave um that's nave is a residential street and so keeping something that is very low intense or mir mirroring something with a uh residential would be more appropriate. So, one of the things in employment flex, you'll see, it's a little hard to read, but highlighted in red, it says that um when you have employment flex on the edge of districts that if there's some other things that might that that that it allows for some other things to change. So, that is why staff would recommend for a compact residential. We think it would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood because that came up a lot with um when talking about this with the neighborhood meetings um and how as we have talked with the applicant about it. Um so that would be part of your motions tonight because it'll be the first time that we've actually had to change the land use map um if you guys decide to do that. A neighborhood meeting was held uh last Monday and there were four people in attendance. Um and I think that their their concerns mirrored those of what we heard from the first zoning. However, um I think that u you can read them here and they were in the staff report. Um similar things with traffic, um you know, where storm water was going, uh

what the buildings were going to look like, uh kind of what would be price points. Um, and then there were some considerations about yes, the the landscaping um that they were adding was really nice and that they liked the lower density, but not necessarily I wouldn't say that the sentiment was exactly, what's the word I'm looking for? They didn't love it, but they but but they understood that like the lower density was better. So staff has a two-part recommendation. We would recommend that um that the place type change from employment flex to compact residential. Um even if the resoning uh if you did not want to go with the resoning, we think that that's probably a good step for this piece of property. Uh the because it would allow in compact residential should an office use want to come in. It would allow that. We just feel as though probably a residential use is a better fit for here. Um, if we would recommend with conditions, we still need that concept plan to show what it needs to show about open space. And then if you were to or what how we looked at it was, you know, this they're proposing a lower density. Um, they're proposing 16 units an acre or they could have 18. um it will resolve a split zoning issue which has been a really um a really a big challenge for this piece of property as well as this provides a suitable buffer kind of a nice way to go from an MS1 and some industrial uses and office uses into a neighborhood area. So it's some it is some density but it's not as it's not as intense and that and intense has not been supported throughout the years with this piece of property. So, with that, you do have you'll need two motions with this one. And um there's some decision decision options there for you. I'll come back to them

after public comment, but I want to leave you with kind of a site plan and an aerial map. And I'm here for any questions that you have. Thank you, Miss Sers. Does anyone have any questions of staff? And Whitney, in the middle section there, is that just going to be parking? It is. they but one of the things that from the last um the last resoning was concerns about guest parking and making sure that there was enough parking so there wouldn't be parking on Nave. Uh and this was one of the ways that they um could accomplish that. So, it looks like is there is there at least two parking spaces per building or how

there are and they'll also for the neighborhood meeting um the owner of the property said that they would also um have a garage a 250 250 foot garage. So, I think there will be ample parking um within the site. Winnie, can you can you remind me when we're talking about um open space and active space, what's what's the percentage of open space and uh what percentage has to be active?

So 15% is what they need to provide for open space and of that half of it. So 7 and a half% has to be open space. What they're showing it looks about a third of the property. I'm not concerned about the numbers. I just need it to be depicted. Another question. Um, the sidewalk that they're showing on the the plan there, is that just to to get people from Nave to Princeton or what's the purpose of that? Because it's not even surrounding the the property. The one that's one second. I gota The one that's right here. No,

this one. on the left. Oh, that's the stream. That's the creek. That's a creek. Um I had this same I had this that's my that was my first glance. That was the thing, too. Um that's the creek. Um the this little thing right here, that would be this sidewalk. So, it's a light light blue color. That makes more sense.

I have more of a procedural question. If this committee were to approve this with the conditions as staff recommends, and then for whatever reason the builder is unable to complete his side of the deal, whether it's financial or topographical or whatever issues he may he may run into, is there any jeopardy that we may be in because we've approved this concept plan, but then it might have to change in the future because we're missing some data. So, you're you're the recommending body and so your recommendation would go to the city commission. So, at that point um is when those need to be shown on the plan. Uh and so I I don't think that there is a we run any risk that way because the concept plan needs to be approved along with the resoning plan

and the concept plan goes with the land and the zoning it doesn't go with the Yes. Yes. It'll stay with so if he if something went away and and this group went away whoever came in next is bound by this concept plan and if they wish to change it they'd have to come back in front of us. Excellent. Thank you.

