Johnson City commissioners refer Hopper Road annexation and RP-3 zoning back to planning commission after neighbor objections

Johnson City commissioners voted April 3 to refer the proposed annexation and zoning assignment for a 13.68-acre parcel at Hopper and Indian Ridge roads back to the Planning Commission for further review.

The referral follows more than an hour of public comment from neighborhood residents who opposed a developer proposal to build what a staff concept plan shows as 105 townhomes. Neighbors and speakers described Indian Ridge Road and nearby Hopper Road as narrow, curving, and lacking sidewalks and shoulders; several said traffic already creates unsafe conditions near Woodland Elementary School.

City planner Bryce McNamer told the commission the owner-requested annexation is voluntary and that the accompanying zoning request is for RP-3 (Planned Residential 3). RP-3 permits up to 8.5 units per acre; McNamer said the applicant’s concept plan shows 105 units, about 7.7 units per acre, though the concept plan is not binding under the annexation process and would be considered later if zoning is approved. McNamer also summarized the process timeline: the preliminary resolution would finalize a public-hearing date and the third reading would be the final decision; staff listed May 1 as the date proposed for public hearings.

Speakers who opposed the annexation included Tony Treadway, who presented a 37-signature petition and cited traffic studies and safety risks; Jason Whitten, who said he moved to Johnson City to avoid high-density development; Charles Allen and other long-time residents who urged the commission to require the road be brought to city standards before allowing additional development. Several residents raised sight-distance and drainage problems along Indian Ridge, and asked the commission to consider a moratorium on large developments in the area until roads are improved.

McNamer said city departments concluded service extension would be feasible and staff recommended approval of annexation and the requested RP-3 zoning, noting the site lies inside the city’s urban service area and that similar multifamily densities exist within a mile of the site. The planning commission unanimously recommended approval on Sept. 10, 2024, McNamer added. The applicant told the commission she preferred the matter be sent back to planning for further review.

During deliberations, a motion to deny the annexation was made and voted down. The commission then approved a motion to refer the annexation and the zoning assignment back to the Planning Commission and staff for review and possible revision. The referral passed by a 5-0 vote.

Next steps: Notices and signs will be posted and letters sent as required if the commission later schedules a public hearing. McNamer also said the RP-3 district requires a concept plan review by Planning Commission and City Commission prior to development; any site-plan approvals and public-works improvements would follow separate reviews.

The discussion combined resident safety and infrastructure concerns with planning and land-use policy choices about infill and housing variety. Officials repeatedly noted a statutory process for annexation and that the concept plan is not binding at the annexation stage.