Any other qu question questions for staff? Okay. Uh, seeing none, I think, um, I think we'll move to the public hearing for this agenda item. Is there anyone here to speak to this item um, this evening? Um, please feel free to come forward one at a time and pull out. Sorry.

Good evening. Thank you all for being here um and for taking the time to learn.

Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry. Would you mind stating your name? Gabe Henley. I'm the applicant. Live at 603 East Mount Castle Drive, number six. Um, thank you all for being here tonight. Uh, thank you for taking the time to learn about the project that I believe will be meaningful and thoughtful addition to the community. Uh, the goal is to introduce uh, a new townhouse community that honors classic and timeless design while remaining accessible and affordable for today's families. Um, the development is grounded in respect for the character of their surrounding area and a longterm vision for quality, durability, and community connection. I believe that good design and responsible development should serve not only for future residents, but also for the neighbors who already call this place home. Uh, I look forward to sharing our plans, hearing everybody's feedback. uh and working together to ensure this project reflects values and furthering community progress.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Good afternoon. Good evening. Good evening.

Hi, I am Regina Guest. I live at 22 uh 10 Lakeland Drive. Um this affects my neighborhood, affects my family, our neighborhood. Um I have lots of I'm very thankful that he wants to have less in regards to people building on that property, but it's still too many. It's too many. There's too many cutthroughs into our neighborhood. Um, I don't know if you're aware of our neighborhood, but we are cut through from Mount Castle to Princeton on a regular basis. Uh, we have about 65 kids in our neighborhood. So, this is going to increase quite a bit of property in regards to people going to and from cutting through our neighborhood. So, that can that increases risk of lots of things coming through, lots of crime, lots of other things that we're just not ready for in our neighborhood. Um the big concern is they're going to be coming they're going to be going in and out of nave. Um the big thing another thing I'd like if you do approve I prefer you not to approve is make it to where they would have to go in in pr in from Princeton and out by Princeton. They that would eliminate the access to our neighborhood. Okay. that because of that I I want I would like to just put that on the floor automatically because I do not if they eliminate whoever builds there or whatever they have to do. I'd prefer condensing that down even less. Like he's saying 16. Why can't even less than that? I prefer houses on that property. That would be great. I've said that from the get-go from before. But the big thing is putting that many units on that small amount of property increases such a small amount of tra that increases the traffic just for that road. I mean, if you're on that road, you would know

there's a lot of traffic already on that road. I mean, that unit is going to be more than more houses that's on that on the whole road. So, do that times two to three cutting through and coming into our neighborhood. Um, I just a lot a lot of things are concerning in regards to traffic going through with kids playing on the street, just traffic in general. We have people that walk, run, walk their dogs, do everything in our neighborhood. And it's just a big concern. I prefer that, you know, we could come together and not approve this situation. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you guys.

Thank you. Yes, excuse me. My name is Steve Hunt. I live on 2217 Kipping Street, which is not the battleground of Nave, put it that way. Uh, I had not planned to speak tonight, but I did want to bring up a couple points or questions. Is there any kind of age restrictions on this piece of property from the standpoint of who will be leaving living there? If not, uh could you wind up with a group of kids, young kids playing down in that development and where will they play? Are there any plans to provide, you know, playground or whatever? And another question also uh we uh went through quite an exercise a few years back in getting speed bumps put in to help slow down the traffic flow through that area and I believe gentleman back there helped put the speed bumps in. Um, but one thing up uh that came up was perhaps instead of having a perpendicular entrance rack ex onto onto Nave, what if you put it at an angle like a 45 degree angle so it flowed back from the development back towards Princeton and then when anybody came in they would go into that 45 or 60 or 30 and that would help reduce the traffic flow back through the neighborhood. That's my That's my couple questions I've got right there. And like I said, I had not planned to speak.

And I think since the developer is back here, he could perhaps answer those questions. Well, I think so. What we'll do, let's go through the public comment period and we'll give the that the applicant has 10 minutes. I mean, he's he's he if he wishes to come forward and answer some of those questions, he he may. Otherwise, he's under an obligation to. Okay. I think those are pretty simple questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to uh would anyone else like to make um would would anyone else like to make a comment on this item before we before we close the floor? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public hearing section of this uh of this item. Um, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, I think the the question is to us. Is there any discussion?

I personally think that it's a a good concept for that area. Um, I I I like the idea of narrowing it down to just one zone instead of having three. Um, the only thing is like in that middle section, that's the only part that I think that we're missing out on some opportunity there where um they could do a playground, they could make an open space where, you know, people can um can just relax and and that sort of thing because there's not a lot of that. It doesn't appear on the property. I I like the concept. I think it's very appropriate land use. I I think the density is also appropriate. This is the perfect place if you're going to have uh a multifamily a denser project is typically on a busier road like Princeton at the entrance of uh a neighborhood. Uh, I think the ingress egress makes the most sense on nay because you're trying to get traffic off of a busy road like Princeton. Uh, makes it safer to turn in and out of. Um, I I hear the concerns from the residents um about the traffic. Unfortunately, I don't know how you address that other than have more um speed reduction bumps or medians or anything else that you can put in that. But I I trust our our city staff that and um the decisions that they make concerning traffic. But uh I think it's a beautiful design. I love all of the green space. It's well thought out. Um, and I'll be voting in support of it.

And I'm and and I'm glad that we don't have the opposition that we did previously because um it's a great use for that land and to eliminate a split zoning or to make it all industrial and have a self storage unit there. I don't think anybody would would want that. So, I'm I'll be voting in support of it. I'd like to go ahead and make a motion um to um to reszone to R3. And I'm assuming that I have to make two different motions, right? Do we need to vote on the first motion first and then make the motion on the second one?

Let's let's to make it just clear, let's vote to um recommend amending the land use plan and then have a separate vote for the resoning. That way it'll be clear to the commission. Okay. So, my motion right now is to um approve the resoning request um from um R2 and R5. Sorry, Commissioner Aldridge. Perhaps, sorry, Commissioner Aldridge. Perhaps um we can amend the I think the correct sequence be to amend the land use map first and then we can then we're reszoning that's consistent with Yeah. Because that way you can say it's consistent with the ladies.

Well, I was going to do that, too. So, I'll just um Okay. So, I make a motion to amend the future land use uh use map of the Horizon 2045 growth management plan. Um and I think it's called the employee flex to compact residential. Right. That's correct. That's my I'll second that. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. This is again this is a motion on amending the future land use map. Uh, is there any other discussion on amending the future land use map among ourselves? Okay, seeing none, I will call the role. Heather, please. Commissioner Aldridge, yes. Commissioner Bombgardner, yes. Commissioner Goodson,

yes. Commissioner Kelly, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Commissioner Gats, yes. Vice Chairman Dutton, yes. Okay. So, now I'd like to uh make a motion to reszone the R2, R5, and um I1 to R3. Second. Okay, we have a MO.

Thank you. So, we have a motion and a second. Um before we uh perhaps before we move to um vote on this item um just to just to answer some of the questions or particularly one of the questions that we've heard this evening with respect to um the opportunity to access off of Princeton this property. Um perhaps um Anthony, would you mind coming forward and explaining I I mean I I think I recall what from our from the last time this was before us why that we would not want to do that, why adding an additional driveway on Princeton would be problematic and more dangerous and we want to keep access off nave. But if you would perhaps just address that briefly. There it is.

Sorry, it has disappeared on me. Sorry to put you on the spot. That's me. I'm impressed, but also I'm not surprised that he's got the jump drive ready to go in his pocket. I'm just going to skip right to that section. Um, and so what we have is uh when we looking at larger use roads like an arterial collector road, the less access points we have, the safer it is. Um if you have a lot of access points along a major road uh it gives people too much to look at and at the same time it causes more confusion and so you start uh looking where you don't need to be looking instead of focusing on those few points. So access points along a major collector or minor or collector um which is classified as a collector um the less access point you've got the safer it is. So the spacing that you look at is you're trying to get in the area of 660 feet, which we cannot get with existing driveways and existing roadways. So that's why we uh choose not to support something connecting directly onto Princeton Road.

Thank you very much, sir. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Anthony? Mr. Todd, I have a quick question. And I probably already know the answer to this, but if you could quell my fears about the private drive. Um, I was not able to tell from the image if the turn radius was big enough to accommodate larger delivery trucks, fire trucks. It can you do you have any can you speak to that at all? I mean, there are there uh a radius or the radi are big enough for them. Um, would it be nice to have a larger radius on the inbound? It would be. Uh, but it is sufficiently large. you you have enough lanes and enough width to do that. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay.

Sorry, this whole juice. Does your motion um did do you want to include staff conditions or not staff conditions? I just wanted to make sure. I'm sorry I missed that. Would you would you like to perhaps amend your motion? Yes. Yes. you just add any conditions. It's just the one condition, right, that they have not added. I think I seconded that. I think I'd be fine. Okay. Thank you. So, we have an amended motion and and a second to that amended motion. I'm hearing no further discussion. Would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge? Yes. Commissioner Bumgardner? Yes. Commissioner Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Kelly?

Yes. Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Gates. Yes. Vice Chairman Dutton. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, next item on the agenda is 2875 East Oakland Avenue concept plan um amendment. Um, Miss Putney. Good evening, vice chair, commissioners. Tonight, in front of the planning commission is a concept plan amendment request to 2875 East Oakland Avenue. Similar to the timeline we just saw, the neighborhood meeting was held December 1st. There were foreign attendance and their concerns were over environmental impacts, construction timeline, and traffic. similar with what we saw with the original resoning request. Tonight is the recommendation and public hearing and then it will have a final action of city commission um reading on January 8th, 2026. Just to orient the commission on its location, it is at the corner of East Oakland and East Springbrook and is roughly 27 acres. The request is to amend a previously approved concept plan to change from 260 multif family units to 276. And this in is included with the removal of six town home units, the removal of one apartment building and all remaining six apartment buildings will now be three and fourtory splits. The approved concept plan from September 2025 is depicted here and in your packets as well. And we can see that there were seven apartment buildings ranging from two, three, and four stories. The six town homes along East Spring, a clubhouse, standalone garages, and a large variety of outdoor amenities, including pickle ball courts in the center of the property.

The amended concept plan has a deleted um apartment building and the town homes have been eliminated, but there also has been an inclusion of a dog park, a pavilion area along East Springbrook and the remaining pickle ball court in the middle. All of the buffer yards and storm water areas are remaining the same and adequate. So, a side-by-side comparison in the red dotted lines, you can see where the main differences are with the elimination of that apartment building. And while they are eliminating apartment building because they're going all two, three, and four story splits, they are increasing those units by 16. With the increase in density, we are still in align with the horizon 2045 uh elements with strong neighborhoods and quality of growth and development by uh providing different housing options and varieties. So staff would recommend approval of the concept plan amendment. It does bind them at 276 units. The 16 units have a minimal impact on traffic and there is a amended traffic analysis being provided and any additional um elements would be mitigated at the cost of the developer. It's well under the maximum density of the R5 um as we see it uh already and it's still in line with the horizon 2045 horizon plan and these are your decision options. It is a public hearing, but I'm uh will be here for any questions.

Thank you, Ronnie. Does anyone have any questions for Has there been some mitigation of Floyd Point areas in that? Isn't that because that's a watershed uh that goes up through there? Has that been an issue in the past or has it uh been in any consideration within the site plan here? So, I can let Lawrence discuss the flood plane. They are not providing or disrupting the wetland area to the north of the property, but I'll let If they're not disturbing that, then there's really no need to go into it in detail unless you just want to talk. The only thing I think Lawrence Perry, I just know it's a big water problem in that vicinity.

I think they they avoided the getting into that watershed and the and the flood plane, the special flood hazard area. So, uh, but if there if there in the future if there was something to build, we'd make sure they're elevated high enough that it wouldn't impact the, uh, the property. So, thank you. Any other questions, staff? I'm assuming that even though the traffic um is going to be uh restudied, that we will still see the one ingress and two egress lanes included, right? I mean that part won't change. If anything, it'll even be more.

Correct. Yes. So, the proposed uh right turn and uh acceleration lanes will are remaining the same. The only addition, if deemed appropriate by the traffic impact analysis, would be the lengthening of those turn lanes on East Springbrook. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. We'll move to the public hearing um for this agenda item. Is there anyone here this evening to speak to this item?

Good evening. I'm Warren Sug with Civil Design Concepts. We're the civil engineer on the project. Um staff's done a great job of of giving you guys a rundown. Um I know I have three minutes to speak, but I'll just take any questions that you have of me. I actually had a question. Um, because this property features an AE flood plane, are you thinking about or maybe you already are get maybe getting a letter of map uh revision based on Phil from FEMA? Is that something that you'll pursue in the future? Maybe.

Uh, probably not because we've already had a stream and wetlands um study done out in the field and we're trying to minimize or really just not have any impact to those streams and wetlands. Um, so that's where we're starting off. That's the whole reason why we've only got a storm water um pond that's most likely down there and everything else is just our entrance. So, okay. So, you don't have any concerns about the risk of being in an AE flood plane. You you feel like your infrastructure will handle that? I think our site is up away from it. We've walled ourselves and graded ourselves away from those impacts and then we've got on-site storm water controls. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant the development? I think it's a great site. Thank you.

Got a lot of work up there taking those buildings down. Yep. And I'm sorry we're back here before you again. Just the client did the first round. We found more information in the field regarding uh geotech information and and that's the whole reason we're here tonight. We appreciate you answering our questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak to the item this evening? Good evening, ma'am. Good evening. Um, first point, ma'am, excuse me. I'm sorry. Would you mind stating your name and address?

Your pardon? Uh, Rebecca Row, uh, 308 Twin Falls Drive.

Thank you. Uh, as a point on page three of 11, your east, um, states there's a single family resident that is vacant. There are actually two houses there. I live in one of them. The property below us is one that is vacant and is for sale. Um, first, we were told that the traffic study had not been completed yet. I'm very concerned about the traffic on Oakland. Adding 550 cars on Spring Brook and Oakland is going to be an unmititigated disaster. It's hard enough to get in and out is the way it is right now. We have people that try to cut the corner when traffic backs up. They come down our driveway, go up our side driveway. We have a commercial building and they absolutely fly up and down through that commercial building from Springbrook and from Oakland to cut that corner. We have a lot of elderly people that are in that parking lot on walkers, canes, and everything else. And I'm very concerned that somebody is going to get hit and somebody is going to get hurt. We went to the police department to ask about and the um uh city to ask about putting no free traffic signs up. We were told they can't give tickets or anything else. We can put them up, but it doesn't do any good. My next point is we owned a large track that will be adjacent to this. It's got streams. It's got woods. We already have an issue with homeless people. We already have an issue with children out there running through the woods, groups of teenagers at night doing God knows what out there. We were told by the police department we could put up signs. They had to be in visual view. So, we're going to spend an absolute fortune just putting up signs. Then a sign is not going to stop a bunch of kids. You know, a couple of trees is

not going to stop a bunch of kids. And if those kids get hurt, we're the ones that are going to be sued. Not the people that are developing it, not the people that are living there, us. And I don't think that either one of those situations is fair to us. We've been there over 15 years. And we can't seem to get any of the problems that we have, even as much as the drag racing that they do on Oakland from Grands down to the next red light. we we can't even get a resolution on that. So, I I don't think adding 550 cars and all this hoopla is is, you know, it may be in the city's best interest, but that doesn't mean that it's in the residents best interest. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else to here to speak to the matter this evening? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public hearing section of the um of the agenda. Ladies and gentlemen, the commission, I think discussion is among us. This is an incremental increase on the traffic, is it not? An additional 16 units. Um, yeah, I was asking. Uh, yes. And I could refer to Anthony Todd as well for additional traffic um questions as well.

Well, I'm just I don't know if we need to go into that level of detail, but it's my understanding from reading all this material that you're dealing with just an incremental increase in the existing traffic. You're talking about 16 units, correct? It's just an additional 16 units. Okay. Riley, would you mind to remind us of what the buffer requirements are for this property?

Yes. So, they um are proposing they have two options. A type one uh buffer, which is either a 15 foot wide buffer with trees um and a fence or a 10-ft wide buffer with uh just a lot more trees. And so they are proposing a type one 15- foot buffer around the entire property um besides the the opening to East Oakland. So everything in green is what they're proposing as a landscape buffer between their their development and neighboring properties. There's existing vegetation.

Okay. Yeah. Just fence line stuff. Correct. Any other questions?

I think um I think that we are going to have to get used to this kind of development on major corridors and I think the development had already been approved and so being an incremental increase which seems to be going through its due diligence phases. I think this is um a concept that I am happy to vote in favor of. So I will go ahead and make a recommendation to approve the concept plan amendment request to move to the city commission. Second.

I think we have a motion and a second. Is there any additional discussion before we call the role? I just have those um just initial concerns about the flood zone and the potential for the tenants to have them required um not the standard HO4 insurance policy but the more expensive NFIP policy because they are in an AE flood zone that's going to be um affecting the affordability of these apartments. Um I do have a concern about that. Um the parking ratio seems like it's an appropriate but maybe a bit tight um for my my taste there. I do worry about um the guests of all the tenants spilling out onto Spring Brook Road um potentially causing an issue with businesses. That's something else I'm considering. So, those are just some of the issues that I'm I'm thinking about for this this development. But, it is a it is a good use of that space. Um and that is a it's a good use for density.

Okay. Any other any other questions? I don't think so. Um Heather, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Aldridge. Yes. Commissioner Bombgardner, no. Commissioner Goodson, yes. Commissioner Kelly, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Commissioner Gats, yes. Vice Chairman Dutton, yes. Thank you very much, Miss Pney.

Okay, last item on our agenda, the Regional Planning Commission bylaw Review. Whitney. There they went. They got reordered.

Don't know how they're going to get over to there. We can wing it if you like.

I'm trying to see if I can make it drag. Well, let's Y'all have it. Um so the executive committee went um kind of look looked through the bylaws heading up with um vice chairman Dutton to kind of see uh what we can make some changes. Uh it's this is a wonderful board that um really does dig into all things that that concerns planning commission and so it's really nice to see. Um, so most of the the recommendations um are just some cleanup things, just making sure that we have some clarity. Um, some of the bigger items would be um removing these steering committees that we no longer truly use. So, we used to have two types of committees. Um, we're going to just um the proposal is to go to an executive committee. Uh, and uh that's kind of the largest one. Um, and then the rest of it seems just some cleanup kind of things. So, and I included like comments so that you understood where where everyone was coming from. So, I can provide a cleaner version with the with the adoption

and I did a terrible job introducing this as well. I apologize. But the purpose the intention this evening is actually that we're this is just for review. So, there's an opportunity here to answer to ask any questions of staff. But we'll be voting on this in January. So if you're suffering from insomnia, please feel free to flick through this one night and that'll address that. But again, as as Whitney mentioned, I think most of it's clean up. Um and then but the major change is just removing the standing committees that we weren't using anyway and replacing it with an executive committee meeting which we've started to implement.

One reason we might stand knew we had them. I didn't um I'm not familiar with the standing committees. What are they?

They um they are the legislative and land use committee as well as the strategic committee and through the horizon 2045 process. Uh we basically the planning commission wanted to meet as a whole and so we found that it was also difficult to decide what was going towards strategic and what was going towards legisl and land use. So, we just kind of made it a committee of the executive committee that they can kind of um gather uh on a regular basis. Um it's not always once a month, but right now it's been about once a month uh just to kind of talk through um some issues that they want to bring before the whole board.

Do you see any need for any not not necessarily those but for the establishment of any kind of standing committees? Is there for example an ongoing bylaws standing committee to look at them and update them and review them over periodically over time or other types of uh uh committees that could uh function?

I feel like with how that um we need to be moving forward with some of the priorities through the horizon 2045 plan that ad hoc committees actually might do better for this commission than a particular standing committee. Um because I see I see you guys taking on projects rather than um trying to kind of retrofit something and if you look at the end of the bylaws it has every revision since the I think it's the 50s um which is my favorite. So about every three years we kind of tweak it a little bit. So I anticipate coming back to you in 2028 um with just a few tweaks of of new things.

You should expect to see things in a sort of workshop format. I think I mean that was really the point rather than an ad rather than having a standing committee if there are things that some those items that those committees would otherwise have considered would be something that would be workshopped and be open to the entire commission and and I really think that through that horizon 2045 process we really found that workshop worked so well with you guys and we get really good stuff done.

I just have one little minor question um on 8.2 2 where it says um that he or she shall disclose the interest during the meeting at the vote takes place. Is that a typo or am I just reading that wrong because it doesn't that is a typo. It should be that the vote takes place. So it's it's the disclosure happens at the meeting. Excuse me. At the meeting where the vote takes place. So it can't be the meeting before. It's the meeting that that item is on the agenda to be voted on. Okay. But that would be a that instead of at.

Does that make it more clear? Yeah. I'll make a note to change that for your next one. And Miss Hodgees, when did uh the previous format with the standing committees, when was that kind of absorbed? Was it just since I was not a part of of this body? It it really was absorbed. It's been a long time. No, it's really been about two years. It really was absorbed as we started with the Horizon 2045. Um, we just kind of everybody wanted to be a part of every committee. So, it just made sense that we just workshop everything. Okay.

And there is a measure in place if if there is a project or a a special initiative that would require an ad hoc. Yeah, we it would come from the board to say, "Hey, we're going to do an ad hoc committee to study this particular issue." Great. So, look for workshops to come to discuss priorities and things like that. That could lead into my next topic. Any We don't need a motion. We just wanted to bring it for discussion. Just if there's any other questions. If not, we'll I mean, I'm seeing I'm seeing none here. So, we'll um we'll close this section of the uh of the agenda. Whitney, is there anything else?

Yeah. Oh, I did want to say that we will be having a workshop in January. We're going to and I what I want you to think about through the holidays and through your time off. Um is what you would like to do and how you would like to help guide how you would like to help us set some goals in the planning department for what we work on in 2020. It would be 2026 and 2027. um because we're getting ready for a budget cycle and I want to make sure that we're looking ahead to what the planning commission would like to achieve as well. Okay. Okay. And I have nothing else on uh no other reports from from me. So, and I believe our business is complete this evening. So, with that uh we will adjourn the meeting.